Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by STSC (talk | contribs) at 04:00, 13 February 2016 (→User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux): re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    Uncited ethnicity categories added again by User:Eruditescholar

    Last February, I brought the issue of uncited ethnicity categories being added to BLPs based on very flimsy evidence by Eruditescholar. It has come to my attention that this is happening again, again and again. This is at least the second if not third time that this editor has been notified that WP:BLP requires that BLPs require affirmative proof of ethnicity.--TM 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @TM, This is beginning to look like you have a personal issue with me based on past discussions on this topic. Your basis for bringing this issue here is unwarranted for because I have observed that you make hasty revertions to some of my ethnic categorizations without checking the references first. For example, Candido Da Rocha and Sola Abolaji. I don't need to remind you that only Yoruba people use their native Yoruba language names for their ethnicity. Sometimes, I cite any of the first, middle or last name for males and only the fist, middle or maiden name for females. This is usually evident from the fact that they have multiple names in the Yoruba language. This is sometimes reinforced by the fact that they or their ancestors either have Yoruba ethnicity or originate from Yorubaland which comprises about 1/4 of Nigeria's population. If I can't find name sources, I look for other sources to cite their ethnicity. I don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless I am sure of it. I have recommended before and I re-iterate that you keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk)
    Adding ethnic categories based on a name is Original Research which is not permitted. It is also not permitted to try to enforce ownership over articles or topics by telling other editors not to edit. So stop doing both of those things Eruditescholar, or you may face sanctions. It is not a requirement that articles be categorized by ethnicity, and policy is to omit such classification in the absence of explicit support in reliable sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @·maunus. Thanks and I understand your explanation but Wikipedia's rule for ethnic categorizations easily applies to ethnic groups outside Africa. Africans have unique ways of identifying with their ethnic groups and it may not be in concord with non-Africans. Besides, there's too much under-representation of African ethnic groups in Wikipedia. I have not claimed ownership of any article but only gave my recommendation regarding the other editor's unwarranted edits and reverts on Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as Wikipedia does not have special rules applying to African ethnicgroups you will have to follow the rules we have in the way you categorize African people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Eruditescholar has persisted with this form of disruptive editing even since this issue was brought here. I think we need administrative action since clearly the editor is unwilling to stop.--TM 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now clear that inspite of the glaring evidence of ethnicity stated in most of these articles, especially on Abayomi Olonisakin, you have decided to be irrationale. You happen to be the only editor who brings this issue here for discussion. This a continuation of your grudges on past admin discussions regarding this topic and not necessarily because you want the articles in question to be good or informative. If you have personal issues with me or my editing, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 5:00, 2 February 2016
    I have some sympathy with Eruditescholar's POV in the sense that it is true assumptions are commonly made and accepted in certain places based on name, look, place of origin or whatever and so it's often simply not stated as it's considered unnecessary. However our standards for living people are clear, WP:BLPCAT and Euriditescholar needs to follow them. If they wish to make exceptions or change the general guidelines, they'll need the WP:RFC before, not after. (And frankly despite my sympathies, I don't think I'll support any such exceptions.) BTW, if you are persistently adding WP:OR to WP:BLPs despite clear requests to stop, this is indeed the right place to deal with it. You should also learn to WP:AGF as even before you were replied, you were already told by another editor who isn't Namiba that adding cats based on OR was unacceptable. Also remember it is your responsibility if you are adding ethnicity categories to ensure that such categories are supported by the article with references. The fact that it's in one of the references somewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to add categories to the article if it isn't actually mentioned in the article (at least in the infobox) with references. Mentioning some references in the edit summary also isn't the way to handle it. People should be able to see the support for the categories by looking at the article, they should not need to look through the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I see in the previous discussion you were warned about our requirements by multiple people Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Continued addition of uncited ethnicity categories by User:Eruditescholar. Personalising this as some sort of grudge by Namiba, when you were not only already informed of our requirements by someone else here, but the 'grudge' you refer to was actually your failure to follow our sourcing requirements which you were warned about by multiple other people, is extremely disappointing. It's entirely reasonable for people who've observed your poor behaviour before to follow your contribs to make sure it isn't happening again. And I suspect Namiba probably wasn't even following your contribs but happened to notice the problem when you edited an article they were watching. Problematic behaviour that an editor isn't willing to change is generally an appropriate topic of discussion at ANI. If it's repeated bad behaviour that they've already been warned about it's even more appropriate. In other words, the only "grudge" that anyone has is that we want you to stop adding categories without appropriate sourcing because consensus is that it does damage wikipedia and our articles when you do so. While you're welcome to disagree with out sourcing requirements for ethnicity categories until and unless you get them changed, you do have to follow them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Still more of the same adding of ethnicity categories without reliable sources saying that a BLP is in fact of a certain group. Will an admin please take action against this user who refuses to comply with WP rules?--TM 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wondering if @EdJohnston: has anything to say, as they warned EruditeScholar last time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Eruditescholar is unrelenting despite being warned over and over again.--TM 14:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone please bring TM to order? His recent reverts to some of my edits (even when ethnicity is obvious and sourced) are getting on my nerves, most especially on Mosun Filani. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but you are the one who needs to be "brought to order", you simply cannot add claims of ethnicity without a reliable sources specifically stating that. Having a Yoruba name, speaking Yoruba or appearing n Yoruba films is not enough for the purpose of Wikipedia's ethnic categorization. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @·maunus: The sources are not only based on her Yoruba names or the fact that she can speak Yoruba! Please see her talk page. The sources extracted either specified her family s' native roots as Ekiti State which is part of the Yoruba cultural region or call her a Yoruba actress. What other proof is needed? Eruditescholar (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from the Yoruba region is also not evidence of anything. Only a source that specifically states that she is Yoruba is enough. I would probably accept a source saying that she is a Yoruba actress. But if there is any reason to believe that that may not accurately reflect her own sense of identity - for example if there is a conflicting source calling her an "Igbo person", then it would not be enough. And in all cases, when your edits are contested you need to start discussing it on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I agree with you, coming from a Yoruba region is not sufficient proof of origin. It is possible for a non-Yoruba person to be born in Yorubaland but in all cases, it is simply stated that they were born there. It is only the Nigerian state that they or their ancestors hail from, coupled with their Yoruba names which qualifies their ethnicity. For example: former Miss World, Agbani Darego and British actor, Hugo Weaving were all born in Yorubaland but their family's roots are in Rivers State and Europe respectively. Neither of them bear Yoruba names. That's why the Yoruba names and other sources are used with their places of origin. I have never encountered anyone with a Yoruba name, hailing from Yorubaland who isn't a Yoruba person. Babatunde Fashola, Folake Solanke and Adekunle Fajuyi all fulfilled this criteria before citations were added to support their ethnicities. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is also relevant to refer to past editing related to this topic regarding the other editor in question: (User:Ukabia). This past discussion revealed his disruptive nature especially on some Yoruba-related articles. He edits mostly Igbo-related articles but he had a history of removing sources from Yoruba-related articles. This was also mentioned by another editor on his talk page:User talk:Ukabia#Yoruba Page. Eruditescholar (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to repeat one last time, it is not acceptable to give someone an ethnicity based on where they came from or their names, that is WP:OR and particularly wrong in WP:BLPs. That means it's still not acceptable to use both the details to claim ethnicity, that remains OR in particular WP:Syn. If you continue to do so, you should expect to be blocked. And no it doesn't matter what you have or have not encounter in the past. Whether most people fulfill these criteria before you found proper sources it even more irrelevant.

    I'm not sure what your complaint about Ukabia is. You didn't provide any diffs and I don't recall seeing Ukabia in the articles I saw you editing. The 3RR link shows you were both violated 3RR, but that was something dealt with. The discussion there suggests your edits were a bigger problem, since while violating 3RR is never acceptable (barring the exceptions which I presume didn't apply), Ukabia seemed to be following and arguing in favour of following wikipedia policies and guidelines which require sources for ethnicity. You seemed to be doing what you're doing here, violating our policies and guidelines by trying to add ethnicity tags based on OR. The other link was to something in August 2013. Perhaps it's relevant if you can show a pattern of very long term problematic editing but it itself it's not particularly relevant.

    09:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

    Besides, TM, Ukabia was the only editor who engaged in edit warring with me over Yoruba-related articles. That prompted me to reveal his motive here. His tendencies to vandalise Yoruba-related articles seemed similar to the former editor who reported me here. I will comply with Wikipedia's policies and stop adding Yoruba ethnic categorizations based on people with Yoruba names and births in Yorubaland. Notwithstanding, I want to clarify a criteria which still passes WP:BLP: I want to emphasize that originating or hailing from a place is different from being born there as explained earlier. In Africa including Nigeria in particular, irrespective of names and places of birth, a person's ethnicity is usually primarily first determined by the community, village, town or city that he or she is indigenous to. All other factors or additional criteria used in ethnic identifications becomes secondary. Therefore, if reliable sources state that the person in question (hails from or is a native/indigene) of a place which also implies that he/she has family roots or ancestry from the place, I deem it more accurate to ascertain ethnicity than when it simply states that the person was born in the place in question. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Eruditescholar has been warned previously and has continued these disruptive edits, even since this discussion started. Clearly, reading through this discussion, he is unwilling to change his disruptive editing habits.--TM 11:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @TM, This further exposes your desperation to always achieve your aim after bringing me to ANI on this topic. Your assertion is false. In order to prove your point, can you please reveal subsequent edits after this discussion continued midway? What disruptive edits have I done again that you are implying? Eruditescholar (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

    At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendoes as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendoes User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

    The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:

    WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

    These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).
    As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi#NMMGG WP:OR. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.
    The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.

    'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint.

    I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)
    NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by Drmies, and the block upheld by both Liz and HighInBC, for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

    Sir Joseph maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors [1], and No More Mr Nice Guy agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates Nishidani's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

    If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.
    I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. HighInBC 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A good example of what happens when persistent loose insinuations by one established editor feed in to our work, and set up a whispering campaign. Now I am accused of 'whitewashing' a criminal act for using an orthographic device to bring people's attention to an issue requiring discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Scare quotes'?!! Oh dear me, look I'm a philologist. One of the primary functions of inverted commas is 'to mark off a word or phrase that is being discussed' My edit suggestion was accompanied by opening a discussion on the talk page, for which I was insulted. Has the precise instruction on grammatical and verbal niceties been wholly lost in the past decades? It looks like it, and one of the consequences is that, not reading closely, editors tend to read into innocent words or devices all sorts of weird psychological conjectures, as here.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In an isolated environment you would probably be correct. When you follow it up with arguments that seek to deny victimhood and excuse rape of a minor, I am more skeptical of the motives involved. "They didnt make the complaint" is not an argument you want to be making when talking about rape victims. Oh and "Its a philogical matter" is also equally suspect. When you fall back on grammatical technicalities in order to advance an argument, it generally indicates the actual position has very little weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'Fall back' (i.e. NMMGG's 'backpedal').In a WP:BLP article. I used no arguments to excuse the rape of a minor, and I would ask you to retract that. I cited sources that state the minor, throughout the case, was 'reluctant' to testify against the man with whom he had a 'consensual' relationship. Nawi himself admitted immediately he was guilty, apparently, so it would be absurd for someone like me to deny what sources confirm. You, like NMMGG, are attributing to me positions in the source literature which I cite, which is slipshod reading and, worse still, damaging. You are not helping clarify this issue by making frivolous and offensive quips that pretend to 'read' into my remarks some private bias in favour of abuses of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to maintain to make arguments that because a minor didnt make the complaint and was reluctant to testify it means their victimhood is in "discussion", feel free. You will however be judged accordingly. You have a preferred content version, you have made arguments as to why it should be that version, if it wasnt your opinion you are either playing a devil's advocate or you are misusing sources to push a POV. Since none of the sources deny he was a victim of a crime, using sources that indicate he was unwilling to testify to imply he wasnt a victim is OR. Either way muttering about orthographic devices just makes you look like you are making excuses to distance yourself from your previous remarks. I suggest if you dont want to be seen to be a rape apologist, stop making arguments rape apologists make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    'stop making arguments rape apologists make.' That makes you at least the fourth person to take up the slur introduced by NMMGG, and further evidence as to why he should retract an insinuation that questions my integrity. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps you should listen. Generally if multiple people have an issue with you, the problem is not always with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I knew this kind of mudslinging against Nishidani would occur. This is why I suggested that these things be not treated with a sledgehammer. This is a delicate matter, and discussion should be focused on content, which was mostly what was happening on the talk page. In such an issue, it is hard to separate out personal feelings from the issue, some of which happened.

    I have opened a block review of Bad Dryer on WP:AN as well. In my opinion, the block was unfair and harsh and only serves the drama god.

    In contrast, in this discussion, Only in death has stated multiple times that Nishidani is a "rape apologist", or is simply mouthing arguments that "rape apologists" make, and cast aspersions on Nishidani's motives. This is much more of an NPA that Bad Dryer has engaged in. And more importantly, it only inflames the issue. Only in death is free to think whatever they like of Nishidani, but commenting at ANI does not give one a license to engage in serious personal attacks with abandon. There are many people I don't like here, and there are others who don't like me.

    No More Mr Nice Guy should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with Nishidani. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is well known that NMMNG does not like Nishidani (some of the background has been given by Nishidani above), but there is no reason to be needlessly inflammatory, especially in a delicate matter like this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "NMMNG does not like Nishidani." It would be interesting to see whether NMMNG could provide the name of a single ARBPIA "political opponent" whom he doesn't treat contemptuously.     ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable. Just because Nishidani supposedly has more integrity, does not excuse him when he makes the same sympathetic arguments. Like I said, dont want to be accused of being sympathetic to a point of view? Dont make shitty arguments that proponents of that POV make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: Have you heard of the term "guilt by association"? You can address the argument without associating people with organizations they have never heard of, who happen to make the argument for their own reasons. If I oppose smoking due to cigarettes causing cancer, are you going to associate me with Nazis because they were among the first to make the argument? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilt by association is not the same as sharing a sympathetic viewpoint. If you started editing articles in a manner that suggested Jews were not victims because of <insert Nazi argument> I would expect you to be called out as being sympathetic to the Nazis. Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments. If they didnt expect to get grief over that they are either unaware of what NAMBLA advocates (in which case they shouldnt be touching content that involves sex with minors) or they are just incredible naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the third time you have asserted:' Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments.' Retract it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tell you what, I won't say you are using NAMBLA arguments and in return you stop trying to justify a minor wasn't a victim because he didn't complain about it, deal? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After being warned multiple times by multiple people, Only in death refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still asking for a reply from NMMGG to a legitimate query. He said:
    Not a single source says the minor was not a victim. No More Mr Nice Guy 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He was implying that many sources used in the article state the minor was a victim, and that I was evidently in flagrant defiance of that source consensus.
    I therefore requested him to clarify:
    'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'? Nishidani 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from clearing my record of an ugly insinuation that has gathered some converts to the calumny, the point is that whatever language goes into a text must reflect the balance of sources.
    So NMMGG. Please address this query, and possibly explain why, in a compromise edit when I reintroduced the word victim without inverted commas, your next edit erased it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why people are questions things. A minor can't be not a victim. There's no such thing as consensual sex under the age of consent. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are people expected to believe that the likes of NMMNG and the person who operates the Bad Dryer account or the kind of right wing Israel supporters who are attracted to Wikipedia, editors with long histories of advocacy and patently biased editing, are showing concern for the well being of a Palestinian child, their treatment in the real world and here on Wikipedia? I hope not because that notion is absurd as anyone familiar with these editors should know by now. None of this drama would have happened if Nawi had been an Israeli soldier and shot and killed the boy. What we have here is faux concern for the way Wikipedia treats a Palestinian child used as cover for the cynical exploitation of an opportunity to target a BLP of a perceived enemy of the State of Israel and harass Nishidani in a vindictive and cowardly way, all done behind masks of anonymity. Genuine issues with the content will not get sorted out in a drama-free way by collaborating with people whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I am not right wing, or an Israel supporter and have no history of advocacy (or even editing in any meaningful way in the IP area), so I guess I'm exhibiting faux concern too? I assure you if Nawi had shot and killed a boy and editors started scare quoting 'Victim' in Nawi's biography we would be having a very similar conversation about their motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know you or your editing so there is no reason to think you are exhibiting faux concern. Maybe you can help improve the article since your priority is not to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. If Nawi had been an IDF soldier and shot the boy there would be no biography. But if there were, it would be nominated for deletion by an editor whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of Sean's statement above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is drifting. Stay focused, and kindly reply to my request above. Chat just buries a serious issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which request? For sources that call the minor a victim? Here you go: victim, victim, Nawi's friend Norris calling him a victim, and a Norris supporter calling him a victim. That took one google search to find, and some of those are already in the article.
    The reason I thought you were discussing your opinion rather than that of sources in this edit is because of the fact the only source you reference is a dictionary, your use of "ostensible victim", and your claim that it doesn't "appear" the minor saw himself as a victim, when no source whatsoever brings any kind of statement from the minor, only the fact he didn't testify. Rape victims often don't want to testify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's replying to something I did not ask. You wrote:Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
    You can't see the equivocation in your sentence. This place is the despair of grammarians or precisians. You sentence implies:'every source says the minor was a victim', which is obviously untrue.3 small circulation Irish sources (in a country whose press never breathed a word for several decades of their own dirty linen, the widespread abuse of children by priests and Christian brothers) and one by an Irish correspondent for the English tabloid The Daily Mail, limited to the period of one week in 2011 when the aim was to shipwreck Norris's bid for the Presidency of Ireland use 'victim'. The numerous English-language Israeli sources for Nawi we use do not adopt 'victim' as the default term. They say:'statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy/minor'. Sources say the Israeli court found the relationship 'consensual', correct or not, and I stand by my point that, however morally contemptuous sex by an older man with a 15 year old may be, using from a short list of sources the word victim, when the indication so far is that it was consensual, is improper. You of course never explained why, when I reintroduced, after talk page discussion, the word 'victim', you immediately elided it from the lead.
    It is true that Palestinian minors sexually abused or sodomised by Israeli soldiers while the latter hold them in detention are reluctant to denounce the fact for fear of retribution. In 1990 the boys' parents had no qualms about reporting it to Israeli courts, but the boy wouldn't apparently testify against him. When S.Hoyland talked of editors' nationalism, I presume he means that when an Israeli civil rights activist has a dark mark in his distant past, it is played up by many editors with a nationalist POV agenda for all its worth as they express outrage. But when the same kind of abuse (mass rape of a minor) is reported in army bases, of eminent diplomats, the same editors keep mum: it is not for our Wikipedia. They don't rush to edit in the scandal, as they do if the issue touches an activist for Palestinian rights, even if it occurred 25 years ago, and, since then thousands of Palestinians have trusted him not to molest their children as he takes them on those summer camps which the Israeli army would otherwise forbid them to enjoy. Unlike Sean, I think it both inevitable and not necessarily all bad, that many editors will defend their own countries' image and interests, and don't object if they have sharp eyes and high standards for sources and texts. I object when their concern spills over into patent smears, niggling, jabbing away, trying to play on the nerves (pointless at my age, when most of them are dead) which is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'm required to engage with that long SOAPBOX. You asked for sources. I provided them. I explained why I said what I said. At least one person who has no connection to the IP topic has also said he found your comments, shall we say, outside the mainstream, so all these attempts to claim there's some kind of nationalistic background for this fall flat. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. Otherwise I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay you refuse to listen. All I am asking for is that NMMGG be asked to strike out or retract the personal insinuations he invented from his fantasy about my ostensible ulterior motives. The adoption of the calumny he started led to one indeff, because the person kept repeating it until well past the brink. Two other editors here have taken it up. He is responsible for this crap, and he should shut up and focus, and do useful editing, like finding this source which I found to be deadlinked. It's worth reading. The man who wrote it lost his bid for the Presidency of Ireland, just for expressing an informed clemency for Nawi. That smear was big time, and NMMGG's is peanuts. But I have to work here, with him, and this means he must learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos every other time we encounter each other,Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos" like the time you told a group of editors that we lack "capacity for pity and horror" that is not "ethnic-exclusive"?[2] That's a fine thing for one editor to say to another. Not sleazy at all. Would you like to elaborate on what ethnicity you were referring to, before you take the beam out of your own eye? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Content issues are not usually discussed on WP:ANI - the article talkpage should be used. Regardless of who is right, stop saying that Nishidani justified child abuse or use guilt by association with NAMBLA. That is the bottom line. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a content issue? My capacity for pity and horror that is not "ethnic exclusive"? Was that a joke? The bottom line in this case is that your concern about NPA seems to be quite selective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We're under an obligation to edit in such a manner that both sides are duly represented. Thus, I, for one, am obliged to edit in tragic material not only re Palestinians but Israelis as attested in RS. I've done that everyday for years, i.e.,here,here,and here. It may be a defect of cursory knowledge but I only see you editing to minutely control material deleterious to Israel or editing articles re Palestinians when there is something negative to be showcased (Ezra Nawi, 2000 Ramallah lynching. You're not alone, and it reflects the fact that mainstream Israeli papers focus intensely on whatever violence affects Israelis or settlers, but generally ignore what happens to Palestinians. This exclusively negative or defensive focus in editors breaks no rule. But the pattern of refusing to consider that there are two sides to any question and accept that one must strive to see both perspectives, is obvious.
    In the present case, you made an extraordinary set of claims about my bias.You stated:
    You asserted a claim re sources which I showed was false. What was your reaction?
    Excise;revert out;delete;erase
    No real argument. Just repeated removal of information that contradicted your assertion. In an empirical world, one adjusts one's ideas as new information shows them to be inexact. In a partisan mindset, one suppresses any information which contradicts one's beliefs. At least do me the courtesy of retracting your assertion that I repeatedly justify sex with minors and the insinuation I act as a proxy for an obnoxious paedophile organization. Two people who took this up have since retracted. You ran that hare and ought to do the same. There is no evidence for it. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a good laugh when you said you strive to see both perspectives, considering I caught you more than once falsifying sources to push your POV. As I said above, I'm not going to engage with your soapboxing, and you can add strawmen and self-righteous bullshit to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That tone and misrepresentation only serves to underline my point that some admin should sum up the general community comments here, take notice of the fact that you refuse to withdraw a remark one person was indeffed for, and 2 others withdrew or dropped from repeating, and ask you to simply retract it. That done, one can get back to serious things, like editing. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Any admin can read the discussion that resulted in your personal attack against me here and see if what I said above is a misrepresentation. It includes two quite straightforward examples of source falsification to push a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course there's a content dispute involved, but Nishidani should not be expected to have to continue participating with respect and patience when doing so means being repeatedly slandered with allegations of support for paedophilia, and a generally sneering attitude. That is the cheapest and most egregious form of ad hominem, obviously contrary to WP:NPA, and it rightfully got Bad Dryer banned. Kingsindian, HighInBC and others have requested that you quit it, No More Mr Nice Guy, and you refuse. Unfortunately your conduct is living up to your chosen user name. This kind of behavior is rare among regular editors but when it appears makes Wikipedia a toxic, unpleasant and unproductive place. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you look up where Nishidani quoted someone who wrote that there was no real victim. That is the issue, that while it was consensual, there is still a victim becasue the kid was underage, even if it was consensual. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My attitude towards Nishidani reflects his attitude towards me. I can give dozens of examples like the personal attack I mentioned just above, which you for some reason are completely ignoring. Also nobody said he's supporting pedophilia. That's ridiculous. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, not 15 year olds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact my point is not about personal attacks, which are a dime a dozen in I/P area. I know that, you know that and Nishidani knows that. But there is a world of difference between different kinds of personal attacks. It is routine to have personal attacks accusing that someone is biased to one side, people just shrug it off. What is not acceptable is to use guilt by association with a pedophile advocacy organization and saying that X tried to justify having sex with a minor. That is a low blow. Please don't give me any stuff about pre-pubescent children. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia in general. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think telling another editor they are incapable of human emotion towards anyone who is not of their ethnicity is an accusation of bias rather than an outright accusation of racism (with some pedigree, but never mind), then you may need to step back a little. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be digging up a single one of Nishidani's edits from 8 months ago to justify your repeated, unrepentant, ad hominem slurs against them now. And if nobody is particularly convinced by your invocation of WP:BLP to slander an Israeli anti-settlement activist, or your loud indignation on behalf of the Palestinian boy who refused to testify against him, your own tone and editing history speak for themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify. This is an Aristotelian distinction, as I recall noting at the time, related to the intensity of affect caused by kinship bonds (and all mankind is prone to the bias). That you are still twisting this into an accusation I was being 'racist' (your gloss, 'with some pedigree' in context means 'the history of anti-Semitism) is another example of misreading and your apparently obsessive conviction about my putative ulterior motives. Your accusation in this regard was examined and dismissed. Your continual returning to this, and insinuations I am pushing an agenda of sexual license with minors, suggests to me you have a problem in editing with me, and need to be told to retract the statement, and focus on editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal so that we can move on

    This over-lengthy thread has merely devolved into content disputes and further aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks (and self-justification thereof).

