Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86

Initial statement by EllieTea

User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 have been causing problems pertaining to the article False accusation of rape. I began making edits to the article on April 26. I continued making edits until May 2; i.e. I made edits for one week. Afterward, User:Roscelese undid all the edits that I had made.[1] Her stated reason is as follows.[2]

EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved.

I twice requested that Roscelese supply evidence to support her accusation.[3][4] Here is one of those requests.

An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated WP:OR and an edit that violated WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links.  EllieTea (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese refused to specify any such edit. Another editor, User:Padenton, has also repeatedly requested that Roscelese specify the edits I had made that are problematic. Again, Roscelese declined to do so.

Additionally, Roscelese has accused me of being a Single-purpose account.[5] A review of my contributions shows otherwise. I joined Wikipedia in 2009. Until this year, I did not edit any articles related to rape. Most of my edits dealt with songs, movies, and actors.

I did not, though, edit often. This year, I became more involved with Wikipedia. I created my first, and so far only, article: Leila Araghian (an architect). Again, that is not related to rape.

The subject of Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is directly related to rape accusations, and I had seen the subject discussed in the media. In February, I looked the subject up on Wikipedia, and after reading the WP article, made an edit to the article, to include a short quote.[6]. Afterwards, I made three other very minor edits: adding some wikilinks, correcting grammar, etc.[7],[8], [9]

Two months later, I became interested in the topic, and so in mid April, I began making related edits to WP. I made several edits to Campus rape, beginning on April 19. A week later, I began making edits to False rape accusations. I also made a few more edits to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight); none of those edits changed any of the words in the text though: rather, they dealt with other issues, e.g. spelling, a reference, etc.

From the above, it is plain that Roscelese’s allegation that I am an SPA is false.

Before discussing my edits further, some background about the article is perhaps useful. A central question being debated on the subject is this: how common are false accusations of rape? There seem to be two main schools of thought. One school, often associated with activists, argues that the rate is about 2%. Another school, often supported by police, argues that the rate is far higher, e.g. 20–40%. There are also people who argue that we do not have adequate data to conclude much.

Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have repeated claimed that I am trying to bias the article against the activist school. To assess those claims, the edits that I made on the last two days during the week of my editing (May 1–2) are reviewed below.

• May 2, 11:58, Edit Summary: improve reference formatting

This edit made no changes to any words, just formatted a reference better.

• May 2, 11:51, Edit Summary: Give another quote about the meaning of "unfounded"

This edit pertains to the FBI’s classification of some rape accusations as “unfounded”. The edit consisted of inserting one new paragraph. The paragraph explained that the rate of known false reports is much less than the rate of “unfounded” reports—yet some people have mistakenly used “unfounded” as a synonym for “false”. The paragraph is copied below (reference omitted).

Eugene Kanin (whose work is discussed below) remarks similarly: "unfounded rape is not usually the equivalent of false allegation, in spite of widespread usage to that effect … unfounded rape can and does mean many things, with false allegation being only one of them, and sometimes the least of them".

Thus, my edit provided support for the activist side of the debate.

• May 1, 20:07, Edit Summary: correct authorship

The name of one author was missing from a source; the edit fixed that.

• May 1, 14:52, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660248778 by EllieTea (talk) correction

  May 1, 13:59, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660247157 by Sonicyouth86 (talk) I have explained twice with link; you are violating policy

These two edits pertain to the inclusion of a reference. The reference is an opinion piece at theguardian.com#Comment_is_free, which is an opinion site within The Guardian newspaper. Before discussing this more, some history is relevant.

On April 27, I made an edit to Mattress Performance.[10] The edit did not change any words, but removed a reference. The reference was to an article in theguardian.com#Comment_is_free, which is all opinion pieces: for that reason, I believed that the reference violated WP:RS.

I was nervous about making the edit, because I am not an expert on WP policies. So, I also created a new section on the talk page to explain my edit in detail: Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Citing opinion pieces. The edit was never reverted, and there were no comments made on the new section. Thus, I had been right about removing the reference. I felt good about that.

Two days later, on April 29, I noticed that the article False accusation of rape also included a reference to an opinion piece in theguardian.com#Comment_is_free. I therefore removed the reference, just as I had done with Mattress Performance. The Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion”.[11]

Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit. I re-reverted that; my Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP policy for facts”.[12] On May 1, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit again. I re-reverted that, at 13:59 (as linked above). I was aware that what we were doing might be construed as edit warring; I believed, however, that I was enforcing WP policy. I also created a new section on the article Talk page to discuss things.[13]

In the new section on the Talk page, Sonicyouth86 pointed out that the opinion piece was only being cited as a source for a statement by the author of the piece. I had foolishly not noticed that. I then restored the reference in the article (at 14:52, as linked above), and left a note about this on the Talk page.[14]

Everybody makes dumb mistakes sometimes. Sonicyouth86, though, had interpreted things in a different way, making the following claim on the Talk page: “I assume that EllieTea believes [that the reference should be removed] because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations is known to be true”.[15] The quote from me is from a discussion that we were having about a study that was done in Australia. In the study, 15% of the rape accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant: thus, only about 15% of the accusations are known to be true. (Only 2% of the accusations are known to be false, though; the remaining 83% did not have their veracity determined.) By quoting me out of context, Sonicyouth86 makes it appear as though I hold a POV that I do not hold (and in fact think is ridiculous; my real POV is that a study that only evaluates 17% of the accusations is of little value). Sonicyouth86 further accuses me of editing in bad faith.

The POV accusation that Sonicyouth86 had against me was also made earlier, on April 29.[16] Then, s/he added this: “It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it”. I responded by politely explaining the above issue with 15% (i.e. only 17% of the accusations in the study had their veracity determined).[17],[18]

None of my explanations had any observable effect. Indeed, on May 4, Sonicyouth86 told me this: “You have repeatedly stated your opinion that only a small portion of rape accusations are true but you need to read WP:NPOV and edit accordingly. Or better yet, you edit in some other topic area for a change.”[19]

• May 1, 10:35, Edit Summary: correct Turvey reference

There was an error in the way a reference was specified; the edit fixed that.

• May 1, 08:59, Edit Summary: add Philadelphia experience

This edit added a new paragraph to the article. The paragraph presented evidence that the police seriously over-report the number of false accusations. The paragraph is as follows (reference omitted).

In the year 2000, the Philadelphia Police Department reviewed about 2000 rape reports that had been classified as "noncrime" during 1995, 1996, and 1997. The review determined that there were actually only about 600 rape reports that were false or did not amount to crimes. The remainder of the rape reports included 705 true rapes, 532 other sex crimes, and 131 nonsexual offenses. The Police Department then agreed that henceforth women's groups would be permitted to review case files.

The edit obviously provides strong support for the activist side of the debate and against the police.

To summarize the foregoing, I made edits for seven days, with the edits for the last two of those days synopsized above. None of the edits during the last two days were against the activist side, and two edits were for the activist side, one strongly so. During those days, both User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 were active on the article and/or Talk page. Yet afterwards they claimed that I was pushing an anti-activist POV, and reverted all the edits that I had made during the prior seven days.

During the first five days, I made edits that supported both sides of the debate. Even then, though, the edits were reliably sourced and, I believe, fair. As an example of an edit that supports the anti-activist side, consider the Australian study cited above. Prior to my editing, the WP article described the study as follows (omitting the reference).

A study of 812 rape accusations made to police in Victoria Australia between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.

Most people reading that would assume that all but 2.1% of the accusations were not false—as such, the description was highly misleading. After my editing, the WP article describe the study as follows.

A study of 850 rape accusations made to police in Victoria, Australia, between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report. Another 15% of the accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant; the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study.

The new version is obviously more informative, and no longer misleading. It does indeed have weaker support for the activist side of the debate, but only because it is no longer misleading. Nonetheless, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit [20] and on the Talk page claimed that my edit was an attempt to impose a “serious POV” in the article.[21]

During the week that I was editing, I made two significant mistakes. One mistake was described above, about the removal of a reference to an opinion piece. The other was in quoting a statistic from an FBI report.

The FBI report states that 8% of rape accusations were classified as “unfounded”. The report further states that 52% of accusations were “cleared”. In editing the WP article, I assumed that “cleared” meant “final status has been determined”.[22] In fact, it means something else. (For example, if the FBI receives 108 accusations, 8 of which are classified as unfounded and 52 of which lead to criminal charges, then (roughly) that implies a cleared rate of 52%—the 8 are ignored.)

After I made the edit, Roscelese asked me to confirm the definition of “cleared”. I then googled the FBI web site, realized that I had made a mistake, and made a correction.[23]

Before asking me to confirm the definition of “cleared”, though, Roscelese suggested that I had made up the cleared rate.[24],[25] I then quoted the relevant paragraph from the FBI report, which states “Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared”.[26] Roscelese then apparently realized that the 52% figure was indeed real (and subsequently asked me to confirm the definition).

After Roscelese reverted all the edits that I had made, another editor, whom I do not know, became involved, User:Padenton. Padenton re-reverted the article to my last version, citing WP:REVERT. Then another editor, whom I also do not know, reverted what Padenton had done.[27] I then again reverted to my last version; here is the Edit Summary: “there is no consensus to do this, and no supporting evidence yet; discuss further on Talk”.[28] My edit was undone by Sonicyouth86.[29]

Padenton then left several comments on the Talk page, addressed to Roscelese and Sonicyouth86. Some extracts from those comments are below.

… the lack of civility and edit warring behavior the two of you have shown rather than these good faith edits and attempts to discuss

@Sonicyouth86: Then you need to provide information on what specific changes you have issue with, and engage in civil discussion over the changes so we can finish this.

I see many attempts of EllieTea's to discuss his/her changes on the talk page, and I see your refusal to discuss.

I believe that the article is much improved as a result of my edits. As far as I can tell, every difference between the last version that I edited and the version to which Roscelese/Sonicyouth86 reverted is an improvement. Neither Roscelese nor Sonicyouth86 have given any counterexamples.

I ask the Administrators to restore the article to the last version that I edited. I ask further that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 be sanctioned.

EllieTea (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Robert. I'm actually very interested in this subject but I could barely make a dent in that wall of text, EllieTea. This is like evidence presented in an arbitration case not a simple request for administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Most of my statement is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Roscelese. The key point is that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 reverted a week and a half worth of edits (70 edits) refusing to explain the reverts and refusing to allow EllieTea to discuss. They were dismissive and uncivil to his/her multiple attempts to discuss, often ignoring them. When asked to explain the mass-revert, they refused to provide any additional information than the already addressed concerns throughout the rest of the talk page. As Roscelese is under arbcom restrictions requiring that she explain any content reversions on the talk page, and prohibited from making rollback-reverts without explanation, her actions in this should be handled at the arbitration enforcement request, unless there are other claims against her actions. ― Padenton|✉   22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the summation, Padenton. It sounds like some of this incident is being handled at AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible boomerang for EllieTea

• EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that "only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true". Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. ET's contributions to the False accusation of rape have been particularly disruptive and in violations of our content policies. Some examples.

• With their first edit to the page, ET adds a self-published rant that compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria.”

• Removes a reliable source that says that false rape accusations are relatively rare.

• Reverts without consensus.

• Removes a reliable source (statement by Keir Starmer on recent CPS research) which states that false rape accusations are rare.

• Reverts again without consensus.

• Reverts again without consensus.

• Misrepresents FBI statistics, incorrectly claiming that 8% of 52% (15%) of accusation are false, when in fact the source says 8% out of 100% in a larger sample size.

• Reverts without consensus.

• Misrepresents sources by claiming that police classified 9 % (216 of 2284) as false reports, when in fact the police classified 8% as false reports (216 of 2643) (There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent p. 47)

• Restores misrepresentation without consensus.

• Adds link to an obscure court decision (ruling: women in jeans cannot be raped).

• Adds information about retractions and withdrawals, conflating them with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn.

• Reverts without consensus.

ET has received several notifications. They are aware that the page is subject to the men's rights article probation (false rape reports are the ultimate men's rights activist issue). Furthermore, they were told that their edits might fall within the scope of the ("any gender-related dispute or controversy") part of the GamerGate discretionary sanctions Unfortunately, the user did not adjust their behavior.

ET demonstrates a lack of understanding and/or care for statistics and WP:NOR as in the case when they came up their own FBI figures (8% of reports are false & 52% of reports result in arrest != 8% out of 52% are false). Furthermore, they show an inability or unwillingness to edit collaboratively and follow the BRD cycle. They edit to promote their stated (fringe) POV. This makes them very unsuited to edit in their chosen topic area (everything about rape). In general, ET is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --SonicY (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sonic, I've taken the liberty of adding a subheading. This section is difficult to read. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@EllieTea: It's unfortunate that you still do not understand why it is disruptive to repeatedly restore your preferred edits without consensus and despite objection from experienced editors. Most worrisome of all is your (continued) defense of your misrepresentation of sources. Your comments do not counter my points, your comments contradict the sources. And I don't know what to call you, SPA or "sleeper account" or whatever. You have made 222 article edits, 134 of them this year, and 66 article talk edits, 65 of them this year. All article talk edits in 2015 had to do with rape. And almost 100 of the 134 article edits were about rape. The non rape-related edits (with the exception of edits re Araghian) were minor and insignificant. You might have edited other topics between 2009 and 2014. But in 2015, your (substantive) edits and your discussions are limited to the subject of rape. --SonicY (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rejoinder to reply by Sonicyouth86

Most of the issues raised in the first paragraph of Sonicyouth86's reply are addressed in my initial statement, and ignored by the reply. In particular, regarding being an SPA, this was addressed: I began editing WP in June 2009 and only became interested in rape accusations this year, mainly since mid April. And regarding the quote "only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true", this is discussed in detail in my initial statement: Sonicyouth86 misrepresents my position, again. The 13 examples in Sonicyouth86's reply are treated below.

1. My first edit to the article was indeed the one cited by Sonicyouth86: made on April 26. At that time, I knew very little about the subject of false accusations of rape. I googled the subject, and found, among other things, the book False Accusations of Rape (listed on amazon). This seems to be the only book that is entirely about the subject; moreover, the book had just been published. For that reason, it seemed reasonable to include the book in the WP article on the subject, under “Further reading”, which I then did. I did that, however, without looking at the book.

Afterwards, Roscelese removed the book from the article. I accepted that: I did not attempt to revert the removal, or discuss the removal on the Talk page, etc. Indeed, since I had not, and have not, seen the book, I cannot comment on the content. As a just-published book on the topic of the WP article, though, it initially seemed to me to be reasonable to include it.

Sonicyouth86 criticizes the book because it "compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria”". My suspicion is that this is an implicit reference to the book Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller’s book has been very widely cited by people on the activist side of the debate about rape accusations. Brownmiller’s book compares rape to white mob lynchings. Hence, my suspicion is that False Accusations of Rape, when comparing false rape accusations to lynchings, is trying to draw a parallel with Brownmiller's book.

2. We had a discussion about this at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#DiCanio, on April 28. After I explained my reasons, no one replied. I therefore assumed that my reasons were accepted by other editors. Sonicyouth86 is now indicating that s/he does not accept those reasons—but is not giving any justification for doing so.

3. I do not see a policy violation here. I can, though, explain further if someone wants such.

4. This is discussed at length in my initial statement: about the mistaken removal of a reference. The reply of Sonicyouth86 ignores that discussion.

5. This is the same issue as the prior point.

6. This is the same issue as the prior point.

7. The issue of FBI statistics is discussed in detail in my initial statement. The reply of Sonicyouth86 ignores that discussion.

8. This is the same issue as the prior point.

9. There is a long discussion about this at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#British_Home_Office_study_(2005):_the_percentage_rate. My comments there counter the point of Sonicyouth86 in detail.

10. This pertains to the same issue as the prior point.

11. Sonicyouth86 criticizes my adding a link to “an obscure court decision”. The court is the Supreme Court of Italy. The decision of the Court was as stated by Sonicyouth86: women in jeans cannot be raped. In other words, if a woman is wearing jeans and she makes a rape accusation, the Court ruled that the accusation should be held to be false. This really was the case in Italy, as of 1999—the date of the decision.

I do not understand what my edit is being criticized for. It is obviously directly relevant for the WP article on false rape accusations, and of substantial significance. Moreover, it supports the request at to the top of the article to globalize the content.

(Perhaps I should add that I do have a POV on the Court’s decision: I think that the decision is absurd, and I stated so on the Talk page. That did not influence anything in the article though.)

Additionally, note that my edit supports the activist side of the debate about rape accusations.

12. This refers to the Australian study, discussed in my initial statement. Sonicyouth86 criticizes my edit for two reasons. First, because my edit “adds information about retractions and withdrawals”; that information, though, is relevant and important, as explained in my initial statement—an explanation that is ignored by Sonicyouth86's reply. Second, because my edit conflates retractions and withdrawals “with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn”; this is a falsehood, as comparison of the before and after versions of my edit demonstrates—and both versions are given in my initial statement.

13. I do not see a policy violation here. I can, though, explain further if someone wants such.

EllieTea (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Two administrators have explained that the description I gave is too long for ANI. Additionally, Sonicyouth86 has made a fairly long reply, for which my rejoinder will also be long. Hence, I suspect that this issue should now be submitted to ArbCom. If that is not okay, please let me know.
EllieTea (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is doubtful that ArbCom will take the case without prior efforts at resolving it within the community. This (AN/I) is one method, Dispute Resolution is another. BMK (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this case is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I intended to start an ANI discussion or request AE concerning EllieTea's editing. When I logged in today to do that, I saw this thread and Padenton's AE request against Roscelese. I am 100% convinced that EllieTea violated the terms of the men's rights article probation and probably also the terms of the "any gender-related dispute or controversy" provision of the GamerGate ArbCom decision. Just as a heads up, I'll probably request arbitration enforcement concerning EllieTea's editing unless their behavior is examined here or in the AE request against Roscelese. --SonicY (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK, Thank you kindly for explaining. I will treat things further here.  EllieTea (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by User:Anupamsr

Actually by User:Cubancigar11 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I am a very old editor who started editing English Wikipedia way back in 2003. Nowadays I am mostly dormant and I use a different account to lurk.

I am here to say that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have a not only a history of engaging in edit wars by taking each-others help in avoiding WP:3RR, they have a personal agenda that they are using Wikipedia to espouse. Roscelese constantly removes well researched edits by other editors without any reason except personal attacks, and has continued to enjoy a certain support by this community apparently because 'she has been here for 9 years'. If so, that support must end now along with its abuse. Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 work in tandem in scaring new users and chasing them away to maintain control over unsourced opinions.

Recently, when I initiated a discussion about why a change was reverted, I got this[30] response from Roscelese's 6-th sense. On asking what her actual problem is and how it is my personal opinion to copy-edit an unsourced statement, she reverted again with another personal attack[31]. Btw, you can read the source and see for yourself that it has got nothing to do with what was being so forcefully re-instated).

Upon further questioning about the what is the problem and how the proposed change is 'disruptive', a yet another unrelated personal attack came [32]. And suddenly out of nowhere, Sonicyouth86 started participating in instigating a revert war[33] fully ignoring the talk page. I ignored the prima facie WP:CABAL behavior and added more citations and further tried to improve the article, another user reverted it by calling the exact quote FROM the journal itself as WP:WEASEL.[34]

What I want to show here is how new users are being threatened and bullied away by Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 from editing an article because it doesn't suit a long term user's pov. Nothing matters - addition of sourced material, willingness to copy-edit, tolerating personal abuse as well as trying level best to adhere to Wikipedia rules - because these 2 users don't even try to engage in the discussion. It is my way, or a ban from my friendly administrator.

As I said, I am mostly a lurker, and I will continue to improve Wikipedia where such psychopathic behavior is minimal. But Wikipedia needs to grow a strict action must be taken to stop this kind of bullying where they are called single purpose account, this is not your personal webpage and whatever mumbo-jumbo they can come up with. This behavior will not stop if these kind of users think they can get away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubancigar11 (talk • contribs)

You tried changing "Feminists call for equality before the law regardless of gender" to "Feminists claim to support equality before the law regardless of gender" and then "Feminism claim to support equality before the law regardless of gender, with the explicit mandate which foreground the implications of the law for women and women's lives." with these charming edit summaries:

• "Added source and expanded section. Removed personal opinion of serial abusers. Go to talk page, this is not your friend's personal blog and everyone else is not your slave forced to promote to promote your opinions.)"
• " Ooh it is so much fun to quote the journals of encyclopedia. Little people won't understand the meaning of authoritative. I guess the professors and authors of book are also having only personal opinions.)"

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You just open the source and find me where in it does it say 'feminists call for equality', as I have mentioned many times before and even above. By still claiming there is some kind of vandalism, you are only showing your laziness and lack of interest in actual topic that is being edited. If you actually read the source, it vehemently talks about feminist's class for inequality and end of masculinity. But I didn't want to create a discussion about feminism so I modified the totally incorrect statement into a more neutral one, so in case anyone has a particular interest in introducing that thought, such as yourself, he or she can find a source and add it. Instead you came and blindly reverted to a wrong version, without making an iota of effort in correcting or even discussing it. And by the way, when someone repeatedly says that 'wikipedia is not your personal blog' it is an apt reply to say 'it is not your friend's blog either'.--talk 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Here is Roscelese's latest antics: [35] Revert removing genuine citations in favor of what a junior judge said when she was young, while claiming that I am a sockpuppet :D, while ignoring the talk page altogether[36]. Can we let a deranged person have such autonomy?--talk 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Yet another proof, a check for sockpuppetry :D [37]--talk 20:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC) NeilN threatens to block me for showing the abusive behavior: [38] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs)

1. Please use one account per topic.
2. Calling another editor "deranged" is not acceptable.
3. I did not call your edits vandalism. I said they were close to gibberish and synthesis. I stand by that.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Anupamsr blocked 1 week for personal attacks here and abusing multiple accounts, only acknowledging them after the fact. Sockpuppet account Cubancigar11 (talk · contribs) indef blocked as an illegitimate sockpuppet account. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please guide us on acceptable use of personal webpages for BLP information

The Nassim Nicholas Taleb article historically has included many, many citations to Prof Taleb's personal webpage.

I came on to the article recently, doing a bold edit, finding sources for several, removing some as redundant, and when necessary, placing for other cases, because I believed, based on reading:

• WP:BLPSPS
• WP:SELFPUBLISH
• WP:VERIFY
• WP:NPOV

that it was not the aim of wikipedia, as an encyclopedic venue, to reproduce personal biographical claims from an individual's self-published webpage, in an article about themselves.

Specifically, in Talk, coincident with the edits, I described them in this way:

Extended content

The work I did, therefore, was to move the article away from (1) the appearance of being a repository of the authors ideas based only on self-published sources, and from being (2) a mess of citations that while largely sound, appear[ing] in many cases in URL-only form (see remaining uncorrected cases, nos. 9-11, 39, 43, 65-66, etc.), and other cases very redundantly appearing (e.g., see what is now the Stephanie Baker-Said 2008 citation, no. 12). To start, I removed a citation to the title subject's Facebook page as an inline citation (as it is not an acceptable WP citation, and it already appeared in in the external links). Then, in some cases the text gave only a self-published citation, but it could be traced to an actual published article, online or otherwise. In these cases Taleb's website was left as a second online source of the information, the actual publisher's site being the first. These cases are clear if searching "fooledbyrandomness" and finding two URLs appearing in the citation. In other cases, the citation of Taleb's personal web page appeared as one of several attached to a bit of text. In this case the citation was simply deleted as redundant (with the 1, 2, 3 other proper citations still appearing). In still other cases, the citations were to quotations from Black Swan, and in this case, I added the citation to the book, and indicated the need for a page number, with the tag. Finally, in the remaining cases, there was no way to trace the web page material to an independent source, and in these cases the personal webpage citation was deleted, and the sentence was marked wither with or . I encourage other concerned editors to look at the diff for before/after my work today, and to add citations from standard WP-approved types of independent published sources to remove these tags. Please do not simply re-introduce the nonindependent references, and please, under no circumstances remove the inline citation tags, because they mark areas I and others can return to, to work. Note, in no case was offending, unsourced text removed; this will come later, if it remains unsourced for a long period. Otherwise, I did other cleanup work, including: (1) removing many redundant citations (to his books, to Hélyette Geman), (2) created the Influences section so that information appearing only in the infobox, with and without sources, could appear elaborated in the text itself, and (3) moved all infobox and some lede citations to the appropriate points where the same material appeared in the main text (so to cleanup the box and lede).

I move this discussion here because various editors have been weighing in, with opinion divided as to how to interpret the policies. Moreover, in some cases reversions being done not only reintroduce the Taleb personal web page citations, but also undo significant copyediting and citation completions/cleanups.

I ask administrators to address us, @LoveMonkey:, @SPECIFICO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuchy:, @Bgwhite:, @Jamool66:, @YechezkelZilber:, @LoveMonkey:, to make clear under what circumstances we should allow the appearance of the title subject's self-published materials.

Note, I have no issue with any specific edit of any of these editors.The question at hand, is if Taleb's personal webpage, [39], should be used as a recurring source at his WP article. Thank you for your attention to the matter.

Finally, (1) please forgive the "shouting" in the Edit history. I was trying get rapidly arriving editors to differentiate between contentious issues (as is being raised here), and other corrections that should not have been contentious (including the removal of redundant citations and the completing of incomplete citations).

And, (2) please move this to a more appropriate Noticeboard, if I have, in my naiveté, posted this in a sub-optimal discussion.

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor my job is to improve a page, by adding info. A source by an author on his own ideas is a source but it may be insufficient. It is not to be treated as irrelevant (when it comes to exposition of material) but to be added upon. So a reponsible policy is to find additional citations, and possible replacements, which requires some effort. Removing contents such as statements about one's own religion is not responsible editing. The problem is that edits by LeProf7272 appear to be erratic, to say the least, not counting his rants and shouting in all-caps. For instance, removing something that has a dead link (rather than adding "dead link" for someone else to add a citation would be more responsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Le Prof went into a road rage on my page mistaking me for another editor.

An apology was issued when I understood I that you had done some, but not most of the knee-jerk reversions of sound copyediting. If you have issues with that matter, please feel free to take it up with me directly. The ANI issue i about how the policies apply to use of an individual's personal web page, including his self-published CV, being used as a source to support BLP biographical information at his article. This is what the ANI needs to address for us. You believe it fine, @SPECIFICO: and I do not. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Further, looking at Taleb's pages, much of the stuff is itself referenced by him and linked and his FB account is verified so his citations about his ideas are not invalid, though other sources would be more authoritative on other material. And bio material like resume is OK to take from CV as public figures are under severe scrutiny and the smallest lie is detected and used against them. Common sense. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is indeed the crux of the matter. Can we use self-published CV and related material, absent supporting material, in a BLP article context? I proposed removal of all unsupported references to the [40] (personal Taleb) web page. LT and others reverted these replacements of fooledbyrandomness.com with . How should we proceed? Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally Le Prof Leprof 7272 seems to be edit warring and went beyond the 3RR (4 RR if I am not mistaken). Limit-theorem (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I protest this misrepresentation. The article has multiple matters going on. I have asked that these be separated, and all seem to use their reversion ability freely, and so throw baby out with bath water. The ANI is being addressed about the self-published citation issue. This matter is being confounded with other edits that have nothing to do with the ANI matter. My earlier edits moved incomplete citations in the lede to the main body, and completed those citations. Reverting these, as Limit-theorem has done, puts a deadlink source back into the lede—in this interim, while we wait for the ANI to speak—and I object to leaving the article in bad shape, and to confounding the ANI issue with unrelated issues. I will do no more edits, but I wish Limit-Theorem would appropriately parse the issues, separating the ANI issue from the correction of bad citations that had appeared throughout. His insisting on the reversion of the lede and PhD section edits as an ANI issue, is both incorrect (it involves no "fooledbyrandomness.com" citations), and puts incomplete, redundant citations into the lede (the ones in body are complete and all that is needed). Please, compare the citations between lede and main body carefully, LT!

And once again, all of this is immaterial to the ANI matter, of self-published source use, and I will not touch any of this again. No good deed goes unpunished here, it seems. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, to obfuscate matters, Limit-theorem has again reverted the non-ANI edits, and is making further edits to remove the deadlink, and so make it appear as if I have no case. When a discussion is taking place, and the opponent's arguments are undercut by modifying the article to make his issues disappear, there is no hope for unmuddled discussion, or fair outcomes. This is utterly base, and I wash my hands of the matter. Limit-Theorem can have his article, and reference it with whatever self-pblished material he wishes. I remove myself from this matter. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear all. Please note that authors/academics are allowed to post on their website gated material, articles and papers (I am an academic and am allowed to so do). So references to scientific articles that are gated can come via an author's website, though one needs to be careful to avoid self-reference beyond what is necessary and obviously useable. Removing all deadlinked (actually gated) references would be irresponsible. Limit-theorem (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The "gated material" comment is simply not germane to the bulk of the issues at this article. (I am aware of only one edit to which this description might pertain.) The bulk of the issue has to do with unpublished biographical material at Taleb's personal web pages (CV and unpublished essay material) that is making its way into his WP article. Other cases involve draft or other versions of Taleb writings whose connections to actual published material is not as simple as "gating".

And as a fellow academic, I stand by my contention that the stated WP policies bulleted above are violated by citing self-published material in ones WP article. That such is done at other places in WP, or by academics does not make it consistent with the policies cited. Otherwise, because of LT's tactics of obfuscating matters by continuing to edit the article, in particular to remove issues I have called attention to, I can no longer interact with him (can no longer AGF), and I recuse myself. I support the suggestion of @SPECIFICO:, stated at the end of the discussion here, [41], to move this discussion to BLPN, but lack the experience to make this move. Cheers, thanks all for attention, bonne chance with resolute, issue-marginalizing Prof LT. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are several different issues being conflated here. Peer reviewed journal articles can be used as appropriate, and are not self published. The citation should be to the journal.

If the author republishes it on their website, a link to this copy can normally be included as courtesy link. The exceptions would be if the copy isn't the same as that which is published. Or it's feared that the are copyright concerns as. Generally an author is allow to have such a copy so we normally accept such copies particularly when on a university website. However if there is sufficient doubt, it's possible it may need to be removed as secondary infrigement per WP:copyvio.

The inclusion or rejection or the presence or absence of such a courtesy link in no way affects the validity of the citation which is ultimately to the originally published article, not the courtesy link. If people are rejecting such courtesy links, examples should be given. If however Leprof is correct and these courtesy links are not an issue under discussion, then it's an unnecessary distraction to bring them up.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne for the thoughtful response. Replies: [a] No issue with peer-reviewed journals, concur that citation should be to journal; [b] do not disagree regarding the appearance of a courtesy link, but invoke the exception you state as applicable here (that in some cases, what appeared at the personal Taleb web page was not the published pdf, but a draft version), [c] to be clear, courtesy links are not the issue, it is such things as using his self-published CV appearing at his personal web page as the source of biographical information throughout the article. Here are the esamples, still in the article:

• [42] (to support family history, in lieu of standard formal records/publications)
• [43] (to support family history, in lieu of standard formal records/publications)
• [44] (left in in my edit, a courtesy link alongside primary, to Bloomberg Markets journal, per se)
• [45] (left in in my edit, a courtesy link alongside primary, to Business Week magazine, per se)
• [46] (to justify all of his finance employment positions, no other source given)

[further cases where personal web page references to articles as courtesy links are being ignored, as point has been made sufficiently with two above]

• [47] (to justify all of a long string of his academic employment positions, no other source given)
• [48] (that he jointly teaches regular courses with Paul Wilmott in London)

There may be more, but this is enough of a sampling to make clear that the issue is not courtesy appearances, of which I edited in support. The issue is biographical information that is sourced only to his personal webpage, and therefore seeks to make the article an extension of that web page, rather than an encyclopedic article with reliable and (independent) verifiable information. As it stands, for significant portions of the article, User:Limit-theorem having reverted my replacements of these cases with , the article is again in a "just trust me" state—we are being asked to simply trust the title subject to self-state, through his personal web-page, his employment, his personal family history, etc. That is, we have allowed this to become autobiographical, in these significant aspects. I would note that in no other article of a living person that I have edited, have I had this contentious issue, trying to ensure that people are not presenting their autobiographical aspirations as their encyclopedic article content. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins unethically taking care of each other.

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.

---

Okay, so as you know, I was blocked for 36 hours. About 8 minutes after I was blocked, I posted a very understanding, and worthy unblock request. The only problem? NO ADMIN RESPONDED TO IT. Instead of an admin looking at my unblock request and trying to go over the merits of it, apparently every admin thought they had something better to do and I had to wait the whole 36 hours before editing again. Funny thing is, the user who reported me for this supposed "edit-warring" that I engaged in, Huon, is an admin. Now, either every patrolling admin has had their head up their ass for the past 36 hours; or, admins decided to close ranks and ignore my unblock request. Admins take care of each other, right? Just like cops. This is unacceptable. I'm unblocked, and I'm happy about that, but I'm not happy that Huon decided to get his little corrupt admin friends to completely ignore my unblock request, just so that they could take care of one of their own. Unacceptable, period. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I guess that's one theory...? Unblock request work isn't the most fun or rewarding task in this volunteer project, you know. Couldn't it also just be that not many people were working on it at the time? I'm an Admin, but I wasn't over here, stroking my beard and letting out evils laughs in my lair as you were blocked. I was reverting vandalism, completely unaware of the unblock log at the time, or doing non-Wikipedia related things. That could be the case for a lot of the admin population... Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

uhhh, posting a message like that is not likely to get you unblocked any time soon. I'd suggest , and I'm only suggesting, that you wait out your block for at least today, and strike the above, please. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: as unsavoury as the phrasing of the message above might be, your response here does rather illustrate BeastBoy3395's point about messages not being read… —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment I'm reluctant to comment on this rant, but I guess it's somewhat understandable that the user is frustrated. As User:Sergecross73 said, this is a volunteer thing and people could be busy. After several years here, I still haven't discovered this alleged unethical admin conspiracy. The only reason I'm commenting is that despite the ranting tone, the user does highlight a problem I've also noticed. More and more admin tasks go unaddressed, and this is a change. It could be a user not being unblocked (in this case I don't think there was a reason to unblock, but that's beside the point) as no admin looks into it, but it could equally well be a vandal avoiding a block cause no user looks into it. During the past months, I have the feeling that all reports take longer than before, and more reports go untreated than before. It could be obvious vandals allowed to carry on for hours as there's a huge backlog for dealing with vandalism, it could be obvious edit warriors not being treated at all. I also have the feeling more and more ANI reports are archived without closure one way or the other. Once again, this a voluntary task the admins do and nobody has the right to demand of any individual admin to do more. At the same time, there is no denying that if there's a collective slow-down of admin tasks and even more and more admin tasks not being done, it signals a wider problem. That could be relevant to discuss, not the rant about unethic admins. Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I definitely think that's true. There are more backlogs all over the place. I've had what I thought were legitimate reports disappear into the aether several times. Many active admins retired or got desysoped in the past year, and few people are stepping forward at RfA to take their place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is just too few admins to go around. I waited two months for the close of a simple RfC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The shortage of admins is the fault of the admins. If they were truly concerned about it, they would do something about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There may be some truth in that, it's possible they should be a bit more concerned about it as all these backlogs we all note are detrimental to the whole project. Nevertheless, not being overly concerned about backlogs is very far from an unethical CABAL of rouge admins.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Failing to get the job done would not seem to be an ethical issue, no. (Rouge admins. Do we have any beige or bleu admins?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You know it's not that simple though. There's plenty, for instance, who would like to change RFA process, it's just that no one can ever get a consensus on how/what to change. It's easy to point fingers and blame "the collective", but very hard to propose a solution that would gain a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I know I took a break for a few months last fall and one of the first things I noticed was that there were fewer admins putting AN/I on their regular beat than there were when I started in 2013. There used to probably be 15-20 admins that I would see regularly weigh in at AN/I and now it is much fewer who check in every day or every few days. Some of those admins retired or were desysopped. I think that there are some areas of admin work where your actions are more likely to create animosity against you and why face angry editors when you can handle backlogs of page protections, username complaints or vandalism or other less divisive areas of work? This is all WP:OR, just an observation I've noticed. I just think with fewer admins to handle the workload, it's likely that things will fall through the cracks and those who shoulder the burden are in danger of burning out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• (comment from an uninvolved editor) Oh... Hrmmm... I didn't know Huon, who I knew was an admin, had joined Drmies' CABAL. Well, Huon, I hope you're enjoying being a ROUGE... ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

BeastBoy3395, I believe you were supposed to notify me if you launch an AN/I thread about me; please keep that in mind the next time you use this page. I reported you for routinely misrepresenting what the sources you provide say, not for edit warring. I see the edit warring you sincerely apologized for in that very worthy unblock request becomes supposed "edit-warring" as soon as the block has run out. I'm rather active in unblock requests (though for obvious reasons I didn't answer yours), and at times I come upon a request I don't feel comfortable accepting but still don't want to decline - if other admins share that sentiment, such a request can stay unanswered for quite some time even though admins have actively looked into it. Huon (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but I did ping you. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So a "brand new" user arrived less than a week ago, made enough edits to trigger autoconfirmed status and then piled into edit-warring on a toxic article until he was blocked - and people didn't unblock him. I can't imagine why. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I know what you're implying, and it's not the least bit true. And if people didn't unblock me because they suspected me of being a sockpuppet, that's still unethical, as I wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry, and there's no evidence to show I'm a sockpuppeteer. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but he's saying that, even if someone had reviewed it, your odds of getting unblocked were not great. An overwhelmingly vast majority of the unblock requests regarding edit warring or misrepresented sources are denied, especially with such a touchy subject and such short block span. Just an observation. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I think the short length of the block probably had something to do with admins not weighing in on whether or not to unblock the editor. If the block had been for a week or month, it's more likely that there would have been SOME response although whether that would be to unblock or deny the request, I don't know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

About my edits and User: Joseph2302 on the issue of tagging my articles for deletion severally.

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 username is Hilumeoka2000. My full name in Hilary Umeoka. I am a freelancer working and earning a living as a full time online writer at www.freelancer.com, and www.elance.com

Here's my public link on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html

Here's my public link on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/

I noticed several clients on both freelance platforms post jobs for wikipedia article creation. Everyone including companies want to be on wikipedia to gain traffic and reputation. Initially, I ignore such jobs since I don't know how to create wikipedia articles.

I opened my wikipedia account some years back. However, I developed interest in writing wikipedia jobs since March 2015. I decided to learn how to write wikipedia articles. I took my time to go through all the editorial guidelines. I really enjoy learning a lot and also contributing to the best repository in the world.

I made inquiries about paid edits on wikipedia and I discovered this page Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy). After going through the page and other resources, I discovered that freelancers are free to get paid for writing wikipedia articles provided the articles follow wiki rules.

My first attempt to create a page on a man "Joshua Letcher" failed. This was mainly because the man was not notable. There are also no media references to use for him. I learnt a lot from that. I read more about wiki editing and grew in knowledge.

I started getting more jobs from clients to create articles and get paid for same at the end. I follow the rules. I don't promote nor advertise about article subjects. I make sure I use available media resources.

I created the following wiki articles for sometime now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Direct

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfield_Resources_Limited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawano_Kambeu

I also have others in the pipeline.

Now, between 12th and 13th May 2015, I started seeing huge interest by some editors about the pages I already created.

User: Joseph2302 is the person that keeps attacking the pages. He notified me asking if I was a paid editor. Here's the discussion link [[49]]

I opened up to him and told him that I work as a freelancer and I get paid to write articles. But, I follow due process when writing articles.

Joseph2302 ignored my please and went ahead to nominate all my articles for speedy deletion. He cited "Undisclosed paid editing" as his major reason.

User: Safiel reverted some of the deletion tags and told him that, the issue of "undisclosed paid editing" is not a reason since it has not been approved on wikipedia

Joseph2302 reverted back all the pages to "speedy deletion" once more persisting on his former claim of "undisclosed paid editing"

Other editors also came to the rescue. Why other editors revert the article to normalcy, Joseph2302 still refused. It now dawned on me that, he simply attacking my edits for some personal reasons.

Now, Joseph2302 has also nominated the same articles for AFD (Article for deletion)

I discovered there are vested interest among most of the editors that comment on the AFD page. They seem to have issue with the subjects of the articles created.

Please, I want an admin to look into these issues and the wiki pages. I made sure my articles pass neutrality policy. I also make sure they are properly referenced with secondary sources.

I believe many editors take a stand on issues of AFD just to punish the article creator. This has been my case so far. That's why I table my case to the admins.

Finally, if paid edits are not allowed, I would like to know and probably stop bidding for Wikipedia jobs on freelancer.com platforms. But from what I read, the policy on paid editing failed. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

First, please calm down. Your ad hominem arguments against the deletions of articles you created is earning the ire of fellow Wikipedians and is making the problem get worse. First of all, paid editing is generally frowned on in Wikipedia because many Wikipedians assume an instant, well-disliked bias when someone is paid to edit an article for a company, because they have the mindset of that paid editors create Wikipedia pages to advertise not-notable organizations, and are prone to violations of WP:NPOV. Second of all, panicking like that will invite Wikipedians to discredit you whole, instead why don't you address what people identify as the actual issues with the article? Joseph and DCG cite Wikipedia policies to show what is wrong with the content; it's not to turn you into mush, but to show that this is not very good content for articles. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing is not not allowed without prior disclosure. You are not "following due process", since an important part of the COI guidelines is to go through WP:AFC for the actual creation of the article, and you did not disclose your conflict of interest until you were forced to. You seem to think you're doing us a favor (or at least that's how your argument here comes through). That is certainly not the case, unless you suddenly start creating articles about lizard species in Madagascar, but I guess that's not where the big bucks are. With that said, sadly there is no deletion rationale that based on undisclosed paid editing, and it seems Joseph2302 got a little carried away in his understandable (at least by me) anger. But that concerns me less than what you've been doing. There are quite a few people who operate under COI around here and do it correctly, so it can be done. But you apparently are not interested enough in doing so. I would support a site ban for you at this point, and the summary deletion or at least incubation of all the articles you created, but I know that's not going to happen, so I'd recommend you just go away. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Hilumeoka2000: The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use (which is our Terms of Use, since we've never adopted another one), says<

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

-a statement on your user page,
a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

Have you complied with these terms, as well as with our English Wikipedia-specific policy on editing with a conflict of interest? If so, you must. This is not a matter for debate, it's part of the contract you agree to by editing here.

None of the article you listed, if deleted, will be any great loss to the encyclopedia, which we can never expect to include every business in the world. However, allowing paid editors such as yourself free reign will do great damage to the encyclopedia, and tend to bring it into disrepute as a neutral source of information. I would suggest that if you do not comply with the requirements listed above, you be blocked from editing, but I know that the admin corps is split on the issue, so that probably won't happen. The best we can do is have on-the-ball editors such as Joseph2302 monitoring your output and nominating those articles which fail to pass our notability requirments or are overly promotional. BMK (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 72 hours. Aside from opening this thread they went to each AfD and posted this message accusing Joseph2302 of nominating the articles for deletion because he was trying to harass them. I've left them a message telling them not to do this sort of thing, to follow policy, and to pay very close attention to what you are all saying in this ANI thread. I've also let them know that if they continue on the way they are, they're running the risk of this becoming a permanent block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Really? This is a bad block. Hilumeoka2000 did disclose, on their talk page that they are indeed a paid editor, so they met terms of service, yes their message on AFD was inappropriate, but not rising to the level of a block, the AFD's on the basis that they're an undeclared paid editor , are nonsense, she declared it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

His user page does not include the crucial word "paid". He says only that he is "a wikipedia writer and editor. He specializing on writing wiki articles that are neutral and also follow the wiki rules", but most users would say that. That is not a sufficient declaration to comply with the Terms of Use, which require disclosure of "your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." He only disclosed that he was paid yesterday on his talk page, in response to a direct question. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I consider it a good block. Even if one regards that as disclosure, and I agree with JohnCD that it was inadequate as such, he was not blocked for being an undisclosed paid editor. This block, as I understand it, was for disruptive editing at AfDs. We should await the conclusion of the AfDs, but if the articles are deleted and he attempts to write similar ones, there would be a possible indefinite block for persistently inserting promotionalism after adequate warnings. We can and do block promotional editors regardless of motivation. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

regentspark (comment) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolonenk has directed personal attacks towards me without any reason. See my talk page. El Bayon (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No one seems to take notice. Thank you admins for your inattention. El Bayon (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO SOMETHING TO STOP THOSE ATTACKS! THEY ARE CONTINUING. El Bayon (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with El Bayon. This is an obvious case that admins should handle quickly. Yesterday, there was a long discussion triggered by the increasing problems caused by lack of admin activity [50]. The complaint was an irrelevant rant, but it also showed how we're come to a situation where admin tasks are no longer carried out and backlogs are building up everywhere. This threatens the whole project as it allows disruptions to multiply unchecked. An obvious case such as this one by El Bayon should be addressed right away. Sure, admins are volunteers and we all respect that, but if Wikipedia is to continue and not descend into one giant WP:SOAPBOX, something must be done.Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Gave them a warning, will block them indef if they continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Sneaky paid editing going on

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blooming Lotus Yoga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was some suspicious !voting going on in that AfD with several apparent WP:SPAs voting for keep (for me the article looks like an obvious delete although I would understand if a neutral editor looks at the references and honestly thinks that they prove the company's notability; my reasoning is explained in the AfD).

At least one of the keep voters actually provides his/her paid services as a writer on an off-wiki website -- it only took me a bit of googling to find this info but I will not give the specifics right now in case it counts as WP:Outing. Based on this I believe that Wikipedia is being edited by more than one such "freelancers" and that Blooming Lotus Yoga has recruited them. And/or folks affiliated with BLY are editing here but none of them has disclosed it. (Before the AfD, at least one editor had attempted inserting links to the BLY website, like here.)

Looking at the previous edits (and talk page warnings) of the SPAs, I find this all very suspicious. But I'm not entirely sure how to actually approach this kind of thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: The accounts appear to be  Unrelated from a technical standpoint. I've left the users a message about meatpuppetry and paiding editing. Mike V • Talk 17:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I ask which user you checked? I thought User:ShriKailasha and User:SriKailasha were the same person for obvious reasons (and Sri became inactive before Shri appeared so I'm not implying anything) but I didn't mean to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry specifically. I think all of the keep!voters in the AfD are suspicious though, considering their contributions, and if they're unrelated then it's just more likely that they've been canvassed off-wiki. (I didn't notify all of them.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked SarahKrauch, ShriKailasha, SoulFlames, and Legendarybroly. I can't compare ShriKailasha to SriKailasha because SriKailasha's technical data is no longer available. However, it seems to be more an issue of an abandoned account due to a lost password rather than sockpuppetry. It's possible there is some canvassing/meatpuppetry, but that's not always so easy to prove. As for the AfD, that's why we always say that it's a discussion, not a vote. The closing administrator should take the merits of all the comments into consideration when deciding the outcome. If the discussion shows more merit for delete, that will be the outcome regardless of how many support keeping the article. (And vice versa for keeping the article.) Mike V • Talk 18:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Anglicanus

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.

---

At 10:30 (BST) yesterday (12 May) I edited the article Martin Seeley in the usual course of my routine edits on Church of England bishops. User:Anglicanus reverted my edits to that page and we have been discussing at their talk page. However Anglicanus has been extremely difficult and, at times, rude (though I have not been perfect myself) and, despite my reasoned and sourced arguments, has reverted again. This is not the only example of abrupt and unilateral editing on their part and I do not believe that it is conducive for the good of the 'pedia that an established editor persists in behaving in such a way.

I cannot accept that bullying is acceptable behaviour in editing.

• Special:Contributions/DBD
• Special:Contributions/Anglicanus
• User talk:Anglicanus
• User talk:Bashereyre

DBD 13:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick glance suggests that this is primarily a content dispute, perhaps even a copy editing dispute that has gotten a bit testy. Has anyone requested a second opinion from an experienced editor? Has an RfC been posted? Has a request for review been posted on any of the relevant wiki-projects? My advice is to pursue one or more of these options before going any further. ANI is an option for serious problems and offenses, but I am not seeing that here. On a side note please remember to notify all parties named in a complaint of an ANI discussion. I have posted the relevant notification on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you not have had the discussion in the article's talk page, where people can see it as a record of a disagreement about the content of that page, and where interested parties could easily find it to participate? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. I suggest copying the relevant discussion onto the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. We'll try some of those things then. Withdrawn. DBD 14:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable tone of addressing, by LightandDark2000

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 to file a complaint about editor LightandDark2000, for speaking on a commanding tone to other editors, in this edit summary, 3 May. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I live in America, and here, this tone is perfectly acceptable when speaking to peers, or people of the same age range. I don't know where you come from, but I don't think that you should be reporting my behavior on the basis of potential culture-specific mannerism. Also, I don't see how it is explicitly insulting or offensive, and neither was that my intent. Moreover, if you really want to go deeper into this, I have seen (and faced) much worse edit summary comments from other users, especially inexperienced users, vandal accounts, and IP editors, so please don't single me out on the basis of this one occurrence. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Goddness me. Compared to many edit summaries I've read, including those directed at me, that one seems a very worthy example of reserve and politeness. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system

User:Phill24th has been engaged in page ownership issues in regards to the 2015 Kumanovo shootings. He has attacked editors who have made good faith edits on the page by giving them warnings in an attempt to scare them away, most notably here User talk:120.62.25.25 in regards to [[51]].XavierGreen (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

XavierGreen When you open a section on this page, you must notify the other editor that you have done so on their talk page. You will also need to provide diffs of the problems you are discussing. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret I did place a notification on his talk page here [52]. And i did post the diffs above. The warning user:Phill24th gave to the editor was here [53], the good faith edit he gave the warning for was here [54].XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo's edit warring, WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN-behavior

Peter Isotalo has completely appropriated the article Sweden in a clear WP:OWN violation. For years, the stable version of the article said Sweden was consolidated in the Middle ages. In February this year Peter Isotalo unilaterally imposed the year 1523 instead [55], and has kept reverting back to his own version ever since [56], [57], [58], [59]. Even though Peter Isotalo is alone in pushing his version and several other users (at least four) have expressed their opposition, Peter Isotalo insists Wikipedia does not operate by consensus [60] which may be true insofar that a consensus cannot overturn sources, but Peter Isotalo has never offered a single source in all his edit warring. Furthering displaying how obvious a case of WP:OWN this is, Peter Isotalo insists that what goes into the infobox "needs to be stringently monitored" [61]. As Peter Isotalo changed the established version and has since kept reverting to his own version, apparently he has appointed himself as the guardian who should do the stringent monitoring. Last but not least, in a rather obvious case of WP:HOUND, Peter Isotalo responded to my edits at Sweden by heading to List of languages by number of native speakers, an article he had never edited once before but where I'm active and had edited earlier today, to oppose my work there [62], [63].WP:HOUND does not come any clearer than this, and it is a typical example of the battlefield mentality of this user. All of this, the edit warring, the strong WP:OWN and the obvious WP:HOUNDING shows that Peter Isotalo is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI was brought here a full 2.5 hours after the dispute over Sweden arose. Not the most constructive use of this forum, I'd say.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely untrue, and you know it. The dispute at Sweden goes back to February, as the diffs above show. I haven't been involved in the dispute before, but you certainly have. And as I already explained on your talk, it is the combination of your WP:OWN with your aggressive WP:HOUNDING that led me to bring this to ANI, as it's one of the clearest cases of battleground mentality I've seen in years.Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have consistently removed claims at Sweden in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and no sources have been forthcoming. You've simply referred to other users to reinstate those unreferenced claims.

