Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855

User:Gtrbolivar and personal attacks

User:Gtrbolivar has made it a habit of attacking me personally and exhibiting an utter lack of civility. For example, here here here he was warned by an admin Even after the warning, he continued his personal attacks here and here

This is in addition to a continuing battleground mentality expressed overtly here: "I am going to fight this to the end". --Taivo (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support a block for persisting in disruptive behavior at WP:ANEW and elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question - The edit warring appears to be within the scope of WP:AE due to WP:ARBMAC. Is it more appropriate to deal with this warring here, or at Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  On my reading of it, yes, this would come under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC. Given this and the other discussion two topics down, I think there's an issue here that needs to be addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

There is no personal attack. It is my point of view, backed-up by evidence. I didn't call any names, I didn't say anything out of line. The ridiculous "battleground mentality" argument is a complete falsehood. He uses my words out of context and with malicious intent. I wrote this to support user Stevepeterson who had been attacked repeatedly with slanders and insults by Taivo and a supporter of his. The same attacks were directed to me also. Taivo has been called a vandal, a sockpuppeter and a biased editor by other users as you can see here Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). He made this request to you with the sole purpose of silencing me. He wants me out of the picture, so he can sneak his pseudo-historic agenda into our project through the back door. He has commited numerous vandalisms and violations of both WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. For any further and more detailed explanations (about Taivo's behaviour and his false accusations), I am at your disposal. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Gtrbolivar, you are the one who called me a vandal and User:Stevepeterson's sockpuppetry accusation was proven false. And had you not restarted your personal attacks against me, I would never have brought this problem here. --Taivo (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes Gtrbolivar's behavior frustrating is that I took a couple of days off from the article to collect my thoughts. During that time other editors calmly discussed the issues and started a simple consensus building process to solve the sticky issues. Then Gtrbolivar arrived and completely disrupted the process with a massive attack on myself and the other editors involved in the calm consideration of the article's first sentence. His battleground attitude was on full display as he posted reams of generally irrelevant and definitely repetitive data. --Taivo (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Taivo initiated the personal attack. Taivo was upset with anyone trying to bring the article in its stable (2+ years) pro Taivo editwar format. I admit (and apologised for) not assuming good faith from him because what I saw is an editor who together with his supporters Luxure and Macedoniarulez was trying to impose Macedonian nationalism and ideas in-line with the ultra-nationalistic United Macedonia concept. Taivo has used insulting language (eg I have problem with Maths) against any users with different opinion, to such an extend that I had decided to quit editting. And regarding sockpupetry, it is not correct that it was proven false. The investigation was closed due to lack of evidence, this is not a proof that Luxure was not your sock-puppet. I can still identify behavioural similarities between you too eg in refactoring edits of other users Stevepeterson (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

An Australian editor is somehow trying to push a Macedonian POV? Hello? Have you seen my contributions? Have you seen Taivos ? I don't know how it can't be anymore clear to you that I am from Australia I edit predominately in the afternoon and evening (It's 7.42am here now) and most of the articles I edit are Australian, compared to Taivo. We live in opposite timezones, and I want proof on how I am a sockpuppet pushing a Macedonian POV. Is this user from Planet Earth? Luxure (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the personal attacks began with User:Stevepeterson after my first comments dealing with the non-Greek aspects of ancient Macedonia. He immediately began attacking my comments as somehow being focused on Slavic irredentism. He assumes that anyone who says something like "non-Greek" or "not entirely Greek" is a pro-Slavic extremist. Note his comment right above this. He 1) has zero evidence of sockpuppetry (although he accused everyone who disagreed with him of being one of my sockpuppets) and tons of counterevidence which he either doesn't understand or chooses to ignore, 2) zero evidence of "Macedonian nationalism" on my part despite the fact that there is ample evidence otherwise, 3) zero evidence of pushing a "United Macedonia" concept. That comment of his above is a perfect example of him not assuming good faith and pushing a personal attack. I did not report him because he says he apologized on my Talk Page. An apology means that you stop making the same personal attacks that you "apologized" for. I now doubt the sincerity of his apology. And his "refactoring" comment is laughable. That means that I sometimes add a colon in front of another editor's comment in order to improve readability. That's his evidence of sockpuppetry? --Taivo (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Stevepeterson. Taivo and Luxure intiated everything. They attacked and insulted Stevepeterson and myself, in order to silence us and make us go away. In my opinion, Luxure is a sockpuppet but not Taivo's. He is possibly a sockpuppet of the Slav pseudo-nationalist Macedoniarulez, a user who has already admitted to socketpuppetry (!!!!!!) as you can see here [1] and here [2] and yet he is still allowed to vandalize our encyclopedia, harass its users and impose his pseudo-historic fairy tales. Don't forget that Luxure invited Macedoniarulez in his "consensus" hunt, despite the fact that he is a Slav pseudo-nationalist by his own admission. Luxure never said anything against Macedoniarulez, he never protested against his "arguments" and his outrageous attacks. He attacked me and Stevepeterson and called us "biased" and "nationalists" but he didn't say anything wrong against Macedoniarulez. He didn't condemn his nationalism and his biased POV opinions. I wonder, why is that? Anyway, everything is crystal clear. Luxure is a vandal, a possible puppet and a FYROM nationalist who works in collaboration with Macedoniarulez. Of course, they both support Taivo fanatically. Within the next days, I am initating a sockpuppet investigation for both Luxure and Macedoniarulez (a sockpuppet by his own admission). Stevepeterson, we can submit this report together.

In conclusion, I want to ask the admins: How can a sockpuppet like Macedoniarulez, who has admitted that he used multiple accounts in order to (quote) "support his country" [3][4] be allowed to still operate in wikipedia, vandalize the articles of the project and forward his pseudo-nationalistic fairy tales in our encyclopedia in collaboration with other possible sockpuppets of his? I would like a straight answer please. Gtrbolivar (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You still have no idea what a sockpuppet is or how to identify one, User:Gtrbolivar. Are you actually trying to claim that User:Macedoniarulez created the sockpuppet User:Luxure in July of 2013 and edited nothing but Australia articles for over a year just so that he could use Luxure in the discussion at Macedonia (ancient kingdom) in the late summer of 2014? If you actually think that is possible, I have some oceanview property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you. --Taivo (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you do launch your bogus sockpuppetry accusation can I at least be notified this time? When it does get proven false, (and Macedonia has admitted to VANDALISM, not sockpuppetry) I know a good place out near Goulburn where you and Mr. Peterson can visit. Now that was a personal attack, and you dont like it do you? If I, in anyway, get in trouble for 'attacking' you with that statement, I will personally make sure that you are banned from Wikipedia and I will launch an Investigation of Sockpuppetry against for being the Master Puppeteer of User:AkiiraGhioni who mysteriously saw an editing comeback seemingly JUST to agree with your obliviously ignorant statements. What do you think Taivo? Let them taste their own medicine? Luxure (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Taivo, your claim that you were not notified about your sockupetrty investigation is not accurate. I had several times warned you abut the investigation and soon after I initiated it, you referred to supportive comment (by DrK) in it, which is a proof that you were are aware of it and made me assume that I no longer have the duty to officially notify you. Also I still regret that I failed to assume good faith and I explained the reasons above: because the anti-hellenism camp was aggressively removing reliable sources proving that an Ancient Kingdom located in today's Northern Greece was once part of the Ancient Greek world. Majority of participants in the editwar under the anti-hellenism camp are openly supporters of the concept that Today's inhabitants of Northern Greece are ethnically unrelated to the region's ancient inhabitants and hence their land should be reclaimed by a country on the North which (according to them) is ethnically more closer related to. Users like User:Macedoniarulez and User: Luxure have openly supported such a "reclamation/unification"; they have expressed racist attitude against the Macedonians (Greeks) (even denying their right of self-determination) and you have been very supportive to them. Examples can be found even in this administrator's noticeboard: instead of trying to discourage their destructive behaviour: 1) you defend User:Macedoniarulez (an ultranationalist profound supporter of United Macedonia that dreams of an annexation of Northern Greece to the Republic of Macedonia) and his past sockpupetry case. 2) You defend Luxure and his refabrication of my commend ([[5]]), as an acceptable behaviour that aimed to increase readability of my text 3) you personally attack Gtrbolivar and his capacity to understand what sockpupetry is. You have been an restless and enthusiastic leader of this radical camp with dozens of reverts and attacks in your belt and this is the reason why I did not assume good faith. I admit that I have also (regretfully) attacked you and I have apologised for that but I see here that you have not improved your attitude towards me and other contributors who disagree with this ultranationalist anti-hellenism camp. Stevepeterson (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, User:Stevepeterson. You did not notify me of the sockpuppet investigation you initiated against me at the time that you initiated it on my Talk Page. This was the very first notification I got about it. You are required to notify the subject of the investigation at the moment that you initiate it, but you failed to do that. I was notified by a third party a few days after you initiated it. Just making threats on the article Talk Page does not qualify as notification. You failed to do your notification duty at the time you initiated the investigation. Me being aware of it through other avenues does not constitute you doing your duty to notify me. End of story.

And while you made an apology on my Talk Page, you continue to equate me with the Slavic camp despite the multiple number of times I have asked you to prove that I am a member of that point of view. You continue to assume that my comments about "non-Greek" and "not entirely Greek" equate to "Slavic". At least half of your comments both here and on the Talk Page equate to "Taivo is a Slavicist". Your half-hearted attempts at "clarification" or "apology" simply fall flat because you continue to make the same mistake that you supposedly apologized for. And your accusation that I am "anti-Hellenist" is utterly false. Not once have I advocated a removal of material of Greek connections anywhere else in the article. I have always and only advocated for removing the WP:POINTy word "Greek" in the first sentence and in the first sentence only. Your main problem throughout has been in your attempts to expand my comments to cover the entire article. Not once have you actually focused on the issue at hand.

Please point out one single, solitary place where I have defended the pro-Slavic extremism of User:Macedoniarulez. I have pointed out that User:Gtrbolivar's accusations of sockpuppetry are without merit, but that does not equate to a defense of his position vis a vis Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Indeed, if you actually examine the record, you will see that after you inserted the compromise wording into the article, I reverted his attempt to excise "at the periphery of the Greek world". Your assertion that I am a "leader of this radical camp" is utterly without merit and another assumption of bad faith on your part. If others agree with some of my arguments, that doesn't make me a "leader of radicals". Point out one single, solitary "radical" comment I've made. Not a single one because my entire focus has always been on keeping the first sentence from being unnecessarily WP:POINTy, not on changing a single word anywhere else in the article.

I will "improve my attitude toward you" once I see that you have stopped your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against me. You don't seem able to write a single comment without accusing me of being a "radical" or a "pro-Slavic" leader or wanting to remove all mention of ancient Macedonia's Greek connections throughout the article. Gtrbolivar's personal attacks and WP:BATTLEground attitude are the subject of this ANI and have been duly documented. He has been warned by an administrator to knock it off and that administrator has also said that a complaint against him based on WP:ARBMAC was warranted. If an ARBMAC complaint is filed, he might be subject to a topic ban. --Taivo (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You indicated to me that you are aware of the investigation immediately after I initiated and 2 days before the first alleged notification first alleged notification. See below:

When an actual consensus has been reached and the change is the result of a lie, doesn't that call into question the actual stability of the edit? If you think I have a sockpuppet, then prove it. Perhaps you missed this comment on your bogus sock-puppet investigation... --Taivo (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

I have apologised for not assuming good faith and I have explained what made me lose faith, that you support (even led) an edit-war camp that removed valuable sources, made multiple reversions, and had radical contributors in the anti-greek camp openly expressing ultra-nationalist and racist options, people who you have appeared not to oppose (you came here to support Luxure) or discourage from performing their personal attacks and reversions. On the the hand I now understand (and because we later agreed on a compromise) that you might not share these radical ideas yourself entirely but you have not opposed them openly when expressed from members of the anti-hellenic camp that you supported enthusiastically. You supported the pillar of their nationalism and United Macedonia annexation concept by trying to prove that Ancient Macedonians have no ethnic relation with Ancient Greeks or the modern inhabitants of the region, that we should remove the term Ancient Greek so as not to POINT to the supporters of United Macedonia who obviously have their own reasons to edit an article about a kingdom located outside their borders, and at the same time you have several times used terms such as Greeks versus Macedonians instead of Greek-Macedonians versus Slavic-Macedonians hence denying the right of ethnically Greek inhabitants of Macedonia to be Macedonians and giving the Slav Macedonians the exclusive right on the use of the term Macedonia. So it was the combination of your biased positions namely a) that Ancient Macedonians were a different ethnic group from Ancient and/or Modern Greek inhabitants of the region b) today the term Macedonian should only refer to the residents of the Republic of Macedonia which located on the north of the ancient kingdom; these exactly are the pillars of the Macedonian nationalism and the pseudo-irredentist United Macedonia concept. I believe that I dont make any personal attack to you now, I just highlight that your behaviour is far from being unbiased and neutral and I explain why I (regretfully) failed to assume good faith on your intentions. I don't say that you are radical or that you have bad intentions yourself but perhaps you have been influenced by redicals like Luxure and Macedoniarulez Stevepeterson (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You are still in denial that you failed to notify me on my own Talk Page of the sockpuppet investigation immediately after you filed it. All your claims that "I already knew about it" are simply rationalization of your own simple failure to notify me.

You can't even apologize without filling the "apology" with continuing failures to assume good faith and continuing personal attacks and aspersions. Please provide a single, solitary time when I promoted a "United Macedonia" or tried to change a single, solitary word of the article (outside the first sentence), which has ample detail about the precise relationship between the ancient Macedonian kingdom and the ancient Greek city-states. You are simply unable to accept the fact that reasonable scholars can disagree with your sincerely held belief system. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a "Slavic extremist". You fill your rants with totally unsubstantiated personal attacks and baseless aspersions of my motivations. You expand my simple goal of making only the first sentence of the article less WP:POINTy into an attack on the entire article and a pro-Slavic agenda of rewriting ancient Macedonia's relationship to ancient Greece. You cannot write a single comment without a personal attack against me. You are even obsessed enough with your anti-Slavic paranoia to claim that I came to this forum to support User:Luxure. Perhaps you are unable to read the fact that my complaint was posted before Luxure's was posted and that I didn't even mention Luxure in my complaint? I only mentioned User:Gtrbolivar's attacks against me. And your "proof" is that I didn't launch a personal attack against either User:Macedoniarulez or User:Luxure? Give me a break. Luxure wasn't even posting for a couple of weeks while you continued to attack my motivations. And Macedoniarulez's rants were so off the wall that they didn't need a reasoned response. Macedoniarulez's rants were evidence of his mindset and motivation, not mine. I simply find your continuing anti-Slavic paranoia troubling and your continuing attempts to cast aspersions on my comments and my motivations disgusting. You have no proof for any of your attacks--not for sockpuppetry, not for anti-Hellenic opinions, not for pro-Slavic radicalism, not for having radical members of the anti-Hellenic camp post anything, not for touching any detail of the article other than the first sentence. Each comment you post is nothing more than further rationalization and a further weak and groundless attempt to keep from taking responsibility for your own errors, failures, and personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat that I have never accused you for directly promoting United Macedonia but for expressing opinions support its ideological pillars. And this is evident from the fact that you are on the same edit-war camp with radicals such as Luxure and User:Macedoniarulez who believes in the annexation of Anc Macedonian territory by the Republic of Macedonia. I am sure that you have checked his profile that is so radical that perhaps could be investigated for possible links with terrorism, but regardless the fact that he is a profound supporter of an annexation idea of Greek, Bulgarian and Albanian Territories by the Republic of Macedonia, you still sympathise him and you even came here to support him: look at your post above:

You still have no idea what a sockpuppet is or how to identify one, User:Gtrbolivar. Are you actually trying to claim that User:Macedoniarulez created the sockpuppet User:Luxure in July of 2013 and edited nothing but Australia articles for over a year just so that he could use Luxure in the discussion at Macedonia (ancient kingdom) in the late summer of 2014? If you actually think that is possible, I have some oceanview property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you. --Taivo (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And you haven't tried to bring any of these "reasonable scholars" who according to you prove that Ancient Macedonia was not part of the Ancient Greek Civilisation but instead you delete dozens of reliable sources that User:Gtrbolivar brought to prove the opposite. You don't assume good faith on me and you constantly personally attack me when eg you say that I am "obsessed with my anti-Slavic paranoia" which you find "troubling" and "disgusting" and that I dont "take responsibility for my own errors and failures". I believe that I have never attacked you (at least not without apologising), never expressed any anti-Slavic paranoia. I believe that Slavi Macedonians have the right to be called Macedonians but I am anti-nationalist and I am not interested if it comes from Greek Macedonians or Slavic Macedonians. Stevepeterson (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Boo! Did I scare you? Are you serious? Have you ever heard of Freedom of Speech? And please explain how I am a radical? You obviously haven't even had a look through my contribs. If you continue with your childish, defamatory, denigratory, disparaging, pejorative, misrepresentative, damaging, injurious, scurrilous, scandalous, poisonous, malicious, abusive and insulting behaviour, I will launch a complaint against you. YOU are the one being racist, claiming radical ideas. Stop now. I'd like to add that not "practically adopting" the Greek position does not mean the same thing as' "practically adopting" the ethnic Macedonian position Luxure (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If freedom of speech for you means edit-waring WP articles and (refactoring) other contributors' edits to promote United Macedonia terrorist concepts, then continue your personal attacks to me and do report me to the administrators. I will be happy to leave wikipedia if they decide that I restrict your freedom of speech Stevepeterson (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You are full of baloney, User:Stevepeterson. Look at the stupidity of your arguments:

• "I have never accused you for directly promoting United Macedonia but for expressing opinions [sic] support its ideological pillars". That is a ridiculous comment. So just because I might happen to state a single view that matches an "ideological pillar" of some organization, that means that I support that organization? And what if that view happens to be right? Does that mean that I automatically accept the entire ideological structure of a group? If I express the view that the US should never have invaded Iraq in 2003, does that mean that I support the entire ideological platform of radical Islam because that is one of its ideological pillars? It's a stupid argument. Stop making it because it is a paranoid argument that means nothing. Unless you can prove that I support a "United Macedonia", then you are simply making a personal attack by even mentioning a single point of similarity between myself and a group that I have no association with. You are implying guilt by association.
• "You still sympathise [sic] him (User:Macedoniarulez) and you even came here to support him:" Another personal attack. Just because I point out that User:Gtrbolivar has zero proof that Macedoniarulez is a sockpuppeteer doesn't mean that I support his radical views. Why would I even bother to look at his user page? I don't look at anyone's user page just because they make a comment on a Talk Page. And just because I don't support another user being bullied or railroaded by unwarranted sockpuppet investigations (as you tried to bully me), doesn't mean that I agree with their argument or point of view. I would defend you against a groundless sockpuppet accusation just as I defended Macedoniarulez against Gtrbolivar's charges. And I did not "come here to support him". I initiated this complaint because of User:Gtrbolivar's personal attacks against me. It had nothing to do with Macedoniarulez. Read the complaint.
• "I believe that I have never attacked you (at least not without apologising), never expressed any anti-Slavic paranoia". Are you actually serious? Every time you comment about me here, you cannot write a single sentence until you start to groundlessly link my views with radical Slavic irredentism, the "United Macedonia" movement, and anti-Hellenic bias. Your apologies are always hollow because you turn around in the very next post and make the same attacks again. How many times have you now accused me of supporting or leading or having others make comments in support of anti-Hellenic, pro-Slavic, "United Macedonia", radical views? I can no longer count the times.

A simple question for you: When I started the discussion thread on the article's Talk Page called "Request for Comment 2" ([6]), why did I only notify two other editors? I notified User:Dr.K ([7]) and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise ([8]). Please prove to the world why these two editors would be considered to be part of my radical anti-Hellenic cabal? If you cannot, then I fully expect you to cease and desist in these groundless accusations of radical anti-Hellenism against me. --Taivo (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok Taivo thats enough. I have received so many attacks from Luxure and your good-self that I simply cant take any more. Just look at the conversations here and above, how many names your camp has called me, i count 20: full of baloney, paranoic, antislavic, racist, incapable of speaking english, ignorant, childish, defamatory, denigratory, disparaging, pejorative, misrepresentative, damaging, injurious, scurrilous, scandalous, poisonous, malicious, abusive and insulting. You wont hear from me for a while I think but I am surprised how you and Luxure have managed to turned yourselves into victims and no Administrator in this noticeboard has ever considered taking action to stop your continuous insulting. Stevepeterson (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:POT, User:Stevepeterson. --Taivo (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody wants to watch you guys hash out the same shit over and over for thousands words. Wait for someone to read the diffs. Honestly, you're all out of line in my eyes. 165.214.12.71 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Internet Information Servers article

Hi.

I would like to request administrator intervention against User:Codename Lisa and User:FleetCommand against a series of edits.

diff

diff

diff

diff

diff

They elude discussion (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS point 5), make false allegations, make unclear and lame excuses to avoid adding negative statistics about the product and then criticize my intention (blaming me) of adding negative information to Microsoft products as if it's not allowed.

User:Codename Lisa meant to say that the user wanted to maintain the comparison between the 2 sources cited in this section cause she preferred it that way, however in the talk page the user never clearly claimed that despite my continuous attempts to get the answer and then the user left, after which I added my edits within a day.

What User:Codename Lisa meant to say was made clear by User:FleetCommand, I did respond to his comment, but his response was --

Too long; didn't read....

And he reverted my other edits without any reason or attempts to discuss. Then he claimed that I'm the one who's eluding a dispute resolution.

He issued me a warning which I don't fit into. I tried to talk in his talk page, but he again avoided discussion and removed my response with an excuse that it's a 'combative' message.

Both these users claim that I'm threating them by claiming that I'll warned to take administrative action, whereas this's not a threat at all.

User:Codename Lisa claims that I'm violating WP:SYNTH without quoting which of my lines violates which policy belonging to these guidlines. User:Codename Lisa claims that my edits violate WP:NOTSTATS cause they are not in context to the article, whereas the edits are directly related to the product.

The user calls my edits "nonsensical numbers" and when I claim which lines do not make sense, the user does not respond.

Then the user claims that my edits are contentious label, I responded relevant to the context but the user's response is --

Now, now! You are eluding main questions:...

Other false allegations include WP:IDONTHEAR and calling me that I'm 'denying it like a three-years-old'

Then after around 48 hours, User:FleetCommand dropped by and undid my edits without reason and mindless false allegations like

"User:DE logics isn't here to write an encyclopedia; he is here to propagate anti-Microsoft hatred and attack Wikipedia users." DE logics (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is the accused #1, Codename Lisa. I've been absent since 15 September 2014 (three days ago) and now, I return and find myself in ANI. I can't complain.

Here is a summary of the incident, which DE logics haven't provided: On 13 September, I reverted this contribution by User:DE logics: Special:Diff/625339970/625356447. (Blanket revert) My concern was that this contribution added purely raw stats, having eliminated the existing context and providing no new one. This, I interpreted, was a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, which requires: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." I set out to start a discussion at Talk:Internet Information Services § Usage statistics when I noticed existence of similar discussions in the talk page, dating back to 2011, between FleetCommand, Jasper Deng and DE logics (or his IP). As a result I invited the first three via a ping and retracted my WP:SYNTH-based objection which I had added in the edit summary.

DE logics resorted to a counter-revert before participating in the discussion and even then, he was not reading my messages and repeatedly asked the same thing even though I and another user had answered. Eventually, he did imply that his contribution is meant to expose something negative about Microsoft:

Ok, so as per your definition, "Netcraft shows a rising trend in market share for IIS, since 2012." and the whole of features section is not WP:PROMOTION, but anything negative is WP:NOTSTATS.

I sensed that somehow, he took what he added as an evidence of something negative about Microsoft but what? I could not say. (Perhaps he lives somewhere, where there is anti-China sentiments?) In fact, the first clear-cut sign confirming this suspicion is his opening statement above! Anyway, when I mentioned that all I see are some rising and falling numbers and WP:STATS requires a source interpreting them, he said:

Please don't explain to contributers what's right and what's wrong. We're not doing classes here. Anymore of this crap (which includes any more irrelevant responses from you) and I'll ask for Administrator intervention after again adding my edits.

At this point, I left; but it was clear as daylight that we had reached an impasse. The proper course of action for DE logics was to invoke an RFC or mediated dispute resolution, not another counter-revert and ANI. But please do talk to Fleet Command and Jasper Deng. Looking at the article protection log and dates in talk page, I feel that there is more history to this issue than I realize. A lot more.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is the accused #1, Codename Lisa. I've been absent since 15 September 2014 (three days ago) and now, I return and find myself in ANI. I can't complain.

You voluntarily left the discussion --

Therefore, I will henceforth refuse to participate in this discussion any further until the existence of a dispute is acknowledged.

Now for your other responses

My concern was that this contribution added purely raw stats

Off the diff that you pointed to, there are 13 numbers in there (including dates) and 126 words, and you claim those are raw stats? Besides what do you mean by processed stats?

having eliminated the existing context and providing no new one.

For something to be included in an article, the information should be relevant to it. In this, case both the sources provided information relevant to the article. What other context is needed for inclusion?

Yes, if you would've wanted the comparison to exist cause you prefer doing so, then I would've obliged, but you never claimed such a preference. Fleetcommander had to come and tell me that.

DE logics resorted to a counter-revert before participating in the discussion and even then, he was not reading my messages and repeatedly asked the same thing even though I and another user had answered.

Yeah that was because I didn't see you had started a discussion in the 1st place, so I did that.

Initially I missed out on a few of user:Codename Lisa's responses cause I was first focusing on her 'comparison' problem. But then later on I gave a full response.

Eventually, he did imply that his contribution is meant to expose something negative about Microsoft:

And I openly agreed --

Because Wikipedia does not forbid me to do so. Regardless of my intention, it does not break any rules to exclude from inclusion. My intention has nothing to do with you or Wikipedia. The extra information is.

Can you provide any guidelines which say I should not have an intention of exposing something negative to Microsoft?

Besides your statement violates WP:WIAPA

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views

And the user has still not stopped doing this --

Looking at the article protection log and dates in talk page, I feel that there is more history to this issue than I realize. A lot more.

You're judging me based on my previous edits.

When I mentioned that all I see are some rising and falling numbers and WP:STATS requires a source interpreting them, he said:

That was a response to --

Aha! Right there. So, you actually are trying to display something negative after all, don't you?

That's why this exact statement is quoted before my response which currently Codename Lisa claims a response to --

when I mentioned that all I see are some rising and falling numbers and WP:STATS requires a source interpreting them

.

I responded to the nonsensical number question with --

From my, edits can you please quote lines which does not make sense

Which has been placed directly below the question.

Codename Lisa also claimed --

Even if they did, Wikipedia is not a place for publishing opinion. Only if a reliable source cares to explain exactly why we can reflect that review.

To which I responded --

When did I place my opinion in my edits? Can you please quote?

Which Codename Lisa has no response to yet. DE logics (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

DE logics, you might want to read WP:TLDR and maybe think about removing all this additional space in your report. Amortias (T)(C) 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If we want the discussion short, it has to done in parts. One allegation at a time. As of newlines, do you want me to merge paragraphs or just remove the newlines? DE logics (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhh, yeah, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Look at all the other posts here on AN/I and curb you writing style to that, plaese. It makes it unbearable to lurk.98.93.219.65 (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of "vandalism", and disruptive editing across many articles

This is elevating to the level absurdity, at this point. I'm sure I'm going to boomeranged to pieces, but I'm just upset, so I'll air my grievances. I previously brought a complaint against Niele (talk · contribs) at this forum earlier in the week. That was unproductive, and hence I abandoned it in favour of a WP:DRN case. However, despite this, and despite being warned about the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, Niele has continued to disruptively edit across Ukrainian crisis-related articles. He constantly reverts edits by accusing people of "vandalism" and "PoV pushing" in edit summaries at every turn.[9][10][11] He previously derided me as a Marxist propaganda monger, which is something one can find out about at the last AN/I thread. He has again accused me of "agenda pushing", this time after I made a request for closure at WP:AN.[12] He has continued to attempt to right great wrongs across many articles, and has not listened to anyone.[13][14] His version of "consensus" appears to rely on whether people agree with him. At this point, no one has. I can frankly say that I believe that Niele is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Even after the last AN/I thread, where he was warned by Mr. Stradivarius not make personal attacks, even after he was warned about Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, he continued this behaviour. In fact, he has escalated it. I suggest a topic ban, under the banner of the Eastern European discretionary sanctions, from Ukraine-crisis related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User RGloucester was warned about not starting edit wars, but he dit starts it again. I did not participate or react when he reverts al of my edits. He personaly theatend me with 'Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions' after previous episode. While this was not discussed but his personal choise. The Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions also count's for him and I ask that he is banned instead.

The past day he is completly dissecting the 'Russian military intervention in Ukraine'-page. A page that he doesn't wants to exist, like he didn't want the 'Russo-Ukrainian war'-page and the 'Russian invasian'-page (made by other wikipedia users. Clearing parts of the infobox, removing the internation reactions to a subpage of donbaswar, removing sources Russian unit's, the shelling by Russia over the border into Ukraine,... all in a POV-push to hide the participation of Russia in this war as much as possible and portraying this war as a internal Ukrainian war.

I ask that user RGloucester is banned on basis of Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. because he is undoing the work of many wikipedians in a constant POV puch to hide sourced info. --Niele (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I will let this stand, given how absurd it is. I will just say that I love how spinning off International reactions to the war in Donbass is considered a bad thing, given the severe length problems that war in Donbass has. I think Niele should take the advice of another editor. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

From a non-admin/uninvolved user's prospective, RGloucester seems to have acted in good faith, bringing the matter to WP:DRN. In contrast, I concur that Niele has been warned about personal attacks and unfounded claims of vandalism, yet continues to accuse users of vandalism. Now I'm sure both parties have good intentions, but in my (non-admin) opinion, Niele needs to read WP:Vandalism, stop with the unfounded claims of vandalism, and constructively discuss these matters in order to reach consensus in this highly controversial topic rather than unilaterally decide that his way is right. As far as any administrative action that should or shouldn't take place, let the admins and the ArbCom decide that; I'm just a lowly Wikipedian. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The original two articles (intervention) and (invasion) by Russia from wich the international reactions came, were not about a dombas war but about the military intervention/warconduct by Russia. Now these reactions are stuffed away under a page of the donbas-war claiming that it is only about the month august.--Niele (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You neutrality is so great that you write about the 'Russian invasion in Ukraine' article (not written by me) things like: "If this article is going to stay, we might as well make it humorous."

As I tried to explaine you in the previous episode, this is disturbing to people and covering up a war is a sensitive thing. A war in wich 900 Ukrainian soldiers and 200-400 Russian soldiers died is not humorous or an absurd something and trying to hide it, is not respectfull to the people who died fighting it.--Niele (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a poor venue for this type of complaint. I suggest filing this at WP:AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not be forced to carry on across many noticeboards. This is giving me enough of a headache already, and I believe user conduct can be evaluated here as well as it can there. RGloucester — ☎ 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's serious merit in RGloucester's not wanting to post across boards. As it is, a DRN involving Niele has been closed recently with issues surrounding Niele's general approach to the project being deemed spurious. Dragging this from venue to venue is draining valuable administrator and contributor time and energy. I think the issue can, and should be, dealt with here rather than having to start all over again at ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I think this is wrong noticeboard for claims about alleged violations covered by Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Besides, our current vandalism instructions were written in such manner that contributors acting in a good faith may decide that removal of sourced text was vandalism. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the right board as much as any board is the right board. We are not a bureaucracy here, and I can tell that your comments are driven by a PoV rather than by any interest in the disruptive behaviour carried out by Niele. It has nothing to do with "violations of discretionary sanctions", which makes no sense. It has to do with an editor's disruptive behaviour and use of personal attacks. I suggested using those sanctions to remedy the situation, but I'm open to any solution suggest by an uninvolved party. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You just made the same request about Niele - above on this noticeboard. It was not supported, and you closed it. Now, you repeated the same request here, and it was not supported again (no one reacted during many days). Therefore, I think the suggestion by A Quest For Knowledge was a good one. I think you should close this ANI request and either drop completely the issue (this is my recommendation!) or resubmit it to WP:AE.My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not the "same request". He continued the behaviour across multiple pages despite being warned at that prior thread, and despite my starting of a DRN. I'm not going to ignore disruptive editing across multiple pages, and your attempt to make me go around in circles to different noticeboards is an example of the bureaucratic nonsense that we do not do here. Merely because people did not respond does not mean that they either support or oppose the behaviour of Niele. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that the editor in question is making personal attacks on more and more editors as a result of his/her WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Until now, I have had no direct dealings with Neile. This was inevitably an 'only a matter of time' scenario for anyone editing on subject matter Neile works on. I, too, have now been swept into the conspiracy this editor perceives as existing. Arguing for keeping a WP:DPAGE as "Strong Keep Again, POV-deletion-campaign by a couple of users to remove and hide as much as possible of Russia's participation of the war it started against Ukraine. Entries keep being removed by same users claiming there are none..." is unacceptable tendentious editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Taffe316

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 needs to be done about this user. Just checking his talk page, shows he has a long history of edit warring and has already been blocked for 48 hours for this problem. Today it was a problem with ownership. I reverted one of his edits on the Mike Glennon article, explaining to him that it violated WP:peacock and WP:POV His responses: "See that entire 2013 season section? I wrote that. So all decide what's right, not you" and "I have more of a right to it than you, so if you don't like it, go cry to someone who cares". The user just doesn't seem to get it and It would be nice if something was done about it.--Yankees10 20:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And now this.--Yankees10 20:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Recommend an indef for blanking out this section. A clear case of not being here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If that didn't make it clear, his comments make it clear that he isn't here to contribute constructively or to collaborate with others in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:AdamTayl's behaviour and personal attacks in edit summaries

This is regarding the behaviour displayed by User:AdamTayl. This editor constantly been updates article with unsourced information and causes WP:OR problems. Toda this editor targeted myself and User:JuneGloom07. We have been working on articles close to their chosen topic, Holby City. A lot of problems rose from their unsourced mobile edits to Holby City (series 16). They recently created Holby City (series 17) and I was shocked to see - not only a mess, but "?" inserted in the prose where he could not provide the correct episode details and masses of unsourced data. Not to mention the series does not begin for another month and little information is known.

I added citation tags while JuneGloom07 appears to have moved uncertain and unsourced data. User:AdamTayl was unhappy that we followed protocol. He used the article to perform a dummy edit to tell myself and JuneGloom07 their opinion of us in which they state: "You two are the most irritating editors I've heard of. Extremely ignorant, never thanking anyone, self-centered, just leave..." [15]

This editor seems to enjoy telling others to leave Wikipedia - "Stop editing you prat." - [16]

I have actually made an effort to correct unsourced information. But it got too much so I issued warnings. If you view his edit history for his talk page you will see that they blank each warning made. They made an accusation that we are ignorant yet they continue to ignore valid warnings and carry on regardless. Yet this editor has run of field wrecking articles and creating new ones consisting of original research. Their attitude is unsavoury to say the least. [17].Rain the 1 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you've warned him about everything except WP:NPA ... was that intentional? the panda ₯’ 21:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not intentional. Too late now. They take no notice of warnings and that is one of the reasons why I landed here.Rain the 1 00:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Bbb23

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

---

There's a long history of deleting folks pages with this user. I wrote an article about a Commonwealth's Attorney, a stub, that was referenced, that said clearly, that she was a Commonwealth's Attorney, a prosecutor, an elected public official. There was no bias in the writing. It was my first article. I wanted to write several of them, since there's many public officials in Kentucky, the state where I live, which wikipedia doesn't have a page for, including her husband. I am flabbergasted at why he would do this. I did write, in the talk pages, that she was a judge, but just mistyped. It would seem obvious that it was mistyped in the talk pages, since I mentioned that she's a Commonwealth's Attorney in the main article stub. I would have changed it had I caught the mistake, but didn't get a chance to. That mistake, however, does not negate that she is a public official. I've wrote on his talk page, and he's not responding to me, not wanting to explain to me why this public official isn't allowed to have a wikipedia page. I do not know why he is doing this. This could be sexist. The post was about the first female Commonwealth's Attorney of that area. Maybe that had something to do with it. It was referenced, plus was a stub, and had several cross references with several other categories. Sarahrosemc (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is on Linda Tally Smith? Or is it another one? Caden ^cool 00:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Most administrators have a long history of deleting articles: it's one of the jobs an administrator does. The deletion rationale appears to be appropriate, local politicians and officials are in general not notable, and the article makes no claim that the subject is notable enough for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The article has not yet been deleted: if and when it is, you will want to use deletion review to contest the deletion. In the meantime, there is no indication that there is an issue with Bbb23's conduct requiring action, this is a normal process of the encyclopedia, with which you appear to disagree. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Acroterion. Sarah is a new editor so give her a break. The issue I see is that Bbb23 has failed to respond to her posts which I think is both a problem and not good. Caden ^cool 00:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but the Sarahrosemic has given Bbb23 less than an hour to respond before bringing the matter here. We're all volunteers here. I will leave a note on her talkpage pointing her to WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN, which should help her understand why being the first female Commonwealth's Attorney in the county is not necessarily encyclopedia-worthy. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have responded, but by the time I saw it, she had already notified me 15 minutes later about ANI, so it didn't make any sense to respond. I didn't realize that her notification wasn't really accurate; it was some sort of pre-notice. Then, when I saw the thing finally at ANI, it was so full of nonsense, it didn't merit a response; besides it's the wrong venue. She has since recreated the article. At least she had the good sense to remove all of the copyright infringement (the bulk of the article). This whole thing about a mistake on the talk page about the subject being a judge was pretty silly. After she recreated it, I had to remove several judge cats, remove judge from persondata, and remove the stub, which was a judge stub. Anyway, I've retagged it for deletion. Her silly accusations of sexism, etc., are on the talk page (just like here).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a new user. A new user might find ANI, but he or she isn't going to magically know how this vast bureaucratic labyrinth works. Just because she didn't figure out how to ask "in the right way" (ie. on the page you prefer) doesn't mean she doesn't deserve a respectful, complete answer. I say "respectful" because calling a good-faith complaint by a perplexed new user "nonsense" or "silly" or admitting you were not going to answer the complaint is a pretty good way of ensuring that said new user doesn't stick around to become a productive editor. Incidentally, you may be unaware that "silly" is a common code word used by bigots specifically to minimize and dismiss women: had you called me or a complaint of mine that, I would find it difficult to assume good faith were I a new user unaware of your years of excellent contributions and your reputation for fairness. --NellieBly (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to see good faith in running around yelling "your being sexist!!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

On another note... how is a new user able to find ANI on their very first day editing here? – Epicgenius (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention a user less than 3 hours old being able to refer to someone's "long history of deleting folks pages with this user." New editor or not, AGF or not, can we close this complaint as having nothing actionable (or whatever term is used)? The articles are at AFD and there does not seem to be any point in keeping this open. Meters (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarah seems to have calmed down some. She's responding much better to others than before. Nyttend has been very helpful, and I've even tried to help her at her talk page and at one of the AfDs. As for closing this, I don't think I can do that. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Another India Against Corruption editor

8,296th verse, same as the first. Blocked. IPsocks blocked. The blocking will continue as long as the socking does. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Crapscourge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Waited to get autoconfirmed then headed straight for the article [18]. Copyright claim was discussed on this board last week and debunked here. --NeilN talk to me 03:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC) This is an entirely different copyright infringement red flag on specific issues the infringer is yet to respond to. Crapscourge (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC) No, your user name is actually Orwellian doublespeak. You are shoveling more of the stuff. --NeilN talk to me 03:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Now that Sitush has self outed and his cover / fiction is blown, its an entirely different scenario for WMF. This is a ref flag. Let an experienced Admin deal with it as per policy. Crapscourge (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Does anyone have an opinion on whether these editors (the blocked and about-to-be-blocked socks, not NeilN!) are in fact a single person, or whether they are part of a (small) group? I'm tending to think the former because in a group I would expect someone to point out to the others that they are not getting anywhere so they should try another approach. My suggestion would be that the IAC editor forget about Sitush—we really don't care—the only thing that matters here is the article. If there is a problem, please find someone able to explain the issue without attacks or rants (and forget about the copyright ruse—is it really likely that the editors who maintain Wikipedia are that stupid?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Possibly yes. Ask Mr. Sitxxx-Tushxx to publicly respond to the email allegations, and keep the "Man-xxxx cabals" and their ANI blocks out of this. Copyvio is a techno-legal issue so there is a policy to deal with it especially for offensive remarks about BLPs like Swami Ramdev etc. Crapscourge (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC) History shows the content disputes issues have been discussed ad-nauseam. Had Sitush not walked out of mediation, the case would have been different. The entire text on the India Against Corruption report (which writes hugely false and inaccurate things about notable BLP persons like Hazare and Ramdev) is almost exclusively written by a single editor after unacceptable edit-warring behaviour like this [19].Crapscourge (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC) the language appears far too similar over far too many accounts to be multiple individuals unless they are all sitting there together composing every edit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I have blocked user:Crapscourge. logging off now, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC) By the way, if anyone is looking for the mediation case Crapscourge is referring to, it's here. As you can see from the mediator's multiple closing comments, Crapscourge was again shovelling. --NeilN talk to me 04:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC) That doesn't give the complete picture, I found this --> [20] "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption Non-partiicipation of some parties. Closed by mediator. Sunray (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption Issues to be mediated Primary issues (added by the filing party) 2) Whether the apellations "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" unambiguously refer to the same entity or not .. 3)Whether defamatory / disparaging statements emanating from misuse of the India Against Corruption's title(s) by third parties should be associated with the actual India Against Corruption movement in Wikipedia's article(s), or if these should be taken to articles on Anna Hazare, Team Anna, Jantantra Morcha etc. ? ...Agree Sitush (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption Primary issues Returning to the primary issues, the first one listed was the following: Is the information in the article accurate? Could we start by identifying information that is not considered accurate? Please list examples as bullet points. Let's keep posts brief (say 200 words) so we can deal with issues as effectively as possible? Sunray (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Broadly the inaccuracies in the article as we see it are:- That IAC ("India Against Corruption") and "Team Anna" are synonmous / interchangeable terms referring to the same entity. All POVs (and sources) which imply or claim that IAC (as distinguished from Team Anna) is a right-wing / communal organization / movement. That Sarbajit Roy only took over the IAC 'andolan in Sep 2013 after Kejriwal and Hazare had left. That IAC supports (or has supported) the demand / campaign for an overarching ombudsman (ie. the (Jan) Lokpal Bill). 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I'm pulling out of this. It is a pointless exercise and we're going round in circles, mainly because of WP:CIR. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) I've left a message for Sitush on his talk page. Sunray (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Non-partiicipation of some parties. Closed by mediator. Sunray (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)" 24.42.12.58 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC) If anyone is taking the above sock at face value - please look at the actual case and note the misleading omissions and indentations. Typical tactics. --NeilN talk to me 05:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC) IP blocked as a sock of User:Crapscourge/ role account associated with User:HRA1924. Some advice for the HRA1924 user(s) - pick one of your many blocked accounts, call it your primary account and seek an unblock through the usual process. Offer some convincing evidence that you will refrain from legal threats, personal attacks and disruptive editing, and you may find you have more success in getting community consensus for any content issues you seek to raise. Until then you're really just wasting time here at AN/I. Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. I (ie. this user concerned with copyright violations) am already in touch with Sue Gardner and WMF's senior community advocate has reached out to me by email. I can't speak for the other members of the declared role a/c "HRA1924". Its curious that its always AN/I being used to prevent anybody except Sitush and his cabal from editing the article. Introspect. But thanks anyways. 2A01:28:CA:102:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Speaking as a copyright clerk, I'm getting sick and tired of this disruption. We have an enormous backlog just dealing with real copyright infringements. As everyone knows (apart from this latest sock), copyright violation is an entirely separate issue from alleged BLP violations, and the copyright template must never be used to blank text because of a content dispute. For the record, see my analysis of the previous accusation of copyvio at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3. This latest one was completely spurious and without merit from a copyright point of view. Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC) And how would the hosting provider react when the infringed email is produced eventually ? At the present time this is a copyright matter and was reported by me as a copyright matter. Blocking to chill civil discussion doesn't benefit anybody and results in biting. 2A01:28:CA:102:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Hopefully disregard it as another spurious claim. --NeilN talk to me 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC) @Voceditenore You wrote this "5. The paraphrasing in the Wikipedia article was from the book above which was properly cited as the source. There is no convincing evidence that it was paraphrased from anywhere else. Thus, any alleged copyright infringement is a matter between the group purporting to be the current IAC, Veeresh Malik (the alleged author of the 2014 book) and Meera Nanda (the confirmed author of the 2013 book)." Are you implying that Meera Nanda is the plagiarist here ? Did User:Sitush have any permission to use even 3 consecutive words from Nanda's book ? @NeilN we'll see about that. 2A01:28:CA:102:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting uninvolved 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 am posting here because another user is insisting on misrepresenting me by removing part but not all of what I have said on their talk page. I feel if I continue to handle this myself that it will go badly so I am stepping away from it and seeking outside help.