    I propose that No More Mr Nice Guy now strike all of the aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks noted by Nishidani on Talk:Ezra Nawi. And that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death immediately desist in making any further such aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks, either here on this thread, on any talk page, in any edit summary, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Failure to abide by both of these proposals will result in immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. I also propose that content discussions cease on this thread and instead, if necessary, be resumed (without the aforementioned PAs and aspersions) on Talk:Ezra Nawi. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just out of curiosity, how would you respond to someone putting victim in quotes because the sex was "consensual" (even though the kid was 15)? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. -- IjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, this is a rather one sided proposal. It is as if Softlavendar has not read anything up above, nor anything of how Nishidani treats any of his interlocutors. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose But largely irrelevant since its unenforceable. Personally I dont edit in the IP area so topic bans are an empty threat and if *any* editor makes edits on a BLP and uses justifications like these, they will be reverted and called out for the immoral and unethical arguments they are making, regardless of who they are (BLP violations take precendence remember). Lastly attempts to muzzle comments on editing behaviour (and motives for such) doesnt work when you have policies like NPOV at work. If no one felt free to call out disgusting comments like the above (he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it, which is not only wrong, but morally objectionable) we would end up in the situation where those with less ethics skew content towards their own POV with no ability to call them out on it. So, SoftLavender's 'proposal' is rejected in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the need to point out that Only in death is continuing the PAs and aspersions here: "immoral", "unethical", "disgusting", "he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it", "not only wrong, but morally objectionable", "those with less ethics". I'm not inviting a whole new discussion here (and I'm not going to comment further); I'm merely pointing out that the behaviors are continuing. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, the problem is that I believe putting victim in quotes for a child who is 15 just because the kid says the sex is consensual is a problem. Do you not see the issue with that? That is the problem. On a side note, are you working on running for administrator in the near future? My ESP says you are. Personally, I think this thread should just close with no action on both sides. Nishidani should just realize that he should be careful with his words. Both in terms of this, and also in terms of putting people down who disagree with him, or when he tries to show how better he is with English, or when he thinks he's better at English than everyone else. At a certain point we need to move on. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Suffice to say I have zero hesitation about about pointing out objectionable arguments and attempted victim blaming. But glad we are clear where you stand on minors not being rape victims because they didnt complain. Also you might need to read WP:Aspersions again and note the part about evidence. I have provided evidence as did NMMNG as to why we take offence at their rationale for editing. That you seem to be ignoring it is your problem.
    Actually wasting my time responding here, last time an editor made a fuss about issues related to minors on wikipedia they ended up banned by ARBCOM and the person they complained about ended up SanFranBanned(tm) by the the WMF. I will just forward any complaints to the WMF, since they at least take this stuff seriously. This place has the bad habit of not only shooting the messenger, but also his horse and then setting fire to the message. In future you can expect zero comments regarding this on-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your efforts to slyly label another editor a pedophile-sympathizer in a content dispute is viewed by others here as a disruptive personal attack, not as a defense of minors on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging No More Mr Nice Guy since they asked to be pinged if they were being discussed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SNOW Support for No More Mr Nice Guy at least. Only in Death's case is a little more ambiguous, but there is nothing ambiguous about the nature of NMMNG's behaviour, the community's position with regard to that particular behaviour, nor indeed what he should have expected the likely community response to be, Brad Dyer was indeffed immediately for making the exact same comments [3], by Drmies, who noted how indefensible the comments had been. Then two more broadly respected admins (Liz, HighInBC) then upheld that block ([4], [5]). Finally, a review of the block at AN led to a unanimous decision to uphold that block. NMMNG was fully aware of how the community had decided to classify these comments--most of the diffs which Nishandi provided in their complaint above come from Brad dyer's talk page--and his decision to pick those comments up where Brad Dyer's block forced him to lay them down is WP:Disruptive in the extreme. Indeed, this "go ahead, make my day"-style comment seems to give every indication that NMMNG is actively baiting this discord as a means of registering his dislike of Nishandi and displeasure with how the personal dispute between Nishandi and Brad Dyer unfolded.
    I support this proposal only because it is the one that was tabled. I'd have supported an indef block without reservation if that had been put forth, as an editor who has no singificant prior experience (that I can recall) with the parties/combatants involved here; I fully expect most editors coming to this situation with similar "fresh" eyes would view these PA's in the same light. NMMNG should himself embrace this proposal with both hands and consider himself lucky that he got off so lucky for behaviour which resulted in a swift indef for another editor. But if he instead persists in acting like he is in a defamation relay event with a blocked user, echoing the very comments that lead to the user's block, he should share that user's sanction--for the sake of equal application of our policies and the best interests of the project alike. Honestly, I think it's hard to know what Brad Dyer thinks of all of this--whether he is happy that someone is pressing forward with his aspersions or if he gobbsmacked that someone else is getting away with saying exactly what he did, over and over. Snow let's rap 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted. But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors. As I posted earlier, I think both editors need to take a chill pill, but Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue. Nobody called him a pedophile, at least to my recollection. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted."
    I encourage anyone who has doubts as to my characterization to read the thread themselves. The consensus was pretty overwhelming to my eyes.
    "But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors."
    Why do you feel comfortable assuming that I did not look into Nishandi's behaviour as well? In any event, your argument is a complete non-sequitor. If any party feels Nishandi's has also failed to comport themselves appropriately, then that party can present evidence to that effect and make an argument for sanctions for Nishandi as well. But Nishandi's conduct, no matter what it consists of, does not alleviate NMMNG of a responsibility to conduct himself within community expectations with regard to our civility standards. Nor is there any question as to where the community has decided that line is in this instance; NMMNG is parroting, part and parcel, the comments which just got another party indeffed--with multiple admins and a community review validating the action. The community has already decided, regardless of the present context, that is not acceptable behaviour. If NMMNG wants to act as a proxy for Brad Dyer in reasserting the exact same comments, it should come as no surprise to him when the same community inevitably hands him the same sanction. And it certainly is inevitable if he can't back down here.
    "Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue."
    Yes, that is an issue. It's a content issue. See here's the problem with the position that Brad Dyer and NMMNG have forwarded as justifying their incivility: those personal attacks are unnecessary to undermining Nishandi's position on these issues. Point in fact they are counter-productive to that aim specifically because they shift focus toward a battle of personalities and away from the actual policies that govern content. Nishandi putting scare-quotes around "victim" was inappropriate because the WP:WEIGHT of our sources will obviously never support that position. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and our own personal moral evaluations are not meant to be a platform upon which we argue here. You and I may have views on what consent consists of which are drastically different from what Nishandi has espoused--even so completely different that we find them objectionable. But the reason he was wrong to try to implement those changes on this encyclopdia has nothing to do with our differing outlooks and everything to do with the fact that Nishandi's perspective is a fringe one that, being so far removed from modern social consensus, cannot be substantiated by sourcing which reflects those morays. This was a perfectly solid and unassailable platform upon which to tear down Nashandi's position. On this project, we argue the point, not the "opposition".
    But that is not what Brad Dyer and No More Mr. Nice Guy have done. Instead they decided to launch repeated WP:ad hominem attacks at Nishandi himself, rather than his arguments. That is a violation of our WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies under any circumstances. It is absolutely unacceptable when those comments take the form of the kind of implication they are leveling in this intance. And I'm sorry, but I am utterly unmoved by your "they technically didn't call him X or Y" argument; it is beyond any doubt what they meant to imply (see line 153), and I don't feel compelled to split hairs over exactly which terms relating to violent sexual pathology they used in relation to Nishandi. This is really simple: all of us who are not sociopaths have strong feelings about this topic area, some of us very strong feelings because we have special reason to know the human cost. But if one cannot control their conduct in a given content area such that they keep their comments concentrated on the content and instead feel compelled to denigrate the character of others because they view the issue differently, they simply should not contribute in that area. And if they can't show the self-control necessary to either A) keep their impressions of another editor's character to themselves or B) leave the discussion altogether, they have to accept the consequences when their behaviour becomes disruptive to the project. Especially when that behaviour takes the form of casting these kinds of allegations, no matter how certain said editor is that they reflect "reality" and not just the product of their own animosity. Snow let's rap 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first post that actually addresses the issue rather than repeating "bad words are bad", so I would like to respond to it.
    First of all, Brad Dyer has a whole lot of extra baggage as can be seen both by the explanations for why his unblock requests were rejected and the AN thread. So that comparison doesn't work here. I also after it came to my attention he was indeffed I did not repeat what I said to Nishidani.
    Second, the scare quotes around "victim" was not a matter of WEIGHT, it was a matter of V since Nishidani at the time did not supply a single source supporting that kind of language. So he did that as WP:OR. But that's not even what triggered my response which brought us here. The trigger for that was this. Please read it carefully. This is quite obviously Nishidani stating his opinion rather than relying on what sources explicitly say. He is using his opinion to try to convince other editors to support the scare quotes around "victim", which again, had no source. Notice he does not refer to any sources except a dictionary. He calls the minor the "ostensible victim" (again, not referring to any source that makes this claim) and he ends by saying the fact the minor did not complain and was not willing to testify makes it "appear" he doesn't see himself as a victim.
    That is the evidence (per WP:NPA and WP:Aspersions) for why I made an accusation (it was more of a "really?! Is that the line you're taking?" before he replied with "Why yes, yes I am"). Not a single editor has addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop it. Repeating that my use of inverted commas was an example of 'scare quotes' and not, as I stated a week back, a means of drawing attention to a word I thought problematical, is absurd. It has nothing to do with 'my personal views'.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which are reasons why Nishandi should have (and did) lose the content dispute, but not in any sense a blank check for the disruptive and defamatory conduct you then engaged in. You are entitled to challenge Nishandi's reasoning for the purposes of the content dispute. You are not allowed to go further to attack his character. You made repeated and loud attempts to associate his name with an organization which promotes an ideology of violent sexual exploitation of minors. That behaviour could serve no legitimate purpose in the content discussion, except to defame, raise acrimony and needlessly personalize an issue which could only be decided on the sources and our policies alone, not the outlook and motives of editors--which is why Bad Dryer was instantly indeffed for that behaviour and why you are super lucky to have avoided that consequence thus far.
    Furthermore, you then took those accusations to other spaces--including the talk page of another editor. When Nashandi decided to make a statement to assert his moral opposition to statutory rape, you accused him of lying to save face. That's a personal attack under any circumstances, even if you weren't implicating that another editor was possessed of the kind of reprehensible associations you were unambiguously suggesting; no matter how certain you are of your "evidence" of his "true" disposition, you can't look into his mind to know his true outlook, and speculation about it isn't relevant to any matter at hand, even if you were still in the space for a content discussion, which you weren't. There's not even a hint of any productive purpose to this comment--you were just continuing to register your low esteem for another editor as part of a personal dispute, by way of comments which the community regards as way over the line into unacceptable territory.
    Nor is ignorance any defense here--you had just watched Bad Dryer banned for the very same comments, so you knew at the very least that these comments were not considered appropriate by your fellow contributors (including numerous admins) who had weighed in on the matter. You didn't just refuse to WP:Drop the stick, you picked up the stick exactly where it was left by another editor who had to be indeffed for refusal to drop that very same stick! How to your mind can that possibly not constitute WP:disruptive behaviour at the very least?
    Look, you seem to have suggested above that I'm the only editor here who has spoken to what you view as the core issues of the dispute. So I maybe I can avail of that position to convince you that I'm giving you my honest, best assessment as an uninvolved party when I say you don't look good here, and the situation isn't improving. The only position you've advocated above which does make an argument that you shouldn't suffer the same consequence as Bad Dryer is that you don't have his history of sanctions. But that's not going to be enough here if you can't back down on whether those comments were appropriate. Remember, Bad Dryer wasn't indfeffed for his block history; Drmies blocked him for the comments (the same comments you are repeating now) alone. His past history only came into play when his unblock request was denied. If the outcome of this is that you get indeffed, but then are allowed back on, is that price really worth sticking by those comments. Why not just apologize to Nishandi for going to far. No one expects you to pretend to like him, to approve of his editorial approach or share his perspectives. But your fellow Wikipedians (even the ones who agree with you on the content issue) are telling you, under no uncertain terms, that you crossed a line here, and a serious one. Don't you think it's worth re-examining your conduct in that regard before you run the risk of ending up with a block history like that which you have compared your own record against? Snow let's rap 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never encountered you before so have no reason to doubt you're giving me anything other than your honest opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree.
    I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances. You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?
    Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage? Stuff I let slide just because I don't usually feel like getting into this ridiculous drama? But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw. And this without even the pretense of a single source. Am I the only one here who has kids?
    Anyway, I hope any admin who closes this is familiar with the IP topic area. They will see that other than you, Softlavender, and Only in death, every single person who commented here is knee deep in the topic area. It's not like there's an overwhelming consensus of uninvolved editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances."
    Well, we can certainly ask him; @Drmies:. In any event, is that really the standard you want to adopt here, to be spared a sanction on the technicality that you haven't got as disruptive a history even though you absolutely shared this disruptive act with someone who does?
    "You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?"
    Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly, and I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but here goes: On this project, it doesn't matter what group his comments remind you of; that's not relevant to a content discussion in any shape, manner, or form. Again, you are allowed to assess whether his arguments are consistent with the sources or policy. You are not allowed to imply he has solidarity with a group of organized sex offenders as such defamatory comments have no value to the content dispute process and can only serve to inflame and disrupt discussion and the project at large. Your argument is non-sequitor; a statement doesn't have to be untrue to be disruptive. So his comments reminded you of that group--that doesn't mean it was a WP:CIVIL or a smart thing to say, and it certainly doesn't mean that this community can't find it utterly unacceptable--which it clearly does, since another editor just received our highest sanction for saying the exact same thing.
    "Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage?"
    As far as I can tell, Nishandi was not soapboxing. They were making what they viewed as a legitimate content argument. You and I may find that argument completely untenable, even absurd, but that doesn't mean Nishandi is barred from making it, so long as they try to form consensus and then abide by the decision, which it seems they have here. Anyway, even if Nashandi acted improperly, that would be another topic for the community to consider, for which anyone can present evidence, if it comes to that. But their actions do not alleviate you of your responsibility to follow our behavioural guidelines, certainly not with regard to the comments you made, which go too far beyond what we can set aside as a mere consequence of a mundane clash of personalities.
    "But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw."
    That's fine. You're allowed to be bothered. You're not allowed to say just whatever you want because you are bothered. You certainly aren't allowed to call anyone names, no matter how attenuated you make that name calling by way of talk of "resemblance", the meaning of which we all obviously see. Bad Dryer used that same intermediary and he still got blocked, why do you think you should be immune to the same community sanction for the exact same device directed at the exact same editor in the exact same context?
    Look, I understand. Believe me, sexual assault is a topic that presents me with difficulties in discussing dispassionately, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when my blood has boiled. There was one occasion when, as part of a strategic attempt to dodge their attacks on another contributor, a particularly incivil editor repeatedly accused me of indifference to the topic of rape; my partner had to physically take my laptop away from me and get me into some fresh air--I was almost in tears, I was so angry. So, yeah, I get it--some of us don't ever care to hear these acts or their consequences minimized. But I also know that Wikipedia demands something more from me than that I let my passions completely govern how I approach my fellow editors on a topic--that it's my responsibility to control my response to the presentation of ideas I don't like, because it's a critical part of our important mission to share the sum total of human knowledge that we be able to discuss and vet things at length, without resorting to personal recriminations against those we disagree with.
    Nishandi is allowed to hold an unpopular opinion or one you and I disagree with. Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits that in any way. You are not allowed to associate them with criminals and sociopaths because you disagree with them about the nature of consent in this case. You just aren't. And again, this isn't just me talking subjectively here. The community has already spoken by banning another editor for making these exact same comments in the exact same context. You're not in a position to overturn that community consensus just because you feel differently about it. The only question here is whether you will be handed the same sanction for the same act directed against the same person. And that is going to turn in great part on whether you can show an understanding of why that act stepped outside our community's perspective on this matter. Again, I am urging you to try to re-evaluate this situation in the light of what others are saying here. In my opinion, sometimes there are circumstances wherein nothing will show your clarity of mind on a matter like owning up to a misstep to someone whose broader perspective you deeply dislike. Snow let's rap 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time - Brad Dyer and I have vastly different history. He was on the community's radar already. He had previous blocks. He was widely suspected as being an sock of a blocked editor. He pissed a lot of admins off. The fact I'm still editing while he got an indef 20 minutes after being reported should be enough evidence of that.
    Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits people from holding unpopular opinions. That's true. But it does prohibit them SOAPBOXing and using Wikipedia as a FORUM and inflicting their unpopular opinions gratuitously on other editors, and that's exactly what an editor who states an opinion without relying on reliable sources is doing. If you think people can make content related arguments without relying on a single source that makes the argument, we have a vastly different understanding of WP:OR.
    What do you think the Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence part in NPA is about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you want to predicate your assumption that you won't be given a sanction for making those comments (in the context of a discretionary sanctions topic area, no less) on the fact that your co-commentator had a more extensive history of blocks than you, then it's clear at this point that there is nothing we can say to disabuse you of that notion. Nor indeed does there seem to be good reason to try any further if your disposition is that the behaviour in question represents a civil editing mindset, since (if that is genuinely your belief), further such disruption is probably inevitable--more's the pity for everyone involved, yourself included. Snow let's rap 03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit unfair. All I said is that I disagree with your statement that it is inevitable that I would get a sanction because Brad Dryer got one. But I think we've reached the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. Thanks again for being the only editor to actually engage with the issues.
    As I mentioned above, NPA explicitly allows for accusations about personal behavior if evidence is supplied, which I believe I have provided. As I also mentioned, other than yourself, Softlavender and Only in death, the other editors who commented here are all very much involved, so there doesn't seem to be a consensus of uninvolved editors supporting your position. I have thousands of edits in a very contentious topic area and have been able to maintain a clean record so far, so I think my reading of policy and guidelines is usually fairly within the community consensus here, but I am open to being told otherwise. Let's see if more uninvolved editors comment or what a closing admin might say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support admonishment not ANI mandated striking or Support blocking I support the admonishment and moving on but I can't support the ANI mandated striking. It's almost like a forced apology. Seems more like a great effort to make it look something big has been done while nothing has been done. Would also support a block -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, given that Bad Dryer was indef blocked a week ago for making only a couple of the exact same comments that No More Mr Nice Guy has made multiple times and in multiple places, it seems logical (to me personally, at least) that the only way No More Mr Nice Guy can or should avoid a similar block, even an indef one, is to strike all of the sorts of comments that Bad Dryer was indeffed for. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I can't support an ANI mandated striking. It's utter and incomprehensible nonsense. Much like a forced apology. ANI is not here to appease offended editors but to end disruption. An ANI mandated striking or redaction serves only to appease offended parties. An official admonishment from the community serves an actual purpose. In the event that they fail to take this warning and do the behavior again they can be blocked, banned, or etc. We can either give leniency or not, but I disagree that we should only grant leniency here if they kiss the communities proverbial bottom when mandated to do so. This is some Mickey Mouse bullshit better suited for saturday morning cartoons.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, I'm not asking to be "appeased". I have a strong record for not running to A/I or AE to whinge over a decade. I dislike it. NMMGG implied that if I didn't report him, as he implied I should, it was because I would be embarrassed. He wanted this, not I.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to like my choice of words. Choose another word to replace that reflects your word preference. Here is the proposal, admonish them and mandate they strike the offending comments. The admonishment serves a purpose. Mandated striking does not. I'm not for a court mandated ass kissing that serves no purpose. If you or someone on your behalf wants to collapse those comments, I think there's policy on your side to do so. If you want to seek more than admonishment, have at it. I do not support an ANI mandated striking.If you wish to push for and support an admonishment I think that's fine. If you want a mandated striking you are going to need to justify it and the above rant about Brad Dwyer is not a justification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For your part, you have not "redoubled the insults," but originally wrote the following to Nishidani: "Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?", and What's in the sources? That's it's not so bad for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if there's no coercion involved? That's exactly NAMBLA territory. Show me a source that puts victim in quotes", and "Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind". While it' true that you haven't repeated these personal insults since Nishidani filed this complaint, you've also not apologized and accepted that this was a low and insulting editing tactic. If you do acknowledge it sincerely, without in any way needing to give ground on the content dispute, I would change my opinion here.
    Only in Death by contrast has repeatedly tried to justify the slur, e.g. "Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA... straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'," and "Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable". -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So when you said that stuff about me, you were lying. Not for the first time in this thread I might add, I just didn't bother to point the other ones out.
    You have not addressed any of the evidence I provided per Wikipedia policy, so any admin closing this should ignore your !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For a moment I thought you might approach something resembling contrition. My comment referenced both of you, I gave you your WP:ROPE, and see you'd rather hang on your original statements. Plus ça change. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a recap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because people have responded to it doesn't mean they have seen it. "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -WP:IDHT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I agree with Sir Joseph. It looks to me like some bad behavior and personal attacks have occurred from all sides. Rather than taking sides, an admin should warn all participants to refrain from personal attacks and should monitor the discussion henceforth to enforce the warning.Homemade Pencils (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you go from having 105 edits adding or removing commas to making a pronouncement at AN/I? -Darouet (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't wait to reach the 500 edits required by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 by adding or removing commas before getting involved in an WP:ARBPIA related issue would be my guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like there was a recent block for "gaming the system" for someone who had sped thru making menial edits so that they could edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Serialjoepsycho is right. I believe it was User:HistoryWrite who was blocked for gaming the sys. I think this may be the link to the archived discussion and the decision to block. IjonTichy (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FL or Atlanta

    This is the second time I've been here about this guy. The last time resulted in a firmly worded warning, which he took to mean that the admin didn't know what he was talking about. Since then, the same admin advised me to come here (advice I initially took as him saying he didn't feel admin attention was necessary, but which he later corrected me on), then warned FLoA about his attitude. I didn't want to come back here, but after my latest exchange with FLoA, I'm at my wit's end. He seems so removed from reality, and is so condescending in his tone that I have trouble believing he's not trolling. The core issue is that he's been editing tendentiously to push the unsupported view that an Argument from authority is always a fallacy, and engaging with me and others with absolutely no respect for honesty whatsoever. Below are diffs (and some points) illustrating the problem.

    Content issues

    Honesty issues

    • Drastically mischaracterizing the content dispute in an RfM in which he mentioned none of the other editors. You can see at the current version of the page that Original Position also pointed out the problem with the wording used (once the Mediation chair invited him to participate, as FLoA didn't bother doing so).
    • Claiming that 'progress is being made' when the only edits to the article they'd made were either reverts of my edits, or edits which pushed the article further into falsehood.
    • Questioning the admin's competence.
    • This diff represents a number of problems. In it, he repeats a false claim that the page is currently on "my" version, due to the fact that he had reverted himself once. However, he made several edits to the page since, and reverted an edit I made that brought it closer to the version he considers mine. (I had previously pointed out that if he reverts to the version he considers mine, then keeps editing, that it is no longer "my" version, but to no avail) Also note that it is not, in fact my version, but that the Editor Original Position was primarily responsible for the differences between "my" version and the older, factually inaccurate version. He also repeats an earlier assertion that the admin "...said my behavior's alright." in the very section of his talk page which the admin created to warn him about his attitude (a warning to which he replied, so I know he got it).
    • It has been pointed out to him many times the irony of him quoting "experts" to support his case that appealing to authority is always a fallacy. He said once that he was aware of the irony, but has since refused to even attempt to justify it. What's worse is that he appeals to illegitimate authorities exclusively. Whether he is right or wrong (and he is wrong, indisputably so) about the nature of the argument, he's still knowingly engaged in a fallacious, dishonest method of advancing his case.

    This is just a sampling of diffs. There are many more to illustrate the problem, but including them all would get unwieldy. If any admin doubts my interpretation of any of those diffs (or just doesn't see what I'm referring to), I will happily provide more diffs and quotes to illustrate my case.

