Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912

OSMOND PHILLIPS

OSMOND PHILLIPS showed up several months ago, and most or all of his edits have involved adding a group of nineteenth-century American pictures to biographies of nineteenth-century Americans. However, these images have problems, and he persists, as seen in particular at Talk:Billy the Kid#Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall. He claims that each one depicts so-and-so, but aside from the lack of evidence for that, some of his additions conflict with reliable sources, e.g. at Talk:BTK, claiming that File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg (derived from his upload) is the same guy as [1], which has here been uploaded as File:John Tunstall seated pose cropped and retouched.jpg.

Moreover, the images he's uploading come from The Phillips Collection, part of an online magazine that admits that it has no provenance for any of these images — it's just some magazine that found them in an antiques shop, and some months ago he said that he is "THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION". He routinely says "they're confirmed by professionals" or "they're supported by researcher [name]", e.g. [2] and [3], and his userpage (speedy-deleted as U5, but identical to his Commons userpage) is filled with unsourced claims that he expects us to trust, but he repeatedly fails to provide evidence that would give anyone here reason to trust his claims. There's no evidence that these claims these are authentic, no evidence that these images can be trusted, and no way to verify his claims that they're the people he says they are, but he edit-wars to ensure that they remain (reverted here, with more reversions at [4]; and reverting multiple people at [5]).

And finally, consider his conflict of interest: we don't tolerate people who promote their own organisations by dumping lots of their stuff into articles (e.g. [6], with nine of his uploads) and edit-warring to defend that stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We routinely block accounts who are here only for advertising and/or promotion. This seems like he's here only for promotion. Katie^talk 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add that I'd block the guy myself but I've edited Billy the Kid rather extensively. Katie^talk 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, the issue of the images added by PHILLIPS is already being discussed on Commons here, a discussion you are already part of. PHILLIPS has offered to provide a "check list here of all the ways we research a photograph to help identify the person." That discussion is ongoing.

Your insistence that PHILLIPS states the photos have no provenance is a red herring. The full title of the the web page you linked to stating the images do not have provenance is "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance". The substance of the discussion ought not to be about old school provenance, as long required by museums and art collectors, but whether EN:WP editors are willing to take advantage of modern forensic methods that are being used to determine the authenticity of photos whose origins cannot be proven using traditional methods. This issue is part of that discussion on Commons. As noted there, experts in the fields of forensic photographic analysis have concluded that a photograph found in a thrift store, without ANY traditional provenance, is of Billy the Kid and is genuine. They are running into the same disbelief here on wn:wp that experts initially treated their images with. These experts appear to be changing their opinion. Apparently PHILLIPS is engaged in an effort to supply similar evidence for the photos they've uploaded.

Nyttend, on Commons you state, "discussions there have no authority here, discussions here have no authority there." So why do you propose here on en:wp to engage in a discussion of the images' and PHILLIPS' credibility when the images are on Commons, and that conversation is already being had there? You can't have it both ways: insist that en:wp and Commons are independent, and suggest that PHILLIPS be blocked here for images they added there.

PHILLIPS began contributing to WP on July 1, 2015. They are still a relatively new editor. They apparently have some expertise in the area of Old West images. WP is bleeding editors and fewer and fewer people are contributing. I have been acquainted with a number of exceedingly worthy editors who have abandoned WP due to harassment and uncivil behavior. I believe the multiple attempts to remove his images and his account here, here, and on this page border on uncivil.

Experts on WP are especially few and far between. The Old West Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through the halls. Since PHILLIPS is a professional and business owner, I get the impression they don't watch WP like a hawk as some editors do and may not respond to these concerns as quickly as some might prefer. Following the principle of don't bite the newcomer, I think it would be extremely premature and contrary to good faith to block him at this time.

I agree that PHILLIPS has reverted edits made by others when they should not. I attribute this in part to the fact the they are a newcomer and likely unfamiliar with WP's byzantine methods of conduct, its dozens of pages of policy, its dozens of policies and procedures, and WP's 5000 word long Five Pillars. Let's try to remember that some people actually live a full life without checking WP daily for comments on their contributions. I suggest a cooling down period and allow PHILLIPS to provide any evidence they have about the images that support their contention that they are of the individuals named.

In any case, the discussion here on en:wp ought to be restricted to whether PHILLIPS is engaged in promoting their business. They appear to be trying to contribute potentially informative and revealing images about a number of Old West figures. I don't see how their business benefits if PHILLIPS is releasing images into the public domain. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not merely that PHILLIPS is promoting his business: that's one problem, but as well, he's repeatedly adding images to articles that fail our verifiability and copyright standards. Uploading bad images to Commons isn't reason for sanctions here, but using bad images in violation of our standards is reason for sanctions. Moreover, note that PHILLIPS' website has lots of ads: making his collection more prominent through Wikipedia will obviously increase the number of people viewing the website, increasing ad revenue. We already sanction people when they attempt to promote nonprofits or personal websites; attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily." True. It that is, indeed, the case. And it's proven to be so. I'm not very comfortable with what seems to be a real lack of good faith and biting going on here. If that isn't what's intended, I'd love to see someone say that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing that has concerned me since I first saw the Phillips site is whether, if this were text, it would be considered a reliable source. After reading the contents of "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" pages linked above—the text written by Catherine Briley—I was left feeling very uncomfortable as to the reliability of the site and thus the images being presented. Mr. and Mrs. Owner buys photos, they suspect (but do not know) that it was collected by Phillips based on photos that they think may be of the Phillips family mixed in with the photos that they believed to be of rather more famous Old West individuals. I've never seen a similar chain of guess and surmise being allowed before on Wikipedia: these are basic verifiability issues. And if the source isn't deemed sufficiently reliable, how can photos from it be deemed reliable, and especially as the photos themselves do not appear to have been marked as to the subject, but are apparently being classified by eye, including Mrs. Owner's artistic eye. Putting a definite name to a photo that isn't self-identified on the original is an extraordinary claim, and I don't think there has been adequate support/documentation to justify those claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits I reverted was only the photos. If I am not allowed to revert how can they be allowed to remove the photo. I am doing the same action as the person who removed them. Yes, I am a newcomer and have a lot to learn. Is it okay thatNyttend decided for himself to remove all of the photos? Should he be warned, temporarily banned? Put up for deletion like me? I don't know the rules as yet. He made the decision to remove all of the photos for all of us.

The Phillips Collection has nothing to do with the online magazine texasescapes as Nyttend states. All of the ads are on texasescapes. We receive no money from advertising from their online magazine. The editor believes in the photos and allowed us to write articles there to starting getting the collection known. We have made strides in research identification since then. The collection was originally collected from the 1890's to the 1930's we have evidence that proves this. The collection has gangsters from the 1930's and then stops collecting. We have NOT uploaded any photos to wiki that are after 1923. The oldest photos on Wiki is circa 1900. There were not as many publicized outlaws after that until the 1920's. The current owners of the collection purchased it in the mid to late 1990's. So it is not a recent find as they have had it for around 20 years. The collection is over 85 years old. They knew what they had but didn't know what to do with it. I was hired to have it researched and promoted if the research proved to be positive.

Photo's have been deleted when I first came to wiki because I was new and didn't even know they were up for deletion. I would not have known how to support them at that time. I submitted the Philips Collection resume of professionals and family descendants research on my user pages not knowing where to put it. Users against these photos were quick to remove the photos and the resume list. The same users are against the professionals stating that they aren't professionals. Yet these professionals get paid for their experience. We use professionals in the study of Photography, Victorian clothing, Historians and Forensic Arts. The forensics used, is the same forensics used to convict or prove the innocence in our court of law. Would these same users against the photos decide not to use the same forensics that may keep them out of jail? It doesn't matter what I put on here these same users will fight these photos. Nothing I can say will be good enough. That will be easily proved in reply's to this comment.

The majority of people believe that the Billy The Kid croquet photo is of BTK and others without provenance. Should people decide for us what we can see or what we should believe in. These users do not want anyone to see these photos and make up their own mind whether they are of the person or not and whether the public can see them and decide for themselves. These users are throwing away history. It is not for them to decide. To stop these photos they have put me up for deletion. So they will use any means to keep our history from being shared with the public. There is almost hundred photos that we are working on now to provide to wiki administrators the type of photo and the photography stamp information. We will need a little time. These users will try to have me removed before I can submit the information. I will be adding a long check list of the processes we go through with professionals to identify each person claimed in the collection. Last on the list is forensic analysis on higher profile people. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I realized that our checklist would be scrutinized just like our resume of professional people researching these photos. So I am going to walk you through the analysis of this photo we believe to be of Virgil Earp and his daughter Nellie Jane. I am sure the following will be picked at as well. Regardless of the research.

This is a cabinet card photograph. Cabinet cards were first seen in the mid 1860's and continued to circa 1900. The cabinet card is easily recognized because of the size which is around 4 1/4 by 6 1/2 inches. The style of the photography stamp whether printed or cursive, type, weight and color of paper, gold trimmed, scalloped or plain edges can help you narrow down the long years of the cabinet cards popularity. Along with decorative borders, color of ink, and back stamps. More information can be found on Wiki here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_card The photography stamp is WL [intertwined] Latour, 11 Main St. Joplin, Mo. There is plenty of information on the internet about Latour. Wiliam Latour [1845-1914] learned the trade at age 11. He studied the daguerreian photography art under the tutelage of Augustus Plitt, one of the St. Louis' most respected artists. From his instructor, he also learned ambrotyping and the aesthetics of photography, etc. He was known to have a business in Sedalia and Joplin, MO. One of the sites with this information is http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=2356& Another site states he quit the business circa 1900. This information tells us he was in business while Virgil was alive. The style of the cabinet card and later business years works with Virgil's age. When we cannot find information on the photographer we look in the census records to see when he was in the area and what his occupation was. The writing on the back states "To Alice from Josie" It is believed to be the handwriting of Josephine Earp. We have another photo of one of the Earp's with the same writing style. Examples of her writing can easily be found on the internet. Her writing changed as she got older. We also have a photo of Josie on her horse and her writing on the back about her favorite pal. Virgil had a niece named Alice. She was the daughter of Newton Jasper from Nicholas's first wife. This can be found on Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=3164. Evidence shows that it could be indeed Josephine and Alice of the Earp family. Virgil died in 1905 at the age of 62. This can be found at a reliable source called Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Earp Its also states that Virgil had a daughter Nellie Jane that he wasn't aware of until 1898. He visited her the next year and obviously other places. We have had, as an example, people say Virgil never was known to be in Joplin. We have found by these photography stamps that if the person wasn't good or bad and made the local paper or signed documents etc, you cant really say they was never there under most circumstances. Some of the photo stamps do match the area the person was known to be in at the time. A picture of Nellie Jane can be found on Find a Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40289053. Photos on Find a Grave can usually be trusted because most are uploaded by descendants. This is one of the places where we find family members and get their opinion on our photos. The photo of Nellie Jane matches well along with another photo we have of her taken in CA. Anytime you can identify additional people in the photograph it increases the probability tremendously. Virgil was shot in the left arm and lost the use of it. That is what historians believe. His elbow was damaged and completely or partially removed. Could Virgil actually be able to bend his arm like in the photo? We found another photo owned by Craig Fouts of Virgil, his wife Allie and John Clum. [We have photos of Allie and John Clum that match as well] Virgil's left arm is bent in both photos. Whether he had some use in his arm or he used his other hand to place it. The photo shows he could. Fouts is a known collector of historic old west photographs and is well respected. His photos of the Earp's are in all the Earp related books and Wiki. If this photo was a tintype we would know that a tintype is a reversed image of itself. Like looking in a mirror. We would know that Virgil's left arm that is shown bent is really his right arm. Virgil Earp's ears are distinguished. He has long ear lobes as does some of his brothers. He likely got them from his mothers side as Nicholas's lobes are not as long. More can be said about Virgil's facial features and hair but the ears are the best indicator as they do not change with the exception of the lobe getting longer at times. The clothing fits the era. Nellie dress style is correct for the late 1890's along with the color of it. Earlier dresses were dark unless it was a graduation or another special occasion. Wedding dresses were typically not white either. Nellie's rolled back hair style was only popular in the 1890's. Virgil's suit and his removable collar that would be stored in a collar box was still used in that era. Several styles of these 1890 and early 1900's collars can be seen on the internet. We also check for jewelry, like Nellie's wedding ring to see when she married and does it work with the photographers years in business. We study the age difference between Virgil and his daughter. Whether Virgil is wearing a wedding ring or not. Virgil never married Allie but she was his common law wife. We look for moles, scars and any other identifying permanent marks. We try to find descendants, contact museums who has information on the individual. We contact authors and historians. We search old newspapers for information like this site Chronicling America by the Library of Congress. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/. We have joined ancestry sites to study their family trees to find clues of who the names are on the back of the photo if it isn't of the person photographed. Most photos have the names of family or friends that they are sending it to. Some of our photos do have their names on the back of the person photographed. Finally we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis. We only do this analysis on higher profile people because of the cost. We have not done Virgil's forensics yet, but we will. This information tells us that this is a circa 1900's cabinet card with the photography studio being in business during Virgil's later years. He is photographed with his daughter. Both are wearing the correct period clothing of the time. The cabinet card has the later color of grey with an embossed decorative pattern. The script is cursive and is appropriate for the time. The ink in the photo is the typical rich soft tones used in the later years of the cabinet cards. The writing on the back has known family names. We have around thirty photos of the Earp family members which enables us to compare with, even though they are unauthenticated. Many are with other family members. All of this information in a court of law would be enough to confirm their identity even without forensic facial analysis. Yet it is not good enough for some of the Wiki editors who want to stop all photos without a chain of provenance. It should not be up to a few, to keep the interested public away from such important history. How many of Abraham Lincolns photos have no provenance. Yes, he is easily recognized. Just because someone does not have the experience or talent to identify photographs does not mean the photo should be withheld. This photo was on Virgil's Wiki page to share with old west enthusiasts but was removed. I will be adding comparison photos soon. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:COI. Nuff said? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, for Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But also, arguably, Here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that, as and when the copyright issues are sorted out over at Wikimedia, it might possibly be reasonable to use some of these images, with suitable prominent caveats and subject of course to individual discussion on talk pages. A hint to OSMOND PHILLIPS: we would need checkable versions of the arguments for authenticity of each and every picture. Banning strikes me as counterproductive. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Like one person mentioned. The owners artist eye could not be used for identification. The owner who found this collection in an antique mall had the artistic experience to recognize the possible faces of these outlaws and lawmen. Therefore saving this collection and adding to an important part of our history, This is the resume of one of our Forensic artists. Her art skills are considered an advantage to helping her with forensics making her one of the top forensic experts.

Extended content

Carrie Stuart Parks P.O. Box 73 Cataldo, Idaho 83810 Forensic Art Experience Forensic illustrator 1981-Current: Stuart Parks Forensic Consultants, Cataldo, Idaho Criminal and civil forensic art. Courtroom exhibits for prosecution, plaintiff and defense. Courtroom sketching for KXLY, KHQ, KREM television. 1981-1989: North Idaho Regional Crime Lab, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Serving the police and sheriff's departments of the ten northern counties of Idaho, the Department of Fish and Game, the city and county of Spokane, the FBI, and the Department of the Treasury (A.T. & F.) Numerous other agencies. Qualified as expert witness: forensic art, memory: Idaho and Washington Fine Art Experience Professional Artist 1974-Current The Art Studios of the Coeur d’Alenes, Cataldo, Idaho Watercolors, acrylics, mixed media for corporate and private collections Teaching Experience-Forensic Art Achievements: Researched, developed and taught twelve different 40-hour classes in forensic art including: • Composite Drawing for Law Enforcement • Composite Drawing Workshop I • Composite Drawing Workshop II • Composite Artists Seminar • Certification for Composite Artists • Facial Reconstruction and Unknown Remains • Facial Identification for Visual Information Specialists • Advanced Facial Identification • Skill Development for the Composite Artist • Demonstrative Evidence: From Crime Scene to Court Room • Courtroom Sketching • Children and Forensic Art Courses approved by and/or offered by numerous state P.O.S.T. training agencies: • Law Enforcement Television Network • Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission • FBI Special Projects Section, Washington DC • United States Secret Service • Royal Canadian Mounted Police • California POST • Institute of Police Technology and Management, University of North Florida • Bridgeport Police Training Academy • Cincinnati Police Training Academy Training approved by the International Association for Identification for meeting certification training Demonstrative Evidence approved for CLE credit: Idaho State Bar Certified Forensic Artist, International Association for Identification Law Enforcement Trainer of the Year,1st runner up finalist, Department of the Treasurery, Federal Law Enforcement Academy, Glynco, GA. "Spirit of the American Woman" (Woman of the Year) J.C. Penneys' Career Excellence Award Presented at the Women's Forum Career Excellence Banquet. Educator of the Year, first recipient of the Lewis Clark State College Alumni Association Award. Lewiston, Idaho John Edgar Hoover Memorial Medal and Citation Awarded by the American Police Hall of Fame, Miami, Florida for leadership in law enforcement instruction. Watercolor: Best of the West Juried Invitational Exhibit, Boise State University Merit Member Idaho Watercolor Society 12 Best Centennial Artists of Idaho Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation Idaho Artist for "Art in the Home Show" Southern Homes Magazine, Atlanta Bachelor of Science Lewis Clark State College, Idaho Double Major: Fine Art and Social Science Presidential Honors (4.0 GPA) Forensic Art Training 80 hours: Composite Art and Photographic Retouching FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 15 hours: Techniques of Facial Sculpture School of Forensic Science University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama 40 hours: Interview and Interrogations Institute of Police Technology and Management University of North Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida The Police Artist in Identification, Special Seminar University of South Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana 40 hours: Composite Drawing Workshop School of Forensic Science, University of South Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana 40 hours: Forensic Animation of Motor Vehicle Collisions Road Safety Research Centre Ryerson Polytech, Toronto, Canada 16 hours: Child Sexual Abuse Treatment, Special Seminar Idaho Network for Children/Lewis Clark State College, Idaho Demonstrative Evidence Training Seminar Seattle, Washington Train the Trainer one day seminar Creating Visuals-Professional Education Seminar Dynamic Graphics Education Foundation, Washington DC Identikit School Idaho P.O.S.T., Boise, Idaho Forensic Art Training Seminar International Association for Identification 72nd Annual Educational Conference, Washington DC 73rd Annual Educational Conference, Sacramento, California 75th Annual Educational Conference, Nashville, Tenn. (By Invitation) "International Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Mass Disasters and Crime Scene Reconstruction". FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. SCAN Content Statement Analysis, LSI Publications-books written and illustrated: Secrets of Drawing Realistic Faces (author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003 ISBN-13: 978-1581802160 Secrets to Realistic Drawing(co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2005 ISBN-13: 978-1581806496 Secrets to Drawing Realistic Children (co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2008 ISBN-13: 978-1581809633 The Big Book of Realistic Drawing Secrets (co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2009 ISBN-13: 978-1600614583 Secrets to Painting Realistic Faces in Watercolor (co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2012 ISBN-13: 978-1440309045 Drawing Realistic Faces Workshop(co-author and illustrator) North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2012 ISBN-13: 978-1440321535 A Cry From the Dust Harpercollins Christian: Thomas Nelson. Publisher, August,2014 Winner: the Carol Award for best suspense/mystery/thriller 2015 The Bones Will Speak HarperCollins Christian: Thomas Nelson. Publisher, August,2015 Publications-books illustrated: Seasons of My Heart, by Barbara Peretti, illustrated with 40 original watercolors, JackCountryman/Word Publishers, September, 1998 Publications-DVD’S: Don’t Lie to Me, DVD and Workbook “Unlocking the Secrets to Drawing Faces” “Drawing Secrets: Realist Faces” Produced by Artists Network “Watercolor Secrets: Realistic Faces” Produced by Artists Network “Drawing Secrets: Pets” Produced by Artists Network “Drawing Secrets: Techniques for Realistic Results” Produced by Artists Network “Watercolor Secrets: Realistic Animals” Produced by Artists Network “You Can Draw Your Face” Children’s DVD “You Can Paint in Watercolor” Children’s DVD” Publications-Magazines: “Five Portrait Drawing Fix-its” Artist’s Sketchbook, June 2006, Pages 40-44 “Drawing Your Life” Artist’s Sketchbook, April 2005, Pages 12-13 "Composite Art Without Artistic Talent" Law and Order Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 10, October 1992 Pages 50-54 Publications-contributed: Big Book of Drawing North Light Books The Artists Toolbox North Light Books Drawing & Painting People-The Essential Guide North Light Books The Weekend Artist-You Can Draw People LeasureArts, F & W Publication Have You Seen This Face: 24/7: Science Behind the Scenes: Forensics Children's Press(CT) (May 2007) Publications-Listed: "The Artist's Life-A Sketching Sleuth" by Tucker J. Coombe The Artists Magazine, Vol.10, Number 4, April 1993, Pages 36, 38 Forensic Sciences, Volume III by Mathew Bender, Criminalistics, Index of Experts/ Identification Experts. Modern Visual Evidence, By Gregory P. Joseph, 1991, Appendix L, Graphics Experts. Who's Who of American Women Publications-Illustrated Over 25 limited edition prints Cover-North Idaho College Spring Catalog (international award winning) Limited edition print for Pacific Printing Industries Limited Edition Print: Con-Ag '94 Show, Las Vegas Coeur d'Alene Arts Directory and Calendar Cover Hospice of North Idaho Poster and Signature Wine Label Old Mission Centennial Skills Fair Poster Special Presentations (By Invitation) "Interviewing Children for Composites" The Governor's Task Force on Children at Risk, Boise, Idaho Papers "Forensic Art" Pacific and Northwest Region Criminal Justice Educators Seattle, Washington, October 1986 "The Art of Forensic Science" National Association of Medical Examiners, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 1986 "Special Problems in Composite Identification" International Association for Identification Forensic Art Training Seminar International Meeting, Washington DC, August 2-7, 1987 "Forensic Art for Law Enforcement" Northwest Command College, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, Port Ludlow, Washington, March 1988 "Demonstrative Evidence” “Composite Art for Non-Artists" Approved for CLE credits-State Bar of Idaho -American College of Trial Lawyers, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho -Idaho Association of Defense Counsel, McCall, Idaho -Idaho Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho -Shoshone County Bar Association "Forensic Art Without Artistic Talent" International Association for Identification General Assembly, International Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 1990 "Courtroom Exhibits and Evidence" Criminal Law, The Idaho Law Foundation, approved for CLE credit Boise, Idaho, August 1992 Pocatello, Idaho, August 1992 “Forensic Art, Discovering Untapped Resources” American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers International Conference Anchorage, Alaska, January 1995 "Composite Drawing" "Demonstrative Evidence: From Crime Scene to Courtroom" International Association for Identification International Meeting, Little Rock, AK, July 1998 "Would I Lie to You? Recognizing Truth and Deception" Domestic Violence Conference Post Falls, Idaho Professional memberships International Association For Identification, Forensic Art Lifetime Member Appointed Forensic Art Subcommittee 86-90. Chair: Education Committee 87-92 Juried Shows -Idaho Watercolor Society Juried Membership Exhibition Boise Blue Award 4 Honorable Mention Awards 7 Chosen for Traveling Show -Art on the Green, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho -Western Women's Art Showcase -National Art Show at the Dog Show Wichita, Kansas One Woman Shows Featured artist in Sun Valley Artwalk, Sun Valley, ID “Partners in Crime” Lewis Clark Center for Arts & History, Lewiston, ID Artwalk I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII Sandpoint, Idaho Featured Artist, Sept., Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Boise, Idaho Reflections Gallery, Sandpoint, Idaho Frame of Mind Gallery,Coeur d'Alene Colburn Gallery, Spokane Vintage Wheel Museum, Sandpoint Invitational Juried Group Shows Elllensburg Western Art Show Art on the Green, Coeur d'Alene Sandpoint Art Festival Celebration of Western Art-Olympia Ridpath Western Art Show, Spokane Sample Corporate Collectors Coeur d'Alene Resort Six commissioned originals and print for each room Halekulani-Waikiki Original paintings commissioned for Royal and Presidential Suites, Honolulu, Hawaii Kahala Hilton-Waikiki Honolulu, Hawaii Boise Cascade Corporate Office Boise, Idaho Magnuson Hospitality-Wallace Inn Commission original and prints for each room Wallace, Idaho Sterling Savings Seattle, Washington Harpers, Inc. Showroom, Post Falls, Idaho

OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof? Once again, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; dumping someone's resume here, without evidence, is no basis. You have, however, given us proof that you're relying on original research to make your decisions. Continued agency and promotion on behalf of your business, together with persistent original research and edit-warring against people who enforce our policies, means that you need to start editing in completely different fields if you want to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, I'm a little unclear about how you come to the conclusion that PHILLIPS is engaged in OR when they attempted to add the very specific procedures they go through to validate the authenticity of an image. For reasons I can't fathom, Robert McClenon labeled this edit as disruptive, removed the edit, and warned PHILLIPS that he could be blocked for his actions. Nyttend, you're saying they are making this stuff out of thin air, when they are trying to provide substantial information on the experts they've used.

I'm at a loss as to how PHILLIPS can provide substantive evidence of their methods for authenticating the photos, which those clamoring for removal of the photos are demanding, when he is blocked from doing so because it constitutes promotion. I am not getting any sense that several of the editors hot on PHILLIPS' trail want to work with them to resolve this, but are determined to delete his images and boot him off WP.

I noticed that Robert McClenon and Dat Guy believe that PHILLIPS' additions to this page constitute self promotion and vandalism. I encourage fellow editors to try to give OSMOND PHILLIPS some allowances. They have been a WP editor since July 1 and are still a newbie. They were attempting to provide a list of the methods that they have used to authenticate the photos that are the subject of the ANI discussion. They don't know the rules and policies of WP. Allow a little bit of good faith.