I will try to keep this short.

I made a post on another admins talk page and in response I was accused of sock puppetry by User:Eric Corbett. I responded to the accusation by asking for evidence.

From here it quickly deteriorated. After a short discussion I told I was not welcome there which is fine.

However the editor is now insisting on removing some of what I said while leaving other things I said there. It is creating the false impression that I was asked a question and did not answer it. I even tried removing only my own comments while leaving his, he restored my comments despite me explicitly asking him not to, insisting on his version where half of what I said remains out of context.

As far as I can tell the initial accusation is a reference to a conversation we had 5 years ago: User_talk:Chillum/Archive_34#Your_secondary_account(note he went by User:Malleus Fatuorum back then). I really do not know how to respond to someone bringing up an issue from 5 years ago and then refusing to talk about it so I am just going to move on.

I am not here to ask for evidence of the accusation, or for any sort of action against this editor. I am trying to be reasonable in my expectations.

All I want is that either the thread is removed in its entirety or is restored to its entirety. It is not reasonable for an editor to be able pick and choose which part of a discussion stays on their talk page when doing so misrepresents the situation.

I am now going to walk away from the situation and let the community deal with it or not deal with it as they see fit. I don't feel I should be misrepresented but regardless will accept whatever outcome results here. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You're an admin, and Malleus is flat-out accusing you of being a sock of another admin? Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Where have I accused Chillum of being a sock of another admin? Eric Corbett 18:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're saying. So, which user ID's do you think are socks of Chillum? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, I'm only going by what Chillum himself has admitted to. So can you now stop throwing false accusations around? Eric Corbett 18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Where does Chillum admit to sockpuppetry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Bongwarrior is an obvious glass sock. --NE2 18:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Of who? Where is the SPI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are probably right here Chillum, Corbett can ask you to stay off his talk page (a policy I find a bit odd, but that's not my call), but he shouldn't be able to mis-represent you and remove just some of your comments, it should be all or nothing. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Chillum: No one gives a crap about what anti-admin rant Eric is on about on a particular day. Just ignore it. He's a far more protected species on Wikipedia than any admin is.--v/r - TP 18:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think that you can ask Eric politely to restore your comments in their entirety, or to remove them in their entirety, but I don't think anyone can force Eric to do either of those things. Generally, the owner of a user talk page usually decides what is on their user talk page. Editors are encouraged to do things like archive their talk page threads, and to not partially remove your comments, but encouragement is all we can do. I think it would be reasonable for you to remove your own comments from the discussion, if you prefer them to be removed, as long as Eric doesn't have any strong objections to it. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chillum really should not be edit-warring with another editor on that editor's talk page. You can see the 8 edits in 30 minutes that Chillum made on Eric's page here. Only the last three are reverts, but it really isn't the way to behave on somebody else's talk page.

In brief, Chillum arrived on Eric's page with an angry message. Eric replied "Why are you wasting your time here in trying to lecture to me Chillum? You surely must be aware of the contempt in which I hold you." That is the question that Chillum seemed so desperate to answer, even though most of us would recognise a rhetorical question. Eric removed the further response from Chillum, who then edit warred just to have his answer displayed. When that failed, he removed the entire thread from Eric's page. Not cool.

No good has ever come from posting angry messages on Eric's page; nor from edit warring on somebody else's talk page; nor from unnecessary ANI posts about either of those. Please think of all the innocent electrons that are sacrificed in these threads and wrap this up soon. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPG, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." (Emphasis not mine)--v/r - TP 18:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody edited or moved someone's comment to change its meaning, so what's your point?

WP:TPO "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted ..." --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

...and while we're taking requests you can stay off my talk page too Chillum. Cassianto^talk 18:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum is a poor excuse for an admin. But he shouldn't have to put up with sockpuppetry allegations without any evidence being provided. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We're going to have to start a sub-thread inside this ANI thread for that comment. My understanding is that Chillum dates to a prior era.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, to the time when the standards for becoming an admin were much lower, Gotcha. Regardless, if he's being accused of socking, the accuser needs to either present evidence or retract the accusation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric has already told you that he's only going on what Chillum himself has admitted. Are you trying to say that one of them is lying? --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Where does Chillum admit to sockpuppetry? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Got the mop almost eight years ago, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chillum, 76-1 vote - TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT NAME. lol. I'm sure Eric is likely referring to one of Chillum's openly disclosed prior accounts, but if drama results from any ambiguity about it, it delights him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not sockpuppetry. So is Malleus merely making an ironic joke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just ignore it. It is not worth your time, or anyone else's. You really should know that bringing Eric to ANI is a waste of time; and he'll never bring you here, so rant at him once and let it go.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Resistance is futile. Eric is too well protected here. No complaint on ANI in the recent past involving him has remained open and is generally closed as "This isn't going to go anywhere", even if the complaint is legitimate. Editors should therefore stop bringing issues relating to Eric here and just leave him alone and let him do as he pleases. Eventually, perhaps that will have a better effect.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected by whom? Have you considered the possibility that the AN/I reports to which you refer were without merit? Eric Corbett 05:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

By multiple editors and admin that continue to tell others that you are unsanctionable. Oh sure, I considered that this was without merit....and also that you were just disrupting yet another discussion because you just don't care for the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If I'm unsanctionable then how do you explain my block log? Which let me remind you includes a block for using the word "sycophantic"? It's remarkable how those such as yourself are so completely lacking in insight that they're completely blind to the personal attacks they make on editors they've taken a dislike to. Eric Corbett 06:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Cassianto

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:Cassianto seems to be upset with me because I disagreed with him on the Peter Sellers talk page and that's fine but saying lies about me such as this [21] is not acceptable at all. I reverted his edit because it was unproductive, abusive and untrue. I hope an admin can make it known to him that his edit was and is unacceptable. Caden ^cool 20:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of creative verbiage rather than outright lies, as you do have userboxes displayed that say the following: "This user enjoys sex," "This user enjoys pornography," so Cassianto saying "alludes on his user page, that he is a porno-obsessed nymphomaniac" falls in a grey area. That said, the tone is somewhat combative. I hereby censure you both. Post here to acknowledge this is sufficient and that you agree no further action is necessary. DocumentError (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sellers doesn't bother me so don't presume anything. For those interested, try looking at Caden's user page: he likes pornography, fact. He likes sex, fact. He only believes in marriage between a man and a woman, fact. Quite apart from there being too much information about his sexl-life, I find the fact that he ignores gay marriage homophobic and quite offensive. These are not attacks, they are observations of his user page, which I'm quite entitled to make. Cassianto^talk 20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. Cass is way over the line with his lies and attacks. Caden ^cool 20:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree all you like, if you don't want others drawing inferences about you, don't plaster personal views and likes all over your user page. Oh, and Caden is now edit-warring with me on the Heterosexuality talk page. This is a legitimate vote with my views expressed about why I oppose, so my vote stands until it is proven otherwise. Cassianto^talk 20:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a referendum. DocumentError (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Who said it was? There is nothing offensive, defamatory, slanderous are incorrect about my vote, so why should it be reverted? Cassianto^talk 20:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You both seem like wonderful people that are choosing to engage in Gladiator Editing. Cassiano - it's not constructive to incorporate information gleaned from an editor's userpage into article discussions. And, Caden, personal life userboxes tend to bring these things on yourself. I sentence you each to review a Good article nominee. DocumentError (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Content on WP is PD and can be used anywhere, no? Cassianto^talk 20:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol, DocumentError. You "sentence" me to do a GA review? I applaud your lighthearted response, but you seem to be sitting on the fence somewhat. Cassianto^talk 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DocumentError's UN blue helmet approach. Cassianto is in the right on this, I feel, but let's all move on to something more productive. Tim riley talk 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking the bull by the horns because admins have essentially abandoned this place. While I don't have the ability to enforce my judgment, I keep a notebook next to my computer and I am making a list of 24 hour bans to issue once I'm an admin. So, I suggest you and Caden agree to disengage and each do a GA review or I will issue a Contingency Ban (contingent on my future adminship). DocumentError (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To accept a "sentence" assumes guilt, which does not apply to me. I will, however, go in one direction if Caden goes in another. Maybe he should "review" his user page and either accept it when someone makes references to him based on his user boxes, or alter them altogether. Cassianto^talk 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I hereby contingency block you for 24 hours for violation WP:NPA. Caden is still ordered to do a GA review. DocumentError (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia (text) is CC-BY-SA 3.0, not PD. Just a nitpick. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cass you are guilty and you know it. Telling me to "fuck off" on your talk page was real mature and calling me a troll on the Peter Sellers page was also real mature. Caden ^cool 20:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is my talk page and I can tell whoever I like to fuck off if I think that person is ripping the piss out of me. As for the troll remark, if the cap fits... Cassianto^talk 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• We've abandoned ANI? News to me. This entire topic hasn't even been open for an hour. Anyway, I'm going to disagree with the crowd here: Cassianto, that was way over the line. Many people (indeed, perhaps most people?) enjoy both sex and pornography without being porn-obsessed nymphomaniacs; an editor openly acknowledging that they enjoy the one does not give you free license to label them the other whenever it suits your rhetorical point. I wish you'd go back in and strike that bit from your !vote; I certainly wish you wouldn't do it again. It doesn't actually help your point at all and merely degrades another editor. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" comes to mind; you are welcome to say "this proposal is disruptive and pointy"; there's no need to insult the proposer, as well.

  Caden, this isn't the place to discuss such things, but in fairness, that was a pretty silly proposal. There was no need for you to continue escalating things through reverting once you brought it here, especially in reverting the !vote in its entirety when only a portion was objectionable; it only made things worse. Cut it out.

  DocumentError, I think you'll find that most editors are truly humorless about stuff like RfAs; joking about sentencing people and lists of people to block (not ban) for 24 hours once you become an admin is probably not going to go over well when you decide to finally run. I'd ease up on that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, you have not mentioned Caden's view about marriage, which I find to be homophobic. What do you have to say about that? Cassianto^talk 21:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cass my views on marriage changed awhile ago so don't go around spreading lies about my views. You don't know anything about me or my views. Your basing things on my user page that hasnt been edited in years. Caden ^cool 21:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Then without wishing to sound impertinent, can I ask that you adjust your user boxes. I am straight, but even heterosexual people can be offended by those views. Oh, and all the time this is on your user page, it is the truth, so please stop calling it a lie. Cassianto^talk 21:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cass please remove the lies and attacks on me that you put back on the talk page. I've had enough of your games. Caden ^cool 21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain to me where I have lied? The thread in question has now been closed by an admin and it would be wrong of me to adjust it, even if I wanted to, which I don't. Anyway, your pal NeilN removed them for you, which makes him in breach of talk guidelines. Cassianto^talk 21:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not anyone's "pal". You'll note I !voted against Caden's proposal long before you showed up. Removing personal attacks from talk pages is allowed. Funny it was your "pal" who removed a post of mine from your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, these were not "attacks" they were observations based on what he has advertised on his user page. If I had a box on my page claiming I was a racist, would you find that acceptable? Cassianto^talk 21:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cass your personal attack on me is still there. Remove it because it's lies. Caden ^cool 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See [22], or its various other iterations. DocumentError (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This is beyond ludicrous. Never have I seen someone order another editor to make changes to their userpage under threat of ongoing personal insult. But the only attention given this insane behavior is a drive-by finger-wagging. Meanwhile, the problem will fester, grow, coagulate, and eventually one or both parties will end up indefinitely blocked after it erupts into something spectacular. Unbelievable. DocumentError (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What I find ludicrous is a non-admin assuming admin duties and then openly admitting that when he does become an admin, he will start to mete out punishment to all those who crossed him. Cassianto^talk 21:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Is this the general tone of interaction you usually assume with other editors? DocumentError (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I really hope that this is a joke: "I keep a notebook next to my computer and I am making a list of 24 hour bans to issue once I'm an admin. So, I suggest you and Caden agree to disengage and each do a GA review or I will issue a Contingency Ban (contingent on my future adminship)." Because this is just the sort of thing that might hinder the success of a future RfA, since blocks are not supposed to be punishment for past deeds, and you don't seem to understand what a stale block is. Are you really constructing a "shit list" of users that you plan to issue belated blocks to for past actions? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The tragedy is I suspect this has gone on for years. Cassianto^talk 21:07, 18 September 2014 (UT
    • This is becoming farcical. I maintain that on the original point Cassianto is in the right, but that's now old news and we have a philosophical debate about future admin shenanigans. Please, ladies and gentlemen, let us put this non-issue to bed and move on. Tim riley talk 21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If it assuages your concern, Rationalobserver, I assure you I have no intent to RfA. And I think my comment was every bit as rational and lucid as those we have seen to date in this thread from both parties. I'll leave it at that. DocumentError (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope so, because I'd be the first to oppose solely based on that comment. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Time to move on. Once any thread starts navel gazing about Admins potential future actions, or potential admins' future actions, or admins' potential future actions then it comes time to cap the lot and move on to the next dramah. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Oh so now your calling me homophobic? How many more lies will you say about me Cass? BTW I want your personal attacks on me removed from the Heterosexual talk page. It's still there so remove it. I've asked you 3 or 4 times now. Caden ^cool 22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Bugs, there's carrot stew that needs to be eaten. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A right-wing Republican touting porn? That's different. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Please stop it Bugs. Caden cool 22:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Stop what? A Republican promoting porn is about as rare as hens' teeth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Maybe he's a horny one percenter. SlightSmile 22:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC) MrX does not get to own this page. There is still an open issue here. The thing is, if you put something on your user page, you have to expect it to get commented on from time to time. I've sometimes been hassled for my own flag-waving user page. No big deal. It comes with the territory. If you don't want to be made fun of for what you've got posted on your user page, then don't post it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Your comments seem like nothing more than trolling to me. Weren't you recently blocked for similar disruption?- MrX 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I don't see a disconnect there, Bugs. Declaring oneself as a republican does not mean supporting everything all of their talking points. Most notably, beliefs religious right wing of the party. That's part of where the Tea Party comes from, and their conflict with the GOP. The personal freedom to do what one chooses without significant interference from government. Ravensfire (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Doesn't seem that odd to me. Walk into any fraternity on a major university campus and you'll find a lot of Republicans and a lot of porn. Neither the Republican nor Democratic party are monoliths. Antonio Gramsci described how various worldviews with only one or two things in common are melded together to form an historic bloc or counter-hegemon. Each faction under the umbrella defers certain aspects of their worldview in order to see their core priorities realized. DocumentError (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional account attempting to insert javascript into 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.

---

Adonis333infinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has mainly been trying to promote a bicycle website (even creating a now-deleted spam article). Given that, I see little reason to assume that the javascript he's been trying to insert into articles is going to be helpful to the site. Oh, wait, he's definitely continuing to spam.

I know he hasn't been responding to anyone, and maybe he's blind, doesn't know English, and is on a cellphone with a platform that doesn't get notifications or something, but he's at his last warning and has had plenty of warnings to stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Marketplace banner spamming? Yeah, a block is required here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Takfiri

I've recently added a major omission to the article Takfiri, regarding how this term has come to be used as a sectarian slur. I've used three different reliable sources and an external link, which have been deleted wholesale repeatedly from the article with no discussion. One of the accounts deleting the added material appears to be a burner account. Can someone please take a look at this for me? I don't think I'll be able to resolve this without outside assistance. Thanks. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You have removed half of the lede about a theological term, and added twice as many words about very RECENT usage of that term, over 9 4 days of slow edit warring. Statements like "The article is about the term and all its uses" are incorrect: articles are about a single subject only and we disambiguate to other subjects. Now a case could be made to include information about recent usage further down in the article, but per UNDUE this would likely merit only a paragraph or so, and perhaps a sentence (if that) in the lede. But the place to gain CONSENSUS is at Talk:Takfiri, not through edit summaries and not here at ANI. Woodroar (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

9 days of edit wars... what are you talking about? I didn't even edit the article before (around)2 days ago4 days ago. Not sure where you got the other week from. The fact is this term has become highly contentious and this can't be wiped from the article. There is no other place to indicate this short of creating a Wikipedia:Stub article specifically for takfiri as a sectarian term. Nulla Taciti (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I was looking at the last edit prior to yours, which was 9 days ago. Your first edit was 4 days ago. The term certainly can be wiped from the article, if that's what CONSENSUS indicates. I have no opinion on whether it should be another article or not, though I am concerned that a new article would only become a COATRACK or ATTACK page. Woodroar (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out the well documented derogatory use of a term using high quality sources does not indicate an "attack" or specific agenda of any kind. Obscuring these facts, however, would seem to indicate the latter. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well 2 days have gone by and the information I added to the article has remained intact (even though my request for discussion on the talk page has gone unanswered...). An admin might want to do a quick check on the article before closing this matter. Thanks. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment by Hasmens

(Non-administrator comment) Per WP:IAR. Since both complaints are about the same issue, I've turned it into a Grand Unified Complaint. Kleuske (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hasmens has been engaging in long-term, large-scale copyvios on Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I cleaned up the article with the help of Diannaa, Hasmens left a harassing message on my talk. I don't think he understood anything from the copyvio warnings he received from Dianna and myself. His message includes crude warnings such as And keep your hands off articles related to Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots in general which has been edited with utmost care and consideration. No one understands Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots more than the Turkish Cypriots themselves. and the rest of the message included nasty attacks on Greeks in general and myself and my ethnic background in particular, including but not limited to:

You are talking about copyright when you yourselves disregard every copyright rule in the book by claiming and looting the culture and history of other countries. You are the most ignorant uneducated person I have ever come across. How dare you vandalize and delete information that is hundred percent true. If you cannot accept the truth and facts don't read it. What gives you the right to delete sourced information. You have vandalized the entire page and left the page looking like a mess, this is clearly a personal attack and hate that has been passed on by generation to generation.

This is the second such harassing message, the first one was almost as bad. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Large scale Vandalism by Dr.K

Unfortunately politics has interfered in my recent edits on Northern Cyprus. As a Turkish Cypriot I have volunteered my time to improve and expand the article on Northern Cyprus with my sources been taken from websites based in Northern Cyprus. Some of the information I added was changed around and improved in a way so in which it can be understood. If you could compare the information with the original it is quite different with some sections using different wording and such. I was ready to negotiate with Dr.K and was even prepared to alter the section into my own words. But unfortunately it wasn't enough. The dispute initially started with GiorgosY who is now banned from editing. Many attempts to vandalize the page where made by this specific user over the past few weeks. Attempts to delete, blank, and vandalize the page was also made by various other users disagreeing with factual well sourced information which has been taken from archives and books written by professional historians. I would like to state that Dr.K deletion of the sections on Northern Cyprus where politically motivated. As a regular Wikipedia reader and editor I will be very disappointed if information which doesn't suit the specific nationalistic interests of users is deleted. It is evident that Dr.K is motivated by hate towards Turkish people in general, and would like to see my edits to be restored to its original form Thank you! Their should no room for politically motivated edits.

Regards ( Hasmens (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) )

Dr K brought this problem to my attention yesterday morning, so I reviewed the 50 edits you made to the article Northern Cyprus. All the material you added was copyright violations, copied from various copyright online sources. Dr K was correct to remove the material, and it cannot be restored, because its inclusion on this wiki is in violation of copyright law. Insulting other users the way you did constitutes a personal attack. If that kind of behaviour continues, you could be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you Dianna for your valuable assistance in this incident. I am still concerned that, despite these warnings, Hasmens still seems to defend his copyvios by saying: and would like to see my edits to be restored to its original form and by making ethnicity-based attacks such as: You are talking about copyright when you yourselves disregard every copyright rule in the book by claiming and looting the culture and history of other countries.. Such militancy in defending copyright violations on a personal as well as an ethnicity level is disturbing and imo it exhibits WP:BATTLE at its most extreme. I am very concerned about that. I am also concerned about his WP:OWN mentality exhibited by: And keep your hands off articles related to Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots in general which has been edited with utmost care and consideration. No one understands Northern Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots more than the Turkish Cypriots themselves. I am also concerned by the bolded sentence which implies that direct copyvios constitute a sign of utmost care and consideration in editing Wikipedia. His open defiance in defending his massive, repeated and long-term violations of the copyright policy in the face of multiple prior warnings, betrays no understanding of one of the core policies of Wikipedia and is really concerning. The last thing the project needs is militant serial plagiarists. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday's warning is his final warning. Any further copyright violations will result in an immediate block (as immediate as differences in time zones permits). I will watch. Also, as User:EdJohnston rightly notes on the user talk page, the article is subject to ARBMAC restrictions. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa for your reply and for letting me know about EdJohnston's warning. Your approach and that of Ed's has been professional. Thank you both. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: The harassment continues. At EdJohnston's talkpage he is accusing me of racially motivated edits providing quotes from GiorgosY and falsely saying that they are mine. Please see this section on Ed's talkpage as well as my reply with a diff proving the quote is not mine but GiorgosY's. He is also accusing you of misconduct. As I said before, he is not showing signs of either stopping the harassment or understanding the copyvio issues involved. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack campaign being waged on User-page

[23] contains a long paragraph telling the reader exactly where to find me, without mentioning me by name, but very nearly - and telling the reader that I am a Sockpuppet.

"Pass a Method (mainly edits religious and sexual topics, has a significant interest in or preference for LGBT topics); recently caught him after he tried to evade scrutiny. Take note that there is only one UK-based Wikipedia editor interested in politics and Islam who misspells the word grammar (that I'm aware of anyway), and that editor is Pass a Method. Misspelling the word is what this editor recently did, and that editor was blocked as a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet (though for far more than simply misspelling the word grammar). Also take note that because Pass a Method discarded his Pass a Method Wikipedia account by using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to enforce a self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020, it is a bit trickier reporting him for WP:Sockpuppetry. Either way, editing in the same exact areas as he did before and so soon after his topic ban and WP:Sockpuppetry, while pretending that he is a new editor, is a violation of the WP:Clean start policy; so he can very likely be sanctioned for that. If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet: Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). Editing religious topics in general, including the addition of anything about Pope Francis (whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him). Editing LGBT articles. Editing political articles. Editing sexual articles. Editing medical and/or anatomy articles. Editing science topics such as the Big Bang article, or topics about black holes; the Stellar black hole article, for example, could be a candidate. Visiting the WP:Help desk. Focusing on leads. Focusing on British topics; using British spelling. Using editing summaries that are meant to deceive. Using Urban Dictionary as a source, whether it's at the Erection article, or, for example, the Roach (smoking) article. Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles."

This is the whole paragraph. I was advised, after I tried to delete it myself, to explain very carefully why I "think" it's about me. ([24]) This was after she had attacked me in an edit summary, [25], stating in the edit summary "your edit summary was deceptive...as usual" (which, on her talk page, you can see she apologises for, and admits, finally, I am not the sockpuppet).

Every fact, from "If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet:" onwards is directly describing me, compiled from going through my edit history no doubt. (Except the bit about the Erection article). I wrote the entire current Boko Haram article. She first confronted me with her allegation over a month ago, while I was still writing it.

• For proof this statement should be sufficient "Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)" especially the part in parentheses. (I wrote the article without the collaboration of any other editors).

• Another reason it is clearly about me: I did indeed use the Urban Dictionary as a source on Roach (smoking).

• Also, I did indeed have Van Gogh's picture of a skeleton smoking a cigarette on my user page, for a month or two, until a couple of days ago.

• "Focussing on leads" - I have done this lately

• "Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles"- yes, I do that.

Clearly, she has checked everything I do, and added it to the description, to make sure that readers find me.

I hope this is detailed enough. It's very long, but I was warned to be very clear. I would have thought it was immediately obvious, but 2 or 3 admins have refused to do anything about it, because it doesn't mention me by name. This is presumably all a big joke to them. I fail to see the humour.

One statement should suffice to prove everything I say: "(I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)". If you look at the edit history of the BH article, you'll see what I mean. No one has made any substantial edit to that for months (except a couple of editors who insisted on adding a sentence or two to the "name" section).

Another very specific proof, "(whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him)". I wrote most of the article and did indeed add a mention of the Pope.

And, as far as the attack being unsubstantiated, she has now finally admitted that she thinks it is "2%" likely that I am the sock. The sock cannot spell (one of the defining characteristics she mentions about him, above), and a quick look at his writing provides evidence of a very shaky grasp of the rules of grammar.

I have no idea why Flyer22 chose to target me in this way. She still claims to be absolutely certain that I have edited WP substantially before this account. As I have repeatedly explained to her, I never even found out how to use references before. But anyway, whatever her mysterious personal antagonism towards me, she has not responded to my requests on her talk page to remove it. The last thing she said (on her talk page, after admins blocked me from deleting the userpage attack myself) was that I am not (or only 2% likely to be) the sockpuppet, and that she apologises for attacking me in an edit summary, and that she has nothing more to say to me.

Clearly, she thinks she should be entitled to attack me, out of personal spite, for however long she sees fit, and the the admins who stopped me from deleting it possibly share her view. So I just thought I'd find out if that is indeed the policy, that long-standing editors can hound new editors out of WP if they see fit, out of personal spite (or other personal reasons, I have no idea). The sockpuppet's inability to follow the rules of grammar or spelling make it obvious at a glance that it's not me. I have now wasted a huge amount of time on this issue. I hope it can be resolved without any more fuss, since it is a crystal clear case of a sustained personal attack (and I have no idea what motivated it). I would like the entire section removed: clearly, she has no ability to track sockpuppets, and would simply use the section to put more "cryptic" clues about what a terrible editor and fraud I am.

I asked the editor who protected her userpage after I tried to delete it to get the stuff about me removed, but he repeatedly claims that it's not about me. This is presumably a private joke which I'm not in on. I am disgusted at the way I've been treated, being hounded over an imbecilic allegation, and told that material attacking me is "not" attacking me, by an administrator.

Please do something to demonstrate that WP isn't the shabby little club ([26], an admin cynically protecting his friend's right to attack me if she wants) that it has now started to appear to me as. On this admins page, another editor has stated that I started editing on Sept 10, I notice. What is that about? Ive been editing for months. It seems like there is a campaign against me for some reason (I would like to know why, but it's not important). zzz (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the entire page repeatedly [27], [28], [29] and did not respond to Flyer22's offer. [30] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Theres definetly a whiff of incivility going on along with vandalism on the user page, im starting to hear a soft woosh woosh. Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Posting an accusation against another editor - even in personal Talk space - is not AGF. It is correct that zzz should not edit Flyer22's user page, however, neither should Flyer22 be using her user page to attack other editors. If there is an issue of sockpuppetry, it needs to be raised in SPI. If there's not enough evidence for a SPI case then the matter should be dropped. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves against insinuation and accusation, that's why we have formal arbitration and remediation processes. Posting these as "scarlet letters" on personal user space creates a situation where the accused has no opportunity for defense. There is no possible good outcome to this; it will inevitably lead to disruption and increasingly heated WP:CIVIL issues between Flyer22 and zzz. It should be addressed and corrected right now, either through voluntary action or a compulsory edit to the section in question. DocumentError (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you didn't edit as Pass A Method then the information cannot be about you. Your attempt to conflate the issue and say that it is about you is worrying and raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. FWIW shabby little club's are some of my favorite places and I have met some of the nicest people that I have known in them. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

While that's true, Flyer22 behaving toward zzz in an accusatory fashion in articles they both edit has to be taken into account within the context of the monologue on her Talk page. Saying things like "your edit summary was deceptive...as usual" in edit summaries addressed to zzz, etc., can only be designed to "poison the well" against zzz. If one wants to believe another editor is a sock, that's fine, don't bring it up in public, though, unless you're prepared to make an accusation in SPI. I frequently see this where an editor is (often justifiably) convinced another editor is a sock but, instead of filing SPI, pursues "street justice" against them by making insinuations in public space in apparent attempts to delegitimize the suspect editor's contributions in the eyes of others. There is no outcome from organizing a WikiLynchMob that could possibly be construed as benefiting the content quality of WP; this is only and serially disruptive. DocumentError (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(mec) There is more at Recreational Drug Use, admin only and more advice. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a whiff of incivility, which I am largely wo blame for, and I regret that. The incivility started when Flyer22 attacked me in this edit summary. I went to CBWeather's page to blow off steam, and she followed me there, and raised her accusations of being a sockpuppet, being detrimental to articles, making deceptive edit summaries, and having a history of diruptive editing, and a personal attacks issue. I very strongly disagree with all of the above, and she provides no evidence. She eventually did apologise for the edit summary, after I had discovered and tried to delete the attack page.

Neil, I didnt notice her offer because it was on your page. I left friendly messages on her page, but there was no reply. In any case, I can't take the offer of removing half a dozen words seriously. Oh yes, and I told her why I was deleting the page.

Marnette, the attack piece claims that I am the puppet. I deny the accusation. I guess you think I am being unreasonable somehow. I do not know why you think this though. zzz (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "attacked me in this edit summary : [31]" zzz (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Either get rid of the lies about me off your page or I will delete it is not "friendly". What are you looking for here? A modification to some text on her user page? if so, I suggest you propose what you want changed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That was written immediately after I discovered the large attack paragraph. Please read the very polite and fiendly messages after that. zzz (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I want the sockpuppet section removed. zzz (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The section about Pass a method does seem a bit far stretched and all encompassing. I've touched more than one of those bases as have multiple other editors. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As have I. This essentially describes a measurable percentage of editors on WP; not just zzz. The only possible purpose this could serve is for future use as a cudgel during editing disputes. And, in fact, it appears this is how Flyer22 is using it. Everyone who edits WP should do so unarmed. "Armoring up" before editing an article is not in the collaborative spirit of WP. DocumentError (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to "armor up" in the way that you describe me as doing; if the editor is a WP:Sockpuppet, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia anyway, unless it's a legitimate use of an alternative account; I won't apologize for keeping a lookout for those editors, publicly letting others know to do so, and/or keeping those editors off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that another insinuation that I'm guilty, it sounds a lot like one? And since I'm guilty it serves me right. Or something. zzz (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So the question becomes, are Wikipedia editors allowed to keep a list of known sockmasters and their editing habits on their user page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sensible answer to that would be "if they know what they are doing". She clearly doesn't (and has caused me a load of grief as a result). zzz (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes would be my emphatic answer. But when the editing habits of sockmasters include visiting the helpdesk and editing articles including sexual or political themes does seem to be stretching good faith a fraction. Amortias (T)(C) 18:48, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Signedzzz, if I didn't know what I was doing, I would not keep catching WP:Sockpuppets, including Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppets; it was made very clear to you at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page that I have caught many WP:Sockpuppets, and can rarely be fooled by any of them.

And, Amortias, touching one or more of those bases is one thing; touching all of those bases is another. And in my several years of editing this site, editing various topics, I have not come around many, several or even a few British, Islamic-focused editors interested in all of those matters and behaving in those specific ways. The fact that I have not is how I have easily identified Pass a Method time and time again. I will not remove the section in question, especially since I believe that it is helpful to editors. But, like I recently noted on my talk page, I have edited it so that it doesn't seemingly point directly at Signedzzz. As for the rest of this discussion, I have no comment. And this will likely be my only post in this section. If I post in it again, it will be one more time and then I'm done with it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its the use of several I feel might be part of the issue. If it was rephrased to lean towards the majority or even most of these things that would seem more accurate from how ive read and interpreted your statement above. Amortias (T)(C) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not Islamic focused, by the way) zzz (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) (For the record, the Erection edit was Passamethod, not me). zzz (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Amortias, the whole second half of the paragraph is basically a list of everything I've done. It's an attack piece, pure and simple. zzz (talk) 20:12, Today (UTC+1)

Flyer22 is at it again? Will she ever learn? Caden ^cool 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Caden, to break my "won't reply again" rule, what do you even mean by that? Whatever you mean, you're wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The list on the user page, User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch, is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. There's no indication that this is material that is going to be used in a timely manner, or ever, for a specific dispute resolution. User pages aren't supposed to have Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. It doesn't matter how accurate it is as a list of the worst editors wikipedia has ever seen, it's a list targeting specific editors. I haven't looked closely at the behavior of the OP here, but the enemy list there is clearly a problem no matter what else happened. There is no imminent use here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew that someone was going to bring up the WP:POLEMIC argument; nope, I don't see it as WP:POLEMIC, and won't see it as such. And your calling it an enemy list is simplifying things dramatically. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course someone was going to bring up WP:POLEMIC. It's a list of editors along with your assessment of their faults, kept for long-term, relating to no-specific-event purposes. It's one of the clearest violations of WP:POLEMIC I could imagine seeing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you'd kept that junk off-line, then nobody would have to had to deal with this thread right now. That's why this sort of thing shouldn't be on your user page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And I don't agree that it is a WP:POLEMIC violation; my opinion on that won't be changing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You can be as "I can't hear you" entrenched in your opinion as you want; My guess is that any other editor that compares User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch with WP:POLEMIC will come to a different opinion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you "knew that someone was going to bring up the WP:POLEMIC argument" that seems to indicate you were aware that what you were posting was suspect right out of the gate. At this point the only question that remains is why you insist on keeping this clearly divisive information up? DocumentError (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22. Yes it is an enemy list that you have on your page. You are not fooling anyone. Caden ^cool 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, disagreeing with you is not playing WP:I didn't hear that. And as for the section being junk, it is not; it is a section that helps to identify highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, quite the opposite of what I interpret WP:POLEMIC to be. And we are dealing with that section right now because Signedzzz did not like my reply to him in an edit summary and took to obsessively posting at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, and then at my talk page; in other words, he seemingly can't let anything go. Once I made the contents of my user page very clear to him, he sought to remove a section that identifies WP:Sockpuppets, when the section does not mention him. Others have pointed out that the section does not mention him and have stated that the section is fine. I couldn't care in the least that you think I should remove a section about highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, especially since any of the listed WP:Sockpuppets would want that section removed.

DocumentError, I knew that the WP:POLEMIC argument would be made because I have several years of experience at this site and know of some of the flaws in arguments that go on at it, including all sorts of WP:Wikilawyering. I don't believe in your "work with the highly problematic editors" rationale. If they show up at an article with a newly registered account or as an IP address and I easily recognize them as past editors, then, yes, I will want those editors gone. I care not if you see it as me trying to control articles. Those editors were blocked and/or banned for valid reasons, and I should not have to state, "Kumbaya, let us all work together."

Caden, and you are not fooling me as to why you've posted in this section (hint, hint, yes, I remember your ridiculous merge proposal from earlier in the year, and don't remember interacting with you at all before that point, which is why your "Flyer22 is at it again" argument above is as ludicrous as that aforementioned merge proposal). Neither is Elaqueate. But do carry on with your attempts to remove the contents from my user page. Even if the specific users are removed, I will readd a section there about WP:Sockpuppets, how to spot them and some of the articles WP:Sockpuppets frequently visit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The section all but mentions me by name, right down to every article I've edited, and "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article". the fact that an administrator supported you until I brought the matter here, is a separate issue. zzz (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I already removed the "main/continuous" part; you know that. And more than simply one WP:Administrator has supported me on having that section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: That the community ask User:Flyer22 to remove negatively-focussed lists of editors from their user 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:Flyer22 is maintaining, at User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch, a list of editors they have had disputes with, or who have received blocks but are familiar to Flyer22. It contains notes about editors' perceived habits and flaws. Flyer22 has indicated that they won't change their mind on the matter through further discussion. Flyer22's goal of dealing with editorial disruption is a noble one, but they are going about it in a disruptive way.

User pages can only be used for purposes that are acceptable to the community. In the past, publishing privately-compiled lists of editors on a user-page, when that list is based on previous disputes, sanctions, perceived faults, etc. (even when accurate), has been seen by the community as needlessly disruptive. Under "What may I not have in my user pages?", WP:POLEMIC restricts:

Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Flyer22 is free to keep whatever notes they want privately if it helps them in their encyclopaedic work. Keeping it in Wikipedia space, long-term, without regard to any specific or current dispute, only invites needless disruption. Flyer22's list contains non-banned editors who are blocked, and as everyone knows, no block is necessarily forever. The fact that this thread exists demonstrates that these sorts of user-page lists are disruptive to encyclopaedia work, even when compiled with the best of intentions. A user page list is not the appropriate way of dealing with future problems with sockpuppets, and Flyer22 has indicated they are confident "recognising" problems without it. If some of the material on the user page is considered by the community to rise to the level of "Personal attack" then WP:BLPTALK also applies.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I told Elaqueate above (my "21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post), "And as for the section being junk, it is not; it is a section that helps to identify highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, quite the opposite of what I interpret WP:POLEMIC to be. And we are dealing with that section right now because Signedzzz did not like my reply to him in an edit summary and took to obsessively posting at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, and then at my talk page; in other words, he seemingly can't let anything go. Once I made the contents of my user page very clear to him, he sought to remove a section that identifies WP:Sockpuppets, when the section does not mention him. Others have pointed out that the section does not mention him and have stated that the section is fine. I couldn't care in the least that you think I should remove a section about highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, especially since any of the listed WP:Sockpuppets would want that section removed." I also stated above, "Even if the specific users are removed, I will readd a section there about WP:Sockpuppets, how to spot them and some of the articles WP:Sockpuppets frequently visit." Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And WP:Disruptive to have that section? No, not in my opinion. One editor causing a fuss about it because he obsessively posts about matters, so much so that he received a clear warning about that type of posting? No, that doesn't equal WP:Disruptive on my part. But carry on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to post general information. This isn't about whether a single person on your list objects to it; negatively-focussed lists of editors are divisive. This is true regardless of this particular editor and regardless of whether all the editors are "known scoundrels". You have a list that contains more editors than the one currently complaining. And it doesn't sound like you're using the public list to detect sock puppets, because it's based on your private opinions, which you know whether they're on your user page or not. Editors should not be using their user pages as long-standing free-floating personal criminal investigation material.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am welcome to post what I have posted regarding these highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets until the community deems that I am not allowed to do so. And, no, at the time of this post, I don't see that they have already deemed that...all because of your broad application of WP:POLEMIC. It's broad applications of WP:POLEMIC, like yours, that I see as detrimental to Wikipedia, as if we should not dare publicly speak of highly problematic editors and publicly list ways of identifying them. Yes, I use that list to detect WP:Sockpuppets. And I know of editors who have used it to identify Pass a Method. I already explained in the section immediately above this one why the section is on my user page; I will continue to stand by that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No one could catch the sockpuppet Passamethod with your information, because the vast majority of the information you fraudulently supply is specifically about me, including specific edits I have made. Therefore you make it less likely for sockpuppets to be caught, by deliberately spreading disinformation.zzz (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh again. When you get stuck on something, you really get stuck on something, don't you? And then you ignore any suggestion, such as my "23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" suggestion below, to alleviate or remove your concern. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose with caveat. If the information about those editors is correct and they are not in good standing, then I don't see that it is any different from any entry on WP:LTA. Since three are blocked and one has previous for persistent sockpuppetry, the only one I would remove is Scientiom, who does not appear to be under any sanction. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The main one Passamethod, flyer22 has supplied all of my details so as to convince people that it is me (see above). It is this that is the clearest case of personal attack. I am in good standing and not a sockpuppet, by the way. zzz (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter. The information on her page is about Pass a method, not you; if that data on the modus operandi of that editor and their sockpuppets is accurate, there is no issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the information about Passamethod on her page is actually about me. It is therefore not accurate because I am not a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

She stated in Passamethod's description "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article". How could this not be about me? And there are other examples, above of things she has clearly inserted about me int Passamethod's supposed biography. In the 2nd half of the para, everything is about me, gleaned no doubt from my edit history etc, except the one edit at the Erection article, which was passamethod. I thought that all this had been well-established already. zzz (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite, the proof that they are master WP:Sockpuppets is on their user pages/user talk pages. And their WP:Sockpuppets show what type of editing they continued to engage in. As for Scientiom, it's partly my fault that he has no current sanctions. Even though he has been blocked multiple times for WP:Sockpuppeting, as that link shows, I am willing to remove any mention of him from my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of Scientiom only - As this editor is under no sanctions the rest appear to be blocked editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Changed to support per below - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm curious. Are you saying you'd be fine with a person keeping a public user-page list of editors they've disagreed with, as long as those editors had received certain blocks? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  This isn't that list so your question is irrelevant. This is a list of sockmasters Flyer22 has dealt with. Agreeing or disagreeing with a sock's edits is not the point. They're not supposed to be editing at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  Of course currently sanctioned sockmasters shouldn't be editing. That's a non sequitur. But this seems to imply that an editor could have a list of people they've disagreed with in the past, prominently displayed on their user page, as long as they're otherwise faced some common sanction. This list doesn't seem constructive for more than warning people to be wary of people using British spelling on articles involving British topics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, warning people to be wary of me, because I am a sockpuppet of Passamethod, apparently.zzz (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "list" is in fact disinformation, as far as helping catch sockpuppets, because it is (in the case of Passamethod), simply a list of very specific things I have done and am doing, put next to Passamethod's name. This means people will not spot Passamethod, because they will assume it is me. I cannot understand how anything like that could be considered useful in any way, shape or form.zzz (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The information about Passamethod is all fabricated, since it is in fact simply a list of things about me.zzz (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, the second half of the para, with all the specifics: "Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). " and onwards, with one detail about Passamethod added, the "Erection edit". How is tacking on your enemy's information next to a known sock puppet helpful exactly?zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If people interpret the section as simply "be wary of people using British spelling on articles involving British topics" (and I'm certain that no one will interpret it that way), then they are not reading that section properly. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And the "Focusing on British topics; using British spelling." part clearly needs tweaking if it is to stay, since it was not meant to indicate that Pass a Method uses British spelling on British topics, but rather to reiterate that he uses British spelling in general (since he's British). Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have good motives, I just think that this approach is counter-productive and will only lead to more false positives and avoidable disputes. When sock-puppetry is suspected, file an SPI. If a particularly bad editor has been exposed, file them at LTA. It's cleaner. Publicly profiling editors on your user page may be personally satisfying but I think it's going to burn you and others more times than it will catch anybody. You've also claimed to be almost perfect at detecting subsequent sockpuppets, which somehow promotes less confidence about what you're using these profiles for. Accusing people of sock-puppetry is something that should be done with high levels of active and thoughtful caution, I don't think it should be generalized as fuzzy warning profiles in a user page section. I think you're right to look for sock puppets, but not to risk giving focussed grief to random editors that fit a very general profile. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If I comment on your view any further, it would be me essentially repeating myself. So to spare significant repetition, I will reply this time with "I generally disagree." And regarding "false positives," the only way that a false positive could happen is in the case of Pass a Method, since it is his editing habits that I extensively detailed, and that is only if people don't take the piece on him there into full account. Either way, below (my "23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post), I already offered to remove the part that Signedzzz objects to. Removing the entire section? I reiterate that my opinion on that will not change. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