And I have been involved in articles relating to both languages and Sweden for years, so it's not particularly odd that I commented on problems raised by others at talk:list of languages by number of native speakers. I noticed this by checking your recent contributions. Last I checked, this didn't qualify as WP:HOUNDING.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that it's pure coincidence that in all your years at Wikipedia, you never once went to List of languages by number of native speakers but after I challenged your edit on Sweden, you headed straight to the latest article I had edited to oppose me? Yes, that's most definitely WP:HOUNDING and your denying of it is profoundly dishonest. My apologies, it was late and I misread the comment above.Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did Peter suggest that? Here he seems to suggest it isn't a coincidence, rather that he's been active in the general subject area for a few years, and noticed one particular issue by checking out your contributions (I presume due to concerns over your editing brought up by the dispute). Checking out a persons contribution in response to concerns you see over their editing or just because you're interested after encountering that person and are wondering more about them, is perfectly normal and accepted. Commenting solely on the issue at hand, when you happen to see something in those contributions that you feel you can help in, or where you have concerns over the direction of discussion is also perfectly normal and accepted. The question of when it becomes hounding is a very complicated one, but I think it's rare that a single instance will cross in to the hounding threshold. More importantly, as I said at the beginning, your response is fairly confusing as it doesn't seem to relate to what Peter actually said here. If there is somewhere else where Peter suggested it was "pure coincidence", can you link to that? If you were solely responding to Peter's comment here I'll be blunt I'm tempted to check out your contributions myself as it sounds like you have a problem understanding peoples comments, and to make spurious accusations due to that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear, and I was. Not that it's an excuse, but it was late and I read Peter's comment to quickly. He says he noticed it by checking out my contribution, so my comment about him claiming it was a coincidence was inaccurate and I have struck it. My apologies for that mistake. As for the policy, perhaps I've misunderstood WP:HOUNDING. The way I understood it is that we should avoid following users with whom we have a conflict to articles they are editing to spread the conflict. Of course I could go to several articles Peter has edited to start opposing him there and he could go to even more articles I've edited to oppose me, but I really don't think that that would be helpful for the community. As for the rest of my original post, the strong WP:OWN remains. Since I posted those diffs, I added sources to several claims Peter had tagged [64], and his response was the usual as it has been to anyone editing the infobox on Sweden since Febrary, reverting me [65] to remove all the sources to insert his {cn} even though every source was WP:RS and in each showed that the dates are correct. Once again, every user except Peter Isotalo is in favor of the consensus version and this reverting of anyone disagreeing has been going on for three months against any user who does not agree with Peter's (unsourced) decision that Sweden did not exist prior to 1523.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I should add that the edit warring against consensus and strong WP:OWN is not limited to Sweden. At Melee, Peter Isotalo is doing exactly the same thing, endless edit warring to impose templates despite being alone in his view [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. All of that edit warring is just in the last week, showing that the problematic behavior at Sweden is part of a general pattern.Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I was informed of this conversation by Jeppiz presumably because Jeppiz wishes me to explain the context of the disagreement over Melee. Melee is an article I recently visited for the first time in years because articles I am composing on the Waterloo campaign use the term, and I wanted to see if the content supports the link. So now for some recent editing history of the article involving User:Peter Isotalo:

• There was a proposed move Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 to move "Melee" → "Melee (warfare)" and "Melee" (disambiguation)" → "Melee". The decision was "No consensus that other uses challenge this one". User:Peter Isotalo was in favour of the move stating I see no indication whatsoever that the modern meaning of "melee" has a specific military meaning. This article is devoid of sources and a merger to close quarters battle has been suggested. In my view, it smacks of original research. ...". there was an exchange in which it was pointed out anonymously that "The term has certainly been used in military scholarship" eg "The Battle of Hastings: Math, Myth and Melee". to which User:Peter Isotalo replied "It's also an attestation that 'math' and 'myth' have been used. That doesn't make them relevant encyclopedic topics."
• User:Peter Isotalo put the article Melee up for deletion on 6 April 2015 which starts with "As pointed out in the recently closed move request, this shows no signs of being a valid encyclopedic topic." This was closed with 'The result was no consensus. Rather than "keep", because some of the "keep" opinions are really rather superficial and not much more than votes.' User:Peter Isotalo wrote in that AfD "Btw, I'm strongly opposed to a general merger of any and all warfare topics that happen to contain the word "melee". It's going to amount to a clear example of WP:COATRACK".
• Having made similar arguments in two different forum (the RM and the AfD) and not gained a consensus User:Peter Isotalo has set about the article with a vengeance. User:Peter Isotalo has been removing any information that is not source because AFAICT User:Peter Isotalo still has the opinion that Melee is not a valid military term so nothing in the article can be verified against it (I admire the logic, but disagree as I think it is a perfectly valid military term). This means that for example a paragraph on cavalry tactics has been removed with the comment "removed unsourced statement" not "removed as unverifiable". That in itself is not an indication of sort of problems that Jeppiz refers, but I think that the removal of of this sentence on a well sourced paragraph (with a link to the source), and the simultaneous addition of two templates, is an indication the having gained no consensus for views expressed in to other forum User:Peter Isotalo intends to try to overturn those view by reducing melee to just a dictionary definition, (presumably to then request another delete) Ignoring the consensus expressed in those two recent forum against such a change. This I think is behaviour, coupled to the insistences on adding and readding different templates to the to of the melee article without a consensus to do so, has moved from reasonable (as it was in the two forums) into tendentious editing. As I have not been involved in editing any other article that User:Peter Isotalo edits in recent years, I will leave it to others if this to decide if this indicates an inappropriate pattern of behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PBS, I had noticed as well that Peter Isotalo first was very active in reducing the article and then started adding templates, but knowing nothing of Melee, I preferred another user to expand on it, and I'm glad you did. For the record, this behavior is also emerging at Sweden now. After a number of users have expressed their opposition to the version Peter Isotalo has kept reverting to for months, he has started adding a large number of template [71], [72], even removing sources to keep the tags [73]. Just like at Melee, to echo PBS's words, this look more like vengeance, and the same goes for following me to List of languages by number of native speakers to start adding templates there as well, at an article he had never once edited until I "crossed" him. Taken together with what PBS says about Peter's behavior at Melee, this seems very much to be a battleground behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As User:Thomas.W concludes, Peter Isotalo's tactic seems to be quite simply exhaust people by refusing to WP:HEAR until they tire and he "wins" [74]. And in absence of any action, Peter just continues to revert everybody, against the clear consensus [75]. Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say about this issue? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:JoeMCMXLVII and DRN

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.

---

JoeMCMXLVII Started a thread at The dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) and was asked to step back from the disgussion by me after receiving a warning and in accordance with Wikipedia:Mediation#Control of mediation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=662062894). However, he has refused to obey this as can be seen in the following diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662065641 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662067470 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662069380 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=662070289 I would like to request he be banned, blocked, or sanctioned in accordance with the mediation policy linked to above. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC) , volunteer mediator

Do you plan to do any more mediating in the actual discussion itself or have you abandoned it now? Do we need another mediator? In all honesty your tone was unnecessarily confrontational and unhelpful anyway, in my opinion.109.145.67.105 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Rider ranger47, but I did clearly express deference to your request and I did subsequently avoid reference to any person as distinct from reference to content, as you requested. I thought that Wikipedia was a place where we could all express opinions of fact without editorial supression. If I got that wrong then I apologise to you again. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeMCMXLVII: I told you what the policy is, and it is linked to at the to of the DRN page. And you are still editing the page in violation of the policy. @109.145.67: How have I been unhelpful? This is my first mediaton request and I have mediated it to the best of my ability without the help of the co-cordanitor who is not responding to my messages. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I also believe this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=662079301&oldid=662078397 is a personal attack/civility policy violation. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You've been unhelpful because you've done little or nothing to facilitate the discusssion. Your approach has been confrontational and partisan. As soon as you percieved that someone had defied you you abandoned the discusssion, allowing it to continue unmediated in your absence. There are better ways to handle people and achieve results than giving them ultimatums then running off and reporting them. Who behaves like this in real life? A bit of diplomacy is what's needed surely.109.145.67.105 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I do have a life you know. And I would like to express concern that you are actually JoeMCMXLVII editing while logged out. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 00:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to make unfounded false accusations. That would be unbecoming of a volunteer mediator.109.145.67.105 (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that 109.145.67.105 is me is beyond any doubt your personal bias. I suggest in the strongest permissible terms that you find something else to do other than attempt to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and denying Wikipedia editors the right to edit the dispute page is defensive to an extreme. I had a great deal of respect for the little girls in my infants' school but, it needs to be said, they didn't behave as badly as you. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

reverted edits

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.

---

Having been an account holder for many years, having created many unique articles here. I no longer feel that the system here warrants anything else other than disruptive behaviour when dealing with moron editors who cannot be bothered to read properly the historic material they are happily and blidly destroying. I have all the time in the world , have an unlimited supply of IP addresses so you will never block me from editing......Go away and let me deal with the editor I an ib dispute with or you and your colleagues will have a full time edit war on here....don't try and humour me , been there done that ...don't try and think you have the answer , been there done that.

I Have left a message on the talk page of the moron destroying a historical article (1971) unique to Wikipedia people like him have good intentions but no brain capable of free thought. Do not vontinue to hassle me or we will go to war big time ...I have all the time in the wotld ..do you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.21.227 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Threats won't get you far. Dustin (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What Dustin V. S. said. Threat all you want; you will be blocked. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The talk pages of User:RJR3333's sockpuppets

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.

---

RJR3333 (talk · contribs) keeps using the talk pages of his WP:Sockpuppets to plead his case about why he should be accepted back into the Wikipedia community. As seen at the PaulBustion88 (talk · contribs) talk page, RJR3333 has been explicitly told that he is unlikely to be accepted back into the Wikipedia community, but he continues to post about why Wikipedia should give him another chance. Not only does he repeatedly mention me at his talk pages, indirectly or directly, mischaracterizing me or what I stated, he acts like I have no right to comment at these talk pages, and that it is WP:Harassment when I do, even when I am defending myself against his mischaracterizions. He also recently had an outburst, and called me a kike (I'm not Jewish or religious, but that is beside the point). After that, he repeatedly reverted me at the PaulBustion88 talk page, calling me a kike in capitalization. Intermittently, he sent me harassing emails (not the first time). Bsadowski1 took away his talk page access, which is what I wanted, and Malik Shabazz removed his capitalized "kike" insults. RJR3333 then moved on to the FDR (talk · contribs) talk page, mentioning me once again and acting like I have no right to comment there; see here. Why should RJR3333 be allowed to continue to post at these talk pages in the way that does, whether it's to ramble on about what a good editor he can be, comment on me or other editors, or make and withdraw an unblock request? Why shouldn't I be allowed to comment at these talk pages? Flyer22 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And, yes, as seen here and here, I am the main person catching his WP:Sockpuppets, but I don't see that as a reason to stay away from posting to his talk pages, especially when commenting on his disruption and/or defending myself. It's not like I never give him breathing room to talk to other Wikipedians. I gave him plenty of breathing room at the PaulBustion88 talk page to engage others and get their takes about the possibility of him being accepted back into the Wikipedia community. And as for this latest vow from him to not edit Wikipedia for six months so that he can get the WP:Standard offer, he always makes that vow; again, see the PaulBustion88 talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for anyone who's interested, he seems to be taking his fight to simple Wiktionary too (see https://simple.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=adult&action=history). I know there's no jurisdiction here over that, but it's something people might like to watch, and if anyone knows how to alert admins over there it might be useful. Mr Potto (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(At my talk page there he says he doesn't want to fight, so I've suggested he stops mentioning other editors - https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr_Potto. Mr Potto (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) )

Update: He is still rambling on his talk page, including going on about me in inaccurate ways, but Tiptoety gave him some advice about the WP:Standard offer. Do I think that he should be given the WP:Standard offer? Of course not. Like I stated, he has repeatedly blown that offer, and he continues to edit disruptively, including by getting indefinitely blocked at other wikis. I don't see him ever being a productive Wikipedian or other productive wiki editor. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, if I or someone else catches one more of his WP:Sockpuppets, I am going to propose a WP:Ban on him; I might do that before then. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Case solved: RJR3333 gets to mention me as much as he wants/be as disruptive as he wants at his talk page without any interference from me. Yes, I will be proposing that WP:Ban eventually, and I have no doubt that it will be successful. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I struck through part of my "03:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)" post because of this. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I just looked through the history of this case and the talk pages of some of the sock accounts, Flyer22. He is remarkably consistent in his block appeals, the ones from 2011 and 2012 read like ones he made this year, saying that he learned his lesson, if you look at his recent edits, they are good and that he will never sock or vandalize again. And they the cycle just repeats itself. He still believes he is eligible for the Standard Offer even though he has violated every promise he has ever made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, that's why I was upset when Tiptoety suggested that I was antagonizing RJR3333. Yes, I understand that RJR3333 can be annoyed/upset by me commenting on his talk page, but think of how annoyed/upset I am by having to repeatedly deal with his disruption, inaccurate descriptions of me and/or my actions, and derogatory comments/emails. And, like I noted above, "I gave him plenty of breathing room at the PaulBustion88 talk page to engage others and get their takes about the possibility of him being accepted back into the Wikipedia community." Yes, someone could state that I am bringing this on myself by interfering with RJR3333 (you know, victim blaming), but RJR3333 continues to edit topics where I will recognize him. It's not like I am actively seeking him out. Furthermore, someone should always interfere with his disruption. Should I just sit back and let him have at it when I spot him messing up articles? This person has been indefinitely blocked at other wikis; he went to those wikis trying to prove that he can edit productively here. And yet we want to give him another shot at the WP:Standard offer? Not me. And for more detail on what I have been through with this editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#User:FDR at the Ages of consent in North America article and in general and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me. As seen in that first archived discussion, I was not as good then at identifying WP:Sockpuppets as I am now; I was good at it then, but I am significantly better at it now.

On a side note: It sounds like you wouldn't want to give RJR3333 another chance. If so, I'm surprised, since you seem to always want to give disruptive editors another chance. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do believe in second chances. For everyone. But at this point, it's sixty chances. His promises to never vandalize or sock again in 2012 are word-for-word the same as in 2015.

Also, the endless attempts at loooong explanations about how pedophilia isn't really pedophilia is a telltale sign that someone is working overtime to justify a point of view they believe others view as unacceptable. Over the past few months, I spent some time reading old talk pages of editors on this wiki and other projects who were offering these same explanations and, you know what? These editors all eventually ended up being blocked, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he does distinguish between pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia and child sexual abuse in ways similar to how I and others who are well-versed in those topics do (such as at Talk:Pedophilia; current state of that talk page here), but he is not well-versed in those topics, and he often goes about editing them (or speaking of them) wrongly. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IJBall, will you clarify why you stated, "The various socks of RJR3333 appear to have been dealt with (see: this SPI case archive)."? I'm fine with this thread having been closed, but it is about RJR3333's disruption on his WP:Sockpuppet talk pages. I wasn't reporting more of his WP:Socks. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, when I checked it looked like none of the socks had recent activity on their Talk pages (but it's possible I missed one...); and I think one or more might have had Talk page access revoked. I closed on that basis. But, like I said – it's possible I missed one... --IJBall (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, thanks for explaining. The FDR account still has talk page access, as is clear from my "03:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)" post above; it's just that Tiptoety essentially told him not to use that talk page to rant anymore. Either way, as noted above, I will eventually seek that RJR3333 is banned from Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

His repeated claims that he can edit Wikipedia productively should not be taken seriously by anyone. Tiptoety being willing to give him another chance is something that I chalk up to Tiptoety not having been through even half of what I have been through with him. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

BeastBoy3395 misrepresenting sources

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

---

BeastBoy3395 has a habit of misrepresenting sources. The most egregious example is this edit to Political positions of Ronald Reagan; the source cited for the first sentence actually says, "Reagan never supported the use of federal power to provide blacks with civil rights." The New York Times article BeastBoy3395 adds does contain the Reagan quote, but it also says: "A grass-roots lobbying and legislative campaign had forced Mr. Reagan and Attorney General William French Smith to abandon their plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation." - thus it cannot serve to show that Reagan had started supporting the legislation. That's not a one-off; here he claimed "multiple sources show love jihad is real, and that people have been convicted of it" when the source he presents says no such thing; when I pointed that out, he cited the Guardian to support the same claim when the Guardian does not say so but in fact pretty much says the opposite. That's not acceptable. At best he's wasting the time of other editors who have to debunk his spurious claims, at worst he's directly attacking the veracity of Wikipedia. This may serve as an indication of his motivation. I'm obviously too deeply involved to take administrative action myself, but I do not think someone who routinely misrepresents sources has a place on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose administrative action: I don't believe that I am, in fact, misrepresenting sources. Reagan did indeed support the extension of the VRA in 1982 after a massive lobbying campaign, and it was a federal law to provide blacks with civil rights; thus, Reagan supported a federal initiative to provide blacks with civil rights, which means that I was right when I put "Reagan initially did not support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, but changed his mind later on". Therefore, Huon is wrong on this. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout Huon It's very clear that you decided to search through Beastboy's contribs in search of something (in an article you've never edited) to shaft him over, due to your previous disagreement with him in the rape jihad and love jihad articles. You've demonstrated this by immediately going to ANI, instead of trying to discuss it with him on his talk page or the articles talk page. If this ANI thread were truly about Beastboy's edits "attacking the veracity of Wikipdia" you would have at least bothered to revert his edits to the Ronald Reagan article, which as it currently stands still has all the misrepresentation of sources you claim Beastboy added. (To clarify this isnt necessarily an endorsement of Beastboy's actions I just find what Huon has done very dodgy) Bosstopher (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher, do you seriously expect me to "discuss it with him on his talk page" if he misrepresents another sources on the same article talk page a second time after I pointed it out the first time? How often should I, in your opinion, "discuss with him" that the sources he presents routinely are not reliable and/or do not say what he claims they say? Indeed I checked his contributions after I fould them inappropriate in one article; after he misrepresented sources in a second place I was anything but impressed, when he did so in a third place I came here. You're right, however, I forgot to clean up the Reagan article; will do so now. Huon (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've undone your reverts to my edit; it wasn't helpful. Also, Reagan clearly did later on in his career support federal initiatives to provide blacks with civil rights, which was shown by his signing the 1982 federal extension of the Voting Rights Act. I also removed this sentence "His opposition was based on the view that certain provisions of both acts violated the US Constitution and in the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intruded upon the civil rights of business and property owners.[35]", as the source doesn't support it. The source says absolutely nothing about Reagan thinking the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like BeastBoy3395 has done about a dozen reverts Rape jihad in the last 24 hours, someone might want to explain 3RR to him. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• With thanks to Gouncbeatduke's remark, the Beastboy is now blocked for edit warring on Rape jihad; they are clearly editing against consensus, and I'm putting that nicely. Now, if they return to their previous behavior, we can discuss an indefinite block. Huon, is that alright? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• He was also edit-warring at the Love jihad page yesterday, and I didn't realize he was even more busy at another page. Another editor was considerate enough to open a talk page discussion but he exhibited a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And before he was blocked, he reinstituted the claim that Reagan changed his mind on civil rights legislation based on one source that says Reagan "never supported" it and on another that says he was "forced [...] to abandon [his] plan to ease the restrictions in the landmark civil rights legislation". WP:SYN had been pointed out to him, so ignorance is not an excuse. Huon (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Huon, because Beastboy was given a block for edit warring, not misrepresenting sources, I expect you want this case to continue its discussion of his edits? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I expect the more serious behavioural issues, ie routinely misrepresenting what sources say in favor of BeastBoy3395 thinks we should report, will re-surface as soon as the block runs out. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable, and I see no indication that BeastBoy3395 even acknowledges there is a problem. So yes, I still think more permanent measures are required, but we can return here the next time BeastBoy3395 claims a source says something it doesn't. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this resurfaced... Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. That reinforce the thoughts of anyone who feels that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Agreed, MarnetteD. Note that originally, BeastBoy's caption for the now-removed antisemitic caricature at the top of his talkpage was "Jewish bankers caused the 2008 crisis. The mainstream, Jew-owned press doesn't want to admit it, but it's true."[76] The only reason it didn't show up on his page was that he missed using the "thumb" code. We give people too much rope sometimes. Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Many thanks Bishonen MarnetteD|Talk 18:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Trigger happy Admin

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 do not believe this, BD2412 blocked me for reverting this edit as vandalism. I was very proud of my clean block record for the last 6.5 years. IMO this was a bad block, maybe this Admin behavior needs to be reviewed. Does anyone see this as a "Good Admin action" ? Damnit I'm pissed. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I have on more than one occasion seen a vandal revert a good edit as "WP:NOTBROKEN" or the like, as a form of sneaky vandalism, and jumped the gun in blocking before assessing your edit history to determine if this was the case. Clearly, I need to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. bd2412 T 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a very poor block in a number of ways, and given bd2412's apology, is there a way to remove it from Mlpearc's block log? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is possible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would endorse removing it from the block log. A 'crat can do that. bd2412 T 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well there you go then, just don't take it to heart Mlpearc =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I wasn't aware that bureaucrats had that ability, hence my suggestion below. BMK (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned that the unblocking edit summary doesn't acknowledge in any way that it was a mistaken block. If I was to look at that block log at the moment without any knowledge, I'd assume that Mlpearc was vandalising but then agreed not to do it any more. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't fault you, last I checked you were a human with flaws like everyone else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't one way to flag the problem be to re-block Mlpearc for the absolute minimum amount of time, whatever that is (one minute? one second?), with an edit summary saying that the previous block was a mistake and shouldn't be held against the editor? BMK (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Good enough for me, I wasn't looking for the Admins head (kinda) I was more pissed at my no longer clean block record, which I see can be fixed. Thanx all. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, I've asked at the Bureaucrat Noticebaord for someone to take a look at this thread. BMK (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Afaik bureaucrats cannot remove those entries, if revdelete is not enough the last resort is suppression (of the entry, not of BD2412, ofc :p ). --Vituzzu (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I (edit conflict)ed before when trying to say this from my mobile and copy paste doesn't work well. An admin should be able to hide the log entry and/or and OSer should be able to oversight it. This is based on experience from being a steward on DDOwiki and a crat on testwiki: like https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3ATechnical-13. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• The simple way is for any admin, but preferably BD2412 themselves, to block the user again! Block for one second, in order to input a retraction of and apology for the previous block. See this section of the blocking policy: very short blocks are not to be used for recording something negative in the log, but "very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block." Bishonen | talk 23:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC).

• Ah, yes, I see BMK said the same thing above. He's absolutely right. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC).

Unfortunately bureaucrats cannot remove log entries. Also, using rev-delete to redact logs in this manner is specifically prohibited: Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction. I'm not sure I agree with that policy but, unless it is changed, the only option may be to add a further short block (say 1 minute) noting that BD2412 has acknowledged that his block was made in error. The fact that bad blocks cannot be readily expunged is precisely the reason why admins should take proper care before blocking users. WJBscribe (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I consider this an instance that falls within Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction; it's not merely prettying up the log, but a removal of a frankly erroneous characterization on my part of the action in question. bd2412 T 23:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The exact text of the policy that WJBscribe mentioned above reads: Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool. This suggests to me that if we reach a consensus here then this would be an appropriate use of the tool, it also suggests that IAR applies as "will usually be treated as" is not the same as "will be treated as". I think that anytime a consensus is reached here it would be well within scope to revdel the grossly offending bad block log entries. Those are just my thoughts on the matter though. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See User talk:NeilN/Archive 23#Ummmm?; it's common for accidental or otherwise bad blocks to happen, and the marked block logs remain. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see BD2412 has added a note to the block log. Mind you, Mlpearc, isn't a clean block log a bit, you know, boring? Overrated, anyway. I'm very proud of my own colourful block log. Shows I've been to the wars. I added a userbox recently to showcase it.[77] Bishonen | talk 11:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

LOL at your first block log: "Asked to be blocked, to experience it." That's like a "try anything once" mindset. Flyer22 (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A review of the blocks placed by BD2412 is distressing. The blocking policy does not allow for good-faith editors to be blocked (blocked!) for violating the WP:INTDABLINK guideline. I'm counting at least half a dozen of these caviler blocks, and I'm not looking very hard.

Blocks are serious business. @BD2412:, please refamiliarize yourself with the blocking policy and commit to abide by it in the future. HiDrNick! 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am more or less giving up blocking altogether, except in cases of severe vandalism. bd2412 T 14:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. As for deleting the block, I agree that ref/del would be wrong. I speak as someone who was blocked purely in error by another Admin. He unblocked almost immediately with an apology in the block log. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, there has been an apology and a commitment to greater care in the future. There is really nothing more to deal with behaviorally. As far are removing the log entries goes I would say if the rules to prevent that then it would be a good time to ignore those rules. Chillum 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Mlpearc has 100% pure, unblemished block log, just like my own. Zad68 16:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Nick2crosby

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 April 21th, Nick2crosby was unblocked from their indefinite block because they claimed to have been matured; however this does not seem to be the case; he opposed a RfA without a valid rationale, and did not explain their reason when asked. Furthermore, he opposed a closed RfA with the same invalid comment, despite the fact that closed RfA should not be furtherly edited. His comment on the non-closed RfA was moved to the talk page for further discussion. --TL22 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@ToonLucas22: When you posted here you should have seen a note: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I've done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I'll be the jerk here. It's "immaturity", and I have removed the other term from the heading since it's a bit not so neutral. Second, Nick2crosby's been ripped a couple of new holes by a couple of editors now, and an ANI thread is certainly not necessary. Let's move on--someone close this please. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:RayvnEQ

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.

---

RayvnEQ is currently serving a 48 hour block for edit warring, personal attacks and a battleground attitude. Their appeals indicate that their behavior will continue after the block ends and make me think that the best option is to extend the block to be indefinite. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. His behaviour enters WP:CIR territory. I'm sorry, RayvnEQ, but it seems that way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. User_talk:NeilN#Inappropriate_displaying_of_information_on_Black_people, User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Your_inappropriate_conduct_on_Black_people_article Polite requests to fix their signatures are simply reverted [78], [79] (who the heck reverts Anna?) indicating the bare minimum level of collegiality won't be met. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. I followed their rampage yesterday, wreaking havoc wherever they went, and thought that it was either a case of an editor having totally lost it, or a compromised account, but reading some of the stuff they've added to their talkpage today, still being totally out of touch with reality, I no longer think it has been compromised, leaving only the first alternative. They can be blocked for a long list of reasons: CIR, battleground mentality, disruption, harassment and not being being here to contribute to the project. So take your pick, but do it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• {{CUE}} Support a one year block and extend the WP:STANDARDOFFER. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Non sequitur alert! – OK, I have to ask now, as I've seen Tech 13 do this more than once: What is {{CUE}} supposed to do? And why was it deleted? Or am I missing something here?... --IJBall (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

{{CUE}} used to be "comment by uninvolved editor", but was deleted per this discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef block, user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia but rather to make sure we all acquiesce to their demands. Those unblock requests are truly amazing. Let's just nip this in the bud before the inevitable endless ANI threads about their behavior. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. I have been watching this unfold, and at one point tried to offer advice on how to de-escalate the situation - which went unheeded. Frankly, I don't think this contributor has the ability to contribute usefully, and as battleground behaviour goes, there can be few more overt examples than that shown in RayvnEQ's earlier comments regariding the initial block: [80] Basically, RayvnEQ seems incapable of understanding what the issues are, and has repeatedly responded to criticism through a bizarre literalist interpretation of comments that defies logic. I could speculate about what is behind this, but that would be neither necessary nor proper - the point is that contributing to Wikipedia requires social skills (specifically communication skills in a context where disagreement is inevitable) that the contributor simply doesn't have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. This user has had the same account since 2008. If they haven't learned how to comport themselves according to Wikipedia standards after 7 years, I hold out little hope that will change any time soon. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC) (who is not a woman, contrary to RavynEQ's opinion)
• Given the latest unblock request, which just continues the same battleground tirade, and the consensus above, I have extended the block to indefinite and recommended that she contact WP:BASC for further appeals. --Jayron32 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Jytdog needs administrator intervention, please?

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

---

I am requesting either an indefinite block, an iBan to prevent Jytdog from harassing me, a topic ban to prevent him from further disruption of the Wikipedia:Advocacy_ducks essay or other form of administrator action to prevent his disruptions and bullying behavior. He was warned not that long ago by Swarm about his behavior in a relatively recent ANI as evidenced here: March 28, 2015

I have been working on moving the essay Wikipedia:Advocacy_ducks from my sandbox to the main space; an essay Jytdog has relentlessly disrupted from when it was a fledgling essay under a different title with a different focus months ago. Several editors have invested a great deal of time and energy addressing the criticisms in order to produce a quality essay, and we accomplished that goal. I was in the process of moving the new essay over to main space - (I apologize, but I am not experienced with moving articles and their TP) - but before I had a chance to complete my work, Jytdog interfered and created a TP for the essay without any prior discussion. He just took it upon himself to do whatever the heck he felt like doing which is not at all unusual for him and what he has been getting away with for quite some time. I mistakenly believed he was trying to help me so like a naive fool, I thanked him. In the interim, I contacted BDD asking for help in making the move a clean transition because the TP did not move with the essay. BDD was kind enough to offer his assistance. However, Jytdog continued to interfere with what I was trying to accomplish while pretending to be accommodating about the move. Please see the chronological sequence of events:

• Initial move from my sandbox
• (cur | prev) 10:28, May 13, 2015‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (567 bytes) (+567)‎ . . (talk header, history) (thanked) <--sorry but I couldn't pull up the diff but the link is here:[81] which shows he created the TP prior to any discussion.
• Requested help with the move from BDD
• Jytdog acknowledged it was ok to nuke his comments
• I attempted to delete the links that simply refer back to the new pages, not the history
• Jytdog reverted my edits: [82], [83], [84], [85]
• [86] <-- demonstrates his animosity toward me. My changes to Jytdog's edits to the TP of the Essay I authored and was in the process of moving took place after he said it was ok to nuke his comments.
• Advised him on his TP that I was taking this to ANI, but he archived it.
• Jytdog posted an edit warring template on my TP
• The next diff will be my notice to him that I have taken this issue to ANI. I will provide that diff as soon as I hit save and initiate this ANI. Something has to be done about Jytdog's aggressive behavior toward other editors. I am appalled that he is behaving this way in light of the fact BDD was involved in helping me get everything moved. Atsme^☎️📧 19:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To confirm that Jytdog was advised read his sarcasm: Jytdog said "File away; nothing will come of it except further damage to your reputation." Also notice on his TP: [87] Atsme^☎️📧 20:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're really overreacting. What Jytdog said was that it was OK to nuke the whole Talk page to enable the move. What you actually did was to delete only part of Jyt's comments in-place, that would not have anything to do with making the move easier, maybe you didn't understand that. Jyt's explanation here is correct. BDD is experienced at moving pages and got the job done, while preserving the history. The move is complete, the histories are kept and it's fine now. Zad68 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - no Zad, I am not overreacting. He was disruptive on purpose and if admins keep excusing this behavior it will never change. I'm sure Jytdog appreciates your defense of him but this time it is unwarranted. I ask that you please not distract from the issue which happens to be the fact that he added a Talk Page before contacting anyone about doing so - he knew full well I was adding that essay which is why he took it upon himself to do whatever he pleased. His purpose was to derail my essay, include links that he thought would discredit it including links to a history that were not even relevant to the new essay. Worse yet, the links he provided pointed right back to the redirects made by BDD and had nothing to do with the history. If you had taken the time to investigate those links, you would have known why I was making those changes. It was a work in progress and Jytdog overstepped his boundaries. Atsme^☎️📧 20:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to help and defend YOU here Atsme. And now here you're saying to Jyt, Respond to the case I initiated at ANI and we'll go from there. If the results do not reflect justice, my intention is to initiate an ARBCOM... Good grief. Good luck with that, I'm done trying to help here. Zad68 21:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Zad, but I am now dealing with a speedy delete of the essay so it looks like you are probably being played by this group of advocates. I think the time for ARBCOM is probably as ripe as it's going to get. Atsme^☎️📧 21:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here we see Atsme changing Jytdog's talk page comments and than edit warring over it.[88][89]. One of the difs you mention is him requesting you not do it again [90] You then bring this to ANI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Doc James, with all due respect, Jytdog's errors go beyond what is defensible. I was IN THE PROCESS of fixing the history of the TP - keep in mind this move was still in process and Jytdog never said one word about anything to anyone. He just ABF. He attempted to link to the history of the essay - most of which was not even relevant because it was a totally different essay. It's easy for us to make empty arguments and express our POV without diffs, but the diffs actually show where Jytdog screwed up because BDD made redirects. I suppose you didn't take that into consideration. You should because if you did, you wouldn't be arguing in Jytdog's behalf. Atsme^☎️📧 22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• • I'm assuming good faith on Atsme's part, I think they genuinely believed the URLs in Jyt's comment were somehow preventing the move from happening smoothly. Zad68 20:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, if that is the case, they would do well closing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• just a note that i am aware of this. nothing else to say. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Only addressing the events described in this section, I don't think Jytdog has really done anything wrong, though there's certainly a misunderstanding. In context on my talk page, I think it's clear Jytdog was open to this version of the talk page being overwritten in the course of moving User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy ducks to Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, along with the corresponding talk page. I don't think the suggestion was that anyone could just edit away those comments, though that is perhaps not a wildly unreasonable interpretation of Jytdog's statement. When it comes to editing others' talk pages comments, though, you really can't be too conservative. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, yes. I invited BDD to nuke the talk page to move the talk page from userspace; I did not invite Atsme to edit my comments. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What you and others don't seem to understand is that your links were not useful because they pointed back to the page that contained the links. To begin, you should not have interfered with my move of the essay. You screwed things up and made it more difficult for me to complete my work. It was a work in progress. It is not unlike what you did to SlimVirgin regarding a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 May 2015

Are you referring to when SV got mad because Jytdog had the temerity to edit the GlaxoSmithKline article while she claimed to be in middle of a major rewrite? Uh, I don't think SV gets to WP:OWN that article just because she wants to. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because we all know who owns GlaxoSmithKline. AlbinoFerret 22:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No relevance to this discussion. Belongs on essay TP

Proposal concerning the essay itself Please read this comment. User:Atsme wrote "What??!!! No way. Our admins would never allow such a thing. Sounds too much like...(drum roll please)...ADVOCACY DUCKS quack, quack, quack. Seriously, that can't be happening, can it?"[91] I think the essay should be MFDed. Is the essay being (mis)used to make accusations against others? The essay is being described as "the Quackers essay"[92]. See Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC) If all it took to remove an essay, policy, or guideline was for someone to claim it was misused, none would survive. AlbinoFerret 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) It looks like the essay was speedy deleted, Atsme recreated it, and it's been tagged for speedy deletion again. Atsme, that's not how you deal with something that's been deleted: you go to the deletion admin and ask for undeletion, and if you don't get it, start a deletion review. See WP:REFUND. The fact that you recreated something that was just speedy deleted means it will be deleted again. If you continue recreating it, you could be blocked for disruptive editing. Ca2james (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC) I dont think she was aware of the correct procedure. She asked for help on her talk page about it. AlbinoFerret 21:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I undeleted the article and suggested that it be taken to WP:MFD. I looked at it, and reviewed the prior MFD (which had a massive consensus for delete), but did not compare the versions. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I wonder if you would consider reviewing the essay itself and give a brief comment. If not you, then someone very uninvolved really should give the essay a read, and give us a straightforward take on the essay itself, not on past conversations about it. It is important to know what we are talking about here. I will note that editors on both sides of the previous deletion discussion were recently pinged for input. Jytdog did weigh in, and made changes that stuck (except the one he couldn't defend, which was to remove the suggestion that editors be civil and kind). He made no indication that he was still so displeased that he would want it deleted.

On another note, I find a bit of "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" going on at Wikipedia and in this thread, which makes comments from an editor's consistent defenders far less compelling. When people run around in packs it is quite impossible not to notice (after months and years of observing these patterns). Earlier today, Jytdog removed information from his talk page, whilst leaving all other conversations intact, only hours after I left it. Why was this entry treated differently from all others? I don't know, but the entry showed that a close associate of his, Formerly98, had complained about a section in the Cannabis (drug) article that was created by Alexbrn/SandyGeorgia/DocJames. Jytdog suggested the problems F98 observed were due to "cannabis fans" editors pushing against the Project Medicine team (contrary to evidence). My point is that teamwork on Wikipedia, at a certain point, can become really problematic because the articles/truth/ANIs are victims of this buddy system. petrarchan47คุก 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea where you come up with this stuff Petra. What have you been smoking? :>) Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 23:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Petra, I have to wonder the same. I happen to see an edit summary at ANI that piques my curiosity when it pops on my watch list, happen to look at this section, discover by chance that my name has been invoked here (in other words, I am not here scratching anyone's back-- I am here because you mentioned me, inaccurately by the way, and didn't bother to ping me), then spend 20 minutes trying to figure out what on earth you are talking about, and the only thing I can find is several discussions about text that I had nothing to do with, and several misstatements that came from ... you. The Medicine Project never completely overhauled any articles, and I certainly did not. Trying to get anything done was an uphill struggle; little progress was made. Please stop dragging me in to your issues, and making stuff up. (Formerly, if you are aware of any problems with any text I wrote, please ping me in!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you deleted another editor's comments from a TALK page and you're here to complain about it? You're not supposed to do that. Further, you present a warning given to Jytdog regarding his interactions with a different editor in a manner that suggests that the warning was in regards to his interactions with you? This isn't good at all. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, you know I respect your input and have always maintained a NPOV. In this particular situation, the editor in question was wrong when he created a Talk Page without discussing it with the mover/author first. He simply took it upon himself to be bold, but this was not a situation where he should have exercised that privilege considering the history, which he actually helped create. I was in the process of moving that essay from my sandbox to main space and recruited the help of an admin to make the move uncomplicated. It is quite clear that Jytdog doesn't want my essay to see the light of day [93]. Please don't throw stones at me when we are all standing inside glass houses. Jytdog created this mess with his ridiculous edit warring notice on my TP knowing full well I was still in the process of the move. I continue to maintain faith in the powers that be at WP to recognize what's right is right. I would not have initiated this ANI if I thought for one minute I had done something wrong. I would be one of the first to apologize for my stupidity if the latter is actually the case. That is not the case now. Atsme^☎️📧 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you moved the essay over at 13:39 today [94] (IIRC, the page had been created via copy and paste even earlier than that but the history won't show that) and it wasn't until 15:28 that Jytdog created the Talk page [95]. Normally the Talk page is created right after the article is created, and given that there were two hours before the Talk page was created, it's not unreasonable for someone to go ahead and create it. Ca2james (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Now all of a sudden WP has a deadline?

1. I admitted I was not well-versed in making such a move.
2. I managed to move the essay, but was having issues moving the Talk Page. I thought they both went together.
3. I put a help template on my user TP, and also contacted BDD for help hoping I could expedite the move.
4. Before I could get everything arranged, I naively believed Jytdog was trying to help, but instead of moving the actual TP, he created his own, and therein the problem lies. He should not have created a new TP when there was an existing TP that belonged to that essay and it was still in my user sandbox.

I normally exercise an abundance of patience and have always done my best to be polite and accommodating to others, but Jytdog stepped over the line and this isn't the first time. Each time he gets off with a hand slap, his bad behavior escalates. To make matters worse, when I tried to fix the mess he made of my move, he posted an edit war warning on my TP. Excuse me, but trying to defend his actions under the circumstances should be raising some brows. Atsme^☎️📧 01:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

atsme i am sorry you were confused and frustrated by the task of moving your essay. i have created scads of Talk pages - it is something i do when i come to a page i haven't been to before. i was not at all trying to interfere with you and i did nothing wrong. but again i am sorry you are frustrated. Look at #9 on your list of Examine your Edits, and look at the responses above. Please withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE CLOSE THIS INCIDENT AS WITHDRAWN BY OP

I apologize if I inconvenienced any of the admins here and request that this incident be withdrawn. Jiminy Cricket, Jytdog, please try to be more considerate of the work of others, especially works in progress, and at least ask before you make such bold moves, especially when it involves a move from a user's sandbox. What I can't understand is what provoked you to do such a thing knowing the essay had its own TP with a rich discussion history. The natural thing to do would have been to ask me what happened to the TP before you created a new one. Now we've lost the convenience of having the TP discussion history linked to the essay, unless someone can advise me of another way to make that happen. Archives Atsme^☎️📧 04:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

abusive email from subject of article

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 received a rather abusive email from someone who appears to be the subject of the article deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Rush. As I understand things, you have to be a registered editor to send emails to other editors, but I can't find this person as a registered user. It appears to have come from EdRush1 (talk · contribs). Rather than disclosing the person's email and the content here, perhaps a helpful admin could email me and I'll forward the full email for investigation via email. The Dissident Aggressor 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

EdRush1 registered on May 5, as can be seen here. They have made no edits. Mr Potto (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the same date of the email of the email I received. It looks like this user created an account just to send the email. The Dissident Aggressor 21:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@DissidentAggressor: You can forward it to OTRS if you wish, although there's not much any admin can do beyond blocking for abuse of the email function. Hopefully you didn't reply, otherwise that reveals your own email to them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've emailed OTRS. The Dissident Aggressor 11:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

OTRS ticket received, EdRush1 blocked (sans email access, naturally). Yunshui ^雲_水 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor with a long disruptive pattern

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.

---

Serten, with an extensive block log in the German Wikipedia (over 40 blocks), Serten_II is another account of the same user.

Recently

Example of user calling other comments contentious, a term he often uses, i.e. three times in this AfD discussion of one of his articles.The same discussion Guettarda pointed out that the user made a untrue statement. The user is reluctant in his argument and edits to understand what a reliable source is, besides it has been pointed out several times to him. For instance i spent great length trying that here.

Here he follows my comments, just to post his opinion, or posts the discretionary sanctions notification on my talk page, or alleges that i work for a propaganda outlet.

Recently, he tagged the article of Naomi Oreskes with BLP, COI, POV, multiple issues. And prior to that added unreliable sources. However, asked by another user to provide reliable sources, refuses to do so, instead removed a comment from me, where i honestly ask if the user Polentario is his old account, since that has been suggested, and fits the edit pattern.

Past incidents

Last year, at Scientific opinion on climate change, he kept editors busy with a RfC request, page move request, or tagging pushing NPOV (several edits), and had lengthily discussions, which went basically nowhere, Archive_21. His actions were tagged as disruptive and ended in a 3RR complaint, and resulted in a block, also because he has been warned prior to that incident at ANI.

I had a run in with him last year, when he filed an AfD on the German article for Scientific opinion on climate change, which i created, and claimed it was in violation with WP:NPOV. Subsequently the article has been deleted at the German Wikipedia.

More examples

At Ozon depletion and climate change, he fundamentally changed article content, without reliable sourcing, violating NPOV, with his second account Serten_II Into the same article he added an article link and content, Reiner Grundmann, which is currently contested at AfD, and which he seems to add to as many articles as possible.

At Renewable resource he changed definition among many more scope related content changes without providing reliable sources.At Michael Oppenheimer he removed important key points. At Desertec he changed meanings of text, and added a critical article based on a German source.

So far each page i looked up, listed here, seems to have been altered to fit the view of the user. prokaryotes (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Long pattern of NPOV pushing

If you take the time and look up his edit history, you find that many edits lack basic Wikipedia standard, often NPOV applies, example here, or here, when he taggs without prior talk page discussion, an article under discretionary sanctions, or on the same article talk page, alleges a hidden agenda, and was accused of WP:SOAPBOX, by Kim D. Petersen.

Basically WP:CIR seems to apply here together with a pattern of disruptive edits over a long time, which kept many editors busy who tried to reason with him on various occasions, i.e. with user Dmcq, Stephan Schulz, NewsAndEventsGuy, and others. I didn't noticed a single talk when he was able to reach a consensus with an editor. Considering the long pattern of disruptive edits, inability to understand Wikipedia guidelines and rules, constant NPOV pushing, i suggest to block the user indef. prokaryotes (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment from User:Serten

The announcement is sloppy from the very begin. prokaryotes posted the announcement on my User:page, the talk page would have been the goal. [96]. I found it by chance. So he didn't play along the rules. I ask to close this quickly.

If nevertheless one wants to have a look on his accusations, some examples for false play:

1. NPOV pushing: My here Kirchner edit started a discussion that ended in an afD. Now a redirect. Sorry, thats how it works sometimes.
2. Naomi Oreskes: Prokaryotes accuses me a) to have have added unreliable sources and b) of having failed to provide reliable sources after another user asked me to. [97]. He reverted twice on an climate change related field. I put the Arbitration tag on the article talk page and gave Prokaryotes the arbitration warning (on his UserTALKPage) as required and started a discussion on the talk page. I was the user that asked for reliable sources on the talk page and gave reasons for the tagging. He didnt contribute anything of value to the discussion on the article, but tried a sideshow. In fact, the unreliable sources came from Nature (magazine) and Biosociety. With an doi. Peer reviewed. The first scientific reviews ever for this article. He doesnt like that.
3. Talk:Paleoclimatology#Removed_bogus_source. Prokaryotes accuses me of following me and he calls a Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize and Logan Medal laureate research a Bogus source. Nice wording.
4. Rest is Popcorn stuff - e.g. Desertec is a German project that failed large scale and goes on small scale. I dared to add German sources that showed that.[98] I know, Loose lips sink ships and Ware spies! You didn't oughter said it! But zats what ze WP is about in ze meanwhile, rite?