Gentleman and Ladies, unless we can back off a bit and give PHILLPS a little time and room as an amateur contributor to WP to figure out if there's a way these photos can be authenticated, I fear that these actions will continue to showcase WP's hard ass attitude towards newcomers and reinforce why new editors don't stay. Is anyone up for a little patience and moderation? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

First, while I understand assume good faith, I will point out to User:Btphelps that assume good faith has limits. It is not clear that the editor in question is an amateur contributor. They are promoting their business. Rather than lecturing other editors, why don't you reason with this editor whose enthusiasm (maybe commercial enthusiasm) is being disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say to OSMOND/PHILLIPS COLLECTION that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm seeing blatant advertising and it sure sounds like hornswoggle to me. These extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand why I consider it original research, consider the definition of original research: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. You've produced a large group of portraits without any provenance: as far as you know, nothing's been said about their subjects in any way whatsoever (let alone being said in reliable, published sources), so you know nothing about these images other than certain facts (e.g. the photographic techniques and elements visible in the pictures), from which you perform research such as examining clothing, conducting handwriting analysis, examining jewellery, and identifying locations. Or consider WP:SYNTH (a section of the original research policy, which says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

Saying "this is a daguerrotype; that one has Uncle Lu written on the back; the other one was taken by a photographer active from 1850 to 1890" is fine, but "because of those facts, we know that this is John Doe" is original synthesis. And finally, on the evidence issue: do we have any online reliable sources that speak about these experts authenticating these images? Are there any articles of this sort in reliable print sources? All we're being given is claims that so-and-so said such-and-such: anyone can make such claims without any difficulty, so there's no reason to believe these claims without backup from independent sources. We're being told that OSMOND PHILLIPS has all these qualifications, too; read Essjay controversy to see a prominent past example of what can happen when people rely on an editor's claimed-but-not-proven personal qualifications. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The research process used to identify these photos is the same process that was used to identify Billy the Kid's croquet photo. That photo is well represented on Billy The Kid's page. It states, "The image was reviewed by experts on Old West history in order to authenticate it.[87] On October 5, 2015, Kagin's, Inc., a California-based numismatic authentication firm, verified the image to be authentic after a number of experts had examined it for over a year. A special show describing the examination of the photo was shown on the National Geographic Channel on October 23, 2015. Other experts do not believe that the photo shows Billy the Kid or the Regulators." Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Earlier today PHILLIPS, in response to other editors' requests that they prove that the images they have added are genuine and not a mere attempt to promote a business, attempted to add a list of the procedures they engage in to validate and authenticate the images. DatGuy apparently took a hasty look at it, perceived it to be vandalism, reverted it, and immediately fired off a Level 3 notice to PHILLIPS warning him that he could be blocked. Given that PHILLIPS is a newbie, I believe this was excessive and bitey.

Editors have challenged PHILLIPS statements about the authenticity of the images and accused him of engaging in original research. Their reply was an attempt to answer those accusations. They state they are relying on considerable outside experts (and, in overkill, posted the entire resume of a university professor and expert) whose paid work evidently supports PHILLIPS' belief that the images are authentic. It was NOT an attempt to promote their business, but a direct response to the challenges made by other editors about the nature and conduct of their business. To further the discussion, I am reposting these steps below:

---

Method used to verify the identity of the historical people in the Phillips Collection of Old West photographs: (as provided by PHILLIPS here)

1. Style of photo: We thoroughly studied the history of the historical person and created timelines of their lives. Getting to know our subjects involved buying and reading biographies, buying old western books, reading books through interlibrary loan, internet research, reaching out to Universities and museums, and poring over old newspapers. It also involved reaching out to living descendants. All of this was in an effort to know the subject’s whereabouts and to verify that were of the correct age to match the style of the photo. The photos in the Phillips Collection range from the 1860’s to the 1930’s and include a majority of cabinet cards but also tintypes, CDVs, daguerreotypes, and one glass negative. Tintypes (or ferrotypes) arrived around 1856, and were generally popular from 1860 to 1870. But, they were made in some portions of the country until the 1890’s even though that was more of a rare occurrence. CDV (Carte de visite) photos are small photos placed on a thin card material that typically measure 2 3/8 inches by 4 inches. They arrived about 1859 and were most popular from 1860 to 1880, but were known to be made up until the late 1890’s, but this was certainly not common. Cabinet cards appeared around 1866, and were most popular from 1875 to 1900, but lasted into the new century for a few years. These photographs can vary greatly in size, style, and color. Cabinet cards can be further dated by the decoration on the card or the lack thereof. Photos from the 1870’s were often mounted on plain brown thinner-stock cards and lacked any identification as to the photographer. However, that was not always the case. Some photographers opted to spend the extra money for a more decorative card. That completely changed in the 1880’s with the name of the photographer routinely either on the front or back, or both, in decorative script. By the 1890’s, cards were even more decorative and sometimes the edges of the cards were decorative.
2. Clothing: We verified that the clothing of the subject was historically accurate. This involved researching books on historical clothing and fashion, internet searches, and involving experts.
3. Photographer: The photographers were researched using various sources. These sources include: census records, internet searches (there are several websites dedicated to providing information about 19th century photographers and when they were in operation), researching old newspapers for ads or stories, genealogical websites, Google books, contacting historical societies, museums, contacting descendants, etc. Once we knew the timespan that the photographer was in business, it was compared with the subject’s life timeline to verify that they could have been there.
4. Handwriting: Some of the photos have handwriting. If available, handwriting was compared to handwriting samples.
5. Other people: If there was more than one person in the photo, positively identifying the other person(s) in the photo as a friend, relative, spouse, or child makes it far more likely that they are the historical figure.
6. Descendants: Reached out to descendants of the historical people to have identity further verified. Often relatives have photos that are not available online to use for comparison purposes.
7. Museums: Contacted museums to verify identity of subject. Again, museums often have comparison photos not readily available elsewhere. They also have experts who can aid in identification.
8. Jewelry: Some ornamentation worn by the subject in an authenticated comparison photo is visible in Phillips Collection photos, adding to the verification.
9. Other physical identification marks used in comparison: Scars, hairlines, shape of ears, shape of eyebrows, shape of lips, shape of nose, etc. We also compared body type and size. Learning the history of the subject’s was very useful in this method because physical descriptions were often given in old accounts of the subject. For example, it was reported that Doc Holliday was blond but was going bald towards the end of his life. We verified the loss of hair for the Phillips Collection photos of Doc Holliday.
10. Location: For some of the photos that were not studio taken, the physical location is visible behind the subject. We did research on those locations. For example, for the Billy the Kid in New Mexico photo, we made two seperate trips driving 14 hours to locate the rock he was sitting on and matched up the mountain range in the background.
11. In some instances, the name of the person is written directly on the photo. The collection has a photo with “Uncle Lu” and other information written on the back, which is a photo gangster Lucky Luciano.
12. Forensic testing. The Phillips Collection contains nearly 500 photographs and one glass negative. We believe that the collection was amassed over several decades. The collector was very thorough; he collected not only historical figures but their families as well, and/or the various people involved in a historical conflict. I can give two examples.

• The collection not only has three photos of Billy the Kid, but also nearly 50 photos of the players in the Lincoln County War and their family members.
• The collection has not only Wyatt Earp, but nearly 70 photos of the people involved in the events surrounding the shootout at Tombstone and their family members. When it is noted how many photos the collection has of a historical person, and also the people closest to them, it increases the likelihood that the photos were collected directly from family members. Criticism has been directed at the collection as being just “look-alikes.”

It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

---

According to PHILLIPS' statement above, "we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis." So in addition to the research they conduct, they engage experts. The photographs have not been published before because they are only recently authenticated, as described above.

It should be noted that these images have apparently never been published before. PHILLIPS provided via OTRS on Commons a copy of the contract designating him is the legal representative for the owner of these images. WP policy allows owners to release their images to public domain.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mess. OSMOND PHILLIPS gives us a longwinded proof that photo is a genuine image of Virgil Earp. Sadly, he has flubbed even the most basic research. The image in question was not taken by William Latour, but by one of his sons. Judging from the mounting used, it is likely later than 1905. It may be Virgil Earp, but it most probably isn't. Nasal Ant Horn (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate, after all the talk about forensics and proof, that such basic errors are being made. Throughout, OSMOND PHILLIPS has compared his images with the recent croquet photo that was featured on television: Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. There is no magic conveyance of provenance from the one photo to this collection's five hundred. Every photo is its own puzzle to unravel, and the resources put into attempting to verify the croquet photo were quite large. I would be surprised indeed if equivalent resources had been lavished on every photo in the "Phillips Collection". Then there's this extraordinary claim: It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. Each photo looks exactly like these outlaws and lawmen, when even the published side-by-sides are in many cases not even close to the naked eye. I don't see how we can trust that the names that have been attached to these photos are accurate with these sorts of extraordinary claims, absent equally extraordinary evidence. Even if an image is pre-copyright, how can it be usable without real proof of who the image represents? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this guideline. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What aspect of WP:WATERMARK would be relevant here? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Content/3RR and Lack of civility on List of people with autism spectrum disorders

We're coming dangerously close to violating WP:3RR on List of people with autism spectrum disorders, though reverting mass removal of content where such removal goes against the underlying guidelines for inclusion on the page probably does not violate it. Eventually, an RfC was opened in an effort to stop the edit warring, which failed as User:Galerita removed the content again, which I reverted again. Additionally, Galerita came pretty close to violating WP:CIVIL, if not crossing the line, here on the RfC. Some admin needs to step in before things get out of hand. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The lead of this list article should be enough indication that this is a potential, if not actual, BLP violation. It was nominated for deletion and kept, but that was in 2007. Hint. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't really see the incivility. There's mention of one editor being accused of having created an unbalanced article, but that's it. This discussion also is indicative of the BLP violating potential of such a listing--note the suggestion we create Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime. Like we have Homosexuality and violent crime. Wait. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like you are both close to violating the three revert rule. I will say, though, that Galerita's edits to that page aren't acceptable, as that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did. Chesnaught (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did" I completely disagree Chesnaught. When the appearance of cause and effect is created by association, and NO causal relationship exists, then some appropriate comment is required. This standard in the media, and not to do so can result in defamation proceedings. Galerita (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Which is a good reason not to have such articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Our family has several members with ASD. It is distressing to say the least. So I searched for "famous people with ASD" and this was the first hit. I was shocked by the inclusions on the list. It took some time to discover that the crimes committed by individuals on this page were unrelated to ASD. Even including this disclaimer in the header would be insufficient as I didn't read the header, just the names.

In its current form the page creates the impression of a causative relationship that doesn't exist. There will be distressed individuals with ASD seeking solace that some famous people have ASD to find they are in the company of serial killers. ASD is already difficult to live with for families and individuals themselves. Sufferers have high rates of psychiatric illnesses, suffer rejection, isolation, unemployment, difficulties functioning in society and have high suicide rates. Compounding this with the inevitable prejudice created by this page is insensitive, offensive and probably injurious.

Here's another test. Would it be appropriate to write to the living noncriminal entries on the list and ask if they are happy to remain on it? I'm happy to do so if no one else is.

The page should NOT remain in its current form. Some ideas: deletion; restrict it to people noteworthy because they have ASD (rather than noteworthy people with ASD); or restrict it to noteworthy people who publicly identify as having ASD (i.e. advocates).

Finally, my apologies for being robust in my editorial approach. I am an occasional rather than experienced Wikipedia editor. It should be self-evident that experienced editors are better able to preserve and defend the content they create, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. I can see this page is inappropriate even though I don't know the detailed rules.Galerita (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Galerita: As these people are already notable it would be perfectly suitable for you to state that their ASD didn't cause them to do what they did on their articles rather than the List of people with autism spectrum disorders. Having AS myself, I can fully understand why you wish to clarify that said condition did not make them commit whatever crime they committed, and I do hate how the media portray us sometimes, but that page is a list of people and nothing else. Chesnaught (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chesnaught555: I think this is inadequate as it does not address the issues I have raised. The impression of a causative relationship is created by this page, NOT on the pages of the individuals concerned. I think the only solution is to delete the page. Galerita (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• In my understanding the article violates WP:COATRACK. It focuses too much on people with ASD who have committed crimes, and hence creates the impression that ASD is causal in those crimes, when it is not. To quote from WP:COATRACK, the "article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The context of WP:COATRACK is that subject is the subject of the article, not necessarily an individual person. Galerita (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw request and move to close: Galerita, by his own admission, is a new editor and seems to have learned from whatever mistakes he may or may not have made here. Let's just move on. Calton, on the other hand, clearly has not learned, judging by his lengthy history and continued incivility in this AfD and elsewhere, including ANI itself, and I don't want this ANI staying open to distract from the integrity of that one, as has been suggested. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for Millennials — Generation X long-term disruption

Somebody who uses IPv6 addresses geolocating to Kansas City has been disrupting Millennials, Baby boomers, Generation X, Generation gap and other articles about generations for almost a year. I am asking whether a rangeblock would be appropriate to stop this persistent person from edit warring.

Involved IPs:

April 2015 – December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D. This was the person's main IPv6 for 2015. August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8B6:AB8F:ED1E:62CA August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C4C6:FACE:7EDF:9DE8 August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D551:3464:77B9:A66A August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:758A:B522:8F2B:FED4 August 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:18D3:88B9:16F1:D602 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:917D:A6E8:15EF:E733 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9D63:ED25:9F9F:75F7 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:951C:464:44B2:A3B0 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D52D:1294:44E9:4E3D September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:714E:6E42:AA40:CD11 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:68E7:68E3:A25C:63F0 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:89D9:B47B:2EE4:5CBD September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:145F:F5B0:EFF0:9D18 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:78BF:A2EE:4833:BE55 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D8BD:9D88:22E0:B373 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:801A:9D3D:AF74:9783 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:3D70:68D8:B44D:DADF September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:91D7:A805:75E3:B638 September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:342A:1AD8:9C25:3748 September 2015: 2604:2000:A866:6800:6DA6:104B:2DB7:DB8A September 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:BC52:57C2:B965:5DC7 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:4C00:BEDC:B78E:422A October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:3024:82D6:2CE5:325F October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:DC0C:A091:942C:1792 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E45A:A705:82E0:9EA2 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:7C9E:89CF:EF08:A9D1 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:91D0:DF17:7661:D4D2 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:CDB6:74BC:BA13:A27B October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:B0AB:153E:F35D:1468 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:EC58:6080:F3EF:6780 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:B1C4:50FC:CB87:9010 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E989:52C0:4C43:910E October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E981:E3CA:532A:A393 October 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:293A:20B:33CA:9159 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:D9FC:27E6:29B5:EBD6 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:886B:8E:6BEC:998C November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C94D:2A22:61F7:459A November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E92B:3B0:A2EB:D277 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:888E:4ADD:E8AC:2B25 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2. Was reported to ANEW. Complained at RSN. November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C481:3D43:4BED:70F9 November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9CB9:9E11:9243:26AD November 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C198:9FBE:266A:230E December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:28D7:DD42:5C19:E136 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:49BB:CB6C:B9C:2911 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:F5B0:2C72:C789:A308 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:6DC0:2C17:90AE:A2FB December 2015: 2604:2000:EF48:1400:C161:10CC:33D5:C83D December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:E53E:58FF:8FC:8E54 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:7831:A3C1:F9E8:7FE8 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C8FB:E672:A99C:19D8 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:54CB:27A9:2263:527F December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:513B:1123:3592:8EFE December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:7DE1:9379:A6F:682E December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:B8E5:EA11:1C26:8BB3 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:51B5:400:A52D:3932 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:18E:29B7:1673:8704 December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:5DA0:7E4:1677:8A5A December 2015: 2606:6000:610A:9000:DDD4:D48C:D9AD:57DB January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:254E:C788:96D7:4AF3 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8010:94DB:26E:F546 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:F8EA:C78A:8D48:5AAD January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9B4:4B49:15DD:7D82 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:C93C:54FC:302C:CCF4 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8CE4:F907:4926:6E60 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:441:5503:67D5:D2CE January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:ADA5:1B:4EDA:F4B4 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:345F:71F7:710D:7DD1 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D03:3CC3:83BD:BB7B January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:94B0:3397:39F6:921E January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE January 2016: 2604:2000:F82A:2C00:ECCF:C2E5:8B09:6757 January 2016: 2606:6000:610A:9000:4466:EBEC:7B50:3A81 January 2016: 2606:6000:610a:9000:fdfc:82fc:6123:7a29

In October–November, this person hotly defended some quoted text which was seen by many others as too much detail for the Millennials article.[7][8][9][10] A more recent bit of tomfoolery, over the last day or two, was the addition of the weasel words "some say" to various articles, especially the Millennials article which was defended by edit warring.[11][12][13][14] Other additions of "some say" were laid down in these places and then defended by edit warring: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

Some of the edits are good, adding useful material or reverting vandals. However, the main impression I get is one of friction. This person has posted on the talk pages of a number of editors including NeilN, Phil A. Fry, West.andrew.g, DGG, McGeddon, ScrapIronIV and LjL. Perhaps some of these folks can offer an opinion on the value of our friend the IPv6 editor from KC. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing here that would reach the level of a range block. One man's disruption is another man's legitimate edit. What is the point of this? My impression of Binksternet is that he tends to be overly combative....case in point -- bringing this up here, while diverting attention away from his own deeds today at The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

By which you mean "reverting your LTA edits on the talk page", I imagine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "long-term" about one (1) comment on The Piper at the Gates of Dawn talk page. Please clarify what you mean. 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem like range-block material. Adding some qualifiers by amending sentences with "some say that ..." as a prefix sounds like a very minor content dispute. LavaBaron (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty puny as far as disruption goes, but it follows many months of other kinds of friction. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If of interest, the above 73 IPv6 addresses consist of

One /64 allocation: 2606:6000:610a:9000::/64

Three addresses: 2604:2000:a866:6800:6da6:104b:2db7:db8a + 2604:2000:ef48:1400:c161:10cc:33d5:c83d + 2604:2000:f82a:2c00:eccf:c2e5:8b09:6757

Johnuniq (talk)

Yeah, thanks LavaBaron. Go Kansas City Chiefs -- 2nd in AFC West!! 2606:6000:610A:9000:9DF6:CC8D:592B:1AE (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh ... okay. LavaBaron (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think all millennials should be blocked from editing. At least until they are my age.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

2606:6000:610A:9000::64 blocked one week for disruption. There's no reason to go adding comments like the one on Talk:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn to an eleven-month-old discussion and then edit war over it if you're not simply trying to annoy Binksternet. Added to his behavior here, he needs a timeout. Katie^talk 05:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have had to request page protection multiple times for generations-related articles because of this editor. I finally gave up on editing those articles completely as being too contentious an area for me to contribute effectively. I know my limitations, and get too frustrated there - specifically because of this IP editor. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie. I share your impression that the person's post to the talk page of "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" was a troll aimed my way, as it followed my reversion of this person's reversions. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment as solicited: I had not realized the pattern of disruption had reached such levels where you can paste a long list of related IPs; I had simply not done the research. On the other hand, I had most certainly noticed having to restore Millennials repeatedly (as in, quite a few times) after its content was somewhat gratuitously broken (often by specifying arbitrary exact years for the beginning and end of the generation), and I would at the very least apply semi-protection, even if a range block were not warranted or possible. LjL (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons completely broken?

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T124804

Is it just me, or has someone somehow managed to completely break commons by redirecting all Commons traffic to the Wikimedia foundation's main site? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not just you, it's affecting Meta as well but it's currently being tracked on Phabricator under T124804. tutterMouse (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I have no problem getting to Commons. Maybe it's fixed now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, from reading the "tracked" link, there was a server mis-step, which has been fixed but will take some time to propagate to everyone due to caching. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 27 January 2016 (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.

JaumeR's abusive behaviour on Help talk:IPA for Spanish#New rule

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.

---

Hello. Today, User:JaumeR has been abusing @Aeusoes1: and then also me, in the thread titled "New rule" on Help:IPA for Spanish. I won't provide all of the diffs (there are dozens of them (that user has a problem with writing all he wants in "one round", so to say); see [24]), but it's all there, it hasn't been deleted. That thread in and of itself may also be a violation of the WP:OWN policy (Aeusoes already warned him about that). He constantly questions our knowledge of Spanish in a rude manner, and keeps focusing on our Spanish skills ("he speaks poor Spanish, call the army!" kind of ludicrous behaviour), rather than the sources we're discussing. I feel that the least we deserve is an apology.

EDIT: Also, note that it's not the first time this guy was rude to me. Peter238 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't abused them, they bully me all the time, and ells m'infravaloren, they also are biased and i want to be neutral, i dont want to favour anybody, i just want to do a professional article about Spanish and Catalan, i am not a dictator, but i want to be the leader in this because they don't know anything about these languages — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- "They bully me all the time" - that's a lie. Prove that.

- "ells m'infravaloren" - what does that mean? Please speak English.

- *"they also are biased" - prove that. The fact that I can say that the Earth is flat doesn't make it flat. I'd need a proof for that first.

- "i am not a dictator, but i want to be the leader in this" - we've already told you that you can't be a 'leader' of any article on Wikipedia. It's against our rules.

- "they don't know anything about these languages" - and the abuse and lies continues, just as it does on Help:IPA for Spanish (that edit was made after my report). Peter238 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- You have followed my steps and reverted many of my editions to suit to your will

- I can't speak English too well, as I am a Valencian

- The neutrality tag on IPA for Spanish proves you're not neutral

- I already said I don't want to own anything as I like sharing, can you read me better in the talk page? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

C'mon Peter238, i'm from l'horta, and that's not an insult, that's saying the truth cause you're not neutral and you hardly know about Spanish, do you have a degree in Spanish studies or were you born in Spain? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm upset because they're not being serious, and that's not fair. Besides that, Aeusoes1 has reverted me many times, since I started contributing here (when I was 15 years old) and then he has copied much of the things he reverted me, I don't think that's right — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 21:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting without talking could be regarded as bullying, and trying to follow my steps (harrassment) as well... — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you also take into account (have a look) at all the discussions I started and they've ignored, like ðl (as a standard) — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Infravalorar (a algú) means "underestimate (to sb)" — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 22:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

People keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Anybody can revert any edit. It's not "bullying" nor has it ever been. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here but cant we just topic ban them both from the pages involving the IPA for Spanish. Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- "You have followed my steps" - you're now ignoring the fact that I told you about the watchlist option on Wikipedia, about which you didn't know. Besides, following one's steps on Wikipedia is, in and of itself, not a violation of any policy - at least as far as I know.

- "I can't speak English too well, as I am a Valencian" - that's not an argument (my English is not that good either by the way). I'm telling you for the third time that I don't understand Catalan, or at least understand it poorly. Please stop using it when writing to me (or better - on any talk page on English Wikipedia, unless the person you're writing to is comfortable with that).

- Also, you keep writing in Catalan on Help talk:IPA for Spanish, even after being asked to stop doing that. Again, please stop. Most of our users don't understand it.

- "The neutrality tag on IPA for Spanish proves you're not neutral" - Is that a joke or what?

- "I already said I don't want to own anything as I like sharing" - You violated WP:OWN and now seem to be trying to get out of this situation by lying.

- Now let's move on to the article Valencian. About a month ago, I performed a dozen, maybe more, edits to that article. All of them were motivated by WP:BOLD, that article (at least the phonology section) also contained a massive amount of original research, which JaumeR didn't bother to source with inline citations. I was hardly rude or abusive in the edit summaries, but if you feel that I was (which I don't think), I apologize. It turned out that at least some of my edits were wrong, at least according to JaumeR. He then reverted me, telling me that "you are not Valencian so you don't know how vowel harmony works in our language" (as if being Valencian were a requirement to know anything about that language!).

About an hour earlier, he posted a personal attack on my talk page, telling me that "my edits were totally wrong" (they weren't, at least not all of them). He then told me that "I would suggest if you don't know about a/our language to not participe.", which, I think, would be fair enough - if the fact that I don't know anything about Valencian were true (it's not - I know this and that, but not very much).

A few hours later, he posted a personal attack on Talk:Spanish phonology, in which he said that:

- "Peter238 is not fully honest, and an expert should confirm some of his editions. He listed the Toscan pronunciation of /p, t, k/ as approximants while sources say they're fricatives just to list them together with Spanish.", which is a lie. It was just a mistake, and I told him that two months ago. It's also a bit hypocritical of him, given the fact that his favourite article Valencian drowns in original research (well, at least the phonology section).

- He also said that I'm "not entitled to comment on the phonology of Romance language (sic), contrary to Aeusoes1 who is a proper expert and knows who our languages work." What happened to the "proper expert" today, JaumeR?

- He deleted that personal attack 6 minutes later, stating that it wasn't needed after all. I forgave him and forgot about that.

About the rest of that message (the one that the aforementioned personal attack was a part of):

- He told me that I should "stop interfering in a bad or authoritarian way" - who is now being authoritarian (and rude) now, JaumeR?

Three weeks later, we had a nice discussion on Talk:Valencian#Phonology, and cleared things up. Everything was fine... until today, when he started abusing Aeusoes1 and then me for sticking up for him.

@Amortias: Is that a joke or what? Peter238 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Peter238: No it wasn't. A week or 10 days of requiring you both to leave it alone would mean that you would both significantly reduce the interaction with each other (part of the problem)it would also mean there's less back and forthing on the talk page. I'm sure you should both be able to avoid a subject for a brief period of time and if one or both of you couldn't that would seem to point to some ownership issues. Is there anything on that page that is so vital that a brief break from it from both of you would do it any harm. If after a break the problem is still occurring then maybe something else will need carrying out but it would reduce the arguing and general unnecessary movement on the talkpage for the time being. Amortias (T)(C) 23:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You should not use the terms "both" and "both of you". Neither I nor Aeusoes1 (who you ignore) did anything wrong today, it is JaumeR who was abusing us. You really should re-examine the proofs. I do not agree on blocking me. Peter238 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at the "new rule" section and am rather taken aback by the lack of cooperation suggested by anyone saying he or she will be the leader of something around here. You put in effort, you show competence and the community will begin to trust your positions. There is no command hierarchy or rule by fiat. While the article itself, IMHO, needs improvement (I think Mexican and most New World Spanish pronunciation is not represented - see the equivalent article on Spanish WP, but no one can fix it by pushing his or her views on everyone else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont want that, but they haven't been neutral, and Peter238 has tried to revert me in other occasions, as I say on my profile I am socialist, so i don't want to own anything (I put the label before this discussion), I changed my statement about aeusoes1 because I thought he knew about us, but he doesn't, he just have a knowledge about Central Catalan and Castilian, and that's it, he also seem biased — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can revert you, just as you can revert me. The point is - specifically, which occasions are you talking about? What are the inappropriate reverts that I performed? Peter238 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I wrote in Catalan that I am sorry if anyone feels offended, but I do feel offended too by the way the been treating me, i might not be as expert as them about certain things, i might not use the right words in English, but my will and soul is decent and I don't pretend to offuscate things — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 23:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel offended? What have we done? You need to start being specific in your messages. Also, I don't think anyone minds your English (my English is not so good either), but it's hypocritical for you to say that given the fact that you're the one who kept telling us how our Spanish sucks and how we're "not entitled" to write about its sounds on Wikipedia. Peter238 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I said it because we need to be positives and not pessimists you and aeusoes1 just seem don't want to collaborate with me and you just come with negative answers or you just revert me a lot of times, or you try to obstruct me. And btw, I am not a separatist, I would prefer to remain in Spain, but I agree it needs a new Constinuent process, and if that's not possible, then I'll die in sadness — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want you can delete all what I said, and we could start again, in a more positive and transparent way — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 00:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Jɑuмe has almost convinced me Jɑuмe should be blocked, just as Peter238 has almost convinced me Peter238 should be blocked. This is not a forum. What if you both drop the stick and walk away from this now? Jeppiz (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Why, you mean delete our accounts? — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me)

• Comment I agree with Jeppiz. I strongly recommend you two walk away from the keyboard for a bit before you shoot yourselves in the foot. Wugapodes (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You people are unbelievable. Block for sticking up for myself and another editor? I won't accept that, that's even a bigger injustice. I accept JaumeR's apology, and hope that Aeusoes1 will do the same. I'm done here, report withdrawn. Peter238 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (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.