    I've been trying to be patient with him. I started by discussing the issue on the talk page, and when that failed, I initially tried for mediation. After an extremely fishy (I can provide diffs to illustrate why, but don't think I need to get into it now) opening of the mediation case, I declined to continue further and came here. Since then, the problem seemed to have been resolved (with some admin attention wrt another user who supported FLoA's interpretation), until FLoA returned the other day to begin making sweeping changes to the article and reverting any attempt on my part to edit it. Even then, I elected to follow through on an RfM he filed in lieu of returning here. I had every intention of doing that until I logged on tonight, and saw the latest round. To say that there has been no indication that he intends to comport himself reasonably, honestly, and with respect to WP's standards of evidence would be a massive understatement. I've just reached a point where I can't bring myself to humor him any more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Won't the source and content issues be resolved in our mediation? There's lots of stuff I could point to, and lots of stuff I could and have said about your view of my actions and how you describe them, but I think the main issue is just frustration about the long-running impasse we've reached as far as the article's content goes. I know hammering out a good version of the article's been slow and tough, but we're almost there! The page and our understanding of each other's positions is getting much better than it was at the beginning and a bit of mediation's all we need to get it fully sorted. FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also, what exactly do you mean by "latest round"? The last edit I made to the article in question was days ago, you've edited it since then...No one's making substantial edits until mediation's done, and that'll just be someone adding the consensus version at last!) FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: You have mischaracterized and over simplified the events surrounding the closure of the previous mediation case. You never mentioned that the mediation case had been accepted, before you appeared to hat commentary of mine (while ignoring similar commentary of FLoA), and finally declaring yourself the mediator after I disputed the hatting. I am further left wondering why I had to search for your reason for taking over the case myself. That is the sort of information one thinks might be important to pass on to the participants, especially when the case has been taken over by someone who's already butted heads with one of the participants, a fact which is, itself, more than a little improper. I understand, having gone through the effort of tracking down the cause, why another mediator needed to take that case. What I do not understand is why that mediator should have been someone who'd just been in conflict with one of the participants, and why no effort to explain the situation was made. If that is the way in which you normally comport yourself as a volunteer, then be assured that I would never participate in a case with you as moderator, nor advise anyone else to do so. It was just poorly handled.
    This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution... Nor the second, third, nor any other ordinal number. I did not refuse to follow through with the mediation. I explicitly agreed to continue with it. That's not all, however. You stated that FloA was trying to resolve the issue through formal mediation, but left out that he had explicitly posted a refusal to proceed just yesterday. I would provide diffs of this, but naturally, the page has been blanked and its history deleted.
    In fact, you have yet to offer even the slightest hint as to why our entire history of interaction has been you inserting yourself uninvited into discussions in order to align yourself firmly against whatever position I've taken. I don't know why this is, and I don't care to speculate, but it's quite apparent.
    Finally, I have read the boomerang essay. It's part of the reason I didn't come back here the moment FLoA began arbitrarily reverting my and Original Position's edits to the article. It's part of the reason I explicitly told Nyttend that I didn't want to make a new filing here. I don't like posting here, and I don't want admin intervention. I've just come to a point where it's impossible to converse rationally with FLoA, and his behavior is making it impossible for me to edit the article [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    but left out that he had explicitly posted a refusal to proceed just yesterday
    What? This is 100% not true. The mediation was closed because you opened this. The timeline itself confirms this: you cannot have a discussion here and a mediation going simultaneously. This was opened after the mediation, by you. Therefore, we know that mediation would have been closed because of this. I opened both mediation attempts. I have been saying in this entire discussion that I want to mediate. Your accusation here has more holes than swiss cheese at a firing range. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The filing party writes: "I don't want admin intervention." This noticeboard is a place to request admin intervention. What is the purpose of this post if not to request admin intervention? Is the filing party willing to withdraw this post and allow formal mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to pay taxes, either, but I do. Because I want to stay out of jail, more. In this case, I want to improve that article more than I want to avoid getting admins involved, so I came here because I've reached the point where I strongly doubt anything short of admin intervention will get through to FLoA. If that attention consists of something as simple as an admin reiterating that he should not be editing that article, I will be happy. It may be necessary to ban or block him to enforce that, but again: I don't care about that. I care about the article.
    I am willing (as I've stated multiple times now, but which you seem to keep missing) to go forward with mediation, though I have serious doubts as to whether it will work. FLoA has already contradicted himself and made blatantly false claims multiple times in his mediation request, which I remind you again; he opened in a highly dishonest way.
    Don't take my willingness to engage in mediation as a willingness to engage in any mediation in which you are involved, however. I don't know why you have a problem with me, but it is clear that you do, and as a result I don't trust or respect your judgement at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a formal mediator. If there is formal mediation, it will probably be conducted by User:Sunray. However, the request for mediation is on hold (and blanked) because of your filing here. You can't pursue mediation and WP:ANI at the same time. Do you want to withdraw this filing and pursue mediation, or do you want to request admin action such as a topic-ban? You can't do both at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't help but notice that for the very first time, you've actually addressed me directly. I'm not sure what to make of that. I have some hope that a formal mediation deciding the issue might convince him to knock off this sort of behavior. It's not much, but it's some. Admin intervention however, comes with a mechanism of enforcement so that it doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. If I can indeed only pursue one course, then I must balance my options and when faced with the choice between a slim chance and what amounts to a sure thing... Well, that's really not a choice. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that no one except the filing party, the other editor, and I have said anything. That may be partly because the original post is too long, difficult to read, and also because the filing party hasn't requested any specific admin action. The filing party says that they are willing to follow formal mediation, but the presence of this report is blocking mediation. There are several ways forward. First, the filing party can request that this report be closed to permit mediation to advance. Second, the filing party can request some specific admin action, such as a topic-ban of the reported editor, which may either be implemented or declined. Third, this report can sit here until it is archived. I don't know whether formal mediation will be able to continue if this report is archived with no action. Those are the possible ways forward that I see. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The commenting party might want to read Grammatical person and Personal pronouns and familiarize themselves with the usual norms of address in the English (and every single other) language, as the insistence upon maintaining the third person represents a facade of addressing an audience (whose existence the commenting party has questioned) and suggests that addressing the subject directly is beneath the speaker. tl:dr: Your mannerisms are arrogant and rude, and your opinions are unwanted and irrelevant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the basic issue. There was a discussion of this situation on this page a month ago. The result of that discussion was an admin (User:Nyttend) telling FL or Atlanta and PerfectOrangeSphere to stop doing more than minor editing of the Argument from Authority page. PerfectOrangeSphere was not able to abide by this and so was given a one-day block with warnings that the blocks would get worse if he kept editing the page. Then, a week ago, FL or Atlanta did the same thing, reverting the disputed edits back to their favored version three times, before agreeing to keep the page mostly unchanged pending the result of mediation.
    So, to me this issue has already been decided. An admin warned FL or Atlanta that reverting the recent edits made to the article by Mjolnirpant's and myself would result in a block. FL or Atlanta reverted those edits. Ergo, a block should have ensued.
    That being said, it's been almost a week now, and the admins have decided to not block FL or Atlanta. Fine. But now we're left in limbo. Is Nyttend's warning to FL or Atlanta about editing the Argument from Authority page still active? If so, then there is no reason to go through mediation. If it isn't, then fine, let's proceed with mediation. Original Position (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided not to block FL or Atlanta because the point of the original warning was "you don't know what you're doing, so stop it or you'll get blocked", and FL or Atlanta has stopped: the problematic editing seen before, hoaxing with the sources and claiming arguments from authority to be fundamentally fallacious, has stopped as far as I've seen. Before, it was a Wikipedia:Competence is required situation at best, with these two editors misunderstanding everything quite badly; this is one of those rare exceptions to "admins don't decide content issues with admin tools", because sheer incompetence produces results that nobody familiar with the sources could ever produce, so we're free to intervene on one side's favor with admin tools, including blocking the incompetent party if needed. Now, it looks more like an ordinary content dispute, a situation with better-understanding editors disagreeing with each other, and as such, admins shouldn't intervene on one side's favor. This needs to be treated more as an editor-behavior situation, a completely different issue. Nyttend (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, starting with a disclaimer: this sounds odd, but bear with me. Basically, this situation is what I was trying to encourage with the warnings and the block for PerfectOrangeSphere. Before, we had a situation that looked like the Dunning-Kruger effect, with POS and FLorAT misunderstanding so badly that they produced major problems. Now, we have a situation in which FLorAT understands better and is trying to engage the sources. The point of the warnings and block was that you need to inform yourself about the basics of a concept before overhauling its article, learning what the sources are talking about so that you don't unintentionally produce a huge mess, and as far as I can tell, FLorAT has made progress in understanding the sources. Maybe sanctions are needed, but if so, that's probably on the behavioral grounds; if it's again a situation of him making a mess because he doesn't understand the sources, you'll need an admin more familiar than I am with formal logic. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this confusing. You can look at the history page for the Argument for Authority and see that on January 31 FL or Atlanta three times edited the page to reintroduce back into the article both of the problematic content issues you specifically bring up here, i.e. the claim that arguments from authority are fundamentally fallacious and the english archers video as a source. Not only that, FL or Atlanta also introduced additional false claims because of a misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts in the academic literature relating to this topic (i.e. the difference between presumption and assumption).
    I'm not asking for a block--it's too late for that in my opinion. I just want guidance going forward on whether in editing the page we can refer back to your earlier admonition to FL or Atlanta or whether we need to go to mediation to resolve our disagreements. More specifically, I took your warning to be that they should not make substantive edits to the Argument from Authority page because of a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Is that still the case? Original Position (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hardly a "misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts". The definition being used is a legal definition that's being adopted by one of the cited sources, like we discussed. You yourself agree its unclear enough that more explanation is needed with a blue link - and note that the page it redirects to, "presumption", is about legal matters. When you use technical legal terms outside of a legal context, misunderstandings are bound to happen. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it's a basic concept in the academic literature. Walton calls his own and Gensler's interpretation the "presumptive theory" of the argument from authority. It's fine if you aren't familiar with the academic literature, except that you keep resisting the edits of those of us who are. Original Position (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one source the page cites speaks this way. If this truly is a basic, well-known aspect of the literature, why does almost no one else use this terminology? FL or Atlanta (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me spell this out for you: You are asserting that "presume" and "assume" mean the exact same thing in philosophy because common dictionaries give them the same definition (even though there is a wealth of information out there on the difference between the two even in common usage). OP is asserting that this reliable source (Walton) who is an expert on this subject is correct when he states that philosophers draw a distinction between the two. That means you're arguing your own opinion against the statement of a reliable source. If you want to prove OP wrong, find an RS on the topic of philosophy that states the two words mean the same thing. If you can't do that, you can't win.

    I might want to point out to Nyttend the purpose of this argument is to gain traction for the (false) claim that there is a controversy among philosophers over whether arguments from authority are always fallacious, as FLoA continues to assert[11]. He's changed tactics, yes, but he's still pushing the same blatantly wrong interpretation[12]. He's still misusing sources by claiming they support statements they do not, and by re-inserting unverifiable sources[13]. He's still stating as fact things which he knows to be false[14]. I understand that from what I'd shown you on your talk page this wasn't evident (which is my fault), but it's well documented here.

    I really think a topic ban is the best way to go. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You are asserting that "presume" and "assume" mean the exact same thing in philosophy
    See the discussion above for this. This is one single source using the term in a specific, unusual manner.
    (even though there is a wealth of information out there on the difference between the two even in common usage)
    So using a dictionary for the meaning of a word is such profound ignorance that it merits a full topic ban, but it's alright to cite bare Google searches?
    the purpose of this argument is to gain traction for the (false) claim that there is a controversy among philosophers over whether arguments from authority are always fallacious
    I've already said, repeatedly, that in the interest of consensus that is not what I'm advocating for the page. I made that clear in what mediation we had going, before you declined to pursue it in favor of this.
    he's still pushing the same blatantly wrong interpretation
    I give quite a few sources and an analysis of what they say there. Aren't disagreements about sources like this exactly the sort of thing mediation is meant to resolve?
    misusing sources by claiming they support statements they do not
    Again, aren't disagreements about sources a matter for mediation?
    He's still stating as fact things which he knows to be false
    What would that be? To my knowledge everything said there is true.
    This is ridiculous and a complete waste of time. Can't we keep it to the content, get a mediation going, and hammer out a consensus version? Everyone's vision for the article really isn't so far apart. I'd say give it a week or two and we can have a strong, marvelous article that will stand for years to come! FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've convinced me: apparently I didn't check those diffs before. I am now supporting a topic ban. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What in the diffs do you find so objectionable? And why make such a drastic decision before even hearing my take on them? Much of what he says about what's even in the diffs is inaccurate, and even my position on the issue is completely mischaracterized. I'd also like to note that they are all part of conversations on talk pages - none of them are even edits to articles. FL or Atlanta (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nyttend - What diffs are you citing to show that User:FL or Atlanta is continuing to edit disruptively and against consensus? I see that you did have to warn them, and they say that they have gotten the message. I would prefer to see mediation, but if you can show me the continuing disruptive editing, I will agree with you that a topic-ban may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the four diffs that immediately follow "continues to assert"; right now, they're external links #79 through #82. In the first one, FLorAT says My view is that some reliable sources say they are, others say they aren't, other say they are in various situations, etc. He fails to understand, as he did before, that these sources are addressing different contexts: if you're writing in the context of deductive arguments, you're going to say "Appeals to authority are fallacious", without qualification, because inductive arguments (in which appeals to authority are reasonable) are outside your purview. Such a statement must not be used as a basis for saying "Some sources always consider them fallacious", because those sources aren't addressing all situations. In the fourth one, FLorAT continues assuming that his interpretations are correct and criticising MjolnirPants for removing reliable sources because he doesn't like them — MjolnirPants is removing stuff that's being misused, not necessarily saying that such-and-such is an unreliable source. My "stay away from this article" warning was meant to apply as long as he didn't understand the subject, and despite what it looked like at first, FLorAT has demonstrated his continued inability to understand the sources properly (if he understood them, he wouldn't be saying these things), so substantive edits to the article cannot help but cause problems. While I appreciate the fact that he's trying to frame this as a NPOV issue (reflecting the positions of various authors who disagree with each other), it's not that kind of situation: only his misunderstanding of the sources causes him to think that they're in conflict, and there's no actual conflict between the sources. Nyttend (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should read all of the discussions, rather than looking at a few poorly summarized diffs from an in-progress, informal discussion that've been presented by an opposing party. I have given an overview of what quite a few sources say, this was even in MjolnirPants' post - see this edit. I've already repeatedly made it clear - even in this very discussion here - that I'm not saying the page should say they're always fallacious. Like I say here, I'm concerned that the page as it currently stands makes it look like appeals to authority mean you must assume the argument is true. The page even currently gives a form of the argument as "Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct. A says P about S. P is correct". We need more detail than this. Original Position agreed it was rather unclear what "presumption" meant, as he discusses. I am after an article that has more detail on when the appeal is fallacious or fails. This is clear if you read the relevant discussions. Answer honestly: did you read the entirety of the discussions the diffs come from before you made your decision? FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I would like you thoughts on what I say here. I consider that to be proof that MjolnirPants is misrepresenting my conduct and positions. FL or Atlanta (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second diff, you not only altered my comments (which is quite rude and disruptive) by inserting your own into the middle of them, but your "evidence" consists of you saying I'm wrong. The page where you indicated your unwillingness to proceed with mediation has been erased. That diff is evidence of nothing except that you disagree with me. It's also worth noting that in that diff, you claim that you opened both mediation attempts. That is also a lie (and not just false, because there's no way you don't know this), as evidenced here (It shows that I opened the first case). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    inserting your own into the middle of them
    My apologies, that was a mistake - I meant to put them after your post. I've moved them a paragraph lower to where they were meant to go.
    your "evidence" consists of you saying I'm wrong
    As I said, the timeline itself shows this. It would be against policy for this and a mediation to both be open. The mediation was open when you made this. One of my first comments was even "Won't the source and content issues be resolved in our mediation?". You opening this discussion would have closed the mediation, by policy. And why on earth would I be talking about resolving the issue through the mediation if I had just refused to participate in it?
    The page where you indicated your unwillingness to proceed with mediation has been erased.
    But as can be seen, that's not enough cover to allow you to be untruthful about what I said.
    you claim that you opened both mediation attempts
    If you want to be pedantic, more accurately I proposed the first mediation (which you had closed almost immediately) and opened the second. The key fact here is that I've been pro-mediation and attempting to resolve the issue for months. However you closed the first attempt, closed the second, and now are inventing a story where I refused to mediate. FL or Atlanta (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand what Nyttend has explained to you? That's the real question. There are two (possibly three, Original Position hasn't clearly stated one way or the other) people calling for you to be topic banned because your intransigence with respect to this issue. If you will stick to that issue, I will fully cooperate with any light you wish to shed on my own behavior. I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think FL or Atlanta's understanding of this topic is not sufficient for him or her to usefully edit this page in a substantive way. Partly this is a result of ignorance of the source material on this subject, partly it is due to a lack of skill in knowing how to research the answer to an academic question. The questions that initially led to the dispute are easily resolved by looking at the primary sources, which are also relatively easy to identify. The fact that FL or Atlanta was unable to do this search competently, instead finding unreliable or out-of-context sources, or to acknowledge the results of this search when correctly done by MjolnirPants, indicates this lack of skill. The fact that FL or Atlanta continues to disregard the primary sources even after over a month of discussion is particularly troubling and could indicate not just lack of skill, but also serious bias on this topic.

    That being said, I wouldn't vote for a full topic ban on FL or Atlanta. FLorA has remained polite throughout the discussion and I think could still improve the article through discussion on the Talk page (although I think it best if she or he refrained from substantive edits until more knowledgeable about the subject). But more importantly, it is a clear conflict of interest for me to vote for a ban on content grounds of another editor immediately after participating in an argument with them. I wouldn't trust myself to be objective enough to make that vote wisely. Original Position (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you would support restricting FLoA's access to the article page, but not to the talk page. If that is so, I could get behind that, myself. Honestly, any solution that allows the page to progress beyond the sort of original research it currently includes works by me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand what User:Nyttend has said, the problem is not a civility issue or disruptive editing so much as a competency issue, failure to understand the subtle differences between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning and between formal and informal fallacies (and the argument from authority, when fallacious, is an informal fallacy). In that case, my first choice is to close this thread to send the article forward to mediation, leaving the mediator in complete control of the mediation, and able to deal with matters such as misuse of sources and failure to understand. My second choice is a topic-ban from the article page but not from the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MjolnirPants: I am too new to Wikipedia to competently judge the appropriate measures to be taken, so I am recusing myself from the decision. I will raise no objection to whatever you all decide. Original Position (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Original Position: I understand what you are saying. I feel much the same way, which is why I didn't call for a specific action in my initial post. I believe the admins are in a better position to make that call. However, I'm not opposed to making my opinion known, for what it's worth.
    @Robert McClenon: I would agree with your first choice, except that FLoA's failure to understand seems to come with a refusal to accept correction. I just don't know what anyone might say in mediation that hasn't been said already. While I appreciate that a formal mediator adds a significant amount of weight to the final judgement, we've already had an admin explain the problem to him multiple times, with no indication that he has changed his mind. I also think there's a conduct issue with the way he's been arguing in that I can't see how consistently misrepresenting what everyone around him has said is, in any way, the sort of conduct we should endorse, even tacitly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly not the right forum for this discussion

    Not withstanding the fact that MjolnirPants says he was directed her by an admin, this is clearly not the right place to be having this discussion; for the newer editors involved in this disagreement, you need to understand that ANI's purpose is address behavioural issues, not content disputes. Unless there is WP:3RR or formal topic ban involved here, this needs to be handled via normal WP:consensus and dispute resolution processes. I suggest WP:RfC or at least attempting DRN, if they will still moderate the discussion. I don't want to get too far into the content issue, because I haven't seen the sources being weighed and because, again, it's just not relevant to this discussion. But I will say that whether argument from authority is a logical fallacy by definition is clearly a question which reasonable people can reasonably disagree on. It's (obviously) a deeply philosophical question vulnerable to certain subjectivities. Obviously I don't want anyone to ignore the sources, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't some middle-ground solution here. And mind you, I have a formal background in both linguistics and cognitive science, so you can trust that I know a thing or two about tautologies. ;) Bwahahaha! But seriously, let's move this somewhere more appropriate, there's no real resolution to the dispute that we can reach here. Snow let's rap 04:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You're wrong about pretty much everything you said. There is a conduct issue here, dispute resolution has been attempted twice, and whether or not an argument from authority is a fallacy 'by definition' is not subject to debate in any way whatsoever (one wonders about your claim to a background in linguistics when you make such a statement). Note that I'm not saying I disagree. I'm flatly stating that you are objectively wrong about almost everything you said.. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A) If there is a behavioural issue involved here, then you have a responsibility as the party who opened this discussion to provide diffs establishing as much. You haven't done that. You've provided a long list of diffs of another party making content arguments you happen to disagree with. Like any other editor on this project who is not subject to a topic ban, they are completely entitled to assert their position, even if you are really, really convinced you are in the right. This project is based on collaboration between parties with often highly distontigous outlooks. An editor is not deemed to be acting in a WP:disruptive fashion just because they assert something that another party (or even the majority) believes is incorrect (or even colossally wrong). What is disruptive is when a party attempts to subvert the consensus-making process (such as through the attempt to intimidate other contributors or chill opposing positions, or by violating WP:3RR or other procedural rules), acts uncivilly to their fellow editors, or otherwise breaks from a collaborative mindset. Present us evidence that FLoA has acted in such a manner and we will something to discuss, but, having taking a brief look at that talk page and read the entire discussion above, I'm joining with other editors here who have suggested you might want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG (and probably WP:BATTLEGROUND as well).
    B) According to our most active DRN mediator, both times that mediation has "been attempted", as you put it, the process had to be cut short specifically because you took an action (such as this thread) which brings an immediate end to the DRN process, as a matter of policy. For that matter, from what I can see, there hasn't been a single attempt, on the part of you are any other party to the dispute, to RfC this issue or otherwise avail yourself of any of the many, many other community insight mechanisms that are usually used well in advance of formal mediation. So, no, you haven't even begun to exhaust your options for resolving this issue in a collaborative manner.
    C) I'm not going to argue the content point with you here; you've been told numerous times already that this is not the purpose of ANI. And since your apparently absolute inability to tolerate opinions divergent from your own seems to have created a situation in which you became blind to the tone of my comments, I'll point out to you that my having referenced my formal background was meant as a matter of humour--an attempt to bring some flash-in-the-pan-length levity to a situation that is apparently dominated by content warriors at present. It wasn't genuinely meant to convince you of anything. Do you know why it wasn't (other than the fact that I'd have to be completely lacking in a sense of irony to make such a statement in this context)? Because it's not in any sense relevant to a Wikipedia content discussion. Neither credentials nor a self-assumed air of expertise govern how we weight arguments in this project.
    Here, one's arguments either comport with the sources and community consensus for WP:verifiability and WP:Neutrality principles (and other content guidelines) as assessed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or they don't. But the very first thing I saw on that talk page when I decided to follow up on this dispute (after reading the above thread) was you attempting to shoot-down another editor's argument with exactly this rational: you need to listen to us, because we know more than you. That's a completely non-compelling argument, verging on problematic battleground behaviour, anywhere on Wikipedia--but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it seems especially indicative of a certain lack of self-awareness when delivered on the talk page for the argument from authority article, where I would expect editors to know better, even if they are relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's consensus-building process.
    Anyway, you can continue to take umbrage with everyone here who is trying to give you good advice, from the veteran editors, to mediators, to the very same admin who you are attempting to cite as having given you the authority to dismiss the opinion of other editors out of hand (who has clearly attempted to stress to you above that his actions do not give you a blank check to act in this fashion), but I can fairly well promise you that this thread is going to be closed without a sanction against your "opposition", because insofar as his activities to date (as represented by all of the diffs here) are concerned, he hasn't done anything actionable. And for every editor who makes a good-faith effort to point you towards compromise that you snap at, you get yourself a little closer to a WP:trouting at the least, and possibly even a genuine boomerang sanction, since, whatever you think of his content argument, FLoA seems to be comporting himself much better with our collaboration policies at present than you are. At least, insofar as my window into the issue here and in the most recent TP threads is concerned. Snow let's rap 03:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: I have no response to you. You come here with a chip on your shoulder, making blatantly untrue assertions while laying claim to an expertise you don't seem to realize your own claims lacks (linguistics != philosophy), you insist that I haven't done most of the things I have done just above, you insist there's a consensus against my request (in fact, the only person who has argued against a topic ban for FLoA is FLoA himself)... You take an extemely confrontational tone, in order to accuse me of battleground editing... I have no response to you, because I there is no such thing as a rational response to this kind of tripe.
    In case you haven't noticed, you are the only person I'm addressing here. Do you know why that is? Because, as I've said multiple times and which you either didn't read or didn't give a crap about; the only thing I care about is the article. FLoA isn't editing the article right now, which means that I'm fully satisfied as things stand. You might also notice that I've been fine with another editor who held this same divergent opinion editing the article, because his edits are now improving it. The only thing keeping me here is you and your ridiculously confrontational (and ridiculous in general) accusations. And those, I don't have the time or patience for. So go bother someone else, I'm done with ya. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Chip on my shoulder? I'm a completely uninvolved party (who has not edited the article in question, nor a related article nor interacted with any of the disputants in any way) who is trying to tell you that you've deeply misunderstood the purpose of this noticeboard and the nature of what differentiates a content argument that you simply don't like from genuine disruptive behaviour on this project. I made one oblique reference to my outlook that the topic is a complex one, merely as part of an appeal to all parties towards a collaborative mindset, and you jumped down my throat telling me how "wrong, wrong, wrong!" I am, even though all I said was that it was a topic that "reasonable people can reasonably disagree about"; I didn't say anything about what the content should reflect based on our sources (again, as we've tried to tell you repeatedly, that's not what this space is for). You got so worked up about that one brief comment, which is the first I assume you've ever seen of me (and which wasn't directed at any party in particular), that you pretty unambiguously implied I was a liar (on a topic that doesn't even have any weight to the matter at hand in any event).
    Looking at the discussion above and the recent talk page threads, this approach of hyperbolic overreaction to ideas you disagree with--particularly by attacking the qualities (/perceived credentials/perceived shortcomings) of the other party rather than their arguments--seems to be becoming your modus operandum and that's just not how content discussions are conducted on this project. Furthermore, there's an issue here with how you perceive your role on that page, and what the actions and perspectives you feel entitled to embrace just because you are certain you have the best interests of the article and mind and believe you're knowledge puts you in a position to adjudicate what that means. Look at your comments above:
    "as I've said multiple times and which you either didn't read or didn't give a crap about; the only thing I care about is the article. FLoA isn't editing the article right now, which means that I'm fully satisfied as things stand. You might also notice that I've been fine with another editor who held this same divergent opinion editing the article, because his edits are now improving it.
    Please read WP:OWN. You're fully satisfied because another editor has now been cow-tailed into not editing the article, even though he has received no topic ban or other community sanction for the subject matter, just your ire for seeing things differently? You're fine with another editor who previously put forth ideas you didn't like because he is now only making edits you approve of as "improving" (sorry, "improving") the article? Well, your idea that your subjective assessment of what "improves" an article is what will govern whether or not another contributor's involvement in that article is "disruptive" is or in the article's best interest, is deeply problematic in itself. We have a consensus-building process to make those determinations, and its predicated on presenting detailed arguments about the sources and the content, not your hair-trigger assessments of other editors based on your own self-assessment that you know this topic best and thus know what is best for the article.
    In cases where such detailed discussions do take place (including efforts to reach out to the broader community via WP:RfC or other mechanisms in instances where there is a deadlock or the number of editors is so small that they can't constitute a strong consensus decision; i.e. the kind of 2v2, 2v1, 3v2 that often plague articles on which small numbers of editors are trying to trash out a content issue) do lead to an established consensus and another editor continues to try to edit the article against that consensus, then THAT is disruptive. Do you have any diffs to present to prove that FLoA did that? Because then we would have something to discuss here. How about violations of WP:3RR? We could also respond to that. Did he make any WP:Personal attacks? Did he WP:SOCK in an attempt to change the outcome of a discussion? Did he follow you to another space to WP:HOUND you? These are all examples of what this community views as disruptive behaviour. At present time, "having an opinion MjolnirPants really, really disagrees with" is not considered a disruptive activity on a talk page. Present us with a diff that represents something the community recognizes as disruptive under policy or else drop the stick and go back to the talk page and discuss this matter civilly, using RfC or another process to clarify the issue conclusively, if necessary. Snow let's rap 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to admin As I posted above, FLoA seems to have stopped editing the page. I'm not sure why this is, but it is the result I wanted. On the positive side, the other user from the original AN/I notice is editing the page in a helpful way, which is simply awesome. I'm not sure what Snow Rise wants or expects, but right now, all of my concerns have been alleviated and I'm content. I hope that the direction this discussion took will be enough. I'm going to post diffs of some of the comments here to FLoA's talk page, to make sure he understands in the (likely) case he's not been following it, and I'm content to let this discussion be closed. I'm also un-watching this page, so if my attention is needed, please ping me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to Close

    The assessment of User:Snow Rise is persuasive. This is not a conduct dispute. It is at its basis a content dispute. Adding incorrect information and using unreliable sources are really content issues. It is only if an editor tendentiously inserts incorrect information or uses unreliable sources, or edit-wars about the incorrect information, that there is the conduct issue of disruptive editing. I have not seen any evidence of edit-warring or tendentious editing. This issue should be sent back to formal mediation if the parties are still willing to mediate and the mediators are willing to reopen the suspended mediation. If mediation has been foreclosed, a Request for Comments is in order. This thread should be closed and sent back to content dispute resolution. It is a content dispute.