I don't see any reason to come up with an infite block out of the blue. Prokaryotes has a bone to pick with me, thats clear. According his user page. he is working with a blacklisted (on deWP) climateportal. Last year, I made it clear that something like List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming nor Scientific opinion on climate change never ever would have a WP:Snow change to be accepted in the deWP. Nevertheless , Prokaryotes tried and failed, I was responsible for the AfD. [99] Sysop Karsten11 made it very clear, quote No suitable article, NPOV, redundand, on basic principles no such Scientific opinion on xy is to be accepted in the deWP. As I had told him. I won't file another afD here. Prokaryotes went on. Recently he filed on AfD on my entry Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reiner_Grundmann. He seems to have understood in the meanwhile that this has no chance to go through. [100] but attempts to have me blocked here. I could provide similar comments on the other allegations, but I ask to close this case and remind Prokaryotes of basic rules of engagement and WP Civil. Thank you. Serten 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at large, no popcorn

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to see the forest for the trees in the complaint. I did look at the AfD, and while I have serious problems with the Grundmann article, the guy is so obviously notable (if DGG says an academic is notable, an academic is notable; that should be listed at WP:OUTCOMES) that the AfD makes no sense. I also looked at Ozone depletion and climate change, where we were supposed to see some "fundamental change in article content"--well, maybe we did, but that's what we do here, and I didn't see anyone protest it in the article history, though where was a discussion on the talk page (not with Prokaryotes). And that's the kind of evidence on which we are supposed to build an indefinite block? Drmies (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion here is not about that article. I posted the link to here because the user is inserting links to the article and adds content, in the same fashion as you did just removed form that article. And to sum up your input about the ANI; based on above outline you dismiss the request, because you do not find one of the hundreds of edits convincing. However, the block request is in response to a long term pattern of disruptive edits, thus judging on a single edit is missing the point. There are two accounts, both edited dozens of articles. prokaryotes (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Serten is not the easiest person to work with (his single-mindedness can be exhausting) but there's nothing to merit an indef block out of the blue. You'd need clear behavioral issues for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• If it's not about that article then don't bring it up. I don't seen hundreds of diffs. I saw the AfD (if I weren't in such a great mood I'd point you to WP:BEFORE), and you want someone blocked because they said "contentious" three times? You want someone blocked because they disagreed with you about the use of certain kinds of sources? Now, the COI claim may actually have merit to it (Stephan Schulz did not dismiss it, just said it was misapplied)--and if it was of no relevance to the Oreskes matter--OK, you want us to indef someone for that? No, you are not going about this the right way. I mean, I'd be happy to block Serten, and Serten II, since that means I get double payment from the WMF, but as SBH Boris says, we need to see clear evidence of a longterm pattern of disruption. And I don't see that. And if I don't see it (and I'm one of the ones you're asking for the block), your job is not to tell me that I'm blind, but rather to make a better case. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, carefully look at the Ozone depletion and climate change revision link i provided above. 1) Removes entire paragraphs mentioning the chemical properties of Ozone. 2) Creates article based on existing content, including references which what appears WP:Weight issue, i.e. the article contains still 4 references to Grundmann today, an article about Ozone depletion and climate change, way to hijack a topic i would say. 3) Adds non neutral NPOV about the IPCC, quote The IPCC was to orchestrate global (climate) change research to shape a worldwide consensus, there is a book ref from 1996. Now if i look at a search for this book author, a comment pops up from Reiner Grundmann, when he mentions that book's author and wrote Following Bruno Latour, one of the protagonists of the science wars, one would need to open the 'black boxes' of scientific facts in order to show how they were constructed, thus exactly in line with the lede and article contents of Climate change denial (denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming) AND with the notion of denial to create controversy AND with the content the user added. Climate science is not constructed, it is based on observations, emperical evidence - facts. And the IPCC is not there to orchestrate a consensus, see Scientific opinion on climate change And this is just one of the many edits, where the user tries to create notability by adding the name and work to various articles he edits, in violation with NPOV AND COI. prokaryotes (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be glad to give you some free advice, which I call Free Advice to Successfully Avoid Instant Failure at ANI. If the explanation of the problem is that lengthy, it's not going to happen. And in this case you seem to have a content conflict of sorts, unless you want to argue that Serten is plugging Grundmann's work, but that ought to be a very different kind of case. (BTW, that Grundmann needs to be added to articles to establish his notability is a moot point: he's notable by our standards.) Sorry, but you're just not making the case. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• My case is based on WP:DIS - Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive. That there is a possible case for COI, only became relevant after i started to browse more past edits, as outlined above. I agree, it is lengthily, but long term pattern can not just be outlined with a few divs and judged then. prokaryotes (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that Serten's "contributions" tend to be poorly written and too often agenda-driven, and that they create lots of extra work for those who have to clean up after him. But frankly Wikipedia just doesn't care about things like that. For him to be blocked would require behavioral missteps such as long-term edit warring, personal attacks, and such. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If so, thousands of articles, I dare say, if you take the two. Some dozens just went in DYK/Schon gewusst on two WP mainpages. Serten 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• User stats for Serten and User stats for Serten_II prokaryotes (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• ANI Request Abandoned I cancel my ANI request, since I m unable to convince two experienced editors, and because of the backlog on this page. I thought i had a case, but i was wrong.prokaryotes (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Additional eyes and voices requested

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

---

Additional opinions sought here. Essentially, this user was blocked, deservedly so for his action, however a Discretionary notice was also placed on his page. Both I and Bosstopher disagree that this discretionary notice fits for what he did, and we're both requesting that the admin that placed it, remove it. Feel free to chime in either way. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem?Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Per this section it cant be rescinded. The sanctions already refer to all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

All in all it looks appropriate from my view. Amortias (T)(C) 19:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pass was blocked (deservedly so) for recreating Rape Jihad , however, he has a discretionary sanction that reads in part " The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b)". Rape Jihad doesn't come close to fitting that definition. Both Bosstopher and I agree with this, however, the issuing sysop, Future Perfect at Sunrise does not. While we all agree Pass should be blocked for continuously created a deleted article, the discretionary sanction doesn't fit what we created, nor is it in anyway appropriate, that's why I'm asking for additional input, either for or against. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 19:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notices are frequently placed on talk pages for users that have not violated it. It explicitly says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." And rape-related articles do appear to be within the scope of WP:ARBGG per this clarification request here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Clarification_Request_.28March_2015.29 ― Padenton|✉   20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not seeing the problem here. It's just a notice, it explicitly says that it is not a finding of wrong-doing, it's a notice that alerts the editor that these sanctions exist. You might have a good argument if the sanctions were the reason for the block but they weren't. Whether placing the notice was justified or not is not clear to me but since it had nothing to do with the block, the answer is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify I'm not asking it be rescinded and am aware that DS alerts cant be rescinded. But I do believe that if GG sanctions were actualy enforced over the rape jihad/rotherham topic it would be an incorrect use of the sanctions. I would definitely take the issue to ARCA were that to happen. However given that the article has been deleted, the chances of this happening seem more unlikely. Bosstopher (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of User:Mariolyrics4evr

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

---

This user is displaying all the signs of WP:NOTHERE. They have been reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring by User:Evergreen Fir. Evergreen Fir has also clearly banned them from their talkpage here, yet they continue to vandalise it by posting, despite a final warning about doing it- see [101], [102], [103], [104]. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked 24 hours by User:Writ Keeper for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Eaglestorm refuses to discuss anything

Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be entirely unwilling to discuss any changes to any articles, or to even glance at their Talk pages, preferring instead to repeatedly revert against clear consensus. This is evident, for instance, in both the Talk page and the edit history of Ace Combat, where he has repeatedly completely disregarded both. Multiple good-faith requests for collaboration on his own Talk page have been answered by removing the comments with edit summaries like, “my talk page my rules, get lost.” He’s already been blocked more than once for edit warring, which seems completely ineffective at altering his conduct, so I humbly request a conditional block. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a full protection at WP:RPP because of the edit warring. As for the user's actions, a little unnecessary if you ask me. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I really think the pattern of behavior should be addressed rather than a single instance… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree there needs to be an assessment of a pattern of behaviour. I'm just wondering if it is not the anon IP here that should be investigated however. Looking over the recent edit history for this IP, they seem to be doing nothing but attempting to be the wiki policy police and seem to have flawed understanding of the policies they are suggesting should be enforced. If I wasn't the kind of person that exclusively follows WP:AGF as if it was some sort of suicide WP:PACT, then I might be led to believe this IP is a WP:SOCK that attempting to prove some WP:POINT by editing as an IP to WP:EVADE a block or something. I'm sure that the IP would love a little more WP:ROPE and I'm sure we should probably give it to them. I've responded on the talk page for the article that needed request from Callmemirela for protection, that redlinking to a page that doesn't exist whose topic fails GNG so it can never be an article per REDNOT. I've also declined the request for an article by the IP on the WP:WPVG/R page for the same reason, after an intense search the topic fails to meet the GNG (and honestly fails to show any indication of importance at all).

I'm also disappointed that this IP editor that is so keen on requesting others be blocked was not blocked themselves for being disruptive for the following chain of events: made a BOLD edit to the page, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, re-reverted by Drmies (who simply reverted on the grounds that Eaglestorm wasn't discussing, not because they are incorrect that REDNOT says these kinds of redlinks are not appropriate), reverted, then some more stuff happens until the IP admits in Special:Diff/659620279 that the thing they wanted to be a redlink in the first place has no sources and as such fails GNG and redlinks are not allowed per REDNOT. At this point, I believe this IP should have been blocked for their disruptive behavior for initiating an editwar with another user without researching why it was inappropriate for that redlink to exist. I also think that between being forced into an edit war and being harassed by an IP who insisted on continuing to post on their talk page despite being asked not to multiple times (per WP:DENY through calling it a "desperate anon post"), Eaglestorm appeared to be extremely frustrated and of the mindset that this IP is a WP:VANDAL who's WP:NOTHERE and I can't say that I blame him, nor can I blame them for not wanting to come and discuss it because they are likely struggling to stay WP:CALM, and I've honestly been wondering the same thing about this IP. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Barely veiled assumptions of bad faith aside, I made every attempt to calmly and reasonably discuss the matter in good faith, both on the article Talk page and the user’s own, and my edits were in line with the clear consensus among the editors who did discuss. If this user had offered an explanation, whether on the Talk page or in an edit summary, you would have a point. But he didn’t. And unless I have a flawed misunderstanding of blocking policy (namely that blocks should be preventative and not punitive), a block against me is unwarranted at this time. If there’s a problem with my own conduct on Ace Combat, no one has bothered to inform me until now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't know, desperation play, my talk page my rules. get lost, and my talk page my rules get lost. desperate anon make it pretty clear to me that this editor did not want you posting on their talk page (yet you continued to do so). I'd say that goes against WP:HARASS (I'd almost go so far as to say that it appears to me that you were WP:HOUNDING this registered editor) and is indicative of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior which is damaging to the encyclopedia in which case a block to prevent you from continuing that behavior might be warranted if an admin felt so inclined. Anyways, it appears to me that the administrators aren't particularly interested in this complaint, and I've not interest in continuing this discussion any further at this point either. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, yes, that's an interesting set of diffs that clearly allow for two very different interpretations. I wouldn't go as far as to see possible harassment in here, though, and some of the stuff that was removed included notifications and stuff. If Eaglestorm would clearly and unequivocally say "editor X, do not post here anymore" it'd be a different matter. Thanks Technical, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've already indicated that to them, hopefully I can break the barrier and get some kind of discussion (I'm tempted to go to email if needed). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

More to the point: As best I can tell, this user never discusses anything. That’s the issue that brought me here—not that he won’t talk to me, but to anyone. This encyclopedia is a collaborative project, but it’s arguably impossible to effectively collaborate with someone who never communicates, especially when going against consensus. I never wanted him blocked out of malice or spite; it’s a stretch to say I want him blocked at all, but I only want him blocked until he shows a willingness to communicate with other editors (especially when making reversions). If I’m wrong in any of this, then, again, please let me know. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fine, they don't communicate on talk pages (perhaps they're not English speaking or have some other reason they avoid discussion). I realize discussion is important, but who are you to demand that this user communicate and who are you to initiate an edit war with an editor who has been around over a decade and has 12,536 local edits to back up their experience. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Technical 13: I haven’t gone through his edit history enough to know how many of those edits were reverted as being against consensus or otherwise improper, but if I ever have the time and inclination to do so, I’ll be able to better answer your question. But for the time being: I’m a more communicative user who has been frustrated by silent reverts seemingly made per WP:ABF, and I’m clearly not the only one. Now, if you wouldn’t mind explaining, why are you being so defensive of him and aggressive toward me? If that answer doesn’t require administrative attention, please post it to my Talk page rather than here. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, editors who refuse to discuss tirritate the hell out of me, and Eaglestorm is one of those. There's nice, healthy talk page discussion in which they are not participating. I don't see how the IP is so disruptive: their edit summaries are much better than Eaglestorm's and they're participating in talk page discussion (as is Technical). It's hard for me to judge the content of the edits since it's all just fan stuff on a completely trivial topic that a real encyclopedia ought to be embarrassed about, but hey. (I mean, what on earth is this about, what is its content, what are its sources--we're citing this as a reference?) Anyway, as far as I'm concerned Eaglestorm looks the worst of them, and we have blocked editors for being incommunicado; it might well be that this one is next. They could, of course, start talking here in this thread, and sound like an adult. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand Drmies, and I don't disagree that Eaglestorm should respond to someone, someplace. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see what the IP might've done to deserve Technical 13's unabated and bitter criticism. Some of the comments he's made are especially worrying: where he appears to look down on the IP for no other reason than their being an IP, and where he - seemingly - questions the importance of communication. With respect, Technical 13, you're not making the situation here any better. Alakzi (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "unabated and bitter criticism"? Interesting take on it, I simply don't see it that way. I don't begrudge constructive editors for not wanting to create an account (and actually I've campaigned for their rights to edit as IPs in the past and continue to do so). However, when an IP editor who has no verifiable background takes it upon themselves to be disruptive to discussions and pages by edit warring without justification and insists that the changes they made must be applied quoting a policy that they apparently hadn't read. If they had actually read the policy, they'd know they need to check that what they want to redlink actually could be an article. Then that IP refuses to WP:DROP the stick when an editor tells them that such redlinks aren't allowed and ignores repeatedly being asked to stop posting on said editor's talk page about such silliness as a redlink to a topic that would be quickly deleted if it was created as an article about a topic that isn't encyclopedic in the first place... Then that IP editor has the nerve to drag a well established editor to ANI because they wouldn't state the obvious (for whatever reason, such as maybe it being obvious), then I suspect that some investigation as to why this IP editor is hitting dozens of pages deprecating template uses, insisting policy pages be changed because of some flawed perception of some law that pages must follow with no exceptions and attempting to wikilaywer their will to be done then that reeks to me as a fairly wikiyoung editor evading a block and attempting to cause as much disruption as they can. I'd expect that an SPI investigation of said IP isn't out of the question, although I suspect that I'll have to spend a day digging through archives and whatnot and try to duck duck goose this IP for anything to be done about it if they don't hang themselves in the meantime. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If they have been doing something wrong, calmly explain what it is. You don't need to go off on a prolix, character-smearing investigation of their hypothetical motives and motivations. Your style of argument is simply counterproductive and does nothing to ease tensions or to resolve any of the issues. Alakzi (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe I gave justification. And the other editor pretty much refused to. As for the rest, I’m not going to defend myself here for unrelated events unless you wish to start a thread about me, but feel free to request a WP:CheckUser if you wish. I’ve explained my other actions elsewhere already. Now please stop assuming bad faith of me; I got quite enough of that from Eaglestorm, and that was mostly unspoken. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Replied to the rest on Tech’s Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • The very beginning of my post here says that I exclusively WP:AGF, and now you're accusing me of ABF. Yet, I am going to choose to not get upset about that WP:PA, and instead am going to encourage you to read WP:AOBF. I've also responded to your second post to my talk page, but I (edit conflict)ed with it and don't have the energy to respond to the "additions" you made since it is almost 1AM. Good night. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Accusing me of being here to cause disruption, for one. AOBF: “The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part” should explain my ABF accusation. But hopefully we’re both done with that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm simply commenting my observations. I view your actions as disruptive. This simply falls under WP:Call a spade a spade. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have reviewed the recent contributions of Eaglestorm and find that there are valid grounds for this complaint. For the number of reverts he/she performs, they hardly ever takes part in talk page discussions. (The last contribution to the article talk namespace was 2 December 2014.) This behaviour is not compatible with collaborative editing. I have watchlisted the user talk page and will likely block for a fortnight if this recurs, on consideration of the number of previous blocks for similar behaviour. I find Technical 13's steadfast defence of this behaviour strange and unhelpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not defended and am not defending Eaglestorm's lack of participation in discussion. I've personally attempted to reach out and get this editor to participate in discussions. To me it was just a matter of pointing out that this user was right that the redlink trying to be forced into the article was inappropriate. I appreciate your criticism of my behaviour, as evidently the reason I first commented here was missed. My point was that this IP needs to be watched as well because I've found their insistance on pushing changes against consensus and against policy and refusing to drop the stick after being told "no, that's not how it works here" and given an explicit reason as to why with links to whatever may be appropriate they still push forward with their insistence. I equate this IP to my child in the backseat asking "but whhhyyyyyy can't I have it" after I've told them they can't have an ice cream sundae at 9pm just before bed and explained how it will keep them awake and cause them discomfort when they wake up in the middle of the night after finally getting to sleep because they are a little lactose intolerant and it doesn't get processed quickly enough when they are asleep. Anyways, I've stated my case (and responded to too many "but whyy" from the IP here in this discussion as it is). Need to get back to school work. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You've had the timeline explained to you: nobody at the time considered the possibility that an article on the topic would not be notable; Eaglestorm was not "right". The IP got a little impatient, but we all do sometimes. Your characterisation of the IP as a child is unwarranted. If you continue down this path, the thread concerning your behaviour should be unarchived. Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • So, you are claiming that because no-one else had thought to check if the topic was even notable, that Eaglestorm was wrong and the redlink should have been allowed against long-standing policy and consensus because an IP and a couple of editors said it seemed reasonable without doing any checking? Really? Then, you are going to back up your claim that despite being backed with WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG, it didn't matter that Eaglestorm was right that such redlinks are not permitted. Finally, you're going to suggest that a new thread about my behaviour for defending WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG should occur (because unarchiving the last thread to talk about this entirely different topic wouldn't be appropriate)? Do what you will, if you want to start a new thread on me for that, go for it, I won't be particularly offended. Anyways, this thread has gotten completely off-topic and should probably be left to fade away and die... If you think a new thread is appropriate, by all means feel free to create it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Eaglestorm did not cite WP:REDNOT or WP:GNG. The first time, he said "makes sense NOT to link to nonexistent article", which does not address the possibility of it being notable, or not; the second time, he accused the IP of a COI. You're conflating their being right with the outcome being right; the two are quite distinct. I'm not sure if you appreciate the offence you've caused - why would you jauntily invite me to start a new thread on your behaviour? It would be better for everybody if you were to simply apologise for comparing the IP with a baby, or for insinuating that they might be evading a block, or for any of the rest, really. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Alakzi: Thank you for that. @Technical 13: I don’t know whether you’re trying to bait me in a public setting (you’ve been much more civil toward me on your own Talk page), or you’re just failing to filter yourself, but please just stop it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemonics COI

208.70.228.138 appears to be a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest engaged in blatant self-promotion. The IP is registered to Chemonics and just about all of the edits are promoting Chemonics. Examples: [105], [106], [107], [108] Jon335 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Diff of the IP's edits altogether: [109]. WP:COI allows (though often discourages) edits by an editor who is connected to the subject. I'm not seeing too much blatant self-promotion by the IP. Some, perhaps, wouldn't go to blatant though. The article has been around 2 years, so there does not seem to be any evidence the IP made the article themselves to promote the company. Most business articles do discuss that business's sectors of work, though perhaps a paragraph would have been better. The global presence list was kinda pointless and redundant in my opinion. In the criticism section, 'frequent' is a violation of WP:NPOV, especially with such a small list of incidents and few references. (I've gone and removed that one myself). I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the other removals, so I'll agree the rest do appear to be a COI violation. ― Padenton|✉   01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ordinarily I'd warn you about the dangers of investigating undisclosed COI, but for an IP it's a little different. Several of the IP's edits are things that someone with a COI probably should refrain from doing; e.g., deleting a maintenance tag, adding PR-speak. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI does allow for non-controversial edits, including the removal of maintenance tags that are no longer needed. At the time of removal the article was no longer an advertisement, though I suppose one might argue that the IP made it one after with adding the locations list and the business sector list. Whether that has merit, I don't know. The one source maintenance tag was rightfully removed, it was no longer accurate (the article was significantly expanded by Jon335 the day after it was tagged for one source by someone else [110]), and it doesn't have any explanation for the tag on the talk page. The primary sources tag is appropriate now though, so I added that. I think you're right on the PR-speak though. ― Padenton|✉   02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Claiming to be Wikipedia Staff

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 Talk: CSI: Cyber an user (Drmargi) is called Wikipedia Staff multiple times by another user. Also, the opinion she states is being referred to as "decision made by Wikipedia Staff". I looked the user up in the Users list and she does not seem to be a part of Wikipedia Staff, so this claims are misleading to others (someone who reads it may actually think that her statements are from Wikipedia Staff). I have tried to contact the user who called her that to retract those statements but he refuses to. If she indeed is a part of Wikipedia Staff, I apologize. Maticsg1 (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems User:DarienLeonhart has merely been confused by the "Senior Editor" userbox on User:Drmargi. Drmargi is not Wikipedia staff and is not claiming to be. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia is one of the websites run by the Wikimedia Foundation. There is a Wikimedia staff but no "Wikipedia staff". Somebody saw a box at User:Drmargi and said Drmargi is a Senior Editor of Wikipedia. Somebody else misinterpreted this and called Drmargi "Wikipedia staff". Drmargi has not edited the talk page since then and may be unaware of it. You can just post to the talk page to explain the misunderstanding, or ask Drmargi. It seems pretty harmless. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That is why I do not want to report neither of them (because User:Drmargi herself doesn't claim to be Wikipedia Staff, and I, too, believe that User:DarienLeonhart has been confused). I just reported this here, because I believe someone reading that can actually start to believe that it is true that "Wikipedia Staff" has decided that it has to be like Drmargi thinks it should be, so I believe those statements should be retracted, but the poster refuses to do so, as he believes that they are accurate. Anyway, User:Arthur_goes_shopping has posted there to explain it. Maticsg1 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Senior" in this case simply means old. Or at least has been on Wikipedia a long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did you notify the user about this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Hcobb & BLP's

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:Hcobb continues to make inflammatory edits to BLP's that either mischaracterize the source(s) provided or are completely unsupported by the sources. Given the editor's experience and the long-term duration of the edits, in my opinion the edits could possibly be characterized as WP:vandalism. I attempted to warn him off a year ago. However, the following edits have been made since then:

1. Political Positions of Jeb Bush Mischaracterization of source. (According to the source, Bush didn't say the Iraq invasion was necessary and didn't characterize post-invasion security as a "blunder".)
2. Mike Huckabee Presidential Campaign Statement unsupported by source.
3. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
4. Marco Rubio Statement unsupported by source.
5. Ronald Reagan Mischaracterization of source.
6. Scott Walker Mischaracterization of source.
7. Rick Scott Mischaracterization of source.
8. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
9. Lindsey Graham Mischaracterization of source.
10. Political Positions of Rand Paul Mischaracterization of source.
11. Bobby Jindal Statement unsupported by source.
12. Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
13. John Boehner Statement unsupported by source.
14. Political Positions of Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
15. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
16. Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
17. Political Positions of Mitt Romney Statement unsupported by source.
18. Jeff Sessions Statement unsupported by source.
19. Chris Christie Original research.

CFredkin (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that "blunder" is exactly the word that reliable sources state that Jeb used. What exactly was the problem? Hcobb (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Bush—Which impartial sources? The one cited attributes the characterization to George W. and NOT as a quote, so someone needs a solid source if they want to use the word, put it in quotes and attribute it to Jeb.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Huckabee—Your Huckabee statement is grossly wrong. While I'm having trouble tracking down his exact claim, and it may well have been a dumb statement, the source you cited doesn't remotely support your claim. I've only looked at two so far, so I'm not yet ready to recommend what action should be taken. I see someone else has removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Cruz—Given the discussion of sodomy, it should be handled very carefully. I haven't done enough research to see whether your claim is supportable or not, but it may be.
• Rubio—I have no idea whether Rubio supports privatization of the VHA, but the cited source does not make that claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, this is not the right place to debate content. I checked a few, to see if the allegations had merit. They do, but there are better places to debate content.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hcobb, can you please cut/paste the relevant text from the corresponding sources to support the following claims <emphases mine> in your edits:

2. "In his announcement he promised to put the 37.3 million retired Americans to work."

4. "Rubio has endorsed a proposal to privatize the Veterans Health Administration."

11. "In 2015 Jindal traveled to the UK to speak out against the 'no-go zones' he imagined to be there."

12. "In November 2014 Paul moved to recognize the government of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."

13. "The third law firm selected finally filed the suit in November 2014, after Boehner criticized Obama's unilateral moves on immigration policy, taken after Boehner had scheduled no votes on the Senate bill for over 500 days."

14. "Paul claims that the government is lying to the American people and that he alone knows how "incredibly contagious" Ebola is.

16. "Paul then welcomed what he called unconstitutional airstrikes against ISIL.

17. "In September 2014, Romney faulted "Washington politicians" for cutting defense instead of raising taxes."

18. "Sessions said that more federal revenue may be needed for defense."CFredkin (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are these good faith efforts to improve the project?CFredkin (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we discussing content disputes at AN/I? Are these not better handled in talk page discussions? For example the Jeb Bush source says The mistakes, [Jeb Ed.] Bush argued, were in the decisions made in the aftermath: “Once we invaded and took out Saddam Hussein, we didn’t focus on security first.” He said George W. Bush agrees that this was a blunder, "so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of thos.”, so one can assume from that the Jeb Bush agrees with George W that it was a blunder. Granted, there is a bit of WP:SYNTH there, but that can be hashed out in talk, and Hcobb may need to exercise some caution. Shall we move on then? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: makes a good point, this is not the place for an indepth discussion of content. Some of the edits have already been reversed, the remaining should be handled on a cases-by-case basis following discussion on the respective talk pages, while this is a place to discuss whatever sancations, if any, should accrue to the editor. So far, none have been proposed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here's the exact text from Hcobb's edit for #1 above, which Cwobeel is referencing: "Bush agrees with his brother George W. Bush that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary, and that the lack of focus on post-invasion security was a "blunder"."CFredkin (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC) In any case, this isn't the most egregious edit by any means. I just listed the edits in reverse chronological (not priority) order.CFredkin (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this been posted to the BLP noticeboard? Each detail you mention is either a SYNTH violation or an outright BLP violation.--MONGO 07:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to go to the BLP noticeboard? I would think that would be a venue for broad discussion of issues that cannot be settled on the talk pages of the respective articles. Step 1 is reversion of errors. Step 2 is discussion on the talk page if the editor continues to insist on the error after reversion and step 3 is a noticeboard if the discussion at the talk page doesn't attract enough input. Separately, the editors actions can be addressed here if they persist after being corrected. Sounds like we are ahead of ourselves.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the editor has a history of misrepresenting sources, and was warned about it in the past, then the discussion on behavior belongs here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And here it is exactly in the source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/10/jeb-bush-says-he-would-have-invaded-iraq/ “I would have [authorized the invasion], ... He said George W. Bush agrees that this was a blunder, "so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those.”

So how exactly did I invent "blunder"? Hcobb (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue to debate a content question. Please post to the talk page of the article, and I'll respond there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hcobb's mode of operation is to periodically add inaccurate content to Republican BLP's. When the edits are challenged, he rarely defends them. This allows him to fly under the radar in the hopes that at least some of his edits will remain undiscovered and stick. It seems to be effective since it's been going on for several years. Since we've established here that this behavior is ok, I may adopt this approach myself for articles on Democratic politicians and issues moving forward. I'll refer back to this discussion if I'm challenged on it. (User:Cwobeel since you stalk my edits, I'll be sure to create a new alias for this purpose.) We can call this mode of editing "catch me, if you can", and it will be a race to the bottom. Cheers.CFredkin (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I may adopt this approach myself for articles on Democratic politicians and issues moving forward. ... That would be very unwise and pointy. And BTW, I don't "stalk" your edits. I have your user page on my watchlist and we tend to edit same type of articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel said: "Do I check once in a while on your contrib list? Sure I do." at [111] And it continues...[112]CFredkin (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not "stalking", my friend. And I think that my intervention at Hcobb's talk page was useful. Maybe you need to re-consider your attitude, and be more collegial? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, you did not include my second message to Hcobb [113]]. Why? Uh? Uh? - Cwobeel (talk)

In any case, this User_talk:Hcobb#The ANI issue may be the better way to handle it. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the contention is Hcobb is editing political bios but only misrepresenting sources on bios of politicians belonging to a certain ideology then I don't think AGF will wash. I've asked an initial question on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI post is about a long-term pattern of behavior involving the posting of false and inaccurate content to BLP's. My understanding is that BLP's in particular have a higher level of risk of legal action as a result of slanderous and inaccurate content. He was warned at least once a year ago and continued his behavior. (In fact, judging from the posts immediately following the warning, his behavior got worse in terms of posting completely false content.) I believe persistent vandalism is generally dealt with through some sort of block. Instead, you and some other editors here are attempting to position the issue as a misunderstanding over content. I've noticed that you've focused on a single edit involving mischaracterization of the source in particular and completely ignored the multiple edits involving content that is completely false. Personally I have no idea how the post you refer to above to Hcobb's talk page, which appears to primarily reassure him that my ANI post was premature and that he must have been acting in good faith in any way is a reasonable response to his behavior.CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No really. My post in Hcobb page was that you may have a point on your assessment of his edits, and that we all needs to be careful to stay close to the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to this User_talk:Hcobb#The ANI issue .CFredkin (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The attention that you have brought to this issue, has brought this to the attention of two very experienced editors, and I would be inclined to say that Hcobb will be in real trouble if he/she does not respond to their questions, or if the behavior re-occurs. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're suggesting that Hcobb is on some kind of double-secret probation. That sounds ominous indeed. Hcobb must be quaking, particularly since he hasn't even acknowledged wrongdoing much less offered to change his behavior.CFredkin (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Before signing off I'll note the following for the record: This thread documents that User:Hcobb has inserted potentially libelous content into the biographies of living Republican politicians on Wikipedia on multiple occasions over the last year. Since User:Hcobb has been editing since October 21, 2008, it is probable that additional libelous content has been inserted into the biographies of living Republican politicians that has not been identified and corrected. Collectively the admin community of Wikipedia is taking no preventative or punitive measure to address the situation.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried asking on the article talk page what exactly the error was without response. I will try again. Hcobb (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous statement CFredkin. Do you really believe that libel can remain in bios without any eyes noticing? You grossly underestimate how Wikipedia works. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cwobeel Whoops. Here's another one. Two years old. Who's being ridiculous?CFredkin (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cwobeel: It's interesting to me that you've inserted yourself so strenuously into this post. Why is that, do you think? Is it because you have a long-standing habit of following me and contesting my edits? Is it because the BLP's being vandalized are exclusively for Republicans? Is it because you don't believe persistent vandalism involving the insertion of libelous content into BLP's should be sanctioned?CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to help here. The Paul Ryan edit is a an obvious content dispute and does not raise to the level of libel. Take it to talk, for Pete's sake and move on. This is my last post in this thread. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm staying off of BLPs and will restrict myself to noting in the talk pages when there are updates to topics I've edited on in the past. For example: Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush which has new material today on the first item on the list above. Hcobb (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Fraudulent misrepresentation.

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.

---

• Users with accounts: JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek. Intentionally misleading, unproven entering data in the article Buk missile system, as the official investigation is not over, and the commission's findings have not been published, they introduced changes into the hands of one of the parties to the conflict. At the same time, deliberately removed the audited data for 2013.
• Users with accounts: JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek, violate the rule of neutrality of Wikipedia articles. Please take immediate action.--Mega775 ~(talk) 10:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinged the other two parties as you were supposed to... also, wowie zowie, already on ANI within your first 10 edits? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to slow down and discuss your edits on the article's talk page. This is a content dispute, not something for admin action. You are already at three reverts with your account and it appears an additional one with an IP address. -- GB fan 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also accusing others of fraudulent misrepresentation is getting very close to violating WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 11:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that vydavanie unconfirmed information as fact, it is a violation. This is Wikipedia, but not with CNN BBC.--Mega775 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you do not believe the sources provided with the information verifies the information, then you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page, not edit war. -- GB fan 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• My brief response - unfortunately, there's a history of edit warring to remove reliably sourced information regarding the use of the Buk missile system in the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 incident. Often these edits, e.g., [114], are from IPs (check geolocate information for further insight), other times from newly registered accounts, such as the complainant. In the past, I and others have taken the time to request temporary page protection from new accounts and IPs. I was too busy to do so this most recent burst of such edits. I recommend that now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, this page should be permanently semi-protected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Sooner or later the truth will emerge on the surface, and you will realize that you are (JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek) a disinformation accomplices, I hope this time you will remember about me, unless of course you do not do it intentionally.--Mega775 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

New editor (Mega775 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) with under 5 edits immediately comes here to "report" two long-standing editors? Something seems "off" here... --IJBall (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This has gone stale. User Mega775 went AWOL after filing this 'report'. I'm keeping his/her user pages on my watchlist in case it's only hibernation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Ser Amantio di Nicolao and AWB abuse

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

---

Ser Amantio di Nicolao with AWB privileges is adding questionable gender categorisations to thousands of biography pages. It first came to my attention at Omar Khalidi page : diff, which I reverted citing policy WP:CATGRS. He repeated the edits the next day. I explained the issue in detail on his talk page: diff. More discussion on my talk page User_talk:Kautilya3#Gender_categorization, after which he self-reverted. So far so good. But he has been continuing to do the same questionable categorisation on thousands of pages using AWB, as evident from his Contributions list [115]. More and more articles on my watch list are popping up with "male" added to their categories. This needs to be stopped.

I also think all these edits need to be undone, because they set bad examples for others to do the same thing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the issue as stated. I believe that Category:Male historians and other such categories are valid because of the past creation of such categories as Category:American male writers and some of its subcats, and Category:British male writers and some of its subcats. (I would note, incidentally, that a number of these categories have been brought up before CFD, a couple of years ago, and were all designated as to be kept.) They are proving to be as useful as the subcats of Category:Women writers. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sure Ser Amantio feels as if he is doing a service by adding these categories. But, it can't be right. The categorisation should be done using a defining characteristic principle as per WP:DEFINING. WP:CATGRS says that gender and other characteristics should not be used to subdivide the category unless there are reliable sources that do it. Nobody thinks of writers, scholars, historians etc. as male and female. They are just writers, scholars and historians. He cites the example of Category:Women writers as justification. But that is a category that has been created after extensive discussion in the CfD process. There are reliable sources as well as justifiable reasons for that category. However, women-writers are not the same as "female writers" and it doesn't warrant a parallel "male writers" category. It should also be noted that Women writers is a non-diffusing subcategory. Women writers don't stop being "writers" by virtue of being women writers. There is an undercurrent of unfortunate gender battle, and a fundamental lack of understanding of categorisation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio is one of the most productive AWB operators on here. Far from "abuse", he's been of enormous assistance over the years and has done a massive amount of work organizing categories. While you might have a point about splitting some of the occupations by gender, unless you can prove there's a significant consensus against what he's doing this remains largely a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. That he ignored what you said seems to have angered you and prompted a rude message to him and this here. And knowing Ser Amantio, if there was significant consensus against what he's been doing I know that he wouldn't be continuing. He's not that sort of editor. My only concern, and I've said this previously, is that if you're going to split a main category you really need to have a hatnote at the top explaining that it's been split by gender and main category links to them emboldened at the top. Especially if there's loads of sub categories finding "male" and "female" can be particular difficult and not convenient for a reader in browsing. But please don't post here as if he's some abusive vandal who needs to banned asap. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't personalise the issue. I am not "angered" by anybody. The AWB privilege comes with the responsibility to follow Wikipedia policies. Ser Amantio should not be doing mass changes without a proper understanding of the concerned policies. When we point out the relevant policies, it is doubly contingent upon him to do so. The very first principle of categorisation under CATGRS states: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. He has not said single word about how maleness is relevant to being historian or a writer. His only justification seems to be that people "like it." This is not the way to build Wikipedia. In the ARBIPA domain where I edit, there are a lot of things that people write that other people like and equally other people hate. Policies exist for a reason. He needs to follow them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, at one time there was a rule against splitting actors and actresses. Now there is official consensus to split as there was a lengthy RFC in some place and I believe it was decided to split them. Writers I supposed the split has to do with the WP:Women's writer group and rooting out how many articles on women we have and what needs work. as well as improving navigation for those interested. You do have a point about how far we should go with the gender splitting. If you do think he's violating consensus or some policy then request an RFC and decide on how far the gender split should go. But please assume good faith from him on this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus comes into picture only when there is genuine disagreement within policy. We don't need "consensus" to decide whether to follow policies or not. If he stated a policy-based rationale for his categorisations, I would have been glad to take it to a CfD. He hasn't done so. He hasn't produced a single reliable source that justifies any of his categorisations. So, this is a meaningless debate at this point. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with your interpretation of gender not being a defining characteristic, I understand your sense of urgency. It is quite easy to make sweeping changes with categories and have them go unnoticed because they are often edits of small size at a lot of different articles. And, unfortunately, the category page itself has no record of what subcategories, articles or pages have been added to or deleted from it. It's quite easy to do a lot of damage in just a few hours which can be difficult to undo or which goes unnoticed for months or years. But, in this case, I think Ser Amantio di Nicolao is making a valid interpretation. Gender categories come up frequently at CfD and they have a mixed success, sometimes they are kept, sometimes they are deleted or merged. But the folks at CfD are familiar with the categorization rules and, as Xezbeth says, you should probably take this discussion there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, for the record, that I came to the creation of these categories after long consideration...the fact that a number of the "male writers" categories had been up at CfD a couple of years ago, had been accepted, and have remained in use led me to feel that perhaps it was time to expand on that beginning somewhat. Women writers categories I am using mainly to find categories to mirror with male-only categories. E.g. - I created Category:Male essayists because there's a category Category:Women essayists. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If Category:Male essayists or whatever is a problem, then nominate it for deletion. If it isn't a problem, then adding the category to a suitable article cannot be considered abuse. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any abuse here. What I do see is an editorial dispute. If you don't want the category, send it to CfD, or open a discussion about it. Epic Genius (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Whether a category/subcategory should exist or not is a matter for CfD. That is not AWB abuse. Rather, AWB abuse is in adding thousands of articles to these categories without obtaining reliable sources. WP:CATGRS says: As to the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources. This was the very first point I made to him: diff. While he accepted my point for that page and self-reverted, he kept on doing it for thousands of other pages using AWB. Am I expected to chase after him and block him at each and every page that he adds by automation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose where I, personally, am having a problem is with the question of reliable source: what constitutes a reliable source on the question of gender? Use of the pronoun "he" in a discussion? Mention of the word "male"? I don't know how deep to take it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I told you in the above diff that somebody being a male and a historian doesn't make him a "male historian." If you looked at any of the old CfD's on gender-related categories, you would have seen such reliable sources being mentioned, but only for the categories that make sense. The WP:CATGRS itself gives the example of "female Heads of State" as a category that exists. There are plenty of reliable sources for it. Since you are creating categories that don't make sense, you are not able to find reliable sources. If there is indeed a category called "male historian" in the real world then you would find it being mentioned in a reliable source. But there isn't. It is just something you pulled out of your own hat. So, obviously you can't find sources. Your inability to find sources should tell you that you are trying to do the wrong thing! Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But the point is if you take your argument to CfD and persuade other editors with your argument, the category will be deleted. You won't have to go to each individual article and remove it. It's clear from the discussion so far that no one but you is stepping forward to propose sanctioning Ser Amantio di Nicolao so your best bet (which I don't even agree with!) is to present your case at CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place. CfD is the place. There is no ground for enforcing any sanction to remedy what is a regular editorial dispute. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Suppose the category is valid, and there are indeed a handful of individuals that are characterised as "male historians" or "male essayists" in reliable sources. That doesn't change the fact that Ser Amantio has categorised thousands of other articles without reliable sources. CfD has nothing to do with the problem being stated here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is fundamentally a content dispute and not fit for ANI. I see no abuse taking place here. As you have received no consensus for your view (and neither has he) the best and only thing to do now is get consensus at CfD. KonveyorBelt 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kautilya3, but I also agree that the matter should be discussed elsewhere. Let's go there. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to everybody for comments. There are now two CfD's: for Male historians and Women historians. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

United States Merit Systems Protection Board

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#Editorous_is_on_a_crusade
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Editorous_at_it_again

Now editing while logged out: 74.92.159.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've opened an SPI but given stuff like this, can we indef the master and temp block the IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Si se puede. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing with the derogatory nicknames. [116] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, if that article is targeted again (I saw three different IPs and blocked one of them), ping me and I'll semi-protect it. This is stupid. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. Will do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Gerald Fredrick Töben, possible BLP issues

See[117]. "Corrected date: not 1998 but 1999 - I shall be submitting a detailed new version of this flawed and truncated biographical sketch - and seek legal advice if the paid trolls tamper with ityou tamper with it" The IP is apparently Toben himself. As I've been involved in editing the article I'll leave it for others to deal with this. Ah, just realised that isn't the only legal threat, see[118]. As he's not using a stable IP, perhaps protection should be applied. To be fair, it probably needs more eyes, it is a BLP after all. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's OK -- if he sues we'll just deny there's an English Wikipedia or that he's one of its six million articles. EEng (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the article to my watchlist - hopefully others will as well. Given the possibility of a dynamic IP, page protection may be necessary should the behavior persist. The date had a source pointing to the 1998 date, so I reverted. If they dispute the date another source will be necessary. I've also done some minor formatting cleanup and removed an unsourced claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I find the subject's views abhorrent but that's neither here nor there. If the subject of a BLP thinks a correction is necessary then we should take that request seriously no matter who it is. Right now the 1998 date is sourced to the Daily Mail, which is not an appropriate source for anything remotely important or controversial.

It's easy to give BLP protection to "good" people. The test of our commitment to BLP is when we apply the same standards to everyone, whether the Dalai Lama or someone considerably less noble. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor with continuous unconstructive behaviour

The user PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since March 2015 constantly does disruptive edits, or starting loose discussions, currently on the Dulo clan article, previously on the Bulgars article, and recently copy-pasting the same wall of loose (fringe) theories to the Huns article talk page. The user was in this three months several times warned, or his activity and intentions, as well the specific info, sufficiently discussed. I explained him that, for this report most importantly, the info he's bringing to the Dulo clan article is totally unrelated to the topic what ever, or removing sourced considerations by relevant academic scholars (calling their considerations junk), and what's worse, he knows that and admits that his edits are violating the Wikipedia principles. I was tolerating his behaviour for some time, trying to discuss as much as possible, hoping for the best, but he's constantly pushing the same judgmental attitude and unconstructive activity. In the last 24 hours we both broke the 3RR rule on the Dulo clan article.--Crovata (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Heavy sockpuppetry to sway AfD and repeted personal attacks

Yesterday I came across Margaret Varnell Clark as DMRRT, the WP:SPA behind the article added promotion for her self-published book to articles on my watch-list [119], [120], [121], [122]. I found no hint of notability beyond that enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people who have publish something and launched an WP:AFD. Since then, DMRRT has tried a number of efforts to stop the AfD. First by trying to delete it [123]. Next by engaging heavily in the discussion in a very emotional way with a large number of claims, not one of which stood up to scrutiny (this alleged "world leading researcher" has virtually no cites on Google Scholar, and no verifiable notability has been established.) The only other long-term user who commented on the Afd (at the demand of the SPA [124] also recommended delete [125]. Having tried to delete the AfD, appeal to emotions, launch personal attacks against me [126], the next step is now some very obvious sockpuppetry (either through direct socks or meatsocks) as the AfD has been joined by two "new" users. One is another WP:SPA-account that had not been active for one year [127], and then a new account whose only activity is to comment on the AfD [128]. The duckiest of ducks in a long time. I've tried to explain and show to DMRRT how to show that an academic really is notable [129] but the DMRRT just continues in the same way, which raises both WP:HEAR and WP:COMPETENCE issues. This is starting to turn a bit ugly and has implications beyond the AfD, so some admin input would be helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Apart from your accusations of puppetry this seems like a pretty run of the mill WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT AfD. May I suggest you file a Sockpuppetry report so that this can be investigated? Twinkle makes this simple to do.

I am not an admin, but I can't quite see what you wish admins to achieve here. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be right, @Timtrent:. It was the additional WP:NPA (though pretty mild) but mostly the rather strong WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE that made me come to ANI. Had it been just the socking, I would have filed a report.Jeppiz (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I did file a sockpuppetry report, but not holding my breath. Reports from April are still not even discussed [130]. Wikipedia is really starting to have a massive problem with these backlogs building up everywhere.Jeppiz (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like there are two reports open at the same time: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ DMRRT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DMRRT. The first report has an extra space in the title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't know there was already one and that I had made a mess of the title. Have asked for my one to be redirected to Jezzip's. Cowlibob (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Another new user has somehow stumbled upon this AFD [131]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The situation is getting unpleasant. The actual AfD looks simple enough, all 10 established users who have commented have said delete. At the same time, the situation that brought me to AN/I yesterday is escalating Even though I no longer take part, there is now an orchestrated WP:SPA (and likely WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT) campaign that largely consists of discussions about me. I already signalled in the diffs above how DMRRT had been joined by two new SPA-accounts (RCP110 and Literarydiva). Since then both those SPA accounts have returned, and been joined by a third, M0302. whose very first sentence on Wiki is to insist they aren't a sock. All three have a go at me and my "ego" [132], [133], [134]. As the diffs show, all three also refer to DMRRT just as "DM", and all four of them (DMRRT and the three others) consistently call me she. I've never revealed my gender on Wikipedia. Quite apart from the effort to sway the AfD, this orchestrated attack on me is not pleasant. I make no claim to being perfect, and I probably should just have nominated the AfD and not discussed it (I've since left it and no longer interact with the users to avoid escalations), but all these rants about my "ego" are disproportionate.Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the closure of the AfD as deletion has removed any need to continue this discussion, one I think was probably better suited to other venues anyway. There is already an SPI which will run its course. The behaviour of the claque of new editors is the behaviour of a claque. May I suggest that those with hurt feelings simply treat it as 'one of those annoying things that happen from time to time' and that a passing friendly person closes this as, requiring, probably, no further action? Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocks needed?

Today seems to have been a day where an editor has been blocked, and has gone beserk, persistently IP hopping and posting various pieces of rubbish on User:Smalljim's talkpage (as well as other places). Although the ranges are generally all over the place, a large proportion of them seem to come from either the 81.135 series of IPs, or 86.165 range. Are these going to be too big to consider a rangeblock? All of the IPs are BT ones, although there has been another vandal (possibly, doesn't fit the pattern of the main one) who has hopped across three countries (let alone ISPs). Evidently Smalljim doesn't want to semi-protect their talkpage, but the vandalism is spread across other places as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP has made clear an intent to edit war, a complete disregard for any Wikipedia content policies, stated having no interest in discussion or mediation (per this edit).

The IP added some external links and is upset about their removal from Pharmacy automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by @Charlesdrakew:. Of the nine links they are adding, six are broken. Of the remaining three, one requires registration so should be omitted per WP:ELREG. The remaining two links are 1) Google abstract of a patent and 2) about page of a parent company which is no longer connected to the company mentioned in the article, which is now a separate legal entity.

The IP has posted rants on talk pages of anyone who reverts or blocks them, and vandalized additional pages while ranting against their dynamic IPs being temp-blocked by @Smalljim: and myself. Given the user's comments and actions, it would be useful to have additional admins monitoring the disruptions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

By repeatedly forcing vandals like this to get new addresses we can gain a better idea of what range(s) we can block. Bishonen has put one limited rangeblock in place already. I'll see if there's enough info for more - someone who's better at calculating rangeblocks than me could try to beat me to it (not hard!).  —SMALLJIM  20:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just done a quick calculation: edits from the whole of BT are running at about 60 per hour at the moment. In the hour to 21:00 (GMT) about 20 of them were reverted. So a block of the whole of BT for an hour would have affected about 40 (assumed) good edits. We can be much more accurate than blocking the whole ISP, so when a vandal is particularly lively, short blocks (under an hour) of part of this huge ISP doesn't cause as much collateral damage as I assumed it would. I'm not suggesting we actually do this now, but am putting it up as something to consider.  —SMALLJIM  21:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is really difficult to prevent abuse from ISPs such as BT, and rangeblocks cause quite a bit of collateral damage, so semiprotection is probably the way to go, unfortunately. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that short, targetted blocks won't cause as much CD as one might think.  —SMALLJIM  22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with BT is that you can't target the rangeblocks. As you've seen above, a single vandal has hopped all over two separate /16 ranges which are also on two different /8s. When we had a problem a while back I experimented with it myself (I am on BT) and in ten resets, I ended up on three different /8s (81, 86 and 109 - and BT has three others) and only once did I hit the same /16 twice running. It does seem to matter where you are (certain parts of the UK do seem to hit the same ranges all the time), but in other cases it's incredibly difficult to stop a determined range-hopper. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting info thanks. I've collated the addresses that the vandal was good enough to provide us with yesterday and although as you say they jump about a fair bit, the evidence indicates we could have slowed him down a lot with just a few /22s, and/or a short term /16 or two.  —SMALLJIM  10:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by Roe.ese

Articles New Romanization of Korean was made by User Roe.ese. But there are no appropriate sources (AFD), and User Roe.ese ignored a warning in the user own talk page. [135] Also User Roe.ese made a personal attack on my ability in English. [136] I think User Roe.ese should desist from those actions. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also at SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roe.ese --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation of policies

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.

---

Ambitiouscj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored notices and warnings on their talk page regarding the addition of unsourced content, occasional vandalism in the form of "hidden vandalism", and forms of edit-warring. Because the primary issue is general conduct and not vandalism or edit-warring, I've posted this discussion here. The user thanked me for this edit and followed it up immediately with this hidden comment, revealing that they in fact read the notice. From there, the user continued to ignore further notices regarding disruptive editing and higher-level uw-unsourced warnings. Ambitiouscj then proceeded to leave a personal attack (diff) on my talk page deleting content on the page in the process. These edits further reveal that they were well aware of their actions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User also just personally attacked me 1, 2, 3, changing my sexuality box from "Gay" to "FAG", religion from "Atheist" to "DEVIL WORSHIPER", and my gender from "Male" to "Shemale", simply because I reverted a poorly sourced edit they made after being given four warnings, I'll actually be quite disgusted if they're not blocked indefinitely, that isn't acceptable. Azealia911 _talk 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Reliable sources for a birthdate?

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, if this is the right place i would appreciate some support, if not please let me know where i can ask for advice.

Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Alexander&diff=prev&oldid=662421919) i removed several blogs purporting to report on a person's birthdate but I don't think any of them are reliable. If there is a reliable source then wonderful, i just haven't seen one yet. Or maybe my standards are wrong here? Any advice? Georgeivs vid (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Georgeivs vid: At a glance, I'd say you made the right move - a blogspot source, really? - but since this is a board mainly for reporting behavioral issues with other editors, not content issues, you might be better off taking your inquiry to the Teahouse or the Reliable sources noticeboard. A proper source for something like a birthdate would be more official documentation like a publically available birth certificate, or publication in a newspaper or notable book, or something to that effect. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Sirswindon, Rinaldo Paluzzi and Abstract expressionism

• Sirswindon (talk · contribs)
• Rinaldo Paluzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abstract expressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been going on for over a month, and can be embroidered with dozens of diffs, of which a few would suffice. Mostly a perusal of edits at Abstract expressionism and its talk page will tell the story: Sirswindon edit warred to include Paluzzi in the article on Abstract expressionism. Once consensus went against him, he took to its talk page to argue over the inclusion of numerous artists, most of whose affiliations with Ae are easily documented, if not always included in Wiki articles. There are, as far as I can tell, no published sources supporting Paluzzi's connection, formally or stylistically, to Ae, but the WP:POINTY continues. See [137], [138], [139], [140], then removal of argument [141] before starting anew [142] and targeting other bios [143], [144], and returning to Ae [145], lobbying other editors [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], (restoring this awful tripe along the way) [151], removing the cite template without providing the source [152], and reacting now by returning to Ae and moving to other bios, misappropriating my edits as rationale [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]. I've tried to be selective in offering diffs here (!); in the end, this is all about being challenged on the Paluzzi attribution, and declaring to do a spring cleaning as retribution. JNW (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

JNW I accept your caution and will attempt to find a reference to his his work being stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. Sirswindon (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To administrators: I've only included diffs to some of Sirswindon's edits. Up to two weeks ago I was still attempting to respond in good faith [159], [160], [161], [162]; please see the last two sections here, which I eventually removed after concluding that the user's motives had not changed [163]. JNW (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is common for editors who are fans of notable but "mid-tier" artists to try to promote them by including them in articles about genres and art movements. These articles should only include the most famous and iconic representatives of those genres. So please desist, Sirswindon. That being said, this seems to be a garden variety content dispute, and I see no need for use of the administrator's toolkit at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know, Cullen--I think this is a bit more. These diffs indicate a fairly large number of potentially disruptive edits, and this is really quite pointy. This goes back at least to April on Talk:Abstract expressionism, and it seems that little headway is made (in terms of a proven understanding of RS, etc.--though in April already Sirswindon said, "Modernist, I do apologize, if the future I will do as you have suggested", which sounds a lot like the comment above. (And they should be glad they didn't run into Postmodernist, who has no mercy since they don't believe in values anymore.)

  Anyways, if we take Sirswindon at their word, that they will find a reliable reference, and if they were to add "and in the meantime I will not make the kind of edits that proved quite disruptive in article space and on the various talk pages", then no admin action is necessary. But, Sirswindon, barring that, an admin may take action since, as far as I can tell, you are just taking up too much valuable time with rather interminable discussions and forum posts. Really, don't cite the dean of any department. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute that is being complicated by commenting on contributors rather than on content, but is basically a content dispute. It appears that it might benefit from moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Are the parties willing to close this thread and take it to DRN? If the discussion there gets into too much commenting on contributors, it will be closed and may have to come back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Drmies gets that this is something other than a standard content dispute, enriched by some gentle aspersions--I've included diffs to that end. The user in question periodically backs off, then continues disruptive behavior for not getting what they want. As might be guessed, I've come here rather than dispute resolution for a reason--I've many times in the last decade removed inappropriate or unsubstantiated names from lists, and this represents an unusual persistence, with a side of retribution. Perhaps nothing here is deemed actionable, but Drmies is correct in noting the great amount of time and energy this has already wasted on several arts pages. My thanks for that. JNW (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sirswindon has left this page to discuss this with the above administrators. Here's the relevant section at Drmie's page [164]. JNW (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't like having content disputes, and this is a content dispute, decided at ANI. However, if two editors both won't agree to moderated dispute resolution, I have to advocate blocking someone. Should the administrators here block User:JNW or User:Sirswindron or both of them, or just decide it later? (I really think that DRN would work, but not if the editors dislike each other that much. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)) I suggest some sort of closure now, but I am not involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm truly dumbstruck; by all means flip a coin and block me. JNW (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my, well anyway, sometimes things just work out the way they should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you for your note here. I didn't realize that the blocking comment was made by someone who is not an administrator; the less I say about it, the better. All the same, that there's any ambiguity as to the circumstances confirms my conclusion of years past, that this isn't the place for me. JNW (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to be blocked, this thread should be closed. Artists are included in that section of the article if their work is widely known, if reliable sources can be found, if they influenced and/or affected American Abstract expressionism. That section of the article contains artists from all over the world whose works were seen in NY or California during the 40s, 50s and 60s and whose works affected and/or influenced that movement. Which is why Wols and Zao Wou-Ki are included. The artist Rinaldo Paluzzi that the above editor wants included in the article simply was not known in the USA during that historical period, nor was the other Romanian artist Romul Nuțiu that this editor also wants to include known in the USA during that historical period. It's time for this editor to drop the stick and let it go - or find reliable sources for those 2 artists inclusion...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW many European and Asian artists working in similar styles to American abstract expressionism are included in the Tachisme article, which is the European equivalent to Abstract expressionism during the 40s, 50s and 60s. Some artists appear in both articles because their work was widely viewed on both continents or they lived and worked on both continents during that era...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympiacos B.C. disruptive edits by 141.237.149.158

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 ip user is trying to impose his version (which is completely wrong). I explained in the summary twice as you can see here: [165], [166]. He wrote an argument in his first revertion, but after my second revertion and because of his obvious lack of arguments, he made yet another revertion writing: "vandalism" as you can see here: [167]. I sent him a final warning and I am looking forward to your intervention. Thank you so much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring by User:DanJazzy on Kenny G article

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:DanJazzy continues to remove smooth jazz from the list of genres on the Kenny G article, and keeps on adding a criticism section to the article, giving it undue weight. I tried to discuss the issue with him, but he refuses to comply, accusing me of disruptive editing. He is clearly gaming the system to try to get his way, when all reliable sources state that Kenny G is a smooth jazz musician. Looking at his edit history, this isn't the first time he has attempted to game the system to enforce his POV on specific issues. User is clearly a genre warrior. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, I say you didn't really have consensus to classify him as a smooth jazz artist, but technically there hasn't really been recent discussion of the matter, and the rationale of those opposing it in this section is some truly uuuuuuurgh-inducing sourgraping with no factual evidence by way of RS to back it up. So it comes down to what reliable sources say-- is he a smooth jazz artist, or no, and do the RSes say so? Per this piece in the Washington Post, smooth jazz appears to be described as a jazz-sounding song with no improvisation component-- however much of an authority this holds on the definition of smooth jazz remains to be seen-- and is also quick to mention Kenny G's work as part of that genre.

Anyway, this is a very content-dispute-flavored kettle of fish and you two ought to talk on the relevant article talkpage for it, but... My take on it is you're not giving the RSes you're saying prove he's a smooth jazz musician, and the onus is on you to prove it to attain consensus. Same onus is on Dan for the adult contemporary thing. As for the Criticism thing Dan wants to put in, WP:CRITICISM is an essay, so it can't be taken as the hard-and-fast rule for Criticism sections. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, AllMusic includes smooth jazz in his list of styles [168]. Amazon also categorizes his albums as smooth jazz. Any sources that state otherwise (nearly exclusively from jazz purists) are not reliable sources, because they are in a perspective of a jazz purist rather than a neutral point of view. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I guess Amazon's perspective is that of a company that wants to sell people things and not a reliable source on categorization of jazz musicians. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh... so there are no "appropriate" sources for the categorization of musicians by genre?! (That's why I'm getting out of this thread!) I'm thinking this is going to lead to problems... Is there a guideline specifically on this topic – genres for musicians, and what qualifies as a "reliable source" for such? --IJBall (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

agree with Liz. As far as WP:RSN has covered it before, to answer IJ, Allmusic has been considered reliable for music topics, but Andros is going to have to dig up more than one source to sway consensus in their favour since it's evidently contentious among editors what to classify his music. Additionally, taking the stance that anyone who disagrees with the smooth jazz POV (that's a statement I never thought I'd have to use, heh) must be a jazz purist, or worse unreliable, is not going to help matters-- you're verging on combative, genre warrior behaviour yourself by doing that. Take their analysis with a grain of salt, and focus on those with considerable academic merit or expertise in music, of course, but don't immediately discount their stance just because it's not yours. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 01:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

to clarify, by "anyone" I mean that you shouldn't discount stances taken by RSes just because they disagree with you/yours; if editors DONTLIKEIT and can't counter it with RSes of their own, obviously they'll have to muster the strength to deal with it. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll comment here only because I was asked. There was some reversion back and forth, but it hadn't reached 3RR, and truly seems to be a content dispute. I would invite @Andros 1337: to join the discussion on the relevant talk page, where I think some productive conversation is now taking place. Many reliable sources do in fact support his position, but the details aren't relevant here. I think that unless real edit-warring breaks out immediately, this one can be closed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the libelous allegations byANDROS¹³³⁷, please allow me to clarify as follows:-

1. Editors should visit this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenny_G and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanJazzy. The disruptive editing is evident. It only stopped when I clarified Wiki policy on editing pages without consensus.

2. Th same editor accused me of gaming the system on "specific issues". I urge him to substantiate or withdraw the allegation.DanJazzy (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I see an exchange between two editors who have a content dispute and are not very civil, but I see nothing that can reasonably be categorized as "libelous". Because I see nothing that can reasonably be categorized as libelous, I do see a personal attack by User:DanJazzy against User:Andros 1337. I would suggest the use of a dispute resolution procedure, except that the editors will have to learn to comment on content rather than contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet, but an IP?

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.

---

Not sure if this is even possible, or if this is even the right place to report this, but previously today, user Ambitiouscj was indefinitely blocked for vandalism and personal attacks on myself and GoneIn60. The main body of the users contributions were at Nicki Minaj-related articles, mainly Nicki Minaj discography, Anaconda (Nicki Minaj song), Only (Nicki Minaj song), Pills n Potions, and The Night Is Still Young (Nicki Minaj song). Their editing involved adding poorly sourced changes to sales and charting info, repeatedly, even after being given the four warnings, and then personally attacking users, namely myself and GoneIn60. It seems that hours later, an IP has emerged (172.56.20.66), editing the exact same pages as the blocked user, and providing the exact same sources as they did, examples:

• Changes to sales on discography, exact same edit summary: Ambitiouscj / 172.56.20.66
• Changes to genres of Only: Ambitiouscj / 172.56.20.66
• Changes to genre of TNISY: Ambitiouscj / 172.56.20.66

It should be noted that all of the IP's recent edits were made within fifteen minutes of eachother, as if the blocked user knew what to edit as soon as they regained access to the site. It's pretty evident that these two accounts are related, but what can be done? Is it common for a blocked user with account creation blocked to come back as an IP? I'm quite stumped, any help would be appreciated. Azealia911 _talk 19:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's called WP:Block evasion from a user to an IP. Any actions of avoiding a block by changing IPs or users results in blocks. Callmemirela (Talk) 19:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou, I didn't know that! What happens from here on then? I'd reall like to see the IP blocked as swiftly as possible so I can revert their edits without getting into tedious edit wars. Azealia911 _talk 19:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Question from CuteOrangeKittyCat

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 a few old IP addresses and accounts I no longer use. I would like to remove all logs such as block, page deletion, and editing logs. Is this something you can do? Thanks CuteOrangeKittyCat (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know all of that is technically impossible, as in the software doesn't even allow for it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think its possible. I have seen edit summery get removed for being offensive. CuteOrangeKittyCat (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that was probably Revision deletion, but that has a very narrow set of criteria that it can be used for. I know edits can't be removed for copyright and licensing reasons, since Wikipedia's license requires that the authors be credited if it's reused, and you can't do that if you don't know who the authors were. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:VANISH and WP:CLEANSTART. However, note that "vanishing" is only available to permanently departing users who intend never to edit again using any account, not to those who would simply like to "start over" using a new account. A "clean start" does not include the removal of logs, etc. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

JoesphBarbaro‎ on my 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.

---

User:JoesphBarbaro‎ keeps blanking a conversation between us on my user talk page. I prefer to keep an easily accessible record of my interactions with other users, even if they appear to be unproductive. Since the user has ignored repeated and not-in-uncertain-terms requests to leave me alone, I'd like the user blocked from editing my page or otherwise contacting me again.

My interaction with this user started when I responded to these comments by JosephBarbaro that I thought were unnecessarily hostile and uncivil.

The user responded by blanking my comment three times ([169], [170], and [171]) before blanking the thread completely.

The user also started leaving hostile messages on my talk page ([172] and [173]). I asked the user to leave me alone and the user responded, "You're pathetic". The user then started blanking the message, each time with an insulting edit summary:

• "I hope you learn your lesson about sticking your nose on something that you know nothing or barely anything about. Have a nice day."
• "It's fairly obvious that I myself get to remove my own angry response and conversation that I started with you, no? Besides, weren't you yourself one who claim that I was "bugging you repeatedly over a single comment"? So my point stands."
• "Whatever. Keep being stupid and oblivious and denying everything I'm telling you. I'll keep on reverting you until you're blue in the face."

And finally, a revert with no edit summary. I find these courtesy blankings to be rather disingenuous, since he uses these edits as opportunities to continue the conversation after I repeatedly made clear that I prefer to archive my user talk page as I see fit. It bothers me that he explicitly states his unwillingness to compromise and respect my wishes. I just want this user out of my user talk page and deal with my talk page as I see fit. Mosmof (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoesphBarbaro:, you are not allowed to blank another user's comments, least of all on their own talk page. Point in fact, the only place you would typically be allowed to do this is on your own talk page, since users are given a higher degree of latitude in controlling what content does or does not stay on their page (which makes your attempt to control Mosmof's user page a double whammy on the policy-violation front). Furthermore, several of your comments and edit summaries are in clearly in violation of our civility standards, which represent a pillar policy of this project and a non-negotiable requirement of your participation within it. If you continue engage in personal attacks or to hound Mosmof by altering his user page (in this case removing what seem to be perfectly civil and reasonable comments), it is likely that you will blocked from editing. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User JoesphBarbaro has been admonished before about personal attacks. Their threat to edit war is problematic as it suggests a disregard for existing guidelines and they do not have the liberty to blank discussions from another user's talk page, but for certain exceptions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was just taking a more detailed look at his talk page and was about to come back to edit my post to that effect. From the comments there, it would seem that personal attacks are a not uncommon response of this user to content disputes. I hope that he recognizes this as a bright line situation and that this behaviour must desist if he wishes to avoid a block. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is totally unacceptable. I'd support a block for clearly violating WP:NPA. I don't think anything short of a block is likely to modify this editor's hostile behavior. --IJBall (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. This is completely unacceptable behavior. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

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.

---

El Bayon has attacked me at my talk page claiming to be "paying back". I was at fault a few days ago, thats true, but his behaviour is not right either. Bolonenk (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The harassment is continuing... Bolonenk (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the annoyance, is the sniping preventing anyone from editing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to indef both users, since none of them seems to have any useful contributions (I mean, really zero).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

cry babies everywhere, i must wage my war im let alone in this by admins who did not block bolo three days agoEl Bayon (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not right to indef me now as I got warned three days ago and i have not done wrong since. El bayon is now attacking me.Bolonenk (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Shut up you, you abuser, you are nothing but abuser.El Bayon (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@El Bayon: You're not helping your case by calling people cry babies, telling the user to shut up and claiming them to be an abuser. You seriously deserve a block. You're blatantly disregarding WP:NPA Callmemirela (Talk) 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This time Im innocent. Bolonenk (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I told you to shut up. Do as i say or you get banned.El Bayon (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

These users seem to have made no edits that are not just insults directed at the other. It makes no sense unless they are one and the same person playing a very very childish game. Paul B (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is most likely the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the same person just trolling ANIJeppiz (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

that's true, i have created several accounts for vandalism, sorry i thought you'd realize this already three days agoBolonenk (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

WTF?! Okay, yeah. You both deserve to be blocked indef. This is purely a childish and immature game. Callmemirela (Talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism 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.

---

I am reporting this account for vandalism and an odd edit to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.54.40.172. No, I did not directly engage this person because I am busy editing for the good of the encyclopedia. I will post the required notice. Thank you for any help you can give. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. This is a user that has now left their sig on your talk page trying to let you know that they have emailed you and it is an established editor. That is the first edit that IP has had in over a year and it is a mobile provider. If you did have vandalism to report it would be at WP:AIV.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The last edit from this IP address was 2 months ago, in which they left you a message regarding an email they had sent you. Where is the vandalism? JZCL 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It was today...May 16, but I agree with you. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

D'you know what, I think I must be going mad, I'm sure that it said March 16 last time I looked?! Anyway, my second point is still valid (I hope!). Thanks for pointing that out! JZCL 19:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

All of the IP's edits (except for the last one) are vandalism. However, they're old enough that they should be ignored; as Berean Hunter notes, this is a mobile IP address, so we can't assume that the most recent edit was made by the person/people who made the previous edits, i.e. sanctions for the past vandalism would be badly out of place. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Maintenance tag removals

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 @Gumercindogracindo: is either not getting it or is blatantly ignoring warnings about removing maintenance tags. [174], [175], [176], [177], [178],

And still removing them today [179] and [180]. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the one-week block in February doesn't seem to have helped, blocked two weeks this time; there's absolutely no talk-page interaction. Miniapolis 22:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Miniapolis Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Issue with large-scale changing of terminology...

Dan Koehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently Dan began a widespread replacement of the term "Viking" with the "Norsemen" across many articles. This follows various debates over the last year or so (if memory serves) about when, where and how it is most appropriate to use these terms in articles, which carry subtly different meanings among scholars and non-scholars, and which translate differently (I believe) between English and Scandinavian languages.

There have been various interventions about these changes, including: Talk:Vikings#Former_viking; Talk:Battle of the Conwy#Norsemen; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture#Campaign to replace "viking" by "Norsemen". Among the points raised by @Mutt Lunker:, @Johnbod:, @CambridgeBayWeather: and @PatHadley: and myself on Dan's talk page have been the perceived lack of consensus for these changes, and the apparent technical errors made in the process (e.g. renaming the titles of cited works, changing the content of direct quotes etc.). During the course of today, Johnbod, @Dudley Miles: and @Ealdgyth: have raised the issue on my talk page, User talk:Hchc2009#Vikings, variously proposing and expressing support that an administrator be asked to intervene.

I am convinced that Dan is acting in good faith but there is a lack of community consensus for his changes, which appear to be causing some irritation to many editors. Administrator assistance in calming and bringing this episode to a productive conclusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy for ways to deal with a content dispute. Moderated discussion at the dispute

resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments would be two possibilities. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Super-unhelpful! It's well gone beyond that. He has had the usage of "Viking" in English carefully explained to him by several editors over weeks if not months but takes nothing in, perhaps partly because of his iffy English, but mainly because he won't accept that the meaning of terms in English will often differ from their meaning in other languages. Of course he is acting in "good faith" but these edits to several hundred articles, many producing grossly incorrect English, impose a huge burden on other editors who need to revert them. An immediate block is required. A few examples I've reverted, from hundreds that I haven't: "The town has Norsemen roots in common with..." at Crosby, Merseyside; "Ormen Stutte (Short Serpent) was a Norsemen longship...", at Ormen Stutte (longship); "Later it saw the influence of the Norsemens as seen in the name of Carlingford Lough." at County Louth. All these basic errors are repeated many, many times. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I agree. This is something that an admin needs to address. GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that explains that change of "Viking" to "Norsemen" on Brooklyn Historical Society. I guarantee that when George B. Post desihned the building in the late 19th century, it was a statue of a Viking he called for, not a Norseman, which is why I reverted the edit. This sounds like another political correctness argument, which, or course, is essentially a POV argument, which eventually leads to the euphemism treadmill: "Viking" is all of a sudden considered to be insulting, so it is replaced by "Norseman", until that becomes insulting and is replaced by something else: "Scandians", maybe.

I'd say definitely needs a consensus arrived at in a centralized discussion. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just want to clearify, I have changed from viking (activity pirate related) to Norse, in such instances when its clear that the text related to Nnorse people of Scandinavian ancestry. While the term viking is a controversial term, (will not go into details with that) Norse, and Norsemen is certainly not. Therefore I see no harm or dramatic in this, a visitor to Wwikipedia will through the link come to the article about Nnorse people with background to Sscandinavian as an ethnic Nnorse speaking group, rather than to a page with emphasis in pirate activities. My hope is to reduce confusion with this. There is a reason why the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture is not called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viking history and culture, and since the Nnorse culture were not sleeping or sent away throughout the viking age (800-1066) its perfectly normal to relate to the Nnorse as ethnic group before, during and after the viking age. In cases of raiding s, plunder etc, I have not changed the word viking, only when it replaced the correct for the people, Nnorse. Please don't forget, that even if Eenglish speaking books relates to Scandinavianscnadinavin as pirates and vikings during this period, there was a vital and fruitful Sscandinavian culture, before during an dafter the viking age, and its called Nnorse, and the people Norsemennorsement, they spoke Nnorse. There was no people called viking and no language called vikingish.... Comments regarding large scale; well, some users obviously made large scale links to viking, instead of Norse, when they related to ethnic group, and culture, it was here the error was made, not by me. I hope this clearances. Theres nothing controversial with the term Norsemen, like with viking, not until toady, anyhow. The term Viking is popular among laymen and people moved by the 1800 century romantic stories, but Norse is the term historians and archaeologists use for the ethnic groups in Scandinavia during iron age. clearifies. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(restoring link above) Dan, I'd be grateful if you didn't delete the links that I posted above. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In the instance I cited above, the source said "Viking", so that's what the article should say. You should not presume to think you know the intent of the source, whether it meant "pirate", "raider", "perfectly nice people from the Northlands" or whatever. Here in the U.S, there is generally no negative connotation to "Viking". All of this is why your mass change is in need of a consensus. BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And "clarify", the word is "clarify", not "clearify". BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no use trying to explain English language usages to him, he knows better, which is the whole problem. Regardless of terminology issues, most of his edits are straight ungrammatical - he cannot grasp that, unlike "Viking", "Norsemen" is only a plural noun in English. There is already a very clear and wide consensus against these mass changes, far larger than the average RFC picks up. He needs to be told very firmly to stop making them, or ideally blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan's bizarrely mistyped and unfocused post above is perhaps an extreme example of his talk postings, to the extent that it may possibly be due to a temporary factor, but it demonstrates that at the very least he does not have sufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to be editing on the English Wikipedia, and particularly not regarding the usage of a term which in English has significant differences to its usage in his language. Is such demonstrable incompetence not clear cut grounds to put a temporary block on him as he is resolutely intransigent in acceptance of efforts to explain his misunderstandings regarding both definition of the term and grammar? He's causing mayhem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's already a consensus about this, then is is allowable for some one with one of the automated program to just undo his edits? I could do it, but my finger would get chafed from all the button pushing. (I don't use automated tools except HotCat). BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, unless something has changed, I thought AWB was only supposed to be used for non-controversial edits? These seem controversial to me, which would suggest that perhaps his right to use AWB should be revoked. BMK (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've asked that question at WP:AWB. BMK (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say, that I find it not polite to try to make this discussion a personal issue, rather than focus on the subject.
• When YOU accuse me of making large-scale changing of terminology, I wish to remind you, that someone did this before, but the other way around, linked everything Norse to the article viking, which is such an amateur porridge of non-science that it will never be a real article, until someone gets the bright idea and start to write about vikings on the article vikings, and let the article Norsemen be an article about the Norse people in general
• The term Norsemen is over 1 000 years old, and I find it amusing that you ask for a consensus for its existence.
• Norsemen were so much more than the trapped comic strip archetype you have made them to in the article viking.
• I ask you please stop this crusade and accept that when speaking about language, culture, ethnicity, the word viking is hopelessly wrong to use, while the old word Norse is natural and correct.
• I believe we all want a better Wikipedia. My suggestion is that we put some faith to the members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. Just repeat prestigious claims of "traditions" isn't enough to develop this, you need to to think outside your box.
• Like the Norse did.
• I guess and hope that no one wants to remove our history, culture and ethnical ancestry, and remove the pages Norsemen and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture? And if you don't want to remove those pages, I hope you don't want to remove links to the pages either.
• And I hope you will not remove all the written sources on Wikipedia, that makes it clear for a 7 year old child, that Norse and Viking was not the same thing:

1. The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into:ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticamwas directly translated to vicingus.

- You complain about my english, I hope you can read your own (old-english) language above, and what it says? (I can...)

-No, Macedonia is not in Scandinavia... And in the Icelandic sagas even arabs are described with the word Viking, when they are attacking the Norse ships...

2. King Harald the Hairfair heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.

-King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of Scandinavian Norsemen were, fighting vikings.

3. Egil Skallagrimsson about Bjørn Farmann: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.)

Only with those three examples (and theres hundreds) you will have extremely difficult to explain what a viking is, and what difference there is between vikings and normal people from Scandinavia, if you stubbornly use the same word for two different meanings.

For over 1 000 years viking was just a translation of the word pirat until the fifties, when Americans wanted to call everything Scandinavian viking. And very MUCH simplifying thing with that, and later making it complicated.

This is probably the reason why the article viking is still on start level after 13 years on Wikipedia. Because in order to get the stories there OK; a lot of facts and sources must be excluded. With this concept you will never reach a good article, it will remain pubertal comic strip "information", and people have to translate the German article about vikings to get some scientific substance.

But Im not telling you what to do, Im just saying that there is no need for a consensus that I am from Sweden, and have blue eyes, there is no need for a consensus that the sky is blue, and there is no need for a consensus, that the correct term in English for my people, their culture, and medieval language is Norse. You can't change this by voting.

So why, did you revert my links to the the page Norsemen, when I only did the links in text where it was clear that there was reference to people and a culture, and not to raiding pirates?

And please remember, its not me who use my language to call you things which is not true, so could you please give a little respect to my ancestors, and stop calling them pirates? You have stopped calling other people with different skin colors for names you used for hundreds of years, it must be possible to quit this game of "all Scandinavians ARE vikings" game?

Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful Norse farmers, and their wife's, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900!

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Dan Koehl should be blocked for disruptive editing unless he will agree to stop making these changes. And his access to WP:AWB should be immediately withdrawn. See his contributions for all the usage of AWB to change Vikings to Norsemen. AWB must not be used to make controversial edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I stopped over 24 hours ago. 2. Can you please explain to me, what is controversial by making a link to Norsemen from a chapter that tells about Norsemen? If Im from Sweden, would you also forbid me to make a link to Swedish, and block me, if I don't make a link from my person to Viking? Whay shall everything Norse be linked to Viking, and not to Norse?

Or, put it the other way around, what can, according to your opinion, be linked to Norsemen?

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't see why this is controversial I wonder if we should take seriously any promises from you to behave better. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When multiple other editors object to your mass edits, they are, by definition "controversial", especially when you do not have a consensus to back them up. Therefore, I second EdJohnston's suggestions. Dan Koehl should be blocked until he agrees not to change "Vikings" or "Viking" to "Norsemen" (in whatever form), and his AWB rights should be removed immediately, unless and until he can show that he will not use the program to make non-consensus edits. BMK (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of a block, or a topic ban, or not, the AWB rights do need to be revoked immediately – only editors that demonstrate competence with special tools should be allowed to maintain them, and that has definitely not been the case in this instance. --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarize: you claim that Norsemen and Vikings are the same? But when I make a link to Norsemen from an article where its easy, from the text to define that the text is about Norsemen, this is controversial? Is it only controversial if I link to Norsemen, but not to viking, is this the logic? And, making links from text about Norsemen, to the article Norsemen is such a crime, that you speak about blocking me, remove rights to AWB etc, this almost sounds like what happened some hundreds years ago with the guy who claimed that earth is not flat...

Where is the will of cooperation, where is the will of making both articles better, where is the will of making this all understandable for the website visitor, where is the will to improve Wikipedia? I only see politics here?

I must ask again, why don't you delete everything written with the word Nors, or Norsemen, if its not OK to make links to the article?

I think I need to remind you what is written in Norsemen:

Norsemen refers to the group of people who spoke what is now called the Old Norse language between the 8th and 11th centuries. The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages, and is the earlier form of modern Scandinavian languages.

Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in England, Scotland, Iceland, Wales, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Ireland, Russia, Greenland, France, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, and Poland, as well as outposts in Sicily and North America.

All the links I did to the article where from text where it was relevant to link to Norsemen, why do you speak like if I have made a crime? If I would have made links from 100% of the text I could understand, but like I said, I didn't make links from text where it was about raiding and piracy, I made links where the norse people where discussed. If Norsemen are not banned on Wikipedia, what is wrong with making a link to them?

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OR, if anyone here claims that Viking and Norse are synonymous, can you please point me to a consensus about hat? And if they are the same, what is wrong with links between them? Why must 100% of the links be to viking?? But if they are not synonymous, can anyone here explain you position, what is according to you the difference between Norsemen and vikings, making it a crime to link text about Norsemen to Norsemen, and good if text about Norsemen is linked to article viking? Where are the discussions, the decisions, the consensus for all this?

You are speaking to me as if I have made a crime, and I want to tell you, I'm a user on Wikipedia since 2002, Im admin on 2 Wikimedia projects, I fight vandalism almost every day (see my log) and I'm not a criminal, and I can't see that anyone can logically even explain what I have done wrong, except for coming up with opinions, that a certain text should be linked to article viking, and not to Norsemen, but without a valid reason or explanation? All I want is to improve Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have "made a crime" - in your twisted English idiom - and that is that you have made major changes to the encyclopedia without having the approval of the community to do so. This is not the place to get approval for doing so; here, admins can only sanction you; for not getting approval, because this board only deals with aberrant behavior. Approval has to come (and I believe this is the fourth time I'm saying this) from a centralized discussion of the entire Wikipedia community and not just from the approval of a mere Wiki{Project. I believe that the senze of this discussion is that you must stop making those edits until that consensus is determined. If you do not stop, it appears to me that there are a number of Admins who are willing to make you stop by blocking you. If that is what you want, to be blocked from editing, keep on doing what you're doing -- knowing that there are a number of editors who will revert your edits as being non-consenual, and you will end up being blocked. If, instead, you wish to deal with this in the Wikipedian way, you need to begin the centralized discussion I mentioned above, and produce straightforward and understandable' evidence to support your position. Really, the choice is yours. BMK (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I stated yesterday above, I havnt made any edits since two days now. You most probably know that, but try politically to make it look like Im breaking rules etc. Sad. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try again. I'm not sure how it's still possible that there are still misunderstandings in this thread but, since Dan Koehl is using lots of bulleted lists: here's my attempt to reframe the terms of the issue:

1. The issue is not whether Norsemen is either:
   1. A useful or accurate historical term
   2. Referred to a real people (ethnically or linguistically) from Scandinavia in the 8th-13th centuries
   3. More politically neutral than Viking
   4. What such people might have used as a term to refer to themselves
   5. A more frequently used term before the C20th

All these issues are real, interesting and deserve well-referenced coverage on the (already pretty good) etymology section of the Vikings article and possibly elsewhere. Dan, you have continued to make points (many of which have been conceded by others) on these issues but have failed to address the points of others:

1. The issue is when Norsemen is a more appropriate and idiomatic term than Vikings on English Wikipedia. This depends on:
   1. The terms used in the scholarly literature - Viking is used extensively and CANNOT be changed when being referred to or quoted
   2. Whether Norsemen makes grammatical sense on articles. In many of Dan's replacements it does not
   3. The terms that are most frequently used by the wider public (in the 21st century!). Vikings is far more popular and relevant. Compare: Google search for Vikings with Google search for Norsemen. Also see the explanation Who were the Vikings? on the web page of the UK's most popular Viking museum.

There may be a few articles where, despite the above points, Norsemen is more appropriate. These should be sought out and changed individually, not with AWB.

Dan, are there any of these points you're prepared to address? If not, might I suggest that a discussion is begun on Swedish Wikipedia's village pump (there's no embassy). Perhaps another fluent, bilingual editor could help explain that the use of Vikings on English Wikipedia is neither inaccurate or an linguistic slur. There must be terms in Swedish that have similarly changed meaning in the last few hundred years. Let's hope we can get through this! PatHadley (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an intellectual problem here. You are discussing the term Viking, Im discussing the term Norsemen. I made links to Norsemen. There is no available consensus, that I can find, that making links to Norsemen, should be a poor choice. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And now I'm supporting a block on the basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --IJBall (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan Koehl, we are not here at ANI to have a content discussion about Vikings. Since almost everyone agrees that your edits pose a problem, we want to know if you are willing to stop these changes. If you continue with the vague statements (all of which assume the correctness of your own position) a block would appear to be the simplest solution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This has gone to far now. I did a normal Wikipedia action, making links about Norsemen to the article Norsemen. Since there were so many, I used AWB. Now theres allegations against me that I have abused AWB, and should be blocked, with the motivation that, linking to the article Norsemen is some sort of crime, however not specified why. Although I stopped making the links the same day, (several days ago) there's repeated "threats" written above, that if I don't stop (which I already did) I will be blocked from Wikipedia etc. I can see no other reason for this, apart from that for a reader it should look as if Im daily, repeatedly, vandalizing Wikipedia, which is for sure not the case, contrary, Im active daily as patroller. The use of "everyone" (against my links) made me suspicious, and after reading through this thread, as all as making a second analyze of the entire issue, as well noticing how personal the critics against my person are, instead of focusing on the subject, and the efforts to try make it look like I have vandalized Wikipedia, (when all I dd was making links to article Norsemen I now see:

• The article Viking is for some reason preferred by a group of users
• There is less than 100 links to article Norsemen.
• There is less than 100 links to article Norse, and most of them from talk pages.
• But there is thousands of links to article Viking.

Someone, or group of people, have a POV campaign going on, changing all links Norsemen, into links to Viking. Its like they want to kill and remove the article Norsemen?and they are now upset, when I interrupted this. Im not particularly focusing on the controversial term Viking, but on the absence of use of the terms Norse and Norsemen, and the reasons behind this. Those two articles are the natural names pace to tell about Scandinavian culture and history, but for some reason the article is more or less getting censored by a limited, but strong group of people, against logical arguments.

This issue is much more serious than I though, and for sure needs attention from admins and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. This is against how Wikipedia should work, and against the NPOV rule.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And, again, we get WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, now with a side of not assuming good faith. There is nothing to suggest this editor even realizes their editing is a problem, let along acknowledging it as such. Again, support loss of AWB privileges at a minimum, and support a block if they start up on their previous course of action of changing "Viking" to "Norsemen" against Consensus. --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the editor's continued focus here on content, despite being told that the matter being discussed here is behaviour, shows that they either refuse to take heed or have an inability to comprehend the issue. Either way they are not suitable to hold AWB privileges. The editor did finally stop their editing campaign but only after repeated notifications that the edits were both ungrammatical and controversial, points they have still not conceded apparently. A topic ban is also required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but note that having started his campaign at "A", he only stopped when he had reached "Y", ie probably when he had run out of articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha, no extenuating circumstances then. I wondered what had prompted the abrupt stop as it clearly wasn't acceptance of the points being made. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In my view if he understood the issues with grammar and context and promised to do any changes slowly and manually, with discussion on an article by article basis, that might be the best outcome in terms of improving the encyclopedia. But I definitely agree he needs to be prevented from making any kind of automated edits in this area. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How much more can possibly done to help him understand? He's impervious. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here of both communication and willing to compromise. Eventually, you five users share the opinion that Norsemen is an article that should not be used, or at least not linked to, while you prefer to make links to the article viking. As a consequence, you want other users to do the same, and if they don't, you change the links from Norsemen to Vikings. Then after my edits, you want to force me to follow your opinion, by threats of blocking and removal og AWB, but all this without a valid motivation, except that your opinion. You don't accept the validity of the article Norsemen or that links to this article is perfectly accepted by Wikipedia community. Then you think that you can change the world, and the existence and use of article Norsemen, by calling five peoples opinion a consensus?

By all means, I never saw a more direct case of a limited group of people who want to push the majority to follow their POV opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and consensus (or your type of "consensus") can never replace verified sources. The term Norsemen exists, weather you like it or not. If I make links to that article, you can't just say that Im breaking Wikipedia rules, should be blocked and have my AWB removed. The rule of NPOV is always the most important, and should be followed. My suggestion is that you take active part in discussions about those two terms, and consider being more willing to compromise and see other users point of view. With a reasonable willing of tolerating other people views, we can together build up an even better Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

QED Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but it's unlikely at this point that Dan Koehl will be blocked unless he starts uo again making changes without a consensus to do so. If he does, a new AN/I should be open (assuming that this one will have scrolled off the board by them), with specific reference to this report, and the consensus among commenters here that a block is warranted. BMK (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan, NONE of the opinions you attribute to me are at all correct, & I doubt the other (many more than) 5 hold them either. But why should I waste my time explaining in detail how and why this is so, when you take in nothing that is said to you? Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• The terminology changes don't all appear to be backed by sources or common usage, e.g. [181] and some similar edits changed "Viking longships" to "Norsemen longships" which sounds ridiculous. "Norsemen longships" gets 85 google hits, many of which seem to be in the possessive ("the Norsemen's longships") while "Viking longships" gets around 80k hits. So imho, those edits are outright errors. 2. Yes, changes on such a scale really have to be discussed ahead of time, per WP:MEATBOT and WP:BOTASSIST. It's not ok to make similar edits on 100's or 1000's of articles without first engaging the other editors. Separate from any regard to the Viking/Norsemen content question, there is a behavioural issue of inappropriate high-speed editing going on here. Dan, if you want to make changes on a large scale, please discuss first at WP:BRFA or maybe WP:VPR. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Getting a AFD notice for a article I never created or even edited!

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.

---

Somehow I keep on getting a AFD notice for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Nayyar, though the odd thing is not only I didn't create it-I never even edited it! (Usually I only see this happen if I change the name of the page) but yeah this is odd!

I just checked-the guy who put up the AFD is somehow putting this AFD notice on tons of people's pages! Wgolf (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well on mine for one. And then reverted it- [[182]]. Confused me. It could well be just a good-faith mistake, but my usual hangout is over at WP:RFD and from there I take things to and from WP:PNT, I mean I either suggest the translation or do it, if I think appropriate, so my name is probably well-known in those parts. (Might not be well-liked, but that's another story...) Si Trew (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did so because no consensus had reached on that discussion page for 4 days. By doing so, I thought that consensus will reach by notifying these users. Sorry for that. I'll not do it again. KunalForYou^☎️📝 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:The Jolly Bard

The user is a single-purpose account, solely editing the article Liberland to add claims to the land by "Paraduin" and other fictitious micronations. Given that the user's interest in Paraduin (one of the user's first edits was to add its claim to the land to the article [183], and he repeatedly defended the "nation" at Talk:Liberland), I suspect that the user may in fact be the "founder" of Paraduin, Guido den Broeder [184]. Paraduin appears to only exist as publicity for a fantasy book that he is writing. User:Guido den Broeder, renamed to User:Roadcreature, has been blocked/banned from editing several years ago. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There seem to be some weird things going on at Talk:Liberland. I dunno what to make of it... I guess the IP(s) that pop up in that discussion are the blocked editor in question?... But that whole conversation went to some odd places. --IJBall (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

AFD's article moved to Draft Namespace

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 was patrolling CAT:CSD and I came across Modestas Mankus. It appears that the article was nominated for AFD, after which, the author moved it to the draft namespace. Any thoughts/precedent on how to handle this? It seems pretty circumvential, especially on an article that may very likely have been deleted otherwise. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say this is a variation on "the only significant contributor blanking the page" and hence the mainspace version could be deleted via G7 (though I see it has gone via R2). Technically, that makes the AfD invalid (you need an MfD to delete a draft). I have !voted on the AfD as I believe the subject is completely non-notable but following proper procedure the AfD should be withdrawn so the creator can work on it in draft space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That then opens the door for any article that is taken to WP:AFD. move it to the draft space and voila, the AFD does not count. I think the AFD should run its course on the original content (as long as there is a note clearly explaining what happened at the WP:AFD) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's correct, but looking at the longer term view I don't see that as being too much different to the following scenario : 1) User creates unsourced article in mainspace, 2) Article is tagged A7 and deleted, 3) User is told to use the Article Wizard and use drafts 4) User instead copypastes the original into draft space 5) You wait. Time passes..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) And, if it had been created as a draft, it would have never showed up at AFD to begin with. Remember, AFD is not a contest, and you don't "win" if the article is deleted, so it isn't like the person moving the article to the Draft: namespace (or self-userfying the article, or whatever else they do) is "cheating". That's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and one we discourage at Wikipedia. If it isn't in the article mainspace, it isn't an article, and users are intentionally given more leeway (not infinite leeway, just more) for articles which are in draft form. Think about it: Had the article been created as a draft in the first place, no one would have ever proposed deletion, at least not at this stage. So why should we a) care that it was moved or b) seek to delete the draft, since as a recently created draft, it should be given some time to be developed. This sounds like a total non-issue. --Jayron32 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with that, but one thing that is different is that the AFD had already generated a Delete vote. If the article were moved to draft, and then, moved back into the mainspace again in a month the record of it's AFD may be lost. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Who cares if it generated a delete vote? Again, it isn't a contest. We aren't here to "win" battles, and if this had been created as a draft to begin with, no one would have even had the opportunity to vote one way or the other, so why bother? --Jayron32 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not being viewed as a competition, or a "win"/"lost" scenario, but more of a "this is a potential way to circumvent the system" that needs to be examined. For the sake of argument, lets say that an article goes to WP:AFD, and generates some amount of discussion with a likely outcome of "Delete", and the AFD runs its course. If that article were to be re-created in the future, it would be easy to delete it via WP:G4 if the AFD ran its course. So, instead of having that precedent hanging over the articles head, the author moves it into the draft space, the AFD disappears, and in a week or two, they bring the article back. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, and this fails the WP:DUCK test of being encyclopedically notable; this content is NEVER going to be encyclopedic (do a google search). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• there is no system. Again, the mentality that people are "circumventing" something presumes that they have found a way to "win" some contest, and you have therefore somehow "lost". That very perspective is harmful. Instead, we need to understand the purpose of AFD: AFD is narrowly to consider the appropriateness of an article in the article mainspace. This is not in the mainspace. Secondly, articles in the draft space are given a wider latitude to allow them to be developed. If we took the draft article to MFD on the merits alone, it would be declined at this time because a few days old Draft is generally never deleted excepting for obvious copyvio, attack page, or other bad-faith actions, and not merely because the subject doesn't appear to be notable yet. When you speak of circumvention, you're focusing on this as a contest, which it isn't. --Jayron32 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

...this fails the WP:DUCK test of being encyclopedically notable; this content is NEVER going to be encyclopedic while this article may be premature (the individual is only 18 years old and has years of work ahead of him), it's not true that this article will never be encyclopedic. I'm sure there are lots of articles that have been created that were rejected for lack of notability and after they worked on and fleshed out, they pass the notability test and are accepted into mainspace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, here is the link to the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modestas Mankus

I suggest an admin speedy close the discussion, it is the wrong venue. If someone wants to nominate it for WP:MfD later down the line feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG

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 wish to raise a complaint about repeated misrepresentation of my postings and uncivility toward me by JzG.

JzG made a posting to which I posed a question - the posting and question can be seen here.[185] JzG then posted "@DrChrissy: You have accused me of racism. Some editors would call that a personal attack and report it. Me, I think it's just cluelessness on your part. I really don't think you know very much about this subject, given the naive questions you are asking."[186] This clearly misrepresents my posting. I posed a question - I did not accuse them of racism. Furthermore, JzG's comment is a personal attack about my knowledge of the subject. JzG also said(same diff) "No need to apologise, anyone can make a mistake, but next time perhaps ask rather than flying off the handle?" This further misrepresents my editing as I had posed a question. It also states I made a mistake when I had not. Here[187] I indicated to JzG that I felt their posting was a misrepresentation and requested them to strike the offending comment. JzG then posted "You accuse me of racism, in two venues,..."[188] I repeated my request that JzG should strike their comment.[189]

Here[190] JzG questioned my competence. I replied here[191] stating this was uncivil and requested them to strike their comments. JzG replied with a posting[192] which included "I pointed out the by now obvious fact that you lack an understanding of the medical literature in general. Again, this is a refusal to strike the offending comment, with a further personal attack.

I reminded JzG on their talk page[193] that I had made two requests to strike comments. Their reply included "Says the person who accused me of racism (in two separate venues)..." and "I believe you lack WP:COMPETENCE in this area." Again, this seriously misrepresents my postings and is also a further personal attack. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for DrChrissy

If people look at Talk:Acupuncture#Please leave comments below, you will see that many believe that DrChrissy is incompetent in terms of his evaluation of sources. We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, do you want a series of diffs here to show you why people think you lack competence in this area? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kww That thread is less than 6 hrs old, and I would not call 5 "many".DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ NeilN Thank you for offering diffs showing why people think I am incompetent. I will politely decline at this time. However, if you have diffs showing that 'I am incompetent, I would be interested to see these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Would all other editors considering calling me incompetent please think about this. If I am incompetent, does this mean JzG is allowed to be uncivil to me and misrepresent my postings? I think not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy i hope your deletion of my comment was inadvertent. restoring it: you actually wrote "Wow! Is this racist?" (and even linked to it) in response to a statement of a well-documented fact about Chinese publications on TCM and acupuncture, and you are here claiming personal attacks against you. oy. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was totally inadvertent - I got caught up in an edit conflict.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

for pete's sake, you also deleted a comment by olive Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The environment on Acupuncture is complex and vitriolic. Topic banning one editor is a simplistic and unfair solution to what has gone on there. I suggest that anyone who wants to make clueful decisions read more than the thread/opinions of the editors who want to remove that editor. By the way if we want to start banning editors because we consider them incompetent, we can sanction a big percentage of WP. Editors have to learn and we all continue to learn here every time we edit. We do that with the help of other editors. (I have made a few cmts on the article but have not edited as far as I can remember this article, and left because of the quality of the environment and discussion there.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

what a mess. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy makes useful contributions to articles on animal behavior. But when he turns to alternative medicine his histrionic, self-righteous and uncooperative approach is distinctly unhelpful in an area that already is prone to conflict. (Diffs to follow.) A topic ban is overdue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Short Brigade Harvester Boris: No, his edits on animal behavior also show a competence issue. At coprophagia, he dumped in a whole boatload of text lifted from rabbit-- text that was often off-topic to that article, unnecessary, and covered by a link to rabbit,[194] and which I had to trim. [195] I am not familiar with his other editing, but I would not say he shows competence in editing around animal behavior topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply This is a content issue, not competence. Please look at my User page to see the number of animal behaviour articles I have started and contributed to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed this post earlier. The competence issue is that an experienced editor should know how to use Wikilinks on Wikipedia. We don't unnecessarily duplicate content across articles. That you excerpted a huge chunk of the rabbit article to coprophagia-- when all that was needed from rabbit was text sufficient to explain that a normal rabbit behavior is they eat their own poop-- is a competence issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The edits looked OK to me, but admittedly I'm out of my element regarding that topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris You stated that my approach was "histrionic, self-righteous and uncooperative..." and further said "(Diffs to follow)". Please provide these diffs so that I can rebutt them, otherwise, please strike your comment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me help out here, as I have until now not taken a position on whether you should be topic banned, since I haven't experienced the particular suite of articles where these issues arise, but am watching this unfold.

You provide an example right here in this discussion.

After Bishonen makes this perfectly helpful and neutrally worded post, you respond with: "I'm sure the admins will note the tone you used." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, exactly stuff like that... In another context I'd probably write off Chrissy as a tone troll. Zad68 13:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why the two postings above have been placed there, but I made my reply about Bishonen's comment here.[196] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 15:02, May 15, 2015

So. Having not had the pleasure before this ANI discussion, I am seeing the issues right here, courtesy of you. You are "not exactly sure why the two postings above have been placed here", when a direct question was answered with a direct example. And then you fracture the discussion with ... another diff that shows even more of the very same behavior.

If you engage in this kind of obtuse IDHT behavior on article talk, it must be a most frustrating time sink, that would try the patience of the sane among us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Per DrChrissy's request. This is the guideline (WP:MEDDATE) you were quoting for these removals: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, with newer being better. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies."

• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Clumsy reading of source (see Talk:Acupuncture#.22Western_Medical_Acupuncture.22)
• Google hits? Really?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Ahhhhhh! I have only just seen what the issue is here. It is the removal of non-review material older than 5 yrs old. I interpreted the word "review" in this guideline with a broader perspective. Most scientific papers contain a review of the literature and I thought the guidelines were referring to this. If I was mis-interpreting this, why was I not told at the time? that would have been the collegiate approach.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't wash. Most references you removed weren't scientific papers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on this, and the persistent misunderstanding or misapplication of WP:MEDRS, would the appropriate topic-ban scope to consider be just alt-med or (human) biomedical content in general? An inability to understand and apply the WP:MEDRS sourcing guideline in general (as opposed to only in the alt-med area) should indicate a commensurate scope for a topic ban. Zad68 15:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good time to discuss a topic ban for DrChrissy, based on tendentiousness and an apparent lack of WP:COMPETENCE in this area. DrChrissy has accused me of racism (in two separate venues) for stating that Chinese studies produce only positive results, proposed Dean Radin's Explore journal as a reliable source and then characterised rejection of it as an attempt to mislead others as to the criteria by which we judge sources. I struggle to think of any criteria by which Explore would be considered a relaibel source for an article on a medical subject.

The problem here is that DrChrissy, who seems to me to be a very knowledgeable editor on the subject of wildfowl, has chosen to pile in to an article whose content is considered contentious by some believers in acupuncture, in that it follows the scientific consensus view rather than the philosophical view founded on vitalism and "other ways of knowing". This happens all the time. What DrChrissy has done, though, is to conduct a dumpster dive through the positive literature, drop a whole bunch of low-quality sources on the talk page with no proposed edits based on them, and then accuse all and sundry of bias and malfeasance when the nebulously proposed sources are rejected.

Instead of picking one or two that might be defensible and proposing edits based on them, DrChrissy has adopted exactly the all-or-nothing approach of which he accuses the reality-based editors, and assumes that every source proposed is equally valid and every objection equally invalid - and the mere existence on this list of a paper published in Explore (SNIP: 0.613; SJR: 0.307; Impact Factor: 0.935) is sufficient to refute that claim in its entirety. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG Do you not have a single word to say to defend your uncivility toward me?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Guy (Help!) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that JzG has been uncivil, DrChrissy. I only see accurate descriptions of your editing and behaviour.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(multiple ec) DrChrissy is shopping for a WP:BOOMERANG, by loudly demonstrating his dedicated, enthusiastic, unapologetic, and incorrigible lack of WP:COMPETENCE. I don't know if he's going to get a topic ban from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) pages from this noticeboard, or if it's going to take an AE filing, but that seems to be the path he's chosen for himself.