Is this harassment?

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 day or two ago, User:Noncontribute, blanked an article, Black Allan (horse) created by me and replaced it with the letter k. That's it. ClueBot NG reverted it. I left a warning message on their talk page, as the article is properly cited and meets policy. They left a nonsensical comment on my talk earlier today, and I removed it. They then readded it and said not to remove it here. It's my blasted talk page. They also left a nonsensical message on the talk of a newbie who I've been helping out a little. I'm just sort of fed up with this, as it's troublesome. Thanks for any help. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 02:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not harassment (a word that, like "bullying," is thrown around far too lightly). Yes, it's being a first-class jerk, and is almost certainly blockable behavior. Aside: sometimes the user name is all you need to know about someone. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit should tell everything you need to know about non [25]142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (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.

Davey2010, early AfD closures and incivility

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.

---

WP:NAC#AfD permits non-admins to close AfDs subject to certain conditions. Davey2010 (talk · contribs) (not an admin) has been habitually closing WP:AFDs early, before the full seven days are up (in some cases after less than six days), contrary to WP:NAC and also WP:CLOSEAFD. On or since 23 January, they have closed the following fourteen AfDs:

Page	Filed	Closed	Actual duration
Unfinished Grateful Dead Album	11:20, 19 January 2016	19:45, 25 January 2016	6 days 8 hr 25 min
Jigyasa Singh	15:01, 19 January 2016	19:43, 25 January 2016	6 days 4 hr 42 min
Ashburne Hall	20:53, 19 January 2016	19:40, 25 January 2016	5 days 22 hr 47 min
Zach Bauman	23:57, 19 January 2016	19:38, 25 January 2016	5 days 19 hr 41 min
Harry Riebauer	09:31, 18 January 2016	00:24, 25 January 2016	6 days 14 hr 53 min
Peter Holecko	22:52, 18 January 2016	00:21, 25 January 2016	6 days 1 hr 29 min
Antonio Pierro	00:02, 17 January 2016	21:59, 23 January 2016	6 days 21 hr 57 min
Hadith of the two weighty things	08:06, 17 January 2016	21:57, 23 January 2016	6 days 13 hr 51 min
MarqTran	05:07, 16 January 2016	00:47, 23 January 2016	6 days 19 hr 40 min
True Original	08:37, 2 January 2016, relisted 05:32, 16 January 2016	00:46, 23 January 2016	6 days 19 hr 14 min (from last relisting)
Shaman (Cannabis)	16:40, 2 January 2016, relisted 05:33, 16 January 2016	00:46, 23 January 2016	6 days 19 hr 13 min (from last relisting)
List of festivals and events in Cumberland, MD-WV	18:14, 2 January 2016, relisted 05:47, 16 January 2016	00:38, 23 January 2016	6 days 18 hr 51 min
Betty Lou Holland	14:00, 16 January 2016	00:36, 23 January 2016	6 days 10 hr 36 min
Pocket Platoons	16:54, 16 January 2016	00:35, 23 January 2016	6 days 7 hr 41 min

Not one of these was allowed to run the full seven days after nomination or last relisting.

When asked to explain their closure of the Ashburne Hall AFD after less than six days, their excuses seem inadequate, particularly their easily-disprovable claim that it was "only closed 4 hours" early. Further attempts to discuss rapidly became more abusive, as they reverted me thus and thus. Although they have reopened the Ashburne Hall AfD (and no others) I am less than happy with the "close comment" in this edit. This is not how I expect XfD closers (admin or not) to behave. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I should point out all closers close the AFDs around 12am (UK time) and until now not one person's had an issue with my closure times, I do admit I did close the ones today early (perhaps too early!) but most were obvious outcomes and whether I close them now or in 2o odd hours or whatever it is the outcome's going to be the exact same (The closure time with AFDs has always been problematic as no one ever knows when to really close them), Some people have in the past had an issue with a close and I've always happy to reopen (and even relist) - I don't believe my closures or the times they've been closed are problematic (If they were then I'm sure many many people would be unhappy....), As everyone knows I tend to get annoyed easily hence the language (To be fair my day's been crap & lack of sleeping isn't helping!), –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting the early AFD closure thing on hold for a second; Davey2010, how do you justify being so incredibly aggressive and uncivil towards Redrose64? (Hint: the proper answer is "I can't") I've dropped an NPA warning on your talk as a result. Suffice it to say that, if you lose your temper like that again, you'll be facing a block. Whether or not you're tired or have had a bad day has no relevance here.

As for the AFDs - I may not the best person to weigh in here, as I have also closed AFDs early if circumstances were appropriate (snowball keeps, special circumstances). However, I'm not sure if those decisions should be made so readily by a non-admin. What is your rationale for closing the AFDs above earlier than posted? Or is it just 'they were going to be keeps anyway'? m.o.p 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said on my talkpage I tend to get annoyed easily here and IRL ..... I more often than not keep a lid on it....

Well yeah most (not all) were easy keeps and I don't really see the point in relisting to death when no one comments but I guess that's just bad-assuming really, Some AFDs get loads of !votes and some get relisted to death so I more often than not close the most obvious ones and leave the controversial ones... –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have had a problem with Davey's closing times [26]. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope that shouldn't of happened and I apologize for that!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also shouldn't have happened: [27]. Why do things that shouldn't happen continue to happen? Geogene (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've explained on my talkpage the reasons behind the colourful language. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In effect, 'I get angry because people annoy me' isn't an apology. It's an admission that a problem exists. Geogene (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not just that - If something doesn't go my way I get pissed off ... I generally just get easily frustrated ..... Some people remain calm and civil and all that, Others.... not so much, Aaaaanyway moving on ..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a clear problem. Any other admin up for opening and re-closing these? Two are more than a day early and this is far from helpful reasoning. I propose that Davey be barred from closing any more AFD discussions for at least a month just until there's some indication of more respect for the actual process here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck out the link. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So hang on - It's absoutely fine for everyone to close AFDs early except me ? ... That doesn't make any sense ... I'm not the problem here ... Just apart of it I guess,

Inregards to the link reason - I did state in the edsum "Not helpful" which is why I amended it ... ? –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not appropriate overall but most are snow keeps or barely snow keeps (I don't consider 2-3 votes sufficient) but it's enough to be a concern. Unfinished Grateful Dead Album is a 16 hour early snow keep which I'd close the same, Jigyasa Singh is controversial in that there is an objection but it's dumb since it's clearly a "AFD for cleanup nom" (although it's still entirely unsourced), Hall was a day early and reversed so that's fine. Bauman is a speedy keep but a day early. Riebauer is an early NAC keep but there's no point reversing it. Holecko follows policy. Pierro is mine admittedly and closed with a merge but I'll keep quiet on it. Hadith of the two weighty things is fine. The point overall is you just create possibly argument that can come up at DRV on these things and as someone who is one of the nominators here, I wouldn't want to be dragged through a second discussion because someone jumped the gun crazily. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So really you do agree with my closures except the closure time ?, But if you have an issue I'm always happy to revert and reopen and at times even relist, I hate DRV so I avoid it like the plaque ,

Well what about if I lay off the closures and close the ones that've either been speedied or snow closed ?, To be fair I've gotten barnstars for my AFD work so I can't be doing thatbad ... Sorry not helpful! , –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has a troll regularly take stuff I've had deleted to DRV (one is there now from October 2014 that could be overturned), don't create ways for discussions to be overturned on technicalities, so yeah I do care about the timing. It literally does not help and there's a difference between a seven day proper NAC keep and a speedy close done a day early for a snow keep. I'm fine with them, just wait on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NAC#AfD and WP:CLOSEAFD are both clear: except in special circumstances the normal duration is seven days, and if that's not clear enough, it's also stated as 168 hours (I've made the calculation, and 7×24=168). What I was trying to find out was why you went against those precise instructions - would it have hurt to let those AfDs run a few hours longer (in two cases, a day and a bit longer)? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

RB - That's actually good point I guess I'm too a point making lifer harder for myself in that respect

Redrose - See I'm not the only one [28], I don't mean to sound funny but many closers are closing early so as I said I'm not the problem ... Just apart of it ... Well I guess "was" now .... Something needs to be done about all closers not just one (ie me). –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the True Original and Shaman (Cannabis) ones are irrelevant here, as once an AfD has been relisted it can be closed at any time if a consensus has been determined - the fact it was closed "less than seven days (after last relisting)" is not an issue. They could have been closed one day after the last relisting and been entirely proper. As for the rest, while I do agree that in come cases Davey has been a little...overzealous?...in closing where there is a narrow consensus (which should not really be NAC'd), it is pretty much considered by most admins that "seven days" means "on the day seven days from when it was opened" and quibbling over hours-minutes-seconds is pointless bureaucracy - the "168 hours" was only added after a DRV this year, so that's new, and it's yet another case IMHO of people deciding that adhering to procedure Because It Is Written should be done Simply Because It Is Written instead of actually improving the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed about the "seven days" thing, most of the time discussion has completely quieted down by the last day, and if it hasn't it obviously shouldn't be closed by anyone, admin or not. A few hours short shouldn't matter. Maybe we should remove the 168 hours thing per WP:NOTBURO. ansh666 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • From the discussion at the DRV that led it to be added, that would alas lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• A NAC earlier than 168 hours is not a good idea, unless it is labelled explicitly as a snow close, and is truly obvious. I note that some of the closes mentioned above were in fact specifically closed as speedy or snow, and in my opinion were quite justifiable) (Admins shouldn't be routinely closing early either) The 7 days is meant to be 7 full days, and has two purposes purpose:one is to allow people to comment when they choose--I often choose to comment near the end after seeing the other comments, & many AfDs have had the consensus made clear only near the end of the 7 days. The other reason is to prevent would-be closers trying to compete with each other to get there first. It prevents any one person from trying to monopolize the process. It should be enforced as written, for everyone. The Del Rev decision was very clear about that, as it should be. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Trying to summarise. I think there are two issues here: 1/ Early NAC closes of AFDs. 2/ Incivility.

1. There clear consensus (tho not unanimity that) AFDs should not be closed before the full 7 days (168) hours has expired. All closers should be reminded that there are few exceptions to that principle (WP:CSK, WP:SNOW and occasionally cautiously WP:IAR)
2. Davey2010's incivilty, which Davey acknowledges:
   • It's not just that - If something doesn't go my way I get pissed off ... I generally just get easily frustrated ..... Some people remain calm and civil and all that, Others.... not so much
   • As everyone knows I tend to get annoyed easily hence the language

There's only one conclusion. Davey's difficulties in remaining civil are a problem in a project where WP:CIVILity is a policy. It is also policy (WP:ADMINACCT) that "administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions". That obviously applies equally to non-admins performing admin-type tasks.

Since Davey admits to being temperamentally incapable of meeting the standard required of closers, Davey2010 should refrain from all XFD closures. Sorry, Davey, but this is a heat/kitchen issue: closures won't always go your way, and you can't handle that, so don't do them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Two questions, 1)Is closing down an AFD a few hours early disruptive? 2)If it had been closed down exactly 7 days after its creation, would the outcome have changed? From looking at the above cases, I doubt the answer to 2) is 'yes', and given that, per WP:NOTBURO, the answer to 1) is 'no'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have seen problems with Davey2010 closing down AfDs prematurely myself (see history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nobo Ice Cream, for example and his snarky response, though he did apologise after I called him out on it). In the past I have put his attitude down to youthful enthusiasm, though this is completely unacceptable as an edit summary, and worthy of a civility warning. In his shoes, I think a better response would be "okay, fair comment, I'll withdraw the close and leave it for an admin" than trying to pick an argument about it - he's right that it doesn't really matter if an AfD doesn't run to 7 days and not a minute more, but there is a valid point that closing 12 hours early may shut out people in certain time-zones. A frequent off-wiki complaint I've heard is "there used to be an article about 'x' - where's it gone?" - of course it was deleted via AfD but occasional users aren't even around for the standard 7 day period you get for a debate.

I don't think we're at the level of topic-banning from closing AfDs just yet, rather I'd like to remind Davey that Wikipedia is a site for grown-ups, and if you want to play here, you should strive to act like one. I know you like working on transport articles, and on that topic, Redrose64 is a good editor to have on your side, so you really want to pick your battles a bit more carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually disagree - his closes are fine, and yes, I see his frustration rising because he believes he's being badgered over his closes. In order of closure:

"The Unfinished Greatful Dead Album" had all of three responses in 6 days, all for keep, no reason to keep that going, his close is fine.
"Jigyasa Singh" - again, all of three people posted on it, not one closer sugested "Delete", his close is again fine, no sense in dragging out a forgone conclusion.
" Ashburne Hall " yet again , Three votes - forgone conclusion, it's again fine. I agree it wasn't left open 7 days, but remember IAR is just as much policy as anything else, so far, these fit under an IAR rationale.
"Zach Bauman" 6 votes, all keep, not a real active one either, either way, there was no controversy, no delete votes, so his close is fine
"Harry Riebauer" three votes in 6 days, none of them "Delete", once again, perfectly Ok as an IAR close.
"Peter Holecko " opened a full seven days, opened on the 18th, closed on the 25th, with all of three votes, good close.
"Antonio Pierro" opened 6 days, three merge votes, 1 Delete. Okay, in this case 1 Delete vote exists, but without any policy , the merge votes had policy behind them, so this too is ok
"Hadith of the two weighty things " opened 6 days with 6 keeps and one Draftity, no delete votes, again a good close
"MarqTran" open 6 days with 2 votes, both "keep", not one "delete" vote, so again, a good close, no reason to keep it open, IAR is fine here.
"True Original" no way is this an early close, it was opened for 20 days and had only two keep votes, no deletes, it's fine.
"Shaman (Cannabis)" was open 20 days with 1 vote only , not a delete either, so once again, not an early close. It's ok too.
"List of festivals and events in Cumberland, MD-WV" was opened for 22 days with one vote, and it wasn't a delete either, again a good close
"Betty Lou Holland" opened 7 days, 1 delete without policy behind it, 3 keeps , one pointing out sources were added, a bit border line, but still within policy
"Pocket Platoons" opened for 7 days, 3 redirect votes and 1 keep. Good close here too, not an early close at all.

Davey2010 didn't start or vote in any of these AFD's, he NAC'ed them only. Also, RedRose voted on one of these AFD's as well (keep) ("Ashburne Hall" ).

In looking at Davey2010's talk page, he might have thought | RedRose was being pushy on this edit , I realize she isn't but I can easily see where Dave2010 may have though so. No the incivilty cannot be justified at all.

I see no reason to ban or limit Davey2010 from AFD's, further I've seen many NAC's get overturned just because the sysop can do so. His closures are fine, just because some didn't go the full 7 days dosen't mean they're automatically wrong, I'd say his closures on the ones that ran less than 7 days are justified under NAC due to low participation. KoshVorlon 12:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Kosh, I am pretty sure Redrose64 is a "he", the "red rose" indicating a proud Lancastrian; have a read of the Wars of the Roses. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: Ignoring the three which were relisted, none of them ran the full seven days: the longest was Antonio Pierro, at 6 days 21 hr 57 min - which was 2 hours 3 minutes early. I won't quote the other durations again, they're in the table above. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What Davey does with AFDs is a good thing generally from what I've seen. We need more like him. In fact I'd argue that he's one of the sanest, rationally minded people involved in the AFD process. Way too many articles are wrongly nominated and many of them obviously shouldn't be at AFD anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I find myself in agreement with both DR. B and KoshVorlon above; Davey should be reminded to take a deep breath before responding to criticism and this should be closed with no further action necessary. Keri (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone had a problem with the actual result Davey called; rather, as Ricky81682 pointed out, we have trolls that will dispute an AfD on the flimsiest of pretexts, so it can be beneficial to play it by the book in order to avoid this. In the specific case of Ashburne Hall, Redrose had already contested a PROD on the article and argued to keep, and I suspect his motification here is not really to have a go at Davey as much as to avoid a DRV of "waaah abusive admin reverted my prod and got his friend to close the AfD against policy waaaaah". I think this thread has run its course though, so let's close it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 - I admit my temper isn't the greatest thing here but over the years I have worked on it and I don't get annoyed so much as I used too, Yes there's the odd occasion I'll lose but not all the time & not so easily ..... If there's one thing I've learned from this thread it's that I do need to get annoyed even less! .... Suppose it could be my New Years Resolution!

The AFDs - I'll try not to close them so early - I'll probably take a step back for a while (I might close the obvious ones but that's it....),

Who knew ... I'd actually learn something from ANI! . –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 26 January 2016 (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.

• Oh well. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Redrose64 - A. I wasn't referring to you I meant anyone in general, B) I'm entitled to ask anyone to stay off of the page, Drop whatever stick you have with me and just move on. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 26 January 2016 (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.

Blocked for a week

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

---

I have blocked User:Davey2010 for a week. Hours after the discussion above was closed, hours after he said here "The AFDs - I'll try not to close them so early - I'll probably take a step back for a while", what does he do? Close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMERICA after 5 days and 5 hours, and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane after 5 days and 1 hour. Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad Block That's a perfectly good close, 6 days with 2 votes, unblock him. Note that he said The AFDs - I'll try not to close them so early - I'll probably take a step back for a while (I might close the obvious ones but that's it....) (emphasis mine). That was an obvious close, please unblock.KoshVorlon 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's two closes, not one, and 5 days, not 6. The second one had 4 keeps, one weak keep, and two deletes. The quoted statement didn't give him a free pass to close these early (he said that he might close the obvious ones, not that he would continue to close these early), the guidelines are quite clear about this; except for snows and speedies, no AfDs should be closed before 7 days have passed. That should have been clear to him after the above discussion, but the two closes he made were actually sooner than the ones listed on top of the above discussion. From the closure of the discussion: "[...]there's a valid consensus that generally even simple AFDs need to be open 168 hours minimum, and at the bottom of this thread Davey agreed to follow that in the future." Discussion, consensus, agreement to follow it, closing statement about it; and then the next thing you do, hours later, is to go back to your previous behaviour (and worse), directly against that close? I fail to see how this is supposedly a bad block. Fram (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Good block. It appears to be agreed upon by many users in this ANI thread that he has been consistently closing AFD threads too soon, and that doing so was not proper AFD policy. After the ANI discussion closed, he closed additional AFD threads despite consensus and despite his response stating that he will stop. There was also combative and uncivil behavior as well (although it was not stated as part of the blocking reason). I agree with Fram's uninvolved judgment here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Good block. He had been warned, given an undertaking not to do this again ... but went ahead anyway. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think a week is too long for a "first offence", I think an "okay, that's enough, make one more early non-admin AfD close and there will be a block, understand?" followed by a 24 hours (if necessary) would have done. Still, he said "No doubt the next time I close something early some idiot will take me to ANI so it's not worth the hassle" so he can't exactly be surprised. In any case, until or unless Davey files an unblock request, I don't think there's anything to discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Good block. A week may seem a bit long, but it may be the only way he can understand what a week actually is. He violated the terms of his agreement (not to mention grossly violating policy), and if after his block expires he continues to close before at least one week has elapsed, he should be topic-banned from closing AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reopened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane so it can run for the full 7 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pointless though isn't it? It looks to be an obvious keep however the discussion goes, I wouldn't have thought a redirect would be a good solution here. I think the "rules" should be treated less rigidly. I can think of numerous circumstances where a week is too long before closing an AFD. Five days seems reasonable to me. Above all I think common sense needs to be applied per article. Blocking Davey solves nothing and just looks pointy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all for rescuing articles threatened with deletion (eg: Sara Delano Roosevelt, Ruth Guler), sure, just I'm struggling to write much about this one. If somebody else can expand bits in the obituary and books I've missed, I'm sure I can be persuaded to change to vote keep. The article will be better too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have unblocked Davey2010 after he made an unblock request. Fram (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've explained it all on my tp and I admit I screwed up entirely but have promised not to close a single one early again!, I think it's perhaps best this gets closed and we all move on, Anyway again my apologies for screwing up!, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, Davey2010, I found your explanation unpersuasive, and I would have declined the unblock request. AFAICS, Fram was in an excessively generous mood in unblocking you ... but now that it's done, I fully endorse Fram's warning that "if you would return to closing AfDs early, a next block may be considerably longer and harder to get lifted". I hope you will take that warning very seriously. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl .... But then the block would've been punitive ? .... As I admitted I mistakenly screwed up and that It wouldn't happen again it would be pointless to let the block continue wouldn't it ?, Anyway ofcourse I'm taking it seriously .... I was taking it seriously the first time round ...., –Davey2010^Talk 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, Davey2010, the continued block would have been to prevent further disruption from an editor who made a promise and broke it almost immediately. You explanation seems to me to be nonsense -- an AFD doesn't get closed by accident.

So, in my view, any further promises from you are worthless, including your promise not to do what you previously promised not to do.

You are unblocked now, but you really had better understand that next next time your keyboard gets a fit of mischief and takes it upon itself to "accidentally" find an AFD and "accidentally" close it early ... you have used your ration of goodwill.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So what would make you think what I'm saying is serious ? ... Other than [this I can't really prove it but anyway I'm fully aware I'm on thin ice here so don't worry I'm not going to screw it up again!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This thread was closed a while ago now. Davey is unblocked, let's leave it at that. Ches (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2016 (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 so it continues.....

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.

---

Now Esquivalience has closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane after 6 days and 2 hours. I don't have a problem with this, it looks even more like an obvious keep than earlier (per the above discussion) but it does raise the question - do we let non-admins close down AfDs early, or don't we? We should at least be consistent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I say not. We have a published rule, let's make sure it's honoured in the observance, not the breach. On a highly related note, I left this message for Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs) two days ago, but have received no reply. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make a distinction between non-admins and admins here. Admins shouldn't close discussions early either (apart from the snow, speedy, or withdrawn cases). Fram (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes they should, as IAR is just as much a policy as anything else. In Esquivalience's case, the close was obvious, why leave it open for 7 days just because the rules says so, let it be closed, the close is obvious and Esquivalience didn't vote , he (or she) just closed it, so no problem. KoshVorlon 11:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think an early admin close should be less of a surprise. For example, I'd have thought a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of a not especially notable person that isn't quite up to CSD G10 but still has a bunch of trolling socks voting "Keep - WP:ILIKEIT / WP:NOTCENSORED" on the AfD would be fair game to close early as "delete". However, we have already vetted admins to do the right thing via RfA, whereas any old Tom, Dick or Harry can walk in off the street and non-admin close an AfD as "keep". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

When there is almost 0 chance that consensus at AfD will change after 24 hours (obvious snow), then waiting 24 hours is process for following process and should be ignored. Esquivalience ^t 13:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

...which is a Snow Keep and is not the kind of thing we are discussing here. The discussion is about regular AfDs, and what's the problem if they get closed after 6d23h, or after 6d12h, or after 5d23h, or after 4d12h, or... The discussions at the time of the decision to increase the minimal duration from 5 to 7 days contain some good arguments why closing early, even when the outcome is probably certain, is usually a bad idea anyway. Feel free to start a new discussion / RfC to get this changed again to 5 days or whatever you believe is better, or to remove the limits alltogether, but until you have that consenus, please follow the current rules. Closing an AfD a few hours early is not "improving the encyclopedia", it's ignoring a general rule for no clear benefit at all. Fram (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't support making a distinction between Admin and NAC closes. We are all equally able to close something as a keep or redirect. If something is clearly going one way we need to move on. Generally these 6 day some hour closes are on the Page that shows as the same day of the week as today. The 168 hour new 'rule' is silly because 7 days is close enough. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• I have started a RfC at to clarify this issue. There seems to be unclear consensus on this. All discussion regarding this topic should go there, not here. Esquivalience ^t 01:04, 29 January 2016 (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.

SEO editor - requesting site ban

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

---

• Tonyeny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidata contribs

Tonyeny discloses on his user page that he is Tony Edward and works for Elite SEM (that is a link to his current COI disclosure). SEM is a digital PR company that does SEO etc. If you look at the history of his user page, you will see that the disclosure has been absent for the past 6 months.

I first encountered Tony at this COIN thread back in July 2015. He had created articles about his company, its CEO, its clients, and edited articles about his clients without fully disclosing, in violation of the TOU and the COI guideline. I and others worked with him, and I spent a long time nicely talking with him on his talk page, here to try to teach him how he can part of the community with a COI. In response to that, he removed his disclosure and vanished for a bit.

Today I stumbled over his account again, and as you can see from his contribs above, he has gone right back to re-creating articles that he had created before, creating articles about clients, etc. with no disclosure on his User page nor disclosures on the article Talk pages. Given the discussion just a few months before, there is no way that his activities were done out of ignorance.

Instead of coming here right away, I again offered him the opportunity to disclose and follow the COI guideline, this exchange on his Talk page. I was sharp and clear in that discussion. One could even say harsh.

He added disclosures to his user page and to a few of the articles, but not even close to all of them. Yet he wrote in the exchange above, "I have added my clients to my user page and to the pages of those clients that I edited." He did not make the disclosure on the TravelStore article, for example, which he edited, and which his firm uses as a case study for how they helped them "become an online entity and gain a branded Knowledge Graph". In that report they specifically mention "Wikidata Profile Creation" and "Wikipedia Page Creation". Here, btw, is a discussion on Wikidata about deleting the Wikidata entry he created for Fullbeauty Brands, another WP article that he created and edited without disclosing and did not disclose when I gave him the opportunity tonight.

In the Wikidata deletion discussion the editors there linked to this article by him where he teaches other SEO people how to use Wikidata to benefit their clients.