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we needed a formal proposal here, since it was inevitable that this was going to be closed in short order for lack of any evidence of behavioural issue which can be addressed by community sanction under any policy. Nonetheless, I support as a means of indicating to both sides of this dispute that they must WP:Drop the stick and find a way to collaborate civilly--and particularly to learn how to disagree by predicating their arguments on our content guidelines and not eachother's shortcomings/their own superiority. Snow let's rap 18:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Incident with user Mona778

    Hi. This message is offensive for me, and for other users. I explained to Mona that I was offended, and I demanded he/she delete his/her comment, but the only answer I received is that Mona778 deleted my comment. Is it correct that Mona deletes comments of other users in a third person's talk page? I think my comment wasn't impolite or a violation of WP:ETIQ. I think we can't accept that an user is belittling another editor or group of editors. I remember that WP:ETIQ says: "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits." Then I can't accept someone says that my edits in other projects are anarchic or an example of how eswiki is a "jungle".

    I'm asking for intervention of an admin to settle this incident, Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 13:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    That is my talk page that you are talking about. But not my edits.
    Your representation of the situation is wrong. Mona778 did actually delete her own comment that you said had offended you.
    Mona778 has certain opinions about the Spanish Wikipedia that may be right and may be wrong. Mona778 providing an example of why she feels that way is not a personal attack. Although it is not very relevant to English Wikipedia either.
    Mona778 should re-read the English Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and be aware that here on English Wikipedia it is not generally considered acceptable to blank others' comments on others' talk pages or on noticeboards. Mona778 may not be aware of this because people on English Wikipedia and other projects have repeatedly edit warred with her on her own talk page about what she may and may not have there. For example on her talk page here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have anything to add to what MPS1992 already said. So I suggest to you not to look for trouble, or stir up hatred. This community is based on cooperation, and friendship, don't try to tarnish it for some questionable purposes. I wish you luck in life and goodbye. ( Mona778 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) )[reply]
    MPS, I’ not talking about your edits. See the diffs, and read again.
    Mona778. Then, I was trying to tarnish it for some questionable purposes? Prove it! These kind of implied purposes are inacceptable. Prove it or delete it!
    I understand that Mona is a new user, and I understand that this person still has not read all the policies of Wikipedia, and therefore I'm not asking for locking him/her account, but all I want is that he/she stops using the pages of enwiki to speak ill of other Wikipedians and other projects. I want intervention from a sysop to decide whether the messages she has left are appropriate or not. Maybe Mona has partially deleted the message in MPS’ talk page, but the message above is not better, and my message is still deleted.
    Criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of, or critical response to, talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to, out of respect for other editors. WP:ETIQ
    I understand that someone does not agree or do not appreciate eswiki, it's normal. It is normal to say that I disagree with something or everything that happens in this project, but it is not normal to go out there, speaking ill of others. If Mona thinks my edits or actions in other projects are wrong, he/she can write me directly.
    But not… Mona comes to offend me a second time, here in this page, and a third time here. “The same people”? After that he/she says I wish you luck in life and goodbye What? Mona expects I’ll be rest in silence?
    Sorry, I'm on the road, and I can't edit often like I want. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 20:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    I think that if you and others spent less time engaging with Mona778 on English Wikipedia, and on Commons and on other projects, then Mona778 would probably spend less time "using the pages of enwiki to speak ill of other Wikipedians and other projects".
    Which brings me to wonder, how is it that you ended up seeing Mona778's comment about jungles on my talkpage, so that you could be offended by it? Have you and I worked on content on English Wikipedia together before now, so that you had my talkpage watchlisted? Or did you end up on my talkpage some other way?
    I do not think that any administrator intervention is required, other than the thoughts already kindly offered by User:Drmies. Also I do not think it is useful for Mona778 to write to you "directly". Or to try to "prove" anything that you are arguing about. Bye. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yes. Great. Mona should have struck through the "jungle" comment, rather than deleting it. And she shouldn't have deleted Jmvkrecords comment. And Jmvkrecords, and all those other cats, should stop complaining. After all, the comment about a user having been blocked for socking was correct. What a waste of time and electrons--MPS, do they really want us to think there's a posse out to hound and hunt down Mona? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    endless dispute over Gospels on the Jesus page

    This conflict is about the Jesus page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It involves these editors:

    To a lesser extent, these editors have also been involved in related discussions:

    For months, one opinionated editor has tried to push their unpopular views on the other editors, advocating for major changes to the page. Most other editors have repeatedly denounced these suggestions as biased, unnecessary, contrary to the WP way of doing things, and against consensus. Currently all actual discussion on the topic has broken down, and the ad hominem comments are increasing. I'm here asking an administrator to help us resolve this impasse. I'm the opinionated editor with the unpopular views. I say we should describe Jesus the way RSs describe Jesus. The most active, vocal editors, on the other hand, strongly prefer that the page describe Jesus primarily the way the Gospels describe him. Please help us.

    On the surface, the issue is content, but underneath it's conduct. Vocal editors have established a norm on the Jesus page that editors should decide how to describe Jesus based on their best judgment rather than on policies or RSs. Their approach is to say that no big changes can be made to the page without consensus, and then they withhold consensus from changes they don't like. Meanwhile, no consensus is required to keep the page the same. Since they back up their decisions with personal opinion rather than policy and RSs, there's no evidence I can look at with them to come to a mutual understanding. In fact, they dismiss the idea of evidence. I've been working on the page slowly but steadily for over a year now, and now my progress is at a standstill. For their part, the editors genuinely believe that they are in the right, and they are absolutely sick of me and my refusal to go along with the majority. More and more, they refuse to even explain why they revert my edits, remove dispute tags, etc. With no progress possible, I'm escalating this issue and hoping for a resolution.

    Why is this issue so heated? The point of the other editors' stance is to protect the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Contrary to WP guidelines and the examples of RSs, this page describes Jesus primarily by summarizing the Gospels. Critical commentary is explicitly excluded from the body of this section, which is the biggest section on the page. Historical information is relegated to a secondary section, so the article has two different sections to describe Jesus' life, baptism, teaching, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection. An open discussion based on policies and RSs would potentially lead to the Gospels no longer getting favored treatment as the primary way we tell the reader about Jesus.

    Naturally, these editors sincerely think that they are following policy and RSs. They just don't point to any policies or RSs to support them. The big questions they don't answer are:

    • What RS describes Jesus primarily by summarizing the Gospels?
    • What policy says we should describe Jesus' life twice, once as a Bible character, and once as a historical figure?
    • What guideline or RS demonstrates that we should exclude critical commentary from the Gospel summaries?
    • How would it hurt the page for it to emulate Britannica's approach and merge the historical and Gospel descriptions?

    My last attempt to reach consensus was a request on the dispute resolution noticeboard. A few potential moderators recused themselves, one editor refused to participate on the grounds that it's a conduct issue and not a content issue, and no moderators volunteered to handle the dispute. Previously I had tried an NPOV request on the question of whether the historical section should go first. One commenter said put the historical section first, and another said merge the historical and Gospel sections, but neither suggestion was acted on. I also tried an RfC on the the same question. The results were mostly No, although no policies or RSs were referenced in opposition to the idea.

    For the nine years that I've been editing WP, the Gospels section of the Jesus article has been a source of recurrent conflict. In 2006 when I started editing WP, the Gospels section had no historical introduction (link). Other editors and I added one, but only against resistance from certain editors. The compromise at the time was to have a historical intro to the section but to exclude historical and scholarly comment from the body of the section. There is no support for such a compromise in WP guidelines or among RSs. To this day, editors put up a lot of resistance to the historical approach to describing Jesus, even resisting additions to the parallel "historical views" section. This resistance is a big problem because the historical approach is the mainstream approach, which WP should summarize faithfully.

    You can see how far the Jesus article diverges from RSs by comparing it to good encyclopedias.

    Here is Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
    Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias.

    Here are several diffs where the other editors have their say. They offer several opinions on why the page should be this way, but none of those opinions are backed up by WP policies or by RSs.

    Historical information restricted.

    • Special restriction on what we can put in the history section: diff
    • Historical information excluded from Gospels section: diff diff
    • This sentence was modified back and forth and then finally deleted: diff
    • Reference to world's top scholar on historical Jesus deleted. diff
    • Deleting references to the notability of historical works: diff
    • "There are no 'historical accounts'": diff
    • Historical commentary excluded from Gospels section, only description of the text allowed: diff
    • Historial commentary has no value other than to whisper doubt into the ears of the naïve: diff
    • Primary-text tag removed from Gospels section: diff
    • Primary-text tag removed from Transfiguration section: diff

    Policies, guidelines, and RSs do not apply.

    • We should use other WP articles as our guidelines rather than RSs: diff
    • RSs aren't relevant to this issue: diff
    • Gospels are primary sources so they go before history, the examples of RSs don't apply: diff
    • The issue is not about evidence or facts, but about what editors prefer: diff
    • Rules for WP:STRUCTURE and POV do not apply to Gospel accounts: diff
    • Policies don't apply because Gospels are primary sources: diff

    Discussion is stymied. For example...

    • Undue weight tag removed: diff
    • LittleJerry refuses to carry on discussion of why he reverted Undue Weight tag: diff
    • Undue weight tag removed and historical commentary deleted: diff
    • Farsight refuses to explain why he reverted the Undue Weight tag: diff
    • Done with my petulant bullshit: diff
    • Refusal to discuss Due Weight tag link
    • Refusal to conclude conversation about Gospel contradictions: link
    • Refusal to explain what's wrong with the Britannica approach or really to discuss anything further: diff
    • At Farsight's suggestion, StAnselm shuts down my thread as tendentious: link

    The norm of making decisions without reference to RSs or policy spreads to new editors who join the page. Here's a new editor agreeing with an approach where no RSs or policies have entered the discussion: diff

    The Jesus page gets a lot of traffic and is mirrored by other Internet sites, so this page should show WP at its best. This page is important enough that I think that this conflict deserves high-level attention. Please help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a couple problems here. First, this is a WP:TLDR post. Second, this is a content dispute and, since there is little that admins can do about that, you should move this to WP:DR. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    MarnetteD beat me to it, I was going to make exactly the same comment. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to take this someplace else if that's better. So far, content-oriented disputes haven't worked. I took this issue to dispute resolution already. The main editor I'm in disagreement with, StAnselm, refused to participate on the grounds that the dispute was over conduct rather than content. And no moderators volunteered to take the case. The moderator who closed the case suggested I could take it here. Likewise, the advice we got from the NPOV noticeboard was ignored. Since the content-oriented approaches failed, I came here. WP:DR didn't get us anywhere before. Should I just try again? Or are there other options? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What dispute resolution forum did you try? Given the number of editors whom you say are the problem, it sounds as though it might be appropriate to request formal mediation. Have you tried that? If so, what happened? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help. This is the first time I've had to go past dispute resolution with an issue, so maybe I took a wrong turn. Mediation looks like a good bet. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And the dispute resolution that went nowhere was on the WP:DRN page. Potential moderators recused themselves because of personal attachment to the topic and previous interaction with one of the editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, your statement that the other editors say not to make major changes without consensus, and then your claim that the other editors "withhold consensus" from changes they don't like, seems to be a description of how the consensus process is supposed to work. Are you saying that you should be allowed to decide what is consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking me to clarify. You're right about consensus. I'm saying that since policies and RSs aren't used as our touchstones, consensus is being withheld based on personal preference. If we could look at RSs together and work to make the page represent them better, we could reach consensus. Withholding consensus because of one's personal beliefs is against WP policy, I think. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I was pinged, a short comment. Jonathan, I often agree with you on content matters and you're very knowledgeable, but maybe it's time to drop the stick. As you say, you haven't been able to gain a consensus on the talk page (in my view you were correct some times and wrong some times) but I fear your unwillingness to accept that is becoming a problem (see WP:HEAR). As you also say, you've tried several different boards here on WP. Discussions going in circles for months, several boards implied, and no change in consensus. As Robert McClenon says, that's how consensuses work. I'm afraid that the only thing you'll accomplish by this campaign that approaches a year is to earn yourself a topic ban if an admin decides to imply failure to WP:HEAR. That would be a shame, as you're a knowledgeable user. If nothing has changed after all the different ways you try, then maybe it's time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting. I agree that maybe it's time for me to move on. I had hoped for resolution in the dispute process, but no one would moderate it. I'm looking for resolution and, if I'm wrong, an answer to the question of how I'm reading policies and guidelines wrong. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have said that the way we do the Gospels is wrong. They're just not willing to make a big deal over it. So I feel as though I am representing others, not just myself. It would be a lot harder to keep going if several other editors hadn't also called for changes. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously when I have needed to escalate an issue on this page and others, I've used a dispute tag. The dispute tag shakes things up, gets attention on the topic, and leads to a resolution. This time around, my dispute tags are summarily deleted, so I haven't been able to resolve the dispute in the usual way. I could recast this incident as "These editors revert my dispute tags." Then it's a narrower incident, and it's about conduct. Or maybe mediation is really the way to go. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It would appear that your dispute tags are being reverted because there is consensus that they are not needed. If there is consensus that they are not needed, there is no conduct issue. If one editor were reverting dispute tags, that might be a conduct issue. If multiple editors are reverting them, then you are tagging against consensus. I would suggest either requesting mediation or a Request for Comments. You must understand, however, that the RFC might determine that consensus is against you. Also, if consensus is against you, the mediation might not get your changes made. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point. Plenty of editors have called for changes to this section, so it doesn't look like a consensus to me. Honestly I'd rather stick to content issues. But the advice we got from the NPOV notice was ignored, and my main disputant has stated he refuses to discuss the issue in terms of content. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, "It would appear that your dispute tags are being reverted because there is consensus that they are not needed." Now that StAnselm and Isambard Kingdom have spoken up (below), they say there's no consensus on the critical-comments issue or on the merging-sections issue. So my dispute tags were removed without consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather discuss content, but you said before that you want to treat this as a conduct issue. I guess this means there's no need to ask if you want to take it to mediation. Would you like to proceed, since it's your idea? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're certainly treating it as a conduct issue yourself, with all the accusations you've made in this thread. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to let the ad hominem comments etc slide and just talk about the content. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    From taking a cursory look at the history of the talk page, I do not see any glaring conduct issues. In fact, I see remarkably civil discussions for an extremely sensitive topic. It seems more to me like Jonathan Tweet is upset consensus has not fallen on his side, and wishes to escalate the dispute until it does, or he wins by ArbCom fiat. I'm sure that Jonathan is completely sincere in his belief that he is right, but I see nothing actionable in what he has presented or what I can find myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think that I speak for ArbCom when I say that no, the less work we get the better. I don't see any reason here, besides Anselm's suggestion, that this can should be kicked that far down the road. In fact, ANI has been remarkably gospel free recently, which is usually a pretty good indication of it being trouble-free in the first place (when was the historicity of Jesus a big deal? is it still?). I'm waiting to see if the other editors who are pinged here are going to weigh in, because their comments, and of course those of others who look into the matter, can suggest a way forward. Pardon me for being crude here, but if indeed the plaintiff is the only one with a problem, then there's two quick and easy suggestions already: a. ignore them and b. topic-ban them. If, on the other hand, there is something to their complaints, we should probably hear about it from more/other editors. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (as one of the named parties): Jonathan Tweet says that he wants to keep this about content, but there are lots of references in this post to user conduct: "ad hominem comments", "refusal to discuss", etc. Jonathan Tweet accuses me of refusing to conclude a conversation - as the time stamps indicate, Tweet made a comment on 30 December, and I replied the same day; he then made a comment on 3 January, and I replied the same day; he was then silent for 9 days and then made comments on 12 January and 23 January. It's a bit rich to call this "refusal to conclude"; the discussion had gone stale because he was away for more than a week. This has been a pattern with his editing: there may be good reasons why he has to be away from WP, but he shouldn't blame other editors for not waiting for him (which is, I think, a corollary of WP:OWN). And if I can generalise a little, Jonathan Tweet does seem to be insisting that discussions are conducted on his terms. He admits that he accepted a compromise way back in 2006, but then criticises that compromise position that he accepted. He started an RfC (see Talk:Jesus/Archive 126#RfC: Which should go first: the historical account or the canonical Gospel account?) but doesn't seem to want to accept the result (which was, in fact, closed a WP:SNOW in favour of keeping the "Gospel account" section). StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You couldn't provide an RS that contradicts Sanders' statement that the empty tomb stories contradict each other. You couldn't provide a policy that says we need to qualify his statement. If RSs and policies are not the reason you don't want the article to say that the stories contradict each other, what's your motivation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did. And yes I did. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read this entire discussion and looked over the article. Reliable sources should be the deciding factor in any content or conduct dispute. If one party wishes the entire article to contain content that is cited to reliable sources and another wishes the article to contain content according to their religious beliefs, then clearly we as editors support the first party over the second. We're not going to take the Kim Davis approach here and insist that the beliefs of our faith should always trump Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Having said that, I see that this was made a Featured Article by nominating editor User:FutureTrillionaire just before Jonathan Tweet came along and therefore is probably already is cited to reliable sources throughout. Jonathan, have you discussed this issue with this editor? Do you think anyone, including yourself, is failing to maintain the article according to the strict standards of an FA and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia? If so, and certainly if anyone's religious beliefs are being held to a higher standard than Wikipedia policy, then this seems like a fairly open-and-shut case. Take this to ArbCom, as User:StAnselm suggests. Prhartcom (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some independent eyes at these articles would be a good idea. We have statements such as "Some of those who claimed to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection later died for their belief, which indicates that their beliefs were likely genuine", cited to a theologian. Anyone else see a problem with that sentence, or is it just me? Guy (Help!) 12:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what you mean by 'problem'. Theologically speaking, someone who has been persecuted and martyrd for their beliefs, does indicate their beliefs had weight depending on the viewpoint of the person making the statement. Jesus died for our sins and all that. Of course thats complete rubbish for any science or evidence based article but in context and attributed correctly may be relevant on religious/theological/faith articles depending on how it is used. Can you link where that is from? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, found it. It could be worded better but in context its meant to emphasise that the witnesses of the resurrection died for their beliefs, not that their beliefs regarding the resurrection were real - but that their faith in what they saw was real - hence 'dying for their belief'. Its not meant to comment on the fact of their belief, only the strength of their faith. Its relevant in context due to the subsequent motives ascribed to the authors of the gospels - that they may have been less than truthful. That some of them died for their beliefs (for theologians) indicates they did believe what they wrote. It could probably use a re-write but in the context in which it is used, its a relevant theological argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Prhartcom, " I see that this was made a Featured Article by nominating editor User:FutureTrillionaire just before Jonathan Tweet came along and therefore is probably already is cited to reliable sources throughout. Jonathan, have you discussed this issue with this editor?" Yes, I have.. If you look at the Gospels summaries, you will see that they are sourced mostly to the Gospels themselves or to sources that merely paraphrase the Gospels without critically analyzing them. Certain scholarly commentary is allowed, but most is excluded See the diffs above. Historical commentary that's cited to the best RSs gets reverted if it's too likely to whisper doubt into the ears of the naive, as Mangoe phrases it. Compare how we treat the Gospels to how any other encyclopedia on Jesus does. We're the only ones to set the Gospels off without historical commentary, context, etc. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I like how the article separates the Gospel account from the historical account. We're probably better than the other publications for doing so. I think you might want to admit that this is useful organizational structure, a view apparently approved by the FA reviewers (the approved version is here). Now, I agree with you if you are saying scholarly commentary is being prevented from being added to the historical section when it goes against another editor's faith. No editor should let their faith cloud their adherence to policy. Remind us of any diffs where that is happening and I, for one, will side with you. But read the wise words of User:Only in death above. Documenting the expression of faith is perfectly encyclopedic. Take a step back and wear the shoes of a faithful scholar and see how they fit. Your opponents should do the same and wear your shoes. Generally speaking, the role of those who maintain the article should be to keep it FA quality and in compliance with policy and guidelines, sticking to the reliable secondary and primary sources, and presenting as well-rounded an article as possible. Prhartcom (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Prhartcom, thanks for your offer of help on the historical section. Certain editors have tried to define that section very restrictively. Here's an example of historical information from the world's top Jesus scholar deleted from the historical section: diff. And StAnselm enforcing a narrow understanding of what historical information is allowed not he page: diff. if you're serious about helping, I would greatly appreciate it when the time comes. When the dust has settled here I would like to call in your help. I get your saying that expressions of faith are fine if they'r treated right. I've worked on every section of this page, including the Christian views section, so I am with you. You say, "I like how the article separates the Gospel account from the historical account. We're probably better than the other publications for doing so." This is the crux of my issue. Can you point me to a policy that says something like, "Follow published sources, unless the editors can agree on an original approach that they like better"? This is the problem to which I can't find a solution. How strong do editors' preferences have to be to override RSs? Typically we follow RSs, but on the Jesus page we are following the beliefs and experiences of the editors to do something better, as you approvingly point out. I couldn't find any guidance in policy on when to follow RSs and when to ignore RSs in favor of an original approach preferred by editors. If there's a policy or guideline you can point me to that explains when it's OK not to follow published sources, I would like to see it, and maybe that would answer my question and explain to me how it's OK that we don't follow RSs. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is loaded language, of course - "enforcing a narrow understanding". The point of my talk page comment (the diff of which you provided) is that the "historicity of events" subsection (which is, of course, only part of the broader "historical views" section) seems to be focusing on the "basics of Jesus' life" on which "historians have reached a limited consensus", as the lead sentence indicates. So I was questioning whether miracles really belonged in that discussion. And you know what? I never got an answer to my question. StAnselm (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have pinpointed a key difference between me and you. I try to decide what goes in the article based on RSs. You try to decide what goes in the article by looking at the article itself or other WP articles, like Moses. If the article is structured such that we aren't representing the RSs (which include stuff on miracles), then the problem is with the structure of the article, not the information from the RS. We should find a way to include the information that RSs offer their readers. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to thank you, Prhartcom, for saying that we diverge from the RSs. It seems obvious to me. But if you listen to the other editors, they say that we are in line with RSs, which really confuses the issue. I've been a lone voice saying we diverge from RSs, and I've taken personal criticism for making that case, so I appreciate your validating my viewpoint. We diverge from how RSs describe Jesus. I'm just happy to hear someone else say that. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Prhartcom, I appreciate your offer of help with the historical section. if the editors on the page say they have consensus to keep certain information off the page, doesn't that trump the RSs? The issues I have on this page are that consensus is trumping RSs, so getting unwelcome historical information into the history section seems like it would take more than a little help. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being very dishonest. None of us said that our article is exactly the same as others in terms of layout but we did say that the content we cover is consistent with what RS's cover. You have failed to show otherwise. LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    LittleJerry, "You're being very dishonest." That's mean. If you think that the page aligns with WP policy in terms of content, and that the deviation in layout is fine, then please let's do formal mediation and resolve that point like civil editors. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content comment Since we apparently discuss content at ANI, my view is that Jonathan Tweet, while a good and knowledgeable editor, is very much mistaken in presenting this as an argument between faith and sources. If that were the case, it would be easy. It's not. Contrary to what Jonathan says, I don't see the article relying on gospels nor do I see anyone suggesting it should. Mainstream academia in this field "rely" on the gospels. Not that they accept them as the truth, but as some of the earliest records. What the article should do is of course to present this mainstream research. Now, I have deliberately stopped following the talk page discussions months ago, but looking back, I get a bit of an impression that it's not really gospels vs RS, it's rather RS saying one thing vs RS saying another thing. That's fine, but it's not an issue for Ani nor for ArbCom (Drmies, correct me if I'm wrong). I really do not think it's helpful when Jonathan continues to present this dispute as a "believers vs scholars" and accusing some of those involved of preferring faith. Jonathan, you know I've supported you in several matters, including the table we both supported and unfortunately didn't gain consensus, but I really must tell you that I fear you be the problem. I see no bad conduct from anyone involved, just serious users arguing their case. I may not always agree with all of their views, but there's nothing wrong with their conduct. Wikipedia works by consensus, and neither ANI nor ArbCom nor Jimmy Wales nor anyone else is going to step in and overturn that. I've lost count of the number of RfCs and other venues taken to overturn the consensus, none of them going anywhere and probably rightly so. I encouraged you yesterday to drop the stick and I repeat it now. I do think you're right in some of your concerns but I do not think it justifies all of the endless discussions that have become very repetitive and frankly is the reason I left that article. Jeppiz (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeppiz, ArbCom can handle most everything but prefers to handle nothing, and not just because we're on strike pending a dispute over our lunch and dinner allowances from the Foundation; it's always best if editors handle stuff by themselves--content- and conduct-wise. I do not see any reason to think that this can't be solved here, at DR, or on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There have conduct issues involving the early history of Christianity in the past, but I don't see any allegations of conduct issues, just the filing party's statement that "consensus is being withheld", which appears to mean that consensus goes against his changes. This doesn't sound like a case has been made that there are conduct issues that the community can't deal with; I don't see much of a case of conduct issues. I will repeat my suggestion to try formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, I agree with you that mediation would be a great solution. You would do me a great favor if you could persuade StAnselm to agree to formal mediation. He doesn't want to discuss this as a content issue, but I think that could reach a resolution with mediation. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jonathan Tweet - Has he said that he doesn't want formal mediation? If so, he can't be required to accept it. Also, be aware that formal mediation will not necessarily result in a resolution that you will like. Your initial statement at the start of this thread didn't seem to show a willingness to compromise, when you said that other editors were "withholding consensus", when the real problem is that they were the consensus. Have you tried filing a request for mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would largely depend on the terms of the mediation. Certainly not on the pseudo-issue of "Do we accept reliable sources or follow our own personal beliefs?". Nor on "Should the historical account go first?" (since we had an RfC on that). Nor on "Should scholarly comment go in the Canonical gospel accounts section?" (since I haven't really ever expressed an opinion on that). Nor on "Should the historical and gospel accounts be merged?" (since that really ought to have an RfC as a prior step). I am rather unclear about what Jonathan Tweet wants mediation about, actually. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sticking with this, StAnselm. In mediation, I would like to address the issue of whether the page faithfully represents RSs, as directed by policy. You think it does? If so, let's get a mediator. But I see by your response that there are two open issues on the page, which you helpfully name: whether to include critical commentary in the Gospels section and whether to merge the sections. It would seem that there's no consensus to keep the sections separate or to exclude critical commentary. Both are open issues and legitimate topics where you haven't reached a decision, right? This is the first time I've heard you that there's no consensus on these issues. Other editors have treated me as though there is indeed a consensus on those two open issue. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a consensus on merging sections (if by this you mean merging the sections on historical and gospel sections). That would be a major rewrite, and I don't see the motivation for this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There's no consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Jonathan Tweet, you have to gain consensus to merge them, not vice-versa. Please stop being tendentious. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hallward's Ghost, you talk like you're disagreeing with me, but you're agreeing with me. Jonathan Tweet (talk)
    "Both are open issues and legitimate topics where you haven't reached a decision, right?" Wrong. I don't see how you could possibly conclude that from my comments. But yes, as noted above - we have slippery language with this phrase "no consensus" - certainly in the case of merging sections, there was no consensus to do so, and the issue was decided and you should drop it. I would say that probably applies to just about every other point you have raised. StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Anselm, earlier you seemed to be implying that we could do mediation if we could find the right topic. Is that right? Should we try to find a topic to discuss in mediation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be the tail wagging the dog. StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweet is essentially using our policies on sourcing to try to dictate the layout and sequence of a short encyclopedia article. This is very dubious, and I'm not aware of other cases where this has been accepted as a principle in a dispute. Since there are virtually no primary sources for Jesus' life other than the Gospels, all accounts of the subject either assume knowledge of these (which we should clearly not do) or include an account summarizing the Gospels. For much of the time in this endless discussion Tweet's proposal has been to move the biographical account below the "Historical views" section. As they are written, this makes no sense at all - it might be possible to rewite the article so it was possible, but Tweet is not interested in doing this before swopping over, as he says somewhere in there. He has a proposal he believes is right, and is impervious to all other points of view. I don't think this is appropriate for an arb case, but I know who would be at risk if it had one. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier in regards to whether you wanted to accept mediation, you said, "It would largely depend on the terms of the mediation." Does that mean you would agree to mediation if the terms were right? You don't support adding critical commentary to the Gospels section, and I do. That would be a nice, clear difference for us to come to agreement on. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    A key point of dispute has been consensus. What is the consensus? How do we know when consensus is achieved? How much authority does consensus give editors to diverge from the RSs? In light of these issues, can someone here help me understand how this line from WP:CONSENSUS relates to this page: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It seems as though consensus has been determined by numbers, and I wouldn't even know how to apply this line from WP:CONSENSUS. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Other editors probably know more about this than I do, but I don't think that because some sources present information in a certain order that a wikiarticle also needs to present it in the same order. So a gospel section in the Jesus article might come either before or after an historical section. To change the order, however, would require lots of editing and might entail prolonged discussion. For now, Jonathan, do you think you have consensus to make a major change to the article? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Obstructive IP editor at Barbara Allen (song)

    Earlier today I made this report at AIV regarding continued disruptive editing by User:23.241.194.45 at Barbara Allen (song) after 4 warnings. The administrator dealing has directed me to ANI instead. The talk page discussion Talk:Barbara_Allen_(song)#Origins is pertinent, possibly also the discussion on the AIV admin's page.