She is using the passamethod biography, which she simply took from my edit history and is pretending that it is Passamethod, but in fact 99% of it is about me. She uses this to conduct a personal vendetta against me. That is why I brought this matter here. Is it acceptable for her to continue insinuating with completely fabricated "evidence" that I am a sockpuppet? That seems very incomprehensible to me.zzz (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying a user page could say "A certain editor", name every page he's working on and has recently worked on, specify a few particular edits, " is a sockpuppet, so look out for him"? About any editor such as myself, with no evidence of malfeasance? Because that is exactly what the problem is, and why I brought the matter here.zzz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Signedzzz, the content that you object to indeed concerns Pass a Method. But since that section continues to bother you, would you be fine with me restoring it to the condition it was in before I listed articles/topics that you have in common with Pass a Method? Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been chased off WP before several years ago by this same accusation. And I am sorely tempted again, both when you first confronted me with doom and a permanent cloud of near-certainty ("I don't have enough proof yet, but" and "No, I am not imagining things" etc) and again recently. I wonder if I get targeted especially. Your level of evidence for causing this grief & aggravation is basically anyone you don't like (who is UK and visits a very vague set of sites). The information about Passamethod doesn't bother me, as long as it's all about him. zzz (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong regarding the Pass a Method issue, and anyone familiar with Pass a Method's problematic editing knows that you are wrong on that matter. My evidence on him has caught him time and time again. But I'm tired of repeating myself. You apparently don't get tired of repeating yourself, so continue on as you were then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what the community thinks about this. In my honest opinion, you are a worse problem than sockpuppets. Certainly you are as far as I'm concerned. However, I am not qualified to make any specific suggestions about how the community should most appropriately act.zzz (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'm "a worse problem than sockpuppets." I'm sure that many editors at this site will agree with you on that. *Laughs* Whatever the case, I have removed the content you objected to. Will I add back some articles that Pass a Method has been known to be problematic at? Perhaps. And if I do, don't come complaining to me about it, especially since it is about Pass a Method, not about you unless you are him. You can head straight here to WP:ANI again and see if you get good support for trying to force me to remove something from my user page that you don't like. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as per User:Elaqueate. Since this is a voluntary request of Flyer22, I further move that a Committee of Watch be convened to monitor Flyer22's user space in the event she chooses not to concede to consensus, so as to enable a possible early intervention/mediation into similar future issues before they balloons to the point that an editor feels victimized. DocumentError (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is laughable; as if I would not adhere to WP:Consensus. Unlike many people at this site who disregard that policy (it's policy, not simply a guideline), I highly respect it and do what I can to uphold it...until new consensus is formed. And as for WP:Administrators or other higher-ups (including WP:CheckUsers) watching my user page, like I told Signedzzz at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, I have a significant number who do; Barek, who full-protected my user page (see here) due to Signedzzz's WP:Disruption, is one such editor. But if you want more people watching it, bring it on. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Community of Watch". Ha. Orwell would be proud. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

can i make a list of people who i need to keep monitoring as my duty as part of the "Community of Watch"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Such pages undermine a collegiate atmosphere of mutual respect and support. I recall cases of admins facing sanctions for keeping similar pages in the past - I'd rather not drag up names ets but other longstanding editors will surely remember. If any editor wants to keep a private list of enemies/toerags/wankers, or whatever, then they can either get pen and paper and write them down, or invest in a computer and make such lists on that - not use Wikipedia for them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per User:Elaqueate. The enemy list of Flyer22 is junk and it has to go. Caden ^cool 02:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We already established your faulty reason for being in this thread, with my "21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post in the section immediately above this one. If insulting your ridiculous WP:Move request (which was not even an official WP:Move request) is all that it takes for you to "vote" against someone one, I will have to remember to insult any other ridiculous WP:Move request you make; certainly is fun watching you take your petty revenge. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we not turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Save your personal disputes for the right place as you are not making your case look good here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, please do not threaten to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would not be "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" if I honestly find the WP:Move request to be ridiculous and state it as such. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. An "enemies list", even disguised as a "sockpuppet watch" list, is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If they're not socks, it's an enemies list; if they are, it's grave-dancing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any highly disruptive editor that I recognize as highly disruptive is simply an enemy. I could not disagree more. But your opinion is your own. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You could try writing it down and keep it in a notebook then if you are that truly concerned, names do not have to be presented for the world to see online on some list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why these names should not be listed. None of the rationales for why they should not be are valid to me. I don't think these editors should be protected in any way when it comes to identifying their problematic editing for as many eyes that come across my user page. I made the mistake of shielding Scientiom; I won't be making that mistake, or a similar one, again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems can be listed at WP:LTA, editing restrictions, SPI, and other community-patrolled pages. And this is only the same sort of "protection" that stops random editors from listing you as a disruptive editor on their talk pages.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Like NeilN pointed out to you above, this is not the same thing as simply listing editors that one personally finds problematic. This is about listing editors who have been indefinitely blocked (in one cased banned) because of their problematic editing and continue to waste Wikipedia's time. The main thing that I take away from your and some others' arguments in this case is protecting these editors from wider exposure (something I address below in my reply to Davey2010). I could not care in the least if an editor lists me on their user page as problematic; my contributions speak for themselves, and so do what transpired with my block cases. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you should list the editors "that one personally finds problematic" at WP:LTA, editing restrictions, SPI, and other community-patrolled pages. Quite the opposite. Community pages are the best place to list type of material you're outlining, rather than a personal version run by a single editor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that you were not suggesting that. You stated, "Community pages are the best place to list type of material you're outlining, rather than a personal version run by a single editor." I cannot agree in this case; and this is due to the reasons I stated to Davey2010 below. All of the support votes in the world won't be changing my mind on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"All of the support votes in the world won't be changing my mind on this topic" - It's good to know you've solemnly sworn not to listen to the community. Food for thought: the general term for somebody who says they will not listen to community consensus is "not here to improve the encyclopedia". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, stating that I won't change my mind on the usefulness of the section in question, which is what I was doing with my "04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above, is not stating that I will not adhere to WP:Consensus to remove the section. I made clear in my "02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above that I always adhere to WP:Consensus, unlike many at this site. You see, the WP:Consensus policy is almost as disregarded/disrespected as the WP:Civil policy, if not more so. And as for me not being here to improve the encyclopedia, yeah, my wanting to keep highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets off Wikipedia shows that exactly. So do my various barnstars and the discussions regarding them. And the over 200 talk page watchers I have? Yeah, they are all there to keep me in line. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of them respect me as a Wikipedian and/or often ask for my help on Wikipedia matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support This kind of list goes agains the collaberative spirit of wikipedia. Lists like this belong in the notebook of a middleschooler not on an encyclopedia. If Flyer22 wants to keep a list he should do it without using Wikiedia's resources or time. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There should be no collaborative spirit when it comes to highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets. If you want to ignore them and/or work with them, you are obviously more than free to do so. But I don't see why others should have to be kept in the dark when it comes to that choice. As for "[l]ists like this belong in the notebook of a middleschooler not on an encyclopedia," that's absurd. Like Black Kite stated above, the list is not "any different from any entry on WP:LTA." And as for "using Wiki[p]edia's resources or time"? Just what resources and time are being wasted, other than this silly thread? Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Is a userpage really an appropriate place to list this?, If you wanna keep tabs on people shove it on your desktop or write it down like normal people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The good ole "You're not normal" insinuation. Thanks. Makes me feel all special. The point of the list, as has already been stated, is to document not only a type of editing that I engage in (identifying WP:Sockpuppets), which is not much different than identifying on my user page what other type of editing I engage in, but further publicizing these problematic WP:Sockpuppets so that others know who they are dealing with when these WP:Sockpuppets reappear. I am one of the main editors of Wikipedia's sexual topics (whether it's sexual activity, sexual orientation, or anatomy), a field that is highly neglected on Wikipedia and can be quite easily significantly disrupted by any of these editors...without much backup; and all of these WP:Sockpuppet masters have been involved in sexual articles. Because I am one of the prominent editors of sexual topics on Wikipedia, many people who edit these articles or visit these articles at random check my user page and/or talk page. Same goes for my getting contacted by journalists because of my editing of these articles. And I find it to be a good thing when [Wikipedia editors] come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for. But if you and others want to protect these problematic editors, which it seems to me that you do, there is clearly not much that I can do about that. User:Acoma Magic should be proud that he has such defenders. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you like this list on your user page because it's a good way to share the editor names with journalists? __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, and you've glossed over the main point of that paragraph. I don't care anymore what you think on this subject. Not that I cared much to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since my "journalists" comment can obviously be taken out of context, such as by Signedzzz below, I have amended the wording by adding "[Wikipedia editors]" in place of "they"; the amendment is clear by the brackets. If I had originally put the journalists part in parentheses, it would have been very clear that I mean "Wikipedia editors" by use of "when they come away from my user page." I thought about clarifying the text when you questioned me; now I have. And what I meant by that text is further clarified by the aforementioned link in this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also added "problematic" on to "editors" in the second-to-last sentence of my "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above to clarify what type of editors I am talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Further clarification on the journalists point here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What a headache. This is why editing comments after people have responded only tends to confuse things further. You didn't even change your overall point. You are still saying you have your user page the way it is partly because journalists sometimes visit it. A pretty goofy point to spend this much time on. If the community decides this is an inappropriate way to use your user page, then the possible high visibility of your page only works against you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support There is no need for a sock-smeller pursuivant; SPI is thataway GoldenRing (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The section in question is a waste of bandwidth at best and a blatant and unjustifiable violation of WP:POLEMIC at worst. —Rutebega (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Rutebega, I saw your post soon after you made it, but am only just now replying: Wikipedia is not paper. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Tentatively oppose. For any editors who are blocked, banned, or topic banned, a short description of their editing pattern is appropriate. I choose to keep out of LGBT editing patterns, because I consider MOS:IDENTITY to be put "respect" over accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Such information on personal user pages will continue to be misused. New editors will continue to leave in disgust. zzz (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose we are getting over protective in wikipedia. If s/he is keeping a list then at least we know they are. It used to be that controlling behaviour was a means to allow good articles to emerge, now it has become an end in itself. No one has to go to his talk page and there is nothing really offence there. Too many cases here are starting to sound like a chorus of demands to bring sinners to the mercy seat in a hell fire and damnation chapel. Black Kite's advise is as far as I would go ----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If Signedzzz is insisting that the MO as outlined by Flyer is in fact about him and not about Pass a Method, then maybe he could point out the bits that don't pertain to Pass a Method? Unless it is explicitly established that Flyer's "sock profile" is indeed about Signedzzz then I cannot support an action compelling her to remove the section. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is well-established. In the second half of the section about Pass a Method, from "current/main editor of Boko Haram" (undeniably me) onwards, (see top of this page), it is a selection of things I've done. I haven't edited Pope Francis or Erection, but everything else was me. Eg, mentioned the Pope in the drugs article [[32]]. No attempt has been made to suggest otherwise. It is absolutely blatant and unsubtle, all the rest is about me. And yet when I asked for it to be removed, here [33] for example where an administrator tells me I have "no cause to delete it", I was told in no uncertain terms that it must stay. Hence the accusations of me being a sock, etc, etc, were guaranteed to continue, to the point where I might start believing them myself. zzz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Eg also, my use of Urban Dictionary for the definition of Roach (smoking). The edit history shows it was me, and yet Flyer22 listed it, along with my other activities, under the list of things that would prove an editor to be a sockpuppet.zzz (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support If Flyer22 wants to accuse someone of sock puppetree then it needs to go to SPI. This sort of behavior only seeks to reinforce an idea that zzz is a problem, and obviously if you can't pass the duck test or SPI these devolve into PAs. Its time for the old "put up or shut up" portion of DR. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tivanir2, I already "put up"...times over. And as has already been made clear, all of those editors listed are WP:Sockpuppet masters. And they were caught by the WP:Duck test and by WP:CheckUsers times over. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Put up" means prove with evidence that your allegation is true. I see you are continuing your efforts to prove it by insinuation instead.zzz (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Commentary about present and former editors who are suspected of socking and abuse is better kept at WP:LTA and WP:SPI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Elaqueate, DuncanHill, Caden, and The Bushranger. To put a finer point on it, the enemies list seems to make Flyer22's user page into a trophy wall ("caught him") and its edit summaries contrary to WP:ES and WP:NPA ("And, sigh, [username] looks very familiar, but appears to be a sock of an editor currently editing Wikipedia (I might worry about him later.)")[34] Lightbreather (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, people continually referring to the list of highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets as an enemies list are completely oversimplifying the matter. Anyone significantly familiar with these highly problematic editors knows that. You have not seen the type of disruption they are capable of, and neither have a lot of others here voting "support." And that is just one reason that I take your opinions on these matters with a grain of salt. As for my edit summaries in my user page history regarding WP:Sockpuppets, there is nothing wrong with them, in my opinion. It's already clear that I don't agree with your strict interpretation of what a WP:Personal attack is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't override POLICY. Per the Civility policy re personal attacks and harassment (partial):

Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to be deleting the multiple pages/sections you have in your user space with lists of diffs and actions from Sue, Scalhotrod and others?Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, there is no need to cite Wikipedia policy to me as though I need a crash course in it. It's not just my opinion when it comes to your overly strict interpretations of the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies and that is made clear in that aforementioned discussion I linked to when replying to you minutes ago above. Pointing out on my user page that an editor is a WP:Sockpuppet and/or that I caught that editor as a WP:Sockpuppet is not a WP:Civil/WP:Personal attacks issue. And if I wanted an enemies list on my userpage, it would be far longer than the list containing these highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The vote on the aforementioned discussion is about 50/50, so I don't know if you anyone can rightly call my (and others') interpretations overly strict. That's not clear at all. In fact, one might argue just as well that civility isn't given any serious attention on Wikipedia, and a lot of people are tired of being told to ignore it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I debated with myself on whether or not I should reply to your latest response; clearly, I've decided to reply: I used the words "my opinion" in my "17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" response to you above. And I stated that I'm clearly not the only one who feels that your interpretations of the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies are overly strict; whether it's indicated in the aforementioned above discussion or elsewhere on Wikipedia. And as for the WP:Civil policy being very disrespected/disregarded, I mentioned that to The Bushranger in my "17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" reply above when noting that the WP:Consensus policy is just as, if not more so, disrespected/disregarded as the WP:Civil policy. Because the WP:Civil policy is so disrespected/disregarded, editors here often don't see the point of it. Like I mentioned on my talk page: "The name-calling rolls right off of me, for the most part. Sure, it and other incivility (see WP:Civil), can anger me (the general incivility often does), but it's not often that I'm hurt by any of the words. Being called a bitch, cunt, idiot, etc. is a part of the job here (at least for me). I know that my depression often contributes to me being less than civil (usually when someone is uncivil to me first), but I often try not to be (even when my mindset is simultaneously 'If you are rude to me, then expect me to be rude to you in return.')." Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I see nothing wrong with keeping lists of verified sockpuppets on ones user page. Keeping track of socks is hard enough. Now listing none socks I would see as an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Lightbreather. Lists of users that you've had disagreements with, socks or not, is simply inappropriate. Ansh666 05:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Confused the nub of this dispute is zzz's perceived treatment by Flyer22. Elaqueate, having looked at Flyer22's page, takes issue with the list, as do some other users. I personally don't think it is covered by polemic. To remind other users, the list only contains 5 users, none of whom is currently active, 3 blocked. Flyer22 in my experience edits in areas that are rife with Sockpuppets, and I think this is reasonable. Flyer22 also shows a great understanding of many WP policies, which is very admirable. That said, Flyer22, I think a compromise position would be something proactive -- such as moving the list to a subpage (where it's even less visible) or moving it to a private venue. Not because the list is in the wrong, but because I think it is a compromise position that allows you to take control of the situation and save face. I don't think there's anything wrong with the list, and if it's maintained off-wiki it still has its useful reference value. Lastly I don't think that we have to operate by the principle 'minimum required by the law', removing is a more harmonious measure, and it's causing disquiet to some other users (even if you disagree), and really whether or not it is present won't change that much in terms of your ability to identify sock puppets. So I think voluntarily removing the list before forced is probably the best option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, LT910001 (Tom). It was suggested to me by another Wikipedia editor (via email) that I simply remove the section to reduce drama. I wouldn't see it as so much of saving face, however, considering that it's clear by this thread that my hand is being forced regardless. I might as well stay with this thing until the verdict is handed down. And as for taking the list to a subpage, that would be targeted by misguided WP:Polemic enforcers as well. And as for keeping the list hidden, I noted above that posting it on my user page is about it being there to help other Wikipedia editors know what to be on the lookout for regarding some highly problematic Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I found The Bushranger's argument to be compelling. He wrote "An 'enemies list', even disguised as a 'sockpuppet watch' list, is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If they're not socks, it's an enemies list; if they are, it's grave-dancing." --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And you, like others, are oversimplifying the list by reducing it to a mere enemies list; I already addressed that with my "17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above. Same goes for reducing it to mere "grave-dancing." Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - That's an enemies list. Keep that sort of stuff on your computer and out of WP space. Carrite (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The warning I received was concerning these [35] messages, which, after the unfriendly title, were all very polite and friendly requests to remove the attack stuff. The "warner" had omitted to read them. zzz (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Stating "But I suppose it is just a big joke, and, your going to spin it out as long as you can, or until I give up with WP, as I did years ago when someone was convinced I was a sockpuppet." and "Why is it so important to you to continue hounding me? I am not aware of any interaction between us that sparked off your campaign against me." are not very polite and friendly statements. The aforementioned WP:Administrator likened your repeated postings to my talk page (after I all but stated that I no longer want to converse with you) to WP:Harassment because your obsessive postings are similar to that. You need to do better not to post walls of text, especially rambling walls of text. Compared to how I have interacted with you, and how you have interacted with me, your actions are closer to WP:Hounding; I don't see mine as such at all. I left you alone, more than once, as others have noted. And, quite frankly, I am tired of you trying to get me to reply to you. If I don't want to reply to you, then accept it and move on. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are quoting from the debate that ensued after you followed me to the admin's talk page where I had gone after your abusive edit summary. The warning was for the messages I later left on your talk page after I had been unable to remove the attack piece, and the admin had failed to read. He was no doubt confused into thinking they were all unfriendly by the first one. zzz (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are not quoting from me at all. You are making it up and putting words in my mouth for some reason, I strongly suspect. zzz (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The words are there on my talk page. But, again, sigh...to all of your arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep trying to make this about me. No further comment. zzz (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: I am in good standing, I am not blocked or a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clean_start#Notification_and_permission can you verify that by telling a functionary what the other account was? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. The allegation eventually becomes "true" until "officially disproved", (despite the fact that even flyer22 has admitted that it is not true), which is why I am resorting to this extreme measure.zzz (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get it, you are asking a serious question. If and when a functionary asks me to provide evidence, of anything I have said here, I have absolutely no problem doing so. zzz (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Considering how Flyer22 has decided to make this a personal battleground and has explicitly stated over and over - in hisher deciding to tell every person who disagrees with himher how they're wrong - that heshe will not listen to what anyone has to say, at a certain point one has to wonder how suited they are to editing in a collaborative environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • She has stated she would adhere to consensus. Unless we're the thought police, you do not have to agree with every consensus decision made on Wikipedia to edit here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Neil. Like I just told The Bushranger above, "stating that I won't change my mind on the usefulness of the section in question, which is what I was doing with my '04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above, is not stating that I will not adhere to WP:Consensus to remove the section. I made clear in my '02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above that I always adhere to WP:Consensus, unlike many at this site. You see, the WP:Consensus policy is almost as disregarded/disrespected as the WP:Civil policy, if not more so. And as for me not being here to improve the encyclopedia, yeah, my wanting to keep highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets off Wikipedia shows that exactly. So do my various barnstars and the discussions regarding them. And the over 200 talk page watchers I have? Yeah, they are all there to keep me in line. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of them respect me as a Wikipedian and/or often ask for my help on Wikipedia matters."

As for a battleground, excuse me if I don't take kindly to people making light jabs at me, voting on things against me because of a past dispute, and/or issuing some other kind of flimsy support vote against me. If you jab at me, I will jab back. Often enough anyway (I commonly ignore or don't respond to the drive-by assaults I get to my user page and/or talk page). Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You used your "list", your supposed "skill at chasing sockpuppets" (backed up by your fraudulent user page section) and your Wikipedian friends such as Niel ([36]), to fraudulently make it appear that I am a sockpuppet, and support your other allegations against me. Surprisingly, I didn't respond by going nuclear (as I am sure you wanted, to get me banned), instead I raised the matter here, so you may be forced to admit wrongdoing at some point. I wonder, how many sockpuppets have you chased, as opposed to people you just don't like? zzz (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your characterization of me continues to be flimsy or false. For example, I didn't get my "Wikipedian friends" to do anything regarding this topic. Nor did I ask them to do anything on it. The vast majority of them (meaning my talk page watchers) have stayed out of this dispute. If they were involved in it, there would be a lot more oppose votes above. Some have emailed me about why they won't comment in this thread. I'm not interested in trying to get them to support me on this matter, especially keeping WP:Canvass in mind. If they want to support me, they will. If they don't want to support me, they won't. And then there are the conflicted ones. And you state that you didn't "[go] nuclear." So your obsessive postings, you obsessing about this topic for hours on end and nothing else, and throwing around shady accusations, is not going nuclear? As for me randomly going after people, that is another unfounded accusation from you. I already told you that it is far too easy for me to spot WP:Sockpupppets; I pointed you to this and this case as examples. Similarly, it was easy to recognize that you've edited Wikipedia before your Signedzzz account. There are various other cases of me spotting WP:Sockpuppets. Some involve me reporting WP:Sockuppets to WP:ArbCom because of violations of the WP:Child protect policy; yes, I stay on the lookout for pedophiles and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors as well. Want to tell WP:ArbCom how I've falsely identified such editors? Go ahead; see if they agree with that assessment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you fabricate evidence about people you don't like and then falsely allege that they are paedophiles? That would be a serious crime. Can you actually understand why that is, I wonder? zzz (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made it perfectly clear all along I have used WP before, several years age, but never found out how to use citations. This does not make me a sockpuppet any more than your other fraudulent evidence does. zzz (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about pedophiles is asinine, and is why I will now cease replying to you. WP:ArbCom has the resources, WP:CheckUsers and other tools, to identify WP:Sockpuppets of pedophiles, especially since the WP:Child protect policy was created because Wikipedia previously had a very serious, very detrimental pedophile and/or pro-child sexual abuse problem. They don't block such editors unless their is solid evidence, often Wikipedia contributions included, that those editors are pedophiles and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors. And I told you before, at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page: WP:Block is not the same thing as WP:Ban. You keep using the word banned in place of blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for the correction, Neil; I apologise for the misaimed pronouns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Should we be thinking about an interaction ban here? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this would definetly help and would at least reduce the amount of battleground behaviour from both editors that appears to be turning up here. I dont think it would address the issue of the original problem though. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If I saw a need for a WP:Interaction ban, I would have proposed it. Signedzzz edits in some of the areas I edit in, and my areas of interest are wide-ranging, so I don't see how a WP:Interaction ban would be best at this point. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had politely asked me to verify my previous account to prove how insignificant it was, on account of my edits being so exceptional, I would have obliged and there would have been no problem. Or if you had at least removed the false insinuations from your page. Or if Neil had agreed with me they should be removed ([37]). It seems strange that I was obliged to come here, which helps no one. I feel I have to assume that the plan was that I just give up with WP - which is why I find it hard to see things from your perspective. zzz (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a list of indef'd users on one's page might be OK but it tends to "feed the trolls". Keeping a list of not-blocked users online and accusing them of being sockmasters or rules-violators in other ways is NOT appropriate. If the user wants to keep that kind of info, he should keep it on a text document on his PC, and consult it when necessary - NOT post it publicly. Not just because "hit lists" are against the rules, but also because such a list likewise potentially "feeds the trolls". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

John's closure

Though John and I have been civil with each other these days, it's because of our past disputes (for example, shown here, here and here) that I don't think that he was the right person to close this thread or to remove the section from my user page. There was no indication that I would not remove the section myself; indeed, I made it explicitly clear that I would adhere to WP:Consensus on this matter. The thread is supposed to be a voluntary matter for me, and it should have been left up to me to remove that section, not left up to a person I have been in passionate dispute with. I also think that this entire thread about me should have closed at the same time, so that all of this will assuredly be archived together instead of disjointedly. If it will still all be archived together instead of disjointedly, then okay. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also commented on my talk page about the closure. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

More discussion followed here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: six month interaction ban between Flyer22 and zzz

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 propose an interaction ban lasting no more than six months between zzz and Flyer22. Given their past interactions and comments on this page, I believe that continuing their current course would be harmful to the encyclopedia. I would also like to have it noted that such an interaction ban implies nothing about who is or is not at fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support zzz (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: See my posts in the Discussion section below about this proposal; I very much disagree with it, and don't feel the need to state "oppose" in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. It's a good idea. Caden ^cool 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm certain that you can't detail why it's a good idea, especially given what I've stated below. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I would support these users not writing on each others talk pages or editing each others user pages. Beyond that however I do not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the point of contention in this debate is what Flyer22 has written on her user page. This issue will be resolved by the outcome of the above discussion i.e. allowing her to retain her comments or by obliging her to remove them. I don't see what an IBAN will accomplish beyond that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Flyer22 has been conducting a smear campaign against me. Secondly, below, she states that she still believes me to be a sockpuppet, still with no evidence. But her beliefs colour her opinions of me and my edits. How does it benefit Wikipedia to have her freely telling other editors her incredibly negative personal opinions about me? Why is it a problem for her, or anyone else, if she leaves me alone?zzz (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have already said, if the above discussion find her comments unwarranted then she will be obliged to take them down. That is not contingent on an IBAN being imposed, however. I also don't think you appreciate the full implications of an IBAN: an IBAN isn't imposed just on Flyer, it is imposed on you too, and you will be effectively barred from editing articles she has heavily edited. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I, personally, would be fine with that, as opposed to having her telling editors on any pages I wish to edit about my supposed flaws, as she did in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, in an edit summary, very recently. That sort of thing does not inspire me to edit. And, assuming she is no longer able to conduct her campaign against me on her user page, I expect that, given her opinions about me expressed here, that she intends to pursue me more aggressively, now.zzz (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that your account is 4 months old and Flyers is many years old this makes your response more understandable. One more reason I oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Discussion section below about the proposed interaction ban, I make it perfectly clear how little I have sought Signedzzz out; by "sought out," I mean attempted to communicate with him or post obsessively about him to the point that I try to get him to communicate with me. I make it perfectly clear that I am not interested in interacting with Signedzzz in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – the dispute is taking place in user namespace, not in main space. If there is any interaction ban, it should be restricted to where the dispute is actually taking place. Boghog (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and echo Jmh649's comments. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Doc James, and MarnetteD. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think Doc James advice is good. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose What is with the community's recent infatuation with interaction bans as catch all solutions? They're hard to enforce, easy to game and only resolve matters in very limited cases. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(@Guy Macon) Sounds like a plan: I made my point, already. zzz (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To make it official, you should post a Support nonvote in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I already stated, near the end of the Discussion section above, "If I saw a need for a WP:Interaction ban, I would have proposed it. Signedzzz edits in some of the areas I edit in, and my areas of interest are wide-ranging, so I don't see how a WP:Interaction ban would be best at this point."

If Signedzzz edits any area that I edit, and I see it as problematic, you expect me not to revert him? Not to bring up the matter on the talk page? The interaction ban will benefit him because he can then make any faulty edit knowing that I will be prohibited from reverting him. It has been made explicitly clear that I stayed away from him after my posts to his talk page in August, until he made a faulty edit to the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article on September 13, 2014. Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other? I should post to WP:Film or to WP:Med when he edits a film or a medical article in way that I find problematic? The only interaction ban that I see needed between us at the moment is that he no longer post to my talk page...unless alerting me to a noticeboard discussion. And, I of course, would no longer post to his talk page unless alerting him to a noticeboard discussion. I don't want anything to do with Signedzzz and have ignored him various times, while he has continually sought me out, to the point that CambridgeBayWeather likened it to harassment; when that is pointed out, then Signedzzz goes on about CambridgeBayWeather not having all the facts and what he thinks CambridgeBayWeather meant. Would I like for Signedzzz to leave me alone? Sure. But for that to come at the price of him being able visit the Spree killer article, for example, and make an edit there that I'm not allowed to revert? No. But if WP:Consensus is formed on an interaction ban between us, I will adhere to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Continually sought me out". I asked to have the lies about me removed. Then I came here.zzz (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dif would be useful for "lies about me removed" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff:[38]. See "Pass a Method" section. These are uniquely and specifically about me: current/main Boko Haram editor, adding Pope Francis to Recreational drug use, using Urban Dictionary as a source for Roach (smoking). I wrote these three articles in the last couple of months. (Also, "Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing them", etc). It has been stated repeatedly, above, that adding my details to a purported description of a sockpuppet is a straightforward attempt to convince other editors that I am undoubtedly the sockpuppet in question. Flyer22 also states, above, that journalists view the user page, "And I find it to be a good thing when they come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for".zzz (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz when you quote someone else it is respectfulness for those reading what you write to provide the dif of the person saying it so that we can 1) verify the content 2) look at the context Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are the lies, though, as you requested, (apart from the bold quote from this page), that Flyer22 refused to remove from her userpage, until I took the matter here. zzz (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

James, what Signedzzz has mainly done regarding me is obsess over me, mischaracterize me, and twist my words; reminds me of another editor that people sought to impose some kind of interaction ban on regarding me (noted below). My "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above is one instance of Signedzzz misinterpreting what I meant. By "And I find it to be a good thing when they come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for" is about Wikipedia editors. Journalists, of course, are not going to stick around Wikipedia to know what to be on the lookout for, unless they are undercover/stealth journalists. Not that I see anything wrong with them knowing of some of Wikipedia's most problematic editors. By mentioning journalists, I meant that I don't mind if, when they contact me, they see my user page and take note of the fact that Wikipedia has had some very serious problematic editors. I will slightly amend my "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" comment. Also take note that Signedzzz keeps going on about a portion of my user page that I have since removed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Amended. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the following lines are clear: "Because I am one of the prominent editors of sexual topics on Wikipedia, many people who edit these articles or visit these articles at random check my user page and/or talk page. Same goes for my getting contacted by journalists because of my editing of these articles." That was in my original post about journalists and is still there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You only removed it after I complained about it here! The only reason I complained about it here is because you refused to remove it, even after you admitted that you don't think I am the sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You refused to remove it until I compained about it here, so don't pretend otherwise. zzz (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note another mischaracterization by Signedzzz: Being far less convinced that he is Pass a Method does not equate to "I no longer believe that he is a WP:Sockpuppet." Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So, it was worth continuing to persuade editors and journalists alike that I am Pass a Method because you think that I am a different sockpuppet, now? zzz (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So you blanked his entire user page 3 times because you had an issue with this one paragraph? Also typing all in bold is not appropriate generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Her user page alleged that I was the sockpuppet Pass a Method. I have not read all the rules of Wikipedia, I just assumed that was totally against them, and that anyone would do the same thing. zzz (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22,To make it official, you should post a Oppose nonvote in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, To answer your specific question:

"If Signedzzz edits any area that I edit, and I see it as problematic, you expect me not to revert him? Not to bring up the matter on the talk page? The interaction ban will benefit him because he can then make any faulty edit knowing that I will be prohibited from reverting him ... Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other?"

If my proposal for an interaction ban between the two of you gains sufficient support, that means that the Wikipedia community has decided that you are the wrong person to correct what you believe are faulty edits by zzz, and that zzz is the wrong person to correct what he believes are faulty edits by you. If the proposal passes, you are going to have to realize that nobody is indispensable and trust the other editors to address any faulty edits. As for this "benefiting him", if we assume for the sake of argument that one of you makes faulty edits (I am purposely offering no opinion on that), you should be aware that anyone who gets involved in an ANI discussion naturally undergoes additional scrutiny from administrators and experienced editors afterwords, so it is doubtful that either of you will get away with making faulty edits for long. Again, I am not implying that one or the other of you is or isn't at fault or that one or the other of you is or isn't making faulty edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need an explanation of what a Wikipedia interaction ban is. The point of my "22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above was to indicate the faults with your proposal. All that you have done, in my opinion, with this proposal is make things worse, and all because Signedzzz obsessively posts about me with all kinds of unfounded accusations, and, sure, I have responded to him frustratedly in this thread because of that. I don't have much of a past with Signedzzz beyond that. WP:IBAN states that I can't even mention Signedzzz indirectly. So commenting on a talk page or posting to a WP:WikiProject about a bad edit that he has made to an article that I watch is out of the question, unless it's WP:Vandalism or a WP:BLP violation. If he edits any article that I edit (for example, any article that I have listed on my user page as having improved or significantly improved, including any WP:Good article), I am not allowed to revert, partially revert or even tweak that edit. And you think that is a solution? It isn't. If your proposal passes, you will have given him free reign to show up at any article that I edit and screw around without any worry that I will revert him. I'm certain that that is exactly what he wants, which is why he is supporting the interaction ban. So that he can, for example, go and have his way at the Spree killer article. I don't even see how WP:IBAN follows the rationale that editors can edit the same articles, but can't revert each other. Even a partial revision can count as a revert, depending on one's definition of a revert.

Have I posted obsessively about Signedzzz? No. Am I interested in going and editing any of the articles that Signedzzz is significantly interested in editing? No. But, if your proposal passes, you can guarantee that he will likely start popping up at just about any article that I edit. I've dealt with editors like Signedzzz before, ones I would categorize as having a harassment and disruptive nature. Signedzzz appears to not even know when he is engaging in harassment and/or disruption. Your proposal will render me powerless to challenge any of his edits. You have given no indication that you looked enough into Signedzzz's editing history to see why I have concerns about his editing. I am well aware that "anyone who gets involved in an ANI discussion naturally undergoes additional scrutiny from administrators and experienced editors afterwords." But as for the topics that I edit? In addition to editing well-watched articles, I edit articles that are not well-watched, including the aforementioned Spree killer article. I was lucky to get this backup from Ianmacm in the case of that article regarding an edit that Signedzzz made, but I doubt that I'll be lucky enough to get such backup in various other cases if your proposal passes. Seems that before your proposal gains traction in passing, I should alert WP:Film and WP:Med to this discussion so that they will know that if Signedzzz shows up at a film or medical article that I edit, I will likely need others to review that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If, as you claim, you don't need an explanation of what a Wikipedia interaction ban is, why then did you ask "Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other?" WP:IBAN clearly states "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to [...] undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With several years of experience editing this site, and having been to WP:ANI more than once, twice or thrice, as putting the name Flyer22 in a search of the WP:ANI archives show (including a case where an interaction ban was suggested between me and an editor before), why would it be a claim that I know how WP:IBAN works? The question I asked clearly aligns with what WP:IBAN states. And I told you above, "The point of my '22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above was to indicate the faults with your proposal." It is indeed a faulty suggestion, in my opinion, to state that we can edit the same articles...but can't revert each other. So there is no need to try really hard to assume that my question was asked in good faith. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Caden voting again, knowing full well that his votes to restrict what I add to my user page or how I otherwise edit are without valid rationale, has urged me to alert WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:Film to this interaction ban discussion, as seen here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the place in Caden's edit history where he urged you to to alert those Wikiprojects. I probably just missed the obvious; could you please show us a diff where he did that? I am not expressing any opinion as to whether alerting the Wikiprojects was or was not appropriate. Or are you saying that the mere fact that he supported a proposal "urged" you in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant that Caden voting again due to a past grudge (a grudge I already pointed to earlier in this big thread) urged me to go ahead and seek input from the WikiProjects that are related to this interaction ban. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just so that everyone understands what an interaction ban entails, please review WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comments I am finding concerns with User:Signedzzz edits. They made 7 reverts in 24 hours here on Sept 12th［https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreational_drug_use&action=history]. This is not an appropriate picture for the lead of this article [39]. They deleted another users user page 3 times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The user talk page which you mention claimed that I am a sockpuppet (see above - the subject of this discussion). User:WarriorLut, a new single-purpose account, kept making changes to Recreational drug use, after I had just spent three weeks writing it. He refused to respond to my repeated requests for him to explain his changes, but simply proceeded to continue deleting all of the new material. I did not know where to report his vandalism, so I reverted it each time. I have since discovered where to report vandalism. Your opinions of any pictures or other material in the article should be explained in the talk page of the article. None of the 2-3000 visitors per day have complained as yet - in fact, the number of viewers seems to have approximately doubled over the past 2-3 weeks - see [40].zzz (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps, I see from your angry message in the talk page of Recreational drug use, [41], that you don't like the article. However, you did not explain your POV, or suggest any significant improvements. zzz (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Still not providing the diff I mentioned? You could also provide a direct quote of the claim that made by Flyer that you are a sockpuppet.

I provided the diff under your comment above, where you requested it.zzz (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to viewers doubling look at this [42]

Exactly were is this "angry message" you attribute to me? Can you provide a diff of that to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to "He refused to respond to my repeated requests for him to explain his changes". It was you who was making the new changes and thus need to explain them. He responded here [43] and another user raised concerns here [44] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, he started deleting the sections after I had finished them. No one said anything while I was writing them. And the other user made a comment, which I replied to, and then never responded after that. zzz (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you check the times of his response, they are after all the reversion. He initially left a message, which I replied to (with three messages), then, instead of replying back, he posted a message about vandalism at the top of the page, and started deleting all the new (referenced) sections, with no explanation. He only later said he thought they were biased, but without explanation.zzz (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I charcterised your message as angry - I misjudged it's tone. I apologise for that. It was just a bit short, and suggested removing the entire lead section, which, as I mentioned, could just as well be added to instead. (And I just noticed that the viewer figures have almost doubled since I added the new stuff to the article, which seems amazing)zzz (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your diff. Does that mean I'm wrong then? Oh, well. It did seem odd.zzz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Signedzzz – I think you will come off worse if an IBAN is imposed. An IBAN isn't imposed on one editor, it is imposed on both editors i.e. you will be subject to the same restrictions as Flyer. In this case not only are you forbidden to respond to each other in discussions, you are forbidden to make changes to each other's edits. Since Flyer22 has been here much longer than you it will be very difficult for you to make changes to articles she has heavily edited without compromising any of her edits i.e. you are much more likely to violate the sanctions than she is on articles that come under common interests. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Move to close I move to close this proposal with a result of no consensus for the proposed interaction ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User: Rodericksilly

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

---

I'm trying to avoid an edit war. However, I'm not asking for administrator assistance on an edit war for now. I tried to engage Rodericksilly in "talk" on or about 22 July, and left another message today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodericksilly#Sean_Harris

He did not reply, but made another change on 22 July which, until recently, I left alone. I then removed all reference to this trivial and old review on 7 Sept., including my own link, as well as other clean up. He added back a more vague comment on 17 Sept., for which I am trying to engage him in talk again today in order to avoid an edit war.

My complaint is that in putting back this vague comment/criticism, he left a message on Sean Harris' revision history, on 17 Sept. (top of page) as to me being "quite sneaky" for having removed this old/unsupportable information. [45]

I ask that someone either remove the reference to "(quite sneaky for Legaleze to eventually remove that again)". I don't feel the Wiki revision history is the place for comments about other users. I did the change openly and did not try to hide it (we disagree as to relevance) -- and noted the reason in revision history; he had every opportunity to "talk", but did not.

I would like either Rodericksilly be advised to remove the comment reference about me, or a moderator to remove any reference about me me from this revision history (link below) which convey his personal feelings about why I edited. I will not engage in an edit war using the revision history for name calling.

I know this is trivial, and it's not the change that I'm asking for assistance on, but I did try to engage Rodericksilly in July, with no response. Instead Rodericksilly chose to use the "revision history" to comment about me. And that I would like removed from the revision history.

Thank you.

P.S. I left a message on his "talk" page that I have started a discussion here on use of the revision history to make commments about me. Legaleze (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, we can't remove that edit summary anymore than we can remove this one, where that other editor was falsely removed of vandalism, even though the (highly reliable) reference, which verifies what is referred to above as "unsupportable" information, bears out the text in the article: " Viewers singled out Sean Harris, who played the evil uncle of Mary Yellan (Jessica Brown Findlay) for particular criticism." That Harris mumbles in this TV production seems well verified. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What we have here is two editors who have been editing long enough so that they both ought to know: that edit summaries should be civil; that labeling a content dispute as vandalism is a personal attack; that uncivil edit summaries cannot be changed, only hidden from public view by redaction, but the edit summaries in question, while uncivil, do not rise to the level requiring redaction; that content disputes should be discussed in a civil manner on talk pages. I suggest that both editors be warned and this thread closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

‎213.198.221.171

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.

---

Can someone else please have a look at the recent problems at Special:Contributions/213.198.221.171? Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the problems are with the bully attitude of Joy, who removes my comments in which I complain about his abusive behaviour. He removed POV tag from the Yugoslav wars, and started threatening to ban me, since he is an admin. However, he is from Croatia, and I am an anonimous editor from Serbia, and he clearly has a conflict of interest there. He abuses his admin status to push his POV, to the point where he removes POV tag, removes my comments from discussion pages, and shows general pattern of abusive behavior towards editors from country with wich his country is involved in longstanding disputes in interpretation of history. He uses intimidating warnings and attempts to whitewash his bullying attitude when I complained about him to the community. Are admins here supposed to intimidate and bully anonimous editors over their POV, "own" articles, remove talk page comments not favorable to them? Is this comment going to be removed by Joy as well? If this is the place for complaint about his abuse, then please help stop it. Or perhaps this is what this site is about? 213.198.221.171 (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for POV editing and disruption (see, for instance, Talk:Yugoslav Wars). Drmies (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Hi,

Not sure if this is within our remit for WP:NLT or not but its a definitve one if it is [46]. Amortias (T)(C) 11:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with us, he can sue Facebook all he likes. WP:NLT only applies to legal threats against the WMF or any editor or WMF employee. You were correct to blank it however, as it has nothing to do with the noticeboard he put it on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Should probably be revdel'd as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've deleted the contribution and indefinitely blocked the user for WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Impostor

User:SmaIlljim impostor of User:smalljim. Spamming with pseudo-welcomes diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

- Highly disruptive, immediate block please.  NQ  talk 06:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Indef blocked.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Philg88, would you mind revoking TPA? Nevermind. You already got it. Ishdarian 06:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a note, looks like he might be a User:Evlekis sock? - Purplewowies (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be, the same Sharapova stuff.  NQ  talk 06:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

May be time to ban Evlekis. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism attacked

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.

---

WikiProject Feminism has been attacked with 4chan-style vandalism from various anonymous IP addresses today.[47][48][49][50][51][52][etc] Would someone mind semi-protecting all pages related to WikiProject Feminism except Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Members and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism for one week? Maybe that will give the GamerGate misogyny wave time to run its course. Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And an admin should please revdel these diffs. These links are ghastly. Epicgenius (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I second Kaldari's and Epicgenius' requests. Lightbreather (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Revdel may need to also be applied to this version of the page. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Uh, the removal of the material should also be rev-delled.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

And the hounding continues

User:Serialjoepsycho is at it again with his WP:Hounding and WP:Civility violations. He has become bolder in his attacks against me, so I am here to ask an administrator to please take action, and place him under a topic ban. He is following me to Talk pages for the sole purpose of destroying my reputation as an editor, and to stop collaboration on the new article I started a few months ago. See diff: [53]. The new article is still a work in progress: User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation. The reason I began the new article is because I learned the existing article, Investigative Project on Terrorism, is incorrectly named, unreliably sourced, and is now riddled with policy violations, including NOR, and SYNTH which Serialjoepsycho refuses to correct, or allow others to correct. Serialjoepsycho is disruptive, and relentless in his taunting on the IPT Talk page. See diffs here: [54]. I recently discovered he made a bad faith comment about me to another editor, obviously a devious attempt to reinforce his position. See diff: [55]. He is now falsely accusing me of canvassing, and continuously alleges that I'm a racist in his ongoing crusade to damage my reputation, and prevent me from improving the existing article, or getting help with the new article. When he discovered I started a new article, he created two bad faith redirects, Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation and Investigative Project with the only purpose being to disrupt the entire project, and foul my attempts to publish the new article under the correct name. He actually violated NOR and SYNTH when he created the infobox, and redirects. He has contributed 0.1% to the existing IPT article while I have contributed over 58.7%, so he has no stewardship over the article, much less any interest other than to hound me. He is quite happy with the article serving as nothing more than a Coatrack with its one sentence lead. I doubt anything short of a topic ban against him will free the project so I can get back to editing, and hopefully work with other good faith editors in a collaborative effort to make the necessary improvements. Atsme☯^Consult 07:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time she has brought this here. She is not trying to collaborate on a new article. She is trying to make a WP:POVSPLIT.I also posted a the canvassing template on Atsmes talk page after she did it. This is not the first time she has canvassed another user for this. I'll link all 4. The most recent and the 3 previous are here, here, and here. Her incorrectly named position ignores wp:commonname. I've not alleged she was racist. I have said that she has made racist comments. This was already apart of the two previous AN/I. The Investigative Project I redirected it was redirecting something else. Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation I added because this is another known name for Investigative Project on Terrorism. At the time the only link was Investigative Project on Terrorism. I'm unsure of the relevance of the what % are for so I'll not bother responding to that. This whole matter dates back to March.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, he just lied in his response. This is my second request for remedial action against Serialjoepsycho because the first was left unresolved, and is now archived. I am not the aggressor, and I have not violated policy, yet he is trying desperately to make it appear that way. He continues to malign me, including allegations that I've made racist comments, yet he claims he isn't calling me racist? Really? He also doesn't understand canvassing, and keeps dredging up irrelevant issues in a skewed manner. Asking another editor to collaborate with me on an unpublished work in progress is not canvassing. The real question is why is Serialjoepsycho hawking my posts? Just read the diffs I've provided, and read what he said to other editors in his attempt to malign me. The diffs prove the collaboration request was for the unpublished article: [56]. The current IPT article is incorrectly named, a fact I verified using secondary sources. Serialjoepsycho's claim for "common name" use only substantiates the article's dependence on unreliable sources, (self-published), making it noncompliant with Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), and further confirms his WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations, including his bad faith redirects. He has done nothing substantial in the way of editing, or trying to improve the article unless forced into it, yet he claims to know what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion. At least I've acknowledged the problems exist, and have been trying to fix them while Serialjoepsycho consistently tries to foul any attempts for improvement.