This is not some huge Orangemoody thing but I request a siteban for this user and whatever actions we take against companies like this. Perhaps WMF can consider sending a "cease and desist" letter to them about using our name and mark. (Pinging Slaporte)

But I hope an admin here will swiftly siteban Tonyeny for the TOU violation. We can talk about the rest afterwards. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

the problem here is to judge whether he is being careless, or trying to be deceptive. I suspect careless, because these can be tracked down easily, just as you have done. I suspect that the situation is that he does know our rules, and does know he has to comply with them, and is willing to do so, but doesn't think it important enough to make a serious effort. A block might be a suitable way to prevent further violations, but if he does promise to deal with them he needs chance to do so. And, of course, we now must caefully examine the actual articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I took great pains to explain our ways back in July 2015, in great detail, and they are still on his Talk page. See the diff I provided above (here, again). I think he just has a profound disregard for WP, its mission, and its values. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate paid editing as much as the next person, especially when someone fails to disclose. However, can you tell me why you told the editor this: "And do not direct edit or directly create any more articles about your clients."? Not sure where the editor would be required to stop editing pages as long as they comply with TOU. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@ DGG & @Jytdog - As stated over at COIN, I went through them and the articles should be fine with the exception of the one I mentioned to be borderline and the CEO article which is currently tagged for speedy. Of course, if it survives speedy, I do not really see it surviving AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The COI guideline is very clear that paid editors are strongly advised not to directly edit articles. I had explained that to him earlier and he blew that off along with the disclosure requirement. I acknowledge that my statement there was too strong. Trying to get through to somebody who is not listening. My bad. And it is not a matter of "hating" anything. It is a matter of our mission and the policies and guidelines that make that mission possible. People who are WP:NOTHERE are.. not here. And to be clear, I have redacted what I wrote there. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what your issue is, but I have not been uncivil with you one bit. However, you accusation of ME being a paid editor I find quite interesting. No that you have crossed the line, I will let you know that your comment to that editor was uncivil. It is good you redacted it as Wikipedia works on consensus, not what you feel it should be. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware you had written anything here when I opened the discussion on your Talk page. They are unrelated. I look forward to continuing the discussion at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to you redacting that accusation on my page along with an apologize. Also, do not plan on discussing anything with me unless you are civil. I am an old man that don't like dealing with BS like what you just started. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry about the side show, that was wierd. 10,000 foot level Tonyeny is WP:NOTHERE and is using WP in his SEO business. He had been fully informed of our policies and guidelines back in July, at COIN and on his Talk page. Folks here can do with this, as they will. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I participated (weakly) in the original COIN thread, and my kneejerk reaction is to block or ban. However first maybe we should ask if wielding Wikidata to SEO purposes, as described in the links to the editor's business, is to the betterment of the project, or its detriment. I have just become aware of this practice and am not as sure about what I think about it, as I am about editing Wikipedia itself for profit. I don't think we have to divine his past intent (per DGG, ignorant abuse or knowing abuse of WP/WD) as much as we have to divine his future proclivity to repeat it, and its potential impact. Given that he's basically proclaiming a business model built on it, the first half, proclivity, is easily answered in the affirmative. - Brianhe (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe I hear you on that and i think a discussion of his use of Wikidata might be useful but I am not sure that is in the purview of en-wiki. But maybe at WT:COI? I'll start a discussion there in any case and we can see where that goes. In any case I would like the focus of this thread to be on his behavior in Wikipedia, which in my view violate the ToU, WP:PROMO (well accepted WP policy) and the COI guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Banninate. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The purpose of his wikidata edits is explicit: [29]. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I don't think it could be more clear that this user is here to further their own business and financial interests, not to build the encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban and delete the articles on his company's clients, which are sourced to trivial mentions, self-refs and press releases likely published by his company. Clearly editing for personal profit. Millions of volunteers didn't create this project for you to make money off it. Go away. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban Partial and/or half hearted compliance with the ToU is still failing to comply with Wikipedia's policies. The editor has been advised of our requirements and failed to comply. Beyond that using Wikipedia for SEO purposes nearly guarantees they will be editing against NPOV and skirting WP:N and or WP:WEIGHT. If the primary concern is the client rather than the encyclopedia then the editor should not be here. Nuking the contributions of ToU violating promotional editors should be the standard response. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Update Jbh^Talk 21:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ban per WP:NOTHERE followed by a comprehensive cleanup to revert every trace of anything he has ever done here and at Wikidata. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This is what I see as a huge issue with COI. Put that label (should we make it a scarlet A?) on any editor and then it suddenly becomes a-okay to harass and bully that editor. And if said editor still doesn't catch on that they aren't wanted - Ban them! But, while all this nonsense is done in the name of improving Wikipedia, what it in fact really does is the absolute opposite. Editors who may have an interest in corporate/marketing type articles stay away from them because they don't want to be wrongly accursed and harassed. So Wikipedia is left with savvy paid COI editors, zero neutral editors writing these articles and gobs of incivility. Basically everybody loses here. Well, done! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be worth discussing this, we sometimes do come down a touch harshly on COI editors whose only fault is clueless editing in conflicted areas; we could do better at bringing them around. This is not one of those cases. Tonyeny was one of those cases, before the first time Jytdog calmly and politely explained why their edits were violations of policy. Tonyeny ceased to be one of those cases when he buried his PR disclosure, created multiple articles about his own clients with no disclosure, and openly advertised a service to exploit Wikidata for corporate gain. As someone else said, AGF is not a suicide pact. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Could someone show me a COI editor that wasn't harassed or bullied? One will do, however, more would be preferred, especially if they can speak for themselves. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support site ban for repeatedly and knowingly violating WP's ToU. Miniapolis 01:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban Clearly here to promote self interests and not to better the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support site ban, strongly oppose hackneyed flavor-of-the-month use of "bullied" above. Next thing trolls will be complaining about being "bullied", and sockpuppets will be calling the enforcement of socking poicy "bullying." BMK (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2016 (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.

TheGracefulSlick

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.

---

When is that guys page unprotected? 82.132.233.83 (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The talk page is semi-protected indefinitely due to continual harassment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 28 January 2016 (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.

Strange moving activity by Souzazerosilva

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.

---

Souzazerosilva (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure this falls under any of the other noticeboards, so here we are. After checking contributions, I'm a bit convinced the user is new but probably could use the brakes put on. Since this applies to multiple pages, its much easier to glance at the contributions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the mess and, after considering the user's autoconfirmation history, also blocked the account. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Although, as it turns out, there is some rather major socking going on here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjohnofbom NativeForeigner ^Talk 15:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Well...wow. Guess I stumbled on something bigger than I thought. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Block of Omar-toons

I have indefinitely blocked Omar-toons (talk · contribs) for being a sock-puppet of globally locked Omar-Toons (talk · contribs), and for POV-pushing including routine misrepresentations of sources and mistranslations of foreign-language terms. The latest examples I am aware of are here and here; this was previously discussed at AN/I here. In case people might feel I'm too involved since I had previous run-ins with Omar-toons' POV-pushing, I'm bringing it here for review. Huon (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see, redirected from Omar-Toons in 2012 (which looks like the time of the last block on en-wp with no activity since), history indicates lost password however rather than globally locked? And since there is no evidence they have been running multiple accounts simultaneously, where is the socking? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I wish people would *provide* the background instead of just expecting others to trawl for it. Global lock here. I prodded Vituzzu since he placed the original lock, and it looks like from his notes he did intend to lift it at some point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Too much heavy lifting, OiD? Good thing you had the strength to let us know. Don't work too hard. Tiderolls 14:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on the "contribs" link I provided will show the global lock. Sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear. Huon (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Huon: This issue was raised up in August 2012 (see: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Omar-Toons/Archive#27_August_2012). But, the case was closed by Mailer diablo and AGK with no action. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was pinged from Talk:Spanish protectorate in Morocco about Omar Toons's edits there. I have little to add, and only want to express my despondency here. Thank you Huon. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Hi guys, first of all my apologies to @Vanjagenije: who already asked me about this issue, I wrote him a reply but I forget to save it in time before the failure of the radio bridge I'm using! Anyway, my lock was, originally, meant to be temporary. But since OT went on editing as anon I never unlocked him. Laterly I found his new account which seemed to be a bit less problematic (also being editing fr.wiki without major incidents) so I choose not to lock this too. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Vituzzu. Since its clear Omar is using one account and Vituzzu has stated the original lock a)meant to be temporary, b)didnt unlock it because Omar had been editing without major incidents on another account, can someone unblock his current account with a reminder to only use that one? Its been 3 years since the original lock and he hasnt been re-blocked significantly in that time. Unless there are new editing issues that suggest he should stay blocked indef up for discussion.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I did mention the repeated misrepresentation of sources and mistranslation of foreign-language terms, all to support POV-pushing, didn't I? If there were no other issues with the account, I'd probably have considered that old lock ancient history and ignored it. Unfortunately Omar-toons at best has gotten better at POV-pushing, he hasn't ceased. Huon (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Anni Dewani

This is a three-part request concerning Murder of Anni Dewani. First, I would like to thank User:Bishonen for keeping things under control. Second, I would like to request another set of admin eyes at the page. There is persistent sockpuppetry in trying to insert BLP violations implying that a person must have been guilty of arranging a murder when he was in fact tried and acquitted of that. Third, for reasons explained at the talk page, I would like to request an opinion from an editor who is a lawyer in a common-law country (and most but not all Anglophone lawyers are common-law lawyers) to address a questionable legal claim by the POV-pushers and sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that sockpuppet investigations/accusations belong at WP:SPI. BLP issues belong on WP:BLPN. The other issue is a content question, possibly best inquired at the WP:Help Desk or WP:RSN, or a WikiProject, etc. I'm not sure it belongs on ANI, especially when worded as "for reasons explained at the talk page" (when the talk page is 368,000 bytes long). (Especially if you have one admin already on the case.) Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking for more admin eyes when a single admin has been doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting is a perfectly valid use of this board. We don't need to split the single issue of extreme disruption at one article amongst multiple notice boards. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

With that said, I'm working on the socking aspect of the case. If another admin or two would be willing to watchlist the article to help Bishonen stick handle the advocacy edits there, it would be appreciated.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've asked for a lawyer at WP:WikiProject Law. To summarize, what happened is that Anni Hindocha Dewani, an Indian-Swedish woman, was murdered in South Africa. It appeared to be a botched carjacking. Several of the suspects were arrested by South African police. They confessed, but they said that the killing had been a contract killing. The only person who was thought to have the reason to arrange the killing was her husband, Shrien Dewani. He was then extradited to South Africa and tried. He was acquitted, and the confessions were found to contain lies, as to the contract killing. One editor continues to maintain that it was legally found to have been a contract killing. That editor has been topic-banned under BLP discretionary sanctions, but is using sockpuppets. That is a summary of what is happening. Thanks, again, to Bishonen, and also to User:Ponyo. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Woodseats44 and probably User talk:Cobulator and probably User:DeFacto and apparently quite a lot of others

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 above editor, who appears to use a large number of sockpuppets, was unblocked in February 2015, despite a large number of infringements of Wikipedia policy. He has since recommenced his campaign to add the tag 'Previous Denomination: Roman Catholic' to the infoboxes of a large number of pre-Reformation English and Welsh churches, e.g. Church of St. Nicholas, Grosmont, Church of St Cadoc, Raglan, Monmouthshire and many others. This is exactly the action he undertook at Lincoln Cathedral for which, after lengthy debate on the Talkpage, he was originally blocked. Can I ask that his actions be reviewed. I would suggest that the assessment made in January 2015 by User:PhilKnight, "In all seriousness, I think the chances of you contributing usefully to Wikipedia are outweighed by the chances of you causing further disruption." has been amply vindicated. I have notified User talk:Woodseats44 of this post. With many thanks. KJP1

A particularly tedious POV-pusher. I would block him myself but if this is DeFacto we have history (where he was equally tedious). Guy (Help!) 23:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

DeFacto is community banned. Any editor can revert his socks and any admin can block them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I indefblocked them. No idea about connections to two other blocked users.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for such a prompt and effective response. Very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

About 80 edits, made since 18 October 2015, remain uncorrected: [30]. Is there some kind of global rollback facility for a given user's contributions, or must they each be reverted one by one? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

They have to be reverted one by one (a rollback flag proves to be handy), unless of course you convince a bot owner to help you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the sort of menial and mindless task to which my intellect is so well-suited, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Now all done. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2016 (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 removal of "reviewer" user right

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.

---

Following the discovery of a number of copyright violations, I've had to request a CCI for User:Keivan.f. Several of the problem edits were to Diana, Princess of Wales, where they were automatically accepted because the user is a pending changes reviewer. It's at least possible that the copyvios would have been noticed sooner if the edits had been subject to review by another editor. Should that right be suspended for this user until the CCI request has been evaluated and the extent of the problem established? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits don't need to be reviewed not because I'm a reviewer but a long-term editor. You should have known this. And I don't know what's your problem with me. According to your message on my talk page I had to remove the copyrighted information from the article which I did. Anything else? Keivan.f^Talk 11:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Block requested. This is more serious that I had thought. The editor shows absolutely no understanding of our copyright policy, and has today re-added to Diana, Princess of Wales much of the copyvio content that I had removed there yesterday (please see this comparison). For example, this edit from 11.51 this morning restored material copied from the Daily Telegraph obituary, dated 31 August 1997 (I searched for "that she had initially focused upon continued"). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers That was accidental. Just tell me which parts need to be removed and I'll remove them myself. Keivan.f^Talk 12:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Besides see the current version. It's not used as a source on the article. I realized that I shouldn't have added it and I removed it even before you mention it here. So stop accusing me. Keivan.f^Talk 12:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If he's copy-pasting text directly from sources, then he shouldn't have the pending changes reviewer right, as that's one of the types of edits that you're supposed to check. However, removing the user right won't stop him from bypassing pending changes. Any autoconfirmed editor will bypass PC1, and there's no consensus to enable PC2 on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate OK. I confess that I made a mistake by copy-pasting the text but now I know that I shouldn't have done this. It was completely accidental because I wasn't informed about this rule. Is there any way for me to keep the reviewing right? Keivan.f^Talk 12:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Before you do anything else on Wikipedia please go and read WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: - Technically PC2 is enabled it's just there's no consensus to use it - but is there a consensus for it not to be used? Or is it stuck in a weird gray area? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the latest RFC, there was "no consensus yet to implement PC2". The drama swirling around it is actually kind of amusing if you're more amused than depressed by Wikipedia's endless bureaucracy. So far, we've got consensus for when it should be used but not for using it. Some day, we're going to hold an RFC to see if there's consensus to hold an RFC to enable PC2. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the flag, since we can not afford to give this flag to someone who adds copyrighted text in the article, even if they removed it later, as soon as they do not see a problem with adding copyright violations. I left the rollback flag, since I do not see any harm of having it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Keivan.f, you have almost 15,000 edits. You've added copyvio to Wikipedia at least as far back as 11 September 2012. If the CCI is accepted, there'll be about 170 articles that someone will have to go through, manually and one by one, to check whether your additions were acceptable or not. I left you a template warning, a note and a contributor copyright investigation notice yesterday, yet today you again violated our copyright policy. How can you say that you weren't informed? I'm sorry, but I don't think you should be allowed to edit until you can demonstrate a clear understanding of the problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers It's not up to you to decide. I clearly understand what the problem is and I apologized for it. Let me tell you something. Many of my contributions are only small changes. I usually don't create articles or spend time on them and Diana's article is only a exception. Thanks to you I was forced to remove a lot of it. Anyway at last I want to say that all of my edits weren't copy-paste and almost all of them were with good-faith. If you believe there's something that I can do to solve this problem then tell me. Keivan.f^Talk 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers I'll be glad if someone starts to check my edits. Why don't you do it yourself? But I really doubt you find anything else to show that I have violated copyright permissions. Anyway, as I said I truly like this place and appreciate it so much. I know some articles created and edited by other users that have copyright problems. If you want to know about them, just leave a message on my talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 16:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. The block will stay in place until he can convince us that he understands and will follow our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

edit summery vandalism

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

---

the comment made on Shelton, Washington by user 70.106.146.62 in the edit summery is offensive and abusive. This comment needs to be deleted and the user banned permanently! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.199.240.38 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The vile racial slur deserves a revdel. Unfortunately, drive-by IP's don't get bans or lengthy blocks unless the sockmaster is known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent a message to an admin with the edit in question who could possibly do a RevDel. At the risk of saying more for the Streisand Effect, I'll leave it at it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I revision-deleted the summary (I guess I am not the admin you contacted).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2016 (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.

Eightball

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.

---

Reported user:

• Eightball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI/AN3 discussions involving Eightball (when searching):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive91#Eightball reported by Grant.Alpaugh (Result: prot) (9 February 2009)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive110#User:Eightball reported by User:The359 (Result: Protected 24 hours) (16 September 2009)
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive263#User:Eightball reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Not blocked, page protected) (21 November 2014)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Talk:2014 Formula One season (12 January 2014)
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#Behavior of User:Eightball (22 November 2014)
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#User continually reverts correct edits (14 September 2015) (Note: Eightball reported me Qed237)
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Personal attacks and harassment from User:Eightball (18 September 2015)
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#Conduct of user Eightball (5 December 2015)

Reason:

After personal attacks and unsourced and disruptive edits, the editor was reported to WP:AIV and I was told to go to ANI (diff), while the editors report of me being a vandal was dismissed (diff) was removed by admin User:KrakatoaKatie. So for that reason I go here instead to report and explain.

It is a long history between us, unfortunately but I will try and keep it short and focus on the most recent events.

It started when I reverted incorrect stats updates (timestamps not updated), which lead to the discussion #6 above that was later clodes with No action against Qed237, however, User:Eightball is warned to back off, and drop the WP:STICK. (Continued in a below discussion). This close after several editors claimed I did nothing wrong and was correcdt in reverting although it would have been better if I explained why I reverted and fixed the error myself.

After this, Eightball started to harass me which lead to #7 after calling me a vandal, said to an other editor that I am insane, called me petulant baby and more. He was once again told by several editors to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back of and not use statements such as QED is an obvious troll and people like him desperately need to be purged from this site.

This lead me to creating user subpages like User:Qed237/player, User:Qed237/time, User:Qed237/live etc to quickly give editors informative personal messages to why they were reverted, but Eithball does not care, once called a vandal, I will always be a vandal to him.

Since then he has been involved with an other editor (see #8 above) after which he was blocked for personal attack after being warned. He has also kept on visiting my talkpage with unpleasant messages, following me like 28 Sep '15 and 18 Dec '15. He also destroyed a RfA someone nominated me for (which I later declined before it went "live"), using very bad language about the fact that I would even be considered. He most likely stalks my talkpage do get these kind of messages when I am nominated and adds himself to discussions (harassment). He refuses to drop the stick.

Today he re-appeared and supported an editor edit warring (diff) and he even reverted me when I removed that message (at my talkpage!) (diff) an editor that has been told several times he is closing in on an indefinite block (diff and diff). But Eigthball does not mind supporting anyone that has even the smallest problem with me and other editors.

He did this after I reverted this edit (diff of revert) on Arsenal F.C. since it was completely unsourced. He then responded by reverting me and adding a source (diff) which did not support the claim after which I reverted again (diff) and left a friendly message at his talkpage explaining why (diff). That message was removed and he did the same edity again, now calling me a vandal using caps (dif) and adding a blogg as a source (diff)

I can not see an end to this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and personal attacks, which is why I report. Qed237 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I encouraged Qed237 to come here, I don't think it's appropriate for me to block Eightball. His edits today, an argument over a player's loan, weren't vandalism so AIV wasn't the place for it to be handled. However, Eightball needs either a timeout or we need to decide that our patience has been exhausted. An IBAN won't work, IMO, because Qed237 is one of our most prolific editors on football topics and all Eightball will need to do is keep disrupting those articles, preventing Qed237 from doing the good work he's done for years. A topic ban may simply shift the problem to another area, but we could try it. Katie^talk 01:03, 30 January 2016 (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:68.231.26.111

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

---

This IP has so far reverted[31][32][33] my edits at Portal:Current events/2016 January 28, as well as throw out an accusation of sock puppetry towards another editor when they have done the same.[34] I tried to engage in discussion on the IP's talk-page with no response. [35] Given this IP's history of edit warring I do not know how to proceed here with no discussion at hand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

my history? you have a history from my view of adding biased material to an encyclopedia and I see that you were previously banned for doing so - now again you attempt to add material to wiki which is unsuitable to an encyclopedia - you need to realize that enclopedias are about knowledge that needs to be known in 20 years time if not a thousands! - it is not your personal playground for for your political views of events so insignificant that they will be forgotten by next week's mainstream media's news cycle! - the item in question again as I have said and you have given no defence of fails WP:GEVAL, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTABILITY as I have previously said repeatedly - further it is probably a failure of WP:BLP and as such to any of those items warrants, by wiki's own rules immediate reversion!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said I tried to engage with you on your talk-page with no response, you have also been reverted by another editor. [36] You have to stop the edit warring, and start the discussion. Throwing wikilinks to policies at editors without citing why isn't helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And the edit warring continues... [37]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2016 (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.

Nonfree image needs to be removed from protected 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.

---

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 30 includes a nonfree image. The image must be changed or removed. It's nonfree, and even it were the only image available to illustrate any of the anniversaries, it would still fail NFCC#8. The main page, of which this will be a subpage tomorrow, is also outside articlespace, so nonfree images are presumably banned entirely from it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it by commenting out the image from the code (so that the add-an-image code is there for a replacement). In the future it may be better to report this at AN as this is not an incident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 29 January 2016 (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.

Unraveling a problem at B-Movie (disambiguation)

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 need someone with better understanding of the Move process and possibly some access I don't have to help unravel a problem that has popped up. An editor, in an apparently attempt to get around an existing AFD deletion and (I presume) to avoid New Page Patrol problems, took the existing article B-Movie (disambiguation), moved it to Patrick Mario Knapp Schwarzenegger, and then replaced all the content with a biography. He then created a new page at B-Movie (disambiguation), restoring the old content there via copy/paste, and thus losing all the editing history that should go with that page. Normally, I'd simply have the new B-Movie article speedy-deleted and then move the Schwarzenegger page back, restoring its original content... but as another editor has pointed out, in the meantime someone has added new content to the new B-Movie page, so what is really needed is a merger that includes a history merger, with all the content winding up at B-Movie and the Schwarzenegger page being deleted. Anyone care to iron this one out? --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@NatGertler: OK, I think we're done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Except that I've left the Patrick Mario Knapp Schwarzenegger page in place. You mentioned an AfD, I'll check that out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And Patrick Mario Knapp Schwarzenegger is deleted, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2016 (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:Bad Dryer blatant violation of WP:NPA

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.

---

• Bad Dryer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This diff shows the editor "Bad Dryer" asserting "I realize that Nishandi [sic -- refers to Nishidani] takes a more favorable view of man-child sex than society on a whole does". This is a personal attack well beyond the pale of what our policies allow for talk-page participation. There is a longer history here regarding this editor's "contribution" to editing in the Israel/Palestine topic area (the block log contains the phrase "racially tinged button pushing"), and I think we need to part ways. I'd propose an indefinite block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see personal attacks in the diff.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I edit-conflicted with you, with gave me another moment to reflect, but I haven't changed my mind: the attack is about the worst example of a failure of AGF, and its charge of pedophilia is only thinly veiled. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  I am fine, English is not my mothertongue anyway, and there could be some details which I do not feel well enough.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait--I had to read the posting twice. The attack, as far as I'm concerned, isn't in the sentence cited above, but rather in the suggestion that the two concerned editors are writing "a promotional brochure for NAMBLA". I am going to block indefinitely for this, and welcome discussion here. I'm going offline for a while: any admin who feels this is too strong is welcome to overrule me, always, and perhaps Bad Dryer has words to offer which can mitigate the situation. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Admins should note Bad Dryer is Brad Dyer, the contentious editor who faced off with Malik Shabazz leading to an infamous ArbCom case not too long ago. They were indef'd during that case, and I'm frankly amazed that was ever lifted, given the behaviour that led to it which they seem to be repeating here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy started this insinuation on the 25th 'Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?'

I ignored this because for several years he has engaged in personal attacks, apparently because he is convinced I am an anti-Semite. He has to deal with that obsessive conviction, I ignore it. Nonetheless, now the personal attack is getting out of hand, with innuendos my editing reveals a lenient attitude towards homosexual statutory rape. Still, he only made that sassy crack once, and I dislike litigation. I did think it important for the BLP article to make clear in the lead a clear distinction between rape and statutory rape, and this was continually messed with by Bad Dryer and several other editors, on political smearing grounds, as far as I understand. So

I opened a discussion on Alex Massie’s article on the affair at The Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where the distinction is made, and the clear political intent to blur it and discredit a person is outlined. This by no means can be translated into either Massie or my approving of underage sex.

It's not enough that 3 days later, Bad Dryer against recycled the insinuation:I realize that Nishandi and Massie take a more favorable view of man-child sex than society on a whole does, but as was explained to him on the talk page, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a promotional brochure for NAMBLA.

After he was indeffed for this typical insult, NMMGG immediately came back to the attack. He just addressed me with the identical insult you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

He's allowed his obsession to get the better of him once more, and should be suspended. The offensive insinuation is exactly the one that Bad Dryer used, he coined it, and with impunity repeats it after the latter was indeffed, refusing to take even that hint to drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing started when Nishidani, in article space, placed the word victim in quotes, when referring to a minor which was involved in a statutory rape case against the subject of the article. Not a single source put that words in quotes. He then continued to defend this position.