Conveniently, DrChrissy has helpfully and proudly summarized his most recent campaign of disruptive IDHT and POINTy (mis)conduct at Talk:Acupuncture, with this edit. Over the course of two or three days, DrChrissy created at least eight new sections on the article talk page; each time, he provided just a URL and a demand for other editors to tell him if the source was "reliable for inclusion in the article", or declaring that a particular link "seems to be reliable for inclusion in the article". Despite multiple pleas from other editors, DrChrissy repeatedly refused to indicate how he proposed using any of the sources, or which statements he might wish to support with them. (You can find the ensuing discussions in the five consecutive threads start with Talk:Acupuncture#Is this a reliable source? and the three consecutive threads starting at Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable source (i). DrChrissy has explicitly admitted that he actually had not read some of the papers and publications that he presented ([197]); I fear he hasn't gotten past the abstract of most or all of them.

While Littleolive oil is correct that we should make allowances for new editors and encourage them to learn about our policies and practices, the patience to educate and tolerate (purportedly unintentional) disruption is not limitless. DrChrissy has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to learn from his experiences so far, and allowing continued disruption seems unlikely to be of benefit to the project.

The whole bit about DrChrissy suggesting that JzG was racist (or was making racist remarks) is part an parcel of a much larger pattern of disruption. This AN/I filing by DrChrissy is just a (poorly-played) attempt at point-scoring to try to punish one of the many editors who have persistently pointed out the problems with his own use of talk pages. DrChrissy's I-was-just-asking-questions excuse is very weak tea, and again he doesn't help his case to draw attention to his own behavior. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Tenofalltrades, you use rather emotive and careless language. First, I did not "demand" anything, rather, I posted a question about the suitability of sources. Any one of the editors that replied could simply have walked away. No editor was under any obligation to comment. Secondly, you stated "DrChrissy has explicitly admitted that he actually had not read some of the papers and publications that he presented." This is misleading. In fact, what I wrote was "The answer is No, I have not yet read the full article."[198] (My emphasis on "full") I only had access to the abstract which is partly why I asked the question "Is it suitable?" I am aware that other editors have different levels of literature access and I was hoping, in a collegiate way, that another editor would be able to help me develop the article. Please note, I did not attempt to enter content into the article. I was using the Talk page for what they are intended - discussion about the content of the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy, your orignal comment "Wow! Is this racist?" looks very much like a rhetorical question. I'm not surprised that User Talk:JzG saw it as an accusation. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And the irony here is that I did not complain about it, I stated that I understood why he might make such an accusation, being ignorant of the field, and the response was to accuse me of incivility. Passive-aggressive, stubborn and thin-skinned are not a good combination... Guy (Help!) 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Based on what I have been able to discern from a rather messy series of disagreements, I'd say that a BOOMERANG is rapidly approaching. A topic ban seems to be a reasonable response to a tendentious editor and abuse of process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply I'm sure the admins looking at this will be aware that it is the quality of comments that are taken into consideration, not the quantity. Diffs would have helped your comment, otherwise, I'm afraid it reads as if you have simply looked at other editors' comments and perhaps joined a band-wagon.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Crissy has a history of complaining that other editors are attacking him during normal discussion, and his editing at times appears to be pointy. On May 8th, NeilN opened discussion of some edits on the article, wherein he said there were "clumsy changes to the lead". Neil's next edit, 8 minutes later, removed the comment. Crissy accused Neil of attacking him, and then went on to complain that Neil had removed the attack without permission. When I approached Crissy about it, he reiterated that his concern was Neil removing (Neil's own) content from the talk page. If Crissy truly felt the comment was a personal attack directed at him, then his objection to it being removed is nothing short of pointy; he doesn't appear to want to act collegially, but instead accuse his "opponents" of treating him unfairly so he can "win" disputes.

He also fails to listen to others and engages in behavior he's been told is disruptive. On May 9th, he created 5 sections asking if a source was "reliable" without providing any content. He has been informed repeatedly by at least 7 editors that his question couldn't be answered without content. ( [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207])

Yet, he refused to provide any, and on May 11th he posted several new sections with the very same question. He was corrected again, but ignored the complaints, saying he was being bullied, and didn't have to comply. He posted a new section with the same problem that evening. On the 12th, he admitted he wasn't even reading the sources he's proposing. After these repeated, incessant requests that Crissy provide content proposals alongside a source, he posted a new section today, wherein he complained other editors were being unfair, and said "However, it appears that some editors dismiss or criticise entire sources without knowing the context of any content to be added." I can't interpret this as anything but Crissy intentionally refusing to provide a content proposal so that he could later complain that editors were shooting down his sources without knowing the content it was to back up.

DrCrissy is not here to collaborate with others on alt med, or he is unable to. He should be topic banned from alt med, so he can focus on contributions to less contentious topics.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note I refactored my own post [208] because I saw Zad68 open a new thread on the same topic [209], probably not seeing mine yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both edits were relatively uncontroversial in my mind. However, that Crissy complained both about your edit, and about your removal of your edit, indicates to me that he is attempting to score points for "abuse", rather than work collaboratively to solve problems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Re: The edit by NeilN. I made the reversion as per WP:TPG which states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." It appeared to me that NeilN did precisely that to cover-up their personal attack in the thread heading.

Re: My requests about suitability of potential sources. I suggested several potential sources to the Talk page to ascertain their suitability for inclusion in the article. I placed them in separate sections so that editors could make comments about each individual source without the discussion becoming confused. It appears this has irritated some editors. Apologies for causing this irritation - it will not hapen again. The practice of putting up sources for discussion about suitability is common on many article Talk pages. Editors on the page were informed of this by another editor here.[210]

Re: Confused feedback Despite Jess' stating that source suitability can only be judged in context (which I agree with), the article has a history of entire journals being dismissed irrespective of context. To save time in creating article content only to have this reverted because a journal was unacceptable for unforeseen reasons, I chose to put the sources up for discussion. Several of these were dismissed because the entire journal was considered unacceptable, despite there being no context. This is totally confusing for editors. I summarised this concern and others about acceptance/rejection of sources here[211] in a way to offer collegiate discussion about how the article can be improved.

Re: Reading the sources. You stated "...admitted he wasn't even reading the sources he's proposing". You are the second editor who appears to be trying to mislead the admins. I wrote " The answer is No, I have not yet read the full article."[212] Please see my further comments to the other editor above.

Re: Collaboration. You stated "DrCrissy is not here to collaborate with others on alt med..." Please see the following diffs as examples of my collaboration within and outwith this article in alt med.[213] Talk:Acupuncture#A few sentences Talk:Acupuncture#German acupuncture trials my edits on Veterinary acupuncture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs)

The only one seeing my post as a personal attack is you (which is part the problems discussed here). And please stop inserting your replies before existing replies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on alt.med topics after looking at other contribs I am changing this to all biomedical content, widely construed. User is not here to work collaboratively and does not seem to understand, or is not willing to understand, our guidelines. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support action, either the proposed topic ban or broader sanctions such as a general ban or block. WP:COMPETENCE issues, PLUS bad attitude, PLUS allegations against another editor, PLUS apparent general lack of ability to work collaboratively (see this response to a reasonable question) AND all this is happening in a sensitive topic area with medical considerations where a cool head and ability to work with others is even more important than usual? Wow. Just wow. Not sure a simple narrow topic ban is going to suffice here as per SandyGeorgia there appear to be issues outside the altmed topic area too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply It is grossly misleading to have taken that one diff out of context. At the time, I was receiving a barrage of demands to provide the context in which potential sources might be used. The editors had no right to demand that. Furthermore, the tone of some editors was extremely unpleasant, e.g. "Your refusal to provide context when requested is very uncollaborative. If you do this again, anyone here would be correct to collapse your request as a talk page violation until you provide context."[214] As I have indicated above to another editor, the administrators will be looking at the quality of postings, not the quantity. Unfortunately, you did not provide diffs to your competence, attitude, allegations, collaboration concerns. Therefore, your vote is unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all biomedical topics. In the encounters I've had with this editor the competence issues have been compounded with an extremely combative approach which leads to nothing but wasted time. Reviewing his edits I also have concerns about COI-tainted editing/advocacy -- though of course Wikipedia being as it is I cannot reveal the nature of this publicly as it woud entail WP:OUTING. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn Per WP:ASPERSIONS You might want to strike that last sentence since you cant prove it. AlbinoFerret 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly prove I have concerns, and would be happy to forward relevant material to an arbitrator or other appropriate party if necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, in this public talk page it cant be proved. Uless you can prove it here, then the claim is an assperation. If you think there is a problem take it to the appropriate place. Since you cant prove it here, its against WP:ASPERSIONS. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find the need not to out people takes priority. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the reason you should strike it. If you have a claim you cant prove in public, take it to the arbcom mailing list. This is not the place to cast aspirations you cant prove in public. AlbinoFerret 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Very naughty Alexbrn...I have absolutuely no COI. Please strike your comments and a posted apology would be much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Alexbrn please strike your message regarding COI editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 08:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per every word by LittleOliveOil above. petrarchan47คุก 18:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for all controversial medical topics. If you check the edit history funny things were happening to the lede because of DrChrissy. The evidence presented by other editors is overwhelming. This is a waste of time. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC

ReplyYour link is to a content discussion. This does not support your vote.

• Oppose topic ban (uninvolved non admin) At the heart this is a content dispute on a contentious article. Removing DrChrissy would remove an editor that has a different viewpoint than the editors of the article calling for the ban. Articles are always better when they have multiple viewpoints. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't always true, sometimes the unproductive behavior of an editor can waste so much time or interfere with consensus-building that article quality will suffer while Talk page discussions get sidetracked. This can happen no matter what the editor's viewpoint is. Zad68 19:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Also AlbinoFerret you describe yourself as "uninvolved," but just in the past 3 months, you and JzG were involved together in an ARBCOM case request here, you and DrChrissy !voted together against JzG at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks; you, DrChrissy and JzG all commented in the discussion here User_talk:Atsme/Archive_9#Discretionary_sanctions_notification_-_CAM. Also a bit earlier than that, you, myself, QuackGuru, Jytdog and Formerly 98 all edited at Electronic cigarette, before you took a voluntary topic-ban. You may not have been editing at Acupuncture in particular but you appear to have have recent history with DrChrissy and JzG, plus many editors in this discussion. Zad68 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing for or against any of the editors involved in this discussion and I am uninvolved with the article this took place on. I consider myself uninvolved. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor closing this discussion would do well to read through the diffs I provided first. Zad68 20:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The link, comment on Atsme's page is in response to a joke she made, I was watching here page because of the article essay we were working on and saw the post. This section isnt about Atsme though, and I did not address anything of substance or interact with any of the posters in that section other than Atsme's joke. as for the diff to the long ago arbcom case, I dont remember mentioning JzG. AlbinoFerret 20:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Also, per WP:FRINGE, there's lots of articles which would not be better if they had multiple viewpoints. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban: Per olive and AlbinoFerret. DrChrissy can be many of the things mentioned here, and I have had conflicts with this editor, but on the other hand, I think this editor does a good job of raising the right questions to be asked in any area. It may be unconfortable, but I have seen this editor able to drop the stick when treated with civility and respect. DrChrissy IS capable of collaboration and cooperation. In contrast, some of the folks here asking for a topic ban (not all) are often quick to go from zero to vicious attack at the slightest hint that their viewpoint is being challenged. The comments about toxic environment are well taken and I think it is important that opposing views not be suppressed. My thought is to focus on behavior only on a case-by-case basis and perhaps instead institute a 1RR restriction on copyedits across the board. Also, perhaps all of these articles should have EVERYONE restricted to two comments at talk per topic, one statement and one reply/rebuttal. This crowd takes no prisoners, it seems, and someone needs to ratchet it down a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DrChrissy did not understand at the time that the text was blatant SYN/OR. See WP:CIR. AlbinoFerret thinks this is a content dispute? Whaat? QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw that really seems like poor judgment. You're saying DrChrissy is capable of collaboration and cooperation. But DrChrissy is pretty clearly not demonstrating that skill here. Isn't that exactly the kind of situation that calls for a topic ban? Have you looked through the diffs? Zad68 19:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • • Zad68, trust me, I've had disputes with DrChrissy, but I don't think their behavior rises to the level of getting out the pitchforks and torches. I have to say that the hardcore anti-pseudoscience crowd is VERY difficult - there is only one right answer and it's theirs. There is no room for questions, discussion or debate. Disagreement with them means you can only be an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet who is a homopath and wears a tinfoil helmet. I really think that we need to consider the source and look at this page - dozens of comments, multiple times from certain parties, it is a bully-fest of epic proportions.

@QG At the heart it is a content dispute, its an argument over sources. I also noticed when asked to show what OR you were referring to , you didnt. AlbinoFerret 19:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• @AlbinoFerrett: The content of your comment above shows precisely why you are involved, and not a neutral party. BMK (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I previously explained that the text was OR. This was WP:IDHTing behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, you previously wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice." Did your acupuncture comment threaten to WP:HOUND me in this context? What are you doing now? Why did you claim you are uninvolved? QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently? That diff is 8 months old, and at that time I was unaware of WP:HOUND. It may surprise you, but I am quite active on this page QG, I havent followed you. Neither have I edited Acupuncture. I suggest you strike that comment, because its a false accusation. What am I doing now? I am doing what I normally do on this page, objectively look at the section and comment like lots of other community members do. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per my comment above. Repeated efforts to educate DrChrissy regarding constructive use and discussion of sources for biomedical topics have made no progress. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply I have already dealt with the comment here[215] I would add that the feedback I was being given was totally confused. Despite statements that source suitability can only be judged in context (which I agree with), the article has a history of entire journals being dismissed irrespective of context. To save time in creating article content only to have this reverted because a journal was unacceptable for unforeseen reasons, I chose to put the sources up for discussion. Several of these were dismissed because the entire journal was considered unacceptable, despite there being no context. This is totally confusing for editors. I summarised this concern and others about acceptance/rejection of sources here[216] in a way to offer collegiate discussion about how the article can be improved.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Impose 1RR/ 2 cmt article discussion control. Zad. Your words are telling Think about it. Dr Christien edits pretty normally according to someone who has worked with him/her but here you say he doesn't demonstrate that skill. What's different? Any chance the other editors on this article with personal attacks and pretty vicious cmts about a topic area are partly at fault. I agree with a cmt above. This is about content, and removing one party in such a dispoute is a strategy I am very familair with. I suggest we try restrictions on the article which implies responsibility and remedies rest with all editors and see what happens before we inpose such far reaching sanctions on a single person.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
  • Olive the main issue is the persistent, WP:POINT-y lack of understanding of WP:MEDRS, exacerbated by their combative style. Whether they're doing this on purpose or not I can't really tell, but the result is the same, disruptive misuse of the article Talk page which interferes with article development. Zad68 20:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I couldn't disagree more.You are placing blame for the dysfunction on that talk page on one editor. The problem is much larger than that and includes multiple editors not just one. I will never support sanctions on one editor given what I've seen. If you want to sanction do it across the board. Since that won't happen; I suggest imposing restrictions on the discussion and article itself which means all editors have to behave.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
      • Olive, I'm placing some of the blame for the dysfunction on one editor, yes. It happens to be the most obvious and disruptive dysfunction at the moment. One philosophy is, Go for the low-hanging fruit: remove the most disruptive elements one-by-one until the level of dysfunction (there's always some) is manageable, then get back to work. However, let's be honest here: Nobody in these areas is ever going to get topic-banned like this at AN or ANI, really. Barring CheesyAppleFlake-like behavior, each perceived "side" has enough wiki-friends that will line up in defense of their "own" (even if they'll admit to themselves that the behavior actually is bad) to prevent a clear enough consensus for a topic-ban from forming. And that's what's happening here, even those opposing a topic ban (including yourself) aren't saying Chrissy's behavior is exemplary, but rather they don't want to lose an editor with their content perspective. OK, let's accept that reality. So you're offering Level the playing field. Let's explore those options, I don't think "Impose 1RR/ 2 cmt article discussion control" is right but willing to see what else we can come up with... but I have to step away. Zad68 21:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I actually find the low hanging fruit metaphor frightening. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, what appears to be low hanging and what is low hanging can be two different things. You can push on someone long enough so that they become upset, frustrated and behaviour changes. In the meantime the pushing isn't apparent just the resultant behaviour. We've lost some outstanding editors because they were thought to be low hanging and then only years later was the rest of the fruit discovered. :O) I respect your position just from my experience cannot agree. IRR works very well for editors who aren't pushing a POV. But I've said enough.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

To the admins There is obviously a wide range of issues here. It would be impossible for any human to address these all in just a few hours, and it seems this has developed into a feeding frenzy where immediate comment on my part is expected. Could I respectfully request that an admin or admins identifies which of these issues should be dealt with first. I am happy to deal with all of them if that is your request, but that will clearly require some time.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Strongly per Littleolive oil. It is clear that this is a heated content dispute, but using a club to resolve this dispute is not the way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on biomedicine (#1) or alt med (#2). This is absolutely not a content dispute, despite DrCrissy's framing of it. Crissy consistently engages in disruptive behavior, consistently ignores requests, consistently poisons the well to polarize the discussion, consistently refuses to engage in collaborative or productive behavior (like explaining his edits or proposing content), and so on. Sure, behind his disruptive behavior are edits that are always pro acupuncture by removing (or marginalizing) any criticism, but that's not the issue editors are raising here. Crissy's advocacy could be addressed if he worked collaboratively, but with his refusal to listen to or coorporate with others, that isn't possible. Consistent disruption on this level isn't "providing alternate viewpoints", it's disrupting other editors' ability to work collaboratively and make improvements.   — Jess<spa n style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· Δ♥ 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply You provide 2 diffs. The first relates to my removal of content from the lede. Yes I did this and left the Edit summary "(removed detail unnecessary for the lede)" My motivation for the edit is completely clear and this is most certainly about content. As for the second diff, that was me trying to clarify the document by using section headings that average readers would understand. Again, this is content. Neither of these edits were disruptive, they were simply evolution of the article. Therefore, the reasons for your vote are unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: Acupuncture may be utter bunkum. Yet brains scans (which are not influenced by belief, dogma, or anything else) -objectivity show an affect of changing brain function. Until that is explained, this practice can not be put in the bin of pseudo science. There are things that may be learnt from this research (eg in the field of neurology). DrChrissy is has been including research that adds to the total body of knowledge without favour. Even back in the days of printed encyclopedias they included unproven theorems because they conducted themselves as encyclopedias. i.e., a synopsis, font and cornucopia of all that has been recorded on the subjects included – in an objective manner. Which -as students- we all benefited from having that wider- field-of-view. Some of the comments above are attempts to put blinkers on readers. Scientists don't need blinkers. We are naturally sceptical by nature, which lead us into to occupations (with low salaries) where we endeavour to disprove old ideas – and thus gain new insights for the benefit of all mankind. So we don't need a few 'WP article owners' which think they own this article, to tell us how to think, behave and conduct ourselves. If there is to be a topic ban, then let it fall upon those editors that are thwarting WP's spirit of free knowledge.--Aspro (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Littleolive oil and Montanabw.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I've been half-assedly following along on the discussions related to this topic, without getting involved myself. This looks like yet another example of the Wikipedia community's chronic inability to say no. This editor's participation in the topic is tendentious and uncollegial and has not changed in response to feedback. Time to decline his offer of further participation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Then get more involved. DrChrissy is doing the very opposite of being biased. Also, he is not supporting any received dogma. --Aspro (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• comment Hi Opabinia reglis. I don't think we have been in contact before. Do you really think it is appropriate for you to be supporting sanctions on an editor when you have only been following the discussions "half-assedly". This is a serious matter which affects my life - and I would lke to suggest you treat it in that manner.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You misread. @Opabinia regalis: is not saying they have been half-assedly following the discussion here. They have half-assedly followed the discussions related to this discussion. This makes the implication that they have been half-assedly following prior conversations related to this one. For you to take such issue with JzG to allegedly be misrepresenting you, I find it odd you don't take more care not to misrepresent others.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you run all that by us again. Your grammar does not make sense when object, subject, subjective case ,etc., gets all mixed up like that in your post witch ewe rote. --Aspro (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure! The above is a misrepresentation of what Opabinia regalis has said. To quote them, "I've been half-assedly following along on the discussions related to this topic, without getting involved myself." This discussion we are having here on ANI is the topic they allude to. Discussions (plural) alludes to discussions prior to this one here on ANI. I'm unsure if this misrepresentation is a sign of incompetence or if it was on purpose. It seems to me though that if someone comes to ANI to bitch about others misrepresenting them then they should take care not to do the same to others.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho is correct. Sorry for the confusion. Incidentally, I've only been half-assedly following the prior conversations because they're so long and tedious and repetitive and filled with WP:IDHT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Opabinia reglis does not provide any diffs to support their vote. Furthermore, there is language which suggests following relevant discussions has been half-hearted. I would not find this a particularly well supported vote.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - please don't tell me we have now resorted to topic banning editors because they expect civility and politeness. --Atsme^☎️📧 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support due to concerns that they are unable to apply MEDRS appropriately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply This editor does not provide any diffs nor do they say they have read any other editor's comments. This vote is totally unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Rude and uncollaborative. I don't follow alt.med articles closely enough to assess DrChrissy's competence off my own bat, but I see many well-reasoned arguments above that it's weak or lacking. Also I'd call him rude and uncollaborative. Boris called his attitude on alt med "histrionic and self-righteous" above,[217] and that was exactly my impression when I went to his page recently because I'd noticed something odd on my watchlist. This conversation followed, which I invite you to form your own opinion of, and then he promptly "banned" me from his page, along with two other good-faith editors (NeilN and BullRangifer).[218] As far as I've seen, DrChrissy edits alt med discussions in a combative way, with an extreme readiness to take offense — same as is illustrated in the userpage thread I link to above, and in his frivolous complaint against JzG above. And indeed both these things apparently flowed from heated discussions on Talk:Acupuncture. A topic ban from these articles would surely be good for the atmosphere on them, and let many good editors focus their energies more productively. It might even help DrChrissy himself to regroup. PS, after edit conflict: I'm amazed at Atsme's comment just above that we're 'resorting to topic banning editors because they expect civility and politeness'. It's true that DrChrissy is extremely interested in "incivility", but only in perceived incivility from others. He'll frame criticism as incivility, and such touchiness is uncivil in itself IMO, no matter how many "please" and "thankyou" he injects into his discourse. Please read my diff: would you say it was because he "expected civility and politeness" that he refused to let anybody fix Neil's typo, or banned me from his page? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC).
• Support Having looked at everything presented here, there's really no option but to topic ban DrChrissy, honestly. Their behavior is WP:CPUSH to an extreme level. None of the oppose votes so far have even begun to address some of the egregious diffs presented, which is troubling as well. Parabolist (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply This editor claims to have read everything here but then claims to be voting to support sanctions based on Civil-POV pushing. This has not been suggested by any other editors, so they should have provided diffs to support their argument; there are no diffs. This vote is totally unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - It appears from the discussion on Talk:Acupuncture many users attempted to cooperate with Chrissy, to which he refused to meet them half way. Since it has been shown not only here (excellent points made by Bishonen by the way) that Chrissy has a history with these situations, a topic ban could possibly help him understand what "civility" and "politeness" actually are. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply As indicated elsewehere, I am sure the admins will be looking at the quality of comments and votes, not the quantity. You may have raed the Acupuncture Talk page but you have not bothered to prodide diffs to support your vote. It is not clear which of Bishonen's points you dis/agree with. This vote is totally unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Change of venue Given that the subject area is under discretionary sanctions this would be more properly handled at WP:AE. An advantage of AE is that proceedings there are more structured, and follow other constraints that tend to lead to more thoughtful consideration of the arguments than ANI. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The request for ban was open on basis other than DS. A request that is in ANI's wheelhouse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from human biomedical content (first choice) or, failing that, alt-med subject matter. The core is the persistent failure to understand or apply WP:MEDRS, despite many many patient explanations by many experienced editors--this indicates they shouldn't be editing in content relevant to WP:MEDRS, which is human biomedical content. Certainly their behavior at Acupunture has been a flashpoint, and unfortunately I expect that behavior to get carried over to the next subject area they go to, but at least an alt-med TBAN would relieve (to some degree) the most urgent issue. Zad68 00:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out/emphasize that asking only for a topic-ban is being very generous. A TBAN only addresses the issues related to their inability to grasp WP:MEDRS, it totally ignores the behavior issues evident most clearly in the diffs Bishonen provides--those kinds of behavior issues can really only handled with a block. Zad68 00:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban One example was on 27 April 2015 when DrChrissy asked Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (permalink). I replied half an hour later with the standard answer that mundane statements do not need a top-quality source, and WP:PARITY means top-quality sources are not needed to refute fringe claims. DrChrissy's responses show they looking for reasons to knock out opposition to acupuncture's claims in order to promote the efficacy of acupuncture as a medical treatment. After the massive discussion there and elsewhere, DrChrissy recently posted an enormous set of claims at Talk:Acupuncture to re-open past rejections of dubious sources. DrChrissy now switches to trying to knock out an editor with the above report based on the "Wow! Is this racist?" comment by DrChrissy here at acupuncture talk. Asking "is your comment racist?" (that is, "are you racist?") is not available as a backdoor method of asserting that someone is racist, and bringing the matter to ANI shows a severe lack of judgment, and at least a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (uninvolved) per Zad68 definitely from alt-med, though I see a pretty good case being made here for biomedical in general. The case is laid out pretty well above that this behavior is problematic. I've run into DrChrissy a few times at some agriculture articles and didn't really see any problems with their behavior. However, often where MEDRS applies though, especially more fringe type stuff, they seem to act like a bull in a china shop in terms of combative behavior and lashing out at other editors whenever I've glanced at the conversations. DrChrissy came close to administrative action at this ANI, so since it doesn't look like their behavior has been improving in this general topic area, a topic ban seems like the next logical step. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban Per WP:CIR competence is required but it is lacking here as it relates to MEDRS. You could also question the competence of coming to ANI with unclean hands. You can try to WP:CRUSH them with kindness but this to often is a cause for incivility. It's time for this to stop. Honestly, it is very generous if this only ends with a Topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban both on the basis of CIR, and also on the basis of their WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards other editors. BMK (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of this editor who appears to be a fringe combat soldier determined to push pseudoscience on the Wikipedia battleground. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on biomedical and alternative medicine topics, widely construed. This is a generous offer, since a complete ban would be the only other helpful alternative left, and I don't think that is necessary, unless the topic ban is rejected. Then a total ban should be used. Allowing DrChrissy to continue to edit animal topics would allow them to develop competence in those areas. The major problems I've seen are lack of COMPETENCE, massive IDHT behavior, rudeness, uncollaborative, failures to AGF, and gross failures to understand MEDRS and sourcing requirements. They have gone so far as to repeatedly claim that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed (and should therefore not be used), when websites are not expected to be peer reviewed. We use non peer reviewed websites and sources all the time, especially when they cover topics from angles not dealt with in peer reviewed research, such as controversies. The desire to exclude sources which deal with controversies is unwikipedian. We need them. In this case DrChrissy is consistent in seeking to eliminate those which don't support their position. This is far from a content dispute. Behavior and competence are major factors. A "fringe combat soldier" (very well put, Cullen328!) about sums it up. We don't need tendentious editors creating disruption on sensitive subjects they don't understand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Here is an example of the way BullRangifer talks to me in discussions, ". It's a website, and not a "blog" type website. NEVER call it a "blog" again, got that?! Learn what that term means,..."[219]...and they accuse me of being rude!DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy this is just another example of you being combative with another user, who may have lost his/her cool for that reason, so why would you give this as a diff for people to read?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an example of the rudeness and uncivility of some of the editors on this page. Are you condoning the edit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to somehow loosely interpret it as me saying I condone it, than you are mistaken. I encourage it since I believe you should be topic blocked, and the diff is just another example of your own hostility toward other users. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, TheGracefulSlick is correct. I was beating my head against your massive IDHT behavior and was very frustrated. How many times are we expected to explain something to you before you understand? We don't know yet because you haven't yet reached that limit. You just keep on IDHT!! When it comes to the "blog" idea, you and Jayaguru-Shishya exhibit equally improper behavior. You both keep on repeating that false claim, even when it's explained repeatedly. I hope you both stop it. It's a slur that should be below you, but you keep sinking lower.

Your enormous lack of competence and IDHT behavior on these subjects makes it very difficult to deal with you. Some strong language, not even swearing (which would have been justified), was certainly justified, but even then it didn't help. You continue, even here. You fail to acknowledge that YOU are the problem, so a topic ban seems to be the only way to protect Wikipedia from you. You should stick to your areas of expertise, although your competence in those areas has been questioned, and you risk a total ban if you keep this up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Doc James above. Behavior seems to be another major problem. He seems very quick to take offense and to create mountains from minor percieved slights. The editing style just seems very combative. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 09:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply This vote claims to be based on the vote of Doc James, however, I have shown above that Doc James vote was completely unsupported. This edit does not provide any diffs either. It is therefore totally unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support I was one of the two targets of the last ANI that DrChrissy brought against someone, which also turned to boomerang quickly. I recommended that ANi be closed with just a trout, and it was. The (to use the going phrase) "fringe combat soldier" behavior seems to have only gotten worse, based on DrChrissy's behavior as described here, and demonstrated here, and from reviewing Talk:Acupuncture. Since nothing was learned from the trout, I will support a topic ban from biomedical in general here. Note - DrChrissy seems to have contributed productively to content related to non-human animal health topics in the past, and even received endorsement from someone I respect very much -- Tryptofish (who still has not returned) -- back in Oct 2013 (see here). It is hard to understand what has happened to DrChrissy to go so far astray. So the topic ban should be limited to biomedical (which includes alt-med) content about humans (including content about non-human animals if it relates to humans (e.g. toxicity tests). DrChrissy should be free to edit content about animal biomedical content that is not contextually related to human biomedical content -- content like this: Pain in invertebrates. (I should also disclose that i was subject of a past ANI for being incivil to DrChrissy, during which I apologized and was warned. That was me losing it, over the kinds of behavior described in this thread, btw. That is not an excuse for my behavior!) Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Topic Ban DrChrissy has edited according to our policies and guidelines and his original complaint above was somewhat justified. He supported sources others supported because they're reliable. When he dared to question why they were being excluded, Kww and Guy threatened him with a topic ban. That's not right. It's not civil nor proper decorum and calls to topic ban are nothing more than incivility taken up a notch. LesVegas (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, are you saying your call to topic ban QuackGuru and effectively topic ban Kww for six months was uncivil? [220] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru repeatedly violates our policies, which is why I have called for a topic ban on him. I asked Kww to voluntarily walk away from the article for 6 months along with myself after he asked me to walk away permanently, big difference. DrChrissy hasn't violated our policies. On the contrary, he has made many editors angry by holding them accountable and reminding them of our policies. LesVegas (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas, a boomerang can cut a large swath of editors, like yourself, who improperly defend DrChrissy's behavior. You are showing that you too don't understand that DrChrissy is wrong. Maybe we should topic ban you as well. It would certainly cut down on the disruption on these topics because of your similar IDHT behavior, even here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban - Most of the accusations thrown against DrChrissy are not actionable. -A1candidate 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on biomedical articles This editor is needlessly confrontational and does not appear to have the competence required to edit even uncontroversial medical topics, not to mention the already heated environment of alt med topics. Yobol (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Making gross accusations without providing convincing diffs is unlikely to work. -A1candidate 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly the lesson DrChrissy needs to learn from this farrago. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How about you stop misrepresenting their statements as shown in the opening post? -A1candidate 16:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply This vote does not contain any referal to another editor's comment, nor does it contain any diffs. This vote is totally unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) @A1candidate: The evidence provided by Bishonen, Mann_jess and TenOfAllTrades above is sufficient to support my !vote, however I would throw in this this thread where he jumped into a discussion by poisoning the well in a discussion with an IP with needlessly confrontational tone. We need much, much less of this behavior on controversial topics, not more. That they feel the need to respond to multiple !vote that is unfavorable to them is frankly an excellent example of the tendentious behavior that needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

An impact factor of 1.422 isn't that low. In fact, many journals in the field of anatomy and physiology do not score much better. I tend to agree with DrChrissy's interpretation of WP:MEDRS with regards to the use of meta-analyses. -A1candidate 16:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be an off topic comment that has nothing to do with the behavioral problems DrChrissy has. This is a behavioral problem, not a content dispute, so please take that comment to the talk page if you want to discuss it further (I don't, I have had my fill of the tendentiousness of editors like DrChrissy and have taken that talk page off my wathclist). Yobol (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing confrontational in that diff. -A1candidate 16:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol Do you really expect me to just sit and watch whilst a totally unfounded misrepresentation of my editing and character assassination is ongoing. You are claiming that it is tendentious editing to denounce votes like yours which offer no supportive evidence! That is absolutely bizarre!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It was needlessly confrontational and tendentious. I have no doubt DrChrissy and DrChrissy's supporter and wiki-friends disagree and will try to muddy the waters as much as possible to avoid sanctioning for their inappropriate behaviors. Such is life here on ANI. Yobol (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that Zad68, Kww and several editors are advocating for a topic ban for DrChrissy without addressing their original complaint. May I suggest that all uninvolved administrators (and editors) read their original complaint and take that into consideration as well? All future accusations will of course have to be backed up by evidence in the form of convincing diffs. -A1candidate 17:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The original complaint was addressed. "Accusation of racism" was not a misrepresentation and I provided diffs to show why DrChrissy's competence might be validly questioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural Oppose - As per Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Arbitration Enforcement is a better forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban I read the acupuncture talk page and I strongly oppose a topic ban. Montana and Little Olive Oil were very helpful as well. IMO, if Dr. Chrissy has lost patience from time to time, it would not be surprising from my reading of the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My view is summed up in the comment at 15:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC) by Yobol, so a topic ban or other editing restrictions appear to be needed. Also, I think the initial complaint demonstrates just one of the types of problems; DrChrissy's "question" cannot be considered outside of the context in which it was asked, and his choice to adopt an approach which is likely to cause needless issues has led to consequences (as he really ought to have gathered by now from a previous encounter she had at this venue - where I remember encouraging him to review WP:DR - and it appears he still has not adequately followed). Had he voluntarily disengaged in accordance with DR policy, he probably could have avoided this hassle; I don't think withdrawing his complaint is going to cut it this time though which is why the involuntary measure is being discussed now. NPA policy also for instance says to address issues of content and not to refer to civility policies (as he did) even if he perceives the statement he is responding to be inflammatory. His complaint was doomed to fail, and the tables have turned so that everyone is looking at a more serious issue of her problematic editing/conduct. It seems instead of acknowledging the issues or making an effort to appreciate the feedback being given about his approach and undertaking to modify his approach appropriately, his responses seem to aggravate the concerns at hand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Replaced "she" to "he". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply You state that your view is summed up in a comment that had no diffs or links to other editor's statements to support it. You speak about encouraging me to review WP:DR, but you provide no diffs. The one diff you provide shows the civil way in which I behave, even whan faced with a barrage of highly adversarial comments and edits. Your comment is not supported by any evidence. Oh, She is actually a He.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. My opinion is that your repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response even here only reinforces the concerns about WP:COMPETENCE. But thanks; I've corrected the references from "her" to "his" in my comment above in view of your clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• My observations are in line with many of those above: DrChrissy comes across as a classic Wikipedia archetype, the eggshell-armed-with-a-hammer. He is extremely hyper-attuned to any perceived insult or incivility directed at himself (as an exercise, see if you can count how many times DrChrissy has demanded that someone else strike a comment). But he also casually and constantly attacks other editors and engages in gross incivility, most glaringly by accusing Guy of racism. (And hiding behind "I wasn't calling you a racist, I was just asking a question!" aggravates the offense; it's a dishonest dodge that insults all of our intelligences). Below, someone wrote: "With DrCrissy, even the most insignificant edit will cause drama and accusations of abuse", and I think that this is the crux of the problem.

  I'm not saying that DrChrissy is the lone problematic editor in these contexts (for example, I'm continually amazed that QuackGuru retains editing privileges here). But DrChrissy's editing is problematic, and that needs to be acknowledged. If there were any remote glimmer of self-awareness on DrChrissy's part, then I'd favor cutting him some slack, but in its absence I think a topic ban is necessary and is going to happen either here and now, or else later after additional drama. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply I think you are wasting admins' time with questions such as "(as an exercise, see if you can count how many times DrChrissy has demanded that someone else strike a comment)". Admin's time is valuable. If you want to make a point, do the research and provide the number of times I have made this request. Whilst you are at it, you could see which pages I have made these requests - I think you will be surprised and it will be a very good reflection of the behaviour of some editors on the Acupuncture page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Actually, you will find that MastCell is an admin himself, so at least you appreciate how valuable his time is that he doesn't need to go the trouble you demand him to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The original post by DrChrissy says "Possible racist comment", and it was carefully framed as a question for guidance without referring to any specific editor. That is different from accusing someone of racism, as JzG claims. Regardless of whether JzG's comment was racist or not, some of the subsequent comments certainly might be viewed by some as racist, including this, this and this. So yes, DrChrissy's concerns are valid and I am glad they brought it up. -A1candidate 18:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  That's not correct, actually. The original post by DrChrissy was on Talk:Acupuncture, where the entirety of his comment was "Wow! Is this racist?". It was only a day later – after DrChrissy got answers he apparently didn't like on the talk page, and without participating further in that discussion – that he tried to shop his accusation around to a new forum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Regardless of where the original post was placed, the racist comments continued to be thrown on the talk page as you can see here, here and here. Topic banning the OP isn't going to solve the problem though. -A1candidate 18:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not go forum shopping. I felt that the editing atmosphere on Acupuncture is now so toxic that some editors do not actually discuss or think about the subject matter - they simply jump to attack the editor. I have little faith that an issue as potentially damaging to the project as racism would be discussed appropriately in this toxic, adversarial atmosphere, so I enquired about the opinions of uninvolved editors and their opinions about the comment. This was a question about the comment - certainly not the editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion—that other editors would rather be seen as racist than be seen agreeing with you.

• First, it's absurd on its face, and deeply insulting to suggest that other editors take the issue of racism so lightly.
• Second, it's more than a little vain and self-important to think that other editors believe you're a more important problem than racism.
• Third, many of the editors disagreeing with you are fully capable of recognizing a false dilemma when they see one; there is nothing that prevents an editor from deciding that both you and JzG were mistaken (i.e., they could reject your source with a different rationale from the one JzG presented, and even disagree with JzG's rationale).
• Finally, even if (arguendo) what you've suggested were true, it says some pretty awful things about your contributions if dispensing with your suggestions were seen as more important than dealing with racism.

None of that makes for a persuasive or plausible argument in your own defense, DrChrissy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate misrepresenting what other people write, whether it be to make DrChrissy's words less inflammatory than they were, or continuing in the same vein to describe discussion of the bias of Chinese sources on acupuncture (which is documented) as "racist", is a serious breach of the talk page guidelines. I suggest you tread more lightly. And more accurately. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As maybe one of the few medical editors who has never gone anywhere near the acupuncture article (or others like it), I've held off entering an opinion here for several reasons.

First, we have much bigger problems with medical content than in areas like acupuncture, and it's tiring to see so much effort and bandwidth go into this. It does need to stop; there are worse issues in medical content to be dealt with.

Second, as expressed best by MastCell, I don't think that DrChrissy is the sole problem, and I'm surprised/dismayed at what some other editors get away with (not in this instance, but others). But this thread is not about those other editors; it is about DrChrissy, and I've observed throughout this discussion how frustrating dealing with him/her must be and how powerful the IDHT and combative streak in DrChrissy is. So, considering the evidence and behaviors on display in this thread, my views about a topic ban are mostly aligned with those expressed by Jytdog[221] and MastCell.[222] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Per Montanabw et. al. Minor4th 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban With the examples given above, this editor does not understand WP:MEDRS.VViking_TalkEdits 15:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding proposed topic ban for DrChrissy

Clarity please It appears that User:Zad68 formed this secondary topic here[223]. Am I correct to assume this means Zad68 is the user who initiated sanctions against me?DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

May I know why you ask, DrChrissy, before I type up a whole thing, just to save us both some time? Because if it's because you're wondering if Zad68 is an "involved admin" who shouldn't "initiate sanctions", I think I can clear that up for you. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

My request is really for a very general reason - I believe if you are being accused of something, you should be aware of who is the accuser.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case just look at the diff you yourself give: Zad merely added a header to a proposal floated by Neil, namely "We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI". So Neil, not Zac, was the first to propose a community sanction. Many other people have accused you of specific things above. Nobody has initiated sanctions", by the way — no sanctions have been initiated yet. But I seem to be telling you very obvious things; I'm still not sure what's unclear. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for that - I'm sure the admins will note the tone you used.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, it was Kww who floated the proposal, not me. But really, all this because a header was added? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

With DrCrissy, even the most insignificant edit will cause drama and accusations of abuse. Yes, all this because a header was added. And everything below is because another editor added a comment at the same indent level as Crissy - a grievous offense, I know. And on Talk:Acupuncture, all that because you modified your own comment. Of course, that behavior happens all the time with DrCrissy... but this is just a mere content dispute, right?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• A comment by Formerly 98 was added in this diff. I have moved it above this discussion so it is not lost. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have chosen to question this elsewhere. My concern about Bishonen's edit is the use of "Many other people have accused you of specific things above" and "But I seem to be telling you very obvious things". These were totally unnecessary for the answer to be provided - just another attempt to taunt me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• @User talk:Formerly 98Please separate my comment from yours.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since it seems to be of concern to you. I've adjusted the formattingt on Formeraip's comment to differentiate it from yours, but I also feel compelled to say that that the request you made is of a piece with your misapprehension of the importance of form versus content. It was clear to pretty much everyone except the most extremely literal-minded editor where your edit ended and FormeraIP's began. Such extremes of literalness is a problem I've noted in s number of Wikipedia editors in the past, and, in fact, continues to be a problem with many of them. BMK (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Close?

I realise this has only been open a little over a day, but it has degenerated so much, and is so painful. Perhaps there's enough for an uninvolved admin to close it and make the call? (I'd advise against a non-admin closing in this case, because it's not easy, and there may be more fireworks afterwards.) Part of the problem is the stress which I'm sure DrChrissy feels, and which he also spreads, by posting so much in this thread (currently 35 times by my count) and so… I don't know how to put it, but there's kind of no real dialogue or interchange. DrChrissy, please believe me sincere when I say I've been here ten years, and I've never seen a user under fire reaping any advantage from trying to respond to everything. Your reviews of people's support !votes ("your vote is unsupported".. "the reasons for your vote are unsupported"… "This vote is totally unsupported"… etc) aren't helpful to the poster or the reader. People are going to post their opinions in any case, and the reader may see your comments on them as self-serving. If this isn't closed soon, you'd really do yourself a favour by dialling down the frequency of posting. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Unfortunately, I've seen the same behavior from DrChrissy since the very first time they came to my attention on the noticeboards, even carrying over their arguments from closed threads to unrelated ones involving their original antagonist. BMK (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly agree on a closing of this issue. I would have said more here, but I was afraid of losing my composure to Chrissy's irrationality in this discussion. This discussion obviously isn't making any headway toward Chrissy admiting to any wrongdoing so there really isn't a point of dragging this on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This has degenerated into the usual AN/I-thing. I suggest closing as "food fight" (or more tactful wording) without prejudice to revisiting the matter in a more structured venue such as WP:AE. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - it seems to me that there is a very strong consensus for a topic ban, with only a few opposes or abstentions. What the terms of the TB should be is less clear, but that shouldn't stop some kind of sanction from being imposed. BMK (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, did a count, and it wasn't as one-sided as I thought. Still pretty much a 2:1 consensus though. BMK (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• It appears we just need to settle on the wording and have an admin make the closure, apply the topic ban to DrChrissy's talk page, and record it wherever such things are recorded.

  From what I can gather from the various comments, we're talking about a "topic ban on human biomedical and alternative medicine topics, widely construed," or something to that effect. Have I missed anything? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment from OP

I would like the closing admin/s to look at Talk:Acupuncture and consider the atmosphere I have been editing in on this page. Given the amount of name-calling, hostility, suggestions of incompetence, etc., I think it is hardly surprising that I might have stepped over the mark on some occasions. However, I have certainly not been the only one. I think the fact that so many of these same editors have rushed to criticize me at this ANI, rather than look at why I raised the ANI, is an indication of their adversarial and combative character. I believe many of those who have voted for sanctions on me feel threatened as I have dared to question (1) the overzealous application of WP:MEDRS to articles (some of which are not even medical articles) and it's intended extension to articles on animals, and (2) I have voiced opposition to the use of a web-site, "QuackWatch" as a reliable source for medical articles. I think it is this feeling of being threatened or irritated that has motivated much of the animosity on the page. I can not deny that some editors may have perceived my editing as being disruptive, but again, I was certainly not the only guilty party. However, for my part in this "multiple-editor disruptive process" I am willing to accept a warning for disruptive editing on the Acupuncture Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, a warning for disruptive editing is not what there's consensus for. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

I offered an olive-branch.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This post shows that you still do not understand the complaints, or what is disruptive about your behavior. A warning is helpful when there is hope of improvement, but there can be no such hope when you are convinced the complaints are frivolous. I assure you, no one here feels "threatened" because you "dared to question" our policies. You should seriously reflect on the fact that, while you've garnered some support from editors sharing your POV, a significant number of uninvolved editors have confirmed your behavior is very seriously disruptive. That should tell you something.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I offered an olive branch - that does not mean you have to take it.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you stated that you are "willing to accept" a warning, and that you view this as a magnanimous gesture on your part, puts the whole situation in a nutshell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I tallied around a 60-40 split in the vote. I can double check to see if I'm wrong, but is that consensus? What are the defining lines here? LesVegas (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's going to depend on strength of arguments: a reviewing admin could decide for or against, depending on whether he believes the pro-ban side has made their case. It's not a matter of nose-counting.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@LasVegas see WP:VOTE and WP:CON. Several contributors failed to address either the complaint or policy in their !vote, which is why counting is mostly fruitless, because it doesn't impact the strength of the arguments.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it appeared to me that quite a few !voters seemed confused about what they were !voting on.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Several mistakenly believed that this is a content dispute. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal for DrChrissy

DrChrissy, I'm no admin so take my input with a grain of salt, but it looks like there's a fair chance that you could end up topic banned here, so I propose an alternate for your consideration.

Several of us (who don't edit acupuncture) have acknowledged you aren't the only problem. Several (many? most?) editors weighing in here are here because they are part of one "side" or the other that has formed over the years, and some of them only because they carry individual grudges against medical editors. (Off-topic rant: for some utterly stupid reason, we no longer have an RFC/User process, so we can't deal with the grudge-bearers in this thread, but I digress.) An admin will have to sort that all out: are you willing to take that risk, or would you accept the alternative-- that in my opinion shows forebearance, long-term thinking, and strength of character-- of agreeing not to edit for six months in those areas spelled out by Jytdog?

If you were to do that, there could be many outcomes:

1. During those six months, the same troublemakers will continue to show up here, and admins will understand who those are.
2. During those six months, the same grudge-bearers will show up in every medical discussion here, and admins will begin to understand who they are.
3. During those six months, it will become evident how much you are or are not responsible for the problem.
4. At the end of those six months, you, they, we, all of us, may discover that the sky is not falling, and some of the medical editors who are so concerned about acupuncture may actually go fix some dangerously bad medical articles.