1. "My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [57] - He admits to his single purpose - to stop me. He has appointed himself judge, jury and executioner in determining what is and isn't POV. He hawks my posts, follows me to other editor's Talk pages for one purpose - to malign me and disrupt any attempts to make the IPT article compliant, unless of course, the edits agree with his POV.
2. "Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status?" [58] - He mocks GA status, proving he has neither the energy nor desire to keep improving an article, including his own.

The only solution to resolving this issue while also freeing up the project is to place him under a topic ban, and whatever remedial action is deemed appropriate for his behavior. Atsme☯^Consult 19:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Again this is the third time this was opened so please do look in the archives. I've already responded to most of the crap here. Some of it there's spin. This is just tiresome at this point. Campaigning another editor to make changes to a page and discuss them off the article's talk page is not only canvassing but avoids the normal transparency of wikipedia which excludes other editors that could come to edit that article. The POVsplit is just a new spin on whole tiresome matter. These so called attempts to foul improvement have taken place on the talk page or thru edits that other editors were involved in. I actually said as seen in the above quote that I was trying to stop her from white washing the article. This has been her effort since March. She has not been trying to improve the article but remove a template for which there was consensus keep from an RFC. This RFC was March, which she completely ignored and removed said template anyway in July. Again this is the third AN/I. Most of this has answered for with links and everything. There were links to her racist comments. As far as mocking the GA status that was not to mock the GA status but to mock the editor. Who suggested that I should stop what I was doing at the moment and get another article to GA Status. However that article has not reached the deadline for that articles completion. The deadline for that articles completion is eventually. Eventually it will be completed.But then if Atsme is in a hurry for Roku to get to GA status then surely can go edit it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But please by all means topic ban me from IPT. You have cause under civility guidelines. Go ahead and topic ban her as well. Simple. No muss, no fuss. No more disruption. She has also violated civility guidelines as well an numerous others.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

See diff [59]. It shows the disruptive actions by Serialjoepsycho whenever I attempt to improve the article. I am trying to improve the article, and he responds in bad faith by removing my work. It's all a game for him - to bait me into an edit war. He could care less about the article. Please impose a topic ban on him. Atsme☯^Consult 01:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not very clear how removing an improperly placed tags is disruptive.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio issue

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 really don't know where to bring this up but here so if I need to be directed to a proper page then please send me that way.

Earlier, at approximately 10:30 my local time (or 01:30 UTC), I made this edit. Around 2 hours later, someone on a fan forum I frequent linked to a posting on the JEFusion blog that copied my text word for word. In fact, I'm now discovering that nearly everything in their god damn "preview" tag is a word for word copy of text I've originally posted to the Wikipedia pages on the respective subjects. I'm currently finding postings from as far back as March of this year that are copies of things I've originally written on Wikipedia. I'm fucking outraged and I don't know what to do about them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've found something from almost exactly one year ago year that they copied.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: This isn't really the right forum as you say, but this is obviously bugging you so here's an answer. Everything that you create for Wikipedia is released to the world under a Creative Commons licence. In theory, if a third party website reuses text (which no longer belongs to you the minute you save it here) it should be attributed back to Wikipedia via a hyperlink to the source article. The problem is enforcing that requirement, and given the nature of the infringing website, I doubt they will take much notice of a request for attribution.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, there's a "PROTECTED BY COPYSCAPE DO NOT COPY" warning at the bottom of the page. Woodroar (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That kind of thing is sometimes called a "legalistic bluff". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: I'm aware of the license issues but myself and the other editors of these articles are still not being attributed and it's someone making money off of our hard work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get that nonsense from? Whatever is 'typed in' here is does not belong to Wikipedia it still belongs to the person that 'typed it in', and the third party website should attribute it to the person that did so 'type it in'. Practically, because many others may alter it, and the text typed in may have been an alteration of existing typing in to wikipedia, the best way would be for the site that has taken the text to link to the specific timed version that they took the 'typing in' from. If a site is not providing correct attribution and/or does not link to the CC license (both are needed), then their usage is indeed a copyright infringement, you can file a DMCA takedown request to the site's web host. Example DMCA takedown notice just fill in the bits. John lilburne (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a GoDaddy hosted website. They should be quite responsive to a DMCA takedown notice. But unless the website owner is a moron that's only a temporary fix. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The "nonsense" was probably gotten from MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. A hyperlink to the source article is adequate to provide attribution to the authors as Wikipedia provides such a list with each article. (EDIT: Missed the parenthetical, but eh.) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have found that changes I've made will turn up almost instantaneously in Google searches. Of course they make it clear what the source is. It's possible that website you're complaining about does pretty much the same thing Google does, but omits the attribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The website in question is not bot operated. Someone went out of their way to copy whatever I write for the "next time on..." blurbs for episode lists going back at least a year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There are entire sites which mirror Wikipedia. Some put ads on the content. See WP:MIRROR. See that article for how to deal with such issues. John Nagle (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, time to file a DMCA takedown notice and include a threat of a lawsuit for copyright infringement because of multiple-point violation of the license terms. As the license states, it automatically terminates upon any breach, so their failure to "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means [they] are utilizing: the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied..." by itself means that they're operating in breach, completely aside from issues such as their failure to heed the sharealike clause. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As usual when I find these issues, I don't have the time or energy to deal with such things. I'm still angry but I have more pressing personal matters to attend to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Mostafa namira - unblock request via OTRS

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.

---

Folks, passing on, with the user's consent, an unblock request from this user, for the sole purpose of requesting a change of user name. I am merely passing on request, making no comment on the merits.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But the block wasn't for an unacceptable user name. The user has made four unblock requests which have been declined, and this equally invalid request doesn't deserve ANI space. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The username in question may be his legal name. If he is not unblocked to change it, a bureaucrat should - at least - WP:VANISH him, which is what he may be requesting but is simply not aware that is an option. DocumentError (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go with DocumentError here. This sounds like more of a request for WP:VANISH; he doesn't want his real name associated with the account, and that is his right. Can someone who is in contact with him via OTRS clarify if that is what he wants? If he does not wish to edit Wikipedia anymore, and only wishes to anonymize his account, a bureaucrat can do that uncontroversially per WP:VANISH. --Jayron32 17:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That is what he wants - he does not intend to edit.--ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have added ticket:2014091710034961 for OTRS-enabled admins to see the full story.--ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the talk page, which should reduce his concerns. For the possible change in name, should we post this on WP:BN? PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

yup DocumentError (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the request is for a vanishing, maybe next time it would be better to email the 'cratlist, rather than repeating the name in public, to avoid spreading it further? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked for and received his permission to post here.--ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Decline He doesn't need to be unblocked to be vanished the panda ₯’ 21:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• Sorry to comment after this has been closed, but...it seems either the wording "A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return" (emphasis mine) should be removed from Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, or vanishings like this need not to be granted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be a one-of situation. Kid shows up, registers using real name, spams the crap out of us by re-re-re-creation his own non-notable biography because he thinks it's Facebook/LinkedIN, gets blocked, shows up in searches that potential schools/employers might find that they were "indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia", which really might not look good. the panda ₯’ 15:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, although off the top of my head this isn't the first/only time I've seen WP:VANISH invoked w.r.t. an editor not in 'good standing'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Africanboss88

User has previously been warned (not by me personally) to stop adding teams to FIFA 15 who aren't in the source. I'm not sure if this is a lack of WP:COMPETENCE in understanding where we get our information from, or plain and simple vandalism. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a day or a week or other completely arbitrary time period, I started with an indefinite block telling the user to respond or at least acknowledge other users. It's 72 hours only just in case. It's been weeks of editing a single article with no discussion. I'll be watching his talk page but feel free to unblock at any acknowledgement of the problem. If the edit warring continues, maybe escalating will make the point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:‎66.102.129.154 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM

‎66.102.129.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually adds unreliable reviews to various Decapitated album articles, adds non-ratings to Template:Album ratings, and now is also ignoring WP:MOSALBUM. The articles in question are:

• Winds of Creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nihility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Negation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Organic Hallucinosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carnival Is Forever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported this user to WP:AN3 here, but no action was taken at that time. I attempted to discuss this with the user on their talk page here, but they did not in any way engage in discussion, and simply removed my explanations. The most "discussion" from this user has been edit summaries like "template is not a guideline" [60] and claiming I am vandalising these articles [61] (showing an obvious lack of understanding of WP:VAND).

Unreliable reviewer:

• The user added a review from About.com, by a reviewer named Dave Schalek here. About.com is already a questionable source, as a lot of it is not overlooked by an editing staff. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#About.com, after a discussion about the site here, only reviewers that have been shown to pass WP:RS should be used. This Dave Schalek has no evidence supporting his reliability as a music reviewer. His About.com biography does not in any way support him being a professional music journalist. Rather, he is a high-school physics teacher, who happens to write reviews on the side as a "hobby". However, this user keeps re-adding this unreliable review, despite providing no evidence that this reviewer in any way passes WP:RS.

Adding non-ratings to Template:Album ratings:

• The user keeps adding non-ratings to this template on all 5 articles, non-ratings being WP:OR summaries such as "favorable" or "mixed". See Winds of Creation, Nihility, The Negation, Organic Hallucinosis, Carnival Is Forever. I have nothing against these reviews specifically, and encourage their use within the prose of the articles (for example, here I left the information this user added to the prose from these reviews, and did the same on the other four articles), but they should not be included in the template itself. A recent discussion on that template's talk page found many editors agreed that adding non-ratings to the template was not a good idea, and that these better belonged in the prose of the article, or at the very least included as external links at the bottom of the article. In the case of these articles, all are included in the prose, where they belong. Despite this, the user still insists on re-adding them to the template.

Other MOS issues:

• As shown in the links in the first section of this case, this user is now causing other MOS issues. I removed star ratings from reviews that do not use stars (per Template:Album ratings: "The information in the score field should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use the star rating template"). I moved many references to Template:Cite web, as bare links should be avoided (see the essay WP:BAREURLS). I removed columns from the Personnel sections per WP:MOSALBUM ("If the number of participants is longer than 20, the list should be divided with a column template such as Div col or col-begin." – none of these articles have personnel lists longer than 20 participants). There are also general issues such as poor grammar, poor choices of wording, missing quote marks, unnecessary formatting for quotes, etc. All of these changes were wholesale reverted.

This user is unwilling to engage in discussion, despite my attempts to do so. The user is not interested in learning how Wikipedia works, does not follow policies, guidelines, template documentation, and existing WP:CONSENSUS formed by discussions by many editors (in other words, WP:IDHT). The user is not interested in working collaboratively, and despite some good edits (such as the addition of Critical Reception prose sections to these articles), is generally not helping Wikipedia. I'm suggesting a block, with a duration long enough to give this user time to read the above-mentioned policies etc, along with a suggestion from the blocking admin that they do so. If this user takes the time to learn, and starts engaging in discussion and a willingness to learn how to follow Wikipedia policies, guidelines, documentation and consensuses, we could probably work through these issues, but right now I do not think this user has any interest in doing so. Instead of improving other articles, I'm wasting time constantly fixing this user's poor edits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

comment

• MrMoustacheMM use "rating" template and other non guideline disscusion pages to undo my edits, i can't make a change in article withaout revert from MrMoustacheMM, he interprets guidelines on his own, first time he removed reviewed pages claiming that they don't apply to WP:RS , then he says that the same guidline does not allow to use non rating reviews, there is no "real" contributions by this user to Wikipedia, he only undo all edits in articles about bands he like 66.102.129.154 (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • examples of articles with no rating reviews Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Let It Be, Metallica (album) and other, as i said there is no guidelines that don't allow to use non rating reviews, many contributors use them 66.102.129.154 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Response:

• The claim "i can't make a change in article withaout [sic] revert from MrMoustacheMM" is just false. As I showed above, when this user added critical reception sections to these articles, I kept them (although they required a large amount of cleanup, as the grammar and formatting were, quite frankly, atrocious). The claim "first time he removed reviewed pages claiming that they don't apply to WP:RS , then he says that the same guidline [sic] does not allow to use non rating reviews" is also false. I have not at any point claimed that WP:RS says that non-ratings cannot be used in the ratings template; I have pointed to the documentation of Template:Album ratings and to this discussion. While it is true that some portion of my edits are reverting unsourced or unreliably sourced edits (such as these additions), I also make many other constructive contributions (for example, fixing grammar and formatting, moving refs to the cite web template, adding sourced content, watching for vandalism, etc). A look through my contributions should confirm this. As for the last claim, I see that none of the articles this editor has listed are featured articles (and aren't even good articles). For that matter, the only defence this user presents is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is hardly a good argument (especially since I have shown a discussion that disagrees with this usage).
• I see this user is also making disruptive edits such as this one, reverting any changes I make to their edits (another example of where I did not revert their edit, but simply cleaned it up). This user also continues to falsely claim my edits are vandalism (here), again showing a complete lack of understanding what is and is not vandalism. I think this user's behaviour speaks for itself. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Request review of block of User:Sitush

{{tlx|

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

---

The 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.

---

Sitush has been unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush was blocked about 15 hours ago for an intemperate outburst that was interpreted as a threat of violence. He had commented a bit earlier stating that he'd moved and had spoken to the new occupants of his old place, saying that perhaps he should have warned them that someone might show up with "serious weaponry" at his old place. Following a bit of discussion about Manchester meets, User:Demiurge1000 responded saying "I think this is a very sad state of affairs. Sitush and Eric are less able to attend Manchester meetups for a number of regrettable reasons, and Bishonen is less able to act on undesirable editors who might be behind the problem, for related reasons. Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry, and I wish you both all the best. I am sure Bishonen will be keeping an eye out too." Sitush responded intemperately using similar language, and yes, what he said could technically be interpreted as a threat, although I don't see it as one and if you read User talk:Sitush you can see I'm not alone. However, Admin User:Mike V saw it differently and indefinitely blocked Sitush and his comments were reveled. Of course Admins can still read it, and several including me have commented on his talk page that Sitush was pushed until he snapped. So far as I'm concerned, the bad guys have finally won and Wikipedia has lost. Sitush may not want to come back now but I still think that a wrong has been done and the indefinite block should be lifted, perhaps replaced with a 3 day block as suggested on his talkpage. I hope he will come back as Wikipedia needs him - he edits in areas that have very few good editors but do have a lot of pov editors who now will have little opposition. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is very clear on this matter. This diff[62](deleted) shows the statement "As for looking for serious weaponry: if I found you right now, you'd be looking right down the barrel of it.". This is a threat of violence with a firearm and there is no way to interpret it as otherwise. Joke or not this is serious and cannot be tolerated.

To fail to take this seriously would be a breach of expected reactions to threats violence and would be grossly irresponsible. The quote clearly means that if I found you I would point my gun at you.

No volunteer deserves this kind of threat and to allow it would be abusive to said volunteer. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw what Sitush had written and winced, expecting a block. I agree with your assessment that he was poked repeatedly and that should have been taken into account. If Sitush acknowledges his comment was made in a moment of anger then a three day block (or even time served) sounds appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good block. A comment using that kind of imagery is designed to edge right up on making a threat without outright saying it, thus allowing public denial of the intent to make a threat, while still likely leaving the target severely rattled. This is a clear corollary to the situation where someone implies a legal threat without outright saying it. It's not okay to use that kind of argumentative device here. Even if it doesn't fall directly within the ambit of making a TOV, it's so severely uncivil that it should be blockable. Even if it were the result of baiting, we can't countenance this kind of argumentation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Back the truck up a little bit - yeah, Sitush is responsible for his outburst. However, being provoked the way he was is most certainly part of the problem, and ArbCom even acknowledged that those who provoke are often equally as guilty the panda ₯’ 17:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. If this was provoked by off-wiki stalking or similar, those responsible should be held accountable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• The threat was certainly unacceptable but I believe an indef block was a disproportionate response. I support a reduction to 3 days and a suitable apology from Sitush.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn, entirely per DougWeller, as well as Chillum's (per usual) complete misunderstanding of the situation. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Agree that the threat was unacceptable, but indef block is disproportionate. A block of 3 days-a week is fine, considering Sitush's totally clean block record. Sitush was a marked man on the IAC page and has gotten some threats if I recall correctly. There was a recent attempt to trap him based on an alleged copyvio. Kingsindian (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block - An indef is lenient, as at least it has the possibility of a simplified return. That kind of threat should earn one a siteban. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I support DougWeller's, DP's and Philg88's comments and the proposed reduction. However, I suspect it's moot and Sitush may well choose not to come back anyway. This is going to be a huge problem for the Indian sub-continent articles: the damn's going to burst. DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block Threats of violence are never acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Questionable - So, did Demiurge1000 actually feel threatened? Or was the "threat" not aimed at him? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Can we protect every single Indian subcontinent article until he gets back? —Xezbeth (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good Block Even if you are goaded enough to be that angry, it's never okay to threaten anyone with any kind of violence ever. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Block/Ban Mike V was correct in administering a ban to Sitush. In addition to this outburst (not the first time this has happened), Sitush is an extremely belligerent user and I, along with my others, are reluctant to edit Wikipedia because of him. He bullies other editors and goes around mass deleting content at different articles, despite the fact that they are well sourced. If Sitush doesn't like the source, then the content gets deleted. Other editors try very hard to build this encyclopedia with their contributions but Sitush ends up removing people's contributions. If you look through Sitush's contributions, most of his editing is mass deleting the work of others. You'll hardly ever see him add anything to articles or doing research himself to improve them. This ban is long needed and I applaud Mike V for having the courage to do it. Maybe I'll start editing again now that this problematic editor is out of the picture. 95.133.238.228 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

— 95.133.238.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• POV warrior editors like 95.133 above are the ones who will celebrate this block, as it rewards their campaign of harassment. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I kinda have to agree that indef is too long as well. While I only remember my interaction with Sitush being civil at best (though interaction that was less so would have been a long long time ago), he does good work and appears to be hounded by a off-site group collaborating to push a Hindutva POV and defame a number of upstanding editors. While I do not claim that any here are party to that (though I see no reason to defend 95.133 from such accusations if others make them), it's tricky. If an indef block stays in place, I hope that he decides to use WP:CLEANSTART return and to duck away from some of his stalkers. If he does so, he is free to email me (and I assume others who will follow my example) who will pretend that the "new" editor is not editing just like Sitush and will do what they can to redirect others from reaching said conclusion.

No judgement on the block itself, but *Overturn indefinite duration or facilitate clandestine clean start. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) People have already started coming out of the woodworks to push their POV [63] and the above comment just reiterates that we need Sitush more than he needs us. Regardless of the block, he got fed up and decided to leave on his own terms. A huge loss to the project.  NQ  talk 18:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think it was a good block per policy and, honestly, he probably could use a cooling-off period given recent actions. That said, I don't think an indefinite block is warranted for this instance. Sitush was provoked by Demiurge, who was clearly mocking the concerns of other editors about overly personalized hostility directed at them that left them with legitimate concerns as to their personal safety. This was an excited utterance that appropriated the language and tenor of the discussion. People who are particularly frustrated say these things at times, though I imagine most Wikipedians who feel like saying it stop before they hit "save page" in the edit window. His block should be reduced to a few days at most, maybe shorter if he chimes in before then to acknowledge that he crossed a line in his frustration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Question: Are we able to overturn this if the foundation is also investigating? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Any foundation investigation - if there is one, which I'm not going to confirm or deny - would likely not apply to the block (because blocks are outside of our purview - that's a community function). Besides that, when we don't want someone to take an action, we try to make that abundantly clear with notes and templates, and neon signs and the like. If I don't want you to edit a page (assuming it qualifies), I put it under OFFICE protection, for instance. Failing something like that, you should feel free to investigate, overturn, not-overturn, whatever... all to your heart's delight. If you get too close to an area where we're involved, we'll gently let you know. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Block good, duration bad The policy that I saw linked mandates a block. It does not appear to mandate an indefinite block. I am not an admin, and cannot see the actual diffs, but based on the quote above, it was seem the threat was real, but that the extenuating circumstances are very significant. So, reduce the block to whatever appropriate level; 3 days? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinite does not mean forever. I think this would be treated similar to a legal threat where the block remains until such a point as the user convincingly retracts the threat. If such a retractions happens then I would also want to check with the opinion of the person threatened. Threats of violence are far more serious than legal threats so lets keep at least those standards. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Overturn -- Get a grip Chillum, I doubt Sitush even knows anything about the user, so I should think the "threat" has about as much ground as a fish on water. Again, the admins seem completely devoid of making rational decisions. Are there any sane admins left? I reckon I could only name a few. Cassianto^talk 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sitush does have a very recent reputation for doing extremely detailed "opposition research" on people that he has disagreements with. (Morning all, Dougweller just now kindly mentioned this on my talk page.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was kind of Doug, Demiurge1000, and highly relevant, considering there would have been no block but for you. I don't suppose anybody's surprised to see you take the opportunity to make a shitty comment here as well. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

Since I'm (apparently?) the target of the threat, which I was only able to confirm because Chillum helpfully quoted it in this thread some considerable number of hours after it happened (didn't it occur to anyone that emailing me telling me what had happened would be a good idea? rather than letting me try to piece things together by speculating on the mess of nonsense on Sitush's talk page?), and since Doug and at least one other person have asked in good faith to what extent I took the threat seriously, I don't consider that a "shitty comment" at all, I consider it a valid observation on a relevant aspect of this discussion. But thank you for your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good Block - I completely understand we all lose our shit here at times but threats of violence is never okay nor will it solve anything, I will say however I disagree with it being indef, Perhaps 24hrs or even 48 would've been better but then again he can request unblock at any time... –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. A lot of us including me have already argued on Sitush's talkpage that the block was a case of admin overreaction (and some have argued the opposite, yes). I'll just repeat myself here if that's OK. But I urge the person who closes this thread to take the views on Sitush's page into account, too; everybody may not be as ready to plagiarise themselves as I am. Mike V's revision deletion of Sitush's intemperate comment was acceptable in my opinion, but the block was certainly an overreaction. As Adjwilley, Stalwart111, Dougweller and Hoary (three of them with access to the comment, as have I) and others have argued, Sitush was baited until he snapped. Treating the revdel'd post as a credible threat of violence is just foolish. Mind you, it may not make a whole lot of difference to Sitush that he's blocked; he wanted out in any case, and I'd be surprised to see an unblock request any time soon. I think he may actually be tired of seeing everything he's been doing for the encyclopedia go for nought the way it has been happening recently, including a mealy-mouthed passive-agressive attack from Jimbo and escalating from there. A classic case of Wikipedia eating her children. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC).
• Indef is not permanent. It should mean until the editor shows they're not going to be a problem. Keep block pending retraction of threat, explanation, and a clear and complete indication the editor understands they were well over-the-line. This comes right after this editor made a BLP about an editor they were in dispute with, in the middle of the dispute. I don't think this editor has made any concession to the community that they've been inappropriate in any way in any of these incidents, despite indication by most in those discussion that he was acting in an ill-advised way. Unblocking without even a single indication that the editor agrees the behavior was inappropriate would be premature. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification helpful: Evidently from his talk page some people think the redacted threat was against me. What I read there and above gives the impression it was against other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester who were harassing him in some thread on this talk page; not clear to me which. I live in Washington DC, so obviously it was not a threat against me. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Note from blocking administrator: When I was approached with this issue, a number of policies were considered when blocking. First, our threat of harm policy advocates that, “Threats of violence to others should be met with blocking…” and our personal attack policy recommends blocks without warning when death threats are issued. These policies are further elaborations on one of our 5 fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Regardless of the severity or the likelihood of the execution of the death threat, such threats are not appropriate and are extremely disruptive to the community, the editing process, and most importantly can have a serious negative impact on the targeted user.

In regards to the duration of the block, I want to remind everyone that indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks. I’m opposed to reducing the block to a limited duration, as this would allow Sitush to possibly avoid addressing his or her actions. The duration will only depend on when and how Sitush wishes to approach an unblock. Should Sitush choose to appeal, I hope that Sitush will reflect and learn from this situation, appreciate the gravity of such comments, understand that it’s best to step back from Wikipedia when it becomes stressful, and that it’s more desirable to take the time to compose a calm response to others. Mike V • Talk 19:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn The threat was certainly unacceptable but I believe an indef block was a disproportionate response. I support a reduction to 3 days. Too much poking, of multiple sides, can make everybody snap. I even support blocking the other parties involved in this poking and kicking. The Banner talk 19:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do admins talk to you like you have just done something naughty in class? "I hope that Sitush will reflect and learn from this situation, appreciate the gravity of such comments, understand that it’s best to step back from Wikipedia when it becomes stressful, and that it’s more desirable to take the time to compose a calm response to others" sounds both patronising and very condescending. If he was to learn anything from this situation then it would be not to bother logging on at all as clearly the lunatics are running the asylum. Cassianto^talk 19:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just take a quiet moment and read this again to yourself aloud: "Regardless of the severity or the likelihood of the execution of the death threat, such threats are not appropriate and are extremely disruptive to the community, the editing process, and most importantly can have a serious negative impact on the targeted user." AnonNep (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite moment taken, although I spent most of it wondering why you too are talking to me in a patronising tone. Maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't go bear baiting. Cassianto^talk 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed indent. Even before that, it was under, not responding to yours.[64] I hope your linking to WP:BEAR isn't seen as intimidation or a threat. AnonNep (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

AnonNep: While I hope it wasn't your intention, you comments appear to be coming off in a vague, passive-agressive manner. I'd much rather prefer if you would state your concerns directly. Mike V • Talk 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike V, I don't think the juxtaposition of statements such as 'the severity or the likelihood of the execution of the death threat' with 'extremely disruptive to the community' is vague or passive-aggressive, rather, the statements represent hyperbole and understatement. I was highlighting the extremes of the explanation in light of the in-def decision. AnonNep (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mike V, here, AnonNep. As Mike V seems utterly incapable of grasping nuance or subtlety, you probably should have simply told him he was acting like a pedantic fusspot. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

AnonNep and Mike V, sorry, can we refer to the editor by name when responding as things are becoming confusing. Cassianto^talk 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto: Sure, I've clarified my comments. Mike V • Talk 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, good advice and will try to as above. AnonNep (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike V, can you stop talking in riddles? What comments have you clarified? Ironically, your seem even more vague than whoever it was you were accusing of being vague earlier! Cassianto^talk 20:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto: I'm sorry if my comments are coming across that way, it is not my intention. By clarify my comments I meant that I would specify to whom my comments were addressing, as the indenting process was not working well. Mike V • Talk 20:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Cassianto^talk 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Lithistman: Please stop. Your comments are becoming disruptive and aren't beneficial to the current discussion. Mike V • Talk 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that your initial indef of a good editor with a clean block log was far more disruptive than anything I've posted here. And your pedantic nonsense above just continues the problem. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Not too surprised to see the blocking administrator refuse to consider the context of the comments, the history of the editor, or anything other than "the letter of the law", in defending the indef block. And if his condition is that Sitush has to come groveling to him for forgiveness (which is how I read Mike V's note above), then there is no chance this block will ever be overturned, save for some administrator boldly doing what's right. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011 I got a six month block for merely asking an editor a question about whether his editing history which entirely consisted of certain women-related topics was the motivation for his harassing me; I also posted a link to my comment on a the WikiaFeminism site which I naively thought was part of Wikipedia. I had to make it clear that I understood the wrong I had done before my block was lifted after a couple weeks. And there was nary a gun in sight. So let's at least have a proportionate standard on these sorts of things. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I can gather, you should no longer even be a part of this project. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc I was going to leave you a message on your talk page advising you to stay far, far away from this situation for dramas sake, but I didn't because I figured you'd realize it would not be advisable for you to involve yourself in this. Apparently I was wrong. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that kind of similar to "is not and has never been a Wikipedian", LHM? By the way, that's a curious username for you to bring to this discussion, "Listhitman". It's been pointed out to me that this is purely coincidental; the only obvious interpretation of the username is the one mentioned at the user's userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, what you need to understand is that some editors (mostly male?) are regarded as "needed" by the great and good, and some are not. Of course, special consideration is required for those that are "needed" - the feelings of those who are "not needed" is not necessarily a consideration. Sitush has been unblocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I find Mike V's comment off mark, saying that a temporary block will make Sitush avoid addressing his actions. Considering Sitush's totally clean block record and history of behaviour over many years, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_be_preventative should apply . He made a mistake, and paid for it by getting blocked. No need to add insult to injury by making it indef. And I know indef is not infinite, that is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  All of that should be taken into consideration in an unblock request. Violent threats are not something that should get some kind of "cool-down" block. If he asked, with some indication of how he viewed his comments, it could theoretically be a one-day block. But it needs some indication from the involved editor. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that a violent threat made in the circumstances are precisely the situation where a cool-down block is called for. Is there some fear that if he is blocked for one week, he will return and issue more violent threats? What, in his history justifies any such fear? Kingsindian (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

People have said he was only threatening about guns because he "snapped". At that point, there's a basic doubt even if he had the cleanest history imaginable. People are being pretty blasé about an editor they basically only know through Wikipedia. The idea seems to be that we can let talk about guns slide because he's only lashing out when he got emotional. That's messed up.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how a week's block means "letting talk about guns slide". I talked about his history on WP, not history in real life. The discussion is about whether the block should be indef or not; not whether there should have been a block. Kingsindian (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am truly shocked and horrified that any editor would attempt to excuse or minimize a death threat on the grounds that someone was provoked. I mean, seriously?!? I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 years and have over 20,000 edits. I have been in plenty of content disputes, and never have I ever threatened someone with violence. Wikipedia is just a hobby. When any Wikipedia editors threatens another with violence, it affects all of us. I, for one, don't want to worry about some lunatic going after me with a gun because of some crazy content dispute on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Good block - A threat of violence, credible or not, is a bright line which cannot be crossed. If the editor recants, disavows, apologizes, etc., then an unblock could be considered, but is not an automatic "get out of jail free" card. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Yet again Wikipedia does nothing about the persistent baiting and needling of a good editor by those with an issue to push, and when they do eventually snap, they get blocked, and the culprits get off scot-free. Yes, yes, it was a totally over-the-top comment, but taken in context, what did the peanut gallery that's been trying to get this reaction actually expect? Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No one here is "provoked" into making a threat of violence. That's a choice on the part of a user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. People regularly do things that are completely out of character if they are provoked enough. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You're wrong. A threat of violence is a conscious choice. This is not a war zone, it's only a website. Has the user recanted, disavowed, apologized, etc.? If not, then he MUST stay blocked. To unblock without that would be a VERY BAD precedent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
        • And I suggested unblocking ... where, exactly? My point (which I actually thought was pretty clear) was the fact that the disruptive elements that got us to this point are still editing here whilst a very valuable editor is gone. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I really have to throw weight behind Mike V's comments. Any reduction should depend on how Sitush responds if and when he does. While I support the reduction, their response to the ban should dictate the results.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reduce block to 3 days. Sitush's words were entirely inappropriate, and Mike is to be commended for acting quickly. However, count me among those who consider an idefinite block disproportionate to the offense. Clearly context needs to factor in here; Sitush has been consistently provoked. It seems off that good editors can be blocked indefinitely for unfortunate language, and yet we have a difficult time dealing with POV pushers who have a much more detrimental effect on the encyclopedia. I'm also among those who hopes Sitush will return; he's a valuable editor who works in some of the highest need areas of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Really?!? If somebody threatens to put a bullet between the middle of your brain, you're saying that a 3 day block of editing Wikipedia is a sufficient way to rectify the situation? Really?!?!? I mean, really?!?!?!?!?! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You think that, in the full knowledge history and context of the 2 editors concerned, that the "threat" was literally meant and literally taken? Really?!?!?!?! I mean really!?!?!?!?!? DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit and dire block, I will not be editing again till it is overturned. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)***Really?!? You (AQFK) think that's what Cuchullain meant? Or that Sitush really intended to shoot Demiurge if he saw him? I'm sure he didn't. And I'm concerned that this block and the lack of understanding of some of the editors here will put him off Wikipedia entirely. We will lose a very valuable editor over a block that didn't consider context or anything else except the most extreme sanction available under the letter of the law, one that I consider punishment, and leaves the door wide open for the disruptive elements that he's had to contend with to carry on unabated. He's had some of the most vile treatment by some of these elements that I've seen on Wikipedia including threats and allegations that could seriously damage him in real life. But hell, no good deed goes unpunished. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. There are many excellent content creators who manage not to threaten to shoot other editors in the face. Overturning the ban should not even be considered prior to some sort of statement on the matter from Sitush expressing awareness that this was remarkably inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reduce the block to a year or less – Sitush, a constructive contributor, was baited, from what I can see in the context above. Unless I am mistaken, he is human, and does have feelings. Good block, though; violence/death threats aren't tolerated anywhere. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that if he's blocked for a year there's any chance in hell he'll want to contribute here again?  Volunteer Marek  21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

He is unblocked now. So my comment is nil. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn block or shorten to time served - i.e. unblock him. Good editors sometimes loose their temper too, especially when often provoked (which, frankly, Demiurge excels at and specializes in). Indefinite is definitely ridiculous. Two more things. One, it's extremely hypocritical, bad faithed, dishonest, and plain sleazy to act like Sitush's comment was meant to be taken literally as some editors are doing above. If that's the game you're trying to play here, you're only making yourself look like a creep. Two, if anyone demands that Sitush grovel and apologize before being unblocked, they deserve a block themselves. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for indulging your sadistic authoritarian tendencies on editors who have contributed far more than you. Volunteer Marek  21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unblocked. However, for those of you who live for long stupid arguments like this, you're welcome to carry on arguing for the next few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In future, when someone issues a threat of violence and gets blocked, this new "Sitush Rule" can be invoked to justify overturning the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • those of you who live for long stupid arguments like this, you're welcome to carry on arguing for the next few days. then a comment by Baseball Bugs. Heh. Flo called it. Volunteer Marek  00:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You support threats of violence? What's wrong with you?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000's conduct in relation to the circumstances of Sitush's block

I'm not clear on why Demiurge's mocking and provocative post to which Sitush responded isn't subject to scrutiny and sanction. Would anyone care to explain? (Btw, I'm not mentioning this from the point of view of exonerating Sitush, but as a separate issue) DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way was what I said provocative? Purely because someone reacted to it in a highly inappropriate manner? Or because of what I actually said?

Are you suggesting that I had been repeatedly poking at Sitush? How many times do you see me commenting in that discussion on Sitush's talk page, or indeed any other discussion there?

Or am I to be convicted of "baiting" Sitush purely because I had dared to express my disapproval of his disruptive behaviour in completely separate discussions elsewhere?

I'm not wholly sure it was "mocking", either; I did consider it "a sad state of affairs", which is exactly what I put in the edit summary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we see diffs of this part of the altercation, or were they oversighted as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming perhaps this could be the trigger, as it's the comment right before Sitush's comment that triggered the block. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, there is only one single edit from me in the last five hundred (500!) revisions of Sitush's talk page, and it is visible to all editors (assuming a bureaucrat hasn't randomly given me the admin bit just to spice things up here). So I assume that is what DeCausa is referring to, but I can understand the puzzlement as to why he thinks it's such a big deal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not "wholly" sure it was mocking? What aspects were in fact mocking then? DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Either we're missing something in the context of what was rev-deleted or you're linking to the wrong thing, as there's nothing terrible about that comment at all. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: - I'm 99% sure that that is it. His comment was "Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry..." whilst Sitush responded "As for looking for serious weaponry: if I found you right now, you'd be looking right down the barrel of it.". Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Enough stupid arguments on AN/I lately. Not another one. Nothing in the comment which is actionable. Kingsindian (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Sitush is unblocked now, so fixing responsibility for this mess is pointless. I suggest we drop the stick and move on. 117.241.136.9 (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You think he's coming back after some of the crass comments here? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Un-archived

Sorry, but I've been bold and unarchived this thread. Evidently today is the day for people being ridiculously bold with their reversals of things, so it seems apropos. Sitush's threat was unacceptable; the unblock, given the (and I'm being very generous to the people who think the threat is okay, here) wavering nature of the block debate above, was also unacceptable.

So: consider this a restart of the discussion and good/bad block debate; hopefully this way we can actually reach consensus without being beaten to the punch. Again.

For what it's worth, I consider the block a good block and endorse it being restored. I'm not buying "well he was baited"; there are lines you don't cross even when baited. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ironholds: thank you. Would you also be so kind as to restore Tarc's comment which was rollbacked? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Re Tarc's comments, it looked like some of the intermediate changes conflicted with them, so an undo is out of the question: I can try a manual re-addition if he's that attached to em. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, leave em out. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And the shit-stirring continues. Particularly rich coming from someone who jokes about setting other editors on fire. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

... and the personal attacks start. C'mon - we're adults here (or more mature at least). Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary; as someone who acted inappropriately, and was rightly sanctioned for it despite the easy argument that I was 'baited', and despite my many content contributions, I'm highly qualified to speak up here. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that your motivation... to do to another content builder what was done to you? Were you indefinitely blocked and did you have to grovel? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If by that you mean: appropriately punished for acting in an unacceptable way? Then....yes. I'm struggling to see what's controversial about that.