    A content dispute (regarding origins of the song) was the background but after trying to persuade the IP to engage in the WP:BRD cycle by accepting the status quo ante and discussing, they effectively refused this path, adding back the contentious text to the article. The issue then became the unco-operative and disruptive behaviour of the user.

    The first vandalism warning was issued for this edit as it included the clear misreperesentation of the text of a quote (in the citation by Raph). The text was added back by the IP here, minus the alteration to the quote this time, and on investigation it became plain that the cited sources therein, at least in some cases, did not support the edit. In the light of the previous edit's manipulative character, it seemed reasonable that the intent was again to misrepresent. Another warning was issued, the improperly cited material removed but it was added back. Rather than attempting to remove the material again, I tagged the article that its factual accuracy was in dispute, tagged the specific disputed element, tagged the sources which were demonstrably misrepresented and requested quotations from the remaining sources, there being reasonable suspicion they were similarly misrepresented. The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here.

    My issue is thus less the inclusion of the misrepresented material now but that the IP is blocking me from even noting in the article that the material is contested.

    I requested both on the article talk page and in attempted dialogue with the IP at the AIV admin's page that "Progress would be made by allowing me to indicate my dispute of your edits on the article page without templates being blanked and by addressing those tags that request quotations from the sources which you claim to support your case but refuse to provide." No such reversion to inclusion of the tags has been made to the article and neither are the requested quotes from the citations forthcoming at talk. Any path to resolution of the dispute is thus blocked and the existence of the dispute obscured from the article itself.

    Per my AIV submission, I would have thought the IP's continued obstructive and disruptive behaviour worthy of a temporary block but I'd be interested in any views as to a way forward on the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I have stated before, I was not being disruptive, Mutt Lunker repeatedly deleted well sourced information and violated the three delete rule. He has also used reporting me, on pages such as this one and others as a form of bullying in an attempt to gain leverage for his poorly source and unsubstantiated view. He's resorted to things such as name calling, giving me a "final warning" as a first warning and then attempting to force his view by reporting me. All of my edits, are supported by the sources I provided, his are not and he has engaged in an edit war accordingly of which this is part.23.241.194.45 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to take this edit as emblematic of what's going on here. The IP's formatting is messed up, the style in the citations is all over the place and they freely offer (unwarranted) editorial commentary, and the sourcing, what I can see of it, is below par. Not many links are provided but this one is not a reliable source, and it's remarkable that they left the BBC source in, quote and all, "This folk song originated in Scotland". Combine that with the vandalism claims and the lack of good faith presented in one of their very first edits to the article, "seems to have been inserted to push false narrative", and I think we're dealing with someone who is riding a hobby horse without decent knowledge of our guidelines regarding behavior and policy. If they continue in this vein they should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies as I stated, I don't think I was "called out" on something I think I was accused of something, something which I contend I didn't do. As you say about the BBC source, I argued that that was not a valid source, but Mutt Lunker argued it was. The edit that you label as not being in good faith was, as I stated on the talk page of the article, simply an error. Also, you state that my sourcing is below par, but I don't see how the sourcing it replaced isn't? As I stated before, I was given a "final warning" as a first warning by Mutt Lunker, the sources I provided match the info I provided and I would contend that the charge of someone "riding a hobby horse" would much more accurately be directed at Mutt Lunker.23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just added these sources to the talk page of the Barbara Allen page: [1] Barbara Allen is addressed on page 382 as explicitly "English". No mention of Scotland. Specifically described as an "English vernacular song"

    [2] Barbara Allen is described once again as an "English folk song" with no mention made of Scotland.

    [3] This is one that analyzes the song in depth and describes it's tune as being "English". Not a single mention of Scotland. Barbara Allen is analyzed on page 330

    All of these are peer-reviewed academic sources, whereas the edits by Mutt Lunker and now Drmies would have these be outweighed by one sentence from an inaccurate BBC article, a book on the Irish potatoe famine that is NOT about musicology, and I don't have access to this particular book so I can't comment on the ostensibly relevant quote, but it is from a different field than that which pertains to the article. (Arthur Gribben, ed., The Great Famine and the Irish Diaspora in America, University of Massachusetts Press (March 1, 1999), pg. 112.) and lastly by a non-academic songbook from the 1980s which is not peer-reviewed and was published privately. I still contend that I am not the one being disruptive but rather that Mutt Lunker is. Thankyou for hearing me out23.241.194.45 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Before the Folk-Song Society: Lucy Broadwood and English Folk Song, 1884–97 E. David Gregory Folk Music Journal Vol. 9, No. 3 (2008), pp. 372-414
    2. ^ Barbara Allen by Andre J. Thomas Review by: Brett Scott The Choral Journal Vol. 46, No. 12 (JUNE 2006), p. 114 Published by: American Choral Directors Association
    3. ^ Gammon, V. , & Portman, E. (2013). Five-time in english traditional song. Folk Music Journal, 10(3), 319-346.
    • Points:
    1. This is a content dispute.
    2. This is an edit war (and both parties should receive talk-page warnings re: edit-warring).
    3. The article should therefore probably be fully protected until both parties stop edit-warring and establish consensus on the Talk page.
    4. The IP made the BOLD change (to England); therefore since the BOLD change was contested and reverted, per WP:BRD is it incumbent on the IP to establish a WP:CONSENSUS before replacing that BOLD change, no matter how many citations they provide.
    5. If no WP:CONSENSUS for the change to "England" is ever reached, the IP can avail themselves of some form of WP:DR if desired, but cannot replace the change. The status quo ante, which in this case was "Scotland", must remain until a verifiable WP:CONSENSUS is present to change it.
    -- Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all.
    Regarding the IP's claim that their first warning was a final warning, the users talk page clearly bears out the timed sequence of warnings with a first warning first and a final warning fourth.
    Regarding edit warring, I appreciate that the edit history is convoluted:
    This first edit directly contradicted the quote in the source from Raph, hence my reversion. I had not noticed that the IP was altering the quote itself at that stage. I did not contest this aspect of the IP's edits as it was uncited and OR-ish (though potentially correct).
    This edit repeated the last, so again contradicting the existing source and this time adding a new source which the included hyperlink showed that it did not address the issue at hand (not without a considerable dose of interpretation at the most charitable).
    Arguably these edits could have been seen as disruptive with their plain contradiction of the existing source and improper use of a supposed second, even with my not having noticed the alteration in the quote, but the somewhat chaotic nature of the edits made me think the IP simply hadn't read the article and existing sources properly so I issued no warnings and engaged on the talk page.
    Per my edit summary, this was the point that I noticed the misrepresentation of the quote, clearly disruptive in nature, indicating the suspect nature of the IP's campaign and that a first warning was clearly now warranted. Now that bad faith was apparent, my subsequent reversion and vandalism warning was on this basis, with the IP's misuse of unsupportive citations supporting the bad faith assessment. I have always understood that reversion of clear vandalism does not consitute warring. The IP subsequently claimed that "changing that source was an error" and as there are evident competence issues, even if error were to be accepted, the edits' nefarious appearance warranted treatment as being of bad faith when addressed.
    It was then clear that the IP was not going to heed the warnings given to them and would continually revert to their text. On that basis, I left their content in place and, as mentioned above tagged the article that its factual accuracy was in dispute, tagged the specific disputed element, tagged the sources which were demonstrably misrepresented and requested quotations from the remaining sources, there being reasonable suspicion they were similarly misrepresented.
    The IP user immediately removed the tags, was warned this was disruptive, then repeated the removal: here and here. Such removal of maintenance templates is also, to my understanding, classed as vandalism.
    In summary my reversions at the article thus regarded: 2 of content which clearly contradicted sources but were not treated as active vandalism at that stage, per WP:AGF; 2 regarding content edits but where the disruptive nature was plainly apparent, so action on vandalism rather than a content dispute; one of the removal of tags rather than content, where the disruptive nature was likewise apparent. In each case, when it was evident the IP would persist in restoring their edits, I left their verison in place. Reversion of two evidently questionable versions followed by that of three plainly disruptive ones, with each issue being left when it was plain the IP would revert, could not reasonably be classified as warring.
    Again, thanks everyone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really interesting stuff for a literary scholar, but digging a bit more into the archives and databases produced fruit very quickly. More on talk page; little more to say here--unless the IP editor wants to continue charging "vandalism" in an editorial dispute. Mutt, I reverted further since the speculation was such that tagging it was, in my opinion, of no benefit for the reader. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More than happy with the revert past my latter tagged version as that was a compromise due to the IP's insistence on restoring their content and to avoid warring. Very interesting results on the research. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This should have gone to WP:ANEW, not ANI. The IP made the BOLD change here, and then proceeded to make 6 edit-warring reversions within 17 hours (from here to here). The IP should have been reported to ANEW and blocked, and then if after being unblocked they wanted to pursue the matter further, a WP:3O or other WP:DR could have been called in. ANI isn't for edit wars and content disputes; that's why we have those other boards. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice, I was not aware of ANEW, which may prove useful in future, this being far from the first time I've seen a BOLD editor accuse warring and/or vandalism and insist on the other party winning consensus in the DISCUSS part of the cycle before REVERT take place. As mentioned I brought the matter here on the advice of the admin who turned down my submission at WP:AIV. I still wonder that the latter was not a suitable course of action, although I can understand that in this case the disruptive nature of the IP's edits may have been less evident without a full explanation of each, per above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    AIV was the wrong venue; the IP appears to be a good-faith editor (despite the rather hostile edit summaries) who was edit-warring, not vandalizing. Once the IP had made two reverts, they should have been given an edit-warring warning notice (see WP:WARN and use Control+F edit war to find the templates). After the (third or) fourth revert, assuming you had posted at least one talk-page edit-warring warning before that occurred, they should have been reported to WP:ANEW. I know it's a lot to take in but it's good to know for future reference. BTW, try to stay under 4 reverts in 24 hours yourself, even if you have to leave the "wrong" version there while you report and wait for the editor to be blocked, so that you don't get sanctioned for edit-warring yourself. Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all very useful as this general type of situation is tediously common, sadly, and it's useful to know the most efficient means of tackling it. I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the IP now regarding good faith but this is only with the benefit of hindsight, now that it is increasingly evident how far their lack of experience, unenlightened attitude and haphazard editing extends. At the time it was more than reasonable to assume that their repeated blatant misrepresentation of a linked quote was intentionally deceptive and thus actively vandalous rather than warring alone, hence my issuing the first warning only at that point and no longer being concerned about exceeding 3RR as my reversions were combatting (apparently clear cut) vandalism; it's kind of academic now though. (IP, I would encourage you to stay, please accept the advice from these editors and benefit from what you have learned for future editing.)
    In regard to how to tackle this kind of thing in the future can I ask for some clarification? I've seen the situation numerous times where a bold editor, on reversion of their edit and being referred to WP:BRD instead insists that the reversion of their edit is vandalous/warring/bullying, effectively insisting the cycle be BDR. The reverting editor is in the position of having made the first reversion, so if the bold editor reverts again they will only be level in their number of reverts and likely to invoke pot/kettle to any edit-warring notice. For the bold editor to reach a fourth revert, the reverting editor would have had to have reached that point already; at three reverts apiece the bold editor brandishes 3RR as if an allowance and threatens the reverter, or indeed reports them if they execute the fourth revert first. Otherwise does the reverter relent at the stage where they have reverted the bold edit three times and the bold editor has followed suit and even though 3RR has not been exceeded, report the bold editor for warring and refusing to adhere to BRD and expect a sympathetic response with their report? The first way has the reverter stymied or risk being blocked, the second way having the 3RR report on the bold editor being flung out for being premature. Can one say to the bold editor that as the legitimate cycle is BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS, as they have instead implemented BOLD, REVERT, REVERT, from that point they are warring? The pattern is so predictable that either there is a simple formula to deal with it by adherence to policy, or if the snags I list are always open to interpretation, a lengthy, time-consuming and wasteful experience for those involved.
    I don't like this kind of game of chicken about 3RR but it would be useful to know an appropriate way of proceeding in this sort of circumstance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to the IP: Out of your 125 total edits to Wikipedia, 16 of them have been to falsely accuse good-faith editors of vandalism and/or edit-warring, when in all cases it has been you that has been edit-warring. You need to (1) stop these accusations immediately, (2) edit civilly and collaboratively, and (3) strictly abide by WP:BRD, which means that if your additions or changes are contested or reverted, you need to wait until a consensus and agreement is established on the article talk page before reinstating your preferred changes. You were very lucky you were not blocked here for your edit-warring and accusations. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Another note to the IP: Please do not inform every editor involved in this discussion with the {{subst:ANI-notice}}. That template is only reserved when starting a discussion about someone, not informing everyone involved. Per the box, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, looks like my return to AGF was misplaced. Want to see the most obvious sockpuppet ever? After nearly having my fingers burned on this I'm reluctant to revert but could someone else step in please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also these posts at talk by the user's new IP and they are still tackling the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, I'm not an admin so if there are any other admin actions to take on this mess, you or EdJohnston or some other admin should take them. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know--that's why I said "oh, wait, sorry--". Maybe you should just run for admin or something. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring at Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

    User:HassanKhan95 is engaged in edit-warring and disruptive editing on Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He is engaged in removal of sourced content, citation tags, better source tags and addition of unsourced content. He has also broken 3RR on Pakistan after being warned by User:Kautilya3 at User talk:HassanKhan95. He has Pashtun nationalistic agenda and tries to bump up figures related to Pahtun ethnicity and Pashto language. He accuses other of nationalistic agenda when his unsourced edits are reverted, i tried to engage him at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but instead of talking, he keeps reverting. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    First to of All I'll say sorry for my weak English but anyways I'll try to explain the situation. In Pakisan there are four provinces each province has a dominant recognised language i.e Punjabi is provincial in Punjab,Pashto in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,Sindhi in Sindh and Balochi in Balochistan whereas Urdu is national and English is official in all Pakistan.If u read the articles about Pakistan other provinces like Punjab,Sindh,etc in every each Proncial language is mention in Infobox so similarly i also added in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article that Pashto is Provincial,Urdu is National and English is Official same as it is mention in other provinces articles (see here i added Pashto,Urdu and English as Provincial,National and official language respectively and added other minor languages (which are spoken by less than 30% population in collapsible list).But ShriffIsInTown (a punjabi) who want to add Punjabi on the top and he always try to bump up figures related to Punjabi ethnicity and Punjabi language. His edit can be seen here.Let me also clearify that SheriffIsInTown is also engaged in edit-warring and disruptive editing on Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, understanding of English language should be a basic requirement on English Wikipedia. If his English is that bad then he should refrain from editing English Wikipedia because he is never going to understand the policies thus never going to abide by them. Moreover he made my job easier by providing those diffs, it can be clearly seen especially in second diff that he is trying to add name of a governor who resigned and he is trying to remove cn tags and better source needed tags. I don't know how i got into these languages issue but i have a bad habit of trying to improve things and i am pretty sure some kind of edit conflict got me into it and i found a scholarly source and started improving all Pakistan related articles with language information since this editor's focus is on Pashtun articles, he saw my edits and started adding unsourced content to prove his point then things got escalated to the point that he is keeping his unsourced and removing my sourced edits. He is preferring WP:PRIMARY sources over secondary or tertiary sources. His point of view that other pages are wrongly formatted thus these should be wrongly formatted is beyond my comprehension. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SherrifIsInTown! I don't have objection if you improve articles , I'll apreciate if do so. But Try to undersatand what i m saying.In article Pakistan you added that sindhi is spoken more than that of Pashto and you gave references of BBC report,But actually that report is based on census of 1951,1961 and 1981 ( see here that figures).I was trying to add latest figures that are of 1998 census ( here).Once again i would say that u should observe the figures given by BBC repory , that are actually the figures of old censuses. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article you can change info about governor but please do not change info about languages because they are most accurate. Hope you will understand.Thanks--HassanKhan95 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you go, I got the permission to change the governor but no permission to change the languages even if I have a source and he is adding unsourced because he thinks that they are most accurate. HassanKhan95, here we are discussing your violation of 3RR at Pakistan after being warned by User:Kautilya3, we are not discussing the content dispute which you can discuss at talk pages which you should have done before violating that rule. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I m not saying to not change if u have source,You can but the sources you were talking about are based on Old census see the reports of 1951,1961 and 1981, you'll find the same figures there.My purpose is not to Show Pashto a large language,What will I get by doing this?I just wanted to put the most accurate info.BBC report is published in 2015 but doesn't means that it is based on latest sources.Did report mention that these figures are latest?or Did they told how they got those figures.

    You said that I have voilated 3R rule,let me say that you have also voilated itnseveral times and it can be seen in histories of those articles--HassanKhan95 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please discuss the content dispute at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Talk:Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HassanKhan95 has started to canvass other editors and he is also vandalizing talk pages. Please see his canvass attempt to User:Massagetae at User talk:Massagetae#Pakistan, diff, please note the IPv6 address and then see vandalism at Talk:Pakistan where he removed an admin's message, see diff, same IPv6 address. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sheriff you said an IP address is canvasing other editors, Let me say that A relevant editor is invited to participate in discussion as a neutral person, and not to give one sided view. Secondly you said the IP removed Admin message (here) but see carefully that the same IP restored back the Message (see here), it means the message was removed by mistake.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, i made a mistake too, i thought RegentsPark restored the edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Brand new user harassing me at my talk page

    I've asked AncientHealth 612 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop posting to my talk page twice now, but they insist upon continuing to do so. This user insists upon trying to turn a discussion at Talk:Paleolithic diet into a discussion about my personal health[15] [16] [17] [18], which is more than a little creepy and completely unwelcome. This same user is also currently edit warring at the article page, see [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Can an admin please help me put a stop to this with a ban, or at least a firm warning?MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My friend,

    I have insisted on nothing. I have said it is fine if you don't wish to discuss your personal matters, though I would like to if you do not mind. We may even leave the page as you like it. I only ask what you mean by a phrase. Why must you use dishonesty when discussing me with others? AncientHealth 612 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AncientHealth 612's account isn't even an hour old and I think we need to cut newbies some slack. AncientHealth 612, will you abide by MjolnirPants's request that you stop posting messages on their talk page? If you can refrain from doing so, I think this complaint can be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I shouldn't bite the newbie. It's just the creepiness factor (combined with edit warring) was very jarring. AncientHealth 612, if you stay off my talk page and participate in the discussion at Talk:Paleolithic diet instead of edit warring, I'll be happy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And astonishingly, AncientHealth 612 turns out to have signed up in order to promote the bullshit that is the paleo diet: [24]. Nobody foresaw that, did they? I am guessing this is one of the anons who has been making fuss, since it is implausible that a genuinely new user would have made a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I take issue with the second part of your last sentence. Many established Wikipedia editors seem to use templated warnings. The response to AncientHealth's first edit was that they received such a templated warning. The warning ended "If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page" with a link to the talk page. That talk page is exactly where AncientHealth's second edit was posted. So probably sometimes, even if not in this case, genuinely new users do make talk page posts to other people as their second edit ever. MPS1992 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPS1992:Oh, I forgot to include these diffs of the IP who started posting the creepily personal questions on my talk page: [25] [26]. If you look at this diff you can see that he's admitting to being that IP. So he didn't get templated for his first edit, he got templated for making a POV heavy edit to an article as his (at least) third edit, after making at least two creepy and POVish edits to my talk page and creating an account in order to push that POV (by the implication of his own words). Also, it's a welcome template, not a warning template. The warnings came after he started edit warring, and his talk page shows that he managed to rack up two of them, from perfect strangers in the span of 10 minutes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for these additional details. I forgive your forgetfulness. Your words suggest that you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said, "it is implausible that a genuinely new user would have made a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever". I think it is important to recognise these realities. Even you were a new user once, I would bargain. As for templates, many look like a warning even when they are phrased like a welcome. MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your words suggest that you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said, "it is implausible that a genuinely new user would have made a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever". I never said that. Furthermore, nothing in my above post suggests that I disagree with it. I'm honestly not sure where you got that notion. All I did was refute your assertion that the user was hit with a template warning for their first edit. I'd also like to completely disagree with your assertion that the welcome template looks like a warning. Have you ever seen it? It looks like a welcome. It opens with "Welcome to Wikipedia!" and ends with "Again, welcome!" It thanks the user for their contributions, and expresses hope that they'll stick around. I've been in brothels that don't greet people that warmly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I see it was actually Guy who said that. But I still can't imagine why you would agree with it. As for the template, it ends with an invitation to post on your talk page, which is exactly what the account did with its "second edit". MPS1992 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with it because it's obviously true. This user has only posted about one single subject, their user name reflects a strong bias towards that subject, and they straight up said they created the account to talk about that subject. I can't imagine how you could not agree with it. It's blatantly obvious.
    As for the message, one would think a reasonable person could figure out that a highly formatted message full of links to WP pages and advice on getting started posted to their talk page might be a pre-formatted message. Especially when the edit summary contains an unexplained parenthetical at the end. Certainly when it contains a message which flatly contradicts a message you'd been delivered twice, in no uncertain terms. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is only obviously true if it is re-phrased thus: it is implausible that this is a genuinely new user making a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever.. Without that re-phrasing, it means that it is impossible for any genuinely new user to make a talk page post to someone else as their second edit, ever. I still do not understand why you, Guy, or anyone else believes that to be impossible.
    I do not understand the relevance of what you say in your second paragraph, sorry. MPS1992 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Impossible is not the same thing as implausible. That (like much else I've explained here) should be obvious.

    Regarding my second sentence, the relevance should be extremely obvious: The fact that it's obviously a template message means I didn't actually invite him to post to my talk page. It was just part of the welcome template. Again, this should be obvious.