I don't see how you lose by willingly agreeing to stand off for six months. It is not an admission of guilt; it is a show of strength. I hope you'll consider it, so we can get on with dealing with the other problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit war about personal attack

I removed a WP:NPA violation from Talk:Honor Harrington.[224] I admit that I was the victim of the attack, and therefore not the most uninvolved party, but I still though (and think) it was a real WP:NPA violation. The editor who posted it, User:Scjessey, then removed my previous edit, childishly and incorrectly claiming it was also a WP:NPA violation,[225] and when I undid that,[226] he undid my preceding edit.[227] Note that in between, I warned him on his talkpage to stop his childish behavior.[228] Please note that he has since removed that post from his talkpage, and has posted a derisive comment about it on mine. [229]

I'd appreciate your opinions either way. Meaning that if I am exaggerating, and Scjessey's comment is not such as can be removed as a WP:NPA violation, I will desist. Or if it is, then please tell Scjessey so, and he should desist. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That was really rude, I can't fault you for removing it, Debresser. Also, Scjessey's retaliation here was pretty childish (note the edit summary). I haven't gone back in the history of your mutual irritation, but from the recent exchange, certainly Scjessey is more at fault. Nevertheless, on the principle Wikipedia:There is no justice, I suggest the best thing would be for both of you to stay away from Talk:Honor Harrington for at least the next 24 hours, and from each other's talkpages for the foreseeable future. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

The really stupid thing about all this is that I had stepped away from that article, but Debresser kept on poking me with a stick, such as reverting or commenting after two days of silence. If he'd just left me alone, this would've petered out over a week ago. I admit the comment you flagged was rude, but this guy has been all up in my face for days and days and it needed to be said. Debresser, like me, is an experienced editor, but his attitude at that article was amateurish and smacked of ownership. For example, he rejected my idea of an RfC over a content dispute, despite the fact editors were evenly split and deadlocked. Where's the logic in that? Anyway, you can only get a sense of his behavior if you look at the editing history over a couple of weeks, but if I were you I wouldn't bother myself. It's a NothingBurger. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The attitude of Scjessey both here and on his talkpage[230] remains that I behaved badly and that he was just provoked into bad behavior by me. That attitude does not imbue me with much confidence as to his future editing. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass of undiscussed changes, heaps of heavy personal abuse if questioned

user:87.8.46.73 is on a massive campaign to change indications of Italian pronunciation across the board [231]. The pronunciations all link to Help:IPA for Italian and the consensus has been to use these symbols. The IP insists on using other symbols, not found in the article to which we link and unlikely to be known outside the linguistic community. The IP also deletes content and sources [232], [233]. I've tried to first encourage them to explain their edits [234], then explaining why we use the normal IPA [235]. I thought my comments polite and instructive, but the first response was to vandalize my talk page with very explicit language [236], followed up by edit summaries like I hate Jeppiz [237], [238]. The personal abuse is way past WP:NPA and the mass changes of the established IPA (combined with the blankings) is problematic as it makes a large number of articles less accessible to readers. I thought I could explain this to the user, I did not expect this hate campaign. This user is WP:NOTHERE to work with others.Jeppiz (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: 87.8.46.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IJBall , I forgot that. I did inform the user, though.Jeppiz (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly he is remarkably belligerent. He also seems to have some knowledge of IPA (not that this excuses the belligerence or unilateralism). Having this knowledge of IPA, we can expect that he'll be in a position to proffer a rational and persuasive argument for his (remarkably narrow) transcription, and get agreement for this before he continues. But if he instead keeps on his present course, block. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: The user seem to now be at the IP 79.31.254.235 (talk · contribs). Deor (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the same user. This is problematic. We have well-established rules for how to use WP:IPA and this user just give damn. And his"Fuck you" is response to politely being informed about rules does not promise well.Jeppiz (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Commenting as somebody with a reasonably expert knowledge of how IPA works: if I look at edits like that at Venice, where the anon insisted on changing "veˈnɛttsia" to "veˈnɛt̪͡ːs̪jä", I can see why some linguists might prefer the second version over the first. However, I'm troubled by his subsequent comment to Jeppiz [239], not so much because of the "F" word, but because he was claiming the original version was "not the correct pronunciation". That shows that despite his apparent insistence on technical details he really doesn't know what he's doing at all – anybody with an adequate knowledge of IPA would realize that both transcriptions describe the same pronunciation; the one is somewhat more precise (a "narrow transcription" as opposed to a "broad" one), but claiming that the broad transcription represents a "wrong" pronunciation is just daft. So much for the AGF assumption that the anon might be some potentially valuable expert editor who merely has an anger management issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise gave what amounts to a final warning a few minutes after leaving this message, but the IP kept on going, so I've blocked it for 24 hours. If the person comes back with a different IP address, don't worry about warnings; s/he knows that we want discussion, so unless s/he starts discussing, just reblock for block-evasion. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, Nyttend, it's having no effect, the same person is back again, again with a new IP [240].Jeppiz (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Reblocked. Given the broad scope of this person's editing, semiprotection won't work; could we try a filter? Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

History merge 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.

---

Resolved

Fusionem, a relatively inexperienced editor has recently carried out a cut-and-paste move by copying content from Minor characters in Universal Monsters,[241] to List of Universal Monsters characters,[242] and then expanding the new article.[243] Would an admin with a few minutes to spare be able to carry out a history merge on List of Universal Monsters characters to fix the problem cause by the cut-and-paste move, please? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I got your message. I passed the table to List of Universal Monsters characters so user could pay more attention, but this user has been rewriting the characters table back to the previous state, which I know it's very repetitive in some cases. I could pass your message to this guy..., if you let me, or I'll leave it to you. Its name is Rreemmett.Fusionem (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)User:Fusionem

I've performed the history merge and moved the talk page. Graham87 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet :: Andresbfarrera?

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 message appeared in my user talk page:-
  • == Special:Contributions/Andresbfarrera ==
  • Andrewbf is return as new user and focusing David Guetta, as you can use WP:DUCK. Anyway can you please block indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.85.179 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • But as that message came from an IPA user, I better get a second opinion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently an SPI on this case - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf. The sock might have tried a little harder than using such a similar user name...

Also, please remember to notify the user as you start a thread here. Thank you. JZCL 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Jytdog, persistent harassment and disruption

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.

---

Jytdog has complained about two connected articles, Bad Elk v. United States and Plummer v. State. Both of these articles have had discussions in the past about what should be in the articles, and consensus was reached on the issues. See Talk:Plummer v. State, along with the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State, the notability discussion at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Plummer v. State (of Indiana) prior to the AfD. There was extensive discussion on the talkpage which was ignored by Jytdog when he arbitrarily and boldly deleted a sourced section that had consensus to be in the article. I reverted his deletion, which started him on his harassment campaign. He was advised that he needed consensus to remove the sourced material. This has included a bogus edit warring template here after which he was again told not to remove sourced material without consensus. In addition, Jytdog has implemented a GA reassessment on Bad Elk.

As noted by Guy Macon here, several editors have worked collaboratively on these articles and have come to consensus as to what should be in the article.

It is impossible to research and locate additional sources while responding to his continuous harassment, and he has made no indication that he intends to let up. His notices popping up have drug me out of searches in Lexis, Westlaw, JSTOR, and Hein. He also has no right nor authority to demand answers when he doesn't have consensus to remove the material. He is one editor. Multiple editors have agreed on the material being incorporated into the article. If he can get consensus, fine, but he needs to stop harassing us while we try to improve the article.

I know how to create content, I've done enough of it, and I specialize in legal articles. I can improve the article, but not while this editor is continually demanding answers and continuing in this persistent harassment. I will also note that this is apparently a continuing problem for Jytdog, noting:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment, warned less than a month ago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Canvassing and hounding with allegations of bad faith on GMO, problems with Jytdog being "gruff" with others, within the last 3 months
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Jytdog needs administrator intervention, please?, more problems, withdrawn just 3 days ago

If he can't edit collaboratively on this, perhaps he should focus on other articles or perhaps on creating some articles. I am notifying him now. GregJackP Boomer! 05:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have not been uncivil here and have done nothing wrong. Content that pretty clearly violates OR has been in this article for over a year now and instead of discussing the content, GregJackP has resorted to personal attacks, claimed consensus, and (somewhat insultingly) pointed me to sources which I had already read, and which didn't verify the content. And never actually addressed my objections. This is hysteria over a content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI does not deal with content disputes, but as background, this is a topic where we have been struggling to make a good article despite the basic problem that a huge number of what are essentially batshit crazy blogs claim that these two cases give you the right to kill a cop if you think he is unlawfully arresting you (which, of course, both tea party protesters on the right and occupy protesters on the left firmly believe when they get arrested during a protest). Reliable legal sources, on the other hand, tend to ignore batshit crazy blogs, for the same reasons that Wikipedia so often does. This makes it difficult to document the fact that very common internet memes even exist when they touch upon legal issues. The editors who have been working on these pages (and who brought one of them up to FA level) have been working together quite well to resolve these difficulties. A reasoned discussion on the article talk pages trying to make the case that we haven't done a good enough job would have been welcome. Instead, Jytdog opened up a discussion on the talk pages and RSN (which was a good thing) and then before the discussion even got started decided that he didn't like the answers he was getting, edited both articles against consensus, filed complaints in multiple DR venues, accused veteran editors of a long list of blatant policy violations, and in general tried to make both articles a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

My advice here would be close this as no immediate admin action needed and to instruct all parties to go back to the article talk pages and discuss the underlying content dispute without further incivility or personal comments. Any conflict has multiple parties, and for my part I now apologize if I have been too aggressive in this matter. I really do think we can we can turn this one around and welcome Jytdog to the team who are working collaboratively on these two articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with withdrawing. btw I didn't open the discussion at RSN - that was the discussion that attracted me to the articles. I opened a discussion at ORN when discussion at the article Talk page about different issues failed. Thanks for apologizing, Guy; I too apologize if i have been too aggressive. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Guy Macon said here, Instead, Jytdog opened up a discussion on the talk pages and RSN . . . and then before the discussion even got started decided that he didn't like the answers he was getting, edited both articles against consensus, filed complaints in multiple DR venues, accused veteran editors of a long list of blatant policy violations, and in general tried to make both articles a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If Jytdog is willing to discuss this instead of demanding answers, to grant that other editors have a different interpretation than he does of various WP policies, to allow other editors time to conduct further searches, to generally work on improving the article, and edit based on consensus, I don't have a problem with moving forward. GregJackP Boomer! 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you tone it down GregJackP. I already have. If you continue this is going to boomerang on you. Please just discuss the content issues based on sources, policies, and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. There is a natural human tendency to revisit an issue after everyone has agreed to play nice and get along. Nobody cares who is to blame; blame me if you need a scapegoat. So let us all agree right now to not make any more personal comments, here or on the talk pages, and to politely discuss the best way to improve the articles, all the while being extra careful to treat each other with honor and respect. We really are on the same team here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest close. Editors are working more collaboratively on the article now and making improvements. Minor4th 17:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Threats

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.

---

Bawlix (talk · contribs) has come back after a hiatus and is mostly interested in attacking and threatening editors that he consider to be "marxists".[244][245][246]. And in the anti-leftist philosophy of the unabomber.[247]. Doesnt look to me like they are here to collaborate or build an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What I find odd is that when the account was created in December 2006 the editing was pretty reasonable except for [248] which was vandalism. The editor then stopped editing 3 October 2007. They came back almost 7 years later in June 2014 to write on an Islamic editor's talk page "Hahahah get fucked filthy mudslime" (the YouTube link doesn't work). The next edit deleted some material about race, and the next one was an edit to Centillion which defines a centillion as "a number, which is equal to either 10303 or 10600, depending on the system used." The edit said "A centillion is the number of Jews that died during the Holocaust." Then we have replacing some information about the racial demographics of a university which was presumably removed because of the 2010 cite tag), the Unabomber stuff (too many quotes in that article), and the recent attacks on editors including myself (for giving him a warning I presume). This may be a sleeper account or one taken over by someone other than the original editor, but in any case I agree with Maunus that this editor doesn't seem here to work with others to build the encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether the account was compromised or a sleeper, I can only believe the current user of the Bawlix account is just a common troll, less than WP:NOTHERE. This and the Tay Zonday link Doug found are the only problematic edits I could find before 2014. I'm not seeing a reason not to indef Bawlix. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support indef based on this immediate reaction to Dougweller's post above. Clearly a troll and a case of WP:NOTHERE. --IJBall (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indef per the diffs above. Whether a compromised account or not, there is no excuse for such behaviour here. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Can an admin delete this diff?

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.

---

[249] Unfounded statement that a BLP hired a contract killer in a recent unsolved murder. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IP Address doling out threats

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

---

110.78.155.74 seems to be being used to dole out various language threats (and images) to various user talk pages. I don't speak the language concerned, but at least one is in English, and the image is pretty conclusive.

• Special:Contributions/110.78.155.74

Talk page notified.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Informationdealer

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.

---

Informationdealer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has over the last four days repeatedly inserted unsourced material into the articles Tom Mount and International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers (IANTD):

• Special:Diff/662266734
• Special:Diff/662277988
• Special:Diff/662906592
• Special:Diff/662267690
• Special:Diff/662278308
• Special:Diff/662400571
• Special:Diff/662906993

He has been reverted now by:

• Materialscientist on 14 May
• JaconaFrere on 14 May
• Melcous on 14 May
• Pbsouthwood on 15 May
• and me.

Each of us has taken the time to explain to him the problems with his contributions (User talk:Informationdealer), but he has chosen to simply continue inserting the material. He's on a crusade to explain to the diving community what went wrong at IANTD, and wants to use Wikipedia to "right a great wrong".

I also believe that the material contains a BLP violation, commenting as it does on another individual's mental health.

As a result of what can only be characterised as tendentious editing, I would like to recommend that Informationdealer's editing privileges her be withdrawn sine die. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved to AIV for a hopefully swifter response. Amortias (T)(C) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith attempt to speed it up, but this isn't vandalism, it's tendentious editing (with a possible WP:BLPVIO that may need further attention) and AIV has a backlog right now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am working on this right now. I have gotten the block done (I decided on an indef block, since he has no interests outside this topic). I will now rev-delete the BLP violations. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Abuse of 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.

---

On WP:MOSDATE - a page subject to discretionary sanctions - there's a discussion where one editor is trying to push a line against well-established consensus. That's okay - he's not getting anywhere. What we have now is a few editors sniping at each other. I put the irrelevant discussion under a hat, but it's been reverted with "If you don't like it, don't read it."[250]

That looks like an invitation to waste more time and space on something that isn't content or related to the project. Could an admin remind the editors concerned that talk pages - especially MOS talkpages - are not best suited to penile comparison? --Pete (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's probably best to just leave well enough alone rather than getting sucked into one of these time wasting vortexes. Let the kiddies play and if it gets out of hand, the adults can come in with the cane. Blackmane (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Block the user Verdy_p from editing a certain article

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.

---

For convenience Terminegen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 70.51.38.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Blackmane (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone stop the user Verdy P from editing the article The Contra Adventure? He keeps on changing it based on information that HE think is correct and adding disproven speculation into the article. I've repeatedly attempted to provide evidence (still available in the talk page) that proves he's wrong on the matter; instead of actually reading them, he ignores them because he acts like he's better than others and that he's right and others are wrong. Now, he keeps on reverting the page to his opinion-based edits, insisting that my fact-based edits are "my point of view". I find it ironic that the wikipedia guidelines suggest users to talk to each other over content disputes... yet they also allow users to stop discussions on their own talk pages whenever they see fit... this Verdy_p did just that because he didn't want to read whatever evidence I provide him.

I've already addressed this in his talk page; instead of actually reading the evidence I've provided, all he can do is dismiss my responses as harrassment. It seems like it's not getting into his head that the information he's adding/changing to the article is incorrect and nobody seems to care about this just because he's a volunteer.Terminegen (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Verdy_p reverted the talk page, which erased the evidence that shows how mistaken he is. Well, I undid that revert. He can cite whatever he wants as the reason for removing the edit, but I don't care. You want to hide the truth? Expect me to uncover it.Terminegen (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

_{[cf. original discussion]}

(non-admin observation)Actually, the title is enclosed in a large C and I agree with your points, but the way you went about this comes across as incivil and as harassment of verdy_p, which means a lot in Wikipedia terms. Technical issues prevent us from using a colon in an article title, but we have a template to show that for titles. However, your IP was banned because of you behaviour. The previous thread is a year and 2 months before your comment this April. I also notice that your IP made personal attacks and verdy [|got upset]. You cannot call anyone a "moron" on Wikipedia like this. [User_talk:Verdy_p#C:_The_Contra_Adventure It's just too much]Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I had initially been civil with the user Verdy_p. I brought up this issue over a month ago, and consistently throughout the matter, he has been uncooperative, rude and unwilling to pay attention to the evidence I presented and also what I already told him: I UNDERSTOOD AND RESPECT THAT THE ARTICLE TITLE CAN'T BE CHANGED. Despite that, he continued to make his own edits to the article's content, making it seem like the game's title lacks the C: (again, independent of the article title). My hotheaded and inflammatory comments towards him (which I personally stand by today), although acknowledged, were the result of total frustration at his inability to accept his mistakes and the initial report not being dealt with appropriately. But they are irrelevant to my issue that Verdy_p keeps changing the article's content with misinformation. My breaking of the rules does not absolve Verdy from being arrogant, unwilling to accept his editing mistakes and constantly adding false information to the article. My improper conduct does not give Verdy_p permission to continuously revert the article with his false information.Terminegen (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, does this help the issue at all? It's the best I can do. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this addition to the article, Discuss-Dubious. This is at least a step in the right direction. And I appreciate that you didn't continuously derail the discussion to point out my inappropriate conduct in the past; and instead, you've kept focus on the issue at hand, that being the validity of that article's content.Terminegen (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 :Considering the attacks you, Terminegen, have a tendency to lace your comments with, such as

• this beauty
• this one
• this one
• this lovely one
• in the edit summary

you should beware the airborne wooden implement that might swing your way. You provided no reliable sources for your edits to the article but instead are exhibiting a major case of ownership. Your first edit to the talk page, presumably as the IP 70.51.38.110, was to respond to a thread over a year old and to straight away attack Verdy_p in the edit summary. Quite frankly, I'd recommend a block on Terminegen for an obvious combative attitude and inability to edit collegially. Blackmane (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Striking my recommendation. Such a confrontational tone is never a good way to start a discussion. Blackmane (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what happens when previous issues on this page get erased. Try actually reading Verdy's talk page. I did not immediately proceed to attack him. I initially tried to dispute his edits on his talk page; despite the evidence I provided, he ignored it all and told me not to talk to him again. Then I brought this issue here to ANI. You can go ahead and block me based on only one side of the story. But you should just know that Verdy_P's adding inaccurate information to the article. I didn't realize the game's actual title needed to be sourced in the article itself... considering EVERY REPUTABLE SOURCE states the title as C: The Contra Adventure, and not simply The Contra Adventure. Should I be citing over 20 sources just for the correct title? If anything, Verdy_P needs to cite the source that the title lacks the C:.Terminegen (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, that's a real ad hominem tactic you're using to dismiss a valid Wikipedia article content integrity matter. Once again, my hotheaded, inflammatory remarks does not automatically absolve Verdy_p's totally false edits to the article.Terminegen (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you had an issue with it, there was nothing stopping you from editing the page, with good sourcing. If someone had reverted you then the first thing to do would be discussing it on the talk page. Verdy_p's first comment that "The initial comment in the article explains this variance and it is enough" summed up their position. Discuss-Dubious made a bold change and if someone disagrees with that then to the talk page they would go. This is what you should have done also. Verdy_p made their views clear. Your choice would have been 1) edit the article to what you can source to be correct 2) open an RFC on the talk page and invite members of the video game wikiproject. What you should not have done is attack Verdy_p on the article talk page nor 2 other editors on their talk respective pages. As for my alleged ad-hominem comment, the diffs speak for themselves. I invite other editors to peruse your contributions as well as those of your IP address and come to an alternative conclusion. Blackmane (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input. Once again, I repeat myself (isn't that a common theme), it is impractical and downright detrimental to the article's quality to have over 20 cited sources just for the title of the video game. And on that note, why exactly must this particular video game need a source for the correct title and not any other video game, just because one particular user decided he wanted to change it based on his shallow conclusions? Them summing up their position with some sort of opinion-based comment is nowhere close to being a valid reasoning or proof of what the game's title is. How about doing a simple google search of the game and you'll see how every reputable source out there (read: more than 20) states what the correct game title is. And considering Verdy_p is going against that consensus, the burden of proof is on him; in this case, a valid source from him is absolutely needed on his incorrect information. I couldn't care less if the diffs speak for themselves. This issue is about wikipedia article content validity and accuracy, NOT about my conduct as a user. You're pretty much promoting the polluting of wikipedia articles with false information just because they were added by goody two-shoe individuals that never tip the table over. You know what? I'm indeed going to invite other editors, especially those who are familiar with video games, to discuss the matter. They will invariably reach the same conclusion as me regarding the article's content. Then verdy_p can go ahead and put whatever inaccurate information into other articles that he wants.Terminegen (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, Verdy_p has stated at least once so far that he has zero interest in the subject of the article (ie, the game). So it's really amusing that him injecting his opinion into the article is an end-all to the matter.Terminegen (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Erhem, there appears to be a lot of WP:KETTLE going on here. Suggestion: a great, big WP:BOOMERANG for Terminegen. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for contributing absolutely nothing at all to the issue at hand. Instead of providing an assessment on the matter of article content validity, go ahead and join the bandwagon of the ad hominem gang, something that I did not come here to seek help on. Is this a convenience for people in your circles?Terminegen (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Before this gets any longer I'll make the obligatory comment about this noticeboard. ANI does not deal in content matters. If you have a problem with the content, I've already told you the first 2 avenues for discussing that. The next step is dispute resolution. Declaring that you are going to get other editors involved should have been the first thing you did. If you can get a consensus that agrees with you, that's fine, that's the point of WP:CONSENSUS.

With that out of the way, what ANI does deal with is incidents involving editor behaviour and in that regard, you very much should care about what the diffs say as they are very damning about your conduct as a user. I'm certain that admins watching seeing this thread would agree with me when I suggest that you should consider yourself warned that future recurrences of last months attacks will lead to blocks. Blackmane (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, why exactly is Verdy_p excused for his disruptive behavior of changing article content to what he pleases? Is it because editors like him, and those who support him on a whim, have some special privileges to circumvent the standard procedures of regular users to cite their conflicting information? He made changes to the wikipedia page that makes this site the total black sheep on the subject of the video game, without so much as satisfying the burden of proof, save for a meaningless comment that he added in parentheses. I guess long-time editors like him have gained enough trust of wikipedia staff to make edits as they please.Terminegen (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether you're dealing with a content dispute or reporting behavioural problems. Continuing with personal attacks against anyone who doesn't side with you, and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about regular editors and their motivation does not cast you in a good light. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The answer is simple. Verdy_p followed WP:BOLD and the fact that article content can and will change all the time. Those of us commenting here as if we're their supporters or something are not supporting them as a person, but their adherence to editing and behavioural policy. If you can bring forward solid reliable sources to back up your arguments then you can form a new consensus. However long an editor has been here has no bearing on whether they'll get themselves in hot water. Over the years, I've seen editors who have 6,7,8 years of editing history here get themselves sanctioned in one way or another. I've seen editors with over 50,000 edits get banned. Blackmane (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure as to whether wires are getting crossed here. I'm concerned that Terminegen has escalated to suggestingthere's a cabal challenging him/her and protecting 'one of our own'. Rather than continuing an already established WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, this is the ideal time for the user to learn how to work collaboratively. Yes, consensus can change, but Terminegen should take this as an opportunity to learn how to achieve consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then let me make it clear as day for you, Iryna Harpy. My issue is with Verdy_p's behavior, which is causing a problem with wikipedia's content. is that clear enough for you? You can drop the ill attempt at a solution while you're at it; taking sides has absolutely nothing to do with someone's inability to accept their mistakes. And likewise, it doesn't cast regular editors in a good light when they struggle so much to read an issue properly. And Blackmane, I repeat (as usual), it's completely counterproductive to have to cite a source for something that is so obvious as a game's title. Verdy is the one who's making the wikipedia article on the game oppose pretty much every other online resource out there on the subject. If anything, he should cite the source that makes wikipedia correct and every other reputable site incorrect. I fail to see the need for something like this; and if something as basic as the game's title needs a source to cite, why not make this a requirement for every video game that has an article on wikipedia? Why not make every sentence and statement in an article require a source? Verdy feels that just because the ARTICLE'S TITLE has to be changed and shortened due to technical restrictions, that automatically means that it's correct to change the article's content as well.Terminegen (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Terminegen please can you provide diffs of edits that you think have not been in order. GregKaye 04:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, here is the diffs: [251]Terminegen (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since 40% of the traffic at ANI stems from disputes over (1) music subgenres, (2) little-known football/soccer players, and (3) titles of video games, can we just agree that WP won't cover those topics anymore? The cost/benefit ratio is just too poor. EEng (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of Terminegen posting at User talk:Verdy p (I don't see an ANI notification):

• 8 April 2015 and 9 April 2015 Here you go, moron
• 9 April 2015 The "C" isn't just a logogram, like you religiously and idiotically insist it is
• 19 May 2015 (self-reverted three hours later) Just keep editing the Contra Adventure article to your FALSE information. I'll keep reverting it and reporting you. ... You really are a detriment to wikipedia.

In addition, an IP (probably the same user) has made many comments, including:

• 4 May 2015 You're a moron that likes to throw the word "logogram" around
• 11 May 2015 Verdy_p is a brainless mongoloid with an arrogance stick up his rear end

If any further attacks are made, Terminegen should be indefinitely blocked. The above vitriol concerns whether the title of an obsolete game from 1998 includes "C:". It's good that others are trying to assist, but supporting such behavior is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Verdy_p was notified but it was hatted and they've chosen not to participate. Blackmane (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you saw an old section: the last three edits at Verdy's talk are 12 May 2015 + 19 May 2015 + 19 May 2015. None of those are a notification for this discussion. I am not going to notify Verdy because that would only amplify the harassment that has already occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I saw a notification dated which was actually from March. Blackmane (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact Terminegen (while being blocked using its IP, has effectively sent a message on my talk page, before removing it some time later. I noticed the event. He signed "Terminegen" and realized this post was also continuing his harassment in my talk page for a topic that I have closed since long (and where he continues posting: I don't relpy to his posts on my talk page, I just delete them because I don't want more discussion on the topic and my only interest was technical temporarily at the time where the question of renaming article starting with "C:" (to use this prefix for Commons) was discussed. Besidfe this I have no special interests on Contra games and I have already saif that to him (if if I gave my personal opinionj only on my talk page because he wanted to convince me, but I don't need to be convinced. Since then, he has repeatedly insulted me. So I closed the discussion (instructing him to do it somewhere else with other interested people, but not my talk page). I have deleted all other comments from him without replying.

But apparently Terminegen continues with the named account that he owns, even if his IP is currently blocked with "anonymous" edits. He was able to create this account (that he refused to use before, when he also constantly refused to sign his posts; apparently he was able to create an account by using another provider, possibly with a smartphone via a mobile network instead of his fixed IP, but now he can use that account to continue).

So yes the two diffs above were noted (and I was notified when he performed both). He has not changed his mind even after his IP-blocking and wants to continue his personal war. verdy_p (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

So nice of Verdy_p's pal Johnuniq to join in and support his fellow volunteer. Hey, Johnuniq, it's no secret that you and Verdy_p are buddies here on wikipedia. I don't care if you call the game "obsolete"; that does not give Verdy_p, or anyone for that matter, the right to add inaccurate information to their articles. People still read those pages. Obsolete isn't a criterion to be able to add whatever you want to page content. My comments on opinions on the "editor" Verdy_p (and I use the word editor very loosely for people like him) haven't changed. He's not interested in the game Contra... yet he authoritatively believes himself correct on the game's title? Can he contradict himself any further? Apparently, editors have the right not to be convinced that they are wrong on edits they make to articles that are open to the public. Makes perfect sense and is definitely the attitude that article editors should have to contribute to the reliability of wikipedia for information. Give me a break. Hey, Verdy_p, if you're reading this: YOU'RE WRONG ON THE GAME'S NAME; AND EVERY TIME YOU TRY TO CHANGE IT TO YOUR OPINION, I WILL REVERT IT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OTHER PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF CONTENT ON WIKIPEDIA.Terminegen (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Declaring intent to edit war? Yup, blocking would surely be preventative now. Blackmane (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for User:Terminegen

Terminegen believes other editors to be united in a vast "onspiracy" masterminded by the anti-"C" oalition and their rooks and ronies. Rather than responding to charges of harassment, he is freaking out over another editor (" I use the word editor very loosely for people like him") and has declared an intent to edit war. I think we should consider how long he ought to be blocked for continuous disruption. Shii (tock) 14:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang duly applied. Blocked for one months for the personal attacks listed above (post April 9th, when his account was last blocked for this reason). Yunshui ^雲_水 14:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for this block. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:2.123.3.42

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.

---

Could someone take a look at the user from IP 2.123.3.42? His recent edit summaries include the following gems directed at me:

• "italian idiot"
• "effing inbred"
• "go die in a hole! ribbon my arse! mofo! inbred"
• "RETARDED TWAT"
• "KISS ME ARSE RIBBON U INCEST"

while also telling others to "FACK OFF". Everyone's been civil with him, explaining how he's wrong in his edits and this is how he responds. This is less about him adding unsourced claims into articles and edit warring and more about the abusive language. Example: I asked what he based an unsourced claim on. He reverted and answered "I BASED THIS WHEN I FOOCKED YOUR MOM LAST NIGHT." リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Charmer blocked for 2 weeks. If people can't spell "fuck", and can't even misspell it the same way twice, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 18:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC).

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

WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

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

Highlights of the editor's activity within the past year include:

• Calling everyone "crackers" (as a noun, not an adjective)
• Accusing whoever created the category Islamic mythology of being racist
• Responding to my explanation that he should not call the majority of editors "white trash" and "crackers" with "it's not like I held up a mirror to you" (missing the point)
• Responding to my explanations of some site policies with "As we both agree that the Quran is the word of God I understand you want to help get rid of some of the racist bias on wikipedia." This was before I trimmed my user page, but even in the current version there's no reason to believe I'm a Muslim. When I outright pointed out that I'm a not a Muslim, he proceeded to proselytize.
• "Proposing deletion" of the category Islamic Mythology, and the article Instrument of Jesus's crucifixion with no reason provided whatsoever, just "The Quran teaches that Jesus was not crucified." When asked for a policy based reason, he "It's enough that the Quran is the word of God, we don't need crackers trying to spread ignorance on the internet, as well as repeating himself and completely ignoring the question. After pointing out the racist and biased nature of his comments, he replied "The Holy Quran, a book you and I agree is the word of God, teaches that Jesus was NOT crucified. (If there is good news, this is the BEST news!) Stay cool! It's the word of God, btw." -- indicating that he either did not read my response at all or is actively trolling.
• "Proposing deletion" of Islamism for WP:OR reasons.
• Espousing a conspiracy theory denying the existence of Daesh/ISIL because "orientalism."
• Starting the thread "Obama: Great President or Greatest President?", which only managed to avoid falling under WP:NOTFORUM by saying the article should ask that question -- As much as I'm for Obama, I'm having a hard time not believing that Teetotaler is either a troll or utterly incompetent.
• Personally attacking another user because "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world" -- he was blocked for this, but as can be seen above, the root cause of the problem remains.

We've got some serious WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE, if not just another troll. There is no reason whatsoever to let him continue. As I've said before, we need Muslim editors, but we do not need POV-pushers regardless of their worldview. Take his posts and replace the Quran with the Bible, Peter Joseph, the Vedas, or Richard Dawkins, and there'd be no question that this user needs to be indefinitely blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support - Clearly a troll who is trying to impose his/her personal beliefs on articles. Needs to be indefinitely blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Support - Due to comments such as this: "You might want to read the Holy Quran to find out. After all, it is the word of God, not the uninspired word of some Tom, Dick, Harry, Matthew, Luke, or Larry. -Teetotaler 19 May, 2015", may be insulting to other editors and inhibit editorial progress.  — Jason Sosa 17:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef, obviously not here to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:General American

Now that General American can't be directly edited by almost anybody, its talk page is being vandalised, probably by G-Zay sockpuppets. Peter238 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotected for approximately 12 hours. Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Large number of potentially incorrect edits

The problem has been described at the Teahouse questions forum by Aloha27 as follows:

"There currently is a stub article [General Service Area] which is wikilinked to by every town, village and community in Nova Scotia, Canada. One editor in particular has taken it upon his/her self to change over 1600 articles to use this obscure stub as the definition for each and every community in this Province rather than the usual wikilinks (town, village, community etc.) used by the rest of Wikipedia. Seeing as how NS is apparently the only region in the world that uses this definition and the definition could be eliminated at any time by the stroke of a pen by the NS Government, I would wonder if the project would be better served if we simply deleted this article under WP:N as a Google search using the phrase gives few (if any) reliable sources?"

This made me look at the contributions record of Moka Mo to confirm a large number of edits have been made, many of which add this link.

I checked their talk page to see a notice at User_talk:Moka_Mo#May_2015 by Cmr08 requesting that they enter into discussion.

The reason I am bringing this here is because admins have tools to perform any necessary mass roll backs of edits by an editor that are proven to be incorrect. I am making no judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the edits. This is to alert wiser heads than mine to a potential problem. I do not see this as a content dispute, more as something that will require some poor admin to pick up the baton and undo a large swathe of changes. I am about to notify the editor in question on their talk page. I will also notify the other editors I have mentioned in order that they may make a decision about participating in this discussion. For clarity, I am uninvolved in and have no interest in the articles concerned. I doubt I have ever edited in that arena. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the stub article above, and don't really care if it's used or not, or even if it's removed. The concern I had was that a large number of Nova Scotia articles were being changed to say they are regions and not communities but the editor making the changes was providing no reason for the change. After editor made these changes a second time, I left the talk page message hoping that the editor would prevent this from getting out of hand by explaining why the change was being made. By providing no explaination, I felt the editor was insisting on making the changes regardless of what other editors were saying. Had only the stub article been removed, I wouldn't have even bothered, it was labeling the communities as regions with no proof that bothered me. I didn't think asking an editor to explain changes would lead here, but I am more than willing to retract the statement if it would prevent this from going any further. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To clear up some confusion above, Moka Mo doesn't appear to be the editor adding the link to the stub article as was stated in the notice above. A check of history shows that 19960401 is the editor who added the link to a large number of articles. Moka Mo had only made a couple of edits total to Nova Scotia articles until a few days ago. That being said, I still have no opinion on the stub article, but thought the info should be clarified. The only additions of the article by Moka Mo appear to be a couple of articles where he/she re-added it after removing it in an earlier edit. Cmr08 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Moka Mo whose opinion here is valuable in any case. I Must have picked up the sole edits where this was the case. I shall notify 19960401 on their talk page of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to make mistakes, especially with a lot of confusing edits going back and forth. I only picked up on it when I went back a second time to re-read this. At first I actually thought this was over the message I left him on talk page, I now see it has nothing really to do with it. Cmr08 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to adjust the title of this thread as it is obvious that it isn't Moka Mo who has made the edits in question. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although there is a 1-in-365.24 chance that it is a coincidence, I point out that 19960401 is a date code for April Fool's Day, 1996. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on this edit by the editor in question, it looks like a coincidence. Seems it has something to do with Halifax Nova Scotia's boundaries changing on that date. However, i'll take your 1-in-365.24 odds that the similarity with User:20060706 is a coincidence. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthvm/Archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whether or not these edits are being performed by a sock of an indeffed editor, according to the stub article in question, the GSA is a very narrowly defined term relating to E911 services. The first ref is to a pilot project final report and its recommendation: "In place of the E-911 reference to "community" it is recommended, for at least the purpose of the NSCAF initiative, that the areas be renamed as General Service Areas (GSA)." I've only glanced at the refs, but was the recommendation of the pilot program even adopted? Anyway, based on the narrow definition of community in the sense of E911 services, unless someone can show otherwise, it seems that these mass replacements are improper and should be reverted. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:19960401 (along with several other accounts) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Matthvm. So, at least, the disruption should cease while this issue gets resolved here. Mojoworker (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That'd be nice. As it stands there are a pile of edits that'd have to be undone. There is no doubt in my mind that this user (and assorted socks) is/were not here to build an encyclopedia. IMO Tendentious editing at its best. Regards  Aloha27  talk  23:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Russian names from Ukrainian articles

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.

---

MykhayloNaumenko has been deleting Russian names from many Ukrainian articles, primarily involving the Luhansk Oblast. Targeted articles include Sievierodonetsk, Lysychansk, and the Luhansk Oblast article itself. [252] [253] [254] [255] [256]

I came across him when I noticed that the Russian name of Luhansk Oblast suddenly disappeared, and then I rv'd that when I found the diff.

He also has edit warred with Toddy1 for months over the Russian names being on enwiki. Ymblanter had blocked him for a day once for this. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Luhansk was affected too: [257] Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mykhaylo admits to be Ukrainian on his userpage." I didn't realize being Ukrainian was an offense one had to "admit to", but then I'm just a science geek. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In the context of Ru-Uk war, a person starts erasing references to Russia in quite ridiculous ways, you suspect he is a Russia-hater, you check his user page and you see he is Ukrainian, you say "Gotcha!" someone is HOTHERE, naturally, the tongue slips: you identify ethnic hypernationalism which caused misbehavior with misbehavior itself. I forgot the name of the psychological phenomenon/logical blunder (something opposite to the halo effect, I believe). -M.Altenmann >t 06:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hillcrest98: Both articles have been subject to POV-pushing... and it cuts both ways. Toddy1 and I have a lot of articles covered for this form of naming convention warring, and MykhayloNaumenko is but one such user (who has also made a few constructive contributions). If blocking were intended to be punitive, I dare say most editors would be long, long gone. As for this latest round, it should have been taken to 3RR as being edit warring. After that, we know the cycle: if the user doesn't genuinely learn from AGF errors, leave it to being an enough rope issue as the user is displaying NOTHERE tendencies. As noted by SBHB above, however, you know that using a user's ethnicity is the bottom of the barrel of the personal attacks stakes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that at this moment a respected admin must try and convince this person that wikipedia is not a political battleground. It appears that this user was not engaged in any talk page discussions beyond template slapping. -M.Altenmann >t 06:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That is because Toddy had reminded him many times and he didn't respond/listen. He didn't post on any talk pages except doing pagemoves. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I blocked that user for disruptive editing earlier this year. Since they claim their knowledge of English is en-0, I do not see what is the benefit of them editing English Wikipedia. We have enough Ukrainian power pushers here who at least speak some English.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment and question Is Russian an official language in those communities? I seem to remember reading Ukraine had made Ukrainian the only official language, or am I mistaken? If Russian is not official, it's not immediately obvious that it is vandalism to remove it. I understand that removing it can be a Ukrainian WP:POV and keeping it can be a Russian WP:POV, but as someone completely uninvolved, I don't necessarily see how one version is more POV-pushing than the other. Perhaps a more fruitful solution would be to have an established practice for the whole of Ukraine (personal view: Russian should be included in any municipality with a substantial Russian-speaking population, but that's a persona view and this is not the place for that discussion).Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  This is indeed not vandalism but POV-pushing and edit warring (I think he overstepped 3RR on a couple of occasions). Since the population of these areas is exclusively Russian-speaking, the consensus is that names in two languages can be cited in the lede. Removals would need discussion, which the user was not interested in initiating.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good day. I am Ukrainian. I removed Russian names not through RU-UA war! This is Ukrainian cities! I want in order the world to know that Ukraine is not Russian Federation. I understand your position. I will not to remove Russian names. Thank you for your consideration. P.S. Sorry for my English. --MykhayloNaumenko (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2015 (+3 UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a large bunch of recognized Russian-speakers around Donbass, who are quite influential in the region. Since these Russian-speakers form a notable part of Donbass' people, Russian names of their places are included. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• He is suspected of creating another account, maybe for a clean start attempt: User:Mychajlo Naumenko, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MykhayloNaumenko. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• What happens? This is my cousin: MykhayloNaumenko. He is not created another account. This account [Mychajlo Naumenko] is mine. -- Mychajlo Naumenko (Talk) 08:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just so you're not taken aback by it if it should come up at some point, please read WP:BROTHER ("Brother" in this case being "cousin") and WP:Meatpuppet. (Note: This is not an accusation.) BMK (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hillcrest98: Okay, now this is looking like an extremely cynical exercise, indeed. The missive you left me on your talk page indicates that this ANI is a piece of scapegoating for the sake of a principle, rather than taking a particularly egregious user to task. Seriously, the guy had backed off after reprimands from a number of editors (including myself) before you stepped in. Even if Mychajlo Naumenko has been identified as a duck, after the pummelling the user took without being given a chance to redeem himself, creating a new account in order to tidy up an article on a Ukrainian town in order to update information and remove unsourced and, frankly, redundant information is hardly the action of a POV and battleground warrior.

Frankly, everyone working on Eastern European articles is fed up with hard-line POV pushing from both sides, not just what you describe as being "the behaviour of anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian POV pushers in general". If you're unaware of the extent of the battleground behaviour, here's a recent example amidst a huge list of POV warriors from the pro-Russian side. I'm not even going to start going through blatant POV diffs waving the 'Ukrainian and Western lies' banner across multiple articles. If regular editors to these articles (which you are not) were to indulge in your mentality of "I have strength to bite a newcomer.", this already overused and under-monitored board would be swamped. Biting is not something to be proud of, particularly when a new editor doesn't have a terribly high edit count. Even the most recalcitrant of new editors are given a chance to make mistakes, and good editors have emerged from their ranks. Please don't use this board for engaging in what is, essentially, no better than a personal attack just because you encountered this individual and want to push the boundaries of WP:HA#NOT, because I'm reading this as harassment on principle. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• I will back off. Feel free to close. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Hillcrest. The flurry of POV content pushes over such a protracted period of time has worn us all down. It's tempting to try to deal with a given number in one shot, but the procedures for dealing with such editors still need to be handled on an individual by individual basis. Yes, it's time consuming and frustrating, but we can't lump everyone into black and white categories. I'm content to have this closed off ASAP, with the user standing as being blocked for sockpuppetry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy - No Mychajlo_Naumenko/MykhayloNaumenko has not "backed off". This edit of 17 May is yet another change the name to a transliteration from Ukrainian edit in the article on Nu Virgos. The old account did 14 change the spelling of names edits to the same article. Incidentally a check user "confirmed both users are very likely the same".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I (Hillcrest98) said I backed off, not Mykhaylo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillcrest98 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1 - I have already told you everything I wanted! -- Mychajlo Naumenko (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

At my last check of the SPI yesterday, the accounts were identified as being 'duck'. At the very least, this should have resulted in the account created later being blocked so that the user could either shape up or take responsibility for their WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from the original account. It's remarkable that these 'cousins' follow identikit editing patterns. As I've already stated, I was happy for the user (that is, both accounts) to be blocked. This blatant resumption of WP:NOTHERE activity shouldn't have been given the opportunity to resume. I apologise if I confused anyone as to what my quibble was about. I was unhappy about it starting out as being a list of anti-Russian, Ukrainophile users being drawn up as some form of bulk trial (although it has been refactored since then in order to address a specific user only). Mykhaylo/Mychajlo has been given an opportunity to demonstrate his sincerity in stating that he won't push the Ukrainianisation envelope again, and that he's genuinely sorry. He's already been identified as being intentionally disruptive prior this new round of disruption. All I can see is that he's a POV pusher, and an ingenuous one at that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for that witch-hunt attitude earlier - this is my first ANI case and I thought I could centralize the general disruption problems into one report. Bad idea. Will be more careful in future reports. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 04:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No probs. We all make errors in judgement, Hillcrest. Toddy1 seems to have elicited a response from him (the Mychajlo Naumenko persona) indicating that he may have a point about one of the people's names he's changing, but this is a nomenclature issue surrounding a girlie pop group popular in Ukraine and Russia. Ultimately, he doesn't have the communication skills to actually be able to work on English Wikipedia productively/collaboratively, and the disruption and negative impact he's having far outweighs any positive input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, my God! I thought the discussion closed. I wrote that I will not remove Russian names. P.S. Sorry for my English. --MykhayloNaumenko (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2015 (+3 UTC)

• Master blocked one week and indeffed sock; SPI closed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:173.3.222.239

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.

---

See this user's contributions. This user is probably the same as User talk:68.194.85.167 who was blocked on April 16 for exactly the same type of edits. See previous ANI notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Competence issue of User:68.194.85.167. Kraxler (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

While these are some strange edits, I'm not sure there's anything blockable here. They certainly seem like some good faith edits. So the only issue is competence, and I'm not sure they fail that either. --IJBall (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: OK, I see now that this is part of a longer-term pattern. I suggest the same as before then – if they fail to respond to any Talk page messages about their edits that they be blocked on that basis again... --IJBall (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bump! OK, checking the IP edit's for today (173.3.222.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))... well, maybe somebody should take a look at this... --IJBall (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

DrChrissy's topic ban

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.

---

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 § Topic ban for DrChrissy

There is disagreement about the close on 16 May of the topic-ban discussion about DrChrissy. (See discussion about it here, here and here.) Beeblebrox closed it as a ban from "biomedical articles," [258][259] and told DrChrissy that she was banned from "human biomedicine." [260] He later changed his advice to DrChrissy to "biomedical articles, broadly construed," [261] in response to a request that the ban include nonhuman animals. There was barely a mention of animals during the discussion.

DrChrissy is an academic in a mainstream university who specializes in animal behaviour and animal welfare. He has written animal articles without a problem, including Feather pecking, Cognitive bias in animals, Deception in animals, Pregnancy in fish, Declawing of crabs and Self-anointing in animals. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to write about animals without mentioning health issues, and he needs to be able to write without looking over his shoulder.

So the question is whether the biomedical topic ban extends (or should extend) to nonhuman animals. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• The words "extends to" are causing confusion for some reason, so to clarify – the question is: do you support or oppose a topic ban for DrChrissy on editing animal biomedical issues? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

pings

Pinging everyone who took part in the discussion who hasn't commented yet: @NeilN, Jytdog, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, SandyGeorgia, Zad68, JzG, and CambridgeBayWeather: @Ad Orientem, Dbrodbeck, Starblind, Alexbrn, AlbinoFerret, Petrarchan47, and QuackGuru: @Montanabw, I am One of Many, Aspro, BoboMeowCat, Opabinia regalis, and Serialjoepsycho: @Doc James, Bishonen, Parabolist, TheGracefulSlick, Johnuniq, Kingofaces43, and Beyond My Ken: @Cullen328, BullRangifer, Formerly98, Jayaguru-Shishya, LesVegas, and MastCell: @A1candidate, Yobol, Robert McClenon, Gandydancer, Minor4th, and Viewmont Viking:. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC) I'm not getting involved in this again, but thought SlimVirgin might want to know that I did not get the ping above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose extending the ban to animal biomedical issues. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• The closure seems within discretion to me. I don't think every subset of a topic needs to be explicitly mentioned, was there any argument to exclude animals? Topic bans are widely construed by default. I would support a reduction in the scope of the ban for the benefit of the encyclopedia, but the closure itself was good. Chillum 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There is no extension to animal articles. Biomedicine includes animals ([262], [263], [264], [265]). What's happening is editors who opposed the topic ban have been complaining it was imposed, and suggesting there should have been an exception applied which was never discussed. There is not currently consensus for such an exception   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it's worth noting that the problems which led to the topic ban began at Acupuncture. After the tban was instated, Crissy's very next article edit was to Animal acupuncture (in violation of the ban). It is difficult to imagine that any topic ban involving acupuncture should not include both articles, and other alt med relating to animals at a bare minimum.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • • • Some of the issues with alt-med that are applicable to humans, such as placebo effect are not applicable to animals. I see no reason to ban DrChrissy from discussing or editing about these issues on animal articles, so long as he follows the standard behavior guidelines. Maybe do it with a 1RR restriction or something if you are worried. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I very strong oppose carving out an exception for alt med in animals. I see no reason to suspect his behavioral issues on Acupuncture would not extend to Animal acupuncture, and he's already expressed an interest moving directly over to that topic. It's worth noting that keeping him away from articles where he is likely to cause disruption is in his best interest, as further disruption after he's already been topic banned is increasingly likely to result in significantly harsher sanctions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jess, the question asked here is whether the ban does or should cover animals, so offering definitions of biomedicine doesn't help. There was barely any mention of animals during the AN/I, so it can't be assumed that everyone who supported the topic ban supported it covering animals. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you are assuming that editors didn't know the definition of the words they used. When I said "biomedicine", I fully intended it to include biomedicine involving horses, and biomedicine involving humans, and involving drugs, and involving proven therapies, and so on; I meant it to include "the topic of biomedicine". You cannot assume that since I didn't say "and that includes goats", I must not have considered them. I used the words I chose for a reason. I'm not averse to having a discussion about appropriate sanctions, but I am averse to repeatedly misrepresenting the conversation and my views. This is about adding an exception to the ban, not disputing an "extension" that does not exist.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• At least two editors who supported the topic ban said after the close that they had not intended to support a ban on animal biomedical issues, so we do know that the consensus for that was unclear. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't seen that. Could you point me to those two editors, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose extending the ban to anything other than the articles wherein he has been accused of disruption. It is a sad day when academics are being TB when it is actually the work of scholars and accredited universities that we depend on as being among the most RS when adding content to this encyclopedia. How can anyone not see the irony? I think WP needs a bit more self-analysis regarding the intense focus on behavior rather than the content that motivated the behavior. I'm not saying academics should not be challenged by any means, but to do so with total disrespect and to a degree that may result in academics being TB from a broad topic on which they are experts, well, I'll just close with the fact that it warrants further study. Atsme^📞📧 17:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Ban doesn't need extending to animals, already covered by "biomedicine" and "alt-med". As regards the Docs professional life, that's interesting. What matters is his behaviour here. The community has decided his behaviour in the last few months was not acceptable. I suggest he stop pushing around the edges of the ban, and think him lucky that his edit of the Acupuncture article after he was topic banned has been ignored. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 17:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support CAM broadly construed only ban, as originally put forward by User:Kww in thread. No evidence of disruption outside these areas I think. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Addendum this would include animals as animals have been with acupuncture and other CAM. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue is not an interpretation of what a term, in this case biomedical, means as might be the case in the decision following an arbitration case where what the committee meant has to be interpreted. The issue is what the terms of the discussion were and what editors thought they were voting for. Animal articles biomedical or other were mentioned in only a vague way by three editors. As well, Dr Chrissy has not had problems on animal articles biomedical or otherwise. Extending a topic ban with out proof of problems there in response to a request from one editor and given this issue was not raised in any kind of concrete way in the RfC suggests the topic ban extension is not appropriate and should be dropped.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

The suggestion that since animals weren't explicitly mentioned, they weren't intended is frustrating. When I !voted for a topic ban on alt med, I didn't mention "animals" because it wasn't necessary. I fully intended Animal acupuncture to fall under a topic ban of alt med, which is why my support read, simply, "alt med". When I extended my support to biomedicine, I also did not mention "animals", because why would I? I did not intend to carve out an exception for them. Such an exception wasn't even being discussed. Now, editors are repeatedly claiming that since I didn't say "including animals", that means I must have intended an exception for animals. I, and others, were perfectly clear: "Topic ban for alt med", and "Topic ban for biomedicine". Both topics include animals, and loads of other things we didn't mention explicitly by name. Frankly, these sorts of comments are doubly frustrating because I would have been willing to consider exceptions, but the insistence of several editors on misrepresenting the discussion and the intention of !voters they haven't spoken to, as well as Crissy's boundary pushing and feigned confusion, make that extremely difficult.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Joss. My comments are general and not about you.While you may have included animal articles in your Ivote I did not. It didn't even enter my mind in part because there were no problems on animal articles. How can anyone support a sanction to articles where the editor has had no problems. Further, your frustration with comments here should never influence how you vote. How the editors who post here comment has nothing to do with Dr Chrissy nor should he be penalized for those comments. Finally, please assume the good faith to me that is being shown to you. I assume you are commenting as you honestly see the discussion. So am I. Editors have to know about what they are voting. I and others didn't, in part because this RfC came out of the human acupuncture article. Whether I vote to oppose or support the ban doesn't matter. What matters is that I and probably others voted in good faith one one issue and the ban extended to something else (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

Editors knew what they were voting on. The original proposal was a topic ban for DrCrissy on alternative medicine. There is no definition of "alternative medicine" that doesn't include Animal acupuncture. We cannot interpret the wishes of editors beyond what they wrote, and the insinuation that editors (like me) who support the topic ban just didn't understand what they were saying is insulting. I don't see anyone claiming that Crissy's topic ban extends to non-medical topics or animal behavior, so claims that it restricts his editing in those areas are incorrect. And you opposed the ban to begin with, so your comments were not misinterpreted to extend to something else.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you knew what you were voting on and no one is saying you didn't. Others did not. There is no insult or insult intended in noting that an RfC that which began one way changed course and in that change clarity of what the actual issues were was lost. This isn't about my vote its about clarity in a sanction which impacts another human being.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

• Procedural Comment There are three ways of approaching this. The first way is to suggest the close was improper and did not reflect what was determined by the community of users who participated in that discussion, and seek for it to be closed in accordance with what the community's view was. The second way is to suggest the community of users was not clear about what its topic ban was and should be invited to opine on what it actually intended for the topic ban to cover. The third way is to approach this as an appeal which accepts the previous close but proposes to narrow the topic ban. Whichever of the three approaches the case may be though (and at the moment it appears to be more than one), I don't see why users who opined at the discussion in the first place should not be notified and invited to comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Which approach to take doesn't really make a difference, but in case it matters, it's not a proposal to narrow the ban. Sme of those who participated didn't realize they were supporting a ban on animal-related editing (at least two have said as much), so this asks whether the topic ban covers animal health matters. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there is any doubt a topic ban was determined by consensus. But it was originally suggested a CAM ban (which would include animal CAM) was originally proposed; an uninvolved administrator should assess whether this was or wasn't the case. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: I participated in the original discussion.) As Chillum notes, the closure falls within the reasonable bounds of the closing admin's discretion.