For the record, I didn't know Bad Dryer was indeffed, I only learned about this discussion from the ping in the post above mine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You say I 'repeatedly' tried to justify sex with a minor. There is no evidence for this absurd claim. Both Nawi's case and the parallel case I cite of upwards of 20 soldiers abusing a 12/13 year old Israeli girl are appalling. The scarce Israeli reports on the latter never use the word 'victim' of the girl (though she was). That is why I left the word in inverted commas, was overruled and left it at that. All I get for a rational consideration is personal abuse from two of you, and insinuations about being a propagandist for an organization I'd never heard of. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are the relevant discussions [38] [39]. I will leave it to other editors to decide if you "left" the word in inverted commas (you put it there in the first place) because of some unrelated statutory rape case you brought up no less than 5 days later, or because you explicitly said the minor was not a victim, complete with the phrase "ostensible victim" and a dictionary definition of "victim" which you said does not apply to this 15 year old (see my link above). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Shifting the goalposts. I nowhere violate my own convictions by endorsing, justifying or promoting sexual relations with minors. I everywhere note the incongruencies of editors and sources that fail to treat the same facts with the same criteria in the I/P conflict. Your case against me as an anti-Semite flopped, and it is time administrators put an end to the new insinuation you began in my regard, by reading into my edits about Nawi some defense of what he did, as paedophilic propaganda, as opposed to getting the historical details correct. You've been around long enough to know this is unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty messed up. It's starting to look like Nishandi is a POV-pusher.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No it's not, and it's irrelevant, and you are? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I was earlier mentioned by name with this user on another board [[40]] simply because I happened to be on the same side of the argument on this particular article, and I am absolutely compelled to write here to distance myself 100% from the actions and speech of Bad Dryer, as I find what he wrote in this instance reprehensible...but absolutely not atypical for his style. I believe most Wikipedia editors who have commented/edited on any article which has anything remotely to do with a Jewish figure will have come across Bad Dryer at some point, and as shown, quickly labeled an anti-semite (among other epithets) whenever there is a difference of opinion to his. I personally have a thick skin and don't believe editors should whine and go running to the boards every time they get their "feelings hurt", but hat is worrisome here is that his comments and behavior often appear to be "unbalanced" and cross a line where normal empathetic humans simply do not (i.e. racially-tinged taunts or insinuating someone's support for pedophilia in this case). For some reason known only to him, one day I saw this oddly-worded threat on my page[[41]]:

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

Just saying. Or maybe not.

Watch it. Bad Dryer (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For these reasons and those outlined above, I am seriously hoping this user is blocked indefinitely, although I am fairly certain he has at least one (probably several) established sock-puppets, not including random IP entries. I am also confident this user will be back despite the block, but I believe an indefinite block is necessary to show other editors this type of behavior is both unproductive and absolutely not the "standard" one should hope for when joining/editing Wikipedia.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2016 (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.

Boyconga278 and competence

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.

---

Editor reported

• Boyconga278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The reason for this report is the lack of WP:COMPETENCE for Boyconga278. This concerned has been expressed by multiple users. And I will take some step-by-step incidents.

1. First he accused me of vandalism and gave me a level 3 warning (no warning in the past so why level 3 I have no idea) on 23 June 2015 (See User talk:Qed237/Archive 15#2015 FIFA Women's World Cup at 23 June 2015). When I asked him why, he never answered despite other editors joining that discussion questioning Boyconga and I left him a talkback template at his talkpage.
2. He has also been questioned by admin, at User talk:Boyconga278#Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group A table etc after some incorrect CSD tagging when saying that the creator wanted templates deleted although he did not and the templates were at TfD.
3. After that he nominated templates for deletion without motivation (diff).
4. He accused an other experienced editor for vandalism when the editor had created an article (diff) and being warned again not to do so at User talk:Boyconga278#Reverting my edits on 2019 Southeast Asian Games
5. Once again he accused an editor for vandalism (diff) when the edit was well explained and not vandalism.
6. In August I tried to get some responses (see User talk:Boyconga278#re: August 2015) as to why he keeps saying everything he dont like is vandalism, but the response I got was I think you did bad and terribly laugh. You maybe too crazy heavy and it is clear that he does not have competence to communicate.
7. Then in User talk:Boyconga278#Your protection requests an other admin for the lack of knowledge in protection guidelines after making some weird requests.
8. A new vandalism accusation came and response can be seen at User talk:Boyconga278#Hello and this time User:Kante4 said You have no clue what you are doing here, no competence at all. Maybe a ANI would be needed and/or a block.
9. And finally, edit warring today and accusing the other editor of vandalism and reports to AN3, which led to page protection.

This editor lacks in WP:COMPETENCE and keeps on making disruptive edits and accuse otheres of vandalism, while not being able to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. His level of english is not good enough to contribute here. He says that every edit he does not like is vandalism, so yeah, he is missing the required competence. Kante4 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion. I was hoping the protection would encourage him to engage, but I don't see that has happened. I'm going to leave a note on his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there would be too many objections if you had just dropped the indef off the bat. There language competence is subpar. Blackmane (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so either, the garbled syntax in the message they left on my talkpage was impressive. Still, I'm giving them a chance to reply. If they start up with the vandalism schtick again or start edit-warring any admin can indef as far as I'm concerned. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: It looks like User:Boyconga278 will not reply (as usual the lack of discussion is shown). The editor hass edited more today without discussion. Qed237 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: And now I saw he was blocked, so this can be archieved. Qed237 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2016 (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.

AndrewOne edits to Shoah (film)

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.

---

AndrewOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been playing this silly game for some time, so when I called him up on it, he became indignant and began calling me names. He put a preposterous claim wrote in the lead of Shoah (film), which is on my watchlist, that Shoah has since come to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, ranking highly in various critics' polls. – His claim contained a lie, because there was no "various polls" in his edit, only one poll from www.bfi.org.uk webpage which AndrewOne has been adding repeatedly to a number of Wikipedia articles this month. See the samples: [42], [43], [44], [45]. The source looks like a blog. The repeat addition of this link to many articles make AndrewOne look like a spokesman for www.bfi.org.uk but he denies the connection. Nevertheless, his edit was a glaring WP:REDFLAG. The revert war followed. Please proceed at your own peril! The link added by AndrewOne contains a virus that will force-open a black pop up window on your monitor that cannot be removed without reboot. If you don't mind that, here it is: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magazine/greatest-docs

diffs

1. 21:06, 29 January 2016:‎ original redflag claim from AndrewOne attributed to www.bfi.org.uk
2. 23:57, 29 January 2016:‎ AndrewOne reverting back
3. 03:03, 30 January 2016‎: AndrewOne changed the link to a virus from www.bfi.org.uk
4. 05:57, 30 January 2016‎: AndrewOne re-added the same virus in a blanket revert

Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no virus on that page. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this all about. The British Film Institute is a reliable source, Sight & Sound is a reliable source, and these rankings should be reported in the article. The wording used is sub-optimal and is a bit peacock-ish, but that can fixed through normal editing. I would suggest you take this up with WikiProject Film if you have concerns, but they're just going to tell you what I told you. This stuff about a COI/virus/etc is over-the-top. Just fix the peacock wording and move on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what to call this link: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magazine/greatest-docs. It is not a link to Sight & Sound poll, but an info page. The link opened a black pop-up on my screen. I had to reboot to remove it. Poeticbent talk 16:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no virus on that webpage. No malware. No black pop up. Only you are seeing this. Only you have malware. You need to fix this yourself. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) That link works just fine for me and doesn't cause any odd effects, nor does it trip anything as far as security. It's a genuine link to BFI, and I strongly doubt they'd push crapware. Something very likely happened with your own machine (or you have malware on your machine; I'd certainly advise you check), but there's nothing malicious at that link. The rest is a content dispute; handle it as such. Dispute resolution is thataway if needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I see it now. The black pop-up came from the predetermined http://player.bfi.org.uk/ featured on that webpage. I have my own player though. No malware, just the apparent incompatibility of differing software. Anyhow, the poll is a joke. It includes 68 votes from quote-unquote members who listed this film as number 29 in their "Critics" poll, and number 48 in their "Directors" poll. Not exactly the greatest film ever made by "various polls". Poeticbent talk 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyhow. I would like to take you advice NinjaRobotPirate and fix the peacock wording by quoting this conversation as binding. I hope its OK. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This conversation has told you that you weren't seeing malware on the BFI website and that this is not the place for a content dispute; it's not come to any "binding" conclusion. If you do take the content dispute elsewhere, do be clear what you're disputing. You write above "Not exactly the greatest film ever made" but in your original posting quoted and took issue with "regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, ranking highly in various critics' polls" (my emphasis) and Shoah is indeed ranked highly, at least in various British Film Institute polls. NebY (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing the heading of this thread because it was an honest mistake on my part. However, one poll is a one poll, and any other polls would have to be referenced separately. Therefore this is a WP:NOR issue, and I think that it can be addressed as such in mainspace. Poeticbent talk 17:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nor is it acceptable to accuse another editor of including a lie in an edit. This is an accusation of deliberate deceit, and shows an appalling lack of good faith. I advise you to strike out that claim from your post. RolandR (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Misleading would be a better word of course, but you RolandR could also chill out a bit, Poeticbent talk 17:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly chilled (and drinking a perfectly chilled Sauvignon). What difference does that make to a personal attack? RolandR (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you also like to strike out the fourth of your "sample" diffs above, which makes no reference to the BFI? NebY (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have that issue of Sight & Sound and it's quite an indeepth feature on documentary films, with plenty of coverage on Shoah. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I was the person who made these inexplicably contentious edits.

Anyone who is particularly interested in this dispute can see Talk:Shoah (film)#Sight & Sound poll cited in the lead paragraph. I have no affiliation with the British Film Institute. I add citations to their polls simply because the Sight & Sound polls are widely known among art-house and classic film circles, and because I am of these circles. For example, I added that various critics had voted for Mikio Naruse's film Floating Clouds (1955) in order to add relevant content to an article section which centered on reception and/or acclaim. I believe it is especially advisable to cite professional polls in the event that few written reviews are available, because polls are at the very least a way of determining present-day reception toward a work, which no Wikipedia film page will ever be hurt by including.

Now, needless to say, I'm not a fan of Poeticbent's conduct here. It appears that various parts of the user's original complaint have now been struck out, hinting at repeated fabrication on his part. I did not "call him names" on the talk page for the film, nor did I become "indignant." His assertion here that the polls are "a joke" shows once again that he is making no effort to truly read my responses, or apparently those of NinjaRobotPirate. Following his reversions, I posted on the film's talk page that I had assumed good faith, explaining why his rejection of the Sight & Sound polls' reliability had been in error. There were several reversions of his removals (some of which changed the wording) – but this was not done impolitely or left unexplained.

As it is now, the lead section for Shoah now informs readers that the film is regarded as one of the "greatest documentaries ever made" – and since I linked to a professional critics' poll of the greatest documentaries in which Shoah was ranked second, the truth of this statement is beyond dispute. Even to say that it is regarded as "one of the greatest" films ever made shouldn't incite all that much controversy, but it can be debated if one wants. To see more of my explanations and writing on these matters, you can once again visit the talk page for the film. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• So why is it, that the scathing criticism is attributed to Polish and American critics, who happen to have written about it at length, but the poll (which does not require the same effort) is not being identified as British in the lede? – The article has a long history of being the target of vandalism. All criticism was being removed as far as 2013 with abusive edit summaries (122.105.145.163). No wonder I got nervous. However, since I already admitted to making a mistake this time, there's no need to rub it in. If you really want to be fair, why don't you mention in the lede that the poll was British. Would you have a problem with that? Poeticbent talk 20:16, 30 January 2016 (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.

Laceytown 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.

---

This is interesting. This article was prodded last night and by all outward apperences, it appeared legit, so I reverted the prod. Upon further investigstion, the school's street address is a shopping mall, the phone number is a text only cell, and this is where it gets interesting, a Google image search turned up the photo on the article as photos of two different schools in Alabama. (here). Not looking for blocks or anything (perhaps someone could handle the CSD tho) n just leaving this here in case someone with more time than I wants to check it out. Somebody sure went to a lot of trouble for a scam. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuke the article (I've blanked it as a hoax) and indef the creator, User:Laceytownhigh. BMK (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Already idef'd in November. BMK (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

..for the username only. It's generally not a good idea to speedy suspected hoaxes because they're so easy to get wrong, and really benefit from wider scrutiny. Here we have at least four editors agreeing, including myself and the IP user who spotted it, so I've deleted it. Other users are free to conduct further checks for themselves. This would not be the first hoax school to be deleted, but probably the first one with a website, a sports team, and an active twitter feed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:46, 30 January 2016 (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.

LeoRomero

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 just blocked LeoRomero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for trolling Jimbo's talk page and making gratuitous personal attacks. However this behaviour seems somewhat out of character, based on a sample of recent contributions, and I'm concerned the account may be compromised. Any thoughts? BethNaught (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This unblock request adds to the suspicion that the account is compromised. Should be blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I reblocked them indef--Ymblanter (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Please help judging whether the proposed deletion of article Dew computing is fair

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

---

Dear Administrator:

I am sorry to bother you. Please help to check what have happened upon the article Dew computing.

From Jan. 11 to 26, 2016, I edited an article Dew computing to a new version. On Jan. 26, an editor (Mys 721tx) reverted my editing to a previous version, and commented 'spam'. Another editor immediately undid the reverting and commented 'It doesn't seem like spam to me. Good faith edit.' The first editor reverted it back again and the comment was 'Conflit of Interest. He cites himself in most parts.' I asked questions and discussed with related editors, and it turned out that the problem was my ID: Ywangupeica. It showed that I am the author of some papers I cited.

On Jan. 28, I explained my understanding about the COI issue in the talk page Talk:Dew computing, and in this page I also expressed that I think the 'spam' comment 'is not accurate and it is insulting'. Maybe I offended him in this post. Only 2 hours 47 minutes after I posted the above message in the talk page, this editor nominated deletion for this article with a comment "Not notable, with questionable minor journal as sources".

Here I explain my points related to the notability issue:

1. I understand that notability is an important requirement in Wikipedia. Last year, I submitted an article with the same title, and it was rejected because of notability reason. This year, an article written by someone else with more sources was submitted and accepted. Actually, the same editor who rejected my last year's submission accepted this year's submission. I think notability criteria have been carefully applied to this article.

2. The sources are not minor at all. Inderscience Publishers is listed in Wikipedia, it is "an academic publisher that publishes peer-reviewed journal". Beall list does not have Inderscience Publishers. Their review was pretty tough. It took them 13 months to accept one of my papers. "RonPub" was listed in Beall's list in 2014, and it was removed from the list in 2015. These facts show they are reputable academic journals.

3. Since the article was accepted, 5 editors have done some editing to this article before 'Mys 721tx' touched it. Because notability is an essential requirement, all these editors would already have evaluated notability when they read the article for the first time. The fact that they did not conclude this article was not notable clearly shows that they believe it is notable.

4. Even 'Mys 721tx' himself believed this article was notable at the beginning. On Jan. 26, he proposed to delete my other three pages (Cloud-dew architecture and the Chinese translations for Dew computing and Cloud-dew architecture) and reverted Dew computing to its earlier version at the same time. He applied his standard of notability to all the 4 articles, and decided that the other three were not notable, but Dew computing was notable. He decided to revert it to its previous version.

5. 'Mys 721tx' changed his mind about this article's notability at 22:38, 28 January 2016‎, 2 hours 47 minutes after I posted a message expressing my opinion on his reverting decision. I guess some of my writing in my post made him not happy. My message triggered his deletion decision.

To summarize, the notability issue does not exist at all. It was taken as a measure to deal with the dispute about reverting.

I read the policy regarding deletion, and in the following situations, 'speedy keep' could be taken by an administrator.

"Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course." "Nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (this includes editor harassment)." (see Wikipedia:Deletion process)

Could you please check what have happened and make decisions at your discretion?

Thank you very much, Ywangupeica (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've just blanked this article and listed it at WP:CP as a foundational copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The nomination is perfectly in order. You need to make the case for the article there. Right now several other Wikipedians disagree with you, and no administrator is going to "speedy keep" this. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with editor Justlettersandnumbers's decision regarding copyright issue of this article. This is one of the reasons that I revised the article. Although the current version (which was an old version that editor 'Mys 721tx' reverted to) has copyright issue, the version I revised does not have this copyright issue. Ywangupeica (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already notified the editor according to the rules in the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mys_721tx#Dew_computing_reverting.3F. This page also shows that I asked questions, but he did not give me advice. Another editor went in his talk page and gave me some suggestions, I conformed with all these advice but he still did not answer me, simply reverted and deleted the article. Ywangupeica (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to ask a question: is Finlay McWalter the Administrtor? Is this the final answer to my message? Ywangupeica (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is just venue shopping. The two articles about "Dew computing" and "Cloud-dew architecture" are at AfD and that is the correct venue for discussing their future. They are both already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing so it is not like the matter is being conducted in secret or requires wider publicity. The fact that they are already gathering Delete !votes at quite a pace may be frustrating but I am not sure what bringing it up here is meant to achieve. I assume that the intention is not merely to draw even more Delete !votes, although that is quite possibly going to be the effect. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (Not an administrator. Just a reader of this board.)

The original report is too long, didn't read. What speaks for itself is that both articles were blanked as containing copyright violation. Wikipedia does not permit copyright violation. Don't try to make a tedious case for improper deletion when the copyright issue is self-explanatory. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2016 (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:Shootseven's constant vandalism of Billy the Kid

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 user Shootseven has been targeting the article Billy the Kid and vandalising it, even after a 4IM warning (and several other warnings by Winkelvi and I). Winkelvi recently took this user to AN/EW but very little has been done. Here are the diffs, courtesy of WV:

1. [46]]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. 05:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "See "Unauthenticated photographs" section of talk page for explanation."
5. 04:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Please see "Unauthenticated photographs" on "Talk" page before undoing this Undid revision 702374581 by Winkelvi (talk)"
6. 04:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702374237 by Winkelvi (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 04:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) to 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed unauthenticated photo of Tom O'Folliard; photos from the "Phillips Collection" have no provenance."
   2. 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed "croquet photo" because the entire section claimed it had been authenticated when every credible BTK historian disputes that - should be put back as alleged."

I have left WV's annotations as they were at AN/EW. Considering that this article has been nominated for GA status, this particular user and their edits are a serious cause for concern. I would appreciate an administrator's help on this matter, but I personally feel as if a block is within the best interests of the article and its editors. Kindest regards, Ches (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to say I stand by my edits and despite claims, they were all sourced. The last one was very minor, just changing "authenticated photograph" to "alleged authenticated photograph" with source material to back it up. I've tried to discuss this with User:Winkelvi and User:Chesnaught555; but never receive a response when I ask what they'd rather have me do instead or ask to discuss the photographs in question. Shootseven (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy close with a block of both Shootseven and Winkelvi. (Uninvolved comment) This is forum shopping at its worst, copying a a case from AN/EW [49] and pasting it here. As I commented an AN/EW, it's obvious that both Shootseven and Winkelvi have engaged in very extensive edit warring with each other, and both users performed four identical reverts in less than an hour. There is no point in having an open case here at ANI, so I suggest a speedy close, and the obvios blocks for both Shootseven and Winkelvi. Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I placed WV's diffs here because, since his filing of Shootseven at AN/EW, the latter user has continued to vandalise BTK. Call it forum shopping, but it's justifiable here considering Shootseven's behaviour. It is evidently clear that Shootseven's edits are pure vandalism, whereas WV is actually contributing, and has contributed to the article majorly; in fact, he has helped get the article nominated for GA status. Ches (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that I offered a compromise to the user being reported here, stating I would consider adding to the croquet photo section that there are historians who doubt the authentication of the photo. The user ignored the suggested compromise and continued to edit war, remove sourced content, and return to the same behavior again today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, Shootseven's edits are problematic but they are not "pure vandalism". As an experienced user, Chesm you should know what vandalism is. And yes, WV is a good user with a lot of useful contributions. But the simple fact of the matter is that both Shootseven and Winkelvi violated 3RR. Being right is not an excuse for violating 3RR. You know that, so I think there's very little here to do. Shootseven is a new user who should learn how to edit. Winkelvi is an experienced user who should know better. I hope they both can return to edit constructively, but this matter is so clear I don't see why it should take up more time. 3RR is a very clear policy, and reverting 4 times in less than an hour, as both users did, should lead to a block. Nothing more to add, really. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2016 (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.

Shared/compromised account

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

---

These two versions of the user page belonging to Jukebx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was created after some obvious vandalism by the account, indicate a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT violation. Since the user is attributing vandalism to others who have used the account, and then later claims to share the account with them, I think the guidance from WP:COMPROMISED would be to indef the account and encourage creation of a new account with better security practices. I know WP:COMPROMISED is more precisely dealing with unblock requests, but I think the concept is applicable. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NOSHARE, you're not allowed to share your account. Also, user admits that some of his friends are WP:NOTHERE, which would be reason enough to block even if shared accounts where allowed. Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2016 (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.

Obvious sock at Sockpuppet investigations/Wordfunk

Would appreciate someone else reviewing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wordfunk - I learned of the SPI today after looking at edit history on the most recent sock. The socks have thus far all self-acknowledged themselves, so have all been blocked. Due to the self-acknowledgement, I don't think an SPI was even needed - behavioral evidence was more than sufficient here.

The user suffers from a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and continues to utterly miss the point. They seem to have their own idea of what should be Wikipedia policies and how the site should operate, and have refused every step of the way to listen to anyone that has tried to correct their mistaken beliefs.

Wordfunk (talk · contribs) was engaged in a content dispute (don't tell them that, they go ballistic and say that the content was never in dispute), and they were appropriately warned for edit warring by Jim1138 (talk · contribs) (they don't want to hear that even good faith reverts can be a violation of edit warring). The user insisted the warning was not appropriate and went on to harass Jim1138 for what they claimed to be a false warning, insisting that Jim1138 remove it. At various points, both Jim1138 and myself told him if he wanted it removed from his talk page, he could do it himself - strangely, he has this notion that it is a "technical fact" that he cannot remove text from his own talk page. Due to the harassment, two different admins (including myself) told him to leave Jim1138's talk page, drop the stick, and move on to other things. The user continued posting at Jim1138's talk page, and so I blocked the user for 5 days due to continuing the harassment.

The user then abused talk page privileges, resulting in Only (talk · contribs) removing their talk page access. The user then created a sock to post again at Jim1138's talk page, resulting in both the sock and the original account being indef blocked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs).

After a bit over a week, the user returned with a series of socks to post at my talk page - complaining about unjust warning, unjust block, unjust sock blocks, etc. Each block-evading sock has been blocked - and the user advised on their original account and on each of the socks that at this point any unblock requests should be routed through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System - they refuse to hear that too and continue to create new socks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify - when the most recent sock posted at the SPI, I chose not to RBI their post over there. But, I think a reply of some sort is appropriate (but I didn't think SPI was the right venue, so I started this thread). Either enforcing that the user needs to take the issue to WP:UTRS - or presenting whatever alternate response the community feels may be appropriate to any of the parties involved (myself included). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they've mixed up "removal" with rev del, which of course would be inappropriate in this case. Blackmane (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As you said, RevDel would be inappropriate. They also seem to think edit warring can be excused, as all the socks attempt to justify it - and through that they attempt to justify their harassment of others, as well as trying to justify their sockpuppetry. WP:UTRS is their only remaining path - but they want to dig deeper holes for themself here instead. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(Just passing through), look what I found: *drops from mouth*. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If they're indeffed, I can't really think of much else to do except community ban, but I don't see that as being justified, necessary, or particularly useful just yet. Other than that, more eyes on this? Added Indian pariah dog and relevant user talk pages to my watchlist, for what it's worth. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I had re-granted talk page privileges to their original account earlier this week, and left a note on that page. Thus far, their attempted justifications for their harassing Jim1138 and for socking are based on their own invented rules, not on Wikipedia policies - but that talk page at least gives them a means to reply and ask for clarifications on what has been explained already. Should they abuse their talk page privileges again, another admin can revoke it if needed.

I agree, not really up to a community ban level as yet ... if the socking persists, would a community ban be needed prior to asking a check-user to see if an IP or range-block may be useful? I don't think we're quite there yet either. At this point, RBI is probably the simplest method to deal with the socks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Incivility on the Parapsychology 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.

---

There have been multiple incidences of incivil behavior at Talk:Parapsychology, including the following most egregious examples by editors JuliaHunter and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701589880&oldid=701589805

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701403715&oldid=701403508

75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My evaluation of Brian Josephson's status in the academic community is harsh, but it looks to me to be fact and isn't really disputable. Plainly identifying the way a believer in paranormal phenomena is perceived by the WP:MAINSTREAM academic community really isn't a contradiction of the terms of WP:CIVILITY by my reading. jps (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% with jps. Brian J. is no stranger to the mainstream view of his, shall we call them, beliefs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't often see the word "agnotological", does one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. could I send Brian some of my bent spoons?