    Nevertheless, the user seems to have stopped posting to my talk page, and is no longer edit warring on the article. That's all I wanted, so I'm happy to close this out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of what is obvious to you is not obvious to others. When you post on a user's talk page inviting them to post on your talk page, it is indefensible to then say "I didn't actually invite him to post to my talk page" as you just did. Your using a semi-automated tool and a template does not change your still being responsible for the content of your edit. I do hope that you will keep that in mind. Thank you for your replies. MPS1992 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to an admin This can be close out. The user seems to have implicitly agreed to stop the behavior that prompted this, so there's no point in any further discussion. I'm also un-watching this page, so if my attention is needed, please ping me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Brian Martin professor" BLP, DR ongoing

    Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Had no access to account so put in BLPN 4 Feb 2015 Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_Martin Inaccurate denigrating material remains 5 days later. Have not ID'd editors involved. 4 instances of misrepresentation of source contents found and then I stopped counting. Maybe this time adminstrators can come through on serial inaccurate material in a BLP? Though I thought a BLPN would get some involvement already. But what do I know how this place actually works? Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is being actively edited and the only material identified as an inaccurate representation of the sources has been fixed. Martin is the subject of legitimate and well-sourced criticism for his support of a PhD that failed every conceivable test of valid research work, that is not our problem to fix. I note that much of your history relates to defending Hooper's discredited advocacy of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, a common anti-vax trope. I suspect that the "inaccuracy" you identify may in fact be accuracy that you just don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually only one of the statements was fixed (the other remains unfixed), and that was fixed after about 5 days from the IP's original complaint highlighting the problem. I'm sure Martin is the subject of criticism, but we still need to properly source any statements in our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Martin has supervised and supported Michael Primero whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" -- this is Lyndon LaRouche stuff. EEng 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Martin seems disposed to believe any crackpot whose beliefs have been mocked by the reality-based community. Are you suggesting that this should come under the LaRouche arbitration scope? Guy (Help!) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the weird thing: I just thought this sounded like Larouche-type stuff. To my astonishment, this actually is one of Larouches' crackpot ideas: Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement#Music_and_science. So yes, I think this would come under the Larouche arb umbrella. EEng 16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    all concerns now attended to Prof Opvaids, no need to list in many wiki forums Jewjoo (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Main page breakage

    Main page is only showing about one-third of its normal content for me at the moment; nothing in the history so possible one of the just-edited transcluded templates broke something. —Sladen (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    …and after a few minutes outage it's back. Kudos to whomsoever repaired it! —Sladen (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that should be "whoever"--subject of the clause. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no. It's the object ~ you'd say "Kudos to him", right? Just so, it's "whom", because the kudos are being given to, not received by; cheers, LindsayHello 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lindsay, "x who repaired it" is the phrase that is the object of the preposition. The phrase should be in the dative (but we don't do that in English), but x is the subject of that phrase--compare "he who repaired it is a wonderful person". Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we're playing More-Grammatical-than-Thou, kudos is actually singular. Just sayin'. EEng 09:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Hi, Drmies, how are things at the cabal? [FBDB][reply]
    (edit conflict) But repaired needs a subject, which role whomever cannot perform; the object of to is the entire following clause, not who(m}ever alone. Compare Kudos to the user whom repaired it! So I agree with Drmies (and EEng).—Odysseus1479 09:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Using "what" would have solved it, but nooooo, you had to go and get all anthrocentric! DMacks (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The word you're all looking for is "whomsoever". Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjroots. Thank you! —Sladen (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the word I was looking for was excessively pedantic (except, of course, that's not a word). EEng 01:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor back-and-forth

    There's a minor back-and-forth over at List of video games notable for speedrunning, where I just can't get the attention of the IP editing against the sources. Diff examples: [27]; [28]

    Persistent vandalism and incivility by IP user

    The above IPs have been disruptive to several articles over the past week or so, most notably Lana Del Rey album articles (Born to Die, Paradise, Ultraviolence and Honeymoon), but there were also repeated disruptions to I Cry When I Laugh and Purpose (Justin Bieber album). Operator has been warned several times [29], [30], [31] to stop removing Metacritic score data from the professional reviews box, and the IP responded by calling me "butthurt" several times [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. They were warned by Karst on their talk page for the latter, but they've continued editing in the same pattern [37].

    I suspect this is the same person who was operating 156.12.250.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) back in January, who was involved in similar disruption. Could we get some IP edit protection on the 6 listed album articles, and maybe a temp block for the IPs? All bar one of them - 50.153.66.14 - is registered with Kutztown University, Pennsylvania. I noticed the template posted at the top of this page has instructions on how to deal with disruptive editors who use the school's IPs. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one, 156.12.252.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, here's the deal. I added the MC score to a page one time, and someone else removed it, saying that the "MC score is only needed once." When I tried to re-add it, I got banned from Wikipedia. So if you're going to ban me now for doing the exact OPPOSITE of that, that's messed up. 156.12.252.235 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • IP, you may have been blocked, but not banned. Get it right. Homeostasis, I'd remove Metacritic too. But more importantly, I do not see how you are also not edit warring. To put it another way, stop edit warring; the two of you are equally guilty, unless I see something that says "Removing Metacritic is considered vandalism." Drmies (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who placed the warning I will make a brief statement here and will create a section on the Honeymoon talk page about the issue at hand to encourage discussion. The main reason I placed the warning had to do with the comments in the edits and the lack of intention of seeking a compromise. The reaction to the warning I placed appeared to confirm this. I would encourage the editor to a) create an account b) engage with the discussion on the album talk page. Karst (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Professional ratings
    Aggregate scores
    SourceRating
    Metacritic0/100
    Review scores
    SourceRating
    @Drmies: How exactly have I edit warred? I've reverted edits that I consider to be vandalism, but even still have not violated WP:3RR. What's more, the IP has taken what you said here and used it as an excuse to revert once again. Through their most recent 156.12.252.235 IP, they've violated 3RR on four separate articles now [38], [39], [40], [41]. Vandalism in anyone's book. Also, the main contention of the IP user has been that Metacritic data shouldn't be used in the Professional ratings box. I told them on two separate occasions [42], [43] to discuss their issue at Template:Album ratings, the correct forum to do so. They ignored that advice. As you can see on the right of your screen, Metacritic data is facilitated and very easily invoked in professional ratings boxes of album articles. The IP just doesn't want to accept it, and no amount of discussion would change that. Look through my interactions with these several IPs for over two weeks now. Please tell me, what else could I have done to diffuse this situation? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Homeostasis07, let's get a few things straight, in no particular order. First of all, that something is "facilitated" one way or another doesn't make it good. We have a template you can add to an EL section to link someone's Twitter feed, and their Facebook, and their MySpace--doesn't mean you should add them, let alone all of them. Second, one doesn't need to break 3R to be guilty of edit warring--this is forgotten all too frequently, and always at the forgetter's peril. Third, what someone considers vandalism may not be considered vandalism by someone else; clearly the IP is not trying to sabotage Wikipedia--they only want to remove that website you like. You can quibble over these points, of course, and argue against them, but arguing against item 2 and 3 is useless: just look up the definitions of edit warring and vandalism.

      The more general point--I have no intention of persecuting anyone for edit warring here; I can't say I care enough to really look into who said what when and who revert who when with or without edit summary and discussion on the talk page and all that; this is why working ANEW is so tedious.

      The IP has been told to get an account--that, of course, is nonsense. What is not nonsense is that the IP should be discussing and not edit warring (that goes for everyone and, *deep sigh*, I'm NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT DISCUSSING STUFF OK), and that they can be blocked if they are considered to be edit warring (report them at ANEW) or otherwise editing disruptively (like "editing against consensus"), which one could report at AIV, maybe, or here of course. But note that (I repeat) I see no evidence of vandalism, and calling someone "butthurt" isn't really blockable. If you want semi-protection, you can easily make a case and then report it at RFPP, and such a case may well be accepted. Sorry, but all this seems just really obvious to me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me, @Drmies:, but I feel like you're venting about things that have nothing to do with this thread at large. I don't particularly "like" Metacritic, but it is a WP:Notable site, and is facilitated and has been cited within the Critical reception sections of every decently-graded album article for the past four years. In the same way that Twitter and Facebook links are posted in the External Links sections of artist articles - not Myspace, because it obviously isn't 2007. And it isn't "nonsense" to tell an IP to register. At least that way you can presume you're talking to the same person for 30 days, and not have to rely on WHOIS to tell you that the IP originates from Kutztown University, Pennsylvania. You said above that you'd "remove Metacritic too". So clearly this has gotten on the wrong side of you from the off set. So close this. I'll be sure to take up your helpful advice, and report these IPs at the forums you've suggested. May I in turn suggest you take some time off from the ANI page? You seem irritable; maybe even completely fed up. You sound like you could do with a month off. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept your apology, of course. Just don't report someone for vandalism if you don't understand what "vandalism" means. We're all volunteers here, and having to explain basic policy means I can't be out and about making blocks and abusing editors. Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive

    The former was unarchived, responded to, and then archived in its modified form by a bot as the latter. It no longer serves any purpose and should be pruned from the archive as per common practice to prevent clutter. I did it but my edit was reverted, which I believe to have been an honest mistake by an editor unfamiliar with how the unarchival procedure works; I've attempted to resolve the issue through discussing it with the reverting editor but to no avail; the discussion can be found here. I'd appreciate it if some reasonable administrator could remove the obsolete version of the thread from the archive; it can be done by clicking on this link and then saving the page. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:36u6s

    Can someone consider a WP:NOTHERE block for User:36u6s? The editor's been repeatedly removing the MFD notice on Draft:Max (Shogumon) which is the third nonsense fictional Pokemon character creation of that editor, after User:Lashbourne/Mike Firemunks and Mike Firemunks both of which are nonsense versions of Ash Ketchum. I'm involved having listed the page for MFD. Someone at Commons should also delete all their cartoon images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I need a real CU here, someone who knows what they're doing. I was looking to see if Lashbourne (from the draft) was part of it, but didn't see that. However, dear CU, please check the "regular" IP address (not the IPv6 ones), which has a whole bunch of accounts, and under the IP a bunch of "Mike Firemunks" edits--but I don't know what to make of the accounts. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One I think was a school block so I suspect it's children. The images look of that quality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I don't want to go around blocking accounts that don't need blocking, though I think CU will conclude that they are the same machines and it cannot be proven that it's the same people--or that it's different people. Maybe Mike V knows what to do. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike V knows what to do. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's necessary. I should have just hoax deleted it instead of MFD and blocked the editor in retrospect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These accounts are  Confirmed:
    36u6s (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Lashbourne (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    These accounts are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) solely on the technical data:
    Lukeson2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Marlonakamarlon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    Ebola18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    If there's a good faith unblock request from these 3 accounts. I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Mike V • Talk 04:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor Sideshow Bob

    So... I've had some interactions with Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs · count) on Montenegro and Serbia-related articles. The user is an outspoken anti-Serb. Disruptive editing. The cup just boiled over when he said "aren't you a stubborn little fascist..." while altering referenced text for the 2nd time. I have maintained good faith although I didn't need to. For other recent problems, see:

    So... What to do?--Zoupan 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user stalking me for quite a while now, and undermining any efforts of bringing NPOV to a host of political and historical articles related to Montenegro. This user's entire purpose on Wikipedia seems to be POV-pushing in order to promote the ideology of Serb pseudo-nationalism (hence the fascism accusation which, albeit true, I admit has been unwarranted; "ethnic mix" was just a (historically undisputed) provocation which served its purpose of provoking this user's inner discriminator).
    • Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user's continuing policy of article ownership, especially regarding historical articles.
    • Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user's continuing policy of using dubious and unreliable sources, mostly by Serbian authors prone to nationalist POV, and using sources selectively.
    • Admins might also want to take notice of the reporting user's continuing personal attacks directed towards me, accusing me of anti-Serbianism (whatever the hell that might be), just for opposing his arbitrary edits on a number of articles.
    I understand that the reporting user has an obsession with me for some reason (most probably because I'm one of few editors trying to dismantle his nationalist mini-utopia by bringing NPOV to terribly biased articles he had worked on for years), but enough is enough, and this harassment needs to be stopped.
    Cheers! Sideshow Bob 12:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of too longing, give concrete examples. Fascism is only one of the provocative and disparaging terms you use in your wide arrange of insults directed at me and other users who point at your disruptive behaviour. It is your tactic trying to deflect the matter. Most, if not all, replies from your side are uncivil. You have never entered a constructive discussion. Admins might, and I believe will see through you.--Zoupan 03:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have neither time or energy to go through the evidence of your obsession with me. I'm sure you would like me, and all people who don't share your skewed worldview, to be excluded from editing so you can go on and build your alternate universe where truth is a relative category, but I will not give you the pleasure of entertaining your ludicrous accusations. I will not reply to you anymore, and I would like to ask you to stop contacting me already, since I have told you a number of times that I do not want to communicate with you, and you have passed the limits of civility and normal behaviour quite a while ago. Sideshow Bob 07:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Harold Holt RfC close

    Guy closed an RfC at the Harold Holt talk page with [44] and [45]


    Is that close valid and proper? This is an issue being discussed (with a shipload of personal attacks, alas) at the Talk:Harold Holt page. Thank you. (closer notified) Collect (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was coming here to raise this issue. In closing this dispute, Guy unanimously sided with Collect over every single other user who had replied to the RfC. I had gotten involved in this dispute because I'd had the page watchlisted and had a copy of the authoritative biography on Holt, The Life and Death of Harold Holt, by dour academic historian Tom Frame. In justifying his close, Guy stated "even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here" - even though I'd quoted portions from the Frame biography stating very clearly and unambiguously otherwise. I wasn't involved in the initial dispute, the Cold War not being my usual area, and only engaged at all because I happened to have a copy of the biography on my shelf, but have gotten increasingly annoyed at Collect's aggressive attitude and utter refusal to acknowledge that most of the sources on the subject even exist, let alone engage with their contents. But taking the stance Guy took in justifying overriding an otherwise unanimous RfC as to an issue of fact as an admin, Guy is arguing with Holt's biographer, Holt's wife, the coverage of Australia's most reliable broadsheet newspaper over many years, the Australian Dictionary of Biography, and many other clearly reliable sources.
    I don't blame Guy for this: you see editors arguing about the inclusion of mention of an affair and it's easy to skim through the discussion and, as Guy did, chalk it up to "tabloid tittle-tattle" if you're not paying attention. The problem is that it's an affair that has been very widely reported on in reliable sources. Holt's biographer, who doubles as the Archbishop of the Australian Defence Force, is about as far from "tabloid" as you get. I'd hardly call Holt's wife's memoirs tabloid, or the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which is written by professional historians out of the Australian National University and referred to in the vast majority of well-sourced Australian biographies, including many featured articles.
    I've managed to avoid encountering this kind of RfC process in my years on Wikipedia because I try to stay out of conflict, but this situation seems to me a bit surreal: how can you have an admin challenging basically all reliable sources on a question of fact and stating something flatly wrong in his close?
    In attempting to deal with Collect and combing through Holt's biography, one of the other editors discovered an eight year hoax in a related section of the article, raised it, and fixed it, and was reflexively attacked on the talk page by Collect for doing so. In all that long talk page, Collect has never once even acknowledged the existence of any of the sources I've discussed here despite repeated frustrating attempts by many editors to try to get him to discuss their contents. It's as if he saw the issue of adultery raised and saw red and was determined to have a fight no matter what reliable sources said.
    Collect has been previously topic banned from the entirety of US politics for his aggressive edit warring and general bad behaviour on that subject, and it seems to me from his behaviour here that it isn't just limited to US politics, but politics in general; he seems to have merely shifted his focus to Australian politics. I'm unaware of how to raise the question of extending someone's topic ban, but it does seem to be getting appropriate at this stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt, attack the messenger. Alas - you will find that my "extensive edit warring" is not existent, that some of those who testified against me (where I was denied any right of reply as I was going out of the country, and facing life-threatening illness in my immediate family) included major stalkers, a plagiarist, a "Jew-labeler", and the like, and where my position "do not make accusations of guilt by association" applying to every single person on or off this planet remains and shall remain my position. Cheers - I have no interest in Australian politics or British politics or Russian politics, or, for that matter, US politics, but using a litany of "Collect is evil" is the last resort of those who can not bear the WP:TRUTH being the rule in Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since both Holt and Gillespie (the alleged lover's) are dead, BLP is not an issue. However since Holt was unable to confirm it, and from looking at the sources used, when asked directly Gillespie stated it was an 'emotional affair'. Directly referring to them as 'lovers' as a statement of fact when the allegations were made by third parties would be incorrect. 'Alleged/reported/rumoured lover' would all be in line with sourcing/neutrality policies and as that is pretty much the substance of Guy's close, I cant see what the issue is here. Statements of fact are not made in wikipedia's voice unless you can actually evidence it. Just insert 'alleged' in front of 'lover' as Guy suggested and stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not what the sources say, which is why I'm getting so frustrated - rather, the sources all make it pretty clear that she gave an ambiguous answer that once, but very loudly and repeatedly over very many years that they had an actual affair, a claim accepted by Holt's wife. Frame gives so little weight to that answer he doesn't mention it in his very in-depth biography. It's frustrating as an editor more used to resolving more arcane and less contentious questions of history to go to the trouble of cracking open biographies to resolve editorial disputes when editors drawn to the dispute don't bother reading any of it and just run with their first assumption.. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost universally where there is contradicting information (one of the parties to the affair giving different answers at different times certainly would be a contradiction) that it is unable to verify, the guiding principle is to choose the least contentious version. As it is basically gossip, its not worth arguing over. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We edit conflicted, but no one here is disagreeing with "statements of fact are not made in Wikipedia's voice unless you can actually evidence it"; it's that Guy couldn't be bothered to read any of that evidence (even the quotes from his biographer), and thus didn't know (amongst other things) that the "allegations" were not made by third parties and were even supported by Holt's wife. I'm fine with your suggestion "reported lover" (which is what I have been advocating for, for the reason you note), but Collect is edit warring to remove it. It is really disheartening to bother adding material to Wikipedia from detailed reliable sources such as biographies to have an admin "overturn" what a Prime Minister's biographer has to say and make a rude close based on as statement of fact that is objectively false because he couldn't be bothered, both in principle and because it's egged on Collect's aggression towards the editors trying to ensure that a badly-sourced article on an important subject actually gets sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion was to use "rumoured" as covering all the bases of the "tittle-tattle" (as Guy termed it), as I am a tad unsure than any mention is actually "encyclopedic" at all. Collect (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Be careful folks, that the Rfc doesn't continue here, at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    GoodDay, what recourse do editors have when an admin skims a dispute, stuffs up, and makes a declaration of fact that is provably wrong? Guy's close is "the Pope is a Protestant" sort of wrong (it's not a disputable matter; he states in his close that Marjorie Gillespie's public statements were something they were provably not), and it's really disheartening for the editors trying to work from book sources left dealing with an aggressive Collect spurred on by his stuffup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is claimed that I did not read the RfC comments, sources, or whatever. That's not true. I did. I concluded from the actual sources presented and discussed in the debate that to state as fact that there was an affair, based on the statements, is tendentious - a point Collect made well. An RfC is not a vote, we're expected to weigh the quality of arguments. There's no dispute that an affair was claimed, and that the claims were believed, but that is not the same thing. And yes, it is my personal opinion that a grossly excessive amount of time and effort has been wasted over tittle-tattle, when the use of a single qualifying word would have resolved the entire dispute. The debate has been unbelievably bad-tempered considering the minimal objective importance of the point at issue especially now the point at issue is a single qualifying word.

    That's the real problem here: all this time, effort, verbiage and wrongteous outrage vented over the determination that we should not use even a single word to qualify the claims of an affair of a politician who died before my fourth birthday.

    As I have said before, I have no problem with another admin reviewing the close and changing it if they see fit. The very last thing we need is for an admin to invest personal pride in being "right" when they close an RfC. I am comfortable with my reading of it, but I am not going to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man if it's amended or reversed or whatever. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse close I took a long look at this article and talk page several days ago, I think due to an RFPP request. We don't count !votes while closing an RFC. It matters, but it's only one of several factors taken into consideration. Unless it can be stated with absolute certainty that this affair occurred in the fashion in which it was stated in the article, it shouldn't be included. Using 'rumored' or 'claimed', or even saying something like 'X source says this while Y source says that' is a better solution according to policy. It's one thing to say with certainty that there are rumors of this affair. It's another to say that those rumors are fact. We can do the former, but the latter is contentious, so the qualifier is appropriate and the RFC was closed properly. Katietalk 16:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I posted this above without realising this discussion was going on here. I don't see a source that denies that the affair occurred:
    I think this debate relating to the Harold Holt page is bizarre, but I think the RfC closed by Guy needs an independent reassessment which does not centre on particular editors' conduct. I had the page on my watch-list because I was interested in the issue of prime ministerial succession. I noticed the RfC initiated by Collect. I noted that the description of Marjorie Gillespie as Holt's lover was well-sourced and notable. It is included in the reputable biographies provided by the Australian Dictionary of Biography and by Tom Frame (bishop). However, Guy described this as "tabloid tittle-tattle" and recommended "omitting it altogether". This discussion included prominent reference to a source (that we now know dates from 1973) which said that Gillespie had "imprudently" not denied the rumours. However, we know now that it said "impudently", which gives a completely different interpretation to this quotation. The immediate source of that quotation was Tom Frame's 2005 biography of Holt, and occurred in a passage where he notes that Gillespie identified herself as Holt's lover in 1988. The RfC therefore (largely by accident) pivoted on misquoted information from 1973. Guy in closing appeared to be unaware that Gillespie had identified herself as Holt's lover, that this had been reported by many reputable sources, and that it was also confirmed by Holt's wife, Zara. In the aftermath of this discussion, I fortuitously discovered that the text relating to Holt's disappearance was actually marred by an 8-year-old hoax, which stated that a bogus list of Holt's "friends" and two bodyguards had been on the beach when he disappeared. In fact, Holt went to the beach with Marjorie Gillespie, her daughter, her daughter's boyfriend, and a young man who was her house guest. There was no one else there. This means that she was the main witness to Holt's disappearance. When I corrected the text, I was accused by Collect of violating the RfC. Guy subsequently accused me of having an "unhealthy obsession" with Holt's sex life. Beyond this morass of innuendo, hoax, misquotation, and accusation, the fundamental point is the article needs improvement. I think we all agree with Guy's closing statement that we need to stick with what the sources say. But the sources say, as the Talk page shows, that Gillespie was Holt's lover. She acknowledged it, and so did Holt's wife. Wikipedia is not censored. We should not be disingenuous, coy, naive, or euphemistic. Let's just admit Gillespie was Holt's lover, he was at the beach with her when he disappeared, and move on. I don't think anyone has cause to crow about this. We discussed the RfC without noticing a blatant hoax. Both sides bandied about a mistaken quotation. Both sides supported a premature close to the RfC. Let's move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS To clarify, the quotation about Gillespie saying it was an "emotional affair" was misquoted in the original RfC. The source said she didn't deny the rumours "impudently", not "imprudently". Also this was from 1973. In 1988, she stated she was Holt's lover, which is stated by the Australian Dictionary of Biography and by Tom Frame's biography. If people want to quote sources, can they please stop repeating errors from the original RfC that have since been corrected?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS I resent being attacked by Guy as having an "unhealthy obsession" with a dead man's sex life because I've discovered a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be noted that Collect routinely removes other editors' comments as he sees fit, wrongfully labeling such comments as personal attacks, and continuing to do so in spite of multiple warnings. The latest example would be the removal of a notification about this discussion: [46]. I could look for the rest of the diffs if anyone is interested. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of clearing this up, here are the relevant quotations in full and (I hope) without errors.
    "I have not included the names of women with whom Holt allegedly had a sexual relationship because I was unable to confirm or deny that most of these relationships took place. By their very nature they were always illicit and Holt was very 'discreet'. Holt's former colleagues assumed rather than knew he was seeing other women although Zara [Holt's wife] confirmed his frequent infidelities with some bitterness shortly before her death. The sole exception is Marjorie Gillespie, who identified herself publicly as Holt's lover." (p 20)
    "She [Marjorie Gillespie] also revealed in 1988 that she was 'Harold Holt's lover', a claim repeated in various magazines and newspapers. Simon Warrender had previously questioned Marjorie Gillespie about her relationship with Holt.
    I referred to constant rumours since the Cheviot tragedy that she and Harold were having an affair. Impudently, she did not deny the rumours. 'Of course, Simon', she said, 'what is your interpretation of an affair?'. I told her. She said that there were various types of affairs - intimate affairs and sordid affairs and emotional affairs. Hers with Harold, she said, was an emotional affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect'." (p 304)
    [The indented quotation from Warrender comes from his memoirs Score of Years published in 1973. Warrender was a businessman and friend of Holt.]
    • From the Australian Dictionary of Biography[47]:
    "Provoked by public disclosures that Marjorie Gillespie had been his lover, Zara claimed that Gillespie was just 'one of the queue'. Zara knew of Harry's affairs and tolerated them, but she also deliberately exaggerated the extent of his indulgence."
    It is cherry-picking sources to focus on a reported conversation published in 1973 and ignore the fact that Gillespie made an unambiguous statement in 1988. As mentioned above, "Impudently" was accidentally misquoted on the Talk page as "Imprudently", which is entirely different. "Impudently" suggests that she was confirming the affair (which is how I would read the comment, anyway). In any case, the continued reference to this 1973 quotation, including in the discussion here is perverse. The gist of the RfC is that we should follow the sources, so here they are for the first time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    From the quotes provided above and other comments it seems that people are making the assumption that emotional == platonic. There is no indication, in the quote provided, that she is attempting to describe the affair as platonic rather than an emotionally fulfilling sexual affair ie 'friends and lovers' vs 'sordid sex in a closet' seems to be the essence of her comparason. The statement expands on and refines the term lover rather than contradicts it. JbhTalk 22:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I understand too.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism to article

    Article in question: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/White_pride

    With this article, all the sources and references refer to opinion based media/news pieces, allowed to be used as some kind of "verifiable" or "reliable source", yet none of the references point to any factual scientific based information. This article as written is the perspective used by the anti-white racists to slander all white people by portraying the whites as the racist, yet the slanderers refusing to be seen as what they really are: racist against whites. What if the black pride article had been written from the same perspective? There would be an uproar all over the internet, social media, and Wikipedia talk pages about its "blatant racism", yet no such uproar for blatant racism against whites? It is offensive and clearly needs to be temporarily removed until a proper article can be written for it. Anytime similar media stories or opinion pieces relating to the other skin color or sexual orientation pages are posted equating them as racist, militant, or supremacist, typically using the exact same "verifiable" or "reliable sources" (many times the same website or news media story as used in the white pride article is referenced), they are removed as spam, unverified, or unreliable. Even when factual evidence is presented linking the black pride groups (like the Black Panthers and NAACP) to racism, it is still removed. This sets a blatant double standard. Currently, the only the racist opinionated article, reference and sources allowed to remain on Wikipedia are against whites, continuing to propagate this racism against this one skin color. This entire piece (as well as the others mentioned about black pride, asian pride, and gay pride) need to be rewritten to the same equal standards, either portray them all as sexist/racist groups, or portray none of them as such. Refusing to correct this sets a double standard and undermines the entire unbiased basis of Wikipedia. I recommend this story be temporarily taken down until a factual legitimate piece can replace it without the anti-white racist perspective. White pride has nothing to do with white supremacy, the KKK, or racism against other skin colors or cultures. Even if those racist groups may use that terminology on occasion, their use is not the basis behind white pride, just as the racist Black Panthers commonly refer to and say "black pride" with no backlash, thus the removal of this article is needed until it can be rewritten. If this article is allowed to remain as is, then the black pride, asian pride, and other pieces must be modified also follow the same format, portraying them as racist as well. The currently used opinion based sources and references can be easily listed under a separate heading of "occasional use by racist groups" as a means to propagate their racism against other people, but it must also be clearly stated that their use of this term is NOT the true basis behind white pride. Fix it or remove it. (Talikarni (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