  As a matter of procedure, it is very unusual for a third party to lodge an appeal of a sanction without the explicit direction of the sanctioned editor, where the sanctioned editor is not blocked or banned from AN/I, and where the sanctioned editor has offered no statement of appeal on his own behalf.

  As regards the specific sanction, the ban should certainly exist with regard to CAM topics (acupuncture, etc.) in animals as well as in humans; we otherwise invite DrChrissy to move his poorly-judged behavior in that area directly to a new set of mammals. (It's possible that promotion of, e.g., acupuncture would be less 'disruptive' on animal health and veterinary medicine articles than it was on articles related to human health. The problem is that 'disruptive' is generally measured by 'number of noticeboard threads' or 'duration of page protections' rather than direct harm to the encyclopedia. Because animal health articles have fewer watchers, on average, and because we aren't nearly as rigorous about enforcing sourcing standards on those articles, POV-pushing there will be quieter, but not necessarily better.)

  As a final aside, DrChrissy should be aware that he is lucky that he 'only' got this boomerang at AN/I. Though I doubt he realizes it, he is enjoying an undeserved reward for his hassling of JzG; if he hadn't taken his vexatious complaint to AN/I so quickly, his conduct would likely have been handled as a direct complaint regarding DrChrissy at WP:AE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I think SlimVirgin/Sarah is (I hope inadvertently) misunderstanding or misstating or glossing over the scope contemplated by the original discussion. The topic ban originally proposed by Kww at the top of the thread was explicitly on "a topic ban relative to CAM articles", full stop. There wasn't a cut-out or exception for animals; the proposed ban was never "CAM articles, except for CAM in animals". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• TenOfAllTrades, I think the whole discussion was confusing. It began as something unrelated, turned into a CAM ban, then into a biomedical one. People were supporting without saying which part they supported, there was barely any mention of animals, and the closer specifically told DrChrissy it only covered human biomedicine, before changing it. So the question now is whether it extends to animal biomedical issues. People can say yes or no, or no in general but yes to such-and-such a sub-category. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• To clarify based on your request on my user talk page, I strongly oppose your attempt to relitigate the topic ban, especially without getting a clear request, statement, or even permission from the user involved. I find it disappointing that you've chosen to completely ignore most of my comment, and that you're interested in what I have to say only for the purposes of boiling it down to a yes or no vote.

  Where an admin has exercised reasonable judgement, even to take an action that is merely 'reasonable' rather than 'perfect', it is not usually in our best interests as a project to encourage perpetual appeal and re-debate. This thread demonstrates the problem clearly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose narrowing:If his first edits fter being banned from discussing acupuncture hadn't been to Veterinary acupuncture, I could take this request to narrow the ban in good faith. As it is, I can't view it as more than an attempt to wiggle. DrChrissy is free to discuss animal behaviour, he is not free to discuss medicine.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Kww, the question is whether the topic ban should extend to animals. If you're opposing, you're saying it should not extend to animals. And it wouldn't be possible to write fully about animal behaviour without discussing health issues. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• No, as it stands, his topic ban does apply to animals: animals clearly and unambiguously come under the topic of "biomedical", and "veterinary acupuncture" clearly and unambiguously comes under the topic of "CAM". I made my position clear by including "narrowing" so that no one closing could make a mistake.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• The question is "whether the biomedical topic ban extends (or should extend) to nonhuman animals." This means the same thing whether the ban already covers X or doesn't already cover X. Adding an oppose that means the opposite of other opposes causes confusion. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• clarify that animal behavior is outside the ban per the examples give by SV in the OP. "animal welfare" falls too close to biomedical content since that is about health Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Allow animal article edits, broadly construed, including biomedical and alt-med or, in the alterative allow specifically clarified exceptions for animal articles: Very difficult to work on any issue about animal welfare OR behavior without a medical component (examples: Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals, which DrChrissy worked on quite a bit, covers animal welfare; Stereotypy (non-human), where DrChrissy has worked, is about behavior, but has medical consequences and solutions in some cases) To say that "biomedical" includes animals is going to just be a dramafest of people playing "GOTCHA!" Maybe add a 1RR restriction, if that will help. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment:The discussion here isn't about narrowing a topic ban, a reframe of the original issue, its about whether that ban was legitimate to begin with. The RfC did not indicate the vote extended to animal articles. Editors did not know they were voting to remove an editor from articles where he both had expertise and had done nothing to warrant a sanction. Admins do not have the remit to extend sanctions when there is no evidence of wrong doing. And Kww, Dr Chrissy's edits to animal acupuncture were uncontroversial and this was an article he had already been working on. Why would he not go back and work on that article. Once the extension to the original ban was in place and Dr Chrissy became aware of the extension, he did not edit animal biomedical articles again. There is nothing in his behaviour that indicates he was wriggling out of his sanction.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

• Oppose topic ban on animal articles I don't think there are reasons (yet) for DrChrissy to be banned from all animal medical and behavioral articles. I'd suggest that DrChrissy avoid 'veterinary acupuncture' and other veterinary topics that directly intersect CAM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Topic ban covers CAM. To be honest I'm not sure which way around "oppose" means, but the scope I had in mind was complementary and alternative medicine, regardless of species, and not other aspects of veterinary topics. BTW, the ping above didn't work for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Opabinia, "oppose" means oppose extending the ban to cover animals. When Beeblebrox first told DrC about the ban, he said it covered only human biomedicine, but he later broadened it, and it's this last point that triggered the objections. I'm interpreting your comment to mean you support DrC writing about animal health in general, but not about animal CAM, is that correct? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose narrowing. Admins have decided what to do for this situation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support narrowing - Per SlimVirgin. -A1candidate 20:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support narrowing - per SlimVirgin. Although Little olive oil also brought up good point above regarding whether it was a legitimate to begin with: "The discussion here isn't about narrowing a topic ban, a reframe of the original issue, its about whether that ban was legitimate to begin with. The RfC did not indicate the vote extended to animal articles. Editors did not know they were voting to remove an editor from articles where he both had expertise and had done nothing to warrant a sanction. Admins do not have the remit to extend sanctions when there is no evidence of wrong doing"--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Change topic ban to CAM both human and animal that should solve the problem.Bosstopher (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support narrowing I don't believe the discussion was on animal medical articles so they should not be included. But animal studies on human medical articles should be included in the ban because of the community consensus of the last discussion. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose narrowing of topic ban, support expansion to humans & animals Expert-shmexpert, some people can't exist under Wikipedia's structures, and he's one of them. BMK (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose narrowing The topic ban was clearly stated to be for "biomedical topics". "Biomedicine" is a composite term comprising of "biology" and "medicine", neither of which is specific to humans. Attempting to recast this story as being a ban from human medicine only is a little bit like saying that when referring to Europeans, everyone should understand that we only meant Germans. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Narrowing the topic ban The overall consensus seemed to hold the intent that DrChrissy would only be topic banned from articles related to MEDRS and Altmed. I'd support narrowing it to all articles where MEDRS could apply and all articles related to Alternative medicine (People, animals, or martians).-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not clear how this is different than the current ban. Surely all biomedical articles would fall under MEDRS to some degree, and the current ban includes alt med. That's effectively what I'm supporting. Can you clarify how your proposal is narrower? Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not completely different, but it should allow them leeway to edit Animal behavioral articles. It seems to have been suggested that they could not do so. It was suggested in the previous ANI that they had made useful contributions in this area. There's no reason to block them from that area unless they have been disruptive there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture in animals should obviously be included in the topic ban. Pregnancy in Fish and ect however shouldn't pose an issue unless there is clear evidence that they have been disruptive in such articles.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! To my recollection, no one supporting the topic ban has suggested animal behavior should be included, just health and wellness. I think we're saying the same thing: the ban should not be narrowed to humans as proposed; the topic ban should encompass the areas where Crissy has had difficulty, which include MEDRS and Fringe claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think we pretty much agree. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose narrowing to only humans. DrCrissy's problems were not related to dealing with human content, it was dealing with MEDRS and Fringe, as well as general battleground and IDHT behavior (probably related to the contentious topic area). I see no reason to believe these problems would not also appear on Animal acupuncture.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose narrowing to only humans. Jess has pretty much captured. my thoughts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support narrowing - to only human biomed/altmed. I did not comment on the initial ANI discussion that lead to the topic ban. In that ani, almost all difs provided were from a single article, acupuncture, and only one editor provided a dif of DrCrissy's editing related to animals. A number of comments mentioned MEDRS, and as a recent discussion on the talk page shows, there is not a clear consensus that this guideline applies to animal articles. With no difs showing a clear problem in editing animal articles, the benefit of the doubt should be given to DrCrissy to allow editing in this area.Dialectric (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support narrowing - to only human biomed/altmed. There is no evidence DrCrissy's behaviour has been problematic when editing animal articles. He is a major and valuable contributor to articles on animal behaviour. Making it difficult for him to edit in this area can result only in net damage to Wikipedia itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Topic ban for CAM as this is where the issues occurred. Other animal related topics IMO should be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment While the issue did occur at a CAM related article (as discussed in the prior ANI) DrChrissy has shown a questionable competency in regards to WP:MEDRS. I think Wikipedia has benefitted from DrChrissy knowledge as an animal behaviorist. I'd like to see that DrChrissy can continue contributing in this area because it does seem productive. However while they have shown competency in their field, they have shown questionable competency in the area of MEDRS. This seems to have played a part in their overall disruption. It does seem that they could continue in the realm of animal behaviorist, while staying out of articles related to CAM and where MEDRS would apply.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeal topic ban

I propose that the original topic ban be lifted until the community can reach a coherent consensus for its implementation. The reasons for lifting the ban (temporarily) are as follows:

• Beeblebrox (the closing admin) failed to give a logical explanation for issuing a topic ban - I have searched long and hard, but could not find anything that resembles a satisfactory explanation. The only possible reason given by Beeblebrox was WP:BOOMERANG [266], which is not a core behavorial policy or guideline, but a user-generated essay. It is absurd to issue an indefinite topic ban without stating the rationale for doing so. Even until now, I do not see any attempts by Beeblebrox to explain the necessity for their ban based on policies and guidelines (neither on their own talk page nor on DrChrissy's talk page). My honest attempts to negotiate the terms of the topic ban with Beeblebrox were largely ignored and declined. When pressed for further clarifaction by DrChrissy, Beeblebrox simply stated that they were "pretty much done discussing". As a result of Beeblebrox's uncompromising behavior, I have all but given up hope by now.

• Beeblebrox did not specify the parameters of the ban - At first, Beeblebrox claimed that their topic ban for DrChrissy applies to "human biomedicine" [267]. Then, they mysteriously changed their definition of the ban and extended it to "biomedical topics, broadly construed" [268]. Another administrator (Doc James) requested that the ban be limited to human medicine only [269], but Beeblebrox simply backed off from the discussion and refused to comment further. Instead, Beeblebrox claimed that they were now looking for a definition for "biomedicine", but strangely, they "haven't really found it" and they defined the ban as "anything involving the medical treatment of biological (as opposed to psychological) issues" [270]. They still have not clarified whether the ban is applied to human medicine only, or also includes veterinary medicine.

• The duration of the ban is too long: The purpose of a topic ban is to stop the disruption of notorious users, not to prevent good-faith editors from contributing high quality content. Even if there is clear evidence of wrongdoing (there isn't), a warning will suffice. An indefinite topic ban for an editor in good standing, without evidence of wrongdoing, is way overboard. I have seen editors take a voluntary 6 month topic ban, or perhaps even longer. But an unspecified topic ban for such a long period of time will do more harm than good in the long run.

• The topic ban was issued before community consensus was reached: DrChrissy's topic ban was first proposed on 14 May 2015 [271]. It was then hastily closed by Beeblebrox on 16 May 2015 with the edit sumamry "per request on my talk", just two days after the discussion had begun [272]. As stated earlier by administrator EdJohnston in response to a request to close the discussion: "I'd suggest letting this run at ANI for another couple of days" [273]. Did Beeblebrox listen to administrator EdJohnston's suggestions at WP:AN? No, they ignored EdJohnston and simply closed the discussion with the edit summary "done, closing" [274].

• There is no consensus for a ban: If there was a consensus, we wouldn't have had the need for this discussion again. I note that at least 13 editors either opposed the ban or suggested another action besides an outright topic ban [275]. There is absolutely no way Beeblebrox could claim that they have the community's consensus to issue such a lengthy, indefinite topic ban. Again, if there was any sort of consensus in the original discussion, we wouldn't have had the need for this follow-up discussion now.

I believe that a topic ban is a very serious restriction, and such a decision should not be taken so hastily. At the very least, it should run for a single week so that enough uninvolved editors may participate in the discussion. As a result, I propose that the topic ban be temporarily lifted until a clearer, coherent consensus can be formed by the community with regards to a topic ban for DrChrissy. -A1candidate 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Temporarily lift the topic ban until a clear consensus can be formed, as explained above. -A1candidate 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. DrChrissy was also topic banned specifically from alt-med articles by User:Adjwilley.[276] QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Woah, hang on there. That comment was in response to some confusion as to whether the topic ban of "biomed" specifically covered alt-med. My comment was that if there was any doubt I could remove that doubt by applying an alt-med ban under the Arbcom discretionary sanctions. However, there is now no doubt, since Beeblebrox has clarified the scope of the ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your previous comment for me. I agree there is now no doubt. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As Adjwilley wisely explained to me on my talk page:

"DrChrissy's responding to every "Support" vote did them more harm than good. If they had just made a single slightly apologetic post explaining some of the circumstances (bad environment, stress, etc.) the thread probably would have been closed in their favor. Pounding the table and demanding apologies or redaction only makes you look bad and annoys the admins"

Is using one's right to self-defense now a valid reason for a topic ban? I strongly suggest that we do not set such a dangerous precedent, but this is ultimately up to the community to decide. All I ask is that the community be given ample time to form a coherent consensus. -A1candidate 20:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The topic ban was for disruptive and WP:IDHT behavior. That behavior was exemplified in the previous thread, and was probably the main reason the thread was closed early. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what will serve Dr Chrissy best here, so am not voting now, but I am unclear what he was topic banned for. He was attacked many times, the tone of the article acupuncture was just plain vicious and I believe he was pushed to frustration. I did comment a few times on the article but left. Life is too short to deal with that kind of environment, and as a disclaimer I have no idea if acupuncture works or not so have no position. WP is very poor at dealing with experts who do not have all of the WP ins and out under their belts and we eventually lose those editors not to incompetency, but to inexperience in being able to deal with frustration and the often subsequent requests for sanctions. against them. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

Reply from closing admin:

• Let me start by saying I have not read the long wall of text in this thread, nor do intend to as I do not believe a re-examination of this subject is a worthwhile endeavor
• That being the case I really don't have much to add, the topic ban had support from a majority of particpants in the previous discussion, they based their arguments on Wikipedia policies, and I closed it early as an act of mercy, not out of any dark motivation. Continuing to re-argue it is in nobody's best interest.
• Do not expect further comment from me on this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• How gracious. Fuck up, walk away and don't look back at your mistakes. A bit too human for me.--TMCk (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-keeper that is unhelpful and uncalled for. It is hard enough to get admins to step up and close things. We have procedures to deal with disagreements over closes without personalizing things this way. Please withdraw that. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Check my comment at DrChrissy's talk for context.--TMCk (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

no excuses, it was obnoxious and should be striken Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 21:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What bothers me is when good meant honest mistakes turn into dishonest ignorance, I.e. the "you're wrong, and there is nothing to discuss as I'm always right" attitude.--TMCk (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

what motivates you is not relevant. The Magnificent Clean-keeper. your comment was bad behavior by you, and only makes you look bad. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the tribal kind; so if you think it makes me look bad, fine. I have no problem accepting your judgment, as your personal opinion that is. Keep in mind that I too am entitled to have my own personal views.--TMCk (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@TMCk - While Jytdog thinks that your behavior was bad, he has been repeatedly hounding me and DrChrissy on our talk pages [277][278][279] and using highly offensive words while reprimanding you for using the same words. Talk about hypocrisy! Oh and by the way, the closing administrator might wish to consider this offensive expletive by Jytdog as an example of how he treats other editors. Does someone need a topic ban? I think Jytdog does. -A1candidate 23:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's double standards are no secret to me but I feel no need to call them out. It could take away the fun I have watching them throwing stones while sitting in their glasshouse.--TMCk (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Opppose removal of topic ban BMK(talk) 21:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose remove of topic ban It was put in place for issues of competence and battleground behavior. If anything it should be expanded to a complete ban from the site. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 21:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose removal of topic ban And, if it is not removed, will we be subjected to yet another ANI thread? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• oppose and snow close. this from the editor who called the boomerang DrChrissy drew down on himself a "lynch mob". Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

General sidenote: The "lynch mob" type is roaming the internet even more than in real life. There is no exemption here nor for the rest of WP.--TMCk (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog Please could you explain why another editor's comments should be used in support of your !vote about my tban?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

He's referring to A1candidate comments because A1candidate opened this, it seems. It seems to suggest that A1candidate lacks credibility due to his prior comments related to this very matter.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose remove of topic ban First edit after TBan was on vet accupuncture, then he edited on accupuncture. This editor has continued to show they are not willing to understand or abide by the community in the matter of alternative medicine and biomedical articles. Seems to me he is trying to push the envelope hoping for some wiggle room. VViking_TalkEdits 23:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose removal and offer observation If you're trying to demonstrate the reasonableness of your perspective this incessant disputation isn't the way to do it. (I was also nearly ready to support a narrowing of the topic ban. But not after all this.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of topic ban The proposer is attempting to supersede the uninvolved admin's judgement with their own, in an area where their own judgement is lacking. [280] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of topic ban. A topic ban on CAM topics, broadly construed, is appropriate, and that includes CAM topics in the biomedical domain, broadly construed. That means that animal acupuncture would be off-limits. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Note: would people please post their comments in the top section about whether the ban covers animal biomedical issues. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

with friends like that...

I am abiding by my statement above that I do not wish to discuss the topic ban further, and it seems abundantly clear that literally nobody but A1 thinks it should be lifted entirely anyway. And that is what I am commenting on here, A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their self-appointed role as DrChrissy's "protector", who has managed to flog this issue back onto ANI when I would have thought if they actually cared about DrChrissy they would see that this was a very bad idea. Anyway here we are :

• [281] [282] in which they advise DrChrissy not to participate in this discussion, and offer to remove any intemperate comments they make. Not strike out, remove. I don't know that they actually did this, but I think we can all agree that such a comment reflects an alarming desire to whitewash the situation and hide the actual problem.
• [283] I pointed out the absurdity of this situation, where even the person who claims to be on their side basically told them to shut up and let the adults talk about it (which I would personally find extremely offensive, but for some reason DrChrissy doesn't seem to mind) And in response I got this [284] on my talk page. Note that it is both the last, and the final warning for my "harassment" of DrChrissy. I'm unsure what terrible consequnces A1 has in store for me should I say something else they don't agree with, perhaps we will find out when they read this posting.

So there you have it, A1 apparently believes they have taken charge of the situation and are making the rules for all the rest of us now. If I were DrChrissy I'd be looking for a new friend right about now, one who actually knows what they are doing and won't treat them like a child. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Should we not expect to hear the swish of a boomerang for such behavior? Can it be avoided? This seems like blatant meat behavior, so sharing in the guilt and punishment would seem appropriate. It shows that more than DrChrissy fails to understand the problem.

I urge A1 to be cautious and not sympathize with the offender. It only encourages them, and makes their rehabilitation nearly impossible. We'd rather that DrChrissy learned something from this. A1 can do good work elsewhere and need not dirty their hands with such advocacy for the convicted. Please avoid guilt by association. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In the ANI this ban came from there was abit of discussion about competency. A1 is trying to get the ban lifted but they are making DrChrissy look rather incompetent. Perhaps this is the irony Beeblebrox mentioned?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• How come that A1 is now the focus even so it was Sarah who brought this back to ANI? People ought to read from start to finish before posting.--TMCk (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

While Sarah asked for clarification on the scope of the topic ban, it was A1 who suddenly introduced the proposal for vacating the topic ban altogether. That's what Beeeblebrox and others are objecting to. Perhaps you should take your own advice with regard to reading more carefully. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That and A1 is telling DrChrissy to back off and allow them to handle it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! There's a huge difference. She still considers a topic ban to be proper, and the scope is her concern. A1 doesn't understand the problem and thinks DrChrissy has been unfairly judged. That shows a serious problem with A1's competency in this area. They are also taking the role of a proxy (meat puppet), so they should also share in the punishment. A1 has fine competency in other areas, so it's best they stop this and do more useful things. Right now they have thrown a boomerang which will come back and hit them in the back of the head. No need for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User Worthingexile

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.

---

Resolved

 – user blocked

Can we please block this user? They are creating made up nonsense pages left and right Gbawden (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be a problem to link to some of that nonsense, no? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Apocorex is the only available one by Worthingexile (talk · contribs). Four others were deleted.

And that is gone too. Looks like a classic case of a user WP:NOTTHERE. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave them a short block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Accounts changing hands for money?

CLOSED:

Elance account and ad taken down: thanks Doc James (and thanks Phoenix for reporting it.) Ad offered to pay for violation of Wikimedia's TOU, and at my guess infringed Elance's TOU. (non-admin closure) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Sounds like aTOU infringement, here and at Elance. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Integrity#Advertisement_:_Wikipedia_Accounts_wanted_for_purchase Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC) diff Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have offered at Elance. (As an aside, the WikiProject link is merely there to call attention to it, not actually request it.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User Worthingexile

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.

---

Resolved

 – user blocked

Can we please block this user? They are creating made up nonsense pages left and right Gbawden (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be a problem to link to some of that nonsense, no? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Apocorex is the only available one by Worthingexile (talk · contribs). Four others were deleted.

And that is gone too. Looks like a classic case of a user WP:NOTTHERE. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave them a short block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Diana Santoke

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.

---

Something is very awry with this article, the contributions of its creator user:Beautifuldiana and possibly also the contributions of user:Cooldiana. I'm not sure I have got to the bottom of the issue and would appreciate admin assistance.

Diana Santoke is a new(ish) article about an Indian actress in a soap opera called Zindagi Wins which came to my attention because it was an unreferenced BLP. I placed a BLP-PROD tag; it got moved to Draft:Diana Santoke for the creator to improve it but it was subsequently copy&pasted back to the original location to the article you see now - still without references. I BLP-PROD tagged it again and the creator has repeatedly removed the nomination rather than provide a reference. There are a couple of very poor references that could be provided (such as [285]) but it struck me as odd that (a) the creator has avoided doing so, and (b) there are actually very few possible references I could find - whilst there are quite a few pages that mention the soap opera Zindagi Wins, there are hardly any which mention it and Diana Santoke. Then I found videos on Youtube ([286]) which purport to show Diana Santoke in the soap and what they show is incredibly poor quality mobile phone "selfie" footage.

Almost all the signs are that Diana Santoke is not in the soap, and the article is a hoax - except that there are a couple of references that seem to support the fact that she is in it - the one given above, and [287], for example. I believe that an explanation is that those pages used misinformation either in Wikipedia or elsewhere without verifying it - and one very likely explanation is that they used Wikipedia following this edit by Cooldiana to the Zindagi Wins page which has resulted in it saying for over a month that Diana Santoke is in the soap - apparently referenced, but the reference was for, and moved from, a different actor.

There are some (off-wiki) indications that both Cooldiana and BeautifulDiana are both Diana Santoke:

• A forum posting by a Cooldiana says that their real name is Diana Santoke (the URL is www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4341908; it is a blacklisted address so I cannot post an actual link).
• Cooldiana's wikipedia contributions show an interest in Mihir Mishra and Box Cricket League and the description of this Youtube video by Diana Santoke expresses and interest in cricket and Mihir Mishra.

and, of course, the names are all "Diana".

I think it's relatively straightforward to conclude that the article on Diana Santoke is a hoax but beyond that things get a bit tricky. Cooldiana and Beautifuldiana's contributions are both entirely suspect, and difficult to verify because it appears misinformation is being propagated by potential verification sources. Whether there are other users associated with this hoax, and whether any misinformation has made it way back to Wikipedia is more difficult to asses.

RichardOSmith (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedied Diana Santoke as a hoax and warned Beautifuldiana. Since Cooldiana hasn't edited in over a month (and didn't edit Diana Santoke), that account may be abandoned. Miniapolis 23:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! In the absence of any concerns over the other edits by the two users I have no wish for this issue to be kept open. Beautifuldiana has recreated the article again but it's been deleted again and I've gone through "normal" channels to deal with that - I've listed the page at WP:RPP and the editor at WP:AIV for disruptive editing. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Swift attention requested: Kosi Onochie

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.

---

Kosi Onochie is engaging in excessive article moves, which looks an awful lot like vandalism. Please note their move history where you'll see massive disruption today, and also on May 1, 2015 where in the span of 2 days, this user moved the same page 9 times. [288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296]. User was also engaged in contentious edits like this one where he repeatedly added flag-laden, unsourced international broadcast tables in contravention of WP:V and WP:TVINTL. He seems to have cooled off on this recently, however it highlights the user's continuous editing against consensus and a failure to discuss. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to spend a while today cleaning up the huge redirect chains left behind by this user. Over the course of 15 minutes, they moved two articles 12 times each. They may be using the "Move" feature as a way to create dozens of redirects, but efforts to engage them on their talk page have been unsuccessful. This user may be capable of constructively contributing to Wikipedia, but it wouldn't hurt to remove their 'move' bit for a while. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing this time; maybe they'll look at their talk page now. Miniapolis 22:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: Kosi Onochie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Suspicious photos/user

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

---

I request that User:Psychonaught's IP address be located & reported too law enforcement as I believe he may be engaging in illegal activities. He has published numerous photos of illicit drugs (photos taken in his home), and has been involved in several rather suspicious discussions on his talk page. From I've read, he lives in California (a state that prohibits the use of Cannabis & Heroin, two of just many drugs he has photographed himself with).Citadel48 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well... the issue here is that you can't prove that he took pictures of drugs that he is creating, selling, and/or imbibing. It could just be that he happens to know someone who does and is photographing them, meaning that he's just a bystander. (Or he could hold a job like a police officer, journalist, social worker, etc that would be around people who have access to these things, which can happen.) There's really not much that this board can do about this and your only option here is to email Wikipedia at info-enwikimedia.org. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Also, while Psychonaught has not edited since January, you must inform him that you have mentioned him at ANI via the ANI notice template. I'll post it for you, but this is something that you need to do if you start a new discussion on here in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not going to happen, for a number of reasons.

1. WP:OUTING.
2. Do you have any evidence that shows that he took the photographs, where he took them, and that they are, in fact, illicit substances?
3. You did note that most of those photos were posted well over a year ago, right? That means the po-po can't get a warrant based on the photos.
4. WP:OUTING.
5. Don't be a dick. GregJackP Boomer! 05:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Since when does California prohibit cannabis? I will say I'm not exactly thrilled about the photo album though. AniMate 06:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm far more concerned about the gratuitous images of warfare, guns, legal alcohol, legal tobacco, and legal prescription drugs that are killing hundreds of thousands than I am by an image of cannabis. Seriously, get your priorities in order. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the weed photos don't bother me one bit. That would be very hypocritical. The pictures seemingly of heroin, coke, molly, etc... They make me a little uncomfortable for a variety of reasons, but I'm not advocating anything other than closing this section and strongly cautioning Citadel48 against legal threats. AniMate 09:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Haven't look into this, but if a photo says it's the photographer's "own", then he's vouching that he took it. However, nothing to be done. The drugs may be illegal but the pictures aren't, as far as I'm aware. It's possible though that whole page should go to MfD under WP:POLEMIC, if someone wants to bother. BMK (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Suspicous activity (creating autoconfirmed socks?)

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.

---

• Acid420 (talk · contribs)
• Acid420a (talk · contribs)
• Acid420b (talk · contribs)
• Acid420c (talk · contribs)
• Acid420d (talk · contribs)
• Acid420e (talk · contribs)
• Acid420f (talk · contribs) (one edit as of right now)
• Acid420g (talk · contribs) (doesn't exist... yet)

These accounts have made exactly 10 edits (to become auto-confirmed?), judging by the content (or lack of) of the edits they were made for the purpose of raising the edit count. Not sure yet what the purpose is going to be but this surely doesn't look innocent. Is it justified to checkuser for a possible older master account?

(Also I'm not sure if and where to post the ANI notice for this editor, or maybe it's a bad idea to notify them at all.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jeraphine Gryphon WP:SPI is probably the best place for this report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Since their first edit was undeniable vandalism, I'm filing an SPI now. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Filed and tagged. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

At this stage I'm not convinced that there is a violation of the sock puppetry policy as you're allowed to have multiple accounts without disclosing them and it doesn't looks to me like there is an obvious effort to avoid scrutiny which would have got them blocked. But it's definitely worth keeping an eye on, and maybe leaving the first one a message about sock puppetry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• A vandal creates 6 additional accounts and tries to get them all autoconfirmed, and we have to sit on our hands until the 4 days are up and they start using them? I think not. Blocking all of them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Abuse of revision delete by User:Ritchie333

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:Ritchie333 has deleted two edit summaries with the false claim that they consisted of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". The relevant edits are [297] and [298]. The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy. Especially, RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries. Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. 186.9.130.238 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he called someone an idiot, which is hardly constructive. It may be a rather liberal use of revdel, but not really "abuse". Also, I can't help but wonder, since Admin can only see revdel edit summaries, and the edits weren't in place for the public for very long, if someone is block evading here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the OP only has 2 edits so far, the obvious question to ask is what is his personal interest in this situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It is more than (quackingly) likely that this is yet another iteration of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. This same complaint has been made against other admins over the last several months. MarnetteD|Talk 15:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumably he calls someone an idiot and then gripes when his pearl of wisdom is erased. By the way, calling someone an idiot is a blockable offense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

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.

---

Legal threats here and here, claiming to be the patent owner of Jeans, and threatening to sue Wikipedia for claiming Levi's are the creators. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Their claims are bullshit on face value; the legal threat is secondary to the stupid vandalism that preceded it. --Jayron32 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Mass bio creation without establishing notability by Philafrenzy

It all started innocently enough.

1. On 15 April, Philafrenzy linked Romie Tager to a BLP I created on a autism researcher, Helen Tager-Flusberg. [299]
2. The first version I viewed [300] looked like a political hit job (those are going around these days in UK bios) or WP:BLP1E issue based on sources that did not rise to the level required for a BLP. It used sources like:
   • Gordon Ramsay: I was a performing monkey while father-in-law had a cushy office job, that had a passing mention of Romie Tager.
3. Not being familiar with UK law, I asked Bencherlite to look in. [301]
4. On 24 April, Bencherlite submitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romie Tager, and the article was deleted on 8 May.
5. On 8 May, Philafrenzy submitted it to Deletion review, where the discussion is now about four times as long as the article and twice as long as the AFD.

   Now, where my concern about WP:POINTy mass creation of bios begins:

6. On 9 May, in that Deletion review and in response to a statement that Romie Tager was as notable as Helen Tager-Flusberg, I pointed out PROF, the notability guideline for academics. [302] (It is a mystery to me why some editors can spend so much bandwidth arguing notability for a lawyer, when lawyers so frequently get passing mention in newspapers, rather than developing a guideline for notability for the legal profession. The equivalent for academics would be to claim a researcher is notable because they have ten articles published in PubMed. They aren't. We have a standard for academics.)
7. Today, 14 May, since I still have Philafrenzy's talk watched, I noticed another editor querying him about notability for academics, which led to me discovering that:
8. In the last few days, Philafrenzy has been mass creating bios on academics where no notability is apparent, nor is it established in the articles.[303]

   Just a few samples can be seen at:

   1. John H. Arnold (historian)
   2. Judith Colton ‎
   3. Catharine Edwards (historian)
   4. David Feldman (historian) ‎
   5. Vanessa Harding (historian)
   6. Julian Swann ‎
   7. Frank Trentmann ‎
   8. Sonya Rose ‎
   9. Dominic Rathbone ... and there are more.

9. WP:POINT-- Here is the conversation about the matter on Philafrenzy's talk: [304]

So, he appears to understand PROF and is creating mass numbers of bios of academics that don't seem to be notable anyway. Reviewing my past discussions with him, it is unlikely that any further attempt by me to converse with him will yield anything productive. If he is creating these bios to make a point, there are an awful lot of them that need to be dealt with-- I have tagged only some of them, and another editor has indicated they won't likely survive speedy deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mad conspiracy theory to be honest. There is absolutely NO connection between the creation of bios for professors of history at the University of London and the Tager article. Tager is a lawyer, not an academic. I do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. What point would I be trying to make exactly? Each of these historians would survive an AFD in my opinion. They are stubs that need to be expanded. What's wrong with that? Every article has to start somewhere. Sandy has never forgiven me for using the Daily Mail in the Tager BLP and I seem to have earned Sandy's eternal enmity for it. This has overtones of stalking. And what is a "political hit job"? Just to be absolutely clear, I have never had the slightest doubt that Helen Tager-Flusberg as a professor at Boston University is notable, nor have I ever suggested she isn't. The matter has never even been discussed as far as I can recall. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. of the linked articles one is a full professor at Yale, another the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism and another president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. I see the Colton article has just been expanded by another editor (not at my prompting), she won a prize for a book apparently. It will be interesting to see what other expansions are made. Stubs are not spam, they are a gift to the editing community. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue with most of the articles is not whether or not the subject is notable, but whether the article makes any claim of notability. Most did not. X is a professor of Y at the university of Z is not a claim of notability. WP:CSD#A7 is relevant here. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

At least two noted that criteria 6 of WP:PROF was met. I could easily have revised them to make the claim stronger but they have been deleted overnight it seems when I was not around to comment further. Can they be restored to my user space and I will work on them a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

These were:

Dominic Rathbone, president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlo Monticelli has also been deleted (who wasn't even mentioned above) and is a director of the European Investment Bank and one of the lead negotiators in the Greek debt crisis (stated to be such in the article with coverage in third party RSs). Could that one be restored too please? (see Sky News article "The Men Who Hold The Euro's Fate In Their Hands" Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Carlo Monticelli could have gone through an AFD process. It makes no sense to delete articles overnight--there needs to be a basic discussion, even with one-liners. We don't want to discourage article creators, just make them more discriminating.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see the misunderstanding. Notability is not inherited. Holding an office ina notable institution does nto confer notability, and is not even a credible claim of notability. Perhaps if the articles were longer than a single sentence there might be less of an issue. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Rathbone, Feldman (WP:PROF 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society") and Monticelli? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED (and indeed WP:NOTDIR). You need an actual claim of individual notability. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:PROF clearly says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." See point 6. And you haven't commented on the random deletion of Monticelli. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Subject specific notability guidelines are indications of the kinds of people who are likely to be covered by reliable independent sources and thus be considered notable. They do not mandate a list of bodies whose officers are inherently notable. The onus is on you, as author, to write an article that actually makes a substantive claim to notability (not just one which is obvious to you in your own mind). I have limited time for people who insist on an article being allowed to exist, but who can't be arsed to put in the minimal amount of effort necessary for the casual reader to understand why we should care. Several people have accused you of WP:POINT. I am inclining towards their view. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I see more evidence of WP:POINTy mass deletion of bios. WP:PROF is not always very helpful; we have thousands of academic bios we probably don't need, but in most fields lack say 50% of the actual leading figures - as usual fewer than 50% of the List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2015 had articles when announced, though again as usual the redlinks are going fast. At least those are specifically mentioned in the policy so safe from zapping. I can't see most of the list above, now red - I suspect zapping them was over-hasty. Use AFD, Guy, don't patronize very experienced editors by explaining basic notability policy to them. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Something is definitely wrong with an encyclopedias inclusion criteria when it is so much easier to be considerer notable as a porn star, a fictive character, or CEO of a minor company than as an academic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have always considered as assertion that someone is a professor at a University a sufficient claim to possible importance, sufficient to the extent that speedy is unjustified. It does not have to show notability. It does not even have to show that it probably will be notable (which is criterion for accepting an AfC). We deliberately don't use the word "notable" at A7. We can not tell whether they are an authority in their field without further checking, and we need to do that checking before deletion--and also before nominating for AfD. We use speedy when it is clear there is no reasonable basis for an article, and that the consensus of good faith editors would certainly agree with us. Such is not the case here. That does not mean that all professors at universities are notable, though I have observed that we have almost never deleted an article on grounds of notability for a full professor at a major research university unless there were some specific problem . In other cases we have certainly deleted articles, and I have !voted delete and closed as !delete when notability is not demonstrated.

Guy, you made these deletions without prior nominations. That is not a direct violation of policy, but in A7 situations it is not a good thing to do, because A7 is not black.white and all of us, including myself make errors. I have as much experience at deletion processes as anyone, and at least 1 or 2 % of my speedy nomination turn out to be errors. I know of nobody working there extensively who has a perfect record. (I would also support making this an absolute requirement for A7 and G11, both f which require sometimes disputable judgment)

I am reluctant to summarily reverting these deletions myself, especially if JzG continues to justify them, because my general views on notability are so different from his that I'm not sufficiently neutral. But if he or someone does not do so, they will be at DelRev tomorrow, with a copy of this as the rationale, where I expect speedy reversals.

It is however also true, that the rapid creation of stub articles on people in a single department of a university as in similar situation does invite scrutiny, & I always look very carefully if I see it at NPP. People who wish to do such article creations should make sure the articles are clearly sufficient before leaving them. But that does not apply here. All of them had quite sufficient information--including information addressing the fundamental criterion for WP:PROF, demonstrating notability by being an expert in their subject as judged by their publication record. Every one of them had books by the most important academic publishers, sometimes multiple books. That makes these deletions totally unjustifiable.

And I regard as assertion that a person has published a book by an established publisher as generally sufficient to pass speedy A7 (tho in some cases not speedy G11) . The reason is basically the same--it is an indication of at least plausible importance, and the possible notability can not be judged without further checking. Now, the case of NAUTHOR and NBOOK are two of the fields where I think our standards are too low. I have frequently nominated articles on authors and books for deletion at afd when I don't think that a reasonable interpretation of the criteria would justify an article, and I would also definitely advocate raising the requirements in NBOOK at least. But none the less I go by the accepted standards, not those I would like to have accepted.

Since every one of these people have written such books, and the publishers (usually CUP) are not in any sense marginal, there is certainly an indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

University presses (with the possible exception of OUP) have a pretty low bar when presented with an MS by someone within the institution. Of course there would be no problem if the article's creator could have brought himself to write more than a single sentence. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. Respectable University Presses (of which OUP, Cambridge, Duke, Harvard, Chicago, UCP, MIT, are some but there are many others) do not look at the authors affiliation at all when considering a manuscript. And they most certainly do not have a lower bar than comparable academic publishers - because that is what they are, they have to make profits on the books and cannot afford to publish bad books by local scholars (nor do they have any reason to).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

All of them had quite sufficient information--including information addressing the fundamental criterion for WP:PROF, demonstrating notability by being an expert in their subject as judged by their publication record. We have very different understandings of what WP:PROF says then, which is partly why I brought this here for other eyes (after seeing concern raised by one other editor on Philafrenzy's talk).

Separate from the notability issue, though, is the other issue of established editors who know (or should know, as opposed to newbies) how to write articles, but put up bios they expect others to fix (as in, working too fast and expecting others to do the cleanup). During all of this, Philafrenzy made this post which reinforces my concern about the quality of his work relative to editcountitis/speed.

It would be good if Philafrenzy understood-- considering his longevity here-- that this is not a good thing to do, specifically when the subject is a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:TEXTBOOKS does give more weight to books from academic presses than from general ones; but in general, notability of books comes from published reviews, translations, awards, and other secondary sources about the books. When listing books to document notability for a biography, I think it's best to find some external notability evidence for the individual books and cite it in the list. See e.g. Rubén Gallo#Books for a book list with some citations like that. Philafarmer, please consider that approach. The one-line articles sound like WP:KITTENS and deserve more care before being turned loose in article space. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DGG, now that my original concern requiring admin attention has passed (that the OP had gone on a pointy article creation spree after the rejection of Tager at AFD and Deletion review), I need to make sure I'm following the rest of the discussion and your reasoning on notability. As of now, your reasoning isn't clear to me (dumber than the average bear). I am at a disadvantage that I can't discuss specific examples, since I don't have the tools to see the deleted articles. Nonetheless, I think I understand so far that:

1. You are drawing a distinction between two separate issues: 1) establishing notability (which can be challenged at AFD); and 2) when there is sufficient cause for an admin to invoke speedy deletion criteria. I think you are saying that I correctly tagged the articles as needing to establish notability, but you are disagreeing with JzG's interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria.
2. And also separately disagreeing with my interpretation of WP:PROF ??
3. You are saying that in some cases if WP:PROF isn't met, WP:AUTHOR may be instead.
4. You are saying that (in your opinion) usually profs at major universities will meet either PROF or AUTHOR, and when those cases are debatable, that is challenged via AFD, but rarely with speedy deletion.
5. Even if the version of the article put up does not establish that notability, and even when (as in my case) separate google searches do not reveal notability ???
6. But you are not saying that so strongly as to suggest that JzG abused the tools-- just that the use of speedy deletion is open to different interpretation???
7. And then you're saying you disagree with the speedy deletion, which you will challenge, so the articles can be reinstated. At which point there may or may not be separate AFDs to establish notability.

Do I have those parts right so far? If I do, here is the part where you lose me: in this post, you encourage Philafrenzy to continue creating these bios, even before they are established as notable via AFD. So, then, I'm furthered confused by your reasoning on PROF and AUTHOR (again, at a disadvantage that I can no longer see the articles, but I know what I saw when I tagged them).

1. WP:PROF has 9 criteria that I didn't see met in any of those articles. Just being a prof at a university doesn't mean notability is met. Even a "major" university.
2. But I think you are basing notability then on AUTHOR, and I'm not seeing that either, because:
3. WP:AUTHOR lays out 4 criteria that I didn't see met on any of those articles, and establishing that one of those four is met would require additional investigation, possibly at AFD.

So, to help me understand your interpretation of either PROF or AUTHOR, not in terms of whether they meet speedy criteria or would pass AFD, but which would justify advising that anyone should continue creating these kinds of bios, please help me see where/how they meet AUTHOR. Or which part of the discussion I'm misunderstanding. We turn down bios like this that are at AFC and brought to WT:MED on academics all the time. If every academic who has written a book gets an article, that is a significant departure from business so far in the medical realm.

If this is better handled on user talk, no problem, but I didn't want to split the discussion unnecessarily. But what I'm getting is that :

1. JzG is saying if an article doesn't establish notability, and others can't find it, then it can be speedied, while
2. You are saying it's OK to continue writing bios that don't establish notability, and require others to do the work to try to discern or establish it (like uncovering book reviews), even if that means unnecessary process like AFDs.

Which I don't think can be what you are advocating, so ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I was indeed dealing with the immediate question of whether these articles should have been speedy deleted-. Being a professor at any university or writing any reputably published book is a sufficient indication of plausible notability, and these articles each had considerably more than that minimum,. I din't explicitly raise the issue, but since you asked, I am indeed saying that in my view JzG's deletions were not just misjudgments, but unqualified errors (tho I do not pretend to understand why he made these errors). If a candidate for Admin had made speedy nominations for articles like those, I doubt they'd be promoted nowadays.

Second, I also think they are notable beyond reasonable doubt, though all the evidence is not yet there to prove it. (the books , for example, need the reviews to be added) I think there is essentially zero % chance that any except the one I mentioned will be deleted at AfD. For the one I mentioned, I think it's about 20% possible there might be a delete. We'll see if I'm right, if anyone nominates them. My accuracy at predicting these is by no means perfect. The discussion of whether they meet the requirements should be better done at another place, normally the afds. /certain we don't decide on notability at AN/I. To avoid confusing the issue, I'll respond to you objections there if necessary. (I will only here clarify a few misunderstandings. in point 4, . Not all profs, but only full prof, or profs in the traditional UK sense, at major research universities are always notable. You left out the qualifiers. I think that very few Assistant end only some Associate professors even at major research universities are notable; I think most professors of any rank at predominantly teaching institutions are not notable. The full p@mru are notable as a matter of actual practice here, because we have always held so in the last 5 years: No full professor at a major US or European research university has every been deleted at AfD in the past 5 years, except for cases where there is prejudice here against the person's field (e.g. education, agriculture, business for example) or where the person is also known for fringe views either in his subject or in something else. I may have missed a few, but I challenge anyone to find 5 in the 5 years. The place to discuss it further, besides the individual AfDs, is WT:PROF) You raised the question, but I do not know where you get the idea that university presses are unreliable, or of relatively high quality. I think in the academic world with respect to the humanities, it is just the other way round: the only respected publishers that count for tenure are the major university presses, plus the academic divisions of a few commercial publishers. But this would be question at RSN, and I don't want to argue it further here.

with respect to your tagging. If you had added speedy nomination tags, I would have said say you did as incorrectly as JzG, except that his was an administrative act and should be held to higher standards. But you merely placed notability tags, saying additional evidence is needed. Additional evidence and referencing is indeed advisable, as with almost all WP articles. I would not have placed the tags, because in a case like these it is so easily corrected, and I consider there is no real doubt. But it you thought there was a doubt, you are in the right to say so. It is perfectly correct to place a problem tag if you think there;'s a problem, whether or not it turns out that there actually is. A problem tag is only marking an article for a further look, and unless it is done abusively or utterly absurdly, it's almost never wrong. We disagree, but it's expected people disagree. I don't see this as needing further discussion anywhere. I don't think anyone is challenging your tagging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:34, May 15, 2015‎

Thanks, DGG, for the clarification on full prof in major universities, which helps. One other clarification: it was not me who said that university presses are unreliable. My concern is that I saw the bios created rapid-fire, saw that notability wasn't established on any of them, did a google search for more info on the subjects, found nothing, and tagged them (knowing that meant someone else would have to clean up Philafrenzy's work).

I understand your views on notability now, respect that JzG's may be different, but I'm still not quite sure why editors should be encouraged to create bios without establishing notability, and I'm wondering if your library access means that you are seeing articles which make these people notable that I am not able to see. If that is the case, we again have bios being created that someone else has to finish. I have no interest in taking any of these to AFD as long as the underlying concerns (the pointy concern) have been addressed ... but what I still am seeing is that an established editor is creating articles without establishing notability, leaving work behind for others to finish and setting up the possibility of extra time-consuming process (AFDs).

I also see some disagreement expressed throughout this discussion about notability, so I'm left with the conclusion that ... if every historian is going to get an article, I am going to stop holding the line on every researcher who comes up at WT:MED, because I apparently am missing something.