How embarassing; I had to look it up! Keri (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Using this thread to make User:Brian_Josephson your punching bag saves me the time and trouble of copying and pasting diffs. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you kindly log in to your main Wikipedia account? Or, if you are concerned about WP:OUTING (which is legitimate given that account's username), would you perhaps start a new one and privately declare your old one to arbcom? Thanks. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Those comments do not look civil to me. What happened to "Focus on Content"? One may disagree with a person but to say those things shows a level of hostility that is not welcome on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, similar incivility is simultaneously going on at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Weak statistical evidence?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:FOC.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:DENY. We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.jps (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct in calling me an advocate - I am an advocate of civility, one of the 5 Pillars of WP WP:5P4.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, according to arbcom. Please read WP:Civil POV pushing for more on your tired tactics. jps (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to me as a POV-Pusher?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Does the shoe fit? jps (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please give a direct answer. Otherwise, I will AGF that you have no evidence whatsoever that I am a POV-Pusher and therefore you would not make such an incivil accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, you must be aware that you are banned from alt. medicine, GMO and agrichemicals for violating WP:NPOV? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of this. Please provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What? See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions , Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, [50], [51]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

None of these diffs show that sanctions were imposed on me for violating NPOV, which is what you stated - please read WP:Casting aspersions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It would clutter this thread. But assuming they weren't for POV pushing, what were all these topic bans for then? Please tell. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"It would clutter this thread" - that has to be the weakest argument I have ever read for not presenting evidence - evidence which simply does not exist. I remind you that we are on a noticeboard which requires you to provide evidence of such aspersions. I invite you to now strike your totally false and unfounded aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Again: why were you topic banned? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do your own research.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• The simplest route to solving this is topic-banning Brian Josephson from all pseudoscience topics. He is otherwise a good (great actually, they dont give Nobels to dunces) scientist (in his field) who also believes some laughable rubbish. Ban him from the areas he has problems in where he tries to promote pseudoscience crap, conflict disappears. If anyone wants to take a closer look at NPOV, FRINGE noticeboards the last few weeks, there are a couple more who need to be punted from science-related topics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I would be thrilled if he would help edit the Josephson effect. jps (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Simon Singh was interesting on the subject of Josephson: he described him as a really nice guy who is keen to be fair to people who propose weird and bizarre stuff, but is easily swayed by the zeal of the True Believer. The example was homeopathy (which is, of course, unambiguously bullshit): Singh explained the evidence, Josephson was convinced, but days later he spoke to a True Believer again and was right back to believing the woo. Topic ban? I think that would be excessive, but we've topic banned people who have been less persistent over much less time in giving undue weight to fringe beliefs. start at 1:00 Guy (Help!) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have actually read/heard Singh's views on him and they are indeed interesting. The problem with people who can be productive in their areas of expertise on wikipedia is that so often they are distracted by getting into pointless arguments elsewhere. I am sure we all remember how Mathsci ended.... Had he been suitably restricted earlier it might not have escalated to the stage it did. At this point Josephson is being disruptive to others, and to himself. So if it helps, think of a topic ban not as a punishment, but as a guiderail to prevent him bowling into the next lane... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification on discretionary sanctions, please I have just noticed that the Parapsychology article is under DS. Does that mean that because this article is the source of the thread here at AN/I, this thread is also subject to DS? (I am naive in these matters - perhaps ALL threads at AN/I are subject to DS?)DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The 'topic' of Parasychology is under discretionary sanctions. This means wherever the topic is discussed, that discussion would also (potentially) be subject to it. Which means when you open up a topic on ANI on a subject that has DS attached to it, any administrator can pretty much take any action they want as enforcement. Given the amount of admins who watch ANI, sensible people dont poke the bear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I remind all editors that WP:Discretionary sanctions states While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. I think we are now all warned.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To follow up, discretionary sanctions apply not only on article pages (to edit-warring and [[WP:OWN|article ownership), but to talk pages (personal attacks, aspersions), and to project pages. Editors should be aware that many of the readers of this page are uninvolved admins and can impose sanctions. Have all of the editors been properly alerted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rude, incivil, and bullying behavior

... is indeed going on here. And it's being accepted, and stamped with the seal of approval of Wikipedia. If the systems that exist for enforcing the policies and guidelines do not work -- and in fact ramp up the rudeness and incivility instead of addressing them, and even threaten to topic-ban a person who has just been subjected to rude and incivil behavior ... then we're completely lost here. SageRad (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a suitable editing environment, and the very mechanisms that are supposed to address problems with civility are in fact being used to rub salt in the wounds of the original recipient, and then to attack those who may comment against the "bully consensus" with things like this, which is addressed of course at me and DrChrissy:

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well since both you and DrChrissy were topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms I'd say it was fair comment. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@User talk:Mrjulesd - I suffer from Type 2 diabetes. I have infections in my feet which prevent me from walking and my Drs are considering amputation. Your support of "...out for a stroll" is a personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Paranoia gang" is uncivil and potentially a personal attack. "Out for a stroll" is not, despite your unfortunate medical issues, however, because nobody knows that until you tell us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bushranger - yes, I understand and thank you for pointing that out. I guess this incivil comment is really a extremely good example of why editors should focus on content, rather than contributors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also DrChrissy has showed signficant problems with advocacy of quackery, hence his other topic ban, so has a pre-existing agenda against skeptical sites specialising in alternative-to-medicine claims. I know why SageRad opposes the specific skeptic site under discussion, and it would be better all round if he backed off that one.

Unfortunately WP:CRYBULLYING is the new WP:CRYBLP. The "bullying" in question is, as far as I can tell, primarily telling advocates of fringe material that no, we will not reflect nonsense as if it were reality. Firmness is not bullying. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, please provide evidence of my supposed advocacy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 § Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG is the topic ban, if you are blessed with the bare minimum of self-awareness you will readily identify the problem there. I personally think you are not so blessed, and I don't propose to waste any time trying to persuade you to your own satisfaction of things that independent observers accept to be true - not least because you have an unfortunate history of misrepresenting such explanations as "bullying", "uncivil" and "harassment". Guy (Help!) 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will ignore the obvious attempts at taunting and the personal attacks, but will state that I am self-aware - I just passed the Mirror test. Instead, I will focus on the content. I'm afraid it is lost on me how the diff you have provided in anyway shows that I "showed significant problems with advocacy of quackery". Please will you provide a more specific diff?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No one on AN/I is required to provide evidence of DrChrissy's bias and POV-pushing. That evidence has already been presented, and has resulted in multiple topic bans for the editor, from both the community at large and from their elected representatives, the Arbitration Committee. That DrChrissy dcannot seem to accept that his behavior caused the bans is his problem, not ours. If DrChrissy continues to maintain that behavior pattern in other subject areas, I have absolutely no doubt that the topic bans will get broader and broader, and will eventually lead to a site ban, as the editor is apparently unable to control their behavior -- or has no interest in doing so. BMK (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: What is the motivation behind your posting above? How is it relevant to the thread?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is, I believe, obvious to everyone here but you: every time any one comments on your POV-pusing behavior your response has been "Show me the proof of that," but we don't have to show you the proof, because the proof lies in the very existence of the topic bans, which you choose to interpret as not being about POV-pushing, but which are, in fact, very much about that.

As for my motivation, it is to make it clear to all who read this thread that you do not come to the table with clean hands, that your complaints are -- as they always have been - intimately related to your WP:BATTLEGROUND state of mind and your entrenched non-neutral fringe POV. The only people you ever complain about -- and you complain about them a lot, in many different venues -- are people you disagree with. Without knowledge of that, people might think that you actually had a valid complaint, without realizing that the crux of the problem is not the people you interact with, but that those people are interacting with you. Given these facts, quite obvious to anyone who's been around a while and has anything like an open mind, projecting your future on Wikipedia is hardly a difficult thing to do, since many of us have seen it happen over and over again, to people on both sides of the fringe/mainstream divide. You're following a classical line of development for a non-neutral POV-pushing warrior. BMK (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, everyone should keep in mind that the "civility problem" is not the most important problem on Wikipedia. Yes, certainly, uncivil behavior helps to make the editing environment unpleasant for the editors, but the bottom line is what goes into the encyclopedia. That means that pushing a non-neutral POV is much more detrimental to the project than mere incivility, since it effects our product, the thing we're all supposedly here to improve, the encyclopedia. Folks who haven't done so might like to read the essay on WP:Civil POV pushing. It's best to be civil, but I'll take a potty-mouthed neutral editor over a sweet-talking partisan one any day. BMK (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's this kind of view that makes Wikipedia a toxic and unpleasant editing environment. It is a false dilemma to suggest that the only options are (1) civil editors pushing a non-NPOV, and (2) non-civil editors maintaining WP:NPOV. Civility and reason are the tools of a good editor, and they are available in abundance. If editors have to resort to incivility, then they haven't got a good argument, and shouldn't be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Would you mind if in the future I refer to you as a "self-appointed, paranoid, witch-hunter"? If you object to this, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have stopped beating my wife, thanks for asking.

DrChrissy, I gave you straight talk, and you want to play silly little games. Please go peddle your papers elsewhere, and don't ping me again - you're really not worth my time or effort. BMK (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At BMK (but not pinged as requested). Take a look at the thread development. At the time of my last posting you were not giving me "straight talk". Your last comment had been "You're following a classical line of development for a non-neutral POV-pushing warrior" I dislike very much being called such names. It indisputably violates WP:Civil This is exactly the type of bullying that several editors are complaining about, and the usual action is to subject those editors to even more bullying in an attempt to silence them. What gives you the right to feel you can call me such names ignoring one of the very pillars of WP, i.e. civilityWP:5P4. Your repeated bullying makes me frustrated and, quite normally I think, I feel motivated to call you names, but I do not because I wish to remain civil. My "silly game", was my attempt to find a method of venting my frustration at you while not violating WP:Civility. As for "peddling [my] papers", I have no idea what you mean. Yes, I have published (many) scientific papers, but not in this subject area. I certainly hope your wife recovers from her beatings.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this train wreck, I will assume good faith that although you don't intend to behave in a way that mimics Civil POV-pushing (the "I didn't know Joseph Mercola was a pseudoscientist" defense) by behaving in the way you are it makes it very difficult for other editors to see the difference. If this is the case, what I fail to understand is your refusal to change ways. Editing fringe areas is difficult, and yet you continually arrive at such pages and repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It would be one thing if you just allowed that you don't know what you are doing and allowed others to clean up your problematic edits as you do them, but you simply don't let that happen. You argue constantly about fringe material and you always take the side of the fringe-proponent. This is about the limit that many of us can take. I have tried to clean up a lot of messes you've made, and there are still a lot of articles on the list. It's only made worse by the fact that your edits are a complete mishmash of uncontroversial attributions and poorly-vetted material. It's a slog and when you reflexively revert every editor who tries to clean up your contributions, you are exhibiting exactly the sort of behavior that throws up warning signs for those of us active in these areas.

Much of what you consider a lack of civility is really just an attempt to contextualize your activities. You find it problematic because you don't think you fit the mold. What I'm telling you (and others are as well) is that your actions, whether you intend them to or not, do fit the mold. One of the only ways we have of fixing the problems you have created is by quarantining your edits, and as we try to do that the characterization that best fits is that of a Fringe POV-pusher.

If you don't like that, then there are lots of other things you can do at Wikipedia, but I don't think you are going to be successful keeping up this particular tactic of claiming that it is all the fault of the people like me who bully you for supporting the fringe-POV.

jps (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are prolonging what you call a train-wreck, but you nearly got there! You nearly posted an entire message without resorting to incivil name-calling which I am now construing as WP:Harassment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you not see how this response is just indicative of the political positioning of WP:Civil POV-pushers? It's almost as if you want to prove my point for me. All I can say is that I have seen this line of argument a lot over my 12 years here at this website, and it has invariably ended with those taking your approach either retiring, being banned, or being completely sidelined. jps (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Please could you supply a diff of where you or another editor has had to "clean up" an edit of mine on a fringe article, as you stated above. In fact, please just supply a diff of my editing a fringe article; I have looked at my edits over the last month and could not find a single one.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Remember the Mercola. jps (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh very much so. I really think you are in danger of deliberately misleading the community here. You could not be bothered to provide a thread, and I think that is because that would show this was a discussion (and a very brief one at that ) about the suitability of a source. It had nothing to to do with "fringe". I suggest again that you provide evidence that I have edited fringe articles. For readers who want to follow this, the thread is here.[52] Take a look at the article and make your own minds up whether it is fringe or not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

See, here's exactly the problem with your pedantry. You seem to think we can sort articles into two categories: fringe and not fringe. That is not how Wikipedia works. People insert fringe material all over the encyclopedia from the most outlandish to the most innocuous places. It's why we have guidelines like WP:ONEWAY (which I helped write, inspired by some of last decade's tactics of Iantresman). What you were doing is inserting Mercola into articles where he didn't belong in contravention of WP:FRINGE. It's no huge sin; we are a wiki after all and can clean up after you. But to pretend like this never happened after we just discussed it is disingenuous in my book. Or it's needlessly pedantic in a way that Wikipedia in practice is not. jps (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's put this to bed once and for all. This diff shows where I originally inserted the disputed material.[1] (Please note the material is a quote by Mercola, not Mercola's own words.) You then deleted the content here[2] with the Edit Summary "Mercola is a completely unreliable source" - you gave no further information. No discussion was opened on the Article Talk page regarding the the reliability of the source. I re-inserted the disputed content here[3] leaving the ES "Is a quote and therefore reference is RS..." Kingofaces43 then removed the content here[4] leaving "Remove WP:FRINGE source and undue weight for a non-expert..." I did not attempt to re-insert the material. Those are the facts. I reverted material which had been disputed with minimal justification just the once - yes, once. I refute your accusation that I am a promoter of fringe or a POV-pusher. You have also accused me of being a Civil POV-pusher. Perhaps if I had told you to "F*CK OFF and leave me alone", I could also refute the civility aspect of that particular accusation, but thus far, I am unable to do that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Plausible deniability is useful, no doubt. We don't have User RfCs any more, but we could scour your contributions and show other instances of where you seem to be drumming up GMO fears with dubious sourcing. I gave you one example. You don't like it. Tough cookies. You made your bed, you should sleep in it. jps (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's simply rude and uncivil to say the things in the original post's diff's, and many things said in response here on this ANI messageboard, including the remark "Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang..." -- it's uncivil. It's name-calling. This is a serious business, the editing of "the sum of the world's knowledge", and we need an environment where people feel able to edit without getting called names all the time, and without prejudicial poisoning of the well to be done all the time. We can be relaxed and joke, but not at the expense of other editors. We cannot call names, and we cannot say things that are clearly intended to "get to" another editor psychologically, which is the core action of bullying behavior. It's all pretty simple. It comes down to respecting others. We can talk about ideas here, and Wikipedia is a miracle. It's the most amazing discourse on the planet, in my opinion, where we can figure out what is a point of view and what is acceptable to be told in Wikivoice according to sources. There is so much amazing philosophical and intellectual learning that can happen here. People can see when their previous beliefs are not in line with evidence, and people can open their minds to new points of view. It's an amazing place, but when people run around with intent to trash others, it degrades to a schoolyard with bullies. SageRad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

To the closing admin Please look at what has happened here. An issue was raised, incivil language started and 2 editors, @SageRad: and myself, reminded editors that WP has a strict policy regarding WP:Civility. We have then been subject to personal attacks, accusations of NPOV, aspersions about support of various topics, and others. Why should editors, calmly and politely reminding other editors to remain civil according to one of the pillars of WP be subjected to this unacceptable behaviour? It is clearly wrong and needs to be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Someone needs to ping ArbCom here, I think, in hopes of some member of ArbCom not just going on a lunch break. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would anyone do that? Arbcom cannot currently find its own arsehole with a compass, map and a mountain rescue dog. The above at worst is snark bordering on mild disrespect to someone who is pushing woo. You *personally* have opined that the community has not laid out clear civility policies (despite there being at least 4 policies to the contrary) so frankly expecting Arbcom to do anything about it is a waste of time when they cant even do their job enforcing wikipedias standing policies. Unless of course you were referring to the various discretionary sanctions available on all the fringe/pseudoscience topic areas, in which case taking it to Arbcom would result in a "Take it to AE!" response, but wait! Since Arbcom in its wisdom decided closing an AE report as 'no action' is an arbitration enforcement action that cant be overturned, no one wants to take actual serious shit to AE now in case it prevents future enforcement actions. Of course as an admin you could do something about it, but that would require you to actually do some independant thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You said poopy words. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Tu quoque: "Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own."
2. "No personal attacks": "Comment on content, not on the contributor"
3. WP:ASPERSIONS: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence

--Iantresman (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As Jimbo would say, "Knock it off and be good to each other!" SageRad (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it perfectly clear what this ANI entry has shown: Wikipedia is a place where bullies rule, and if you dare to raise the issue, you will be attacked. SageRad (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your two comments above are mutually contradictory. The issue is that when people keep advocating a fringe view or some other thing that is not going to happen because it violates core content policies, other people eventually become exasperated. Firmly resisting POV-pushing is not "bullying", the problem in most cases comes down to WP:STICK versus WP:SPADE. The alternative is WP:RANDY. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, man... people can call a spade a spade, about content but when it comes to a comment like "oh look, it's the GMO paranoia team out for a stroll" simply because i spoke against uncivil comments, and then against further uncivil comments here at ANI, and then becmoe the recipient of further uncivil comments here for doing so.... it's not calling a spade a spade. It's just being mean for meanness sake. There's a problem here and i'll not have it minimized or redefined. Civility is a core policy, by the way. And, watch out how you characterize others as POV pushers, as that is all completely relative. Who you call a POV pusher may actually be a POV remover, and be getting flak for that because they are resisting the POV pushing by another editor or group. It comes down to policies, like NPOV, and also CIVILITY. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion ANI should be the prime example for usage of citations (ANI = requirement to back up comments with citations). Suggestions, opinions could be moved to a different venue. prokaryotes (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with SageRad. The principle of Tu quoque does now allow us to attack an editor because you disagree with their POV. If you get exasperated then take a break. To suggest WP:STICK versus WP:SPADE is a false dilemma, "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks" (WP:SPADE). --Iantresman (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's juuuuust a coincidence that the only ones acting like this bullying talk holds any water are all folks who just so happen to wear the same jerseys in the Battle of the POVs, eh? Sure. Don't care one way or another about your POV, but anyone looking at this who actually knows what bullying and abuse is, knows what the real kind is like-- you look like you're trying to wield that big nasty word bullying like a weapon to win your battles, and doing that seems very underhanded and disingenuous to say the least, leaves a bad taste in the mouth-- watch me commenting on your actions, not your actual selves, and if you make the fallacious assumption that doing so much as that is ~bullying~ that just proves my point. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If I feel like I am being bullied because someone is being uncivil to me, I will call it how I see it. It is usually easy to spot objectively "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (per WP:NPA). It may be just words to many editors, but any victim will tell you, that being persistently belittled, deprecated, insulted, and blamed for criticising uncivil behavior, is not on. This is why Wikipedia has "respect and civility" as one of its Five Pillars. --Iantresman (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if Iantresman would stay away from conversations concerning pseudoscience. He is never helpful. jps (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2016 (

Wait, what? When did this become about you being bullied? Wasn't it Sage and Chrissy specifically that jps was slagging off? Sheesh.

I can't say the whole "GMO paranoia gang" comment was helpful, or most of jps' comments here are helpful really; ad hominem and general sneering is always super annoying and lowers the tone of debate, but it's to be expected on the internet, it's not Happy Funtime Friendship Land-- best practice is to ignore PAs completely, take the high road, and stick only to the first 3 tiers of this when it comes to the actual intellectual substance of the disagreement, which everyone trips up on, not just one side or the other. Still, with a lot of ANI shite, a lot of arb shite, a VPP thread about an anti-bullying policy (that got shot down most likely because it would come down to trying to codify "civility" again, and codifying/enforcing civility properly is like trying to find a Higgs boson with a lump of granite and two sticks)... and that's without looking at the actual articles they're involved in-- no wonder people are getting annoyed. Arbcom didn't rule against these two in the GMO case for nothing; there was enough evidence to agree on that they weren't playing nice. Instead of trying to change their approach (at least to the point where I can actually see any difference pre-case against now in how they behave), they're painting themselves as champions of some Grand Antibullying Movement which is noble at face value, but seems altogether like a distraction, an attempt to overplay their victimization, or at worst an attempt to use it to their advantage to shut up the anti-fringe people by painting them as The Big Meanies, which is just... gross. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to poison well against others in a dialog, as the above comment does. You do not know that a past judgement was accurate, abs in this case it really wasn't. Ad hominem has no place here. Prejudicial statements have no place here. Personal attacks have no place here. There is a culture of abuse here. It is not inevitable, and is not okay. We can change it if we own it and address it culturally. It takes a critical mass of people standing up against abusive behavior for it to become anathema. Right now it's implicit endorsed. Right now we might as well burn the civility policy for all it's worth. I respect when I see people standing up for decency. Without it, we have devolved into bullying and McCarthyism. Not good for the encyclopedia, for editors, or for the world. SageRad (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Apart from that imaginary stuff , you're ok with discussion? Begoon ^talk 14:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You do not know that a past judgement was accurate, abs in this case it really wasn't. So... are you saying you don't consider Arbcom's judgment accurate, or am I missing it here? 74.205.176.200 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as an experiment

• Support a topic ban on SageRad plastering his imaginary blather about "bullying" everywhere. It might not pass, but it would sure reduce the drama. Begoon ^talk 15:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, I don't consider trying to remove editing privileges from a user who is trying to reduce bullying, to be funny, and does appear to meet WP:AGF. I apologies if this was meant as a joke, but you can appreciate that the humour is reduced for the person that is the butt of the joke. --Iantresman (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to Iantresman for standing up for me here. I appreciate seeing the integrity. It's far too rare and we need more of it to achieve a critical mass, to overcome the problem of abusive behavior here in Wikipedia.

To Begoon: Wow. Really... bullying is a real thing and it does happen. There are behaviors that are intended to chill, to drive away, to hurt people and when used over time, they add up to bullying. I've seen the behavior here on Wikipedia far too much, and it's real. There's also a notable fraction of editors who react like this -- getting up in arms at the mention of the word -- which i think speaks to the power of the concept and its reality. In other words, if it weren't on target, then it would just sound ridiculous and it wouldn't get people upset. There really is a psychological tactic called "bullying" and people really do it. On the Internet, it's easier than in person, and i feel like a lot of people get their "kicks" or "ya ya's" here by being bully-ish, like a power trip. Anyway, a lot of people have agreed with this observation and independently said it of the environment here, as well, so it's not just me. I find this to be ridiculous that you say this here. I stood up to say that i found behavior against another editor uncivil, and then others decided that was an invitation to open season on me and another editor who had also voiced opposition to the abusive behavior. Then i voiced opposition that that abusive behavior and got more abuse. And now i get this... thank goodness i have a thick skin and some serious self-confidence, so i survive this, but it's not alright. It's not acceptable. It's schoolyard tactics. And it shows the power and reality of the concept itself that people want to silence me when i speak about it. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Begoon: Please consider striking this proposal - it's not going to stick and if anything is just going to cause more drama -- samtar ^whisper 15:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I have looked at your contributions and you are certainly not a stranger to AN/I. Surely you realise that making a frivolous proposal here is sanctionable. This not a threat - I'm simply suggesting that making such a posting in the heated atmosphere might no have been well-thought out. Please strike it. The last thing we need is more drama.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing frivolous about my comment. Are you bullying me? Begoon ^talk 16:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for misconstruing your proposal as "frivolous". And no, I am not bullying you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Next time maybe less "opposition research"? Up to you. Begoon ^talk 16:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment while a TB against claims of bullying probably isn't feasible something will likely have to be done in the near future. Perhaps some one way IBs would fix the issue as Sage never seems to jump into conflicts they weren't involved in prior unless it concerns the same editors they've already had issues with. This board has quite a few threads about claims of incivility yet you'll note this is the only one Sage felt the need to piggy-back onto. Capeo (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that SageRad is more familiar with certain editors than others, perhaps because (s)he has come across them while editing. It seems quite reasonable to me to jump into any conflict one isn't involved in, if you spot incivility and bullying, after all, we'd all rally against a bully in real life, wouldn't we? --Iantresman (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, pseudoscientists of a feather flock together. C.f. Iantresman and his pseudoscientist credentials! jps (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Jps - please read my clarification above that this thread is covered by DS[53].DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a big problem with people such as yourself, SageRad, and Iantresman propping each other up when you're all documented with diffs in various arbcom cases to have promoted pseudoscience to the detriment of the quality control of Wikipedia. This is a problem Wikipedia has a hard time dealing with. jps (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that I have "promoted pseudoscience". I remind you that this page is under DS and you should familiarise yourself with what that means in terms of casting aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you reinsert Mercola as a source. Mercola is a pseudoscientist. Ergo, that makes you... a promoter of pseudoscience. FTW! jps (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of links in that - but all to no avail. I am not an expert in this area - but let's not forget, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. I did not know at the time I inserted the quote that Mercola is what you categorise as a pseudo-scientist. Once this was pointed out to me, I did not challenge its reversion. By stating that my using a quote of someone you believe is a pseudo-scientist makes me a promoter of pseudo-science is like calling me a promoter of Nazism if I was to quote Hitler. Absolutely proposterous.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And now that we've reached Godwin's Law, I think it's clear that there's nowhere to go but sideways. You quoted Mercola as a source for information and reinserted the source after it was removed. That's about as promotional as you can get. jps (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is a new one for me, but I don't see that it has anything to support your argument. It is simply an observation of general editing habits. Anyway, back to the proper subject. Yes, I reinserted the edit, but I did not know at the time that Mercola was labeled by you as a pseudo-scientist. How can I be promoting a POV when I do not know a source I am using has a POV? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: You used a label above which included the term "paranoia". I am seeking your permission to refer to you in the future as a "paranoid, self-appointed, witch-hunter". Do I have your permission for this, please? If permission is denied, I would be grateful for an explanation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I really don't mind if you call me that. I wish more people would call things like they see them. jps (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, Godwin's Law is when a conversation hits rock-bottom through the use of, or comparison to, Nazism/Hitler/Facism/Stalin/other big bag meanies and ideologies. It is not an argument (or shouldn't be), but merely an observation of the state of a discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban on all discussion of bullying by User:SageRad. I am aware that SageRad thinks that false allegations of bullying, like false allegations of rape, very seldom happen, and that bullying is seriously underreported, and so nearly all allegations of bullying are true. It is my opinion, on the contrary, that bullying is both often not reported and often falsely reported. I am aware that some editors think that SageRad is performing a service to Wikipedia with a campaign against bullying, but I strongly disagree. In my opinion, SageRad's opposition to bullying is based on a one-sided concept of bullying, that, while he honestly believes he is objective, he tends to see disagreement, or even reasoning, as part of bullying. His anti-bullying campaign has been deeply divisive. Let other editors continue the campaign for him. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Robert. You are correct by saying that SageRad's anti-bullying campaign has been highly disruptive. However, this disruption is because we have vocal editors who believe that the problem exists and equally vocal editors that do not. However, this is not SageRad's fault. Punishing SageRad by sanctions would be a tragic case of "shooting the messenger".DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand firm on everything i have said here. I find this circus here absolutely shameful and ridiculous. Look at this ANI thread. It's a farce. SageRad (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad I concur with you. I'm not sure how you feel, but to me it feels as if the problems that the editorial behavioural problems that ArbCom GMO was supposed to address have simply shifted topic. This has all happened because you and I decided to politely remind other editors to remain civil. It really is unbelievable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Topic ban on discussion of "bullying" by SageRad. The editor clearly does not know when to quit. BMK (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose a topic ban. It would be be pure victimisation. The diffs at the top of this thread clearly show bullying and POV-pushing against those who dissent from the anti-pseudoscience cabal's zealous determination to use en.wp as a forum to dismiss as "fringe" any view they disagree with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I don't think SageRad is the worst offender here - not by quite a margin. There is a real issue with rebuffed POV-pushers howling "bullying!" (they remind me of the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, shouting "Help! I'm being repressed!"). This is not about any "cabal" (TINC) opposing things they don't "like", it's about the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most important places for any crank to have their crank beliefs reflected as "fact". This is clear in many, many places - homeopathy, Rossi's e-Cat, remote viewing - and it is not getting any better. So I think what we need to do is find a quicker way of producing near-permanent resolutions to frivolous demands. I advocate more use of RFCs, giving a solid baseline of consensus on article content and a cutoff of debate so that if people continue to repeat rejected demands after the RfC is closed, they can and should be sanctioned. It will make it easier to separate those who are committed to NPOV and Wikipedia's intentional bias towards empirical rationalism, versus those who want Wikipedia to be more sympathetic to woo. And if they want to change policy so that we *are* more sympathetic to woo, they can then address the policy, rather than attacking the articles. I am pretty confident that any attempts to change policy to make Wikipedia less skeptical, will be rejected, but it may be that the community actually does want to give some kind of equivalence to the views of creationists, climate change deniers and the like - and if that's the case then we need to have the fight just once, at the policy page. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, i appreciate your lukewarm support, though i am not an offender. I'm saying that it's not okay to act abusively toward anyone. I see what you're saying in the rest of your comment, surely, but it's really relative. Wikipedia is important, so saying the fact that Wikipedia is one of the most important places for any crank to have their crank beliefs reflected as "fact" (minus the word "crank") is simply and accurate statement. People do care about Wikipedia as it is supposed to reflect the sum of human knowledge, and people do get eager to change it when it can be improved, and often this is when it's to establishment. There is indeed and establishment bias to many articles and this is often held in a lockdown by some editors who are very skilled and who also use abusive language and tactics. Filibustering would be disruptive and sanctionable, but equally is WP:IDHT and strawman argumentation and other forms of dialog that lack integrity. In the face of these tactics, someone seeking to change an article may seem to be angry and too persistent, but that may simply be a reaction to the bad tactics and lack of good dialog being used by the defenders of the existing POV. It is complex, and many elements of the story are relative to what POV you hold. We must be a civil environment to work out how to represent a world that contains multiple points of view. It's wonderful work, if we can do it without abusing each other. SageRad (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem arises where there is significant disparity between public discourse and scientific opinion. The two are different in important ways, and Wikipedia, by design, describes the public discourse but follows the scientific view. Some areas have endless circular discussion, with climate change and the Subject That Shall Not Be Named being recently particularly prominent. We have ways of settling disputes: RFCs for example. So the solution here, I think, is specific RFCs on article talk pages, and ultimately sanctions for people who refuse to drop the stick.