    Is this about the actual vandalism, which has been reverted, and the vandal can be reported at WP:AIV, or is this a content dispute, in which case, given the divisiveness of the topic, a request for formal mediation should be submitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the words of... No clue. But they said, "Seriously?"-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If a CU happens to be passing, please see here. BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was vandalism. It has been reverted and the vandal warned twice. If there is a content dispute, formal mediation would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Been following white pride and black pride since the influx of SPAs. I think they are meat puppets brought by this Reddit thread. An IP editor on Talk:White pride mentioned ([48]) that comparisons of the wiki articles had been circulating social media. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And we have seen a deluge of emails to OTRS about the same thing.--ukexpat (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Things boiling over on Talk:Rare

    After being listed at ANRFC, SlimVirgin closed the matter, moving the article. With the RM concluded, I expect that the involved users will quiet down. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Thhings are getting seriously heated on Talk:Rare, the subject of a move request. Long, bitter argument raging, involving both regular users and admins. Would be useful to have a neutral third party or two survey the damage. Grutness...wha? 22:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've hatted most of the off topic mess. Also, I believe that the general consensus is for the move, but I would prefer it if someone else dug through the whole discussion. I might take a deeper look at it later, but for now, I don't have the time or focus. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers - it is a lot to wade through! Grutness...wha? 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User 209.66.197.28: multiple edit wars

    It seems user 209.66.197.28 (talk) is currently involved in a number of edit wars. He or she keeps reverting and getting reverted without ever discussing their edits that focus on advocating Tongyong Pinyin and traditional Chinese characters. This behaviour is most disruptive. Can someone please look into this. LiliCharlie (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left another warning on their page. further edit warring should result in a block. Blackmane (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. LiliCharlie (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. Phlar (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He is still edit warring, as can be seen at Yiguandao, Chinese Taipei, Zhongli District and many others. Phlar (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Very disruptive user, editing warring with numerous people, editing against MOS:ZH guidelines, and ignoring multiple warnings. Please block right away. -Zanhe (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to negotiate with them assuming good faith, however they don't seem to be willing to provide sources to back their assertions, relying only on their personal observations and speaking in absolutes ("nobody uses this"). They seem to be ideologically motivated, replacing all mentions of the character 台 with 臺, going as far as to replace what they think is the correct character for an author's name despite the author's clear preference.[49] I support Zanhe's suggestion above. _dk (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. User ignores all requests for discussion and keeps reverting. Please block this IP. LiliCharlie (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block. Fixing his mess is getting really tedious. Phlar (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cmjohnson65

    Cmjohnson65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Requesting admin action for this user. User was given final warning for vandalism related to white pride by Loriendrew but erased the message from their talk page ([50]). Later Robert McClenon final warned them again for edits on white pride ([51]) but they deleted the warning and responded with comments about Wikipedia being an insane asylum and about a radical Islamic president ([52]). An IP editor baited them with personal attacks ([53]) which the user removed ([54]) and responded with more personal attacks ([55]). This behavior, along with their recent edits related to white pride convinces me they are NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologise for the personal attack. This guy got to me and I felt calling a spade a spade was the only way. No excuse. The concerns expressed here are valid and I do maintain (without the R word) that what I said was right, and his latest comment on his talk page seems to be rather hypocritical. Support an indefinite ban under WP:NOTHERE given he ignored what I said prior to that about sourcing. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I forgot to add that his accusation of there being slanderous content on the White Pride page borders on a violation of WP:LEGAL given that there is nothing wrong with what's there - as I think we all know. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    203, your first comment about sourcing was valid and it turns out, I repeated the comment posted by you that I didn't realize had been removed. It was your second comment that was a problem and it was quickly removed. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was apologizing for, Liz. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Add in userpage vandalism to the mix, see [56]--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a block - Clearly WP:NOTHERE. If they actually thought that the article was biased or non-neutral in its point of view, they could have requested formal mediation, but they not only blanked a large part of the article against consensus, but also engaged in personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)This looks a bit suspicious to me. A few posts above a user also posted about issues at White Pride and ended up getting CU blocked. Then this editor appeared after a 1 year hiatus. Anyone hear the quacking? Blackmane (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I need ear plugs. The quacking is too loud for my liking! Anyone for an SPI? I obviously can't. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    -

    There are no ducks here. Feel free to investigate that hypothesis by any means you wish, I have not previously participated in any actions pertaining to the page(s) in question.

    − − I apologize for my conduct and general unfamiliarity with the community rules and standards. I will voluntarily withdraw from any editing or commentary activities until such time as I believe that I have a solid grasp on those rules and standards and am willing to abide by them.

    − Cmjohnson65 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest everyone look at his talk page, where in the very next paragraph after his "apology" he promptly invalidates it. I called it there and I'm calling it here as well. WP:NOTHERE remains valid. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaaaand the comment there was reverted. What a surprise. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an entry to this SPI. At the very least, we have some meatpuppets if not sleepers. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked for a CheckUser with the latter in mind even though I didn't say that. Good move. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike V has blocked for meatpuppetry. Looks like this is all wrapped up. Blackmane (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He's been blocked for disruptive editing. No action on the SPI because it looks like Reddit has a bit to answer for with regard to meat puppetry. If people have White pride on their watchlist it's worth keeping for now in case more fools show up. I'd look for the thread in question but I don't have the time. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I would ask for a few admin eyes on White pride in view of the recent disruption. Thank you for blocking the disruptive editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the recent activity might have been prompted by this New Observer article that criticizes Wikipedia's White Pride article and discussions like this and others I've found online. I found blogs expressing discontent about the White Power article that go back to 2014 so it's not a new sentiment, there must be some call to action going on. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TL;DR on the Reddit link - well I saw some and there was some good points made about the term "White Pride" being taken to extremes by white supremacists. That in effect is what has been sourced on the article here and the -RWord- fools go to town on that not realizing what is actually happening. Hence the need for sources to begin with. As originally pointed out somewhere, the correct procedure is to mediate. If one just goes ahead and does what this fool did, you look like a supremacist (of any description, not just white). Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with what's there now. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of Slawekb at WP:RD/Math

    Slawekb is responsible for my question posted at the Maths Reference Desk being hatted with accusation of trolling. Here is my summary of his posts to the discussion where 7-8 users participated today (all times are on 10 Feb.).

    Slawekb - participates in answering clearly 01:04 - re-enters to make a point, using an example equation 12:10/12:17 (This was adding text to the point made.) - re-enters with an unsigned pair of posts 18:09/18:10 (This was a quick edit of an equals sign to a "less than" sign.) - hatted entire question 20:16 under the cryptic text "trolling" using summary "hatted trolling, which has now become very obvious" - re-enters 20:38 with a post that repeatedly designates me the OP as "our troll", "the trolls[sic] latest objection", "our troll".

    As to the content of Slawekb's posts: 01:04 Short and encyclopedic. Immediately supported as correct by another user. 12:10/12:17 Objects to a phrase "smallest quantised approximation" and presents an equation for "a decent computer". 18:09/18:10 Echoes my call that the equals sign in his equation is incorrect, which he dismisses as "missing the point" and posts a second equation, followed by comments about "accuracy that is achievable my human activities". The second equation is said to be wrong (due to incompatible units) both by another user at 19:52 and myself at 20:07.

    An immediate consideration is whether Slawekb is justified in both injecting repeated WP:NPA violations of troll accusations into a question that is under discussion by 7-8 users, apparently in dissatisfaction at his posts not being entirely approved, as well as hatting the entire discussion. In mitigation, some comments by another were unhelpful, such as "go be a crank" and "try to have some idea what you're talking about" but these were not directed at Slawekb and were outweighed by calls to civility by myself 00:55 and most patiently by SemanticMantis 17:00 and 20:23.

    The hat suppresses elaboration or free comment on these points. There may also be an administrative question about Slawekb both imposing a hat at 20:16 that says "...discussion is closed. Please do modify it." as well as subsequently 20:38 adding a rude post under the same hat.

    I informed Slawekb on his page of this summary so that he could use my page to give any comment or correction. Slawekb deleted the notification 3 minutes after receiving it, citing WP:DENY. He is now informed of this complaint at WP:ANI about his behaviour. AllBestFaith (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The graph shows approximations to the Golden Ratio calculated by dividing successive pairs of Fibonacci numbers, one by the other.

    I am no troll. The question I brought to RD/Math is in the public eye as part of the presentation of a kickstarter project. Money has been invested and it is legitimate to address sceptically the claims being made to attract more investment. A Wikipedia reference desk has competence to do so independently, with helpful access to Wikipedia articles. This is not a page for mathematical discussion so the graphic will suffice to identify the subject of the question. Two claims are considered. Claim#1 is not disputed, it is endorsed in the Wikipedia article that provided the graphic which nobody at WP/Math thought to cite. Claim#2 predicts what happens if one actually computes the continuation of the converging plot shown in the graphic for much higher Fibonacci numbers than shown. Is there a more fundamental limit (says the claim) to resolution of the Golden ratio than one expects from unlimited lengthening of computing binary wordlength? As questioner I am open to answers that may be Yes, No or Indefinite. I am however not open to being denounced as a troll for asking the question, particularly not by poster Slawekb who has no excuse of incompetence to address the issue. Slawekb has made a spectacle of himself in posting two equations (which I contend are wrong) and then using a hat to gag anyone from commenting further. Since Slawekb dismisses invitations to discuss this civilly on my page, I show the the first of his equations just for illustration: Slawekb's use of a hat to shelter his own mistakes and deliver personal abuse will likely deter anyone who considers posting a new question at RD/Math where usage is already low. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Astounding that this argument over whether there's a more fundamental limit to resolution of the Golden ratio than one expects from unlimited lengthening of computing binary wordlength hasn't attracted more comment here at ANI. Sounds like a job for ... David Eppstein!
    Can't we have an ANI/RD where RDers can hash these things out for themselves? Also, can someone remind me what we keep RD around for anyway? (I actually think I know the answer: it gives WP:ORers an outlet so they won't clutter up actual articles with displays of erudition.) EEng 06:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng & D. Eppstein: "You rang?"
      • Uh, hi. Someone called my name? Anyway there's a fine line between trolling and crankery (is the OP bad at math and bad at assessing their badness at math, or just pretending to all that) and I don't see the point in trying to make the distinction in this case. Anyway, that discussion was never going to go anywhere interesting or useful, so hatting seems like a fine option to me. As for oscillations in series: they do occur, sometimes, and give rise to interesting mathematics, but not this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Slawekb deletes the notice of this ANI complaint within 7 minutes, so at least he is paying attention. @Slawekb your behavior at WP:RD/Math, specifically your construct of a hat as a hideout for delivering personal abuse, is bad for Wikipedia. Mediation is a process that creates valid consensus with the aid of a neutral third party, and it is the rational way forward. I think an Admin can easily nominate a mediator from the many computer-savvy volunteers who comprehend concepts such as a "decent computer (for 210-digit numbers)"; the mediator would advise rules, such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA and scope of our discussion, freely and in the best interests of the project. I set no precondition for entering mediation and if you Slawekb reciprocate, I shall withdraw this complaint about behavior so that mediation can proceed. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a great joke but you are taking it too far now. In case you are having trouble interpreting the comments on this page, no one supports your position and Slawekb has done exactly what should have been done. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to exchange thoughts. If anyone can be bothered, please close this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to exchange thoughts." I hope no one takes that too much to heart and writes WP:NOPUBLICTHINKING. EEng 01:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal/downplaying of well-sourced content through cherry-picking and editing with a POV

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

    User Damianmx is constantly removing/downplaying well referenced material written by modern-day scholars (historians/linguists/philologists) who explain the etymology of the word "Georgians", in order to favor lore-based tales written by medieval authors. He has not cited ONE proper modern RS source that backs up these medieval tales as for being the etymology of the word, yet he puts them into the articles as if they were actual theories accepted by a part of the modern scholarly community (which they are not), while at the same time he largely deletes/tweaks that sourced content that comprises the actual scholarly conclusions. Simply because historical individuals like Jean Chardin (traveller) stated something in the 17th century, he puts these 17th century folklore claims on par with statements and conclusions of modern-day academics and scholars, which is total bogus. Even though the actual scholarly sources state a totally different thing and literally debunk these medieval claims even, he just acts as if he hasn't seen it and continues to edit-war per the traditional "pick and choose" routine. Not only is this indeed cherry-picking, its also total disruption, as he's removing legit sources and claims.[57] To make things worse, he only removes part of the sourced content every time. Every time that he's deleting content, he's only removing and completely downplaying that material that 1) states that these medieval tales are not the actual reason behind the word 2) that the word actually derives from a Persian word.

    These are some of the core sources he constantly deletes in combination with the material as you can see in the linked diffs, amongst numerous others;[58]-[59]

    • 'Popular theories also purport that the term Georgia/Georgians stems either from the widespread veneration of St. George, who is considered the paton of Georgia, or from the Greek georgos (farmer) because when the Greeks first reached the country they encountered a developed agriculture in ancient Colchis. However, such explanations are rejected by the scholarly community, who point to the Persian gurg/gurgan as the root of the word.'
    - Mikaberidze, Alexander (2015). Historical Dictionary of Georgia (e.d. 2). Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 978-1442241466 page 3
    • Georgians; add at the end: Ultimately from Persian gurg "wolf."
    - Hock, Hans Henrich; Zgusta, Ladislav. (1997) Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978-3110128840 page 211
    • The Russian designation of Georgia (Gruziya) also derives from the Persian gurg.
    - Boeder, et al. (2002) Philology, typology and language structure. Peter Lang ISBN 978-0820459912 page 65

    I provided and added numerous sources that back my revision up, but it has nnow been several times that's he's cross-article warring and removing sourced content in order to push a non-RS etymology. He's even reinstating material written by a writers of children's books/travel books in a feigned attempt,[60]-[61] as well as by re-adding material about how the ancient Greco-Romans called the people of the region (0.0% connection with the etymology of the word Georgians). I have made numerous talk page sections to try and get through him why what he's doing is wrong,[62]-[63] but to no avail. Instead of replying to the content of the material, he's constantly evading the topic and most importantly the sources,[64]-[65].

    He simply does not want to accept what all these scholars say, and just keeps warring and pushing a self-formulated WP:POV into these articles. Note that I have absolutely no objection against at least the mentioning of these medieval lore stories alongside the clear formulated modern-day conclusions and deductions, but even that is unacceptable as one can see by his editorial pattern on this matter; per his rules, simply these two things are not allowed 1) that the term derives from Persian backed up by numerous sources 2) that these medieval stories are not accepted by the modern-day scholarly community. Anyway, this nonsense and disruption needs to be stopped. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like responding to repetitive rants, but I can restate what I've said before. Wikipedia is not a scientific or linguistic journal and it is not our place to be making assessments or rendering judgements as to which theory of etymology is more correct and which is not. We can only report what we know from individual sources. All we can draw from the differing interpretations is that name Georgia is rather old, has a murky history, and it has no single definitive theory as to its provenance. Creating a WP:SYNTHESIS of existing sources to argue that one theory is superlative to the other is original research. "Those old European travelers were wrong and I will set things right", which is pretty much LouisAragon's attitude, is the archetype of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which should have no place here.--Damianmx (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not here to assess anything. We are ought to present verifiable in-depth material, backed up by WP:RS. "All we can draw from the differing interpretations "" -- that's the whole thing; you added no interpretation thats backed up by modern-day scholarly sources of being any possibility for the etymology of the word Georgians/Georgia -- modern-day scholars, as I have shown, completely debunk this even, and adhere to a totally different stance. When I added more in-depth material with the inclusion of these numerous contemporary RS sources, it was all simply removed by said user, as it happens to be that it doesnt fit well with his ideas of how Georgians should be presented. Oh, neither do I like responding to repetitive rants, trust me. However, what you're doing over here, is simply what we call disruption, and it needs to be stopped. Erraneously Wikilabeling and removing well-sourced content you just don't like seeing is part of that as well. As I repeat, I have absolutely no problems with what those travellers stated (as one can see; I included all those lore-based stories in my revisions, apart from the modern-day scholarly conclusions, and even added extra material to them which you also removed), but modern-day scholarly conclusions need to be inside the article, when available, and can't just be removed like that simply because you hate seeing it. Try to grasp these simple things; it'll help you alot. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After ispecting the artile and the talk page, I must conclude that Damianmx still have serious difficulties understanding WP:RS, and their behavior at the talk page is borderline disruptive. On the other hand, they started the talk page discussion themselves, and did not edit-war, so that at this point I do not see any need to block them. If they continue disruption, and ArbCom case seems to be the only way out, given that this is not the first incident, and so far I was the only administrator remotely interested in resolving this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    SPAs editing Singapore politics related articles - need 3rd party opinons and closer look

    There has been single purpose accounts showing up and trying to edit articles relating to Singapore hot-button issues, removing sources and paragraphs that are critical of the government [66] [67] [68]. They have a tendency to rely strongly on primary sources. There is a possibility that these articles are being edited to try and fit the government's narrative, especially when school textbooks on these subjects are being criticised online. [69] I need uninvolved editors to have a look at Population White Paper, 2013 Little India Riots, Immigration to Singapore amongst others, to ensure that they conform to existing policy (NPOV/RS/V). I have been reverted immediately [70], and while I have suspicions on what these SPAs might be up to I am not going to run CU and would rather let someone else uninvolved to investigate this matter, and more pairs of eyes to decide by consensus how these articles should be. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    From a cursory look, Logicpls (talk · contribs) could do with a ban, and Population White Paper could do with a blanket revert back to the Sept 6 2015 version.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is Logicpls. Not sure if I'm doing this right since I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but if there are uninvolved editors here, that's great. The original page was written in partisan language, misrepresented the topic, and drew heavily on unreliable sources such as opposition politicians' dishonest claims. All this is easily verifiable. My edits are properly cited. Using primary sources is correct in this case when summarizing the statements of these sources; the original article drew on misinterpretations of these sources (again, easily verified by referring to the primary sources) and cherry picked articles to support a political statement. Your help will be greatly appreciated!
    Firstly you should not be relying on primary sources alone, refer to WP:WPNOTRS. The PWP itself is a primary source. Secondly, the statement "There is widespread misunderstanding by elements of the Singapore public...6.9 million population growth target has been set,[7] which is incorrect.[6]" violates WP:NPOV by asserting and pre-empting that a certain statement is wrong, and reads like Original Research to any reasonable person. Please look for more high-quality and reliable secondary sources to ensure the article remains NPOV. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if you are summarizing a source, you should rely on other sources? Those other sources constitute opinions on the original matter and should not be applied to the summary. They can be tacked on in a separate paragraph. Next, the verity of the statement you are challenging is not in doubt. It is not an assumption. Just read the primary source. The current situation is this: (1) The Sg government released a statement. (2) The statement was misinterpreted by various people. This can be easily verified by comparing the primary sources against the interpretations. (3) You seem to now be saying that the misinterpretations are correct and should be retained simply because they are not the primary source. This makes absolutely no sense, so it cannot be what you mean. What do you mean then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicpls (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, as a user who doesn't know or care the tiniest bit about Singapore population politics, I thought I'd take a look at this. My first reaction is that final Sept. 6 2015 version [71] by Mailer Diablo has some room for improvement from an NPOV standpoint. Putting in an opposition point explicitly, then saying that Government ministers "denied this", is wrong on a couple of levels. First of all "deny" generally runs afoul of WP:SAY. Secondly, and more importantly, I have to believe that a little looking could show what positive statements the Government was making. Whatever that is, the article should say it. Looking at the article as a whole, there is a remarkable lack of what the Government said about what it was doing. I'll take a look at some of the later revisions next.CometEncke (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Replying to both) One way is to expand the government minister's response in greater detail, as reported by secondary news sources. I believe they are very readily available, and should not take too much trouble to find. Writing that "Mr Y said about X" and "Mr Z said that what Mr Y or Organisation W said about X is wrong" is generally fine (because you are not adding anything original, you are reporting a position held by someone), but to simply assert in an article that X is wrong or mistaken based on your personal deduction from a primary source generally violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. The latter is what has been showing up in articles relating to Singapore issues and this is particularly troubling. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Next, I took a look at the version LogicPls appeared to favor.[72] That version also has NPOV problems which I will explain in a moment. On the whole, they are larger than the problems with the first version, but I would *not* necessarily assume this means that Logicpls is editing in bad faith. He may simply be unaware of the relevant policies. Logicpls, just as "deny" is an NPOV problem, so is "misinformation". In particular, you can't go saying that "such and such was misinformation", especially not without citing a source. I'll use the existence, or not, of life near the star Orion as an example of how you should do it. You should say something like "Government minister X says there is life on Orion." You should give a source and state the reason the minister gives for believing that. Then you can say "Professor Y says there is no life on Orion." You should then give a source and state the reasons the Professor has for believing that. That's what NPOV presentation looks like. So far, my suggestion to both of you is to take a deep breath, review the relevant policies, then set yourselves to writing an article that is truly NPOV. It can be done, and having people who come from different perspectives can help the process along. Logic, you need to realize there are some rules on Wikipedia about how to present things in an even-handed way. If you want to continue contributing, it will help you a lot to learn what those rules are and to follow them. Diablo, in some ways you have more responsibility here, as the user who knows more about WP. You should try to help Logicpls learn, remember that civility is not just skin deep, remember that you, too, can make NPOV mistakes, and above all, remember WP:DONTBITE. If, after explanation and pointers, Logicpls does not show any signs of learning, that could be another matter. CometEncke (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Comet. Thanks for your third opinion. I am facing constrains due to travel; precisely why I have posted here to invite uninvolved editors who has the extra time to take a look and provide advice. I understand the article isn't perfect (either way), hence my decision to post here calling for more eyeballs so that the article can be improved. I have also encouraged on user talk pages that discussion take place on the article's talk page, and that appears to be happening now. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux)

    Hello. For the most recent ANI discussion on this user, please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#User:STSC_and_WP:NOTHERE. Pinging previous nominator User:SSTflyer.

    The last discussion was archived with no administrator input or action. Predictably, as has been the case for years, User:STSC's political agenda editing has continued. As I stated in the previous discussion, though he (or she) seems to be active in any article related to controversies surrounding the People's Republic of China, I only happen to run into this user in Hong Kong-related articles, since Hong Kong is my main editing interest. So my analysis is always skewed toward Hong Kong issues but STSC is active in basically any controversial China-related subject such as Falun Gong, Taiwan, Japanese war crimes, disputed territories, Tibet, etc.

    Anyway, I post here because STSC is once again censoring reliably-sourced content from articles related to political demonstrations in Hong Kong – in this case, 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest.

    Often this behavior consists of subtle tweaks to the wording, which is not very harmful although the usual misleading "ce" edit summaries can be problematic: [73], [74] (many other examples in the last discussion)

    But I really object to arbitrary censorship of reliably sourced content like this. This is STSC's modus operandi – to pull reasons out of a hat to censor reliably sourced information (and sometimes photos) that may reflect badly on the government, and generally to subtly push the viewpoint of the government.

    This edit selectively censors certain details:

    * that Lam was departing on a planned family trip. The effect is that Lam appears to be fleeing Hong Kong to escape prosecution
    * that the police have not commented on his arrest, which does not really reflect well on the police
    * that Lam's school, a respected university, have called on the police to release him and to offer a comprehensive explanation. This is obviously unusual and has received coverage in local media

    Details of this arrest are not "undue weight" if the case has received particularly heavy coverage in local media, which it has. It's not our job to judge what's important and what isn't – what matters is the level of coverage in other sources. I hate getting bogged down in the details of any particular case because it doesn't really matter. This is just one of thousands of political edits by STSC that serves to promote the viewpoint of the government and censor details that could reflect badly on the government. It is emblematic of a long-term pattern of agenda editing.

    He is also continually leaving inappropriate warning templates on others' talk pages. He chronically places a warning for "personal attacks" on my talk page (today) even though I have only ever expressed grievances over editing behavior.