Anyway, thanks for explaining your reasoning, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

just one point--the reason it is easier to determine this in science is the usability of citation indexes to show notability, and the fact that this is a measurement that essentially everyone working on here agrees with. And if you'd like to join me in my forthcoming proposal to restrict notability of routine academic books, I'd be glad of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would contest that, and say that any academic regardless of academic post and place of employment is notable if their work has been reviewed and referred to by their peers. If there are published reviews or other articles discussing their work, any academic should be considered notable per GNG. I do agree that making large amounts of contentless stubs is not helping anyone. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That amounts to an assertion of inherent notability. In science at least you will not get a job unless you have peer-reviewed publications, and I doubt if that's much different in other fields. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could part of the problem be that WP:PROF is a wee bit too restrictive? ·maunus said it best, something might be wrong in our criteria for academics. I never understood the logic behind a football (soccer) player in a fourth tier English team being automatically notable while an associate professor at a prestigious English university and with ten peer-reviewed publications in ranked international journals is disqualified by current WP:PROF criteria.Full disclosure of heavy bias: I'm an academic myself with a number of peer-reviewed publications in ranked international journals. I claim no neutrality in this matter - but I think it merits discussion. FT Reader^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one way to get around WP:PROF is to go by WP:GNG. We could do this if we were to consider book reviews and summaries of an academics' work published in peer reviewed journals as "non-trivial third party sources" that would to go towards satisfying the general notability. I don't see any reason that a review of an academic book should not give the same degree of notability as a press release turned into a news article for a CEO biography, or a press conference turned online news article for a minor celebrity. Academics are notable for their work, so any published source, including reviews and summaries in other people's research articles, should count toward academic notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That route, like citation indices, is certainly available (criterion 1) but not that often seen argued in detail at AFD, where most participants lack access and awareness of what they mean. Plus all these measures are subject to massaging that only those close to the field really appreciate. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does require expert level familiarity with the topic to use this approach. But I have used it with success myself, in specific cases where notability was contested in spite of an academic being a major figure in the field. (Not all important academics ever become distinguished or named professors for example).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Manus, That approach using GNG is one reason we have WP:PROF. In my earlier years here, I showed a few times that by using WP:GNG, every academic who had published papers that had been cited could be technically shown to be notable--which amounts to including all postdoctoral fellow in most scientific fields , and everyone further along. The result was obviously contrary to common sense, and I never really advocated we use it. But it shows the need for some more realistic standard. The best approach to a standard in general is the same as we use for WP:RS--to accept what people in the relevant field accept as notability, on the basis that they are likely to know better than us. I think the clearest example of this is our use of specific charts for notability in music--I may think it leads to overcoverage, but it is a comprehensible & determinable standard, and that's what is really important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:47, May 16, 2015

Ping only works if you spell the username right. WP:PROF does not override GNG. If an academic or her work can be shown to have been subject to non-trivial third party coverage, then they are notable. And yes that will mean that some postdocs are notable, and most academic. As long as we are as inclusive as we are on other topics, there is no valid reason to enforce a more restrictive standard for academics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This batch of A7 deletions was really poorly thought through and JzG who made them deserves a trout. Essentially, "X is a professor at [good university]" is already a claim of notability that should be enough to prevent A7 speedy deletion. To become professor, you have to have done something significant in your research area — maybe not enough for WP:PROF, but definitely enough for A7. Arguably that's true even to finish your Ph.D. And in the case of e.g. John H. Arnold (historian), we had not only that but five published books; as noted above, some of the others included society presidents etc. We do not need (and do not want) wording of the form "X is notable for..." in an article in order for the article to have a claim of significance. And these articles did have loud and clear claims of significance. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be in the business of deleting articles about academics. And if you're applying the same standards for A7 that you would in a full AfD, you're doing it wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with them being restored to Draft space and expanded to include some assertion of notability, but the articles themselves were a maximum of two sentences. More effort has already been expended by the creator in arguing the toss here, than on all of the content in all of the articles, put together. Think about that for a minute. All the reasons advance din this discussion as to why they are notable? Pity they weren't in the articles, because then we would not even be having the discussion. See my point? Guy (Help!) 08:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. The articles already included an assertion of notability, even in so short a state, that you were apparently not competent to read. It was not necessary to expand them to include an assertion of notability, because that assertion was already there. That is why your A7 deletions were wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? So simply being an academic is now a claim of notability? You live and learn. One of the articles ran to two short sentences, one sentence was the norm. Creating articles where you can't be arsed to even describe why the person is supposed to be important is a bad idea, and as I noted above this discussion is by now many times longer (and has been given vastly more work by the article creator) than all of the deleted items put together. Remember WP:BLP? I don't think creating tiny articles with no substantive content is a great idea. Apparently I am alone in this, though, so I will walk away. And I do hope that Phila will actually take the trouble to write at least a properly formed stub in future. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you could have just not abused A7 in the first place and this would have been a lot shorter.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

On creating stubs

• Guy, you are not being fair. It takes a long time to produce a decent stub if, as I did,

1. You check whether it already exists in some other form of name
2. Consider what the best article name would be (it's not always obvious)
3. Create redirects from variants of the name (I did)
4. Add the article to the disambig page for common names (they often have these)
5. Add incoming links
6. Do a Google search and read the sources
7. Create offshoot articles (the Pears Institute)
8. Write the actual article
9. Format the content, particularly the books and add wikilinks
10. Add relevant categories
11. Create the talk page with project(s)

I took a lot of care with these - they were not thoughtlessly spat out as one line stubs at all and to be honest I resent the belittling of my work. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Our coverage of academics, particularly women is very poor on here. If philafrenzy could create them at a minimum length like Judith Colton, but with a few sentences also explaining what her work involves and why she is noteworthy of mentioning here, I'm sure Sandy wouldn't object. There does need to be a few facts given to make them worthwhile I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fair comment, I could have done more, but I had already done everything mentioned above. Colton was then expanded by others as a result of my creation of the stub. Nobody else had got round to creating it in the last decade had they? Who knows how large any of them will get if someone will just start them? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand the exasperation with the extent of missing content. But to really make the stubs worthwhile I do think if you could at least say, for example: xxx is an American scholar and archaeologist, Professor in Linguistics at xxx university. A xxx graduate, she is particularly noted for her research into Mayan petroglyphs. In 1987 co-authored a book on the ancient practices of the Yucatan, after extensive of study of the xxx site in the mid 1980s. Since 2001 she has been a member of the American Linguistics Association, with whom she has published several textbooks for students. That sort of length with an understanding of why they are included in the encyclopedia is fine and productive IMO. They don't have to be meaty stubs, but really need some bare facts to work with for the readers I think. I made the mistake years back of "sub stub" creation, and in the long term it's not a good idea. There has to be a compromise. I find sub stubbing say 3-5, and then quickly going through them adding a bit of content and sources is the best way to be efficient on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's good constructive advice. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You can also quickly draw up book citations here which makes stub creation much for efficient. Sometimes you have to be careful with some of the google listings though, as occasionally errors are produced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, I use that app constantly but you have to check the content against the scanned page very carefully. The problem is in the underlying Google database. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Catching up, thank you Dr. Blofeld for making some headway here on what the serious, underlying problem is with this kind of (what I characterize as disruptive) editing.

As a content editor, I'm dismayed to see that what was once standard adminning (articles that don't establish notability were deleted, and editors who continue to put up articles that don't establish notability-- after being told of the problem-- are subject to being blocked for disruption) has changed to actually encouraging an editor to continue doing the same. This isn't the place for that discussion, but where this will lead in articles related to medicine will create boatloads of extra work for the rest of us, which brings me back around to the disruptive editing factor involved here.

Philafrenzy, you spent how much time laying out the amount of work it takes to create a bio stub above?? I'm sorry, but I do it all the time, I do it right (including cats, etc), and it takes me about 20 minutes to put up an article that establishes notability and won't require other editors to do MY work for me.

Here's the rub-- all the work that you are NOT doing is then work that others have to do when the new article pops on new article watch lists. How is it that your time is more important than the time of others? Is it just about quantity over quality? And if you were the subject of a BLP, would you be happy if someone put up a crap article on a highly trafficked website that became the first google hit and was riddled with maintenance tags? That is what you are doing to people.

You already knew the sources, you claim these people are notable, but you couldn't take the time to put that info in the articles so that I didn't have to expend time on searches, when I have no access to a university library?? Your argument that putting up a stub is time-consuming is bogus-- I do it, and I'm not even a good writer, so can you-- but your further argument that it takes too much time for you to do it right (followed by your query about editcountitis) is an insult to the rest of the editors who then have to take even MORE time to clean up after you.

Good on the old style admins like JzG-- who know what the standards once were in here-- and I say if you take the advice to continue doing more of same, you are engaging in disruptive editing. Establish notability on bios (not DGG's "presumed" notability) when you put them up. Your time is not more valuable than everyone else's here, and please ... take some pride in your work, at least when you are writing about living people. Please consider the quality of your work: if you can't do it for pride in your own work, then do it so you won't disrespect the rest of us (who have to clean up after you), and the subjects of the bios (who will find themselves with a first google hit to an article riddled with big ugly maintenance tags). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: I recreated Julian Swann. If you can aim to produce them at the very least about that sort of length and comprehension, not even a meaty stub but with the bare essentials which are informative to the reader it really makes a big difference. I presume he's English, I'm not certain though so if you check I'd be grateful. It could really use some more independent sources though, the university and book are acceptable, but needs more third-party sources to really demonstrate notability, I couldn't seen a abundance of material about him initially, mainly references, but he does meet WP:Academic. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr., how long did that take you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

About five-ten minutes I'd say to do a quick search and compile some basic facts and start it. Most of the later edits were tweaks/minor additions, checks/link corrections etc so maybe 20-30 minutes in total. When I'm editing though it really feels like five or 10 minutes at most. Well put it this way, if I quickly stubbed 3 or 4 or them, I reckon I could have them all up to a bare minimum acceptable stub, each with at least two sources in about 45 minutes, something like that. The problem with a lot of academics is that while they're undoubtedly notable authors of books/papers, a lot of them really lack biographical coverage and the "meat" you get with a lot of the really notable figures and lack an abundance of material written about them. In some cases I wonder if we'd be better off having articles on the Faculties of certain universities and bio summaries of the professors in them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any need to change the way we do business (bad cases make bad law, and I'm not sure we gain anything by using these samples to suggest there is anything wrong with our notability pages-- there is I suggest a problem with the message we have sent that the kind of editing evidenced in this thread is acceptable. Establishing notability should be the minimum acceptable threshold, and it is just not that hard. THEN, avoiding attack bios and BLP issues is another threshold, but I hope that message has been received by now).

But what I'm getting at here is that the first version someone puts up is then scanned and viewed by multiple other editors who review new pages, and it just doesn't take that long nor is it that hard to put up something that doesn't need maintenance tags, establishes notability, and then can be expanded without leaving a real, live person with a crap bio as the first hit on google. Ten to twenty minutes is not too long to spend on a bio of a real person who is affected by sloppy editing; anyone who can't take that time shouldn't be writing bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I just did a test Sandy and timed myself. It took between 10 and 11 minutes to create the initial stub for Sonya Rose, and about 3 minutes checking links and typos. Obviously I haven't looked further afield in google books or whatever yet but for that really bare minimum stub yes, little more than 10 minutes work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort here, Dr.! (But add a few minutes for WikiProject and BLP tagging on the talk pages :) Of course, those can be done after the bio is put up, because the absence of them does not require article tagging ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Finished Sonya Rose, ideally that is the sort of new article would like to see, borderline start class, took 35-40 minutes in total, a lot of that time was reading/research too rather than actual writing. Something which makes it look like we understand who she is. But the 10 minute minimum stub is acceptable and quite manageable if you've got a few to create Phila, if the others are as notable as Sonya they would never have got deleted if you'd added some bare facts. If you want some assistance feel free to ask me, but I'm not going to recreate all of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Why, Dr., you deserve a barnstar! (Except an editor I respect told me that barnstars are for barns, and collecting them is Not A Good Thing :)

Now maybe you are just the person to explain to Philafrenzy that if he digests the message, I will have forgotten our differences a few days from now :) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Phila, Adding a "linkrot" tag to an article that you just created yourself and on which you are the only editor seems kind of weird to me... It was removed 7 minutes later by somebody who made the (small) effort to run Reflinks. Now why couldn't you do that yourself, that only takes 30 sec... --Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Romie Tager deletion review

A related admin question while we're here ... Romie Tager was closed at Deletion review about 12 hours ago, but it's still there. What's the next step, who does it, why hasn't it been done, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Re-deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. I closed the debate and didn't notice that it had been restored for the debate. Thanks for covering for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, David Eppstein. Would it be appropriate for someone to close this thread now? It looks like we're done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind; it looks like Philafrenzy would rather continue this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think we await your apology Sandy for sending us all on a wild goose chase. You seem so far to have escaped criticism for your mad conspiracy theory. No wonder you want this thread closed as quickly as possible. Will you apologise? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see your concern; I am so anxious to have the thread closed that it took me two days to come back here.

  Have you thanked all the editors who have cleaned up those articles after you? I just checked Dr. Blofeld's talk, and didn't find anything. In fact, all I find anywhere is a discussion between you and DGG indicating something would be better addressed in a phone conversation-- that's odd. [305]

  Did you learn anything about the quality of your contributions, Philafrenzy? I hope so. I learned a lot about speedy deletion criteria, which were never engaged by me, but by JzG. I suggest your wild goose chase wasn't mine, but someone else's. As a result of this, should you adjust your writing, you could gain my respect, and maybe even a recognition of the value of your contributions. As it stands, I suspect you are infected with the DYK-inspired "quantity over quality" issue. Based on that latest post, I don't hold out any hope that your contributions will improve, but please do surprise me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see it's everyone fault but your own. Even JzG. You should apologise for wasting a huge amount of volunteer time based on nothing but a mad theory from your own feverish imagination, but it's clear you won't and, sadly, I am not surprised by that. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• You make an excellent point. Perhaps next time, rather than raising a valid concern at the appropriate forum, I'll pick up the phone and call an arb. You may have the last word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion reviews

I have just brought 6 deletion reviews for the articles that have still not been restored.

• Wikipedia:Deletion review#John H. Arnold (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#David Feldman (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Frank Trentmann
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Dominic Rathbone
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Katherine Edwards (historian)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Vanessa Harding (historian) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be grateful is some other admin would restore the histories for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis

Administrator TParis, closing a WP:ANI incident last year related to calling a BLP subject a "denier" or "skeptic", said:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014

TParis has retired so we cannot turn to him for confirmation or retraction. The issue has resurfaced for another BLP subject, Anthony Watts (blogger). TParis's instructions have been questioned, for example on the talk page. The majority of recent editors of the article are upholding a quote of "denial" in the lead (for example here referring to Watts's blog), and some editors are insisting on keeping sentences containing "skeptic*" in the body (for example here). Currently we know of more "skeptic" than "denier" sources but that could change. I am asking for a statement now equal to "TParis was right" and the statement was meant to apply to BLPs where future skeptic-versus-denier fights arise. I will put a note that I have asked for confirmation, on the article's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Watts is a very prominent source of climate denial propaganda, he is associated with the engine of climate denial, the Heartland Institute. There is a great deal of motivated reasoning on that talk page, all of which boils down to people trying to neuter the fact that climate denialism is bullshit and Watts' blog is probably the most visited source of climate denialist talking points.

For the avoidance of doubt: TParis was right. This is not remotely controversial as a statement of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a skeptic. "Denial" is a smear term (calculated to bring up equivalence to Holocaust-denial). It is dishearening to see pretenses to neutrality so cavalierly thrown over the side. Pax 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he's not a skeptic, any more than the Australian Vaccine Skeptics Network are skeptics. He is not skeptical about material that supports his agenda, and he is engaged in a peudoscientific attempt to prove a pre-defined conclusion. At best this is peudoskepticism, but in fact his activities are part of the cottage industry of climate change denialism.

Meryl Dorey is not a vaccine skeptic, she is a vaccine denier. Vincent Reynouard is not a holocaust skeptic, he is a holocaust denier. Anthony Watts is not a climate change skeptic, he is a climate change denier. The fact that sources historically permitted the self-applied label "skeptic" does not change this.

As Christoff noted: "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Whether he is retired or not, TParis should have been notified about this thread, so I have done so. As it turns out, he has been around a bit since his retirement. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• TParis might not be around any more (alas), but WP:V and WP:NPOV haven't much changed in the meantime. It seems tendentious to pretend that this article's wording was the result of one admin's whim rather than core wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Watt's is a classic climate change denier, i.e. http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/ More on the topic see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• This looks like a content dispute. It would be better resolved at WP:BLPN. ANI is not the place to hold a vote on whether someone is skeptic or denier. If someone is editing disruptively or hurling personal attacks, then it would become a matter for ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, though TParis is disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, the editor is still paying attention. I had a nice chat with TP on their talk page just a couple of days ago. Friendly words might help motivate them to return. Just a hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• This thread is not about the content dispute. It is about whether TParis was right to say that such a dispute should be settled by counting the sources, and TParis said it on WP:ANI. It was brought up on WP:BLPN long ago and went nowhere. Actually I believe edit war is happening (a sign is that the article's revision history for the last month has "rv" or "Revert*" or "Undid" in 68 edit summaries), but maybe some editors will be pacified if it's stated firmly whether the majority of sources matters. I'm reading in: reliable sources that wouldn't violate wp:blp. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, it went "nowhere" at BLP/N, because consensus is against you, and only activist editors support the BLP claim. You forgot to mention the there was (still open) a related thread at the FRINGE noticeboard as well, and that the attempts to appeal to WP:WTW has not worked, and has resulted in a move to rewrite the Guideline.

That would seem to raise the question of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because the opinion an admin stated in a previous close is not a legal precedent, for starters, so maybe this is also a bit of [[WP:WL|lawyering], too.

Accordingly, if anything, a BOOMERANG would be in order here, but it bears mentioning that the fact that some editors think you are flirting with AE has already been raised, on your talk page as well, I believe.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit is wrong about wp:blpn (there was no consensus), half-right about wp:ae (I was threatened but the canvassing against me went nowhere), wrong about wp:forumshopping (if it were true then everybody who goes to wp:ani would be guilty). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle a content dispute, which should be done by going through dispute resolution. It's one thing for someone to be blatantly violating BLP, but in this case it's a difference of opinion between calling him "skeptic" and "denier." I would vote "denier," as that is clear from the sources. (see subsequent comment re strikeout) But administrators don't run one-person tribunals adjudicating such disputes, so it doesn't matter if the admin in question is here or not. They are not super-users with superior powers of judgment. Sometimes quite the opposite is the case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When an admin closes an AN/I thread, s/he does not create some kind of binding principle. Cardamon (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. S/he may, however, articulate a settled consensus interpretation of policy, as TParis did here. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As may any editor. Admins don't have any special role in terms of deciding what is the proper way to apply policy. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, but my own opinion is that we should have firm policy against that sort of descriptor in the infobox of lead sentence. Even if the person calls himself such, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. That we permit otherwise is in my opinion a perversion of the policy of WP:NPOV, and the two supporting guidelines on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We'll still have to argue about how to say it, but it won't have the same focus. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed use of "skeptic" is a case of quote mining, neglecting the context.

The first sentence of the lead of the Wikpedia article on climate change denial reads (underlining added)

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

The second sentence of the Watts BLP reads

He operates Watts Up With That?, a weather and climate change blog that focuses on the global warming controversy and his opinion that the human role in global warming is insignificant.

This sentence has a citation with the quote, "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis".

The Wikipedia article on environmental skepticism clearly distinguishing it as not being scientific skepticism, and there are other sources for that. Non-specialist mass media cites that use "skeptic" are not as reliable as a notable climatologist published in book for by an academic press.

Mann's opinion represents the scientific consensus on Watt's blog, as he appears to be the only RS scientist bothering to publish a comment; there isn't any SYNTH or OR involved in citing his statement in the lead as representative of the mainstream view. The only point of contention is whether or not Mann's view is the mainstream view.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• In most cases we should refrain from descriptive hotbutton terms unless virtually all sources use such a descriptor and then we must attribute it exhaustively. I would prefer that in the case of Watts, we not follow the lead of news sources and instead say that he (his blog) disagrees with or contests the scientific consensus on climate change.--MONGO 12:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I endorse completely what MONGO said above, and I meant to include this point in my comment. Cherry-picky descriptors of this sort is very common, and illegitimate. For anyone sufficiently controversial, you can pretty much find a short quotation or phrase that says almost anything. It's another reason for graat caution and for avoiding such characterizing phrases. Complex positions on issues cannot be fairly reduced to one word, and anyone who tries -- however good their intentions -- is likely to be inaccurate. As for the question in the headline here, if the quote given is representative, then I (and MONGO) would definitely not endorse the 4th sentence of what TParis said as being proper NPOV policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• MONGO is correct. "Denier" is a known pejorative with no other purpose than to link him to holocaust denial. We have an alternative term that is widely used in sources called "skeptic" which avoids the BLP violation of linking Watts to the Holocaust (any link, no matter how slight is unacceptable). --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would wish to clarify that my amateur opinion of the blog whatsupwiththat is that it has presented inaccurate data to support the premise that the scientific consensus on climate change is not fully accurate. I do not think that that blog is always wrong as some information posted there is accurate, but not enough that it could be used ever as a source to discredit the scientific consensus. Even given that, the bottom line is that in a BIO and especially a BLP, hotbutton descriptors are not needed to convey the appropriate message that the blog is not a reliable source, regardless of what other sources say about that blog or the blogger himself.--MONGO 13:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward It is patently false that editors characterizing Watts' blog as a "climate change denialism" blog are trying to "link him to holocaust denial". WP:NPA

Making recourse to "holocaust denial" in this context is WP:OR, at best, as not a single RS that characterizes him as a "(climate change) denier" engaged in "(climate change) denialism", or running a "(climate change) denialst blog", etc., does so. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is the use of the term is not needed to convey the knowledge needed to have an informed opinion on the blog.--MONGO 21:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I am quite willing to AGF that you are unaware of the connection that is made between the two. Now that you are aware, however, it is with complete disregard to BLP to continue endorsing "denier." It is well established that there is intent to link the two whether or not that is your intent. "Skeptic" is just as valid a description as "denier." After being told that it is offensive to both climate change sceptics and Holocaust survivors to use that term, you should stop. It's like using the term "National Socialist" to describe a political position. No matter how strong your case is that the two words are accurate, it will never escape the stigma and will never pass the BLP test unless they self describe as that. Sorry, but that's reality. Please stop calling living people "deniers" now that you are aware of its pejorative context. And here's just one of many sources [306]. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the name for this rhetorical maneuver? Not Godwin's Law, but the assertion that if your opponent uses a particular word, *they* will violate Godwin's Law, so they'd better stop? Whatever it's called, it's stupid. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is Godwin's law and the people that started using "denier" lost when they invoked holocaust language to describe their political opponents. That's how stupid it is. There is no doubt where "denier" began and what its purpose was. Why cling to the word if it didn't bring such visceral emotions? This tactic is common in politics, not so common in pure science and academia unless they are politicized. At least in the last Arbcom when editors used the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" we didn't have ideologues trying to feed us a shit sandwich as if it were chocolate cake. It's a shit sandwich. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That is nothing but rhetorical bluster, and it seems that you have some irrational bias against the common terms "climate change denier"170,000 hits and "climate denier"133,000 hits.

The scatological rhetoric in your post borders on a personal attack. It definitely is a personal attack to call editors ideologues that are using reliable sources or invoke "holocaust denial" against them; furthermore, consensus is clearly against you and others railing against Mann's and others' characterization of Watts and his blog.

If you have an irrational bias against the terms "denier", "denialism", etc., which are applied by WP:RS to Watts and his blog as cited in the article and available for the counting on the Talk page, perhaps you should read Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest.

As I said above, it seems that the only issue is whether Mann's (and the others') characterization is the mainstream view; i.e., an NPOV issue. That makes it a content dispute, and WP:CONSENSUS is against you, I repeat.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

No, I think this is a case where consensus in support of "denier" cannot be reached, with a plausible argument identifying it as a BLP violation (due to the similiarity with "Holocaust denier"). "Denier" is unnecessarily inflammatory, the term "skeptic" is more neutral and, in the absence of exhaustive proof demonstrating that a clear majority of RS describes him as a "denier," Watts should be described as a "skeptic." Feel free to invest the next three days posting that exhaustive proof, or accept the word "skeptic." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So, consider this quote from a 2010 article in Nature Medicine, by Megan Scudellari [307]: "in the public sphere, a different type of dissension is spreading through media outlets and online in an unprecedented way--one that challenges basic concepts held as undeniable truths by most researchers. 'Science denialism' is the rejection of the scientific consensus, often in favor of a radical and controversial point of view." I read this and think that the term "denialism" stems from the idea that "undeniable truths" are being challenged--some examples of denialism from this article are the idea that vaccines cause autism and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. According to DHeyward's argument above, though, Scudellari's actual motive is to associate these ideas with Holocaust denial through the use of hotbutton language! How dare Nature Medicine and publishers such as Routledge, Oxford University Press, and Springer (see Ubikwit's list of sources above) spread such calumny? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Scudellari's actual motive is to associate these ideas with Holocaust denial ... There's always that possibility. The term "skeptic" is less inflammatory, in widespread use, and entirely adequate for this purpose. I suspect that at least some of those editors pushing for it are also pushing a POV. We have no need to go there. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Denial" is a normal, everyday word. It has a normal, everyday meaning which is not tied to the Holocaust. That it was also selected to refer to a group who rejects the academic consensus on a totally different issue does not mean it can't ever be used in the future for its normal, everyday meaning. If you want to claim "climate change denial" is a reference to the Holocaust, provide sources. In the meantime, it is an exceedingly common label for this movement. And no, "skeptic" is not some totally neutral term for the same thing: it is inaccurate, less widely used in academic literature, and heavily promoted by those in the movement as PR. Lastly, this doesn't belong on ANI. Admins don't supervote or singlehandedly define policy, and no sanctions are being requested. This section should be closed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

TParis wasn't really correct on this. There is no principle at all on WP that we use the exact terminology preferred by a flat majority (i.e. even a hair over 50%) of sources. If usage is split, with some sources using one term and others using another (here some preferring "skeptic", others "denier"/"denialist"), the very fact of this labeling dispute among the authors of the sources is a clear indication that we cannot neutrally favor one over the other, but must report that views of the subject are mixed. I agree entirely with Mann_jess, that "denial" and its derivative words like "denialism" are normal, everyday words, and not magically tied somehow to the Holocaust. Denialism affects many topics and disciplines, and climate change is certainly among them, along with vaccine safety. We have an entire article, Denialism, about this, and it notably has a whole section (with sources) about climate change denialism. If we have reliable sources that identify this particular biographical subject as a denier/denialist, we have to allow for that terminology in the article, though the reasonable thing to do is note which or at least what sorts of sources use it, vs. those that use "skeptic". The idea that "denier" is some kind of loaded, scapegoating pejorative that triggers Godwin's law simply isn't supported by any evidence from dictionaries, usage guides, etc. Some people believe the same thing about the term "revisionist", but it's not true of that word, either. Idiosyncratic personal redefinitions of terminology are not something ANI should be using as any basis for making decisions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Just catching up with this discussion, which I'm a little surprised to see is still ongoing. I've been convinced by subsequent commenters that in fact "skeptic" is more appropriate. The good arguments made for "skeptic" underline my initial concern about an administrator making an interpretation of content policy as happened in this instance. These sorts of things should go through DRN if they are not resolved, and administrators should not be resolving them. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editor threatens editors with mentioning them on external attack site

• No, it's not resolved, please see below. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

AnnalesSchool is a long-term tendentious editor who is chronically attacking his perceived opponents. In his latest outburst he mentions that an external website which is probably connected to him is going to mention us and is calling his opponents "nuts" and "off our rocker": You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The last thread on Talk:Greco-Italian War is littered with his attacks and crass sarcasm and I have given him level 4 NPA warnings on his talkpage in the past and in the latest thread at Talk:Greco-Italian War. His incivilities are too numerous to mention. The project is littered with the his widespread atacks. But I will provide another example of his vile attacks: He had told editor Cplakidas at Talk:Greco-Italian War: Sounds like you actually admire the Germans a lot more because they were more brutal and efficient. Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?. I ask that this editor be blocked for serially violating NPA, CIV, AGF and being tendentious as well as threatening other editors with mentioning them on external attack sites. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Details about the external attack site

The external attack website AnnalesSchool maintains and uses to attack Wikipedia editors is called www.comandosupremo.com and his attack article is here: What is wrong with many Wikipedia articles dealing with war-time Italy? in which he mentions: This particular article is held hostage by a small clique of Grecophiles with Greek-sounding usernames who have simply confiscated the entire article and laid claim to all editorial rights to it (which is against Wiki policy) so that it is well nigh impossible to actually improve and cleanse it of its many defects. It would better to delete such articles entirely and start again. But what is really sad is that these so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way, are not even aware of the damage they are doing to Wikipedia’s reputation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I've seen AnnalesSchool's editing in Military history of Italy during World War II (e.g. [308] , [309]). He is very set on focusing on the specific school in history that "rehabilitates" Italy's military reputation. He does use sources, and it is a historical school that deserves to be mentioned and discussed on Wikipedia, but it's also a school that self-admittedly portrays itself as the "underdog" against the "established history", which implies that Wikipedia should still focus on the mainstream historical assessment, which all sides can agree is less kind to evaluating the effectiveness of the Italian military. I think AnnalesSchool is still potentially a valuable editor so long as he or she is reminded that the "revisionist" claims are not necessarily right and shouldn't be included as a new revealed gospel truth, but merely as a notable alternate view. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• But this report is not about AnnalesSchool's adherence to a particular school of historical thought. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This report also shouldn't be about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website. The only time I've seen off-Wikipedia posting considered is if the editor outs another editor on their blog or website but that is not the case here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So an editor is allowed to threaten other Wikipedia editors with on-wiki comments like this: Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. which use an external attack site as the threat? And this report is not only about the external attack site but also about the serial incivility of AnnalesSchool. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Before looking at the comandosupremo page, I questioned your conclusions — why would you allege a connection? Without a connection, this kind of statement is basically "look what an idiot they think you are, and what idiots they think the Wikipedia community is". But when the article's written by someone called "Annales" who, from his first sentence, is obviously involved as a Wikipedia editor, I see no reason to doubt the connection. It's not an attack page, or anything else prohibited by our policies, but I see this as playing into a general pattern of disruption. I see one clearly bad edit (the diff immediately after "AnnalesSchool's editing in") and lots of warnings on his talk page, but what about other problems? Given the warnings, if he's really being disruptive, there's no reason not to block if he keeps on going, but I don't want to block unless you can show me that this really is a pattern of behavior, either long-term or just recently. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted User:TomStar81 to this post: he's followed up on previous problems with AnnalesSchool's editing. As a comment, the problems with this editor's POV pushing, personal attacks and misrepresentation of sources have been long running. Liz is mistaken in saying that conduct such as what's being reported here isn't actionable: using off-Wikipedia websites to attack other editors, and threaten those editors personally, has a significant chilling effect and any number of previous instances have been treated as the harassment for which it is. This has included arbitration cases and bans. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd welcome his input. I don't see this as harassment, per se, but simply as a significant example of disruptive, non-collegial behavior. If this statement had instead been posted here on Wikipedia, we wouldn't sanction him for that alone: we'd give him a stern WP:NOTFORUM warning (not applicable for anything off-wiki), but we wouldn't block him unless it was part of a pattern of problematic editing. Why should his careful and repeated use of his off-wiki webpage be treated any differently? It's not something that needs to be considered especially bad or considered irrelevant, since he's repeatedly referring to it as part of his arguments. If Tom (or someone else) can establish a pattern of Annales having been uncoöperative and causing general problems, the use of the external website will be an example of why a block for general disruption will be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The comments on the external site are disparaging for the Wikipedia editors describing them as ...so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way. He also mentioned on-wiki that ...there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon.. If that's not harassment and intimidation I don't know what is. He also called Cplakidas a "masochist" for not agreeing with his POV. His pattern of abuse, harassment and incivility is very loud and long. Also if an editor kept a similar page on wiki disparaging editors that way the page would have been deleted as an attack page and the editor warned or blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block? WP:ANI doesn't police the internet and block editors based on critical comments they make about Wikipedia unless they "out" other editors. Such conduct might be considered in an ArbCom cases which examines a wider variety of evidence among involved parties in a case but it shouldn't be considered here. This blog entry that is linked to doesn't even identify editors by name! It should be considered free speech or else WP is going down a rabbit hole that would allow sanctioning many editors and admins here for comments made off-Wikipedia about Wikipedia matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How many editors have you witnessed here where they threaten another editor on-wiki that they will go to Wikipediocracy to attack them? Plus he is describing editors' usernames in such detail (Greek-sounding etc.) and also the article involved which makes it easy to identify the users involved. Also don't forget he has directly threatened us that he will mention us by name. Again, I don't know of any Wikipediocracy member who has directly threatened someone on-wiki that he will be mentioned on their website externally and after calling them "nuts" and "off their rocker". Do you not see his use of that website in addition to his personal attacks as a means of intimidating his perceived opponents? Because for sure he does. I remind you of what he said: You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The bolded part is an unmistakable threat and he uses his website as part of that threat during a discussion on an article talkpage as a form of intimidation and, more ominously, to gain advantage in the discussion. He knows that and that's why he uses it. Can you not see it? The website and his connection to him are also relevant because he has used a sockpuppet to promote it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• The editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown. The above comment about "what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website" is totally invalid because a glance at the first link above shows that AnnalesSchool was making an on-wiki threat that certain editors would be attacked off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• <sigh> @AnnalesSchool:, we discussed this issue before, have we not? That there is, and there ever shall be, two sides to the coin that we call "truth": the truth as you see it (or I see it, or any of the above editors see it), and the facts as they are. Did I not caution that adherence to the truth as you saw it would cause more problems for you in the long run? We are here because you heard what was being said, but you did not listen to what has been said. Despite the fact that you are editing the encyclopedia and doing so on a cluster of articles concerning Italy in World War II you have not absorbed the message left by Benito Mussolini's fascist party: any group that attempts to impose an iron will without regard for the traditions of the people or the system they come from will eventually be ousted by the will of the people. Consequently, for the second time in recent history, we are left the issue of isolationist edits to the articles and declarations by you of a small group of editors who will not permit your edits in the article, but such a declaration, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that justice favors the strongest of the two parties in a conflict. Just as I had prophesied, your own edits are now causing the public opinion here to turn against you.

In you hands, my dissatisfied editor, and not our, is the momentous issue of an edit war. Wikipedia and Wikipedians will not support you. You have no warrant issued by any school of historical thought to rewrite our articles for the sake of correcting a perceived slight against your subject on our serves, while I as an administrator am called to meet the challenge of a most solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the material on this site that others may share in and learn from the knowledge gathered here over these last fourteen years. I am burdened by the weight of the summons to this forum. We are not enemies, but editors. We must no be enemies. Though our approaches to a common problem may differ, anger and resentment must not replace discussion and consensus. Maturity on Wikipedia is therefore reached at the moment when one can recognize this system and work with it to achieve the goals they set for themselves. End this immature behavior here, before others taken action to end it on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the website in question really an "attack site"? Well, this is how the editor in question criticizes a fellow academic at that website, who writes an article about the performance of the Italian military in a specific World War II battle: "Oh how I wish I could have tied this boy-wonder naked to a mule and promenaded him through the mountain passes for mine-clearing duties with the Italian troops laughing behind!" AnnalesSchool is an editor who openly yearns for the death of those he disagrees with, and threatens Wikipedia editors with comparable online attacks. Not cool for either the victim or the mule. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Omg. Can we indef this creep now? There is no doubt in my mind that if I took this to WP:AE (as Greco-Italian War) falls under WP:ARBMAC, thisuser would be indef topic banned in short order. The problem with that is that it would only cover Greco-Italian War and he would continue his crusae to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in other topic areas, such as the North African campaign. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Er... um... ouch! I'm compelled to !vote indef. There's something very wrong with the 'contributor' in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Annales is, sadly, a missed opportunity. There is no question that the basis of his argument has merit: there is a bias against WWII-era Italy, and it should be corrected so that a fuller and more accurate picture can emerge. The problem is, he is not interested in simply adjusting the historical narrative, he is interested in overturning it altogether and make the Italians victors and victims at the same time, absolving them of any mistake or guilt. In his period of activity here, he has been engaged solely on this one topic, and has come into conflict with pretty much every other editor involved in these articles; he has used sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, baited other editors with offensive remarks, used self-published sources, distorted the basic chronology of events, etc ad nauseam. And now it is shown that he is an active member of a website that suspiciously tends to emphasize the Fascist element in WWII-era Italy (I happen to know the site before its redesign, and its pro-Fascist tendency is much clearer when one looks at older versions, e.g. March 2006), and where he engages in heaping pejorative adjectives on any scholar who disagrees with his POV. His comment at the diff given above by Dr.K really sums up his attitude: "better to be occupied by a more humane and honorable enemy like the Italian Army". Ergo Italians=good, all others either bad or stupid for not surrendering to them first rather than the Germans, who were worse. The myth of the "good Italian" driven to its extreme conclusion, mixed with not a little nostalgia for Mussolini and his regime... Whatever good might come out of his contributions is not worth the drama it generates. Constantine ✍ 08:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"THere is a bias against World War II Italy" - You mean that we are determined to call Mussolini a fasscist dictator? .... or what? If Italy didn't want "negative" articles in Wikipedia perhaps it shouldn't have put the Fascists into power and then, just as things were going as badly as they could possibly go, conveniently switched sides to the Allies. Unfortunately for the consciences of the Italiian people, their decisions were at every instance a day late and a dollar short, and their motivations were about as base as they could be. BMK (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear pattern by AnnalesSchool to try to attack the "psychology" of his opponents cf. the quote above where he calls us "off our rocker" and "nuts" and also consider this attack from 23 January 2015:

What were his motives, and the motives of wiki editors like himself who feel it to be their moral duty to denigrate and belittle the Italian war effort at every turn?; who continue to cherry-pick quotes and information designed to put the Italians in a bad light, come what may? The psychology of such people is interesting, to say the least.

Please see also the link above where he asks Cplakidas "if he has a masochistic bent". It is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. In no collaborative project that I know of, editors engage in deliberate and longterm campaigns of psychological warfare against those they perceive as their opponents. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Here he is modifying straight quotes from inside RS citations with edit-summary: toning down some of the gratuitous rhetoric. While here he is the exponent of WP:TRUTH: Please put aside your strident Greek nationalism and start to accept reality and historical truth for a change. and also here: What in heaven's name are you actually objecting to? The truth?. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The bias is that a large chunk of literature portrays the Italians as blundering, incompetent fools, and that this portrayal often descends to stereotyping and even caricature. The problem with Annales is that instead of taking an opportunity to rectify such cases with reference to more nuanced sources, he uses the prevalence of this portrayal as an excuse to dismiss everyone who dares to suggest that Italy's war effort was more than somewhat mismanaged at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and that they had to be carried to victory by the Germans in France, Greece and North Africa. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Come on, Liz. Dr K wasn't talking about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website (other than to give background = showing the kind of off-wiki comments Dr K and Athenean are being threatened with), which is indeed not our business, he was talking about what the editor was threatening, on Wikipedia, to say on an off-Wikipedia website. To say about two specific editors, note. Now that people have pointed out the difference, is it so hard to back down? We all read too fast sometimes, and for you to double down with non-sequitur nonsense questions like "So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block?" is disappointing. I agree with Johnuniq that the editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown, and I have so proceeded. Blocked indefinitely for threats and intimidation, as here. They can be unblocked, just as John says, if they withdraw the threat and show understanding of the need for collaboration, also for avoiding personalisation of conflicts. I think User:Dr.K.'s description of "vile attacks" from the user recently is overly colourful, considering that all the users on Talk:Greco-Italian War speak rather angrily — the subject is clearly sensitive — but there's certainly inappropriate personalising: ""Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?" — "Fellas fellas, calm down. … What have you to fear? … Are you really that insecure?". And there's clumsy sarcasm too, as "the greatest of great Greek victories… I do not wish in any way to "tarnish" the great and magnificent victory of the Greeks … So, perhaps we can reach a consensus here and change the wording to include the above phrase by Stockings so that the reader is absolutely clear that it was and will forever be the "great victory" of the Greeks over the Italians, but perhaps explain to the reader that this greatest of great victories did come with a certain cost to the greatest army in the world, which as we all know, is the Greek Army." Note @ User:Dr.K., I haven't studied the matter of the purported sock, could you take it to WP:SPI please? Bishonen | talk 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

• Bish, I clearly was a lone voice making an argument to a larger group of editors asking for a block. I was merely voicing an apparently unpopular opinion that you discounted. I think it is important for editors to be able to speak up against the tide of a conversation and dissent from the call for editors' heads on a pike. I thought a lot was being made of of an off-Wikipedia blog post when I seen so much worse things pointedly stated about editors, that is how I read the situation. I'm just one editor and I don't expect other people to agree with me! I don't know what to make of you saying you are disappointed in me. I have only heard that said to me by my family. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I think you're actually remembering a more heroic, more classic, narrative, where your lone voice stands up for the unpopular opinion, holds back the tide, than can actually be seen above.

Dr. K. posted a report actually asking for a block, yes, but then SnowFire said AnnalesSchool was a valuable editor, albeit they might need reminding of some things. And then you nailed your colours to the mast. There was no reason to think your position unpopular at that point, and I don't think there had been any calls for editor's heads on a pike either. (But thank you for not mentioning pitchforks, always appreciated). The larger group came later, and with them, possibly, a little neap tide.

If you're interested, take a look at AnnalesSchool's talkpage before I removed tpa — chiefly, look at the history— and see if you feel like defending them some more. My disappointment probably wasn't much like your family's: I was disappointed in your logic. I've never met a family who cares about that. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

For the record: I said potentially a valuable editor. As is I'd have been fine with all of AnnalesSchool's edits being immediately reverted, to be clear, but he didn't strike me as totally irredeemable. SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Potentially yes. But, he spent a year here arguing with editors and screaming about bias, yet inserted his own bias into articles. For an editor who claimed to be a professor of history, he lacked critial thinking abilities, an understanding that you have to support your arguments with sources, or how how "trivial" incidents are linked together (his comments about Sica critizing the Italian army lacking decent uniforms, socks, and boots for fighting in the Alps are very illuminating about this point, since he decided to omit the several thousand dead troops who died due to the elements and the few thousand frostbite victims!). He had a problem with anyone who wasnt Italian, since they were corrupt or had been corrupted by "Anglo" writers (two exceptions: his hypocrtical use of Weinberg - good when he suppprts him, another terrible Anglo when he wasnt, and the other was a revisionist historian), but has his slander article on Commando Supremo show, even Italian historians were not safe.

The only potential this racist nationalist editor had was to help highlight areas to improve or provide access to underused Italian sources, but he didn't do either of these: he caused fights, attempted to take credit when articles were improved, and now he has been blocked is using an external site to attempt to get his own way.165.166.215.220 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppet

• Here sockpuppet Csupremo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) promotes links to , you guessed it, AnnalesSchool's website "commando supremo.com". He does the same here with edit-summary: An extensive well researched article on the operation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As the last outstanding issue has been appropriately raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool, I've marked this thread resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ncvm, it is resolved, I've just got a coda: I think I was too optimistic about AnnalesSchool being unblocked any time soon, as he has posted further insults and threats against fellow editors on his page in response to my block notice. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Issue for the foundation arising out of this

I really have to go to bed now, but the blocked AnnalesSchool, using an IP on my page, has made some further threats that perhaps the foundation should know about:

"I have decided to expose and name (with links) these miscreants on the ComandoSupremo site, and other wiki editors who have demonstrated a track record of heavy bias and non-neutrality, which will include their entries in the articles themselves and talk pages. I regret having to do this, but my colleagues and I see no other way forward. Until you admin people wake up and actually read the articles dealing with Italy more closely and critically, then this whole issue will not go away. The problems of sockpuppery, vandalism, having to protect pages, and a whole raft of other problems will continue."

"Expose and name". Maybe there's something WMF can do — contact the website's service provider, get it taken down? I've blocked the IP, but the text remains on my page (at least at this moment). It seems to me that the foundation should try to protect out editors against this kind of thing. I'm really asleep at this point. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Just FYI, the last time I tried to contact WMF Legal, I got a form e-mail (which didn't even fit the circumstances I described) in return. I don't count myself on their list of admirers -- but isn't Moonriddengirl an ombudsman or something like that? BMK (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Anything we can do here that we are not already doing? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK, well, yes. I've written to User:Philippe (WMF) just in case he can do something, but I don't expect much. He's on vacation, too, per his userpage. I've reverted the stuff on my page, where AnnalesSchool's IP tells me what admins are going to have to do to stop ComandoSupremo from toppling Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC).

Hmmm, I'll check, but honestly - I'm not really hopeful. We don't have great luck in getting sites to remove things of this nature. Usually complaints from one of the named parties go a bit farther, but I'll see what I can scrounge up today. Also, just as a note: Moonriddengirl is her personal username. For work things, it's often best to ping Mdennis (WMF). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the site in question but see nothing there that goes beyond the limits of normal criticism and legitimate free speech, so I really think trying to take off-wiki action against that website would be useless and ill-advised. Nothing against the block for aggressive on-wiki behaviour, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the former user has now started "naming and shaming": taking quotes out of context alongside usernames. He concludes "I believe it is important to keep a record of such “fair and balanced” editors like Dr K, BMK and Alexikoua. But there are others (also with Greek-sounding usernames) who should be exposed for the frauds they really are." and "But stay tuned, because there will be more to come. I have only exposed a few of this miscreants. Others will follow". Surely this is crossing a line in regards to free speech? Not to mention seems to be inviting harassment for wiki users, cyber bulling comes to mind.

If any of his readers actually read his edits to the wiki they would see that he is pretty full of it, but I digress.2600:1015:B108:1B8A:24F7:5F5D:6E26:65E8 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Geez, if only he wasn't highlighting a comment of mine that, in its raw form, was described as deserving an "award for 'worst written post by an experienced editor'." (I agreed). Even with the grammar and spelling cleaned up, it's hardly my best work -- and now, here it is, in the spotlight, under the hot white scrutiny of disambiguated media. Such is life!

(BTW, I don't think I've ever edited any articles on Italy in WWII, so it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. I should hop to it and get to work making unfair and unbalanced POV edits to live up to my new reputation.) BMK (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

Hi all, on the off chance you've overlooked the banner at the top of your page, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Kansas Bear on the talk page of the Tipu Sultan article

Following a revision of an edit I made by user Kansas Bear on the Tipu Sultan article and a subsequent discussion I made to try and justify my edit, Kansas Bear has unleashed a significant amount of Personal Attacks aimed at me that do not make for an effective discourse on the matter.

I was trying to explain to Kansas Bear that it is too general to say that the entire Mysorean Army of Tipu Sultan was French trained, as the source (on page 77) that he referenced [310] goes into detail about the role the French played in relation to the Mysorean army. The source mentions training of Mysore’s Infantry but no statement is given to suggest that the entire Mysorean army was French-trained. user:Kansas Bear, quoted a variety of sources that make note of Mysore’s “French-Trained Army” however I believe that these references are taking for granted the concept of an “army” and I believe that the more detailed sources he referenced state that segments of Mysore’s infantry (not entire army) received French training. I believe that the infantry should not be representative of the army as a whole, as there are many sectors and divisions within an army and the infantry is one aspect of it. I tried to explain to him that the Mysorean rocket division of Tipu Sultan was largely trained by the Sultanate of Mysore and that the rocket technology and techniques were indigenous to the Sultanate of Mysore. According to this source [311] the Sultanate of Mysore maintained its own indigenous force and utilized new and innovative technologies that neither the British or French at the time had.

During this discussion, Kansas Bear has unleashed a barrage of personal attacks against me. He states:

"If I were you, I'd watch your tone. You've already been blocked for edit warring and as I have told Ghatus, editors that are here with an agenda eventually end up blocked or banned." [312] <--Clearly a threat.

"Clearly, after the presenting sources showing French trained army, you just don't like the fact that the Mysore army was French trained." [313] <---Clear personal attack.

"Since you are having problems understanding English" [314] <---Clear personal attack.

I would like to discuss this matter in a professional manner, however, Kansas Bear’s personal attacks are a hindrance to effective discourse on the matter. Xtremedood (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"If I were you, I'd watch your tone. You've already been blocked for edit warring and as I have told Ghatus, editors that are here with an agenda eventually end up blocked or banned."

Xtremedood has a history of speaking to other editors in a derogatory fashion(calling edits vandalism, mentions of ethnicity("It is sad that many users who have a long history of Wikipedia but are of Indian origin will resort to such dirty tactics.")[315][316][317][318][319]

Telling Xtremedood that editors that are here with an agenda eventually get blocked or banned, is not a threat, since I can not block or ban anyone.

"Clearly, after the presenting sources showing French trained army, you just don't like the fact that the Mysore army was French trained."

Personal attack? LMAO! I have listed 6 sources that state the French trained Haidar Ali and/or Tipu's army. Xtremedood made the edit summary, "Did not find reference stating his army was French trained", I found a source, later 5 more, then Xtremedood started making statements, "whole army", "rockets", "elephants", none which appear in the sentence in question.(ie. moving the goal posts)

"Since you are having problems understanding English"

After a continuous dialogue with Xtremedood, I was not convinced he/she understood what the 5 6 sources stated. Xtremedood appears to either portraying willful ignorance or did not like what the sources stated. So I chose to walk him/her through one of the sources.

"however I believe that these references are taking for granted the concept of an “army” and I believe that the more detailed sources he referenced state that segments of Mysore’s infantry (not entire army) received French training.."

I believe this shows Xtremedood's attitude about the entire "discussion", that his interpretation of an "army" should be used and not that of reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Not personal attacks. He described your behavior. I don't see any ad hominem and harassment. Just another typical discussion on talk pages. Instead of ANI, it's better to call third opinion. See WP:THIRDOPINION. --Zyma (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the red herrings and strawmen Xtremedood threw into the discussion, Kansas Bear was pretty much calling a spade, a spade. Blackmane (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment None of them are personal attacks, Kansas Bear is not even sarcastic but only trying to alert Xtremedood. Xtremedood is edit warring across many articles,[320][321][322] misrepresenting sources,[323] violating biographies of living people,[324] making personal attacks, often refers non-vandalism as vandalism,[325][326][327] since April 2015. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)