On the other hand, if by that you mean "I got hurt and now everyone else should too, nerr", well, first, I'm not five years old, and second, that would require me to believe that my sanctions were unfair. They weren't: they were entirely justified, and I believe that sanctions against Sitush would also be entirely justified (hence the endorsing of the block). I would suggest two things, however, and that is first, that the content builder distinction is hokum and bunkum and not worth bringing into the conversation (I only mentioned it because it was a defence for the unblock, not because I believe it matters in these discussions) and second, that we get back to discussing the actual block/unblock/what-do-we-do-now question. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's all one big MMORPG for many here. Not sure what Ironholds expects to gain from unarchiving, but I've got my popcorn ready, though I'll be watching from the sidelines. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'd hope that we can come to an actual decision. At the moment we're in this space where the unblocking admin broke some wooly guidelines to unblock, but anyone seeking to reverse their decision would, without consensus, break not-at-all-wooly-and-very-serious guidelines. The idea is that we can reach a consensus: whether that's "the threat was understandable, the block was inappropriate" or vice versa is sort of secondary to getting us out of this headspace where nobody can move. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment I do find it puzzling the removal of the ban when it seems to me that greater support was given for Ban reduction. Though I could be wrong that just what it seems to me. However now that been done I do not see it as reasonable to undo it. Its seems that most everyone agrees that these comments were unacceptable. Those that don't support the ban removal seem to want some sign that Sitush understands.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Serialjoe, that's what happens when you have a rule that says that any single admin may unilaterally unblock someone. In my opinion, a rational system would not allow such a thing, but this one does. (And I am not involved in this controversy, or any others on Wikipedia. I do observe them though, and it has always puzzled me that the "community" allows things to run this way.) Neutron (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems once again that atrocious behavior is being pooh-pooh'ed away for the sake of of keeping a "content contributor" in the stables, laboring away for the good of all. I'd like to see anyone here say with a straight face that if an editor with 2-3 months of experience directed that same sort of violent comment to another, that that editor would not only be unblocked, but unblocked without even first offering up any sort of apology or acknowledgement that they did something wrong. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that an extensive discussion of the block happened at Sitush's talkpage, right? (There is a world outside ANI, though I know that's hard to believe.) And that discussion had a very different tenor. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean a gaggle of sympathizers and enablers showed up to thump their chests and decry the evil admin abuse and yadda yadda yadda? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You really put me in my place. I feel humbled and ashamed. I'm sure all your admin friends are impressed. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussions have different tones, but are identical in not including any commentary from Sitush, who doesn't seem to have an opinion on if anything they did was a problem, but is pretty certain they're chilled out about it. I'm not seeing any commentary there which suggests that factoring that discussion in would alter Tarc's comment. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they're not. But I'm not surprised you think they are. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously content is unimportant. This is really an experiment in democracy, rather than an encyclopaedia. And obviously the years of clean history count for nothing. I opposed indef, and suggested a 3 days to a week at most. Not totally happy with the immediate unblock, but not too concerned either, since he is not coming back soon. Kingsindian (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds is right. Content is ceasing to matter, and it's time the content builders packed up and moved on. The important thing now is ensuring any remaining content builders behave according to the dictates of the social-networking groups who are here to enforce their particular versions of political correctness. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's what the two of you are reading into my commentary, well, that's between you and your biases. What I'm trying to communicate is that "he writes content" is not a defence to threatening to shoot someone in the head. If you think that "not threatening people with violence" is nothing more than a "[dictate] of the social-networking groups" or "political correctness", then yes, you probably want to find another site. One without people. Honestly, if I thought content wasn't important I wouldn't be juggling this thread with writing a lengthy and fairly important article. Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well is or is not this the threat in question? If it was, then there was no threat to "shoot someone in the head". There was merely an understandable response to Demiurge's ambiguous comment, "I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry..." It's ambiguous whether this means Demiurge is looking for troublemakers who are equipped with serious weaponry, or whether he is looking with serious weaponry for troublemakers. It would have been easy for Sitush, given the prolonged harassment he has been subjected to, to have read the second meaning into the comment and respond, somewhat immoderately but very understandably as he did. This has been blown out of all proportion. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• good block - and should be reinstated. Regardless of the alleged provocation, he chose the words he used. Now, if he wishes, he can choose to do the right thing and retract the threat and make it clear that he understands that the words he used were indeed not acceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't understand the argument that people are being unreasonable asking an editor that threatened gun violence to file an unblock request before jumping back into regular editing. Are we being impolite? Is it an inconvenient request? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of indefinite blocks, and I support ending the option, as it is a symptom that the blocking admin is indecisive.  In this case a four-month block would have been a better block.  Given that the second-mover advantage is being used to reduce the length of blocks, a tactic is hyper-short blocks, which opens the door to allow the second-mover to extend the block to a reasonable amount of time.  But as for removing this block on the grounds that death threats should not be a black mark against an editor, this is wrong.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Entirely inappropriate, out-of-process unblock. I don't see that there was any serious consultation of the blocking admin. The block itself cannot reasonably be said to have been obviously inappropriate, incorrect, or an abuse of authority in violation of policy. As such, the unblocking admin should not have unblocked without at least consulting the blocking admin. Floquenbeam's comment following the unblock, furthermore, brings the entire project into disrepute by giving the impression of being a supervote. I am greatly disappointed by this, as in my experience, Floquenbeam has been a far more capable administrator up until now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the laugh--I literally did laugh out loud at "Floquenbeam's comment following the unblock, furthermore, brings the entire project into disrepute." (Also, the popcorn is very tasty.) FTR, many things that happen on ANI actually do "bring the project into disrepute." Floque's unblock isn't one of them. It shows admirable common sense. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Hey, anything that draws more attention to my comment is a plus. Thanks for responding. Remember to upvote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment While inappropriate I'd agree that Sitush comments were understandable. I certainly hope in the future they will try to moderate such speech. He's unblocked. Why should they be blocked again? You got people mentioning wikipedias repute but this indecisiveness stands to do nothing about that. It's to move on or get to the point so everyone can move on.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose there wasn't technically anything wrong with the block - Mike saw something and blocked for it. What Mike perhaps didn't see was the 2-week-long campaign of baiting and system-gaming from a professional activist that led to "Demiurge's ambiguous comment" and Sitush's subsequent reply. It's a campaign we've seen before and it's designed with exactly this result in mind; more drama so that certain people can claim victim status. Flo saw the comments in that context and unblocked. At no point was the unblock tied to the suggestion that Mike was somehow incompetent. A technically okay block in a bad context made it a bad block. I called the situation a "fucking joke" and it was. The block should never have happened, but then the baiting should never have happened either - the professional activist aggressor should have been blocked long ago. Flo's unblock just means one less editor head mounted on a certain person's trophy wall. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverse the unblock: There clearly wasn't a consensus to revert the block. I'm contemplating taking Floquenbeam to Arbcom over this one, as he has developed an unpleasant habit of reversing unblocks and relying on WP:WHEELWAR to ensure that he gets his way. This is the third such unblock I'm aware of, and it's getting old. Enabling disruption is conduct unbecoming an administrator.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that move will end how you think it will end. But I'll watch your attempt with interest. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Kww: If you want to bring it to ArbCom, I fully endorse that, and will write a supporting opinion on the case request thus making us the most improbable crime-fighting duo in...quite a while Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would also be supportive here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'd also support this coming to the Arbitration Committee. I think there are a number of things that could do with review here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Okay given the above who wants to start the request? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reverse the unblock Given that this user is already involved in a dispute with carol above this is just another thing that has piled on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Is any reason to believe that the alleged treat of violence might be actually accomplished? If not, this is just an incivility at most and does not warrant an indefinite block, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are you being serious right now? Lets see how your logic works when it comes to school threats for example "Oh they wont actually do it, no worries we don't need to do anything". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• "We're worried he might actually threaten a user with a gun" is not actually the reason threats are treated so seriously (although obviously it's an outcome we'd like to avoid ;p). The point is that unlike incivility, these threats serve a chilling effect. If I tell you you're an [expletive], well, I'm being incivil. If I tell you I'm going to turn up to your house and do hideous violence to your pets, it's incivil, but also serves to have a chilling effect on further conversation. One is a subset of the other, and shouldn't be treated as "just incivil". To extend the school example, the reason it's not just idle language is that, even if it is just idle language, you still have a strong incentive to shut the school down, and that's kind of disruptive. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Is there any reason to think that the angry anonymous mouth-breathers who threatened rape during the Gamergate controversy actually had the fortitude to carry out their eThreats? The feasibility of a threat isn't the point; the point was that a threat of harm was introduced to an argument, the effect of which is the proverbial chilling effect on one's opponent. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Even if you disagree with the block, the unblock is what's under discussion here... and there was neither consensus to overturn nor a policy-based reason to do so unilaterally. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, the only thing there present was: "You have been editing a long time and have great value to Wikipedia I will overlook this as a minor thing and give you a slap on the wrist but don't do it again" type of thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Except for, "you have been editing for a long time and have great value to Wikipedia. Everyone ignored all rules while you were pushed closer and closer to the edge and you were blocked when you finally fell. So I'm ignoring all rules to unblock you and reset the situation for the sake of maintaining a collegial editing environment where content contributors are valued and drama-mongers might one day be held to account". But whatever. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• So it's fine for an admin to ignore all rules during an ongoing discussion that demonstrates the lack of a community consensus as to how the situation should be handled? No sir, that's one of the worst misuses of IAR I've seen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's the downside of the first-mover mechanics of administrative actions in this project; an admin can block, and admin can unblock, but an admin cannot re-block lest they get slammed for wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• And yet that's exactly what happened in the lead-up to the exchange that saw Sitush blocked. An admin expressly ignored all rules (and community consensus) during an ongoing discussion about how a situation should be handled. And it was done for the personal appeasement of one of this project's most disruptive users. But that wasn't considered "one of the worst misuses of IAR" of course. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• There was an ongoing discussion as to how to handle Sitush's specific comment that resulted in this block? I also wasn't aware that the blocking admin invoked IAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I said nothing about the blocking admin and I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a glaringly obvious double-standard. If you genuinely don't then I question the wisdom of commenting here without an understanding of the full context. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I question the relevance of your comment with respect to a double-standard, in that case. This thread is about an unblock that was made without consulting the blocking admin, without an unblock request, and during an ongoing discussion as to the propriety of the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn unblock I'm sorry, I defended Sitush tooth and nail and may have taken some credibility hits with the CarolmooreDC situation - but I feel at minimum we need to hear from @Sitush: before undoing this block. Policy explicitly states that every threat of violence needs to be taken seriously. I fail to see how we should treat this any differently. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion I feel that the unblocking admin needs a review of their actions, I can see the need for a reduction of a block but a full unblock after a threat made? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue with a block reduction after Sitush makes a statement. I think that's what most want. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As someone who thought the block was fine, I can go with that. Hell, I might even have been okay with a full unblock if Sitush came back and owned up to the mistake of making that comment. Though potentially subject to further review, the unblocking admin would have had at least one foot in the line. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whether he comes back or not, I'd say the chances Sitush "makes a statement" that would satisfy the ANI crowd are slim and none. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I understand there may have been a lot of provocation, and I would be willing to support an unblock, but I feel that Sitush should first acknowledge that threatening and violent comments are unacceptable here. Everyking (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the original post by Sitush before it was redacted. Most of us (who are not admins) are arguing about something that has been reported second-hand. If the quotation above as to what he said is accurate, then it appears that it was an extremely bad joke by an editor under extremely great stress. The previous mention of weaponry had to do not with any threat by Sitush, but with concerns by Sitush that he, Sitush, was in danger from IAC thugs. I inferred that Sitush was under some sort of stress because of his anger toward Carol Moore, on another continent than either Sitush or IAC. If an editor who was trying to deal with real threats made a mistake and posted a bad joke of a threat, then I agree that a block was correct and the unblock was appropriate. Sitush made a mistake if that is what he posted. I will ask other editors who criticize him further whether they know what they would have done in a similar situation. If they think that they know, I will ask whether they were in such a situation, of being threatened with physical violence, and whether they are sure that they would not have done what Sitush did, to make a bad joke about violence. I hope that the block and unblock does not cause Sitush to leave Wikipedia. If he decides to leave Wikipedia because the danger is not worth it, that is his decision. If the quote is correct, it was a bad joke about a much worse situation. There has been mention of what the WMF should do. The WMF is presumably by now well aware of the situation. The only actions that I can see that can be taken by the WMF for a real-world off-wiki threat due to on-wiki conduct is to cooperate with the British police. Editors who have not been threatened with physical violence for their on-wiki conduct should be hesitant to judge one who apparenthly has. Those are my thoughts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: The quote is provided by Chillum who has access to RevDel and I assume copied/pasted the comment for non-admins to see. I pulled the other diff from Sitush's talk page which is available for everyone to see. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should just generally wait until Sitush says something, anything, about the block. He appears to have simply stopped contributing after that outburst. No need to go after Floquen's nuts over something that may very well be resolved imminently.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate, Sitush's rev-deleted post also contained some strong language indicating his intention to retire. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn unblock There was clearly no consensus to reverse the block. It was a threat of violence with a weapon. To reverse it like that is insulting to the person targeted. Nobody wants to work in a place where people threaten to shoot you. I cannot fucking believe I have to say this. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Admins have a clear duty to avoid misrepresentation, particularly when they are attacking content builders. You have failed to mention the context of relentless harassment Sitush had been subjected to. But you do mention that Sitush threatened violence with a weapon. You also indicate that he threatened to shoot someone. According to the OP of this thread, an editor who had been part of this harassment said ambiguously and provocatively, "Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry...". That is ambiguous, because it is not clear whether the serious weaponry was related to the "troublemakers" or to the harasser. It has been claimed that Sitush responded, "As for looking for serious weaponry: if I found you right now, you'd be looking right down the barrel of it." Did Sitush then escalate the matter with a specific threat that he would be violent? And did he then further escalate matters and specifically threaten to shoot someone? Or are these just embellishments you made up? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Saying that Sitush threatened to shoot someone is an embellishment. I've read the comment several times, and even if you were to ignore all context and take everything literally, the most Sitush threatened to do was to point "serious weaponry" at Demiurge1000. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if Demiurge1000 had made those comments about "serious weaponry" to me I would likely have responded in a similar way as Sitush. Sitush was just turning the situation Demiurge1000 had created around. There's a lot of dramatic talk in this thread about the "chilling effect" by a crowd that seems to want to break out pitchforks. That's the talk I find chilling. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Speculation regarding the accoutrements brought by hypothetical troublemakers is unnecessary; the relevant context is still present on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• People threaten to kill each other all the time. Rarely is the threat serious. We are expected to treat it seriously, but that does not mean we should pretend like this is not something that happens sometimes when people are really frustrated. As I said, many people probably say it aloud while having the good sense not to post it and that does not take into account how many think it. Then you have all the things short of an actual threat that still convey the same inherent meaning such as "I hope you get hit by a bus", "why don't just kill yourself", or the ever popular "I hope you choke on it", as that sort of thing enters the mind much more easily since it is more morally tolerable to merely wish ill on someone than to threaten ill on someone.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've got to tell you, I would totally expect someone who told another editor to go kill themselves to draw a block. I'm not saying I'd be one to agree with the block, but I would absolutely expect someone to drop a block on that sort of incivility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn unblock - The original block was correct and proper. The unblock is breathtaking under the circumstances as I understand them: threats about guns, no word of contrition from Sitush and an unblock without consensus. That threats of violence are now to be accepted here is the death-knell for a volunteer project. I feel the chilling effect already. Jusdafax 04:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

• Overturn unblock - Someone is baiting a person who proclaims that rants are like water off a duck's back, but still lashes out with a serious threat of violence. And then gets unblocked without a statement from the blocked editor? Let's wait at the very least for his statement first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question; are any of those who are demanding Sitush be reblocked willing to lend a hand in the Indian caste articles? I'd like to see how many of you brahmin gandoo chamchas (to use some very mild terminology that's been flung his way) are willing to be even remotely friendly after being referred to as such for two years and having innumerable real-world threats on your life and health. People lose their shit every so often, it happens. If this is simply about needing to be angry at something, I can help you redirect your attention to something that happened in, you know, the real world. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, that makes it all fine, of course. We all get people yelling at you all the time, and therefore it is fine to throw in the occasional threat of violence and .. become like them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question To those saying that the matter is resolved, have the authorities been notified? Until the police say that there is no threat to us, the matter has not been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Relax. It's most unlikely Sitush is tracking you down with assault rifles and bazookas. Though you could notify the United Nations, just to be on the safe side. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to say that I have reported editors to the authorities before, Epipelagic. I've recieved barnstars doing so. I think the dismissive attitude manifested by you and others here is extremely unhelpful, as any threat of violence, especially involving weapons, must be taken seriously. The repeated shutting down of this thread in the face of growing consensus to reblock is deeply troubling, and raises additional questions. I for one am anything but relaxed and find your gratituious reassurances offensive. Jusdafax 07:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Analysis of closing

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.

---

A simple count of the bolded positions in the "Un-archived" section reveals unanimous 8-0 favor for overturning the unblock.  The closing has characterized the consensus here to overturn the unblock as a "majority", but in my case has grouped my stated preference for a four-month block with "moving on".  I can agree that at this point, in this forum, the discussion is not directly about who did the unblock.  Should this closing be overturned?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The closing should be overturned. The fact that so many editors disagree with the close is proof that the matter has not been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No, Sitush has now stated that he made a bad tempered response rather than a threat, and also that he intends to not edit Wikipedia for at least a while. So the discussion of his unblocking is now largely out of date, and the unblock should not overturned because of it. Cardamon (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - He has recanted and disavowed his threat of violence. But he better not let it happen again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - He fucked up, He admitted wrong, Lets all just move on. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - He said he is taking a break anyways, even if the block were to be shortened he wouldn't be here. I disagree with the unblocking admin's actions though as it gave off a personalized feel to it. If an inexperienced editor had done the same and then said the same response as Sitush for a unblock request would they have been given the same treatment or different due to lack of support? This bothers me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No to reopening the closing and/or restoring the block. A good and valuable editor made a mistake, and has acknowledged that mistake. A block for his use of a hyperbolic metaphor was appropriate; an indefinite block, followed by ritual humiliation in begging for forgiveness, was not. Others, to their discredit, seized upon an obviously metaphorical phrase and exaggerated the offending language into a genuine threat of physical violence. That grotesque exaggeration was nonsense, and the majority of editors commenting on this page should know that without being told. Time served. No further action in this matter is required or desirable. End of drama. Go back to editing an encyclopedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since the original message was hidden a-lot of people did not see it but it was reposted after the fact. As for a good and valuable editor? That should not be a factor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Of course it's a factor, KnowledgeKid. And well it should be. Every court of law in the Anglo-American legal world would take into account the prior good citizenship of a first-time offender, as well as other mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the crime itself. We're no different. There is an element of common sense and the "reasonable person" at work here. I would hope that knowledgeable and intelligent editors such as yourself could see that. A witch-burning is not required here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that in a sentencing matter, those sorts of things would be factored into a judge's sentence... we're not a court, not engaging in punishment, and we have other countervailing interests. While long-term contributors are to be valued, Wikipedia must avoid the appearance of letting insiders play by different rules. A less-prolific contributor would have been indeffed without controversy, and there certainly would not have been a unilateral unblock (particularly without an unblock request). Anyway, just my 2¢. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Good people who go do a stupid thing can get disgraced in the real world as well im sure you know this. Wikipedia is not the real world though and seeing this is online all we have are words to go by, which I feel is part of the reason why the Wikimedia foundation takes all threats seriously good editor and new editor alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No – When a new editor retracts a threat of violence, we unblock them and move on. When an experienced editor retracts a threat of violence, we unblock them and move on. Therefore, since Sitush retracted his threat of violence, we unblock him and move on. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural no due to mootness. Sitush has responded, and reasonably so. I think that's all I would have required in order for me to strike my endorsement of the original block in the first section above. I'm still displeased with Floquenbeam's unilateral unblock during the ongoing discussion (note that this is independent of any concerns as to the propriety of the "unilateral block" in the first instance). But the issue of Floquenbeam's use of the tools is one that goes well beyond both ANI's jurisdiction and capability. We just aren't set up to handle things that require anything more than summary action (and yes, this is in part a call for ANI reform, whereby matters that cannot be handled summarily should be purged from these boards). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Meh - In light of the editor recanting, there's no practical purpose to overturning or reinstating anything. Let it go. Tarc (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No and I shouldn't have to bold anything for my opinion to count. Giving weight only to bolded opinions is silly and there was nowhere near consensus for anything in that thread. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - Would serve no purpose whatsoever. Another admin would just come along and close it with their preferred consensus. Hopefully he got the message and will stay retired. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat on Talk:Edward Tobinick

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 edit [65] appears to include a legal threat from the institute affiliated with Edward Tobinick can editors more familiar with this please advise. VViking_TalkEdits 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a legal threat to me. A little aggressive sure, but not a threat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still an attempt at intimidation. If he's got sourced facts, he should get them into the article. If not, he should back off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

True, but not really a problem for administrators. CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, but it doesn't seem (yet) to be a legal threat - just an overly formal choice of words in raising a content dispute. Talk page discussion seems to be proceeding, which will hopefully resolve the issue. Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a legal threat as said - but the "mandated" part is humerus. Carry one folks, carry on. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

degree in template Infobox officeholder

User:Xenophrenic is deleting degrees from infoboxes Example 1 Example 2 Example 3. I tried to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder but nobody, except for User:Xenophrenic, joined in. In the discussion User:Xenophrenic actually said that he liked the idea of adding a degree field to the template and then he went ahead and deleted degrees from another biography. Is this a WP:POINT type of behavior? The spirit of editing should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to enforce a bureaucracy. I'm not sure what should be done here. How hot is the sun? (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a content/template issue and not a matter for this noticeboard - FWIW degrees awarded should not be in the alma mater field of an infobox - just the university itself. Please engage Xenophrenic on their talk page if you want to discuss changes to the template. Bear in mind that everyone here is a volunteer and may not answer messages instantly. Thanks!  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic is now making a point:

1. Alan Grayson revert: 16:31, 22 September 2014
2. Dan Quayle revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
3. David Wu revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
4. Van Jones revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
5. Lawrence O'Donnell revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
6. Carl Sagan revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
7. Joe Scarborough revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014

Since she is fighting with multiple editors on this issue, she seems to be going against concensus. The reason I am saying that User:Xenophrenic is being WP:POINT is due to what she said at the template talk page. How hot is the sun? (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume this is connected with Efforts to impeach Barack Obama and related articles. Xenophrenic is correct that an alma mater field should not be used for other stuff—the hope of some infobox proponents is that the data would be machine readable, and a field should generally contain one item. Philg88 is correct that this is the wrong place. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated to Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. I tried to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder but there were no responses there, and since the template is protected, I cannot edit it. What is the appropriate venue for this discussion? How hot is the sun? (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The username "InsaneHacker"

Hello en-wiki admins. My name is Matthias Smed Larsen but on da-wiki I go by the username InsaneHacker. I've been trying to convert my account to a global account but apparently someone registered the username InsaneHacker on en-wiki back in 2006. When looking at the logs I can see the account never made any edits, is there any way for you to see if the account is active at all? And if it isn't, is there a way I can have it? Best Regards InsaneHacker (You can reply here or on my da-wiki talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.145.167 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:USURP. Unless I'm mistaken, that account is eligible. InsaneHacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unresponsive POV-pushing IP

70.33.31.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has:

• censored sourced information in the Exorcism of Roland Doe article,
• added undue weight on fringe aspects of the same article,
• POV pushed in the Theistic Satanism article,
• attempted to censor the same article,
• continued to make the same sort of edits to the Exorcism of Roland Doe article despite being told why the edits were reverted and invited to discuss the issue.

The IP is pushing both supernaturalist and Christian POVs, and does not appear interested in discussion. A block might get their attention, but I welcome anyone else to waste their time leaving messages on their talk page and actually would appreciate if anyone else would mind keeping an eye on them. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41/03:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've left a non-templated final warning on the IP's talk page. Please re-report if the behavior continues and I somehow miss it.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the user's response was to leave a massive personal attack on Phil's talk page.[66] --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd call it a rant rather than a PA, but if someone else considers it warrants a block I have no objection.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And the IP continues to add unsourced material to Exorcism of Roland Doe, including an unsourced red herring that leaves me unable to assume both competence or good faith with regards to their ability to edit articles on possession. Were they a registered user, I'd call for a topic ban. The IP strikes me as being more interested in WP:THETRUTH and WP:RGW than cooperatively building an encyclopedia.

We definitely need to block the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours after ignoring the final talk page warning.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett

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.

---

Eric Corbett has recently engaged in blatant and extreme personal attacks against other users as well as general incivility toward editors and Wikipedia in general. This behavior is unacceptable and a complete disregard for one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. That this behavior is coming from a seasoned and experienced editor makes the matter more distressing. Any newer editor would have been templated and blocked by now. Moreover, the behavior has escalated in recent weeks. Below are links to diffs with direct quotes from Eric Corbett, presented roughly in reverse chronological order.

Personal Attacks:

• Chillum knows that I think he's a piece of shit. (referring to Chillum)
• Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you? (directed at Carolmooredc)
• I think most editors would be glad if you were site banned Carol, as you're nothing but a pain in the arse. (referring to Carolmooredc)
• Thinking isn't really one of Jimbo's strong suits though. (referring to Jimbo Wales)
• It would be even more difficult for any reasonable editor to believe that you are in full possession of your faculties if you're unable to see the evident nonsense on display here. (directed at Elaqueate)
• The second is that Brandon Harris is a completely self-centred nutcase. (referring to Brandon Harris of the WMF)

Incivility:

• I treat those who deserve respect with respect. The others can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
• Fuck off Srich, you're not welcome here. Fuck off Srich. (edit summary: fuck off Srich) (directed at S.Rich)
• I've only got one thing to say that, which is fuck it, and fuck Wikipedia. (edit summary: fuck it and fuck wikipedia)

Eric Corbett's behavior has been subject of many discussions here and elsewhere, but this is way over the line and utterly unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor update: comments that no action can be taken is not only jaded by incorrect. If you feel this behavior is unacceptable and actionable, please express so. If not, please explain why. But just saying nothing's gonna happen ensures that nothing will. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action. Due to the excellent content that Eric Corbett contributes, he has been granted a de facto exemption from the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies and any admin who doesn't recognize that will be desysopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (I was being half-sarcastic there, but if you look at the block log you will see a number of blocks for personal attacks and incivility that have quickly been reversed. I was sharply chastised when I closed an AN thread by upholding a block. I have come to that you are better off ignoring this stuff, because if you try to pursue any sanctions you will end up very disappointed.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• {EC}And this is going to be different to all the other discussions how? The only actionable comments are calling Chillum a piece of shit and telling Srich32977 to fuck off. Having failed to get a block to stick for calling another user a cunt, I can't see any prospect of getting any worthwhile outcome here and I don't have time to respond to the usual rabid defenses from the Eric Fanboys to want to go out on a limb again. I suggest you just archive this and accept that some users are uncontrollable. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I've seen a few ANI and such recently involving Eric, but this more recent behavior is undeniably unacceptable and indefensible. We're not talking about a hum of general incivility here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) No action possible here: AN/ANI is just not the right forum for this dispute, which is ages old, and where there are a great deal of people on either side involved. While I am of the position that things like threats of violence (or otherwise violent speech) rise to the level where they are set apart from the surrounding circumstances (for purposes of whether a sanction is merited at all), I'm of the opinion that these statements are not in the same category. There's a lot more factfinding that ought to be done here. And it's clear that ANI is all but impotent to address matters that cannot be dispensed of summarily. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Sjakkalle and Mendaliv: I believe we all know that bans may be implemented by consensus. The behavior is clearly in violation of policy and guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • • I agree that the comments you selected for this thread are uncivil, and looked at in a vacuum should probably merit a sanction. However, this is a situation of such complexity that experience shows it cannot be resolved by ANI. And while you're correct that a community ban can absolutely come from a consensus formed on ANI, even a brief look at any of the other threads dealing with these matters (whether Eric Corbett or any of the other parties involved in the ongoing dispute) should be enough to tell you that ANI is fundamentally incapable of reaching a consensus on this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• All but two of these examples are taken from Eric's talk page where he is talking among friends, or from the talk page of a friend of his. Why would you go so doggedly out of your way to eavesdrop on these personal pages? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have his talk page on my watchlist and noticed the recent extreme personal attacks. However, Eric's behavior is the topic of discussion. The location of the comments does not matter; talk pages are not exempt from Wikipedia guidelines and policy (quite the opposite).EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past the community has dealt with this editor with a combination of enabling and cowardice. I don't expect the community will grow a pair and actually deal with this. More likely this will be hatted with some comment along the lines of "nothing will come of this" and we will have this exact conversation again in a few weeks. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify Chillum, who exactly are you are accusing of being "cowards" and lacking "a pair". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just read the last several ANI posts regarding this user. You will find plenty of examples of both. The fact is we would not tolerate this behavior from a normal user. Eric has been made into a special user. I used the word community because this problem is systemic. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric is a special editor. He is arguably the best copy editor we have. I personally have no problem tolerating his behavior (apart from wincing sometimes). Are you saying I am a coward and lacking a pair? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Tolerate it all you want, I have no problem with that behavior. Those who defend it are enabling it. Those who say there is nothing we can do and we just have to put up with him are demonstrating a lack of confidence to put it nicely. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• The reason nothing ever happens is that people make pointless reports with a simplistic interpretation of events. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that Chillum is goading Eric by posting on his talk—it is quite common for people to repeatedly post on Eric's talk with very CIVIL comments designed to poke the bear. When there is a solution which fits all sizes, come back and let's talk about it. The Elaqueate diff shows Eric making a reasonable comment and getting a non sequitur reply from EvergreenFir followed by poking from Elaqueate. The solution there is to engage with what Eric said or don't reply at all. Shotgun ANI reports are rarely useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I avoid this editor when I can. If you think I am goading anyone then please provide evidence. When someone accuses me of being a sock puppet and I ask for evidence that is not goading. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Goading is no excuse for this behavior. If Eric feels goaded, he has every right to remove the message from his user talk page and request the editor never post them again. Nothing other users do compels him to make these statements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Close: Aside from the fact that some of these whinings are already many days old (one is early September?), Eric's ranting comments on non-mainspace pages are not even worth reading, and thus not worth going to ANI. If you ignore him, we won't have these continual useless threads.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Milowent: Can you please cite which policies exempt non-mainspace pages from pillars, policies, and guidelines? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No doubt Eric's pathetic musings and childlike tantrums violate many 'rules' around here. But who cares? I don't arrest flies for trespassing in my yard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Does the boy who cried wolf come to anyone else' mind? Johnuniq feels that the "evidence" is a simplistic interpretation. Evergreenfir's last attempt at a filing here was of similar quality and one might say intentionally misleading for the purpose of "getting" ones opponent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)

@Two kinds of pork: my last filing was not considered serious enough for action. Since then things have escalated, thus this filing. Can you please explain why you feel these statements are not personal attacks or incivility? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last fling was considered frivolous by any who bothered to examine the diffs you submitted. As indicated by someone other than me, that might be the case now as well. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend severe warning – Look at the immediate responses as this ANI is posted – Eric deserves scrutiny! As former US Army enlisted soldier and field medic, member of Special Operations Forces, and a veteran of the Iraq War, I can appreciate the wonderful release that is experienced whenever one says fuck. That said, Eric's needless and offensive use of fuck etc, especially when given in response to polite good faith messages, does not have a place in Wikipedia. Many thanks to EvergreenFir for bringing this to the ANI. Eric deserves a slap on the wrist – with a 2x4 – so that he will bite his tongue whenever he seeks to release whatever anger (etc.) is lurking. Wikipedia editors need not receive such uncivil responses. Eric's offensive replies and comments do not contribute to the project and they detract, severely, from his contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn Recommend working on some articles; there are BLP violations you could attend to rather than searching for an editor who has said "fuck" on his talk page. Hint; if you are offended by this word, you should avoid reading others' talk pages. Words like "fuck" are not prohibited on Wikipedia. It's just a word. There are far more serious things to worry about. --John (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - There's far more important things to worry about than one editor telling another to fuck off & what not .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close: ridiculous nonsense. Why not spend time creating/working on content instead of trailing around looking for words you don't like? Who re-opened this anyway? SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I reoponed it as it was closed by an IP. Iselilja (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was closed by John. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies - my internet is sooooo slow, after a dozen edit conflicts it looked as if it was John who closed it. I see it has been re-opened again anyway, just to waste even more of everyone's time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy enable At this point Eric is clearly exempt from our personal attack policies and nobody wants to talk about this issue. Wikipedia should live with this behavior as it has chosen to enable and encourage it. We should close this thread and ignore the situation until is escalates into something that cannot be ignored. This is not sarcasm, I am serious. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps, instead of fishing for more blocks, you could help improve Indian subcontinent articles now that the last line of defense has understandably had enough. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No one has cited any policy for moves to close. These are tantamount to WP:IDLI and WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel this should be closed, explain why Eric's actions are not against policy. The existence of other problems of WP is not sufficient reason. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how about wikipedia is not a battleground? Looking at your past 500 edits, how much was improving the encyclopedia and how much was arguing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority are about articles. Try looking at past 2500. Further, like others, you try to turn the focus on me and away from the egregious violations of Eric. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the focus should be on you, in addition to a few others. I suspect if the arbitration request (currently on the decline side) were to be accepted, that is precisely what will happen.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Purely ad hominem, TKoP. Have Eric's comments comported with the WP pillar of civility? I submit not. 07:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close – If you don't like what your read on Eric's page, then don't go there. Eric is, in my opinion, bang on the nose with most of what he says. Cassianto^talk 06:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Eric, quoted above: "I treat those who deserve respect with respect. " Period. Just stay in that group, everybody, it's that easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Addendum

In my experience, Malleus / Corbett can come across as snippy, sarcastic, vulgar, etc... and is also totally willing to work with an editor who is sincere and likewise willing to work with him. He's a good guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Caveat being, of course, that he is not always a good guy - else we would not be here discussing it, or attempting to. But there isn't going to be a consensus to do anything about it here, and I strongly doubt that arbcom would do anything either. A big old group hate might make some editors feel better, but at the end nothing would change. We'd just have more hours spend not editing articles, more feelings hurt and egos bruised, and more grudges. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Addendum

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 thread was closed after being open for a period of less than four hours. During a period of only four hours, anywhere in the world, some editors won't see it. (In this case, it wasn't seen on the US East Coast.) It is clear that some editors have decided that it is "community consensus" that the larger community doesn't need to express its opinions on Eric Corbett again because it is already consensus that complaints about him be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) If the closing admin, User:BlackKite, was offering the opinion that WP:ANI is broken as a way of dealing with productive but disruptive editors because it introduces drama and accomplishes nothing, I basically agree. Part of the problem is that, for whatever reasons, the ArbCom is heavily backlogged and has not been able to deal expeditiously with such editors. There is a problem in that the English Wikipedia has a few highly controversial, very productive but very disruptive editors, and no process for dealing either with them or with the disruption that they cause. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom isn't backlogged into not dealing with that class of editors, it is hobbled by a majority of its members refusing to act because it is not "political" to do so. — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Any thread on ANI that has the words Eric and Corbett in it is basically a candle and any editor who jumps into it is basically a moth looking for a flame to immolate themselves. Quite frankly, any thread that is opened up about Eric should just be closed posthaste with the rationale "Because...Eric" and everyone can move on to something more productive. Blackmane (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is incapable of handling this, we see that every time it is tried when the "find something better to do" crowd shows up. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much the "find something better to do" crowd, but that the situation has been left to fester so long that there are too many facts to be addressable within ANI's attention span. I'm not sure what the solution is. If ArbCom is too backlogged to handle its case load, maybe more seats should be added. Or some means for simplifying the procedure and limiting the scope of arbitration could be considered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

hello I want an wikipedia account

I do not know if I am right here. I edited Wikipedia for a while and I got a problem with my ip, it is permanently changing. Another user even thought that I am a kind of sockpuppet using proxy or so. Thus I want to request an account to avoid further problems. I would like to call me "موغانلی" which is written in Persian as "Mooghanly". Hope anyone can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:FD80:64D4:A654:6A61:5C49 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Read this for more information: Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?

Click here to sign up: Special:UserLogin/signup

JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

impersonate

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 was impersonated my ID.--KRAKOV (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• People are bound to have a similar username to you, and there is no impersonation since he's not "acting" like you at all..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• KRAKOV, you need to notify this user that you have brought them up at AN/I. You can also take the opportunity to politely ask them to change their username. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:Fetx202 made a series of potentially unconstructive edits [67], identical to the previous edits by an IP [68]. After KRAKOV (User:Fetx2002) reverted the IP's edits, Fetx202 registered his/her account and started reverting where the IP left off. That's no "coincidence". Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Koala15

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.

---

Koala15, a user who is generally productive and makes good contributions, has twice [69][70] submitted episode synopses that appear to be extraordinarily close paraphrases of content found here, for instance, with superficial changes in wording. User claims in his edit summary that he wrote them himself. Requesting an admin weigh in here, please. Unrelated, but also worthy of note: I've pointed out to Koala15 that there are new guidelines that govern TV series overview tables at MOS:TV#Series overview, but the user prefers to maintain his personal preference for table width, for example here and here. The rationale for using a smaller table, (as explained in the MOS discussion) is that for users with large monitors, a four-column table can take up 19 inches of horizontal space. This is not a good way to present information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible legal issues here

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.

---

Alleged "cease and desist" post here [71]. I will notify the account of this thread. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a clear legal threat. Blocking would be appropriate. A DOLT analysis indicates that the user's beef is evidently with Tim Burton, and is threatening Wikipedia for even discussing the project. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Legal threat, not a DOLT situation.--v/r - TP 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal that User:Protonk's removal of my (a.k.a. Flyer22's) WP:Rollback rights be overturned

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.

---

Protonk came to my user talk page with concerns about how I revert WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits, especially with regard to WP:Newbies. He stated that he thought that the majority of my reverts were good, but disagreed with a few ways that I revert, including when it comes to reverting blanking per WP:VANDTYPES and sometimes reverting WP:Newbie edits as WP:Good faith edits without explaining to the WP:Newbie why I reverted him or her. I noted that the way that I patrol is no different than the way that the vast majority of WP:Patrollers, including WP:Administrator Materialscientist, patrol, and that there is no requirement that I leave an explanation each time. I also noted that, per User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies, editors who agree with my style of WP:Patrolling have mentioned how time-consuming it would be if I left a message for every user that I reverted with a WP:Good faith summary. Regarding any edit that I may label WP:Vandalism, I was clear that I don't label edits WP:Vandalism lightly; except for the occasional mistakes, I only label them WP:Vandalism when they clearly appear to be WP:Vandalism, such as extensive blanking without an edit summary. That is common practice among WP:Patrollers. I told Protonk that there are times, such as in this case, that I will recognize a mistake I've made on such matters and revert myself, while noting the mistake in the edit history and/or removing the warning from the user's talk page if I left one there (and my edit summary will note that it was not vandalism). I also noted to Protonk that I am not perfect when it comes to my use of these tools, but indicated that I generally do my best when using them.

In the aforementioned archived discussion, Tomwsulcer and Rivertorch named me one of the best WP:Patrollers Wikipedia has, and indicated that I make wise decisions in various moments regarding WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. I have also received various barnstars, and compliments from various WP:Administrators, including from Mark Arsten, for my WP:Patrolling. But because some of my WP:Patrolling decisions conflict with how Protonk would handle WP:Patrolling, and because the aforementioned discussion I had with him on my talk page turned unpleasant, he has removed my WP:Rollback rights. I don't see any valid reason for him removing them, especially considering that he noted that the majority (the vast majority, from my own knowledge) of my WP:Patrolling is fine, and since I stated, "If you are going to nitpick through my edit history for reverts that you don't like because I didn't revert in the way that you would have, you might as well go through and nitpick the edits of various other WP:Patrollers who revert just like I do." On my user talk page, he suggests that I am not willing to address criticism and change my actions accordingly. On the contrary, I am willing to address criticism and do it often, but explained that I generally disagree with Protonk's take on WP:Patrolling and that I was clearly frustrated with him due to carry-over frustration from my recent WP:ANI case (currently shown above). And as for "change my actions accordingly," the way that Protonk would WP:Patrol does not equate to "the right way to WP:Patrol."

I propose that Protonk's removal of my WP:Rollback rights be overturned as an insufficient cause for removal. I will alert the WP:Rollback, Wikipedia:STiki, WP:Huggle, WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:Film talk pages to this discussion, since those first three pages concern the tools discussed and since I am significantly involved with reverting content regarding those WP:WikiProjects. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangentially related discussion about notifications and canvassing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have placed a notice on Protonk's page linking to this thread. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I felt that the notification on my talk page that I would be bringing this matter to WP:ANI, and the linking of his username via WP:Echo, was sufficient notification. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) And your reverting my notifications to the aforementioned talk pages is appropriate how? Just how were my notifications inappropriate WP:Canvassing, which I assume you will cite as your reasons for reverting me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Well if you read WP:CANVAS you will see a section talking about excessive and indiscriminate cross posting. Your concerns will already draw plenty of attention by virtue of being on ANI. You don't need to splash it across a pile of project pages. I have left a note about this on your talk page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I don't buy your argument of WP:CANVASS, especially after I explained above why I would be alerting those pages; like I just told you, "I don't see those notifications as a WP:Canvass violation. Editors are allowed to alert relevant talk pages and WP:WikiProjects, as recently as the Wikipediocracy doxxing case going on at WP:ANI. And yet you revert my notifications? Hmm." Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC) WP:CANVAS says "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.". How exactly is the removal of your rollback rights directly related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? I think you may have misread/not read the canvasing page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) We addressed this on my talk page. You restored two of the notifications, so I do appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I encourage editors reading this request to review the talk page discussion where I raised this issue originally. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This comment from Flyer22 is also problematic and is directly relevant to the discussion:

    "...I am usually very aware of my actions when it comes to my Wikipedia editing. Can I be more careful? Sure. And I will be. But I would appreciate it if you would be more careful not to treat very experienced Wikipedia editors such as myself as though I don't know what I'm doing. There is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline that I need to review. I know each and every one of them like I know the back of my hand. And I do mean each and every one of them. Your posts on this revert, with exclamation marks and "Get over yourselves!", do indeed sound angry. And needlessly angry, in my opinion. Posts like that only anger me. Posts like that disrupt the project. I made a mistake. So did User:ClueBot NG, a bot that vandalism reverters such as myself often follow and trust. I reverted that edit as a test/vandalism, meaning one or the other, and part of that edit was indeed unconstructive. Yes, with all of my Wikipedia experience, I am subject to human error on Wikipedia. I don't need another experienced Wikipedia editor coming at me with posts about how I need to get over myself and as though I have a WP:Competence issue when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines."

  • The response to criticism is roughly in line with what I experienced when I raised my issues on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Endorse Revocation This user when confronted with his rollback use says "When using WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, the vast majority of the time, I am not going to take the time to explain to a WP:Newbie why I reverted him or her. Like many others using these tools, I often let the tools do the reverting/talking, except for in cases where I see the need to reply manually. A WP:Newbie has the option to come to my talk page to ask why I have reverted him or her"[72]

I think this sums up the problem very well. He/she does not seem to understand that the burden of communication is on him/her for anything other than obviously bad faith edits. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If that "sums up the problem very well," then you have obviously disregarded what else I have stated on the matter; there is no WP:Burden for me to always address a WP:Newbie on their talk page. And that you have suggested there is one is silly. And I think you know by now that I am a she. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't spend all day remember which person has which gender, especially when some people get very mad if you are wrong. I use he/she on almost everyone I refer to.

WP:ROLLBACK describes the burden to communicate when reversing good faith actions and the consequence of not doing so: editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed". Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read what is stated in the "User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies" discussion above, and hear from some other WP:Patrollers, if you expect WP:Patrollers to leave a note for a WP:Newbie each time they revert a WP:Newbie. I rarely use WP:Rollback by itself. When I use WP:Rollback by itself, it is usually to revert clear-cut WP:Vandalism. Instead, I use WP:STiki (which is enabled by WP:Rollback) the vast majority of the time, and it gives a few options; one of those is to revert a WP:Good-faith edit; it supplies a generic WP:Edit summary of "Reverted 1 good faith edit by [so and so] using STiki." Even Protonk noted in the discussion on my talk page that reverting like that is not necessarily problematic, but that he would rather I and others revert using an explicit edit summary. And again, he noted that the majority of my reverts are good. But I get my WP:Rollback rights taken away because I am not reverting in exactly the way that he would like? Yes, I call that an insufficient cause for removal of my WP:Rollback rights. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, with your initial response to Protonk was almost as if you were erred by his comment on your recent contributions. Remember you aren't being criticized for it more so notified. Remember WP:Rollback is only used in obvious cases of vandalism. The tools that follow it should be used in the same fashion. Using Stiki to revert an edit like this as mentioned by Protonk is not appropriate and no point in reverting, rather just go to the article section, fix it and add a reference to support that claim. Chillum and Protonk are giving you good advise and if I were you I'd follow it. There may be things you disagree on and when it comes to criticism on any action(s) you committed, just take it easy and accept the mistake and don't let it change the way people see you as an editor. You have a good reputation and its little things like these that can ruin it. Rollback isn't big honestly, several months of solid editing or several hundred solid reverts and you will get rollback reinstated. This ANi post will most likely get you nowhere. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Rollback is for both WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. I just noted to Chillum above that I rarely use WP:Rollback by itself. As for the rest, I appreciate your commentary, but generally respectively disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback should be used only for obvious vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Although that may be useful advice, it is not the guideline that is agreed at WP:ROLLBACK. The opening sentence states " Rollback is a feature of the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. It allows the last user's consecutive edits on a given page to be undone with a single mouse click. On Wikipedia, rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism." (my emphasis). If it were only for vandalism, it wouldn't say "problematic edits" and give vandalism as a non-exhaustive example of them. --RexxS (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For me to state more would clearly be me repeating myself. This is the way that I have consistently used WP:Rollback, with the occasional mistake. That section of WP:Rollback, as well as the lead of WP:Rollback, is clear that WP:Rollback is not only for obvious vandalism. I reiterate that I hardly use WP:Rollback by itself. And when I do, it is usually in the case of WP:Vandalism or other problematic edits. With WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, a WP:Edit summary is automatically supplied; there is no reverting without a WP:Edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If you misuse rollback, you should revert yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse removal based on the troubling, hubristic quotation above. Anybody claiming to have a complete (or near-complete) understanding of policy on Wikipedia is simply incorrect, particularly when such a person is clearly misusing rollback. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, it's not a claim that I have a complete (or near-complete) understanding of policy on Wikipedia; it's a fact, as also recently seemingly indicated by LT910001 (Tom). And WP:Rollback is not a policy; it is a guideline, one that I have followed well, like I noted to Baseball Bugs above, as even essentially stated by Protonk on my user talk page. And yet, despite Protonk stating that my WP:Patrolling is generally good, he took away my WP:Rollback rights because I got snappy with him and don't WP:Patrol in exactly the way that he would want me to. And despite the fact that the way that I WP:Patrol is a common way for WP:Patrollers to WP:Patrol. That (his removal) is a problem. But, yes, endorse the heck out of Protonk's removal of my WP:Rollback rights as if the removal will actually help Wikipedia; it won't. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If your behavior in this thread is any indication of either your understanding of Wikipedia policy or how you behave with respect to new and inexperienced users, I have no problem with letting other users handle the patrolling you might have done. Hubris is unbecoming, and no matter how "right" someone may be, this only serves to steepen our already legendary learning curve. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I took the time to peruse User:Flyer22's last 500 edits, opening diffs of reverts that looked like they had the potential to be problematic. I found they were making good use of the STiki tool, and didn't find any problems. I also reviewed the 6 diffs that User:Protonk took issue with on User:Flyer22's talk page, and I have to say I'm not seeing what they saw.
  • Edit 1: Reverted using STiki, made a pretty substantial claim without a source, with obvious markup problems. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit by Hrvatskisokol using STiki"
  • Edit 2: Reverted using Rollback feature. Editor had claimed they "Fixed typo" in their edit summary, when in fact they blanked a paragraph and reworded another. This grossly misleading edit summary makes it hard to assume good faith, and the use of Rollback was appropriate in my opinion.
  • Edit 3 Reverted using STiki. IP had blanked a paragraph with no edit summary or explanation. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 186.80.66.57 identified as test/vandalism using STiki". It's not terribly unreasonable to classify unexplained blanking as a "test".
  • Edit 4: Reverted the addition of a new wife to a BLP using STiki. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit by Angel pearl using STiki". The user being reverted had not used an edit summary or provided any source, but has now started a talk page discussion. This one is borderline, and if the edit had been "identified as vandalism" it would be problematic, but the "good faith" in the edit summary makes it fine in my opinion.
  • Edit 5: Reverted the a new user who had deleted a 3 paragraph sourced section. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mikeweale identified as test/vandalism using STiki". Perhaps this should have been classified as "good faith" since the user had left an edit summary saying they were deleting a section (but without explaining why). Also note that there is a related discussion on the talk page that User:Flyer22 apparently did not see when making the revert. The user responded positively to the level 1 message Flyer22 left on their talk page.
  • Edit 6 Restored a sourced section that had been blanked by an IP without comment. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 69.113.200.35 identified as test/vandalism using STiki". Again, maybe it wasn't obvious vandalism, but it's not obvious good faith either, and calling it a "test" isn't that outrageous.
  • Additionally this self-revert makes it clear to me that the user is trying to use the tools carefully.

In summary, of the six diffs in question, only one of them actually used the Rollback feature, and there its use was appropriate. Of the five using STiki two were marked as "good faith" and three as "test/vandalism". Only one of those that had been marked as vandalism should have been marked as "good faith". Put this small mistake in the context of the hundreds of vandals reverted, reported, and blocked, and you see anti-vandal work that is unquestionably a net positive. With the bar so low for people currently getting the tool (500+ edits approximately) I find it a bit strange to be taking the tool away from an active vandal fighter who has years of experience and 150,000 edits because they made a few borderline mistakes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• While Flyer's verbiage here and elsewhere (why notify others of such a discussion??) is irksome, to put it mildly, I also don't see these diffs as indicating problems. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rollback is (and always has been) easy come, easy go. The low threshold to grant the tool works part and parcel with a relatively low threshold to remove it. If, after years of experience and hundreds of thousands of edits they can't respond to criticism of their actions reasonably, that's worrying to me. Likewise, some of the diffs you've noted are problematic. In the case of the Unkiss Me edit, that's a reasonable edit to make to an article and we shouldn't be calling it vandalism if it isn't actually vandalism. Also I'm not mollified by the automated insertion of the words "good faith" in an edit summary. It's still rollback, even if you say "reverted good faith edits"--especially if that's a canned summary which applies for everything that isn't marked as vandalism. Each use of the tool has to be justified. Likewise with the "test/vandalism" summary. If an edit is a test edit then revert it and note as such, but you don't get "out" of calling something vandalism by saying "oh, no, I meant the test part of "test/vandalism", not the vandalism part" How is an editor supposed to know that? And the edits to the transformers page may have been bad (the summary was certainly deceptive and the editor has been warned for that in the past) but reverting them without comment (in the summary or on any talk page) is a textbook misuse of rollback.