Science may be wrong. It's allowed to be wrong, because it is, by design, objective and self-correcting. Belief cannot self-correct. No scientific evidence will ever persuade a homeopathy believer that homeopathy is bullshit, or a creationist that life evolved by natural selection of random mutation over billions of years. If scientific evidence emerges to show that recent changes in global temperature are consistent with random variation, then scientific consensus will change. Actually the trend is the other way.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion." - Carl Sagan

I won't discuss other examples because the aim here is not to booby-trap you. The point is that science is inherently neutral and skepticism, which lies at the heart of the scientific method, is entirely consistent with Wikipedian ethos. There is an important difference between informal and formalised statements, in every subject. Take Dawkins (please, do take him, far away). He is a world class expert on evolutionary biology, and a complete dick. He annoys the hell out of a lot of skeptics because he makes unskeptical statements outside his area of expertise. Skeptics try (in as much as the fallible human can) to draw a distinction between opinion and objective truth; the major problem with most of the contended areas is that they are a battleground between those who try to do this and those for whom truth is measured primarily by ideological consonance.

"Big pharma" abuses science. Example: Vioxx. Science catches up with such abuses. It is frustrating for those who see the abuse early and are impatient for fast recognition of the problem. Hence the All Trials initiative, created and driven by skeptics such as Edzard Ernst, Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre - all of whom are routinely attacked by quackery proponents as "pharma shills", even though they have done more to stop the abuses of science b y "big pharma" than all the quacks in history. Quacks hate science-based anything because they know that objective reality is their worst enemy.

Read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. According to quackery shills, it's a hatchet job against "natural cures". Any dispassionate reader will see that most of it is actually a very pointed and rather devastating critique of "big pharma". The difference in perception comes entirely from the disparity between the skeptical POV, which abhors bullshit, and the True Believer POV, which abhors all ideas that cause cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy. I think you are mixing two completely different issues. Willfully pushing a singular POV is prohibited, and should be addressed accordingly. But it does not, per Tu quoque, give any editor the justification to be uncivil. --Iantresman (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad >> ... People do care about Wikipedia as it is supposed to reflect the sum of human knowledge ... << I have no problem with that. However, there is a difference between knowledge and crap. Cardamon (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note. I withdraw my support, per the Brown haired girl. Apologies for any inconvenience. Begoon ^talk 14:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I thank you for that. --Iantresman (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Recommend closing this thread

• Recommend closing this thread with no action. The OP supplied only two diffs (not even from the same user). The heat-to-light ratio on this thread is now approaching infinity. Suggest closing it down before we waste any more time here. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, but it gives the impression that you can be uncivil if you do so only twice? Your Honour, I only punched them in the face twice, and I've always been let off the previous times I've punched someone in the face. --Iantresman (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. The two diffs are two different users. There was never a case made here, by ANI standards. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Those two diffs were the "most egregious examples" as Talk:Parapsychology is currently flooded with uncivil behavior. I'm taking notes and I'll be more detailed next time I approach this noticeboard, but it's too bad that we all have to be bullied in the meantime. Now, how not to get my request hijacked by other editors whom I've never encountered before with their own axe to grind? I don't know. That was odd. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support close as a USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. That editor bullied this one, but this one was a dick to that other one, but that other one was mean to that one, and oh no I've gone cross eyed. Let it stand that we should all be better to each other, edit in a polite and professional manner, and follow WP:CIVIL a little bit more. There are several million articles, last I checked - plenty of room to go edit something else for a while rather than fight continually. All of you - cool it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 27 January 2016 (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.

Jasper P. Logan

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.

---

• Jasper P. Logan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone needs to stop the CSD tag edit war. —teb728 t c 07:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has protected it and done some CUblocks. DMacks (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2016 (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.

Unregistered IPs 92.24.104.145 and 92.24.104.245; genre warring

Unregistered IP 92.24.104.145/92.24.104.245 has been genre warring as of late on the Hymns (Bloc Party album) article. They've been continuously reverting my edits where I added genres backed by a reliable source and has continuously added unsourced genres to the page, suggesting that just because the band is labeled as one genre, it means that all of their albums must be that genre. The page history is available here They're clearly unfamiliar with the Manual of Style for album articles and how sourced genres work, but even after this, they went the extra mile to leave this and this on my talk page. Aria1561 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have written FAs and this 16 year old think he can school me. Ha what a joke this place is. Genres were there indie rock and alternative dance, he came and removed them to his preferred ones. I cited them and then he removed them again including the citations because he didn't like the sources. Allmusic tags have always been used as reliable sources, doesn't have to be in the review text. Stop wasting people's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.104.145 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see edit warring between the both of you on Hymns (Bloc Party album). I highly suggest that you two make no further edits until the matter is either settled here or in proper dispute resolution or discussion channels. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you've written FAs I'm sure you have an account, 92.24.104.xx. Please log in. Aria1561, please don't edit like this, see WP:POINT. I was going to protect the article to let the content dispute be addressed on talk, but in view of this and this, I have instead attempted to give the IP time off for personal attacks by blocking the range 92.24.104.128/25 for a couple of days. If there is continued edit-warring after that, the article can then be protected to encourage dispute resolution. (I'm assuming 92.24.104.xx won't edit the article with other IPs, since I've given both the IPs formal block notices on their pages; that would be block evasion.) Bishonen | talk 09:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

Edit Warring with Harassment / Threat Overtones

Yesterday, I had cause to block User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres for vulgar personal attacks in an edit summary, which had come about as a result of a small edit war on the article. Looking into it a bit further, I am concerned that Eni.Sukthi.Durres has been engaged in more widespread harassment / threats with a nationalistic tendency.

User:FkpCascais posted this on Eni.Sukthi.Durres's talk page admonishing him openly for pushing a nationalist agenda, specifically here in an edit summary and here on User:Msb73505's talk page. I am concerned that there is something deeper here beyond mere incivility, certainly Msb73505 has observed to me here that Eni.Sukthi.Durres has made threats against him. The problem is that I don't speak Albanian and online translation sites don't seem to be much help. I'm aware of long running conflicts on enWiki from a wide number of users from Balkan states relating to ethnic nationalism and wanted to run it past other admins here, particularly some who might be able to speak Albanian and offer translations for what has been said in the diffs above (and perhaps identify any further instances that in my ignorance I have missed) and help me understand whether this is just a small edit war that had some uncivil overtones or something a bit more serious that needs to be nipped in the bud.

For information, although I blocked Eni.Sukthi.Durres for his edit summary and the general edit war, I only issued a warning to Msb73505, as I felt that there was provocation, harassment and disruptive editing mitigating his reverts and that the fault at his end was not trying to take the issues to the talk page for discussion.

Happy to here thoughts on this from anyone, names users above have been notified. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Fenix down (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Serial copyright violations

• Clairemont, San Diego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SDarchitect (talk · contribs)

Perhaps the user is inexperienced, but it appears that a lot of the prose content they've added has been lifted verbatim from Clairemont's publications. Normally I'd drop a note to Moonriddengirl, to ask for help determining what needs to be cut. Any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I have attempted to communicate with the editor, and asked them to start removing the copyright violations. Not holding my breath. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• I feel somewhat ill at ease with this netbook I'm working on, so I'm not sure if I got it all--but applied rev/delete in that history, starting with the first one I could find. I also moved the article back to its earlier title. Please check to see if I missed something or screwed something up. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dr. I was trying to take it passage by passage, and removed as much as I could that appeared to be either a blatant copyright violation or close paraphrasing. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  I have hidden some more revisions. The latest ones (which I left visible) seem ok to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Py0alb

Please refer to this ANI which resulted in a warning to User:Py0alb following "conduct (that) is attacking and ill-informed". The admin at the time said that "a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will be met with sanctions". A formal warning was placed on Py0alb's talk page and was promptly deleted by Py0alb.

Py0alb is a very occasional visitor to the site with just only 582 edits in five years and yet he makes bold claims about site policy as if he is an experienced and regular user. He seems to become involved in conflict every time he visits the site as a check of his talk page and contributions will reveal. For example, an argument with User:115ash led to him posting this warning which was not justified. On his own talk page, there is this complaint about his attitude. He has also been in breach of copyright.

He had not been on the site since November last year and reappeared on 18 January with this confrontational attack on the major cricket article. I considered his tone and his use of the phrase "un-encyclopaedic gibberish" to be a breach of WP:CIVIL. I therefore reverted his edit and suggested that he puts forward a constructive argument if he wants someone to respond to him. His response to that was to reinstate his original post, "warning" me that I will be banned and demanding that other people are polite and respectful to him. Admittedly annoyed by his attitude, including his apparently entrenched view that the term does not exist despite the evidence in the article, I responded by advising him to study the citations. His response to that was to again threaten me with a ban because I, and not he, am guilty of abusive behaviour. Apparently, it is abusive to suggest that he needs to read the citations to understand that the term does exist and has widespread usage.

He placed a PROD on the article, claiming that the term does not exist, despite the citation evidence. That is his prerogative and it is mine to remove the PROD as I do not agree with it, so I did so. He came back and reinstated the PROD, demanding that the article is deleted immediately. This is, of course, out of process because if a PROD is rejected by an interested party, the next step is to take the article to AfD. His second attempt at PROD was removed by another user who advised him of the correct procedure.

Today, having been inactive for two days, Py0alb blanked the entire article and placed a redirect on it. His comment was a threat that anyone reverting his change would be banned, which is bang out of order. He made reference to a previous AfD in 2011 when an earlier version of the article was deleted because it lacked citations. The current version has several citations from significant sources to comply with WP:GNG. Besides blanking the article, he went into the talk page and declared that it is "a direct contravention of Wikipedia policy" (this from someone with only 582 edits in five years) to recreate an article that was formerly deleted. Any article can be recreated if the earlier issues (in this case, no citations) can be resolved. He finishes by saying without any authority whatsoever that "The article will now be deleted for the final time".

Frankly, this person is a troublemaker. He seeks confrontation and it is evident from his attitude to this article and also to the Indoor cricket article for which he received his warning two years ago that his sole rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has obviously not learned anything from the formal warning which, remember, he immediately deleted from his talk page. I recommend an indefinite WP:BLOCK for someone whose behaviour is repeatedly hostile, abusive and unreasonable. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD on this page was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket. Consensus is to delete. Jack is ignoring this consensus and is now engaging in an edit war and engaging in a personal vendetta against me (see this completely unnecessary ANI for an example). This is not a personal matter, it is merely a matter of correctly following protocol. I understand that it can be difficult when a page you have worked on is deleted - I have experienced this in the past - but Jack needs to calm down and understand that this page is unencyclopaedic, and that his opinion alone is not sufficient to supercede a clear consensus. I do not want a war, I merely want correct protocol to be followed. The phrase is a nonsense.

Thanks, Py0alb (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong as a matter of policy. Fortunately, another editor has reverted you, or I would have done so myself. But you don't have only one choice (take it to AfD); you can also tag it per WP:CSD#G4. Frankly, I doubt an administrator would delete it on that criterion, so taking it to AfD again is the better option. From the diffs above, this isn't the first time you've made statements or acted as if you are a policy wonk when in fact your grasp of many policies is sorely lacking. No one expects editors to understand all the Wikipedia policies, but you should at least have enough insight to know when your interpretation of policy is at least close to correct. I suggest that at a minimum you step back from some of these confrontations, or you are going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. You may note that since writing the above, Py0alb has tried to canvass support from the other editor involved in the dispute. He has not, however, been successful and has again been told to follow the correct process. What he is saying about consensus is ill-informed, to say the least. The article that went to AfD in 2011 was completely different as it was no more than a stub that, crucially, lacked citations. I did not take part in that AfD but thought the decision to delete was fair enough. Since then, usage of the term has increased and I keep hearing it in discussions on the media and at cricket grounds. I decided to research it and found that it is now quite widely cited so I decided to recreate the article and capture a range of sources so that it will meet WP:GNG, not just the NCRIC SNG. I am not engaging in an edit war as I have only reverted one of his changes and that was effectively a response to vandalism because he had blanked the article without following due process, and that after the process had been explained to him by another editor. To say that I am conducting a personal vendetta is a ridiculous statement. I am not even protecting the article because I was quite happy for him to PROD it and I would be equally happy to defend it at AfD. I want only two things from this: one is that the article will be treated with respect which includes being taken to AfD in a constructive manner if someone deems it necessary; the other is that I do not have to deal with ill-informed, opinionated editors who are confrontational and rude from the outset. In view of this editor's past record of confrontation, including a formal warning that he has completely ignored, not to mention the serious doubt I have about someone who appears sporadically yet writes as if he is a continuous user, I still recommend that an indefinite WP:BLOCK, especially as he has again blanked the article since I restored it yesterday and repeated the correct process to him. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is something I am slightly confused about, in that Jack claims above "I was quite happy for him to PROD it" and yet this edit reveals something different: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_cricket&type=revision&diff=700427615&oldid=700423682

Aggressively defending articles you have a personal interest in from due process is really not the sign of a constructive member of our community.

Py0alb (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try to format your responses in the proper way. You make discussions difficult to read. There's nothing confusing about what Jack said. He said it in his opening post. You prodded the article, and he removed it. Your prodding the article was your prerogative. Reinstating it after he removed it was not. Your last sentence is more meaningless rhetoric than anything else. At the same time, some of Jack's allegations in his last post are off the mark. The reverts here by you were wrong, but I would not label them vandalism, just a repeat of your misunderstanding of policy. Also, your last revert came before my comments above, and at this point it's fairly clear that you're not going to heed good advice from Jack, but did from another editor (the same one who reverted the reinstatment of the prod). So, I don't think that last revert is anything surprising. Finally, whether you should be blocked for what you've done is unclear. If it were clear, I would have already blocked you. Regardless, jumping to an indefinite block of an editor who has a clean block log is a rather drastic sanction. I would think any sanction would depend on how you conduct yourself after this discussion. Certainly, my 3-year-old warning is not as relevant as a more recent warning, and, in any event, was limited to personal attacks. Although your style is more aggressive than collaborative, I don't believe a case has been made for personal attacks. I'm more concerned with your competence and whether your edits are a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. Looking at the history of Major cricket, I see that Py0alb added a PROD tag to the article, which was then removed by BlackJack. Py0alb then reverted the PROD tag removal, which is not proper procedure; if the PROD tag is removed, the article must be AFD'd (or CSD'd if it meets criterion - even though I agree with Bbb23 that administrators rarely delete per this criterion unless blatantly obvious; an AFD is preferred). Despite the fact that another user correctly reverted the restoration of the PROD tag (note the edit summary), he reverted the page twice (here and here) before finally nominating the article for AfD as instructed by multiple users. This is edit warring in my eyes, as multiple users have attempted to leave edit summaries describing proper process, and the changes were reverted outside consensus and despite a discussion on the article's talk page. Py0alb - You should stop making reverts such as what you did recently. I note that you have since nominated the article for AfD, and I wouldn't block you for edit warring since you seemed to have stopped (if I was an admin) - but you need to acknowledge this, listen to other editors (especially when multiple editors step in to correct your reverts and actions), and discuss disputes before reverting. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Since raising the AfD, he has written this which indicates that he is continuing to ignore advice given by other users. In the AfD itself, he has voted twice and he has made a personal attack: both entries removed. In addition, he is evidently seeking to mislead readers re the citations and persuade them to ignore non-internet sources, claiming that "'Its in a book I once read, trust me' is not a valid form of evidence". Apart from its nonsense value, this constitutes a serious breach of WP:AGF. It doesn't end there. Since raising the AfD, he has removed a link to the article from another article. Frankly, this is all completely out of order and I repeat that WP:BLOCK is necessary in this case. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that these edits may have issues, but I'm not seeing a personal attack against another editor here (addition diff). It appears to be a logical analysis to me (taking "right or wrong" out of the equation). When it comes to the issue of edit warring, he has ceased doing so. Py0alb has voted; we just need to let the community have a chance to give input and come to a consensus. If disruptive editing occurs, that's a different story. However, until this happens, I suggest that we step back (both of you) and let the AFD take its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

you are of course correct, I have maintained a rational, impersonal, and professional dignity throughout this discussion. I have nothing agaisnt jack on a personal level, I simply feel that the page in question quite clearly fails WP:V and needs to be deleted from the site. A "personal attack" might constitute raising a spurious ANI and repeatedly insisting that another editor be given a block simply because you don't agree with them. If an editor acted like in such an antagonistic and uncivil manner, I think the admin might need to consider looking into their behaviour at that point Py0alb (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, that is a ludicrous accusation. I just repeated the point made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&type=revision&diff=698008924&oldid=698004810 that the term "major cricket" is one that has been invented by wikipedia editors as a convenience. There is nothing personal about this. Py0alb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am following correct procedure in restoring this discussion from the archive but I am concerned that no action has been taken against Py0alb who has continued to breach guidelines at the major cricket AfD. Please see this accusation of bad faith made by User:Hallward's Ghost, which has subsequently been proven by three editors to be completely false. Pyoalb supported the accusation, predictably I would suppose given the foregoing, and committed yet another breach of bad faith by accusing another editor of dishonesty when the true situation is quite the reverse. I would argue that the sanctions demanded by these two people should in fact be directed against them. That AfD has become a fiasco and I believe admins need to step in and take positive action against those who are trying to discredit a reputable editor who, I might add, is currently on wikbreak and so presumably unable to defend himself. Thank you. GnGn (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You've already been asked by @Harrias: (an admin) at that AFD to calm down and quit flinging around these accusations. Now you engage in blatant forum-shopping, hoping for a different result. You would do well to read WP:BOOMERANG before proceeding any further along this line. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 16:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: GnGn has now "resigned in disgust", apparently since Harrias wouldn't block me for buying one of the offline refs and doing actual research on an AFD. In my view, GnGn had to know that sanctions were likely heading his way, for his over-the-top behavior, which might well have precipitated this "resign in disgust" thing, to avoid such sanctions. Be that as it may, this thread can safely be rearchived, I think. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the "retirement" I would block GnGn, but I'm clearly now too involved to do so. Harrias ^talk 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  A cynical person might also view that as part of his "plan", or whatever. First, he tells you to sanction me, then when it becomes clear you're not going to do that, he blasts a very personal attack to your talkpage, making you an "involved" admin for purposes of actually sanctioning him for his behavior. Who really knows, though? Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gnorman Gnome

As an extension of the discussion above regarding Py0alb, I would very much appreciate another administrator's view on this, particularly the conduct and personal attacks made by Gnorman Gnome at that discussion (particularly this diff), and his statements on my talk page (this diff) and his own talk page (this diff). In the interests of completeness, the conduct of myself, Hallward's Ghost and Py0alb should also be considered. Harrias ^talk 17:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the merits of this diff alone, I issued a warning to Gnorman Gnome, asking them to not make personal attacks, and emphasizing that if other editors are being incivil, calling them aresholes isn't going to fix it. If the other named editors are willing to just cool it and discuss matters in calm fashion (or, better, walk away for a while and let a consensus form), then things should resolve themselves. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the thing, though: I never did any of the things GnGn was accusing me of, and Harrias's only "crime" was, apparently, not blocking me when GnGn demanded he do so. It's my suspicion that GnGn has only "retired" to avoid the sting of the WP:BOOMERANG. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The AFD is on my watchlist and I commented there so am somewhat involved. Gnorman Gnomes comments are way over the top there demanding sanctions when none are needed. This has crossed any line that was left, retirement or not, and probably deserves more than a warning. AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • From a combination of the personal attacks and obviously gaming the system to get Harrias WP:INVOLVED in hopes of drawing a "bad block", I've indef'd. If they return from their retirement they can see about having the block shortened, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

user Volunteer Marek ignoring RfC, edit warring on Art Laffer

An RfC was held here to discuss the inclusion of identical material inserted across 4 different pages Art Laffer diff, Jude Wanniski diff, Supply-side economics diff and Laffer curve diff. That RfC was closed diff with a result of "The description of the Laffer curve should not include the proposed text or mention of the poll." Despite this, User:Volunteer Marek has been reinserting this material in the Art Laffer page diff diff diff amongst others, claiming that the RfC somehow does not apply despite the RfC making specific mention of the Art Laffer page and a notice on the Art Laffer talk page diff.

I would like someone to ask or force Volunteer Marek to abide by the consensus reached in the RfC, or, per WP:ONUS if he wishes to challenge it, refrain from re-adding that material and seek consensus to do so himself, rather than insisting that I start yet another RfC. Bonewah (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the RfC was held on the talk page of one article, and neutral pointers were placed on the talk pages of the other articles involved, but it was not advertised on the talk page of WikiProject Economics, nor on the Centralized Discussion page. BMK (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the RfC template did all that. If that didnt happen it was due to my inexperience. Bonewah (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The RfC was NOT held for four pages. It was held for a single page, Jude Wanniski. Bonewah then decided to interpret the results of the RfC for that page as applying to any article he feels like. Obviously, there's nothing in policy to support this. A piece of material may be inappropriate (maybe it's off topic) on one article and it may be perfectly appropriate on another (where it is on topic). For the record, this was well sourced material and the RfC centered around the question of whether it was sufficiently close to the topic.

2. On December 24th after all the !votes have been made Bonewah added a message to the effect of "oh yeah, I'm going to assume that the results of this RfC apply to any damn article I choose" [54]. This was immediately objected to, correctly, by at least one user [55] because, well, because it's sort of ridiculous and dishonest (to change what the RfC is about AFTER people voted)

3. Disingenuously, on the article on Arthur Laffer Bonewah then recently argued that the RfC on Jude Wanniski did in fact apply to Arthur Laffer because... people didn't raise objections to the idea that it would also apply to other articles. Well, no shit, since Bonewah didn't bring up the fact that it was going to apply to other articles until AFTER people !voted. And oh yeah, people actually DID object.

4. It's also ridiculous for Bonewah to accuse me of edit warring where it is in fact he who broke 3RR: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert. I did not (this edit is not a revert as it introduces new material and sources] - it also seems to be what motivated Bonewah to go running to ANI)

5. Bonewah has been edit warring over this issue for months against multiple[ editors. In addition to the four reverts in the last couple hours we have: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. That's edit warring against at least six different editors. You get the same story if you look at the history of Supply side economics, Jude Wanniski and Laffer Curve.

6. When he started this latest bout of edit warring, as soon as his edit was met with objections, Bonewah went running to the one, single, editor who had supported him in the past [64] and asked him to help out in the edit war. This is a totally transparent and blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS in violation of policy.

7. Bonewah is welcome to start a proper RfC for the page in question. They cannot assume that just because they managed to sneak in a "oh yeah, this applies to other pages" into an RfC that was about to be closed, they get to violate Wikipedia policy on either WP:3RR or how RfCs are actually conducted.

8. Content wise, if anyone cares, this involves Bonewah trying to defend a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that cutting taxes raises tax revenue.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I added to the RfC clarification that i intended it to apply in all the articles listed because it became obvious that you would do exactly what you are doing now, ignore whatever consensus came up and insist that I jump through more hoops to satisfy you. The RfC specifically mentions *all* the pages in question, i even said iwhen i opened the RfC "I feel that the optimal text for this issue will likely be different for supply side economics and the Laffer curve as opposed to the bios of Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski, but in the interest of a centralized discussion, i started the RfC here to help resolve the deadlock above. " Despite this, and explicitly calling out the Art Laffer page in the RfC, Volunteer Marek never said one thing about it until after the RfC was already closed. If you really had a problem with the RfC applying to Art Laffer, the good faith thing to do would be to say so up front in the RfC, not wait until the discussion is closed and insist on another RfC. But thats been par for the course for VM, he never responded to any of the concerns expressed in the RfC most specifically that the source fails verifiability, nor did he even bother to state a reason why Art Laffer should be different, despite me asking him to do so several times.

As for the notion that im edit warring, that accusation is false. The edits he sited as proof were across 3 days not one per 3RR. Further, i went out of my way to avoid editing the articles in question diff since november 9th while the RfC took place, despite VM immediatly reverting me diff per wp:Dispute resolution i disengaged and let the dispute resolution process work. Which it did, and yet here we are.

As for the notion that i violated wp:CANVASS, this is an absurd distraction. The user i contacted had already voted in the RfC, diff long before i contacted him, he was already substantially involved. I pinged him in hopes that we could avoid exactly what is happening now, having to resolve this dispute via ANI. VM is simply trying to distract from the fact that he is ignoring consensus, ignoring every good faith effort to resolve this via discussion and instead wikilawering me at every turn.

As a side note, even if the RfC somehow didnt apply to Art Laffer, doesnt the fact that an RfC over literally cut-and-paste identical content was decided in favor of excluding that content suggest that perhaps the WP:ONUS is on him to make the case for inclusion, rather than insist that i re-litigate the same discussion yet again?

Despite the fact that ONUS says exactly that, when i pointed this out to VM diff? Silence. Just like his silence when i point out that he has never responded to my concerns that the source included in the edit does not match the claims made.