    This has been a headache for years and I have no interest in edit warring with this user. Could an admin please look into this? A search of the archives here, and of STSC's talk page will reveal a pattern of years of low-level contentious agenda editing, in violation of our policies on NPOV and WP:NOT. Thank you, Citobun (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrarily stripping the context from a protester's earlier arrest. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    uninvolved user comment -- I have to agree that this [75] diff by STSC is concerning. I do actually think that Citobun would have done better to use the word "remove" rather than "censor." That said, on the whole I found Citobun's tone to be measured and factual, not the sort of thing that would justify a level-4 NPA warning from STSC. I haven't looked at this extensively and don't plan to, but this sort of over-templating suggests to me that Citobun's concerns could be well-founded.CometEncke (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    more from the same uninvolved user -- glutton for punishment that I am, I looked into this more, after saying I wouldn't. The arrest of Derek Lam Shun-hin, which is part of what led to this dispute, has been reported from far afield, i.e. the Washington Post[76], and even Ecuador/Guatemala(!)[77]. Again, Citobun appears to be right on they money -- this is obviously highly notable, and in an article about the protests specifically, lengthy coverage would be WP:DUE. CometEncke (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Citobun has in the past constantly attacked me as a "long-term agenda editor" whenever there's a content dispute, therefore the level-4 warning was issued. Regarding the content about Derek Lam, unlike Joshua Wong, he is a little-known member of Scholarism, and the excessive detail that is seemingly defending Lam would be undue. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you see this cited content as "defence" is problematic. It isn't a "defence" of Lam that to add that Scholarism said he planned the trip to Taiwan - it's simply a fact that received significant coverage in the media. Likewise, when you added that he was previously arrested for "assault" I did not view the word "assault" as an "attack" on him. It's just the facts of the story. I do not view Wikipedia as a venue to "defend" anyone. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosure: I commented on the previous ANI that Citobun raised against STSC. STSC does exhibit a certain level of zeal when it comes to performing copyedits particularly if the loss in context can lead to a misinterpretation in some readers, particularly if they view things with a political slant. In this instance, the diffs do not seem to support, in my eyes, that there is a significant political POV in STSC's edits. Excessive pruning, yes, and ultimately a content dispute. Whether the coverage of this particular arrest is DUE or UNDUE coverage should be sorted out on the talk of which there is none. Coming straight to ANI without any talk page discussion is likely only to result in this being closed as a content dispute. If STSC and Citobun are not opposed, I'd be more than happy to look into copy editing the section that is being disputed to maintain context. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome your input on the content dispute. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened up a discussion on the talk page about the section that is being disputed. As there has been no discussion to date, I would invite @Citobun: and @STSC: to join in as well as any who would be interested. Blackmane (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Blackmane. It's late here so I'll keep this message a bit short. First, I didn't raise the last ANI against STSC. It was someone else who independently made the same observations about this user.
    Secondly, as I mentioned above, I don't care to get bogged down in the details of this particular content case because if it isn't one thing, it's another. I have found STSC unreceptive to discussion in the past, and once he moves on from a certain issue he goes and censors something else. It's endless and exhausting. The root of the cause - STSC's long-term, low-level political agenda editing - needs to be addressed, and here is the place to do it.
    I know I seem prickly. But this has been an ongoing issue for years, with seemingly no administrator scrutiny, and it is really getting tiresome and sapping my enthusiasm for this project. Wikipedia is not the place for political advocacy and countless other users have come to the conclusion that STSC's edits serve to bolster the viewpoint of the Chinese government/Hong Kong SAR government/Chinese Communist Party. I would name some of these users but I think I would be accused of canvassing. Evidence can be found in ANI records, in his talk page history, and scattered around countless article talk pages.
    All I ask is that administration please scrutinse STSC's past for evidence of political agenda editing and take action in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This has gone on far too long and I am sick of picking through diffs to try to prove my point. His edit history speaks for itself. He has gotten away with Wikipedia:Advocacy for years by being very subtle about it, but the pattern is clear. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    same (formerly) uninvolved user again Starting a discussion on that is fine. But I took a look at another portion of the underlying issue, and for the third time, it appears to me that Citobun right is on the money. I have no idea if these two edits cited by Citobun are appropriate in regards to the sourcing or not. [78], [79] But what is certain is that in both cases, an edit summary of "ce" is highly misleading. "ce" is supposed to be used for cases where you are not changing the meaning. A brief glance at each of those edits shows that a lot more than just "ce" is going on. The prior ANI discussed the "ce" problem.[80] Here we are, two months later, and it is continuing. Obviously, admin inaction did not solve the problem. Apparently, STSC has acted inappropriately in three different ways, there was a prior discussion, yet the problems have continued. That suggests that problems like this will continue until there is sufficiently strong admin action. CometEncke (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. My "ce" usually refines and makes an improvement on the content as per "five Cs" to make the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. (WP:COPYEDIT) STSC (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last ANI dispute I provided numerous examples where you used a "c/e" edit summary inappropriately. SSTflyer also provided many examples. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of your edits don't even have edit summary at all, and how about this c/e from you?[81] And many others I just cannot be bothered. STSC (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    STSC has now asked [82] on my talk page if I am a sock, without providing any similarities of my posts with any other user, or any suggestion of who I might be a sock of. This is further evidence of a pattern. Just as STSC reacted to Citobun's concerns with the NPA template, STSC is reacting to my analysis of those concerns with the sock quetion. STSC correctly notes that my account is relatively new and that I do, however, appear to have some experience on WP. The curious thing is that despite my posts above, there *were* actions STSC could have taken to at least lessen my concerns, though likely not allay them altogether. Asking whether or not I am a sock, however, was not such an action. CometEncke (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I "admire" you not sounding like a new user having just created your account on 27 Dec 2015? The way you pushing things here as an "(formerly) uninvolved user" seems you have a premeditated motive. Come on now. STSC (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to continue beating this particular horse, regardless of how dead it is. Look at STSC's reaction[83] to the "ce" concern two posts above. Although there are two users making the point, STSC fails to acknowledge the issue, and instead says "not at all," and making an assertion that his "ce" edits improve grammar. But that's not the issue, is it? A "ce" edit should improve some form of presentation without altering content. But if an admin examines any of the various linked "ce" diffs above, he or she will surely notice that the diffs marked "ce" make considerable alterations to content, often to the point where the meaning is changed entirely. This is yet another example, as if any were needed, of the pattern where STSC fails to respond to substantive concerns in a way that gives others confidence that the problem will not recur, which, of as multiple posts above demonstrate, is precisely the problem. Will an admin handle this situation, please? CometEncke (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another example, User:Marvin 2009 has made a grand total of three edits at Epoch Times so far in 2016 -- on Jan. 23 and 26, and on Feb. 6. STSC reacted to the third one with DE warning[84], stating that Marvin could be blocked. In all fairness, Marvin has had some edit warring blocks, and some of Marvin's edits at Epoch times were edit-warrish in nature. That said, three edits at an article in the first 37 days of 2016 is not DE by any measure. So what's up with the DE template? CometEncke (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block requested

    Hi. I'm requesting a range block on 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:*. I came across this IP range at The Driftless Area as 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:15B1:5308:295:DDC3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). A few days later, 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:4C81:0:1C30:9CD8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) showed up to perform the same vandalism (edit by the original vandal, edit by the new IP). The first IP was blocked blocked for one year by Spencer for persistent disruption. Other IP addresses on this range have also been blocked for similar vandalism, such as:

    I've included a representative diff for each IP address that I hope demonstrates that this IP range is not going to contribute constructively. I raised the possibility of a range block with Spencer, but he directed me here. I'll settle for a block on the latest IP address, 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:4C81:0:1C30:9CD8, but I think it would make life easier for everyone if we got a range block. I'll alert 9CD8. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure whether I meet the standards of "real admin" but I would be foolish to turn down a buck; it's 100% more than I normally receive for my work here. I've soft blocked 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:0:0:0:0/64 for 3 months. All edits from this range reaching back to December 2015 are from this same user (plus one of their blocked sock accounts). Please drop me a note if the disruption continues once the block expires. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Doc and you are "real" admins, of course, two of the best, in fact. Doc just likes to pretend that range-blocking is beyond their ken. BMK (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure Drmies is a real admin, he's just not a real CheckUser.[85] All arbitrators are automatically granted the CheckUser tool, and … uhhh … not all of them are … hmmm … suited … hrmm … forgot what I was going to say. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Just keep on forgetting that, Bish. Remember that my powers are AWESOME. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bravo. -Roxy the dog™ woof 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RajaRajan Tamilian

    RajaRajan Tamilian (talk · contribs) never listen to create encyclopedia or listen to others, but removes content that has valid references and add own ideas without valid references. User action is against Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. I have reported at WP:AIV. Note: I already revert the page, Paraiyar twice and somebody has to recover the page to original version. --AntanO 18:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It also looks like the above named editor has issued a legal threat on AntanO's talk page here in this diff--173.216.248.174 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed for legal threats. BethNaught (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Paraiyar Article

    Hereby I acknowledge that the article about "Paraiyar", a community of South india is a sensitive information.Some Users are potraying the community as slaves.Mentioning of "Slave" or Using any defamatory words against any community or particular section is an punishable offence.There may be a chance for particular section of people were treated as slaves,but mentioning a community as slaves is unconstituional since slavery is abolished by the constitution of India.Degrading a community status is a punishable offence under India law (Promoting enmity between different classes and endangering Integrity of India.Some times some truths cannot be exposed in public.(India was once a slave nation to british,for this single reason India cannot be introduced as former slave of british).I Hope all the admins can understand well.I welcome more research and discussions about the article.I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources).But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language.I Hope wikipedia will protect the true spirit of knowledge and human freedom. AntanO (talk · contribs) User : AntanO is spreading defamatory information against a particular sect of people. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:AntanO — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2016 February 11 (UTC)

    The moment you begin invoking laws, lawyers, and jurisprudence, you have lost your argument by default. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The user never discuss (Look at the user's talk page.). I added the page to my watchlist after I see the edit war and removal of content. As per WP:CASTE and WP:SUE, I request proper action against the user. --AntanO 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The user was indefinitely blocked about an hour ago. Not sure what more can be done at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see user's page and I wanted to report myself for WP:SUE. --AntanO 21:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for reconsideration

    @Bethnaught, I think this user has been misunderstood. If you read his message again, you would note that he makes quite sensible points. "I welcome more research and discussions about the article. I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources). But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language." He is not just issuing legal threats, but rather I see him using the legal framework to support his argument. Not a great strategy, and he is not very well-versed with the ways of Wikipedia. But he is basically protesting against what he sees as unfair treatment of a community. Please reconsider the block. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They made a legal threat, "If you repeat these actions,the same will be bring to the notice of Government of India and the honourable Supreme Court of India." Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat this is how they get unblocked.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Serialjoepsycho's quote, which was the basis for the block, is in my opinion a clear legal threat and it has not yet been clearly retracted. I will not object to an unblock once it is retracted. BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with the decision after having seen the evidence. I will advise him accordingly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buckshot06

    User:Buckshot06 is asserting that I made a personal attack by starting a topic at Talk:Mohammed Omar with the heading "Unsourced POV pushing by User:Sundostund". I know this belongs at SPI but I also want to say here that I have reasons to believe that User:Sundostund is a sockpuppet of User:Toddy1 (and possibly also a sock of User:Be Black Hole Sun, User:Im a Socialist! What Are You, User:Trust Is All You Need, User:StanTheMan87, StanMan87 [86], and User:TheMadTim). The evidence I have is based on behavior and location. The issue here is that I try to avoid User:Buckshot06 everyday but he's refusing to leave me alone. See [87] [88] [89] [90]. When I reply to him, he says that I annoy him. [91] When I don't reply, he WP:ADMINSHOPS in order to get me blocked. This behaviour of Buckshot06 must stop.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Users interested in the ongoing behaviour of User:Krzyhorse22 should review, this time, Talk:Mohammed Omar and also my request for a second admin opinion at User talk:Nick-D#User:Krzyhorse22 before going to my warning at User talk:Krzyhorse22. I am not entirely sure why ADMINSHOPS has been cited, given that I myself have the power to take administrative action. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited ADMINSHOP because perhaps you wanted a written comment from Nick-D (so everyone can see it) as a support to justify an unjustisfied block. I've been online since early 1997, I know alot about how people behave. Based on your recent behavior, I think your "power to take administrative action" should be taken away from you. No offense but you behave more like an edit warrior.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no connection to any of the users mentioned above. That claim is just ludicrous. Any SPI would confirm that. And, I see no problem in Buckshot06's actions. The whole problem here is that Krzyhorse22 can't accept that his controversial edits are opposed by other editors (namely me and Buckshot06). And yes, I see it as a personal attack if someone accuse me of "unsourced POV pushing" just because we have differences in opinion about an article's content. I've already said, and I'll repeat - Wikipedia is built on consensus, and Krzyhorse22 must have it if he wants to implement his versions of articles in question. I hope admins will resolve this issue quickly, and let me say that I don't plan to post further responses here (or at Talk:Mohammed Omar) - I've stated my opinion there, and I'll just wait and see what other users think about Krzyhorse22's edits, and what admins plan to do here. Cheers everybody. --Sundostund (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you made Mohammed Omar a president of Afghanistan without citing a single source makes you a WP:POV pusher. This is especially so when Encyclopædia Britannica states that Omar "was emir of Afghanistan." [92] I used POV pusher because many other WP editors use it.[93]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Krzyhorse22: You have managed two rounds of personal attacks, first, in your choice of heading and secondly, in making allegations of sockpuppetry without evidence. I suggest that you change the heading to a neutral one and retract your allegations of sockpuppetry pretty damn quick lest you find yourself blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I have the evidence to prove the sock connection but will not post it here, will start SPI when I'm free. If you think that is a personal attack then the accusations against me are also personal attacks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've been doing some clicking around, and I've just discovered Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, which mentions this user a number of times. The CU was declined, but what it does show, looking through the page, is that other users have had serious concerns with this user's conduct dating back some time. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Those who reported me were themselves abusing multiple accounts. I was also wrongly reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive [94] and a number of other SPIs. Please perform a CU on me if you wish, this is the one and only account I use.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh?! I've been inactive as of late, as you can see you by my WP contributions. I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I'm a good contributor (or was :p) to Wikipedia, even if I sometimes suffer meltdowns. I don't want to be involved in this discussion any more than I have to, but when that is said and done, I've never (or at least very litte) edited the Omar article. I know about Afghanistan's communist past, I know way to little about its Taliban past.... Of course, if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them! :) --TIAYN (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Call it a feeling, but the bent piece of wood is on its return journey. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP disruptive editing

    Rickmartyfanclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 166.171.59.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 166.170.33.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 166.171.59.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – making disruptive edits now on Alice Cooper (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) regarding an improper use of the hatnote (WP:HAT, Template:Distinguish). Has reverted three times: [95], [96], [97]. Was cautioned here; has received warnings before here. Lapadite (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protection perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no reason for page protection at this point. Nine edits in six days is hardly an "edit war". Lapadite should have attempted to use the Alice Cooper talk page prior to issuing warnings to people who disagree with his perspective - it helps prevent warring. Yes, I did the original edit. Obviously I see nothing wrong with it or else I wouldn't have done it. But now there are others involved, some revert to my edit, and others can't agree as to where to put the information included in my edit. Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi protection more specifically. It blocks IP's and new users not auto-confirmed. It stops sock puppetry. This situation doesn't pass the duck test.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Has been reverted by two other editors: [98], [99]. Lapadite (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And obviously, has been un-reverted, by just as many because you included three of us in your "report".Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Libel of British politician

    I have posted something important at the revdel requesting service regarding seriously libellous statements in the page history of a British politician which also may require action against the editor who posted. No one seems to be responding. AusLondonder (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't all do IRC (or telepathy). You may have to supply some information. If it's truly libellous you should email User:Oversight. If you prefer you can use CAT:REVDEL. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does this page repeatedly say "if the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here" in that case? AusLondonder (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not say "Do not post it here except with no informational content that can be acted upon" it says "Do not post it here". You see the difference? BMK (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You should email Oversight, they are usually pretty swift. If it is less serious, contact an admin directly, either through a talk page post or email. The warning against posting a diff here is because this is one of the most visible places on Wikipedia. So contact an admin or oversighter directly. IRC can be fast (although I've never been there) but it depends on who happens to be present. Liz Read! Talk! 11:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aciram

    I need help with this user re: posting false personal accusations (often about my alleged/fictitious behavior on "Swedish Wikipedia") and never being able to discuss anything, as far as I've seen, without getting personal to an extent that is not constructive. Could someone try to reason with the user to get the user to try to stick to subject when discussing and stop trying to make my work here more difficult and much moire unpleasant? Here Aciram showed up not to discuss the issue at hand but only to criticise me. It's depressing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see what reasoning will do; that comment was a clear personal attack and I have warned them for it. But if something needs to be said: Aciram, I don't see what Woodzing's alleged behavior on the Swedish wiki has to do with their edits here, and your comments contained too much accusation, too much innuendo, to be accepted. Kindly refrain from making accusations of canvassing until you can prove them. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Drmies and think that the warning was sufficient. If it continues, Aciram can be blocked for making personal attacks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct of editor CafeHellion on article Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

    In short: Editor CafeHellion has transformed the article about OCLA into an unsourced attack page, using the pretext of removing edits for reason of COI.

    Here is the diff.
    Here are the two sections on the Talk page, which were attempts to resolve the conflict:
    I ask that the CafeHellion edit (his latest revert) be reverted by an administrator, and I ask that CafeHellion be barred or notified from editing the article about OCLA on his sole pretext of COI. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Rancourt is a central member of the organization whose article he is editing. I have reverted his edits on the basis of this very strong conflict of interest. That is the entire basis of my undoing his edits. I restored the entry to how it was before his conflict-of-interest edits, and as a result he is running from venue to venue, apparently hoping to distract from the deep conflict-of-interest issue by trying to make it about my behavior instead. Google "OCLA Rancourt" to get a sense of how intertwined the two are, and then ask him why he apparently co siders himself exempt from conflict-of-interest rules. 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CafeHellion (talk • contribs)

    • (Non-administrator comment) There is certainly a COI as shown here. I quote from page 6 of the PDF: "Mr. Hickey (Executive Director of OCLA) provided an affidavit in [Denis G. Rancourt's] application for leave to appeal, for the sole purpose of giving evidence of the egregious nature of Beaudoin J.’s words and actions in court on July 24, 2012, in support of the national importance of judicially addressing the appellant’s complaint of reasonable apprehension of bias, as a systemic problem." Thus, I have reverted the page to Qrstuvwx's version, as it is neither slander or overly positive of the organisation. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm satisfied with that. My intent was solely to remove the conflict of interest. CafeHellion (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Just to clarify. Editor "My name is not Dave" has not "reverted the page to Qrstuvwx's version". In fact, editor "My name is not Dave" has made substantive changes to the "Qrstuvwx version" by removing the most problematic content. Will this edit by "My name is not Dave" survive? If so, it fixes the attack-page character of what editor CafeHellion was imposing. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) As a general rule: Should not content removal decisions be based on the content, and not on the person adding the content, which is a distinct question (NPOV vs COI)? The instant exercise should not replace a proper discussion and determination of NPOV regarding the content. For that reason, I continue to request that the CafeHellion edit (his latest revert) be reverted by an administrator. (Also, for information, I have not made edits to the page since learning about WP:COI potentially applying to non-financial volunteer links to non-profit organizations.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    note: you don't have to use that {{nao}} template all the time on here :-) Thank you for renouncing your right to edit the page. On your point -- one influences the other. If you have a COI, then it is likely that your edits may be one of a non-neutral mannner (what do you mean about reverting Cafe's edits? They have been removed from the current page revision). Yet, @CafeHellion: Before I arrived with some actual evidence to show that there was a COI, your point was nothing but an accusation -- if you don't want to get mired in WP:NPA, please provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. Thanks for your help. I'd just like to reiterate that what Rancourt keeps calling my edits are really only reverts. CafeHellion (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    MNINDave asks "what do you mean about reverting Cafe's edits?". I mean if we revert CafeHellion's last edit, then we get THIS, which is valid content that should not have been removed without consensus. I'm asking that this be the clean starting point for any further discussion. I also note that CafeHellion's above assertion "I restored the entry to how it was before his conflict-of-interest edits" may not be genuine since I created the article. In fact, and the page history is clear, CafeHellion selectively reverted in order to establish unsourced trash content and then screamed COI. He also refused to remove the trash content despite a full RfC process on Talk. Let's be clear. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we haven't finished then, I apologise. Well, I did see the RfC, but since nobody uninvolved really joined in with the RfC, it can't really go far. Depending on how far you wish to go, I would consider abstaining from anything about the article now. Your COI has coloured a situation where, if this was a standard dispute, then yes, WP:BRD could go on, but your associations mean that despite your best conscious efforts not to have an agenda per se, you may find yourself having one nevertheless. The version you are wishing to propose for discussion is a little bit too liberal on praise. Qrstuvwx's deletions perhaps also remove a bit too much as well, notably the section documenting the OCLA's rewards. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor "My name is not Dave" made a quick and premature closing, in the middle of discussion, having asked a question... I request that an Administrator review this matter, which has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Editor "My name is not Dave" selected to cut the article back dramatically but now is "abstaining from anything about the article now". The result was deletion of a large amount of content, without discussion about the content, and without consensus. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't noticed that Rancourt had not only COI-edited the article, but as he admits above, COI-created it in the first place, an even fishier kettle of fish. Maybe this is a matter better suited for "Articles for Deletion" then, but I've already spent too much time on this. CafeHellion (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, you misinterpreted me. That remark was directed towards you. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies: THIS EDIT is not a change towards neutrality. It is a change towards bias. An association must be presumed to act in good faith, following its own statements of purpose. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Good faith is what we extend to other editors until we run out of it. Whether an organization actually defends something or not depends on a lot of factors, but good faith has little to do with it. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A user has been raising objections to content about the Natural Philosophy Alliance at List of organizations opposing mainstream science. A couple other editors have been engaging him/her and, it seems, making progress, but the most recent comment makes me think it could use some additional eyes. The most relevant quote is "The many points I have made all point not only to extreme lack of neutrality, but are clearly cases of libel and defamation of character which can be easily confirmed by checking with your legal counsel." It's the latter part that's the more unusual/disconcerting, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Rhododendrites - The edit you provided (while it uses words like "libel", "defamation of character", etc. and references "checking with your legal counsel") does not constitute a legal threat to me. He's simply stating his opinion and referencing us (Wikipedia) checking with our legal counsel to confirm his opinion - that's not a legal threat. If he does make an implication or statement that constitutes a legal threat, please report it here with a diff of the edit. You also did not notify the "user" (who is HarvPhys) about this ANI discussion, which is something you are required to do when opening an ANI discussion involving another user. I've gone ahead and done this for you. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Yes, I know. I didn't say there was a legal threat. I said it could use some additional eyes and that it's verging into legal territory. This isn't a thread to report a particular user; it's a request for administrator attention to an apparently ongoing incident on an article talk page. If I were here reporting a user, I would've left a message for him/her and, of course, mentioned that user by name in this thread. As that's not the case, I don't think it was necessary to post a notice to the talk page of an already upset user, pointing them to this page as though they're being reported for doing something against the rules. I frankly don't know to what extent their concerns have merit, but emphasizing the defamatory nature of content on Wikipedia by suggesting we could "[check] with [our] legal counsel", while not a threat, is definitely a sign that the situation could use uninvolved administrator attention, I think. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites - That's totally fine. I was only intending to point out that the edit you provided in itself wasn't a legal threat. I didn't intend to "send you to the door" - I see that my initial response could have implied that (and for that, I apologize, Rhododendrites). I completely understand that, by looking at his previous edits in the discussion, you feel like a few uninvolved pairs of eyes should take a look at the discussion. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He may not have crossed the line, but he's teetering near it. Ad if the guy actually works for the organization in question, COI comes into it also, and makes it closer to being a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I was one of the editors discussing with the editor and removed some content on the page based on their comments. They made some fair points and I agreed that there were some non-neutral/unsourced/non-NPOV content about their organization (they seemed to identify as a few individuals from the organization in question). However I also thought the most recent comment sounded borderline like a legal threat, especially when coupled with previous somewhat aggressive comments on the talk page, and posted a warning to the user's talk page. Also thought an admin should take a look. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fair enough to me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have one concern about that article which arguably belongs on the talk page of the article but I’ll mention it here because it involves a policy interpretation and readers here are more likely to be familiar with the nuances of the policy. List articles generally include items that already have their own article. Our guidance on this (WP:LISTCOMPANY) stops short of suggesting that an organization without an article should not be in the list, but I don’t think the existence of a list article should be used as an excuse for a mini article on an organization. This applies not just to natural philosophy alliance but three other entries in that list. If the organization is notable someone should write an article about it. If it isn’t notable and doesn’t deserve an article then perhaps it could be included in this list but the description should be exceedingly short, a few neutral words with a source. My view is these three entries should ideally be removed, but if they are included the description should be more neutral. Phrases such as “ragtag but mysteriously well-funded” is not neutral, and may be acceptable in a complete article about a group when accompanied by a more comprehensive discussion, but does not belong in the short phrase identifying the organization.

    Is my thinking off-base on this point?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sphilbrick - Maybe here it is, but I do agree with what you're saying - the guideline you pointed out (WP:LISTCOMPANY) states that, "If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group", and says nothing more. I don't think that having a summary description of each company in the list is necessary at all. If it has an article, then it should be linked (of course). If it doesn't and it's still notable and should be included, then just add a reference like the guideline says; someone can always create an article about it later. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed up on the article talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting death threat

    Threat has been rev del'd, and the user blocked. Please report the death threat on Wikipedia's emergency page. No further action is required here. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This edit [100] by User:River45 appears to constitute a death threat. I'm not sure of the proper protocol in cases like this, but thought it should be brought to the community's attention. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting here is fine, but just so you know there are instructions for what to do in these situations at WP:EMERGENCY. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Permaban required for repeat offender

    Wrong venue; try WP:AIV next time after IP has received a final warning. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    65.255.82.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made multiple vandalism edits going as far back as 2010 at least; many of those edits have received warnings and/or notices. This user should be permanently banned. I just learned this is from a Education IP Address... so do as you will. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the revert on the archive. I think I must have put in the wrong IP originally? You may want to revert your original block, reevaluate the IP user again, and yadda yadda. Sorry about that. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where you got the idea that we "permaban" IPs for occasional vandalism. School IPs with long abuse histories may be blocked for up to years at a time, though. Since that IPs last block (duration: November 2014 - August 2015), there have been five edits from it; four of them minor instances of vandalism, one of them a good-faith wording change. In the future, please use WP:AIV for reporting simple vandalism that persists after a final warning has been given. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Schmidt-austin

    Schmidt-austin (talk · contribs) has been persistently recreating categories after they have been deleted by discussion. Each time he changes the title just slightly in attempt to avoid speedy deletion. Some of these categories include: Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe), Category:Characters that appear in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Category:DC Extended Universe characters, Category:X-Men film characters, Category:X-Men franchise characters, and just recently Category:Characters that appear in the X-Men franchise. He has been warned here and here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This edits by S-a bear all of the hallmarks of the blocked editor CensoredScribe (talk · contribs) and this persons edits started a couple months after the last CS sock was blocked. For further info see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe/Archive. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see 4 talk page comments, on any talk page ever, that were posted on his user talk page on July 4, 2015. So, I don't think we can expect his participation in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This user keeps repeatedly re-creating categories that have been deleted under slightly different names, and flagrantly ingores past consensus. If they had any real history of responding on talk pages, I might think they were actively engaging in good faith. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of recently blocked IP user should be extended

    The last time this IP was blocked was in 2014 and it was for one month. Moreover, the IP had not edited at all since then until this month. If I had been the blocking admin, I would have taken this more or less as a blank slate, and so even if I had known it was a school, I would have thought 1 week quite sufficient in the circumstances. Remember blocks are preventive not punitive - hopeful the one little vandal will forget about WP during the coming week. BethNaught (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring by IP

    IP 121.74.97.35 has been edit warring at History of the Jews in New Zealand during the past hour and refuses to discuss on the Talk page. Please block this IP or at least topic block. It has been pointed out to him/her that the census information he's edit warring over is based on a wrong interpretation of the census category. Akld guy (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I want to upgrade this to a complete block, since I now see that he/she has also disruptively edited figures in the table at Jewish population by country. Akld guy (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks on "[Year] in Germany"

    Pretty much every article in this format is being targeted by socks of Europefan: See the open SPI. Is there any way to protect them all? This is rather difficult to contain at this point. Thanks, GABHello! 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=704715943"