But I encourage you to look at the larger picture. I'm not interested in a vandal fighter whose communication strategy is to "let the tools do the talking" or whose response to criticism is to point to their experience and get defensive while prophylactically noting that they're open to critique. Nor do I think "hearing from another WP:Administrator or other editor telling me how they think I should be editing is not high on my "Yes, I want to read constructive criticism" list at the moment" is a great sign. Like I said, I didn't go to their page seeking to remove the tool (though they accused me of that in their first response). I removed the tool because the conversation made it clear that they weren't interested in feedback. I don't think that impression has been falsified by the behavior in this thread, either. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse removal - WP:ROLLBACK explicity outlines when and when not to use rollback. Your comments above show that you may not have an appropriate grasp on the tool, it's intentions, and the policy surrounding it's use. Rollback is a privilege, not a right. Your inappropriate canvassing shows that you think otherwise which is also problematic. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate rollback. I've seen this editor here for years with nothing but positive contributions. Revoking rollback is a slap in the face that will only serve to discourage yet another good editor from the project. SlightSmile 01:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would normally agree, however, being here for years should strengthen knowledge of policies and doesn't give you a free pass to violate those policies. Again, Rollback is a privilege, not a right. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, I don't think that you or others have actually understood anything I've stated in this discussion or that WP:Rollback is not the same thing as WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, and that I barely use WP:Rollback by itself. It seems that Adjwilley is currently the only editor who has heard me in this thread. Well, him and Slightsmile. Thank you, both, and now I'm out of here, which is what Protonk wanted in the first place. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too, Drmies. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: If the loss of a flag causes you to leave the project, then I don't think you were here for the right reasons. Good luck with your future endeavors. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see how even a person who was here for the right reasons might feel that an action like this could mean that the community has lost its way, so that it would be advisable to rethink one's participation. Yev Yev (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dusti: That was a spectacularly ill-informed comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong - as perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression here - but it certainly seems as though he's stating that he's leaving the project over this issue. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dusti: Look at what you linked to - "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" - and then look at her work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I registered in 2006 and I've never had rollbacker right. :-) Indeed, no drama needed for this. --Pudeo' 02:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just don't think it was a comment that needed to be made. If they were here to revert vandalism (and it doesn't look like that was the case, at least not solely), that's fine. And I don't think that their wanting to leave over this is an indication of anything more than frustration. Also, in general we try not to grave-dance. Protonk (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize - I certainly didn't mean to be mean or "grave dance". IMO it would be a silly reason to leave the project - and I wished them well should they actually decide to leave the project - which would be a loss as the user certainly seems to be a productive individual. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: - apparently my comment is being misunderstood. I do not want you to leave, nor do I think you should. A flag is just a flag. I don't think you were intentionally misusing the right, I think that perhaps you made a mistake, which we all do. As someone said somewhere - the flag is easy come easy go. As you also said, you rarely even use it anyway - so to leave over something so silly wouldn't be the best thing. Let's all take a break here and go for a breather. You've made some really valuable efforts here and losing you would be a net loss for the project. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate rollback The majority of the vandalism work looks fine and appropriate. The inciting issue here, at heart, seems to be that Flyer22 comes across as defensive and impolite on first and second brush. Asking her to personalise more of her summaries would probably be a net negative. I don't see a misuse of the basic tools here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Removal - I took my time to read over the issue as it unfolded on Flyers talk talk page. Although Flyer made many many good contributions here fighting vandalism, when notified about the mistakes she doesn't listen to the multiple notifications given to her by Protonk and others involved on talk page discussions before the removal of the right. Rollback isn't needed to be a help here on WP as there are many places where your help can be appreciated. The use of Stiki and Rollback should follow the same methods when it comes to reverting obvious vandalism and this is not an example of vandalism its the removal of a paragraph in which it is reverted and marked as vandalism. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  If I look through the history for what edit you mean there, that example doesn't actually seem clearly problematic. Are you referring to the IP blanking all the sourced negative reviews in the "Critical response" section? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism - quoted from WP:ROLLBACK. Flyer clearly thought that edits such as content blanking without an edit summary are problematic edits and is frustrated that others are criticising her for following the first line of guidance, rather than their own made-up criteria. This kangaroo court is treating a valuable contributor with 7 years experience and 150,000 edits in a completely unwarranted fashion - and Dusti, your comments are completely inappropriate; have you no clue about empathy? No wonder we're losing editors all the time. --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate I concur with RexxS on this one. The majority of edits are appropriate. Also, Dusti's comments are completely uncalled for and I ask you to redact them. KonveyorBelt 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment if Flyer22 could agree that, in general, when reverting a user some sort of explanation should be provided, either in the edit summary or on the user's talk page, then I'd support reinstating rollback. PhilKnight (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate I've done a fair bit of recent change patrol myself in the past and have seen the good, bad and ugly from other RC patrollers. In my experience Flyer has done a pretty good job, not perfect of course, but it seems like she's being treated a bit unfairly here. I'd recommend concerned editors try to monitor Flyer's work and discuss issues with her going forward instead of trying to push her to give up RC patrol. Like Adjwilley points out above, there are a number of somewhat grey areas and more discussion is probably warranted about best practices. I'd also encourage Flyer to be more accommodating to people who bring up concerns on her user talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate. I looked over hisher contribs, and heshe doesn't seem to be misusing the rollback tool. That's the only standard that should matter when considering whether or not a person gets to keep the rollback tool. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: Flyer22 identifies as a she. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops--fixed! Thanks! LHM^{ask me a question} 03:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate rollback per Adjwilley's assessment of the edits in question. Not convinced there is a systematic issue here with Flyer22 and her use of rollback. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Removal - Anyone can agree and say "yes I understand all that, sorry, now give me my rollback", when they are on thin ice. It just happened that an admin removed the rollback right of a user after having number of evidences of misuse, what was wrong with that? It is better to close this matter. Every matter shouldn't be brought to ANI. Flyer22 should be also blocked for massive canvassing, but that is not very important right now. Noteswork (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  Blocked for massive canvassing? You can not be serious. And this is the exact right place to get an administrator's poor decision overturned. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate rollback per Adjwilley as well. Being careful not to bite newcomers is one thing but slapping someone who by and large has seemed to use huggle and stiki exactly as they were meant to be used seems counterproductive. Cannolis (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate rollback - I've extensively worked with Flyer22 in the last several months on Todd Manning. This difficult article has required extensive re-writing and in some case, additional research, and we've put a lot of hard work into it, over several months. A glance at the talk page will show that although Flyer22 and I have vehemently disagreed about lots, she has always been civil to me. I've enjoyed our collaboration, and she's taught me a lot about writing and researching this type of article. That being said, Flyer22 has made a significant contribution to Wikipedia, and part of that is caring for other difficult and controversial articles which require her to retain rollback rights. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate and trouts for Protonk, Chillum, Mendaliv, Baseball Bugs, Dusti, et al. As usual, Adjwilley is a voice of reason. Flyer22 was well within the bounds of discretion using rollback and STiki. Even if she wasn't, removing the tool because of her "disinterest in responding to criticism" is overreaction and would be an obvious net negative for the project. I'm not sure why an admin deemed it necessary to audit her edit history; perhaps that deserves more scrutiny. In any case, restore the bit and consider apologizing this unfortunate gaucherie.- MrX 04:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  I too am interested in what led to this "audit", as you refer to it. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: As I look through Flyer22's contribs even deeper, this is a large loss, if she does indeed leave the project over Protonk's poor decision regarding F22's rollback flag. The way Flyer22 has been treated in this episode has been frightfully poor, particularly with the lectures from Chillum and Dusti piled on top of the initial ill-conceived removal of the flag. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support re-instating rollback even though they appear to have left This is ridiculous. This decision is a gigantic net negative to the project and is what causes veteran editors to leave, which judging by the user and talk page is exactly what you have achieved. This whole thing was handled extremely poorly. —Frosty ☃ 04:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate immediately Questions about rollback edits did not warrant rollback rights removal. Can't tell if this was just hasty or more personal. Flyer22 is one of the best editors I've encountered on WP. If every reviewer were punished in a similar way, we'd be down 70% of our reviewers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate rollback Turning off rollback privilege for using it in a perhaps heavy-handed way is appropriate. No one has suggested that this patroller willfully did anything bad, so it's appropriate to turn it back on. On the other hand, while it's more work, patrollers should try not to bite the newbies too hard. Revert where appropriate, but say why. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• reinstate Flyer22 claims her use of rollback falls within the norm of other vandalism patrollers. No one so far, has made the opposite case. Based upon the diff analysis above, her tenure and accolades, the complaints of "hubris" seems an unwarranted reason for removal. I don't know if the thread about her above has anything to do with this, but it shouldn't. It seems obvious to me that her having rollback serves the encyclopedia better than her not having rollback.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI They were correctly restored a few minutes ago. MarnetteD|Talk 05:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Seems I missed all of this while cleaning my carpets today. What a shame as I would have liked to express my disappointment in the manner this was handled....especially since my name was used in conjunction with this Rollback rights removal. I actually see the true good faith of both Flyer and the admin that took the right away. Kind of astonishing, I know...considering how disappointed I have become in the general admin corpse. But...what astonishes me even more, is how quickly the community came to the right conclusion here. Yes...Flyer made a mistake, but unless they did something on purpose...and even I do not believe that, then this should really have garnered a stern warning.....but come on...Flyer you also have a way with taking the legitimate criticism from others...and running off like you are being attacked. I think we all learned something here, but I for one am glad it is sorted out.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Was "admin corpse" a Freudian slip?  ;-) the panda ₯’ 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This entire discussion was started under the pretext of newbies potentially being bitten by rollbacked edits. But it ended up biting an actual veteran editor that leads to her departure. If admins can make poor decisions on routine basis without facing repercussions, be prepared to see more of this in the future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think veterans need to be held to the same standards as newbies. At Requests for Permissions, they don't grant rollback to someone who refuses to advise an editor why their edit was reverted, so once you have rollback the editor needs to continue advising those they revert - even with/especially with vandalism. Nobody should feel bit when they're reminded of what they should do anyway the panda ₯’ 18:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I don't know how many times you think I have "ru[n] off like [I'm] being attacked," but, as for the rest (whether regarding what you or others have stated in this thread), I've commented on my user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Block appeal for CSDarrow

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

---

• Note: With the permission of the blocking admin[73] I have unblocked CSDarrow for the sole purpose of participating in this discussion[74]. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will abide by the conditions. CSDarrow (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am posting this here because of an unblock request by a user blocked under the Men's rights movement article probation. The terms of the probation say "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or (2) community consensus".

I have been assured that attempts to appeal to the blocking admin have been attempted and have not been fruitful. I am posting this users unblock request for them.

Links: Talk page section with block notification, Talk page section with appeal request, Block log, Article in question: Men's rights movement

My personal opinion is that the block was justified based on years of such editing. The logs on Men's rights movement article probation show this has been going on a long time. Even in the unblock request he mentions that he forced the issue and seems to think it is an acceptable way to edit a contentious area. I think any reduction in duration would need replaced with a topic ban. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What would have me do Chillum, simply leave the text there? No one is arguing it should not be changed, yet discussion has died and it still there. Cailil point blank refuses to put forward a proposal in a discussable form. CSDarrow (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have you not "force" issues. I would have you walk away from contentious areas where your behavior repeatedly results in blocks. I would have you reduce the certainty that you have that your actions are without failure. I did advise you that you should make an unblock request that takes responsibility for the behavior that led up to the block instead of trying to explain why you did not deserve the block.

Frankly you probably could have worked this all out with the blocking admin if you were willing to take responsibility rather than deny responsibility. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A simple acknowledge of your comment has oddly spun out of control. This is probably going to ArbCom were I will address your point within a more general framework. CSDarrow (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, an error in your line of thinking: ArbCom is a much more focused framework, not more general. Indeed, you personally should not under any circumstances want your behavior related to MRM at ArbCom - and by not taking responsibility for your actions, you've 100% precluded this from ever going the way you want it there; in fact, it'll be worse the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You might be nitpicking my words a little there. I assure my arguments will be focused. CSDarrow (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Focused or not, you appear to be lucky with the details of this block; taking this to Arbcom would be wikisuicide the panda ₯’ 20:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Background

I was blocked for 1 year by HJ Mitchell, [75], for an alleged violation of the page probation of Men's Rights.

It is claimed I have edited without consensus. I believe this is untrue. The disputed text is the reference to the United Kingdom in the first sentence of the section here, [76]. The discussion is lengthy and starts here [77], though the pertinent parts start in NPOV [78] and continue back into Talk here [79].

Discussion

In point form:-

• It clear by half way through the WP:NPOV discussion [80] that the disputed entry is at best un-encylopedic. I don't think this is disputable, even Cailil had says the source is 'shaky'.

• Based on that alone it should be removed. However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted.

• Cailil then starts listing possible replacement texts towards the end of WP:NPOV that then continue on into Talk [81]. We now have a torrent of ever changing suggestions, none of which he used in his eventual edit.

• I think he is Filibustering and I know what will happen here. For me to address his comments would result in a wall of text and the discussion would be lost with the contended text still in place.

• I try to pin him down by asking for a static suggestion, with both its justification and how the sources support it. He simply won't do this.

• 5 days elapses. Un-encylopedic content is still in place, no consensus on replacement text had been made, and in fact I don't even think a reasonable proposal has been made. The discussion has stalled.

• I force the issue by removing un-encylopedic content, ie either come up with a reasonable proposal for discussion or leave the text out. I get blocked for 1 year.

• Cailil then edits the entry to his liking without any discussion, let alone consensus [82].

I don't think I have violated the terms of probation. There was a consensus the text was un-encyclopedic, otherwise Cailil would not have made a non trivial edit of it.

I respectively ask my block be lifted.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just a comment for now... in general CSDarrow had 2 options here: admit they were wrong, get unblocked early. Argue vehemently they were right and 2 things could happen: 1) the community agrees and they get unblocked, 2) stay blocked with now no further chance of appeal because they have now argued they did nothing wrong, which is WP:GAB-uncompliant. Obviously, that means that this is the more dangerous route. the panda ₯’ 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the two options. I am putting all my chips on the table and trusting the dice are fair. CSDarrow (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And based on what I've seen, that's your problem: you brought dice and expected the rules of craps to apply. The problem is, since the rest of us were playing poker, then rules of poker will apply. You don't get to determine the ruleset, which is what your arguments below seem to be doing the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have notified HJ Mitchell and Cailil of this discussion. There are probably others who were also involved, but those are the only two who are mentioned by name above. At the same time, I wonder if HJ would consider unblocking CSDarrow for the duration of this discussion with two restrictions: (1) he can edit nowhere else at Wikipedia except in this topic; and (2) he cannot edit his own talk page (only to avoid having multiple comments about the same issues in two places). As for the merits of the unblock request, I reserve my position on that for the moment as I'm only here because of insomnia.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd have no problem with unblocking him to participate in this discussion (nor with allowing him to edit his own talk page as well) within reason if that's what CSD wants. I give my consent for you (or any other admin) to unblock for that purpose as you see fit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 18 September 2014‎ (UTC)

• Apologies for the TLDR - am very very busy in RL
  CSDarrow (CSD) has used a number of forums to campaign for removal of sourced material - this is now the third. He has raised spurious issues regarding sources (see below). The sources in question are all academic, reliable sourced published by SAGE and Edinburgh University Press. The core of the point in relation to CSD’s complaint about me is that I found better sources for content he wants to remove. CSD raised the content matter on WP:NPOVN[83] vis a vis 1 source's weighting this was resolved by finding 3 more sourcesat NPOVN that corroborate the material.
  He had however been talking in circles with other users on the talk page before this (I was not involved at that point) – an edit war broke out and Bbb23 protected the page for 8 days. Due to WP:MRMPS that article is under 1RR and CSD had been slow revert warring to remove the text (as can be seen here and [84]. Bbb23 protected the page and warned everyone that “If after the lock expires, I see anyone continue to edit the disputed part of the article without a clear consensus in favor of the edit, they risk being blocked without notice”[85].
  When I pointed CSD to the sources on NPOVN he demanded I bring the matter to the Article’s talk page[86] which I did. When shock horror he couldn’t find the books online (despite them all being in google books) he persisted in throwing up straw man arguments and continually talking about what "new wording" I was about to add, *when no wording was needed* (see the discussion [87]. I noted CSD’s conduct to Bbb23 while he was blocked for a separate BLP issue. Bbb23 noted there that CSD was being tendentious[88].
  The matter that led to this block came to a head when immediately after the page protection ended CSD reverted again[89]. At this point Bbb23 was alerted by Sonicyouth (while he was on wikibreak) about CSD’s edit[90] – due to Bbb23's I made a post to Drmies[91]. HJMitchell saw that post, investigated it, and made his own call based on WP:MRMPS and CSD’s history.
  This[92] is my one and only edit to that article WRT to this issue. It has not been reverted by anyone despite it being added 5 days ago and despite CSD's claims of contentiousness. The only person who doesn’t like it is CSDarrow. And he has a long history[93] of misunderstanding that he doesn’t have a veto over consensus and edit-warring to enforce it. Furthermore this edit-warring and tendentiousness is part of a 2 year campaigning to remove this text (September 2012[94] and June 2013[95])--Cailil ^talk 10:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact you should lobby for my block then brazenly commit the very thing you accuse me of is mind boggling. Rather than debate properly you go for the block, in fact twice during the debate.

• Just before I was to ask Bbb23 to remove the text, your first attempt was to feed Dreadstar [96] and Bbb23 [97] incorrect inferences. The fact you weren't aware Whitcomb is dead is odd, considering how well known he is in Feminist circles. You seem very friendly with Dreadstar who made the block and seemingly is indebted to you. What does the "hot water comment" refer to? I got indefinitely hard blocked. My appeal was successful.

• Once I removed the un-encyclopedic text, rather than propose a replacement text and promote discussion, you lobbied again for another block [98]. Unbelievably you then committed exactly the offense you falsely accused me of. You had two options, you chose the most disruptive.

On two occasions you chose the most disruptive of the options available to you. You have barely addressed a single point I have raised here. CSDarrow (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all CSD, the policy issue you raised at NPOVN related to the content was asked, and answered by the additional academic sources - the discussion was over, the issue resolved. You not liking the result is your own problem, and your inability to abide by WP's rules is why you're blocked - it really is that simple. Secondly nobody lobbied for you to be blocked just for an uninvolved sysop to *look at your actions*.
For the record, no Dreadstar is not "indebted" to me or anyone else (I can't remember the last time I interacted with them before your block and, as a point of order, I never contacted them) both they and HJM acted at there own discretion - they do have their own minds you know. BTW your wild conspiracy theories are not helping your case and would be better redacted. The difference between my actions and what you describe is clear and simple. And if you continue to misconstrue my or other ppl's actions you'll just dig a deeper hole for yourself. I wasn't the first person who contacted an admin vis a vis your edit-warring this time, but your fixation with me is not helping you, wikipedia is not a battleground. This is my last reply to you CSD - you've wasted enough of my and other ppl's time--Cailil ^talk 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight the following:-

"..the policy issue you raised at NPOVN related to the content was asked, and answered by the additional academic sources - the discussion was over, the issue resolved."

CSDarrow (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Blocked. The first question to ask in any block review is whether the blocked editor will, if unblocked, continue the disruption that resulted in the block the first time 'round. Here, given the statement and the utter lack of awareness of why their conduct was problematic, the answer would have to be probably. I'm open to arguments in favor, but I just don't see any benefit to be had by unblocking at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is as as to whether I have been disruptive or not. We have to resolve that issue first. CSDarrow (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@CSDarrow: Wrong again. You did NOT ask for a block review. You asked for an unblock. A block review has the community review the circumstances of the block, and whether or not the blocking admin was within the parameters permitted to place the block. An unblock request follows WP:GAB, and nothing else - so if you wanted someone to determine if you had been disruptive, you did the wrong thing. Nevertheless, every single editor who has commented in this thread agrees that you were, indeed, disruptive. So, if you wanted a block review, you got one. You wanted an unblock request, you go that too - and neither look good the panda ₯’ 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some trash talk on the subject from a non-administrator. Darrow is an editor who has absorbed probably hundreds of hours of other editors, (administrators and not,) time, dealing with all his/her various issues. And for what? A look at her/his wiki record: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=CSDarrow&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia reveals that over 75% of his/her edits are on talk pages. And how many of her/his other edits to articles have been undone? It is clear to me (another of those phrase that mean in my opinion) that s/he is an editor with an agenda, that s/he edits on a relatively few number of articles and then talks every one within reading range to death. And other unfortunate editors actually try to untie his gordian arguments. Enough time has been wasted. Carptrash (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll just note that CSDarrow doesn't seem to be arguing that my block was procedurally incorrect, that I've been unreasonable in declining to unblock him thus far, that his conduct wasn't problematic, nor even that he wouldn't continue exactly the same behaviour that led to the block (and, as far as I can tell, all of his previous blocks, including one of three months' duration). Had he taken the latter approach, I might well be having a conversation with him leading towards an amicable solution. In fact, his argument seems to rest on a belief that he was 'right' and that being 'right' exempts him from all the normal workings of Wikipedia, which are especially important in contentious topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Checking your contributions page, from the time you would have noticed Cailils post, here [99], to forming and posting an opinion is 21 mins. This is an immensely complex issue involving page after page of involved argument over multiple different Wikipedia talk pages. I find it impossible to believe your block was based on rational scrutiny of the issue before you. CSDarrow (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The content issues might be "immensely complex" (though I suspect they would be less so were it not for your contributions), but the problem with your conduct is clear for anybody to see. If you find that impossible to believe, then you stand in opposition to just about everybody; thousands of people watch this page and thus far not one of them has opined in your favour. Your refusal to accept that you might not be completely correct, or that Wikipedia's norms and policies apply to you, is what led to this block, to all your other blocks, and is why we're having this conversation at ANI instead of negotiating on your talk page. Do you see a pattern emerging here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, you are the blocking Admin and you make a post like that? Might I remind you at one time most people also thought the World was flat. This is almost entirely and argument of fact, ie either I broke the terms of probation or I did not, which can be settled by examining the record of the discussion. It is impossible for you to have made a rational decision in the time period you did. I also find the joyous enthusiasm with which you joined this affair, here[100], troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I have seen, I find the entire way you have conducted yourself since you registered your account on this project "troubling", and that will be my last comment here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than addressing the issues pertinent to the case in hand you are indulging in irrelevances, ie red herrings. CSDarrow (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, wrong. On ANI, you do not get to set the limits of discussion - the discussion WILL investigate all of your behavior, your block log, and most !votes will be based on the concept of "overall net negative" or "overall net positive". This is why I think you wholly misrolled your dice because you failed to understand this most basic element the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My post was basically referring to how HJ Michells response related to what I'd just said.

I understand the primacy of the well being of Wikipedia principle in decision making. There is actually a name for this form of governance; sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Without going into tortuous discussion, there is an implication in my arguments I am in compliance with that principle. If I was to fully unpack your interpretation of this idea then we have a very lengthy discussion on our plate. The immediate point that comes to mind is even if I proof my case and was in full compliance with the page probation, then why was I not blocked even before the whole affair even started? If this carries onto ArbCom, which seems probable, then this can be discussed in detail. I assure you I can argue my case well and the discussion should be useful for Wikipedia, whether I am correct or not. CSDarrow (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• CSDarrow is a WP:SPA on the subject of the men's rights movement (MRM); since September 2012, his editing has been restricted to the MRM article and related MRM pages. CSDarrow is WP:NOTHERE and the problem goes beyond the fact that his article space edits make up less than 6% of his contributions. His editing tends to be tendentious, disruptive and in violation of our content policies. His edits on the MRM page are good examples of his modus operandi. CSDarrow tries to get his way by repeating edits despite opposition from other editors. Examples include a slow moving edit-war over the designation of some MRM sectors as misogynist (e.g., [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]), attempts to get MRM views on marital rape removed (e.g., [107], [108], [109], [110], [111]), and links to MRM websites or wikilinks to red-linked MRM organizations (e.g., [112], [113], [114]). He claims consensus for removal of reliably sourced content where no such consensus exists (e.g., [115], [116]) and accuses others of vandalism (e.g., [117]). Cailil is correct in saying that CSDarrow's most recent three repeat edits re the marital rape paragraph are part of a campaign that started two years ago (Sep 18, 2012, repeated on Sep 20, 2012). CSDarrow is not here to build an encyclopedia; HJ Mitchell's block was justified and appropriate. It's a shame that it took two long years and three MRM sanctions until someone said enough is enough. Keep blocked for a year or change to indef (with the latter being the better option imho). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The main feature of many of the responses here is the refusal to actually address the arguments I have raised. Which is possibly because no one as yet has a convincing counter to them. There had been a consensus that un-encyclopedic material had been in place for over 5 days. There is an implied consensus that Wikipedia does not publish material at odds with the Five Pillars. It's that simple. This is tough to respond to, which is why I largely see walls of text that are little more than Gish Gallops [118]. Aggravating factors are moot if there is nothing to aggravate. I shall not be drawn into exchanges that generate even bigger walls of text that confound the discussion, so resulting in the status quo being maintained. This level of discussion might explain some of the other blocks.

If people are willing to address my argument brought here to ANI, then I am willing to take on all comers on ANY point I have made in my appeal. Make then one by one to avoid walls of text please. CSDarrow (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

" I am willing to take on all comers" Yes, we know, and that's a concern to many editors who are not focused on showing the merits of the MRM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.162 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block - Sort of. Looking at this issue has forced me to look at the block log and contributions of CSDarrow(including their 1st 500 edits). This editor isn't trying to convince editors he deserves another chance, only that he is right. Which is a constant theme in their edits. Over and over and over and over. I would say 100% of this editors edits have concerned the MRM or blocks that resulted in this editors tendentious editing concerning that subject. So when I say 'sort of', I am referring to the fact a year isn't going to do any good. He will just come back here and return to the same battleground behavior. Which should be evident by his posts after being unblocked to discuss this here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've spent the better part of an hour going through the talk page discussion and the history. I too endorse the block that was levied. I'll try to explain my rationale, with respect to the points that CSDarrow raised, as briefly as possible. CSDarrow boldly removed text that was, in their opinion, unencyclopedic, this was reverted. When the discussion and its direction is not to CSD's liking, he removes it again resulting in protection1. Following the protection expiry, CSD again removed the material to "force the issue" thus engaging in slow motion edit warring over the removal of the text. The edit warring, pointy text removal to "force the issue" and CSD's filibustering on the talk page is very much a violation of the probation in spirit if not the letter. CSD's point "However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted" is telling. There is no WP:DEADLINE and short of a BLP or copyright violation, nothing needs to be done quickly. Anything short of a realisation of these points should result in an unblock request being denied. Following his return from the block, whether it be through expiry or a GAB compliant request, CSD should be indefinitely banned from the article. Blackmane (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Blackmane I appreciate you going through the whole discussion, it is long. Though we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations. Though will I state concerning the BLP issue, there are serious candidates standing on a Men's Rights platform for the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election, and sitting members of the Governing Coalition that commonly champion Men's Rights related causes. I state this in my NPOVN submission. Suggesting they support Marital Rape is a fairly substantial assertion to make. CSDarrow (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As with any political movement there will always be internal elements that have certain views that are more or less extreme than others within it. As such a somewhat broad brush statement, as it was previously, should not, imo, be seen as a BLP violation. Cailil's subsequent edit changing the wording makes this clearer than the previous version and is most likely the reason it hasn't been challenged yet and in fact [119] a discussion was held where there was a minor consensus supporting the wording. Regardless of this, your continuous removal of material can only be interpreted as edit warring. Furthermore, when EvergreenFir reverted you, your belligerence towards that action was blatantly assuming bad faith on their part. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean the discussion between Cailil and the hours old IP accounts 81.129.126.66 and 109.148.125.244? CSDarrow (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that both IPs locate to BT public address pools in England, and are thus dynamic there is no reason to expect substantial contributions from either address. Blackmane (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per Dave Dial/DD2K. I would need to see CSDarrow's approach change or an interest to edit something other than MRM (and by that I mean not edit MRM for a period of 6 months) to support an unblock. Political activism needs to happen off-wiki.--v/r - TP 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: "Political activism needs to happen off-wiki."

Probably the best comment made in this whole discussion. It is a belief in that very fact that has me post on Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question CSDarrow What do you think was wrong with your previous approach? What articles do you want to work on? __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I was the one who asked if CSDarrow's block could be lifted solely for the purpose of contributing to this discussion. I did it only to be fair to him. However, I fear that CSDarrow's idea of contributing is making it worse for him, not better. I strongly urge him to be less combative, less controlling, and less paranoid in his comments. Otherwise, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the block will be upheld.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest keep the block, or alternatively you CSDarrow should try to get it to ArbCom. The same involved editors (yes I'm involved too) can't achieve anything new for you at ANI. ANI votes are a farce anyway, as evidenced by the Tutelary section above. --Pudeo' 11:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As already noted, if CSDarrow took this behaviour to ArbCom, we not see him again on Wikipedia this century the panda ₯’ 12:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine, too. Atleast in that case he could probably feel he used all possible means and then has nothing to lose. Of course, up to him. --Pudeo' 12:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per Sonicyouth86's rationale. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

CommentThis thread was archived after a few days of inaction. This really needs an admin close to judge the consensus whether to reinstate the block or not. Blackmane (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

West Aurora High School

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 please jump over to RPP or AIV and possibly handle the things involving this srticle? It is under a mass attack from several new users; typical schoolcruft stuff. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nyttend already blocked one--I changed that block to indefinite for vandalism-only. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are 3 active vandals at this time. Seaphoto has been getting most of it, but I think RPP is certainly in order. John from Idegon (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thnks, guys! John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I blocked them all, and the article is now semi-protected. Thanks for your vigilance, John from Idegon. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Gamergate 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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy

Why am I unmable to edit the Gamergate talk page? It doesn't have a lock icon on it, so there's no indication it has semi-protected status, or why. I've never seen a talk page be protected before. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected due to repeated BLP violations. Woodroar (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't you delete the BLP violations instead of punishing everybody who's an IP editor? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't myself, no. :) I hear where you're coming from, though. I imagine it's difficult balancing that with the impossibility of monitoring the page 24/7 for violations, which is unfortunately what's happening. Woodroar (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an easy task to keep undoing a flurry of edits. If you would like to edit, you could either create an account or post on the talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, the talk page itself is semi'd, so your second suggestion is not possible. (And the OP clearly indicated it's the talk page that is the issue.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for the talk page of the talk page. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

, Oh sorry. I did not notice that. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You could just create an account, make 10 good edits and wait for 4 days. You could call yourself "GameDude1541" and nobody would have a clue who you really are or where in the world you reside, while now I can do a whois on your IP and know much more about you than I would otherwise. Not too onerous a task, is it? That said, semi-protecting the talk page is generally frowned upon except for short periods of time as it stops first time or one-off users from contributing at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of off-wiki campaign to damage this particular page (leastways OTRS is getting a slew of remarkably similar "I love Wikipedia but the Gamergate article is biased" emails at the moment), so protecting the talkpage (the other principal venue for this sort of disruption) does make a lot of sense, at least for the time being. Sucks for those anon editors who have something genuine to contribute, but sadly its the most pertinent response we have available. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at Talk:Gamergate controversy while logged out, and as expected, I got a "view source" button instead of "edit". Clicking on that explained why I couldn't edit, but also invited me to "Submit an edit request". I clicked on that, which recursively took me back to the same page, since it appears to work by going to the talk page of whatever you're looking at and prefilling some templates for you. This sounds like a bug - though where should an edit request for a semi-protected talk page go? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Requests for page protection has a section specifically for asking that edits be made to a given page (or they did last time I checked), specifically for circumstances like this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Dantetheperuvian

Dantetheperuvian has insulted me here (calling me a "fuck"), here (questioning my pride) and here (calling me a "troll"). He/she is also engaged in edit warring. SLBedit (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What does that even mean? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You should know but I help you: "Derogatory term used to address a bunch of complete douchebags. Often used in times of extreme anger. "You fucks! Get your sorry asses here or I'll make you wish you were never born!" SLBedit (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I think you misinterpreted what was said. It looks like in the context of the discussion that the User meant to say, "if you [give a] f***..." or something to this effect. This puts the comment in an entirely different light. So vulgar language and bad editing, but no intended insult in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a malformed sentence. There's no clear indication Dantetheperuvian meant to call SLBedit a "fuck", though even if he had I'm not sure we'd do anything about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear indication Dantetheperuvian called me a "fuck" because he replied to me and wrote "you fuck". SLBedit (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In my view you are misinterpreting what he/she wrote because you didn't feel insulted (it wasn't you). Is it okay if I start calling Wikipedians trolls and fucks when I disagree with them? If yes I will do the same just don't warn me about that. SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are absolutely correct that I was not the person the comment was directed. But you came here for the opinion of others and I've offered that. Furthermore, if a person does not feel insulted, then the claim can be made that no insult was made.

You are entitled to feel insulted, but you are not entitled to create an insult where its questionable that one exists. Something else to consider is that by feeling so insulted (to the point that you're discussing it here), you are giving far more power to the comments that the other User made than were originally intended. But that is also your choice to make. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point but it's not questionable that he insulted me. SLBedit (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In the first and second instance, yes it's questionable, (granted I don't understand the sports reference), in the third (i.e. "troll") no, its pretty clear. But still fairly petty. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about calling me a troll for reverting an edit? SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly that was rude, but not worth seeking action over. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not if I did the same to a administrator or a admin's friend. SLBedit (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this comment. I understand you are probably frustrated with this user, but multiple people have responded to this indicating that to a dispassionate, outside observer there is nothing particularly actionable about Dantetheperuvian's conduct. I suggest you find some other way of resolving the dispute between the two of you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay for user Dantetheperuvian to call Jérôme Faugeras a "John Doe Fauregas" (twice!)? SLBedit (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea as I do not know who this person is or what relevance they have to this discussion. As I mentioned previously, the words used only have the power over you that you give them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the discussion because of Dantetheperuvian edits which brought me here.

That means it doesn't matter if I insult you because "words used only have the power over you that you give them" which means insults don't exist on Wikipedia. You don't want to punish him/her fine BUT don't warn me if I use the same tactics. SLBedit (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't punish people on Wikipedia. We prevent future occurrences. The "severity of the response" depends on the "severity of the protection required". You weren't called a "fuck". You were called a troll. The person was warned not to do that again. Voila, response is done unless there's a recurrence. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's no possible way, even with a poorly-built sentence, that anyone called you a "fuck". Being called a "troll"? Meh, if the first part had been true, then added to troll it could have led to a warning. Otherwise, it's not worthy of action other than reminding the other party to be civil. the panda ₯’ 21:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fucks bye trolls good. SLBedit (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note cautioning them to comment on content and not editors. Please do your best just to steer clear of the drama and ignore petty items like someone calling you a troll. If that's the worst that happens, you'll be entirely fine. Remember what we're here for :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, since when "troll" is synonymous with "shit"? But what adjective deserve someone who responds that way in this discussion? (wrote "To me it seems like you are a Porto fan. It should be fixed now. If you are Juventus fan then you share something with Porto fans: shame of (proven) corruption in football" in his 1st answer), so the "outraged" should be me. Now, it's "curious" read how this user "edit" where before delete, why?

To end, regarding mr. Jérôme Faugeras, Internet not appear anywhere if he is a statistician, a football board member, a manager, an expert in international football like this or if it's a other Internet user like you or me. And I remember that Wikipedia only accept original research conducted by subjects who have sufficient prestige and/or notoriety in their work's area, and that can not be said of this man...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a part answer right there; a shortage of competence in English. FYI,@Dantetheperuvian:, original research is accepted nowhere on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you should consider yourself warned that directed attacks at editors will attract blocks of increasing duration. To both SLBedit and Dantetheperuvian, comment on content not the editor. Neither of you are covering yourselves in glory here. cmtBlackmane (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User 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.

---

Hi,

Theres half a dozen or so edit summaries that could do with redacting on my userpage, mostly the ones about the other users but if someone fanices doing a general tidy up it would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Revdeled. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers is one more username I wouldnt mind loosing on revision [120] and a summary on [121] and [122]. Amortias (T)(C) 17:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Request rangeblock for 108.5.64.0/21, 108.5.72.0/23, and 108.5.74.0/24

I have been tracking down an IP-hopping vandal, and I think a range block is in order for 108.5.64.0/21, 108.5.72.0/23, and 108.5.74.0/24. Almost every single edit from these IPs since June 2014 has been very specific forms of vandalism, mostly about animated films and shows, voice actors, and theme parks, indicating that they are the same problem user and collateral damage would be minimal. I have personally reverted over a hundred edits, and there are literally hundreds of bad edits reverted by other users. The edits take one of the following three forms:

• Adding unsourced info to BLPs of actors and composers, including unsourced names of children, unsourced ancestry (e.g. [123]), unsourced and often incorrect birthdates and locations (e.g. [124][125]), fake animated future films and shows (many 5+ years in the future, e.g. [126]), fake future children and spouses (e.g. [127][128]), and unsourced roles and jobs (e.g. [129]).
• Adding information about fake animated future films and shows, including fake cast lists, to lists of films (e.g. [130]), articles about songs supposedly in those films (e.g. [131]), articles about the studios supposedly producing the films (e.g. [132]), actors, etc.
• Adding fake information about future rides, events, and parks to articles and templates about Universal Studios, Disney theme parks, Six Flags parks, and roller coaster manufacturers (e.g. [133][134]).

This editor is very consistent, adding information about the same fake film or ride to several articles to make it appear legitimate. This editor also frequently capitalizes words inappropriately (especially "Angrily") and adds links to non-notable children, indicating it is likely the same person making the edits.

I didn't include most of the diffs here, as there are literally hundreds, but I've compiled a list of IP addresses whose contributions have met this pattern:

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

IP Block

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,

Can we get a however long is felt appropriate block on this IP 94.196.250.104, obvious WP:SOCK of Evlekis, low chance of colateral damage as only one non vandalism edit ever and that was some years ago. Amortias (T)(C) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I gave it a short term block, but it's a wireless carrier IP, so a long block is unlikely to help. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:ESDONTS

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

---

In my opinion the edit summary here is in direct violation of WP:ESDONTS.

I have asked the editor who made it to redact it. They have refused. The justification given is not that they do not think it is a breach of WP:ESDONTS, but "I ... having been subjected to far worse from admins".

Please could a neutral administrator look at it and if they think it violation of WP:ESDONTS then "Delete edit summary", or admonish the editor for embedding comments which breach WP:ESDONTS into the edit history of a page. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh. PBS appeared to me not to know the difference between Coventry and Rotterdam. I said so. We'd been disagreeing about the inclusion of an incorrectly referenced contentious sentence inserted by one of his (now indeffed) chums. He's corrected the reference and removed the sentence which he had fought so hard to keep, but wanted to make a reference point to an irrelevant page about a different city. Still, if it means so much to him to have the last word on HIS article then let him. I really don't give a shit - just glad he eventually removed the bollocks that he had been defending so vigourously. I'm used to the hypocrisy of admins who'll defend each other but never do anything about crap admins attacking ordinary editors. Seen far too much of that. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an admin, but it seems to me much ado about nothing. The content in the article is updated, the most important thing. The edit summary is on the talk page. Since PBS feels strongly about removal, and DH is fine with the removal of edit summary on the talk page, it can perhaps be done by some neutral admin and we can all avoid any drama. Kingsindian (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I too am not an admin, but I would find it hard to believe that the edit summary in question fell within the removal criteria listed at either WP:Revdel or WP:Oversight. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior by EllenCT

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 is part of a long string of confrontations with EllenCT mainly in honeybee or pesticide related articles Neonicotinoid and Colony Collapse Disorder. I'll preface this by saying that I hoped as a relatively new editor to never pursue administrator action and be able to resolve disputes and editor behavior issues without, but that does not seem feasible in this case not for lack of trying for some time to work with EllenCT on these behavior issues.

So far, EllenCT has:

[ • ] Accused me of COI without evidence against WP:COI, and continually hounded me with veiled claims of astroturfing. [135], [136], [137], and attributing content I pasted to my sandbox from a problem article as my own content for further COI accusations [138].

[ • ] Refuses to discuss on the article talk page, specifically stating she is assuming bad faith on my part per the continued WP:HOUNDING and failing to drop the stick on COI (addition: after this edit) [139] all because I posted a peer-reviewed literature review as an example of a secondary source. [140] [141] She has since been on a tirade about how the source is biased and unreliable even though we were not proposing content on it. Main discussion here [1#Discussion_of_Bayer-funded_source]

[ • ] Stated her reason for not attempting to use the article talk page before going to RSN for a the above dispute was her assumption of bad faith [142] , which is counter to WP:AGF throughout the whole talk section. 2#American_Bird_Conservancy_review

[ • ] Consistently brings up editor behavior concerns (whether unfounded or not) on the article talk page, and has stated, "I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your pervious [sic] comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit."[143] This is a blatant violation of WP:TPG as she refuses to use user talk pages to discuss editor behavior and has stated she will continue to use the article talk pages.

[ • ]Demonstrated lack of basic knowledge related to the topic from time to time. This was kindly pointed out by another user, but it didn't seem clear that the message got across that she needed to slow down and acknowledge mistakes were made. [144] [145] Being factually incorrect is fine, but the way that has been dealt with (or lack of) does seem like tendentious behavior is potentially affecting her ability to make competent edits. Quite a bit of time was spent trying to alleviate mistakes that she wouldn't back down from.

The main concerning policies or guidelines are WP:COI, WP:AGF, and WP:TPG. These concerns are all rooted our in policy WP:CIVIL. This behavior runs afoul of that policy, especially from WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL that includes personal attacks and "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". She has continued to claim I am biased and furthering an agenda when all I did was list the source in question as an example of one secondary source, and nothing more.

She continues to post about perceived editor behavior issues on article talk page after being warned multiple times not to:

[ • ] Towards the end of my comment [146]

[ • ] Still kind warning. [147]

[ • ] Warning with a good in-depth explanation, especially on the ground-shifting and avoiding questions by asking new ones without responding to previous ones. [ • ] Explained to her here. [148] [149]

[ • ] Second to last warning. [150]

[ • ] Final warning. [151]

I originally had more of a narrative, but some helpful users guided me on more suitable concise formatting expected for ANI. The more detailed version is below just for posterity (or if someone really wants the details):

Additional background diffs that culminated to this issue.

I recently reverted content with reliable source concerns in mind [152]. EllenCT reverted without addressing those concerns, and immediately went to RSN for the reliability dispute rather than discuss on the talk page first. 2#American_Bird_Conservancy_review. The talk page conversation never went towards addressing why I removed the content after repeatedly asking to address those issues, but instead culminated in this statement by EllenCT "Is it an assumption of bad faith on my part that interaction has colored by opinion of your neutrality?"[153] The interaction referenced was me stating what an example of a recent review was (and nothing more from a weight perspective). [154] [155] EllenCT has since been on a tirade about me being biased, COI, etc. because I mentioned a peer-reviewed review article that happened to have industry ties as a general example of what a literature review looks like as an example of one of many we'd need to consider for scientific consensus. I attempted to correct that misconception once she started making wild accusations, but apparently that was never heard.[156][157] After the comment in the above paragraph, she then said, "Note that it was because you claimed authors for which any reasonable person would have abundant reason to suspect bias were the authors of what you considered an example of a neutral review. I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your pervious comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit."[158] That last response is the prime evidence that this user is purposely and disregarding our policies for civility and discussion. She has purposely misrepresented how I was using the source after attempting to correct her multiple times (only resulting in WP:IDHT), accusing me of bias and lack of neutrality throughout the article because of this, and blatantly saying she will not discuss her concerns about editor behavior on user talk pages, but instead on the article talk page, which is violating WP:TPG. This to me was the indication that this user is no longer working towards improving the article by following our civility policies with statements that the user is assuming bad faith on my part. There have been multiple personal attacks on me. She has questioned me on COI without any evidence of one. [159] Not appropriate behavior at this point, but not blatantly outside the lines of civility from my perspective. However, EllenCT continued hounding me on this topic by continuing to claim I was a paid advocate with a COI with no evidence in an edit summary.[160], followed by veiled accusations of astroturfing on top of COI at the end of her response [161]. Again, all for saying the source was an example of a review. She even went to my sandbox where I had just pasted a problem article to work on, she accused me of COI again based on content I never wrote in the article [162] This is all clearly what we are not supposed to do per WP:COI. Here are the other general behavior issues that have not been resolved which have contributed to the above: Lapses in competence EllenCT has demonstrated lack of basic knowledge related to the topic from time to time. She repeatedly called the source we were discussing a primary article instead of a secondary source, and wasn't familiar with some basic insect biology. This was kindly pointed out by another user, but it didn't seem clear that the message got across that she needed to slow down and acknowledge mistakes were made. [163] [164] Being factually incorrect is fine, but the way that has been dealt with (or lack of) does seem like tendentious behavior. Article talk page behavior and discussion EllentCT refuses to discuss on talk page citing assumption of bad faith, consistently brings up editor behavior, and has stated she refuses to discuss it in appropriate areas such as user talk pages as cited previously. She has had issues remaining neutral in starting new talk page sections [165] discussed here [166] and at NPOVN [167] I have also discussed with other users trying to figure out how to shift our conversations back to content on the article talk page [168], with little to no avail due to either EllenCT going off on tangential topics without addressing the topic at hand, or casting aspersions towards me, essentially derailing any discussion and preventing content concerns from being addressed. She also tends to avoid questions by asking questions, resulting functionally in a red herring in discussion (seen throughout Talk:Neonicotinoid). She continues to post about perceived editor behavior issues on article talk page after being warned multiple times not to: [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] EllenCT's behavior has been the topic of previous ANI [174][175]and Arbcom discussions [176] where even my exasperation in a topic unrelated to the Arbcom discussion was noted [177]. No decisions were made on her actions in either case, but the fact that users have felt the need to bring this behavior up is an indication of a history of this problem. She was warned by another user of the seriousness of being a topic of discussion at Arbcom at a conversation on my talk page [178], and her own [179], but shows general disregard for these warnings. (Moved to not make it appear like I'm trying to bring previous disputes and findings into question. This is only meant to document disputes have occurred, and that EllenCT should know to be wary of this behavior. Nothing more) Also, I apologize for the length. There's a lot of history in this issue, which is partly the result of me trying to be patient and work with EllenCT on improving this behavior, which makes concisely showing a single part of an edit difficult. Skimming the Neonicotinoid talk page should give a good overview too. If there is a specific detail that it isn't apparent where I'm pointing it out on a talk page, just let me know.

In conclusion, there are multiple editor behavior issues here. EllenCT has essentially stated she is assuming bad faith on my part, even though I have told her she was vastly mistaken in why I listed the source and she continues to misrepresent what I said. Adding on the use of the article talk page to attack users, we have a number of disruptive editor behaviors that continue through WP:IDHT after repeated warnings. This establishes a series of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior that alone in a single edit may be tolerable, but accumulated over the course of this summer indicates the inability of this editor to follow Wikipedia's policies on civility, not to mention her stated intention to continue doing so. There is no sign this continued behavior will stop.

I could see this general behavior potentially warranting a site ban given the history, but I'd personally prefer to assume EllenCT has a belly button, and that something just set her off on this tirade in this topic specifically. With that, I'd instead at least suggest a topic ban on bee and pesticide related articles. I've always been open to other solutions to resolve this issue, but there don't appear to be any additional options at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. The ArbCom requests that statements be limited to 500 words. Is there any reason that the community should be expected to parse much longer walls of text? Is it possible that EllenCT didn't hear you because your wall of text was too long? Waiting for an intelligible complaint. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I already pointed out that this was long because there's a lot of content that's not easily condensed, and I don't want to make flimsy accusations per WP:BOOMERANG. Do you have any suggestions on what would help? I stated I have not posted at ANI before, so I'd ask for just a little patience at first if there's a convention I missed. The main paragraphs to read would be the first four. I could did collapse most of the remaining as general background so people could read the finer details if they want if that helps focus it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be closed before a lot of time and attention is wasted on it. OP's links demonstrate that @EllenCT: has been hounded mercilessly by VictorD7 and was piled on by various other editors. Srich32977 had the good sense to respond to feedback from EllenCT and others by voluntarily withdrawing from interaction with her. Citing previous failed complaints as "evidence" here is more likely to result in a boomerang than in any sanction against EllenCT. I also feel that there has been an element of gender bias in these recurring accusations and tendentious arguments against her. I urge OP to withdraw this thread. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew from interaction with EllenCT for two reasons. One, it looked like an RFC/U was in the offing. Two, because SPECIFICO agreed to my suggestion to undertake providing guidance. (See: User talk:Srich32977/Archive 14#EllenCT for details.) I do not know how much guidance was provided. I do not think "merciless hounding" was ever an issue. Gender bias and tendentiousness was never a factor in anyone's engagement with her. (I am commenting because a notice about this ANI and because my name was specifically mentioned.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, my post does not say that Srich was a merciless hounder. There's no question in my mind that Victor, however did engage in such a way. Srich came on too strong, see here: [180] but to his credit, he responded to guidance and withdrew from the problematic interactions. That's quite a different response than to declare that her experience of the interaction is invalid, or much worse, as here, to blame the woman for feeling threatened. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The history is not there as main evidence. Being brought to the boards is a big deal regardless of outcome. Being involved in similar previous disputes indicates that she should know all the more what is considered improper behavior to keep her nose clean. That is all the history is there to demonstrate since we're primarily focusing on her behavior at Neonicotinoid. The behavior there stands on it's own. I'm well aware there has been drama involving EllenCT in the past and some of it not deserved on her part with some of the hounding you mentioned. However, the validity of her previous actions and disputes are not in question here, nor was I involved in them. This was documentation that there were previous disputes and nothing more. I do agree that there is the potential for previously involved editors to pile on, so that's why I'll ask early on that people remember the focus of this is her behavior at the bee related articles. I have no idea why gender is interjected into this conversation though. That has never been a topic of contention (nor can I see why), so focusing on gender would only be a distraction.

The behavior issues are apparent on their own. I'll let them stand as I laid them out. I've tried to be civil, help with understanding content, and pointed out how she could remedy her behavior so we could have effective discussion at the pages for quite awhile now. I've kept my nose clean in trying to civilly deal with the behavior issues, even in presenting the above evidence that the behavior is intended and will not stop. If I had given up right away when the behavior was an issue, then there could have been boomerang issues, but I'll let my history show I've been trying to work with EllenCT despite the grievances above. That's why a boomerang would be an odd thing to mention if we dig into what's actually been happening at the article. If I have done something that would truly warrant WP:BOOMERANG then I am all ears, but that would be something to discuss elsewhere such as my talk page as no such conversation has taken place as I have not been warned about any issues yet. The topic here is EllenCT's behavior, so we should remember to stay on topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my behavior, and ask for administrators' help and patience as I try Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014). I understand that the mere existence of controversial topics can be disruptive in their own right, through no error on the part of any given editor. Therefore I ask administrators to consider the behavior of all parties to any controversial topic. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a note specifying that discussion prior to this (and after referencing TLDR) was before I made edits to simplify the case. The original "narrative" is within the Additional background diffs that culminated to this issue box. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. On neonic issues, EllenCT is:
  • continually WP:POV-pushing (e.g. here with section header Does your mom know you beat your wife"How should Bayer's efforts to pay for silence be characterized?"),
  • has demonstrated a continued lack of WP:COMPETENCE in pesticide topics (e.g. here)
  • and a lack of competence in WP:PAG (continually conflates WP:INDY and WP:COI and WP:NOPAY in really convoluted ways (see here for example) and doesn't understand WP:RS see this bizarre "analysis" of a source for example);
  • continually engages in personal attacks (see this beauty of a section with the header "Whitewashing resumes in earnest".

I have found her edits and discussion on Talk so axe-grindy and so impenetrably illogical and generally disruptive that I walked away from the page. Kingofaces has been a freaking saint, dealing with her. He provided boatloads of difs above. (yes it was tl/dr but cut him some slack, this his first ANI). The topic would be much better off without her involvement. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would have prevented Kingofaces from using a Bayer-sponsored literature review which misrepresents its own title and was scrubbed of any non-Bayer-supporting sources, if not for me? Do you agree with Kingofaces that the American Bird Conservancy review by two distinguished authors of 200 high quality primary sources should be deleted from the article? EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The above response is exactly what I meant. The description of the Bayer-sponsored review is just bizarre. And Kingofaces never even tried to use that as a source. Even here, she is doing this. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to respond to specific issues concerning my bizarre description if they are specified. The title of the review purported and strongly implied that the document was substantially different than the plain language of its methodology indicated in the abstract. Kingofaces produced a citation to that document when I asked him what they thought an example of a WP:MEDRS-quality source was. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. However, subsequent events which you apparently refuse to provide your opinion on, as to whether the American Bird Conservancy's authors are impeccably accurate (please excuse the pun) have suggested to me that my initial impressions were not an assumption of bad faith. Now I wonder why you have not disclosed our previous strong disagreement about the affects of monoculture and the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer before offering an opinion about me here. EllenCT (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

All I'll say is that this is a continuation of the behavior issues I listed above. I listed the source in question simply as what an example of a secondary source is as I described in my initial post here. The source was the article at the top of my to-do list on my collection of literature reviews to summarize, and later (long before most of this dispute occurred) I listed the rest of the studies that I was looking at for weighting content for scientific consensus [181]. Since then, EllenCT has falsely accused me of trying to push this single review into content and blown the simple fact that I stated it was a source to look at into a diatribe about COI and paid-advocacy (and issues with that going back to Jytdog’s initial support post here). She had been warned she was running with those assumptions way too far as I attempted to correct that misconception, but apparently that was never heard as the behavior still continues. [182] [183] I also agree the comment above, "Who would have prevented Kingofaces from using a Bayer-sponsored literature review . . ." represents an tendentious attitude of trying to right great wrongs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a first step (as an involved admin). I think the topic ban is a good idea, but I've had conflicts with Ellen on a number of a different articles, and find she is incapable of believing she could be wrong in result, regardless of whether her arguments have any weight, and she seems incapable of believing that anyone who disagrees with her has good faith. Even when I agree with her, her style doesn't seem collegial. Speaking as someone who also has been accused of not having a collegial style at times, and recognizing it is a problem, she goes far beyond that. <statement redacted before save; I'll assume good faith to the extent that an argument to which I wrote a counter shouldn't be brought up in the first place.> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Arthur is involved because I have recently asked that his sanctions be extended to include a topic ban in the areas of economics, where he often tries to push anarcho-libertarian views as if they were mainstream instead of fringe. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose EllenCT has strong views. I often disagree with them but she presents them in a reasoned and well-documented manner. She is not intimidated by disagreement or disparagement and she has frequently had to advocate here views to an aggressive group of dissenters. She's attracted ideological adversaries and has had to persevere despite considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based and would not have been directed at a similarly outspoken male editor. This thread should be withdrawn or closed promptly without action. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I have been one of the participants in the neonic discussiosn and in my view there is no evidence of gender-based opposition from the regular participants there. (EllenCT did have a weird hounder who popped in for a short time, but you convinced that editor to back off). Your post is in my view a red herring that draws away attention from EllenCTs' behavior, but since you opened this I am going to have to ask you to provide difs or strike. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is a sensitive subject right now. I did not accuse any individual of making gender-based attacks, however I understand your request for supporting information. The larger issue of gender on WP is currently being discussed on this page. I suggest you post a brief neutral message in a new section there and ask for some fresh eyes to join this thread. I could be mistaken, but I think that gender bias in editing and interactions is a complex and subtle matter and that it is part of the problem here. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you said, "I did not accuse any individual of making gender-based attacks. . ." That indicates it's not a topic for this discussion here then (as Jytdog mentioned, it's a red herring here). It does seem gender discrimination at WP is an important topic for you, but this is not a forum to discuss such things just because an editor in question is female. The topic of this ANI is EllenCT's behavior at neonicotinoid related topics, what to do about it when she's been warned multiple times that it blatantly violates Wikipedia's civility policies and has shown she plans to ignore those warnings. That behavior is inappropriate regardless of gender, nor should gender play a role in that decision. It's been made clear gender was never an issue in this incident or with me, and that should also be very clear in the diffs provided as well. Even if say I or another user had been acting as a raging misogynist in this incident, that still would not excuse the EllentCT’s behavior I outlined above. I’d ask you to either provide diffs gender was directly an issue related to this particular incident, or refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS that this was actually an issue in this particular incident. We don’t need to be interjecting unrelated things here and adding unneeded drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias does not always show up as black and white. Just as racial bias does not always show up as black and white, even when it's about black and white. Meanwhile, I suggest you consider my suggestion of getting some additional uninvolved opinion, which would help us all to understand whether my concern is relevant to this case. I note that, despite your lengthy documentation, there has not been much support here for your concerns so more opinions on the matter will be helpful even if I am incorrect in my discomfort about the issue. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, either provide diffs or refrain from casting aspersions. It’s really sounding like you’re on a fishing expedition in this case for this bias rather than seeing evidence of it from what you described so far. We’re discussing the specific behavior by EllenCT I brought up in my initial post. Please keep the focus on those actions rather than wandering into other topics and distracting from the behavior issues in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO We are all aware of gender issues on Wikipedia, which are a problem. But again, you wrote "She's attracted ideological adversaries and has had to persevere despite considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based". "Considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based" is something that can be demonstrated in difs. Please provide difs from the neonic topic area (which is what we are discussing), or strike. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

One kind of behavior which some women find unnerving is to have men repeat themselves, restating their questions or concerns without responding to the responses they have already elicited. It appears that you've just done that here. Both men and women might believe that such behavior is unproductive, but some women tend to experience it as badgering or hounding, while the typical male response might be to conclude that the interaction is not worth pursuing any further. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please recall - I walked away from the page due to EllenCT's repetitive accusations and WP:IDHT behavior. Who is more "male" and who is more "female" here? None of these broad brush things make any sense or are of any use without specifics. In any case, you are unwilling or unable to actually support your claim and unwilling to strike as well. It is what it is, I guess. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and patience. Although I have certainly been treated by a small subset of editors in ways which may have been influenced by my gender, on reflection I think most of my detractors are motivated by envy in that I apparently have a much easier time finding, understanding, and summarizing complex secondary source material. However, the most disruptive sources of conflict I have experienced all have five things in common: (1) a history of paid advocacy in the topic area, whether on or off-wiki or both; (2) evidence of behavior consistent with paid editing; (3) attempts to censor or obscure valid summarizations of reliable secondary sources; (4) attempts to impugn the integrity of such sources with no compelling reasons they are likely to be flawed, and (5) a willingness to request sanctions when faced with persistent attempts to point out that the most reliable sources are being misrepresented in a way which supports an economic benefit to moneyed interests. Suggestions are welcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is a spot-on example of EllenCT's difficult behavior. (Envy??) Nothing there is supportable and the broad stroke accusations of COI/paid advocacy/paid editing are ugly and inappropriate. This is exactly how EllenCT disrupts discussions of neonic-relatedarticle content and sources. Jytdog (talk) (edited to make specific per remarks below Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

Which are the specific discussions, other than those of neonicotinoids, you believe I have disrupted in such a manner? Why have you refused to say whether you agree with Kingofaces that the American Bird Conservancy review should be deleted? EllenCT (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

that is a good call on the overgenerality of my statement; i meant "neonic articles" and have edited my comment above to limit to that. thanks. and per usual, i am not going respond to your strange, quasi-prosecutorial question. so, so convuluted, off-topic, accusatory. blech! Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If I asked why you thought the underlying dispute was off-topic, would you answer that? If a question about whether you agree with my detractor's opinion seems accusatory to you, what does that suggest to you about the validity of their complaint? EllenCT (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT This is not about a single discussion but rather is about your pattern of behavior. I don't even know how to unpack the second question. Your tangled questions (which I have attempted to answer many times, which answers you have just ignored) and your persistent claims about paid advocacy/paid editing are just disruptive. I and others have asked you to stop many many times. I've come to the conclusion that you are just POV-pushing with anything you can grab and I have given up hope that you will listen, and change your behavior. We can stop this here if you would just voluntarily withdraw from that topic. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to the implication that I have ignored any of your answers to my questions. Which specific answers do you think I ignored? More than the number of times you refused to answer my questions? I understand that you find the point of view that money can influence science to be uncomfortable because you edit in areas where monied interests have been accused of misconduct. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

done with this. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved, except for providing a brief opinion at WP:RSN) Kingofaces43's post was indeed WP:TLDR, though the "D" in my case stands for "did". It paints a pretty bad picture. Having strong views is not a problem, (I for example edit in WP:ARBPIA where I have strong views). But just reading the main discussion linked by Kingofaces43 shows that EllenCT has little knowledge or appreciation for the issues involved. Continual dismissal of information as astroturf or COI is not helpful. There is plenty of astroturf and bad science around the pharma or pesticide etc. industry, but this kind of indiscriminate behaviour will not do. Reviews of literature are complex, and there are all kinds of subtle problems with them, such as the supression of unflattering studies. But these are subtle matters to be judged by competent specialists, and do not lend themselves to massive swiping. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and I am afraid EllenCT is attempting just that. Kingsindian (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: On what basis do you claim that I have little knowledge or appreciation of the issues involved? I've read at least half a dozen literature reviews on the topic just in the past six months as a volunteer, and you, at the WP:RSN#Is the American Bird Conservancy an advocacy group? thread you mention, are the first to have joined Kingofaces in opposing NorthBySouthBaranof, Darkfrog24, Stephan Schulz, A Quest For Knowledge, and myself. In doing so, you agreed that the source that Kingofaces is trying to delete is reliable, but claimed that you were insufficiently informed to determine whether it is of sufficient weight. Does that seem like a reasonable position from which to make informed judgements about whether other editors have reasonable amounts of subject matter experience? I would note that Kingofaces took the question of the same source to WP:RSN previously with no notification on the article talk page [184], where he was told that it was acceptable, and decided to delete it anyway. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place for a content dispute, so my focus is on behavior here. There's much more going on in the discussion than what EllenCT is portraying. The RSN in question that I posted was about how to handle advocacy groups as sources for scientific content in general. My example was the bird source in question, but I specifically stated I had no edits in mind at the time for that article. That's why I never posted it on the talk page because the RSN was not about that article. When I removed the source at a later date, I was doing so under under WP:RS and WP:SCIRS after reflecting on the general topic for some time, and EllenCT brought the actual source and content to RSN without any talk page discussion. The first RSN was a question of mine alone not pertaining to any article, while EllenCT's was specifically about content in an article. She's been trying to conflate my actions as being the same as hers, but she is well aware that I have explained this a false assumption to her already. [185] Either way, this has been rehashed in my initial posting already, so this is further evidence of WP:IDHT behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think your attempt to go against RSN consensus twice was reasonable? Since you posted to RSN the first time without disclosure, why is my raising the issue on RSN wrong? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To EllenCT: I do not base my reply on the RSN content dispute. There is nothing wrong with content disputes, I have them all the time. I base my reply on reading the talk page and diffs. I see a persistent attacking of sources as COI or astroturf with bizarre logic (conflating editor COI with source COI, even after this has been pointed out many times), accusations of paid advocacy, general lack of good faith, personal attacks and refusal to compromise, in line with a a conviction that one has the WP:TRUTH. Kingsindian (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have accused me of attempting to right great wrongs and of believing to know the truth. Can an ability to locate, identify, understand, and accurately summarize secondary reliable sources lead to behavior which appears consistent with those attributes? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban this attack on a source noted above because it is a Bayer sponsored study sponsored by Bayer, without any reference to relevant facts, shows that the issue here is one of POV EllenCT's. Let me note that complaints of TLDR above are absurd not to mention inconsiderate. The complaining user provided short, bulleted, fully-reffed statements. Evereything was immediately understandable, and the evidence at the end of the item. Had he not been so concise and thorough, the complaint would have been dismissed as giving insufficient evidence. When complaints here are dismissed because they are too well evidenced, we might as well all go reason with ISIS and tribesmen killing Ebola volunteers. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Why do you not consider the fact that the title of the review implies it is about "Risks of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Honeybees" while its methodology indicates that it is only a review of "current and proposed guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees"[186] to be relevant? As for the TLDR concerns, you are seeing a very much shorter version than was originally posted. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Rather than ask me such a question, why not just post a concise challenge? I have a BA in plant ecology, so I don't think I'll find fact based arguments too difficult. I detest the fact that so much of WP is TLDR by idiots not schooled in the topic at hand, and that is a major issue in my withdrawal for the main part from main space. The issue here has been a formal, not substantive one, and I can see myself opposing any sanctions against you, EllenCT, if I can read them in five brief sentences or less. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I challenge you to answer the question. EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the intended support re: TLDR, but just to clarify, most (if not all) of those comments were about my original post here. [187] I was making sure I was being thorough in my first posting, but it was suggested I edit it down into bullets shortly after. The bulk of my original narrative is currently in the collapsed section of my posting, so hopefully that clears up any confusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I did not review the Colony Collapse Disorder article, but I did review the Neonicotinoid article's talk page. I don't see any behavior on EllenCT's part that supports a ban of any kind. Lightbreather (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask that you specifically refer to the diffs I provided in my initial posting. The unfounded COI accusations and stated refusal to discuss behavior issues anywhere but the article talk page are pretty blatant in them. After repeated warnings for that, if not a ban, what would you then suggest to stop her behavior issues? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Furthermore, I would also support a broader one on topics related to American politics, due to continued and long-term disruption and similar issues regarding sources and such at articles including, but not limited to, Economic inequality, Progressive tax, Single-payer health care, Income inequality in the United States, United States, and so on. If one goes through the talk page archives, we see the same sort of problems regarding misunderstanding POV edits, of poor sourcing, and of bad faith claims toward the opponents and opposing sources. This has gone on for some time now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, as as stated in my initial posting, I'm more interested in seeing a specific topic ban here for the articles I brought up right now (although I could be open to more if convinced). I know there's a lot of drama following EllenCT from other articles, but I also don't want that drama turning this ANI into an incoherent hot mess that's jumping between many articles either. Could you maybe comment on why you'd support a topic ban in the context of the diffs I provided, and then separately provide very direct diffs from areas you've been involved in where this behavior is a problem (mainly showing she has been warned against this behavior)? I'd rather see the topic ban for bees and pesticides come into place first, and take the short leash approach to ratchet up sanctions if that ban still doesn't get it across to her in other areas that her behavior has violated our civility policies and guidelines and distracts from the goals of Wikipedia. That seems to me to be better way to approach this, rather than do everything at once.

If you (or anyone else) feel strongly about wider bans than I've proposed and taking care of that now rather than wait, it might be better to make a separate subsection here about EllenCT's wider behavior issues in other articles and propose action based on that material on top of whatever decision comes here. That way, the specific behavior I've brought up here can be addressed as a specific incident, and wider issues can be addressed later (either in time or sequentially on this board). Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:, I'm merely expressing my overall opinion. I support your claim, and if it can be broadened, I support that as well. The number of diffs would be overwhelming to include in an already-significant pile of evidence, and the talk archives of those pages are easy to navigate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was just a little concerned that bringing in previous problems in other areas had the potential for derailing the specific conversation here depending on how they would be handled here. I wasn't quite sure of what your approach was going to be previously, but I don't have any concerns now that you've explained where you were going with it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: the bulk of my most recent interactions with Thargor has been whether to include [188] in Single-payer health care, so given my recent [189] I suggest that administrators decide for themselves why we are graced with his presence today. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• And you'll note that, after nearly a year of asking you to use the item as a source, you did and I had no objection. This doesn't change the months of disruption throughout the articles listed, nor does even this proposal from Kingofaces45 assume that 100% of your contributions are without value. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - full disclosure, EllenCT and I have disagreed on articles relating to economics, some cited by Thargo Orlando, as well as two arbitrations I've witnessed here and here. There have been numerous instances of bad behavior I've witness or been on the receiving end of her activities. I had hoped she would take a little of the pushback to heart.Mattnad (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mattnad, similar to my comment above to Thargo Orlando, but could you provide specific diffs of where this behavior has been problematic and she has been warned against it in some form? In this section, I'd like to demonstrate she has been warned many times already for this behavior in general, but if other topics are going to be discussed more than that, probably better to start a new section. I didn't go looking in the economic topics on her behavior much, so additional history like that would demonstrate just giving her another warning wouldn't do much good. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mattnad, was it you who said you had looked for years for secondary sources on the payback from education subsidies that it took me less than a day to find? Glad you could join us here too. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up again. Here's the dialog [190]. EllenCT misrepresented what I wrote (business as usual for her) and as you'll see, she was pushing a POV unsupported by the sources she provided. Typical.Mattnad (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic-ban as a remedy for the conduct issues that are in evidence.Neutral - Based on review of the talk pages in question, I see a heated content dispute, and that EllenCT does engage in personal attacks, but I don't see evidence of tendentious editing that can't be dealt with by dispute resolution. I would support a warning to Ellen that the next personal attack, including claims of whitewashing and claims of paid editing, will result in a block. A topic-ban doesn't seem to be the right remedy.Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a topic ban because a warning did not seem like it would be effective (though it was my first preference for awhile early on). I demonstrated that she was warned multiple times in this topic, and other users have also mentioned this has been a problem. Five warnings from users cited in this topic followed by a statement specifically intending she plans to continue the behavior is what indicated to me the behavior was going beyond what even an admin warning would remedy. As for content disputes, the only area where dispute resolution would come into play are reliability of sources or the WP:COMPETENCE matters brought up previously on content. That is largely tangential in this discussion as it's the behavior that's in question here in the specific diffs I provided. The behavior I've described is described as tendentious on WP:TE primarily here [191], here [192], here, [193] and WP:GREATWRONGS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. Could you please say why you think whitewashing and paid editing are descriptions of people instead of their behavior? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

They focus on contributors rather than content. Whitewashing is the act of the contributor of removing unfavorable content. The content issue would be one of undue weight or POV. Since there are strict rules about paid editing, the allegation of undisclosed paid editing is a personal attack. Discussing editorial behavior is still discussing the people doing the behavior rather than the resulting article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If I say an article, paragraph, or sentence is whitewashed or paid for by interests conflicting with those of our readers' and someone asks by whom, where do I draw the line between accuracy and avoiding offense? EllenCT (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Exasperating. EllenCT what secret knowledge do you have that lets you "accurately" know there is COI at play? You don't say' it was whitewashed or paid for by interests! That is personal attack. You are here at ANI with a topic ban over your head and you still can't hear this. This is why I walked away from neonis and why kingofaces is a saint for hanging in there and remaining civil - the level of WP:IDHT is staggering. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon please try to imagine being on the other side of this. Would you please consider changing your !vote particularly in light of EllenCTs' response to you (not to mention the pile of difs that have been presented?) thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Bayer-funded source upon which our original dispute (and my original dispute with Kingofaces) was predicated is not whitewashed or paid for? I am fine discussing it as content instead of contributors, but I would like some guidance as to whether that extends to off-wiki authors who self-identify as being paid for by Bayer. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will explain this for the zillionth time. your response to Robert C is about content in a WP article - and content can only be added to WP by editors. If you say that WP content is whitewashed or paid-for, you are saying something about an editor - you are saying something about violations of NPOV or COI. When this comes up you always shift your ground to talk about the Bayer funding of a specific source, which is an issue of WP:INDY, and at that, a source that kingofaces has never actually used as a source in the article and only brought up as an example on Talk. This is so frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:EllenCT - By insisting on your right to yell about paid editing and whitewashing, when, as far as I can see, you don't have actual evidence other than the assumption of bad faith, you just lost one of the !votes. I don't think that a topic-ban on insecticides is the answer. Maybe a topic-ban on political topics is necessary (even if that is a de facto site ban). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it would be possible to raise a WP:COIN concern without engaging in personal attacks as you have described them? EllenCT (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. As someone with considerable experience at COIN, I would say you have a "safe harbor" as long as you abide by WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest. Basically that means polite accusations of COI are appropriate at user talk and COIN but generally not elsewhere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read that. I wish I had read it months ago. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I think EllenCT's repeated levying of unsubstantiated COI claims is sanctionable. She should knock it the hell off but seems to be an IDIDNTHEARTHAT zen master. Final warning should be given that a block will follow if she does that again. As far as the actual editing on the Neonicotinoid piece goes, I think that Ellen is right about inclusion the bird study and Kingofaces appears to be editing tendentiously. He should knock that the hell off. I don't think a topic ban is the answer here, but if I were an administrator (which I am not) I wouldn't hesitate for five seconds to give either one of these two a timely block if they don't knock it off. Close this thread with a stern final warning to each is my advice. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrite this is not a content dispute. this is about a consistent pattern of behavior on the part of EllenCT. Wrt your comments about kingoface's judgement on the piece put out by the American Bird Conservancy...in my view this source is legitimately questionable - this is not a peer reviewed scientific study - it is an WP:SPS put out by an advocacy organization. I wouldn't use an SPS put out by anybody with any stake in the game - not the pesticide manufacturers and not an environmental group. But please don't treat this as a content dispute. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on the Bird Conservancy is apparently not strong enough to share with RSN? EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited the neonic article since this ANI thread was opened. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I have no familiarity with the topic or most of the editors, including EllenCT. I'm opposing because I can't see that a case has been made for a topic ban. Several of the presented diffs seem unproblematic. Ellen seems to have a concern that there are COI issues, with respect to sources and contributors (particularly Kingofaces43). I looked at Talk:Neonicotinoid, and couldn't see anything ban-worthy there, but I did see that, when Ellen expressed concern that an involved party, Bayer, had funded one of the sources (a source presented as a literature review), Kingofaces43 replied: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies ..." An effort should definitely be made to find independent sources for anything contentious. Perhaps some of the potential COI and sourcing issues could be raised at COIN and thrashed out there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Kingofaces never tried to use the Bayer funded source. He just brought it up as an example on Talk and EllenCT grabbed onto that like a pitbull and has been all over KingoFaces ever since. I have been trying since June (at least, but please see the exchange at that link) to explain to EllenCT that it is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA to continually make accusations of COI/paid advocacy against other editors on Talk pages and edit notes, and that INDY is different from COI/paid advocacy, but EllenCT persists in making accusations and conflating these concerns. She has displayed a lack of competence (or at least failure to read carefully) multiple times in the course of POV pushing (see here for example - she kept adding content and pushing on Talk, content based on open letters posted on the web by members of the British Beekeeping Association that protested Bayer payments to the BBA that had to do with endorsements for pyrethroids - not any neonics - but kept claiming they were about neonics until we finally got through to her). We cannot make progress with this continued disruptive behavior. It is maddening. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, regardless of the Bayer source, KingoFaces said that the funding of source material doesn't matter, but it clearly does.

WP:COI explains that there's such a thing as "apparent COI": "An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does." An apparent COI can be as damaging as an actual COI, because it creates anxiety, and therefore ought to be resolved. (See Michael Davis, "Introduction," in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001, p. 18.) Kingofaces, perhaps you could explain why you don't have a COI. Your user page says you're an entomologist who works with pesticides at a university, which obviously raises the question of industry funding, now or in future. It's the sort of thing that could be discussed at COIN, rather than here. It seems wrong to ask Ellen not to express concern about it before it has been resolved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying SlimVirgin . EllenCT has raised the issue, and Kingofaces addressed it immediately, here (see last sentences) and his professional work is also described on his user page. EllenCT has continued to pursue it inappropriately -- even on this board and in my eyes this is hounding/harassment and a violation of AGF. But again it is her overall pattern of editing on these articles related to neonics namely Neonicotinoid and Colony collapse disorder in particular. I recommended to her way back in June that if she had concerns about Kingofaces having a COI that she should bring it to COIN or NPOV and instead she has persisted in making attacks in edit notes and Talk. It is part of her disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

btw my analysis of how the bayer-funded source could be used is here. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, the diff of Kingofaces addressing the COI issue doesn't show him addressing it (that I can see). I would suggest opening a COIN, starting from the AGF position that Kingofaces43 does not have an actual COI on those pages, but that someone would be justified in thinking that he does, and that it needs to be cleared up. It could be that Kingofaces and Ellen are interpreting COI differently, one narrowly, one broadly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SlimVirginI see two issues here that are related but separate. The first, as SlimVirgin says, is whether Kingofaces has a conflict of interest. That can be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. As mentioned, an apparent conflict of interest can be problematical also. The second is EllenCT's I didn't hear that apparent insistence on her own right to state that edits are whitewashed and that editors are whitewashing, and to accuse editors of paid editing (something beyond COI). My own assessment, and I may be wrong, is that Ellen not only knows what the truth is, but also knows that anyone else who doesn't know that must be editing in bad faith. It is hard to identify real conflicts of interest when there is an editor who sees all edits with which she disagrees as paid edits or as whitewashes (rather than honest disagreements of opinion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Robert McClenon, Kingofaces43 just provided a very explicit description of his real life work on his Talk page here and updated the disclosure on his user page here. I remain somewhat disgusted that the initial two statements by Kingofaces (here (see last sentences) and on his user page were not taken on good faith. The disclosure it is now very explicit and on point. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Above the dif, EllenCT wrote "Attempting to present this source as a literature review raises serious questions relative to bias, neutrality, and the insertion of paid advocacy in to Wikipedia articles" Kingofaces directly addressed that by writing "'I'd suggest backing down on the pitchfork mentality and trying to manufacture biases on my part. We address content here on Wikipedia, not beat around the bush by trying to assume a bias to an editor when the evidence doesn't suggest it. If you want to discuss my professional involvement in EAB or entomology in general (I worked with control methods where insecticide use wasn't an option), I suggest bringing it to my talk page rather than derailing the conversation here" EllenCT did NOT bring it to his Talk page and she did NOT bring it to COIN (null search here) and instead persisted in wielding the pitchfork. This is disruptive behavior. Someone could always bring it to COIN. I have not; I find his face value disclosures I linked to above to be sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That response didn't address the COI concern; it deflected it (perhaps rightly so, given the venue). Again, I suggest that someone (preferably Ellen or Kingofaces himself) open a COIN. If the COIN consensus is that Kingofaces doesn't have a COI in relation to those articles, then sanctions can be requested if Ellen continues to imply that he does. But first the discussion ought to take place, because the concern is based on the conjunction of Kingofaces' own description of his work and on his editing, rather than an editor simply assuming bad faith.

Again, what might be behind this is that Ellen and Kingofaces interpret the COI guideline, or the concept of COI, differently, so it would be worthwhile to have a discussion that applies common definitions and parameters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I hear you and agree that somebody who cares could do that. The point of this thread is that EllenCT has a wider pattern of disruptive behavior. Harrassment over COI despite being advised to go the boards several times is part of that pattern. I know I am persisting but EllenCT's editing is incredibly frustrating and her behavior has not changed despite several editors' efforts asking her to change it. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just yesterday I asked above about which specific discussions, other than those of neonicotinoids, you believe I have disrupted, and you answered: "that is a good call on the overgenerality of my statement; i meant 'neonic articles' and have edited my comment above to limit to that. thanks.... Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)" I believe I have edited two neonic-related articles. Now you say there is a "wider pattern". So which is it? And you say that I have been advised to "go to the boards several times." This ANI thread was started because I went to RSN, after Kingofaces had already been there without disclosing it on the article talk page. And I have been advising you and Kingofaces to go to WP:COIN if you have issues with my edits. I don't recall you or anyone else in the neonic topic area asking me to seek dispute resolution on either specifically appropriate noticeboard before demanding that I be banned here. So to which "several times" do you refer? EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"wider = your behavior is problematic in ways beyond your persistent accusations of COI. I am only supporting a site ban for neonics; others can make judgements about your behavior in other articles.

• Robert McClenon left you a long message on May 20 about being careful about COI/paid editing accusations on a different topic where your behavior was under discussion at Arbcom here. (The Workshop discussion of your behavior at arbcom is here)
• I advised you to back off the COI accusations here on June 11 (especially in light of the same issues coming up about you at Arbcom);
• you and I specifically discussed COIN/NPOVN here on June 14 (entire thread is in EllenCT's archive here), where i said "Continually bringing the accusation of COI in the course of discussions of content, is unproductive and ugly and bothers everybody that has to deal with it - that behavior will come back to bite you as well";
• Kingofaces told you COIN is for concerns about COI here on July 8. That is all I can find right now, but that is plenty.
• I also just found this ANI from last April where you hounded another editor with same convoluted accusations of COI/paid advocacy for bringing a source that you found tainted.

For pete's sake, when are you going to stop disrupting WP by conflating concerns about sources (per WP:INDY) with concerns about editors (per WP:COI)? I laid out the difference between them for you several times (here on june 30 and here on July 3 and here on july 7) yet you persist and persist and it is to the point where I can only interpret your continued blurring of the difference as willful wikilawyering to avoid NPA. You do this to win arguments to push your POV and it is just disruptive - the community should not tolerate it any longer.Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Slimvirgin's comments above, whether I have a COI is largely outside the scope of this ANI. What is within the scope is EllenCT's behavior we've bee dealing with. That being said I already stated I do not work with neonicotinoids as Jytdog covered well above. That is more than enough without additional evidence demonstrating a COI per WP:COI. I also do not receive funding from Bayer. I'm happy to discuss perceptions about academia and funding sources on my talk page (as I asked EllenCT to do), but actual evidence is needed for COIN. It's a stretch to insinuate COI because I work with insecticides, and Jytdog mentioned the additional posts I've made further outlining how I work with insecticides should have especially dispelled additional COI concerns. Either way, that's a talk page conversation if someone wants further clarification on what exactly I do before seeking out COI, and shouldn't be a distraction from the topic at hand. Even if I was a blatantly evil scientist paid by company X, that still wouldn't excuse EllenCT's behavior and way of handling things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

just want to step back here. I am self-aware that i am pursuing this pretty fiercely and that this may make me look like a crazy person in some people's eyes. ANIs about persistent disruptive behavior can sometimes be blatant and easy, and sometimes are more subtle and difficult. EllenCT is a civil POV-pusher and this is one of the difficult problematic editing behaviors that we deal with in WP - you can skim all you like and you will just miss the issues. Those who are making judgements, please take some time and carefully read. Trying to really engage with EllenCT has been maddening. It is almost impossible to reach a reasonable middle ground consensus - instead she plays to win and will shift the ground of her argument, throw convoluted questions at you that convolute our PAG and the issues at play, and will never make a concession - she just bails and then comes back later with more of the same. One just cannot make progress. I am sorry for forum-flooding but am trying to highlight the actual issues. EllenCT has actually been helping make the case as most of her posts here reflect her editing pattern very well. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

These personal attacks are absurd. The suggestion that I don't compromise is obviously false (e.g. [194]) and the personal attacks about "convoluted questions" reflect nothing more than the fact that Jytdog often refuses to answer questions which make him uncomfortable, which can be seen in this section above and at [195]. Being accused of bailing out and coming back later by someone who refuses to answer simple questions is ironic. EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for again helping make my point. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that Ellen is civil, for what it's worth. Examples: [196] [197]. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If administrators truly believe that behavior breaches the standard of civility here, after the months of refusal to compromise on the National Academy of Medicine book which Thargor subjected me to, then please ping me. I am no longer inclined to think that contributing to this thread will improve the encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't reviewed this particular article and talk, but I've had similar difficulties working with EllenCT and what I consider tendentious editing. Contention seems to follow. Morphh ^(talk) 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for withdrawing your statement that I am "the most contentious, deceptive and tendentious editor that I've ever had the displeasure of working with. While I appreciate her point of view...." I think it is important for people evaluating this discussion to see what I have had to go through, even if you realized a few hours after you wrote it what an absurd personal attack hyperbole it was. How many people formed an opinion about me in those hours? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend it as a personal attack, but as my experience with your editing and communication behavior. It also wasn't hyperbole - you are the most difficult editor that I've ever worked with and I think you cause more harm than good for the encyclopedia. But it was aggressive and perhaps hurtful, so for that, I'm sorry. It's unfortunate because I think you're knowledgeable and a good researcher. So much more would get done if you worked better with other editors. Morphh ^(talk) 12:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you find it difficult to work with me because I insist on reliable secondary mainstream academic journal sources in articles on topics where you would prefer fringe anarcho-libertarian views be more prominently represented so that you can push a point of view supporting radically regressive flat consumption taxes? EllenCT (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No - I find you difficult as demonstrated by your attack asserting bad faith and trying to misrepresent my views and concerns. Morphh ^(talk) 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you understand why I thought you might? It's not bad faith if you truly believe that there is some good reason that a flat consumption tax would be superior to the alternatives, and there is certainly plenty of material out there trying to convince people that it is, including a few Nobel prize winners, and no shortage of politicians who stump on it regularly. But in the peer reviewed secondary literature, it's a very far cry from any of the top economics policy proposals, and it's a far cry from the status quo. EllenCT (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really as I think I've been very direct and clear when describing my issues, which were primarily syn and scope. My viewpoint, though irrelevant, is that different tax structures have pros and cons - it depends on the situation, where and how it is levied. Similarly when looking at the status quo, good or bad, every state in the U.S. has a consumption tax, often several. Morphh ^(talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Change to (as ANI poster): Strongly support topic ban. I started this ANI in a position where I was open to ideas to stop EllenCT's behavior other than my suggestion, but examples from other users and her continued behavior on this very board whittled down my good faith in the matter even further. I have all my original diffs in the original posting, which I ask others to really read if you only skimmed the article talk pages as disruptive editing, "is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." By nature with this kind of editing, one cannot just look at one or two edits and call it actionable or see it by skimming, but I would hope what others have referred to as a massive pile of diffs demonstrates the ongoing issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, no one has mentioned this yet, but an additional one-way interaction ban for EllenCT with me could be justified given that I haven't been pursuing her inappropriately for anything. This doesn't address many of the other article or behavior concerns brought up by me or other folks, so I'd look for a topic ban regardless, and consider an interaction ban secondarily as an addition. EllenCT appears to edit primarily political/economic topics, which I stay out of like the plague, so there wouldn't be any concerns with her not being able to edit in her favorite areas and I wouldn't be showing up in topics where she would need to leave. I bring this up as recently at my talk page [198], she has stated she likely intends to continue pursuit of COI depending on the results here (and thankfully stopped for now when reminded the ANI was ongoing). I'm happy to address COI concerns in the proper manner, but her recent post does show this could be difficult for her to do properly (although not impossible). Basically, it appears caution is needed in this area. As far as the likelihood of an interaction ban goes, I'd be content with an official warning that even one slip up specifically related to me would result in the ban. I'm not looking for community support on this additional ban, but mainly to note it could be a potential future idea if sanctions need to ratcheted up at all. The topic ban seems to have good support, so I'd be in favor of going with that with additional strong warnings for additional ratcheting if the behavior continues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you're discussing both topic and interaction bans in the same breath makes it appear that you are looking for punishment of the person rather than prevention of whatever behavior you feel is counterproductive. I suggest you withdraw this thread and chill out. See how it goes. You can always come back if there's a clear policy-based issue in the future. There doesn't seem to be one currently. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been quite calm and rather civil this entire time (and apparently more so than to be expected according to some editors), not to mention following the policy WP:CIVIL. I specifically stated that an interaction ban is something that could have been considered, but was not something I was looking to pursue at this time. There are a myriad of issues based on behavior here, so there are different ways things could be handled. I was specifying that I thought a topic ban seems like a good course of action for the time being. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just an additional note to specify I actually changed my position during the course of this ANI by now strongly supporting a topic ban. There seemed to potentially be confusion from other editors that I was piling on by separately posting my support, but instead I wanted to just make sure to point out I re-posted my support because I went from being open to other ideas to being convinced a topic ban is in order (even after trying to continue working in good faith with EllenCT on these issues). The continued WP:IDHT on this board from her that even in my last interaction [199] has pretty much convinced me that the behavior is only going to continue to be a time sink at the Neonicotinoid article especially. I've also decided not to further directly engage EllenCT at this ANI because trying to address that IDHT behavior has only resulted in the appearance of fervency on my part by some editors. I'll still post on any clarifications users might want, but this is to hopefully avoid the misconception that I have some vendetta against EllenCT and keep the focus on how we deal with this disruptive behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose of any sanctions on EllenCT. Unlike many of the supports up above, I am fully familiar with how she has been mercilessly harassed, reverted, attacked, and targeted by several active editors in the aforementioned topic area. Her responses indicate her frustration with being baited, with being treated terribly, and with having simple edits reverted without any good reason. Many of the above editors making a "case" against her have had very problematic editing histories in regards to this topic area, and I myself have asked the same questions about COI as has EllenCT. These editors engage in classic civil POV pushing, using the noticeboards only to silence their opponents, often with trumped up claims of "incivlity" based on out of context diffs that seem to show EllenCT in a bad light because they don't show the entire context of the overall dispute. Because the community as a whole is completely unwilling to deal with editors engaged in civil POV pushing (many of whom happen to be EllenCT's accusers) it is unfair to target editors like EllenCT when she attempts to deal with civil POV pushers. Instead of sanctions, EllenCT should be awarded a barnstar for treading into dark waters where the community refuses to go. If EllenCT feels strongly about her position, she should pursue serious dispute resolution matters, and perhaps strike up a discussion with other editors to see what her options are and where she can best get a fair and reasonable outcome for her concerns. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Viriditas is an involved editor on the articles in question and particularly with me in these sections over primarily content dispute and reliable sources in scientific topics: 2#text_added_today_and_being_edit_warred_over 2#Further_discussion_regarding_Bayer_corporate_behavior 2#Primary_studies_removed. Not particularly relevant to the ANI at hand, but those would give readers an idea of what some of the background is at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Support limited broad topic ban and with a warning that personal attacks in future would result in broader sanctions. I oppose draconian solutions as a rule, but the limited sanction seems warranted. Collect (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (Change made in response to extended colloquy below from EllenCT below wherein she demonstrates an extremely strong sense of aggression against other editors) Collect (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Collect has not disclosed our very heated prior involvement with each other. I ask that he do so because I would prefer that I not take the risk of mischaracterizing it. I further invite him to address specific content and actions which he feels supports his preference. EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I do not recall ever making any intemperate remarks to you or about you in any venue. Period. I would further note my position here is one of a very limited sanction to be placed on you, and for which ample evidence has been educed, and for which you well ought to be grateful for its moderate nature. Is there a reason why you think attacking others who have actually voiced moderate opinions is going to impress anyone? It is, alas, evidence of your own view that all Wikipages are or ought to be "war zones" <g>. I would suggest the "heat" was always on your side, and I do not recall making any "heated comment" to you, about you, or regarding you in any venue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The only "interaction" I can find instantly is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Collect with my comment to EllenCt "I have not the foggiest idea of the relevance of your aside". If that qualifies as "heated" in any way, I am a tad surprised. I rather thought my tone in that entire exercise was moderate. Collect (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you recall our discussion about the respect afforded to active-duty soldiers? EllenCT (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No - I doubt it reached the level you appear to ascribe to it as I can not find any such discussion between us using the Wikipedia search function. . On American Politics and Austrian Economics, you had disputes with several editors, none of which was remotely "heated" and certainly not in any sense related to my position here. I have never kept any list of people whom I "oppose" at AN/I. Are you confusing me with another editor? In which case, you rapidly approach the point where I would favour a stronger sanction here, rather than the weak sanction I currently support. Collect (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ellen, something I've noticed from my brief involvement here is that you tend to allude to issues indirectly, or ask questions, rather than plainly stating the case. I think that may be part of what is causing the sense of frustration. For example, with this exchange with Collect, if you'd like to discuss an earlier interaction, the best thing is to post a link to it, or a description if you can't find the link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember the exchange clearly, and I remember where it took place. I have no desire to dig it up unless whomever closes this discussion suggests that it may have some bearing on the outcome. It was on a topic almost completely unrelated to any other topics discussed here. I have no desire to amplify my anger at what was most probably an offhand comment. Collect's additional link above is sufficient to document that his initial opinion was offered without disclosure of our prior involvement with each other. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The pages I found show nothing remotely near a heated confrontation - and my words to you have invariably been quite moderate. AFAICT we had no "prior involvement" of any weight whatsoever, and I am rather perturbed by your cavalier attitude about making attacks on other editors. Might I suggest you apologize for your assertions that we had any heated arguments? You appear to recall something which did not occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

diff. EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And note the edit summary there which quite civilly pointed out my talk page post about a Wikistrike - per break message - editor has had time to read reply) is a normal type of post where I indicated that I was not actively working on the project. Your post [200] shows you taking umbrage at a comment of mine but shows no evidence whatsoever that I acted heatedly about you in any way whatsoever.

(Your words: I am extremely offended by your implication that US violations of the Geneva Conventions and reporting on them is a laughing matter. Shame on you! EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My words to which you took extreme umbrage and which were in no ways were aimed at you personally:[201] As in the "Izzy Award" and "Right Livelihood Award"? Each appears to be far less about "journalism" than about political stances. And neither was for "reporting" as far as I can tell, but far more for her tenacious focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. violations of the Geneva conventions, racial justice issues such as the still-displaced poor of New Orleans, and political repression overseas. Sorry -- it fails the laugh test. Reading that as a personal attack on you is iffy, and the context is clear here that the source under discussion at RS/N and about which the discussion revolved has absolutely nothing to do with your anger that I wish to kill US servicemen or the like. In fact, alas, it makes me think you deliberately seek out attacks on other editors where there is no basis for taking umbrage at their proper posts on the proper noticeboards dealing exactly and properly with the topics being discussed at such noticeboards.

A post from a third party on UT:EllenCT: [202] Hello, EllenCT. I've seen hundreds of edits made by Collect over the past few years. I can assure you that he believes in the rule of law, including the Geneva Conventions. When I read his comment "it fails the laugh test", I wasn't exactly sure what "it" was referring to. I sort of thought he either meant Democracy Now! as a reliable source or the awards given to Amy Goodman. I did not think he was referring to violations of the Geneva Conventions by US military personnel. No one in his right mind, and that includes Collect, would think such violations are a laughing matter. Collect is under duress at the moment—he and several other innocent bystanders are about to be barred from editing the Tea Party movement article for six months, without a shred of evidence being presented against them. So, he has gone on strike in protest. Thanks for listening and thanks to your family members who are serving in the armed forces of this great country.

I am therefore now supporting a broad topic ban for you -- you seem to be so anxious to have arguments that it is likely time you saw the results of your verbal animosity. Cheers - you rather seem to have brought this change on yourself. Collect (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to avoid bringing up the discussion, but after you claimed it did not exist twice, and that you were so offended that I would make such a thing up, when I provided no more than a single diff link proving you wrong, you blew your top and decided that you wanted to strengthen your vote against me? What would you have done if I had not provided that diff link? Why didn't you copy your boldfacing "U.S. violations of the Geneva conventions" from your original quote? EllenCT (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You asserted a "very heated prior involvement." There was no such "heat" whatsoever on my part, and I regarded it as of minimal importance in the grand scheme of things (two posts out of 36K edits is not weighing too heavily in my opinion). You are the only one asserting "heated" and I suggest any outsider reading the few posts we have ever exchanged would agree with my position here. Further, you now seem intent on deliberately aggravating a total non-issue which, frankly, fails to impress me much at all. I made no intemperate comments to you at all in what you assert was so very heated that I must be evincing some bias against you. I hold no such biases, the incident, to which you assign massive weight, was trivial in nature, and right now you seem to be doing your very best to display an argumentative nature which is incompatible with being a reasonable editor. I suggest you have a very large cup of tea at this point, and consider striking your accusations here. Collect (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment EllenCT, is someone I have had only limited interaction with, whilst I would happily describe her as someone who sometimes goes into a discussion with 'all guns blazing', EllenCT has never in my experience acted disruptively, rudely, or not been susceptible to rational argument. I have NOT read this entire post, and so am merely offering my personal experience, which HAS mainly been in the area of US politics. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see that Ellen went to Kingofaces' talk page (permalink), as he suggested, to discuss COIN, and was treated fairly aggressively. Kingofaces, I think the question of (roughly) what position you hold in a university is a valid one. The phrase "working in a university" could mean anything, so clarifying that you're on staff as an academic would be helpful. Also, to address your point that you don't work with neonicotinoids, the question is to what extent (if any) you work with the industry that produces them.

  We do want subject-matter experts to contribute to articles, but with expertise comes the problem of conflicted roles and relationships. At the most positive end of the spectrum, we want experts on the poetry of Dylan Thomas to write about that on Wikipedia. At the most negative end, we don't want employees of pharmaceutical companies writing about the drugs they produce. When dealing with an apparent COI in a subject-matter expert, the question is where on that spectrum the expert lies, and we're forced to attempt to determine that without violating OUTING or making the editor in question feel very uncomfortable. These are contradictory aims, which is why everyone ends up feeling frustrated. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but you or Ellen need to open a COIN, where people have more experience of treading carefully around these issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit more context there. First, I'll remind you again that whether I have a COI or not is not the topic of this ANI. As I said before, even if I was a blatantly evil scientist paid or supported by company X (all the way at the negative end of your COI spectrum), that still wouldn't excuse EllenCT's behavior and way of handling things in regards to a COI concern, or other behavior issues brought up here. On my talk page, I specifically stated my patience wore thin when I asked her to talk there long ago (which is what the suggestion comment actually refers to), warned her multiple times, and finally brought her here to ANI. Coming to my talk page and wanting to go straight to COIN without even attempting to actually discuss the issue (and more of the Additional Notes at WP:COIN) is evidence of further WP:HOUNDING, especially at the height of this ANI. Trying to push ahead with accusations without discussion is what got her here in the first place in part. That is why I told her to back off as my comments on my talk page were based primarily on her inability to step back for just even a moment while her behavior is the subject of an ANI. As I've stated before, I think it seems EllenCT would have a very difficult (though not impossible) time pursuing COI concerns in good faith at this point.

I've gone above and beyond of WP:COI at this point to dispell even a reasonable apparent COI concern as pointed out to you earlier here by Jytdog [203], and all that happens is each time I'm more specific, someone looks for even more nuanced COI. Do you see the trend here? That is not assuming good faith. This section of WP:COI is very clear on how to handle COI concerns, and edits I have made where I have been accused of COI have been firmly based in citable WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That should have halted the COI accusations long ago per WP:COI. If all someone wants to do is go into a fishing expedition for COI on my part, that is not a subject for this posting, nor is it a subject for COIN in the state of speculation you are proposing either. At this point, WP:AGF should still be in play, and I've bent over backwards to satisfy claims anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces, it's a misunderstanding to argue that the person who opens an AN/I discussion controls what it's about; if the discussion turns to COI, that's what it's about. Also, insisting that Ellen discuss things further on your talk is not a good idea. Jytdog has offered to help Ellen draft a COIN discussion. That would be a good way forward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I pointed you to it above, and you have apparently looked yourself now, and you have seen the very explicit self-description that Kingofaces has provided. I am sorry to say this, but for you to still call for a COIN posting at this point is - to me - explicitly calling Kingofaces a liar which to me is a clear violation of WP:AGF. At this point I will suggest that you make the COIN posting yourself and run the risk of boomerang. (I am about to go withdraw my offer to help EllenCT post at COIN - I made that offer before Kingofaces made his explicit disclosure and should have withdrawn it sooner) Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you and Kingofaces43 are being too aggressive about this, and it's making you look as though you're in the wrong (whether you are or not). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin thanks for the feedback; I am aware that I am pushing hard and how that might look. I will respond on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughness can easily be confused for aggressiveness, but definitely should not be mistaken as such when I am directly responding to people about myself. I post a lot because there is a lot that has transpired (which lead to my first post being so long in the first place). I'll just end the conversation with you here by saying your comments lately have only antagonized the situation. We don't need that at an ANI especially, so please step back from your current pursuit and look at why I posted here in the first place (namely for ongoing behavior issues by EllenCT). I've been quite patient in the whole ordeal, and I've had no horse in this specific race involving you aside from dispelling some the very aspersions you were making towards me. It should be very clear I was tired of that from EllenCT already, so please stop. That is all.Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support This editor seems to just create a toxic atmosphere. If the thing that makes such a toxic atmosphere is BLP articles, ban the editor. We need an encyclopedia, not this hate. Op47 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Which BLP edits are you talking about? These are my most recent: [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], and [213] all of which have withstood long-term scrutiny. Yes, that's a lot of diffs, but I take spurious accusations about BLP editing very seriously. EllenCT (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder whether Op47 meant to post in a different thread. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ditto. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been part of this particular discussion, and have only edited the articles under discussion here in a relatively casual and occassional way. But I would like to express my concern here with the way COI accusations are sometimes used to bully, intimidate, and discredit anyone expressing a point of view that is to the right of Occupy Wall Street. It's crappy behavior, and speaks to a narcisstic inability to believe disagreeing with one's own views is compatible with being thoughtful, intelligent, and sincere. It violates and degrades any sense of common purpose among editors and generally creates an atmosphere of distrust.

I think we need to put an end to the "are you now or have you ever been a corporate employee" discussion. And I'll say flat out here, that I am a former pharmaceutical employee, and I think that my edits have been as valuable, unbiased and to the point as any editor here, certainly far more so than some who see Wikipedia as a platform for pointing out the evils of capitalism. Lets stick to discussing the issues, and when necessary actual behavior. Thought police we don't need. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, although I haven't seen any COI accusations against pharma industry employees. I haven't experienced any problems with them on or off-wiki. I strongly believe that pharma R&D needs to be buttressed from the privatization and consolidation of recent decades which has seriously harmed the pace of drug development. I have edited on the topic, but not very extensively. EllenCT (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT you do know that Bayer gets most of its revenue from its pharma activities, don't you? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't consider Bayer employees who work in pesticides instead of pharmaceuticals to be pharma employees. Calling an apparent advocacy paper which says in black and white that it was paid for by a company "paid advocacy" (which I believe is correct) is not the same as calling someone who wants to use it a paid advocate, even if that person wants to delete an opposing reliable review consistent with the MEDRS sources. However, I agree with the suggestions that it reaches the threshold where someone should report it to COIN. WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest says "The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN." Which is exactly how this thread got started. EllenCT (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is 100% incorrect to call a source "paid advocacy" in Wikipedia - that is NOT what the term means in Wikipedia, as I have told you a zillion times. If you search WP:COI for "paid advocacy" you will see exactly what the term means: "Paid advocacy is a category of COI editing that involves receiving financial compensation from a person or organization to use Wikipedia to promote the interests of that person or organization." -- "Paid advocacy" is something editors do.
• And on top of that you have accused Kingofaces of having a COI - you even pursued that further on his talk page, asking him for more information about his professional life even after he made a disclosure. ARGH
• But I am glad that you finally went and read WP:COI - with respect to the sentence you quote about bringing concerns to the appropriate forum -- I wrote it (the section has of course been edited by others so it now looks like this). I have been trying to tell you for months now to bring your concern to the appropriate forum instead of making accusations on Talk and in edit notes.
• Why does this thread exist? The reason this thread got started is because despite being warned many times by me and others, you have never brought your concerns to the appropriate forum and instead have kept inappropriately making accusations against editors having a COI or being paid advocates on Talk and in edit notes and have generally been disruptive. Even here your lack of competence in WP:PAG, combined with the certainty which you are making claims and resisting listening, is making me pull my hair out. You have just been stone deaf to hearing what you have been doing wrong. And now you are here. That is why. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Advocacy" can mean both the act of advocating and the textual results of that act, as in "advocacy journalism" when referring to specific text. What do you prefer that I call text which is intentionally biased towards achieving some particular goal, in exchange for money? EllenCT (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking a simple, direct, authentic question. I can answer that. Please read this carefully and please actually read the links I have made in what follows. Please. You are speaking in general terms, as though you were not working and writing in the specific context of WP. It is not about what "I prefer", it is how language works here. There are technical terms here - some terms have specific meanings, and when you say them you are actually communicating a specific message to other editors. "Paid editing" and "paid advocacy" and "COI" are words about editors here in WP, all defined in the guideline WP:COI and several essays you can find at COI. "Advocacy" also has meaning here as defined in the important essay WP:ADVOCACY - it too has to do with editors behavior. If you want to question a source within the norms of WP, you do it from the basis of the relevant policy or guideline WP:PAG. If you have concerns about a source, the relevant policy pages are WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV (search for the word "bias"); relevant guidelines include WP:RS (see WP:BIASED) and WP:MEDRS; relevant essays include WP:INDY. Essays are less solid grounding as they don't have as much consensus of the community; nonetheless the closest grounding for the kinds of concerns you have been raising is WP:INDY WP:BIASED is also relevant but is so short that it is not that useful. More generally, you should never make the kind of strong and persistent claims you have been making without solid grounding in PAG. This is why I keep saying you are not competent - you have no idea what the relevant policies and guidelines are, nor what they actually say, and don't understand how PAG grounds the community - literally grounds it - PAG provides the foundation for rational discussion - PAG are norms that the community has developed over time to help us govern ourselves and work things out rationally. Without them, this place would be a wild west - but it is not. It is a community with norms as expressed in PAG. I keep saying you are not listening (see WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS) because you will not listen to the explanations of PAG that I and others have tried to provide you many, many times, nor have you even gone read the relevant policy and guidelines that I and others have provided to you many many times, but instead you persist and persist in accusations and disruptive behavior grounded in nothing but your own ideas about things. Your behavior has been frustrating as hell which is why I have pushed so hard in this ANI to just topic ban you - you will not function within the norms of the community nor even acknowledge those norms exist.. so I have come to the conclusion that it is time to throw you out, at least from the topic where I have direct experience of your behavior. That's it. I hope you read all that carefully and read the links - I am always hopeful that people can wake up and learn. If you can show that you really understand what you have been doing wrong and change your behavior I will back off in a heartbeat. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT's use of the word "advocacy" in the context of a source is correct. Jytdog, you seem to have great difficulty with ambiguity. Within the context of evaluating a source for reliability, we will evaluate a source for "advocacy", which may lead us to accept it or deny it from inclusion. Jytdog's insistence that the word must be used on Wikipedia in only one way is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If competency was involved, there would all ready be a name for text which is intentionally biased towards achieving some particular goal in exchange for money. If paid advocacy can't be a noun, then what is its noun form? Why don't you ping me at WT:COI if you think of the noun form so we don't need to prolong this? EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

so much for being hopeful. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, if you had bothered to click on the link to WP:BIASED and read what is there, you have would seen that this WP guideline exactly addresses what you are talking about. and even after all that explanation (for now the zillion and tenth time) you are referring to COI when talking about a source! the level of WP:IDHT is staggering. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So the simple, direct, authentic answer is "financially biased source" instead of "paid advocacy" for the noun form? Do you use IDHT in situations where you didn't actually say the answer? EllenCT (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

speechless. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Just a small note on the above conversation between Jytdog and EllenCT. While EllenCT has indeed been conflating the terms COI and paid advocacy inappropriately in describing sources (and it is one of the problem behaviors that has been listed here), this misunderstanding does not apply to the direct accusations of COI of an editor that I outlined in my original posting. The two issues being described by Jytdog or myself, respectively, are largely separate, so just clarifying in case readers were accidentally conflating the two as the same issue. The COI accusations towards editors have been the larger issue that I've been addressing primarily, but I left the usage of COI in describing a source largely unmentioned in my original post because it wasn't as severe as the things I specifically listed earlier. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, are you really just trying to say you're just reading that part of WP:COI now after all the times we've been trying to help you understand COI on Wikipedia and pointed you to the guideline on the article talk page, user talk pages, and here? We've been trying to help you this whole time at the article, so that comment is not helping you as WP:IDHT is one of the main reasons you are here. This is again advice from the very editor who posted this ANI about you not to make your situation worse, so if you're going to hear anything, at least realize why this very behavior is problematic.

Also, RSN is not a replacement for the article talk page (even when you are assuming bad faith as you specifically stated), but a supplement after discussion has begun when needed in our specific case (or for broad questions not pertaining to a particular article as examples). That is why this thread got started (among all the other issues like assuming bad faith I originally outlined). The issues involving the RSN have already been rehashed here already, especially in the original post, so I'm not going to repeat what actually happened there. Please don't misattribute things that have already been outlined rather in-depth. The level of WP:IDHT is only getting worse even after all the good faith attempts to help you with it over time, so I don't plan to directly engage you any further at this ANI. I still will clarify to other users what actually brought me to post this ANI if needed, but I am done engaging you directly until this ANI is finished. I'll let the community and reviewing admin(s) do the engaging at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've read WP:COI several times, but I didn't remember that section, or that it suggests WP:RSN for source related questions, but it does. If a source was produced by interests contrary to those of our readers, then that would make it tend to be less reliable. EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Slim Virgin, SPECIFICO and Viriditas. I am unfamiliar with the articles and with EllenCT, but I feel the case against her here has not only not been made, per the cited editors, but that those repeatedly posting so fervently in favor of sanctions appear in my view to give her statements considerable weight. Suggest we speedily close this. Jusdafax 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

yes it is difficult to get people to actually pay attention to the issues in a case like this. i acknowledge that i pushing hard to encourage people who !vote to do so with care. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I agree that the level of involvement can appear fervent as I have been posting a lot here, but that is a symptom of the level of engagement needed to interact with EllenCT to try to get even basic points across rather than any personal vendetta. That is one of the very reasons I brought this here. Trying to work with an editor to actively attempt to remedy repeated behavior like this shouldn't be mistaken for fervency, but I can definitely see how it can be. The level of WP:IDHT with the user has resulted in many conversations and points being repeated again and again. This [214] summarizes how we've actually been trying to work with EllenCT repeatedly pretty well (also seen throughout this conversation). The overarching reason I proposed a topic ban was because the IDHT behavior requires so much attention to continuously address that it is distracting so much from the goal of actually proposing and editing content. In that regard WP:COMPETENCE states, "Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly—but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable time frame, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent." I felt like I reached that point with this editor many times because of the sheer effort required to engage her towards a semi-coherent discussion. If fervency is one of the main aspects of your opposition, I would ask that you weight how dealing with this tendentious behavior in a good faith manner to the degree we've pursued itself can appear fervent if you review your decision. There's a pretty clear narrative if you follow the diffs in succession (just in case you only skimmed a couple diffs). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on this user. I simply do not see any basis for a topic ban. Coretheapple (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

respectfully, {u|Coretheapple|Core]], EllenCT's behavior has been maddening. I have a hard time believing that you carefully reviewed the background and links provided to come up with "cannot see any basis".... I can understand disagreeing about the remedy, but there are legitimate problem with EllenCT's behavior. Can you see that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I just didn't see any problem in the diffs provided. For example, to pick a diff at random, at the very top the complainant says "Refuses to discuss on the article talk page, specifically stating she is assuming bad faith on my part per the continued WP:HOUNDING and failing to drop the stick on COI [215]" So I go to the diff and I do not see any "hounding" or "assuming bad faith." I see a routine edit. I'm not referring to the substance of her edit, whether she was right or wrong, but to the behavior exhibited in the diff provided. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much discussing. So the complaint here is a pattern of behavior, and one dif is not useful with respect to a pattern. In that particular dif, EllenCT was edit warring by re-inserting the american bird conservatory study source and content based on it, and in her edit note, claiming that source is "A WP:SECONDARY book reference by a scientific society meets WP:MEDRS". The source is SPS and its validity as a source was under discussion on the Talk page per WP:BRD. EllenCT does not grasp our policies and guidelines and that lack of competence, in the context of strong assertions she makes, and in that dif, even edit warring, is maddening. Really crazy making. Another example - please see Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive 1#Undiscussed_replacement_of_COI_paid_advocacy where EllenCT went off on Gandydancer for a legitimate edit and in a way that is just incomprehensible (except that EllenCT was unhappy with the edit). Really frustrating - really hard to have productive conversations to arrive at consensus on content and sources. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For some additional specification, the diff picked was the edit that resulted in the content dispute that EllenCT handled very poorly. The next bullet demonstrates the talk page conversation that (eventually) resulted where she states her reasoning for skipping any talk page discussion and going straight to RSN as "Is it an assumption of bad faith on my part that interaction has colored my opinion of your neutrality?". Refusing to even discuss an edit because of assuming bad faith is pretty blatant there, and the hounding is with respect to the continued inappropriate accusations of having a COI, etc. listed earlier. If there's more I can specify Coretheapple, feel free to ask. I'm well aware there is a lot going on in the diffs I presented, but the pattern of edits is what's important here rather than each in isolation (and is also the definition of disruptive/tendentious that makes the behavior so hard to address). That is one of the very problems with this editor I wanted to address. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:HarpBasedBand

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

Repeated unconstructive editing and addition of empty placeholder "TBA" tables void of data.

• Warned 20 September 2014 for unconstructive editing (adding incorrect list of upcoming episodes to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)#Ratings and for removing references from same section).
• Also warned 19 & 20 September 2014 for not following MOS:DASH and for adding placeholder information.
• Warned 21 September 2014 for adding unreferenced information to Quintavious Johnson.
• Warned again 22 September 2014 for adding unreferenced information to Quintavious Johnson.
• User added placeholder "TBA" tables to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) on 22 September 2014.
  • Warned twice on 22 September 2014 (one, two) for adding placeholder "TBA" tables void of data to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19).
• User added placeholder "TBA" tables to America's Got Talent.
  • Final warning for adding placeholder "TBA" tables to America's Got Talent.
• User again added placeholder "TBA" tables to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) on 23 September 2014.

AldezD (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• User again added placeholder "TBA" tables to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) and to The Voice UK on 24 September 2014 after level 4 warning 22 September.

AldezD (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 192.138.82.196

See Special:Contributions/192.138.82.196 - an IP violating WP:BLP policy (and WP:3RR after a warning) at Moms Demand Action, and much the same at Matthew Yglesias. Clearly not here for any good purpose. Needs blocking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring to insert BLP violations. I've only blocked for 60 hours, but I suspect they'll be back and will need a longer block. The contribution history of that IP is discouraging. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

User:Netoholic and User:Thivierr conduct at Stefan Molyneux

Netoholic (talk · contribs)

Thivierr (talk · contribs)

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

I'm sort of at wits end and would like to request assistance with this editor. For the last 3 weeks, every edit of mine to a particular article, regardless of content or circumstances, is being reverted by User:Thivierr (who signs as "Rob"). For a while, he did participate in collaborative discussions on the talk page, but lately it seems like his main activity on WP seems to be to revert any and all edits I make to this article, and to do so without leaving any substantive edit comment describing his reasoning. I don't mind being reverted, if its accompanied at least by an explanation, but this daily, wordless reverting is not productive. I attempted to contact the user and ask that he either provide edit summaries or discuss these reversions on the talk page, but he rejected my request by deleting my message on his talk page. I have attempted to communicate, both directly and very actively on the article's talk page, and I am not sure what other course to pursue other than to contact others and ask for any guidance you think would be helpful in ending this situation. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The last interaction between the users (here) indicates suggests that this is a WP:POINT tactic by Thivierr. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If a single active editor (who sees this) agrees to actively monitor Stefan Molyneux for at least a month, who hasn't been involved before, I'll happily take at least that long off from editing the article, voluntarily. Basically, Stefan Molyneux has only received mainstream/reliable coverage for his "deFOO" advice to families (telling adult children to disconnect from families). That's what got him mentioned in the Globe and Mail[216] and Guardian. The Wikipedia article, however, gives the impression of a prominent philosopher widely known for his various views, despite the fact that most coverage of his views, is by himself, promotional material, and his fellow like-minded pundits. I used to try to explain this, as others have, but nobody can keep up the arguments with Netoholic. Things got so bad on the talk page, that Netoholic will censor any mention of any unwanted details, such as the mere extensive of Molyneux's wife and child (which Molyneux publicly talks about). The Globe and Mail published his wife's name, in a story that was principally about her, and her time co-hosting the Freedomain Radio show[217]. But, not only does the article not name her, and nobody can name her in talk space, but Netoholic feels the mere statement of the fact he has a wife, without a name, is not permissible. I'm all for talk page discussion, and the only user preventing it, is the one complaining above. --Rob (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So you admit it's an WP:OWN issue with you about the article? Yeah the article is excessively using primary sources but that doesn't mean reverting anyone who you disagree with. If Netoholic is being disruptive, you should be moving for an RfC on the user rather than this tactic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a plane, it's superman, no, it's a red herring. Thivierr just gave a very detailed analysis of the problem and your response indicates you read none of it and threw a kneejerk WP:ALPHABETSOUP at the issue. --v/r - TP 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, here's a thread in which Rob actually argued against those of us who questioned Molynuex' notability and demonstrated a fact-based reasoned approach underlying his views.[218] SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If your intent is to "monitor" the article, then you need to explain why it is only *my edits* that you are reverting. Your comments about old talk page discussions have no bearing on the recent reverts you've done of my edits. I think you've simply given up any pretense of collaboration, decided to personally enact some sort of one-sided ban on me on that article, and now just check daily to see if I'm the most recent edit of the page and revert it regardless of content. -- Netoholic @ 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Please examine the talk page history of the past 6 months on that article. Netoholic has repeatedly taken an extreme ownership position on various parts of the article, down to the defense of his own choice of words and grammar. He has made repeated wholesale reverts of others' contributions. In an RfC, he tendentiously argued with each participant and stalked several to their talk pages, then denied the outcome after it was closed. Netoholic's talk page comments are replete with personal attack, failure to AGF, and accusation. Just review the past month or so. He has edit-warred over Article Improvement Tags, as noted by @David Gerard: here. Many good editors, including David Gerard, @ZarlanTheGreen: (see here) have dropped out of editing the article after Netoholic's tendentious badgering. He's had similar unconstructive, repetitive exchanges with @N-HH: on the talk page here. Netoholic has repeatedly, persistently violated the decorum principle of the recent Arbcom decision concerning BLP here. Several editors noted he was on the verge of being sanctioned for such behavior relating to the RfC linked above. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Netoholic is an enthusiastic fan of Molyneux, but a rather overenthusiastic one with a fondness for terrible and non-notable sources. He has also been sanctioned already (blocks) for his conduct (personal attacks) on said talk page. I don't think there's really much room for Netoholic to complain of others seeking to curb his overenthusiasm in the name of encyclopedicness - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never been blocked for personal attacks on that talk page (and certainly not "blocks" plural), and I ask that David Gerard correct his statement immediately before I respond further. (DG: feel free to remove this reply along with your mistaken accusation). -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment - your block in May was for personal attacks. While they might have been left on an alternate page, they related directly to the article/talk page in question. Your subsequent block related to edit-warring at that article. So yes, a reasonable reading of your block log would suggest multiple blocks relating to that article/talk page, one of which related to personal attacks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this topic about Netoholic's blocks and bans or about continuous wholesale reverts that have been going on for months now without any discussion on the talk page? Should the article be reduced to a stub simply because one editor happened to touch it?--Truther2012 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban against Netoholic then?

WP:BOOMERANG question then. Regardless of what Netoholic has been on the verge of, the editor hasn't actually been topic banned from the article. The solution to me isn't to freeze him out, revert everything he does and demand other editors take up the task for you but to open a discussion on that editor. Do people feel a topic ban is appropriate here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to compare the state of the article in April of this year just before I began working on it, and the state of the article now (my last major edit). Of course, there have been other editors, but I am absolutely responsible for all the fresh sources in that article since I started working on it (literally, I can't think of a single one added by anyone else). I have proudly spent a great deal of research time on this obscure article topic adding dozens of sources and summary text. Only a handful of the sources I've found have not met the full standards of Wikipedia and been retired from the article. I am quite proud of the result, though, even now. I had the goal of perhaps bringing it to Good Article status at least, because I think every established, notable article on Wikipedia (even the controversial topics) deserves to be at that level. Its been a learning experience and I think the article is better after the (somewhat rare) fair and impartial feedback that it has gotten. When challenged on content, my first instinct is always to find new and better sources. The main problem I've encountered, is that there are a few people that come to the article carrying an ideological axe to grind against this article's subject and have no interest in actually seeing a Good Article about a subject they hate. They will attack efforts towards article improvement by both procedurally intimidating those willing to do the hard work and by directly hindering progress - edit warring instead of discussion, making "death by a thousand cuts"-style edits, attacking the borderline-quality sources by demanding unattainable standards, defacing the article with banner notices that don't apply. If you want to ban me, then you are banning the type of editor that builds towards article improvement and supporting the types of editors that only know how to destroy topics that they dislike. As a Wikipedia eventualist, I have no doubt that this will someday become a Good Article, and I believe I can be part of that process. The longer the non-contributory detractors are involved in the article, though, the longer that goal will take to be reached. -- Netoholic @ 10:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Netaholic. Sadly, his response above is more of the same denial, deflection, and projection which has hamstrung the Molyneux article for nearly six months. When sanctions have been impending or enacted, Netoholic has typically promised to do better or has tried to negotiate them away. Then the battleground behavior recurs. The Molyneux article would be just about entirely primary-sourced, promotional nonsense if all of Netoholic's contributions remained in the text. His post above demonstrates that he is not ready to contribute constructively here, so the TBAN is a suitable preventive, not punitive, remedy. Except for tweaks to articles like Philosopher which relate to his agenda at Molyneux, Netoholic has been almost a single purpose account. He's done some work on templates, but he's also gotten into various bad interactions there (it's off topic for this thread, but see his talk page history.) SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Netoholic's been around WP for years, so it's inaccurate to call him almost an SPA - though I can understand that impression from the level of obsession - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that he was around years ago, then there was a long hiatus, then he returned with the near-singular focus. At any rate, topic ban seems like a way to solve the current problem while allowing him the opportunity to contribute constructively in other areas. Thanks for the clarification. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (as involved editor). Netoholic has insisted on adding terrible and self-promotional sources that are absolutely not of BLP standard, edit-warring to keep them, and long-running personal attacks on other involved editors sufficient to net blocks for it, as documented above by @Stalwart111:. He's been as cooperative to work with on the article as a junkyard dog. If the non-RSes and self-sources were removed the article would be about a third of the size, and probably should be - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's becoming increasingly clear that Netoholic is unable to edit this article in a collaborative way. My only involvement in this is closing an RfC on the article's talk page, which provoked a rather ill-advised attempt to overturn the RFC on AN, which resulted in a unanimous endorsement and several comments on Netoholic's behaviour that are clearly still applicable. Number 57 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Everyone interested in this question should read that RFC appeal - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Linked here. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (as involved party). Netoholic has essentially admitted and boasted of his ownership by explaining how he almost single-handedly greatly improved the article. The problem is there are only a handful of reliable sources (Globe and Mail, Guardian, Time). What he's added is mainly Molyneux's only writings, promotional material (e.g. conference bios), like minded pundits pontifications, and some videos of the man speaking. No level of work can manufacture good sources. Sometimes, the harder you work to find sources, the worse the sources you find. Netoholic is a one man army, that simply exhausts all other editors, who aren't able to re-argue the same points over and over again, so that they give up. Also, I'll admit some of actions in response were a bit petty, and I'll keep my committment to leave editing the article for a month. --Rob (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) per Rob/Thivierr's comment up top.--v/r - TP 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Netoholic has long had ownership issues with this article, but I didn't think a topic ban was warranted until his blanket accusation that editors who disagree are "carrying an ideological axe to grind", a mindset which does not lead to collaborative editing. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a blanket statement - I said a "few people come" with the axe to grind. And you're right, that mindset has been difficult to collaborate with. There have been very rare times when people with a genuine interest to improve the article, even if they dislike the topic, have made editing a pleasure. David Gerard expressed the problem perfectly above when he says he wants to see the article cut down to a third of what it is... this is the destructive attitude that has been present ever since I tried to improve the article. Note that he isn't saying that he wants to devote some time finding better sources to improve the present state of the article - he wants to destroy and tear down. And that destructive attitude comes from being opposed to an ideology so much that he doesn't even want to see it presented in anything above a stub-level article. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Longer is not always better, and sometimes it's inappropriate or promotional to have a very long article on a particularly obscure topic, especially if the sources do not support it. I don't think this attitude is "destructive". Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Please reread the sourcing rules at WP:BLP. They are very stringent, with excellent reason. And just as BLPs must not be hatchet jobs, nor should they be hagiographies or filled with puffery and self-promotion. BLP issues are toweringly important to Wikipedia, and we do need consistency of application per policy, lest this bad application be used as an excuse for another bad application - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's face facts. Netoholic doesn't make these accusation only against David Gerard. He says more or less the same thing about every editor who has tried to collaborate with him. He stalks people to their talk pages to pound away at his tendentious views. His repeated, strident denials open the door to a troubling conclusion. If Netoholic levies personal attacks at so many editors who are struggling to conform articles to RS, BLP, V and other key policy, should his ban be confined only to this topic, or should it be more broadly applied? SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
      • If good sourcing is the goal (which I agree), then can David Gerard or SPECIFICO please point to any good reliable sources they've added to this article in all their edits of it? I would think that if you were consistent in your desire to make good BLPs, you'd be able to demonstrate a balanced approach by showing additions to the article as well as removals. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
        • WP:IDHT. You arn't getting it. If the sources don't exist, they cannot be added. If you are using crappy sources, they need to be removed. You'd be wise to accept that because this is only going to get worse for you. David and SPECIFICO (editors whom I have both had conflict with) are on solid footing with this one. I assure you, this is not going to turn back around on them at all.--v/r - TP 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
          • You're using a lot of "if" statements and implying that I disagree with sourcing policies - I do not disagree with them. The question is whether there has been any evidence presented that I actually advocate bad sources... and that evidence is nowhere. I will freely admit that some sources have turned out not up-to-snuff, and I am not attempting to force those, but the article as it stands today, after many people have evaluated it, is very well-sourced. I am proud to have provided all those, and that there is a real article to even be a point of discussion and not some useless stub. If the reward for someone who has made great effort to improve an article is banning from the very same article, then I deserve it... but that is a messed-up system of priorities. My dedication to work on this article has been labeled as "obsession", without evidence, when in reality its genuine effort and research with the best of intentions towards improving one tiny corner of this encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - there seems to be a disconnect between Netoholic's actions and their stated goals above. Netoholic has an extensive block log with (as pointed out above) a lengthy hiatus in the middle which appears not to have advanced their willingness to function in a collegial manner. The ideal length of the article or the quality of the sources used are matters for the article talk page or other noticeboards. Disagreements over those things do not excuse poor behaviour. The issue here is editor conduct which the editor in question seems determined not to address. A topic ban from this article is a start but the only other area where Netoholic has edited in the last month resulted in a block there too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask what, in your opinion, is the right sort of conduct I should aspire to? Keep in mind that, for the last 3 weeks, I've been subjected to wholesale reverts by a single editor (the original top of this ANI)... So how have I handled myself under that strain? I have not made personal attacks on him. I have not edit warred with him (self-limiting to about 1 edit a day). I reached out to him on his talk page, and was rejected. And then I sought help from uninvolved people by posting here. Other than completely walking away from the project, what could I have done differently? Could it be that the blocks you refer to have been a result of past strains which I didn't handle as well, and am now trying to work through more constructively, like asking for the assistance above? -- Netoholic @ 00:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but only 3 weeks before that you were blocked for edit-warring at that article in question. The statistics for the article are telling. The article is 42k bytes in size but you've added 67k bytes on your own, making 60 more edits than the next most active editor, 168 more than the next and 215 more than the editor you accuse of "wholesale reverts". Uninvolved editors are indeed likely to view statistics like that as "obsessive", whether you like it or not. If you have a content dispute with other editors, bring it to the attention of others via RFC or one of the many content-related noticeboards. Bringing it here will likely end badly - case in point. You need to learn to walk away and find (as you nicely put it) a different "tiny corner of this encyclopedia" to work on for a bit. If you can't bring yourself to do so, the community will force you to do so. My concern, as above, is that the only time this month that you have edited something else, you got blocked there too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I brought here was not a content dispute, it was a single editor's ongoing actions. WP:BOOMERANG documents a possibility not a prophecy that must be fulfilled. I started working on an article that I found needed work and was willing to devote time. That is not obsession, that is initiative. Are you saying I should graze around making minor updates all over rather than making a deep dive into a single topic? I guess that is one way to steer clear of controversy... but its hardly the sort of thing that results in real encyclopedic substance. Featured Articles certainly don't get to that level by drive-by editors... they get to that level by having a team of people collaborating (or in your terms "obsessing") on the subject for a time. Where was the teamwork here? Why am I the only one expressing a desire to get this article to Good Article status? Shouldn't that be something every Wikipedia editor wants to see happen? -- Netoholic @ 01:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that no matter what anyone says, you don't have any intention of listening. Whatever you believe or feel or think with regard to that article, you're making no progress there. Why not just move on to something else? As I said, if you can't, the community will move you on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I actually had pretty much moved on from the article, getting back to template maintenance. SPECIFICO, though, who has been involved in the article for far longer than I have, keep returning to it and making what I can only describe as "death-by-a-thousand-cuts" style of editing. He has also been blocked for edit warring on the article, and in fact is currently under an ArbCom ban on a certain class of BLPs for his misbehavior on those. That misbehavior seems to have spread to this very closely related BLP. I will take a break from the article voluntarily for as long as he does so - lets say up to 3 months. Does this sound like an acceptable deal? We can both use a break from it. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You aren't hearing us. It is entirely appropriate, and approaching mandatory to remove content that is poorly sourced. There are elements you could focus on that have some sourcing, but you drew your line in the sand on the weak stuff. choose your battles. many people have now told you the same thing, and you arent hearing it. support topic ban Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as an uninvolved editor, who has now read this discussion and a couple of months of talk page discussion. Netoholic seems incapable of behaving reasonably and collaboratively regarding this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Being that you're uninvolved, I'm very interested in hearing what specifically led you to that conclusion. If anything good is to come out of this, it is feedback from others that would help me pinpoint what makes it hard to reason or collaborate with me. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You could start with - "getting an entire thread worth of guidance and advice and then ignoring it and asking for guidance and advice". St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Stalwart - I'll limit this to the advice you've given specifically. In my re-read of your posts here, the only actionable advice from you was "need to learn to walk away". Since you're also voting to ban me, this advice is kind of a tautology (how can I choose to walk away when also being told by you to stay away?). The feedback I'm looking for is about what can help lead toward collaboration, rather than separation? What can you pinpoint is the problem that has prevented that, and why do you think it can never be resolved? -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, it shouldn't be limited only to my advice. I'm just one of a group of editors (many of whom have never edited the article in question) who have told you to drop your stick. You can't or won't so we're prying the stick from your grasp. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:Topic Ban is designed to be invoked upon editors whose conduct has been disruptive to the topic. I do not see how posting too much information or active involvement in the Talk process is disruptive. --Truther2012 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  I submit that bad BLP edits count as a disruption of the topic itself. BLP sourcing is harsh, for good reason. The persistent posting of bad sourcing itself counts as notable disruption that causes damage - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Active participation in talk" is rather a charitable description of Netoholic's behavior, methinks. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club and persistent television vandalism

For some reason, the articles about the show Bad Girls Club, mostly the ones for individual seasons, have for years been continuously targeted by one or more users that make minor edits that insert incorrect information, ranging from changing cast member names to reordering events to altering spellings. A look at, for example, this history page for season 6 shows numerous users, easily identified by their lack of userpages, contributions almost entirely limited to this show, and talk pages speckled with vandalism warnings, who have followed this pattern. Some of these have been blocked, but the issue has continued. Some of the accounts have even spread to other articles, making the same detrimental edits, although they pretty much have the bulk of their focus on the Bad Girls Club pages. These editors are especially harmful because the edits go so easily unnoticed -- I'd estimate that we now have dozens if not hundreds of pages of incorrect info from these editors. I have no idea if this is one user or many. I also have no idea if the edits are 100% vandalism, or only 50%, or what. But clearly something needs to be done, and it will certainly require some sort of administrator intervention.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015 - Fourth submission

Hi, this is the fourth time I'm referring Avenger2015 to ANI, the third report was never addressed by an admin, and wound up archived. Permalink here. The short story is that the user keeps adding extensive cast lists to television articles, which typically winds up duplicating content found elsewhere on the page, or on the List of Characters article. This contravenes MOS:TV#Cast information. The content is never sourced, and often contains trivial roles like "Man #2" and nonsense like that. Since it's getting a little tedious to re-write my complaint each time I come to ANI, I would appreciate if the Admin would review the third submission above, which also illustrates that the user is feigning ignorance and is here to be disruptive. A previous long-term vandal dubbed the "Voice Cast Vandal" had a similar MO. Avenger's latest disruption is found in these 19 edits. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Anyone? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015 blocked again for one week, although the first two blocks don't seem to have garnered a response. It may be time to consider obtaining consensus for a ban on TV related topics.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it. If the user isn't willing to listen to existing MOS consensus, or adequately respond to notes, warnings, blocks and ANI reports I don't know what they can offer this community project. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)