Speaking of which, his #8 above is patently false. Ive stated over and over that the issue here is that the source does not back up the claims made, i even exlicitly said so in the RfC diff Fringe has nothing to do with anything, im only trying to follow the Core content policies of Wikipedia, the fact that VM is trying to claim otherwise should tell you plenty about the way he is representing things here. Bonewah (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"I added to the RfC clarification that i intended it to apply in all the articles listed because it became obvious that you would do exactly what you are doing now, ignore whatever consensus came up and insist that I jump through more hoops to satisfy you." - No. I gave no indication that I would "ignore consensus". And neither am I "ignoring consensus" right now. You are just making that up right now, ex-post rationalizing your behavior. "Well I knew you were going to do something bad so I did something bad first, but then you didn't do anything bad but I knew you were going to so my actions were ok". That doesn't make any sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Libertarians claim that cutting taxes will lead to economic growth, and hence a rise in tax revenues. But that middle step is necessary. You don't go straight from one to the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC was on the talk page of article Jude Wanniski. After quickly looking at the RfC, it's obvious that many participants object inclusion specifically on the page Jude Wanniski: "At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski...", "he poll was not "Are Jude Wanniski's claims about taxes valid or not?", "the source makes no mention of Wanniski", etc. This RfC applies only to one page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Im the person who said "At least in the case of the edits here on Jude Wnniski", as a part of a larger argument to exclude that material. Bonewah (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Even *you* said, originally, that the RfC applied only to the Jude Wanniski page. It was only once everyone voted and the RfC was about to be closed that you snuck in, unilaterally, on your own, and without support from anyone, the "this is going to apply to any article I feel like". You were - perhaps unconsciously WP:GAMEing the rules.

Also, you only mentioned that similar text was being discussed on other articles in your (somewhat misfiled) RfC statement. You did NOT make it explicit that other articles were to be covered. THAT is why no one explicitly objected to the RfC applying to other pages - because it's impossible to object to something which hasn't been proposed. And now you're pretending that this lack of objection to something that wasn't proposed is consensus for you to do whatever you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess i shouldnt be surprised that you are now taking what i said totally out of context. The sentence you cite was part of a larger post where I detail exactly why this material needs to be removed. Right above the line you site is a bolded "oppose" inclusion. The very same comment in the next bullet point down ends with the line "its absurd to include it here in Jude Wanniski or Art Laffer". If any of that is too ambigous, the same post also contains a whole section about Art laffer wherein i say outright that this information should be excluded. Once again you are lying about what i did and did not say. Bonewah (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This RfC was clearly about only one page. Let's see what other participants who voted "oppose" had to tell: "the article is not about the Laffer curve", "This appears to be COATRACK", etc. In addition, regardless to any RfC, one can not decide to exclude a reference that qualify as RS from a number of pages because that would be against WP:NPOV, a policy that overrides consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats new to me. You should edit the RfC page in that case as it currently states that RfCs are used to help resolve content disputes, which is exactly what this is. Bonewah (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of article

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

---

RGloucester removed a perfectly valid “InformNapalm” page I’ve created.

Ignored the discussion.

By the way, some archives say he was blocked indefinitely. What happened, and why is he still a moderator?

Const.me (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RGloucester was unblocked earlier this month, you can peruse their block log if you like, but they did not delete your page. Your page was deleted by RHaworth for being an "article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". That is one of our criteria for speedy deletion. You can take it up with RHaworth if you like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You ought to learn to read deletion logs, block logs, and rights logs. I see that you have raised the point at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#InformNapalm, and you need to read the preamble to that page. You also need to read the definition of vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The page did not meet the criteria for WP:WEB notability, and hence I tagged it for speedy deletion. That's all that I've done here. You must remember that Wikipedia has policies, and that we are not an advertisement for certain blogs. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But it does meet WP:WEB.

It’s not a blog, it’s a well-known web site translated in 20 languages.

“This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles” — aren’t articles published by BBC and The Guardian reliable?

Const.me (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Reliable, yes, but that's not the full criterion for notability under WP:GNG. We need reliably published sources that are independent of the subject and provide in-depth coverage of it. The Guardian article only has one sentence mentioning your web site, and the BBC one doesn't mention it at all. That's not in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (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.

Civility/Personal attacks

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

---

User:Dennis Bratland

Edit summary including "fuck off already" [[65]]

My request: "Dennis, let me ask you a favor. Please move the above comment to the discussion you previous started on this talk page."

His reply "Do me a favor: fuck off."[[66]]

Previous examples of personal attacks/civility issues to a different editor to show a continuing pattern

"you're a fucking liar" in the talk page message and the summary just because it needs to be said twice? [[67]]

"Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m********" (seems pretty clear which word is being implied with "m***********") [[68]]

I really don't care if someone uses profane language on wikipedia. If someone calls my edit "fucking wrong", I wouldn't care, especially if it was wrong. I don't however think there are any situations in which it is OK to tell a fellow wikipedian to "fuck off" it is most certainly a personal insult and an example of an extremely aggressive and confrontational attitude towards other wikipedians.

Unless there are any claims of being hacked or my diffs being incorrect, I see no need for continued discussion on this matter. Too many threads are highjacked and lost in a pile of diffs and counterclaims.

The statements are shown clearly. The context is obvious. The pattern has been shown with previous comments. Short block requested. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

At this juncture, I think a two-way interaction ban between Spacecowboy420 and Dennis Bratland is a good idea. Anyone else agree? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering the civility issues are one way, and have been to multiple editors, I'm not sure that will solve the problem. Banning interaction between Dennis and myself, will not solve civility issues that Dennis has shown with other editors. I must admit though, it does sound interesting and might make for more constructive contributions...but still - his civility issues date back to before my interactions with him, so not a 100% solution, just passing the drama to another editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case indeed, he deserves a week-block at the very least. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As for your first diff, I think Dennis Bratland's behaviour was justified. Why are you copying and pasting his comments to other places without his permission? If I were him, I'd be expressing the same amount of concern. Ches (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had said that Skyring, Spacecowboy & crew should stop the redundant debate of w--------- at the XR-750 article and wait for the issue to be closed at the MOS talk page. I listed many other articles they could work on instead, including Harley-Davidson KR. They ignored me, and continued beating the dead horse at the XR-750 talk page. After a few days, I wanted to get away from all the drama, so I created Harley-Davidson KR myself. Spacecowboy420 immediately jumped on the article, and homed straight in on the sentence, "In 1970 it was replaced by the similarly low-tech but long-lived and US race-winning Harley-Davidson XR-750" changing it to "...went on to win the most races". Why? Because he is harassing me, and will not drop the w--------- stick. Drmies told Spacecowboy he would be blocked if he continued hounding me, and to cease even the appearance of hounding me. Did he quit? No. He came back to debate it more. To which my reply was "fuck off". And so here we are. I want to be left alone to create content. These guys create no content; they're only here for the battleground. Look at their paltry article expansions, their wholesale deletions of well-cited content, their pointless, provocative rewording, and endless, endless talk debates. One of them starts a noticeboard witch hunt nearly every day. I create articles, I upload photos, I create maps and graphs, I get articles promoted to GA. They carry on vendettas.

  An interaction ban will put a stop to all this. Take away their ability to harass me, and there is no reason for any drama. Nine tenths of Spacecowboy's edits are about me. With Zachlita and 72bikers, it's nearly 100% Without me, their interest in Wikipedia will fade to nothing.

  Skyring's wall of text below, desperately pleading for a green light to go on hounding me, is all the proof you need of how necessary this interaction ban is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • "…a green light to go on hounding…" Funny, what was actually in my mind was the exact opposite. If I never have to deal with you again, brother Bratland, that will be just fine by me. I just don't want to hand you a shotgun wth four barrels, that's all. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Your promises aren't worth much, are they? SQL blocked you because you don't keep your word. You brought on the need for a ban with teeth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hard to believe they all think we should waste time on them. AKA a pox on all of their houses

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.

---

Since the five of them (User:Dennis Bratland, User:Skyring, User:Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers, and User:Zachlita) do not appear to have any respect for the disruption they're all causing (probably a dozen ANI/ANEW/other threads started in the last couple of weeks), I have no problem with making their lives more difficult than they would consider necessary, in order to reduce the disruption. No one here can be expected to look into the long, sad history, find out who started what, who is following who, who is right about the underlying content issue, who is incrementally more disruptive, whether rudeness is being provoked, etc. It's too big and too messy a battle. All of them have already poisoned the well on this, with their over-the-top behavior. Instead, I suggest:

• Indefinite two-way interaction bans between Bratland, and each one of Skyring/Spacecowboy/72bikers/Zachlita (Group A). Group A can still interact, but they cannot - directly or indirectly - discuss Bratland. Bratland and Group A cannot revert each other's edits, no talk page requests that the other's edits be reverted... any disruption by any of the five on any other article becomes someone else's problem. Either an uninvolved editor will notice it, or nothing happens.
• Indefinite topic ban for all 5 regarding "winningest" (or any potential replacement for that word), in general and in the specific articles in question. They've more than made their opinions known. Others will continue the discussion, others will change the article from whatever it says now, or decide to leave it as is.
• If any of them report the others for violating this, they had better be scrupulous in adhering to CIV and NPA, because if the report contains anything that remotely approaches a comment on the other person's character, honor, intelligence, motivations, etc., the reporter will be blocked for a month.
• We've all basically had enough, so next time this won't be allowed to spiral so far out of control as this dispute has. If any of you move on to other disputes and edit war, or are rude to other editors, then you will be given no slack, and will be blocked more harshly than someone else would be who did the same thing.

The alternative is to take a case to ArbCom, let the Arbs actually read the reams and reams and reams of blather, and actually find underlying fault. Before going that route, though, all five should be aware that historically, the result of an ArbCom case is, at best, what I've described above, and at worst, that plus mass site bannings for everyone. So you better be damn sure that ArbCom will end up thinking you are entirely blameless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't object. I've had enough of this, it wastes my time. The one question I have is that how will this affect our ability to edit articles? We all have similar interests and generally bump into eachother. As long as we don't revert each other or talk to/about each other, we have no issues? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How it works is those who wish to bait the others makes sure they get in first into every new discussion that might attract one of the others and if they show up, then complain of a violation of the IBAN. If all editors are of good faith, it works fine. If just one thinks they can game the system, it turns into a never-ending series of trivial complaints, with points scored by blocks awarded. --Pete (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Floquenbeam, I am concerned with the amount of common sense you appear to have demonstrated all over this encyclopedia. I fear it may be spreading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• For the sake of Drmies' sanity, I would support this. Otherwise, it's likely to go to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, spot on. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Demonstrated evidence of inability to work collaboratively and supportive of the mission of Wikipedia over personal gripes. End it immediately. --Jayron32 15:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Floquenbeam. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I'm tired of reading, "the community has failed to solve this" at ArbCom. So, as the community, let's solve this. GAB^Hello! 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support I whole-heartedly agree with Floquenbeam here. Enough is enough, and way too much of the community's time is being wasted on this rather trivial issue. Let's solve this and get back to writing articles and created an encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support this, the winningest idea in all Wikipedia today. Scr★pIron^IV 16:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Overly simplistic - No one here can be expected to look into the long, sad history…, you say, Floquenbeam. Once upon a time I would have seized upon your suggestion gratefully. A chance to get on with things without being subject to harassment, without having my talk page invaded – and edit-warred over! – by someone I've told repeatedly is not welcome. A chance to edit and discuss things I'm interested in without being distracted by crapulent slabs of evasion, repeated (and refuted) argument, and flat-out edit-warring. Not to mention the endless personal attacks. Spacecowboy420 has included a few of them above. I found the "Your mother should have taught you not to be a motherfucker" line to be particularly and deliberately offensive.

But for a certain type of person, that's not how it works. We all know them. They are NEVER wrong, they are always in the right, they never back off, and they have to have the last word. For them, Wikipedia is another kind of computer game. Build your kingdom, gather allies, attack your enemies and don't give an inch. Wikiprocess isn't a way of finding fairness and building an encyclopaedia; it's weaponry, smokescreen, and armour all in one, and the clever commander uses it to advantage, because Wikipedia is a combat zone and you don't never ever retreat.

I think for one of the five named above, an IBAN like that proposed would be seen as another weapon, one with four targets. Every day, there would be a look for a potential encounter, an article, a discussion, a noticeboard where he could get in first and then complain if one of his targets later showed up. "Oooh, look! He interacted me! I was here first!!!" Someone good at trolling would find tasty pieces of bait to lurk behind. I think whichever admin took carriage of the thing would get heartily sick of the distraction, and this noticeboard would get repeated doses of drama.

I've been cutting right back on my interactions with Bratland recently. Drmies gave me some good advice a while back, and I've been doing my best to follow it. Ignore the trolling, don't react, keep interaction polite and focussed on the content or the argument. I'm all too easily baited to respond to rubbish with a correction, so I stop, pull back from making a heated reply, and think about what I'm saying. Nine times out of ten, I don't need to say anything, so I don't. Because I know the response will be more rubbish, more evasion, more personal attacks. Occasionally I'll note policy, point out an obvious error, withdraw. But I don't follow anyone around and respond to every move they make. I'm quite happy to leave the topic of motorcycles alone, for example. I've never edited Harley-Davidson XR-750, the article that started all the fuss, and I never intend to.

So no, I'm not going to enter into such a deal. I can count to ten. I can avoid the trolling. And I don't care for the "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out." approach advocated by friend Floquenbeam. If there is misbehaviour on anyone's part, then it can be dealt with through the normal processes. Quote diffs, note the policy violations, use evidence and wikiprocess. Taking a shotgun approach to wikilaw enforcement isn't my idea of good management, attractive and simplistic though it might seem to some.

If others wish to enter into the complex IBAN proposed above, that's fine. For me, I'll keep on counting to ten, avoiding the trolling, leaving the motorcycle area alone. --Pete (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This remedy doesn't address the civility issues and personal attacks raised above.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• The community solving more problems is great. This won't solve the problem(I agree with the text of Pete/User:Skyring). The approach is now "We don't want to deal with it, it is annoying, so let's ban everyone involved", without any diffs for some of them, targeting everyone with the same restriction despite probably not appropiate... eh, oppose. This might, if it passes, in my opinion, be one of these cases, which would mean that this might get to Arbcom anyways. As an appeal of this decision.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. Skyring's behaviour towards Dennis Bratland has been unacceptable, not to mention the other editors involved. 72bikers' comments to Mr Bratland, which are along the lines of "you are paranoid/on drugs" is most definitely a violation of WP:NPA. Ches (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, Ches! Good to see a sixteen year old with six weeks on Wikipedia venturing an opinion so confidently here, where you've been extremely active already. Most newbies take some time to learn how things go, but you found your way around pretty quick. --Pete (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Skyring, 2 years actually. I'm sorry, but it's rather low that you're using my age against me... there are quite a few good young editors around here. Ches (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yet another comment about contributors, not content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)  :::::Is that not just what your friend ches did? And talking like your some victim. 72bikers (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Two years. Of course. Eleven edits in a few days in January 2014, and then nothing until December 2015, when you began performing non-admin closures here. You were then accused of bias here. Just thinking we don't often see that sort of pattern, that's all. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support It's a starting point, but I'm betting it ends up at ArbCom in the end. Sigh. Katie^talk 18:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Send it to ArbCom 2015, pox and all. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Supportingest - they're still warring about this? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support until a better alternative solution is proposed. This is a dramatic way to resolve this ongoing dispute but I don't think halfway measures will be successful. I was asked to close an ANEW complaint among these editors and I could not even process the history of this animosity, who is at fault, who, if anyone (or everyone), is being injured. I agree with Floq that the entire thing is a big, ugly mess that no one admin can sort out. As for Skyring, I don't know for sure whether your agreement is required to enact an I-ban including you, what is required is your compliance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - to the 5 aforementioned editors by Floquenbeam. You do not want this case going before Arbcom. IMHO, you all should agree to merely walk away from the article-in-question & carry on as though the whole dispute never happened. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The article in question was discussed and consensus found in polite discussion. That's the way it should go. As for ArbCom, it might be good to get some level-headed admins looking at diffs rather than hyperbole. Civility is a recurrent theme, and you've got to admit that offensive line mentioned above was about as big a breach of incivility as I've ever seen here. How do people get away with that? --Pete (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:NOPUNISH, that's why. Spacecowboy and you keep coming back again and again with the same old diffs demanding punishment for old grudges. You keep forum shopping the same laundry list of complaints, and you keep being told it stale. Sanctions, whether blocks or WP:IBANs, are preventative, not punitive. The best way to prevent future disruption is to stop the hounding. I go back to creating content, you guys go back to doing whatever it is you do when you're not writing polemics against me. Just do it somewhere else. Do it to somebody else. If I'm really as bad as you think I am, an uninvolved editor is perfectly capable of dealing with it without your help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Once again I have to defend myself. I did not say it like that. what I said and still stand by was he was acting like someone on drugs with all of his paranoia. Relentless unsupported accusation of being a sock or meat or part of some made up conspiracy against him. And with every thing written seen by all I don't even see that as possible. And that statement pales in comparison of the things mr bratland said of me. And ches with your statement just another attack on others and to speak as if mr bratland never did anything wrong. It is obvious you are bias and hold a grudge towards me for bringing up your age and that you are not a admin. But you were closing notice board discussion as if you were. And with your statements there it was obvious you were bias towards mr bratland. And with mr bratlands interest as far as motorcycles the same as mine. I also do not feel it is fair first come first serve. And for how long? I live a active life and have limited time to come edit. Mr bratland appears to have no other commitments in his life as it seem he is here 24 7. I really feel as a new editor I am being pushed out. I would invite you to read this. 72bikers (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You folks who are under the radar here, aren't heeding my advice. Recommend ya'll stop bickering & move on. Trust me, I know what I'm posting about. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support pox Drama like this can not exist without help from all sides. If we cared enough about incivility to nip things like this in the bud, fine, but we do not - posibly for good reason. No editor is essential to Wikipedia, the disruption must stop, and the other option is to ban them all, which would be a loss just less of one than continuing disruption. It also has the benefit of 'reseting' all past matters - no need to dig into the past mess. If any of them can not abide by the IBAN, or try to game it, then long blocks would be in order. Jbh^Talk 20:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I saw this thread opening last night and immediately suffered a Facepalm of the "oh Jimbo here we go again" variety. This keeps turning up like a bad penny and you'd think by this point somebody would have noticed it never gets anywhere, but apparently that hasn't sunk in, so it's time for that message to be applied with the Cluehammer 40K. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• User:Dennis Bratland, User:Skyring, User:Spacecowboy420, User:72bikers, and User:Zachlita, kindly refrain from discussing each other and each other's edits in this thread; I really don't mind getting an advance on friend Floquenbeam's proposal and block for interaction violations already. Y'all are at the point where every interaction between you is disruptive. Pete, I've known you long enough to know that you are reasonable enough to understand that something is going to happen, and that the best way forward is to not press the matter by making more counter charges. I hope the others have as much sense. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

And I've known you long enough to appreciate your practical advice. Righto. I'll start now. *zips lip* --Pete (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Guy. BMK (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's proposal. Group A should leave Dennis Bratland entirely alone (and vice versa), and all concerned should focus on improving the encyclopedia while studiously ignoring each other. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support' Anyone in doubt can witness the WP:BATTLEGROUND at the MOS thread on winningest. That Dennis Bratland himself is endorsing this is all that really needs to be said.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support The nuke it from orbit approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing as successful. From here on out, Dennis Bratland is interaction-banned from Skyring, Spacecowboy, 72bikers, and Zachlita, and vice versa, although none of those four are banned from interacting with each other. All five are topic-banned from "winningest". Per WP:BANEX, they're allowed to report ban violations, but uncivil or personal-attack-laden reports (remember that WP:WIAPA includes unsubstantiated accusations as personal attacks) will result in a block instead, or as well, for the reporter. And finally, you're reminded that further conflict with other editors will probably result in swift sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (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 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.

Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again

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

---

For the past couple of days editor Second Skin has repeatedly removed valid well sourced genres from the Babymetal article (here, here, here and here). Apparently he doesn't agree with Babymetal being part of the "metal" and "idol" genres. He then proceeds to add his own personal unsourced idea of what the genre should be (here). He offers no explanation for his removal, neither does he present any references to back up his edits. It must be noted that before editor Second Skin changed the genres, there were two IP editors who changed the genre with the exact edits as Second Skin (here, here, here and here). Editor Second Skin doesn't discuss this issue on the talk page of the said article, he seems content with repeatedly removing the "metal" and "idol" genres from the Babymetal article.
Please note that this is not a content dispute. This is an issue of a genre warrior removing well sourced genres from a musical band article, and adding his own preferred unsourced genres into the band article. Taking a brief look at editor Second Skins recent and past contributions, it is clear that his main mission on Wikipedia is to push his preferred genre versions into band and artist articles. The majority of all of his edits are about adding or removing genres.
Additional info: The majority of reliable sources place the group Babymetal into the "metal", "jpop" and "idol" genres, and these sources are placed into the article via inline citations (see here for more info). Repeated removal of these genres and the sources and replacing them with new unsourced genres constitutes vandalism. Could an admin please take a look at this issue? Thank you. 93.133.44.143 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. A band with one album has a 50k article, and a template with dozens of somehow related articles. Can someone spell J-POP? Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Well, the sourcing, as in all those J-pop related articles, is atrocious. Second Skin's edits don't strike me as very unproblematic given the mixture of fan sites and portals and commercial sites masquerading as journalism which is so typical of the industry. One wonders who IP 93.133.44.143 is, and what their relation is to the plenitude of one-off accounts and IPs found in that article's history. They sure are capable for someone who just walked in today. For the specifics of this genre discussion, which is incredibly exciting of course, I'll just ping NinjaRobotPirate and my old friend Moscow Connection, who have alrady weighed in on the talk page. Mind you, this discussion here is about the editor, not about the genre. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure, some of the sourcing is a bit weak, and the article isn't that great... but when I find a band article that isn't sourced to Discogs and Encyclopaedia Metallum, I often consider that good enough nowadays. Second Skin's behavior influenced me to be a bit biased toward the IP editor's POV. This includes dismissive edit summaries ("lol how is that a 'genre'?", "LOLOLOLOL NO", "Lol. Try again") and apparent ownership issues ("leave this alone or your edit will be reverted"). Apparently, SS does provide a source when forced, but I think the IP editor has a point. "How is that a genre?" strikes me as enforcing his own opinions on the article. I don't know for sure if "idol" is a genre. And, honestly, I don't think I care enough to do more than post a message to the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point about the edit summaries, NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first off I don't understand what the hell labeling myself a "genre warrior" has anything even slight concerning the edits I was making to the article. Removing Japanese idol (something not even clearly perpetuated as a "music genre" reading the page) is not vandalizing the article and DEFINITELY not a representation of me "not agreeing that they're 'not a part of idol'" or whatever. The amount of hostility I'm receiving from just removing things like that and the fact that you've even chose to take it to administrator's noticeboard (something I doubt they'd even care for) if beyond absurd. The group seems more recognized as a pop group after what I've seen in the sources (although I couldn't care less what you call them. I don't listen to the group and don't care either). Not seeing how this pertains to being a "genre warrior" but ok. My acts of editing is more to the liking of changing them to a pop group (which in my opinion is way more accurate than a metal band) is not the act of a "genre warrior" butrather not giving a fuck especially after examining what the press and other observing reports has called the group. In the grand scheme of things though, I honestly just don't care enough and it's ridiculous that it was even taken this far. Have your stupid article for your stupid J-pop group. It doesn't concern me. And to the IP address that wants to talk trash on my edits trying to say that "all I do is edit to change genres", how about taking a look at the Decomposing Normality article I practically put together earlier this week - or perhaps taking a peep at the article for Visceral Disgorge I put heavy work into as well not too long ago either? Here's a grand idea I have for the IP address that wanted to cause all this drama because of his favorite pop band: Stop talking shit and stop leaving bullshit templates on my talk page. See ya 🖕🏻Second Skin (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The usage of vulgarities and expletives is not a good idea not only here in Wikipedia but in life in general. By the way, am I the only one who notices that editor Second Skin used a highly unacceptable vulgar expression in this edit summary after Administrator Drmies issued out an admonition on Second Skin's talk page? 77.4.144.255 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Couldnt give a fuck less what is a "good idea" or not honestly. And also that wasn't to Drmies who I was telling to fuck off but rather the IP address who constantly is leaving me these "please stop your vandalism" templates which should be justified for an obvious reason by me or anyone else who has been a user for a couple years on this site would be annoyed by. - Second Skin (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Drmies admonished you, Second Skin, about your unacceptable edit summaries. You were informed that such edit summaries will get you blocked. You responded by using an unacceptable vulgar insult in your edit summary. Your insults and vulgarities are in violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct behavioral guideline. It does not matter whether you directed your unacceptable vulgar insult against an administrator or against an editor. Bottom line is that you have done it after an administrator warned you against exactly such behaviour. You can try to talk your way out of it as much as you want, you have nonetheless created the impression that you probably told a Wikipedia administrator to "f** off". You might want to kindly take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's principles of etiquette. Thank you. 77.4.144.255 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuck off - Second Skin (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• IPs, please don't cite me by name unless your name is known as well, and please don't adopt this patronizing tone with someone who had the courtesy of signing in; we do observe some rules of decorum here. Second Skin, on this beautiful collaborative project, you really need to observe the rules of decorum. No one is going to block you for saying "fuck off", though some of that remark flew in my direction. You have a point to make, make it without insulting editors even if they are wrong or tirritating. I have no beef with you or anyone else over this metal/idol thing, but you need to argue your point in an adult manner, on the talk page. Or you can just walk away from the article, either way. I'd rather have you in and on the article, personally. Finally, IP, I'm not much of a prescriptive grammarian and I will not criticize you for what some call "splitting the infinitive", but in some circles it is frowned upon. This is just FYI; I want to see you succeed. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of your respect, I'll follow that. You're the only one here showing any clear amount of respect for me rather these unnamed IP editors are just pointing fingers of shame at me for any sort of contribution I have made to this website and all of my favorite bands that have articles on it (Babymetal definitely is not one of them). Second Skin (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. But, I have to say, I have not looked into the matter of sourcing, of what genres are verified and etc. I think I said before that in this field the sourcing is usually terrible anyway, and usually echoes what SM Entertainment or whoever runs the artist says. And have you checked out Ladybaby? Much better, and they can dance like nobody's business. I think Keilana or Kelapstick turned me on to them. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor uses foul and vulgar language in his edit summaries and in an Administrator's board and no action is taken against it by an administrator? So, according to Admin Drmies, noone is going to block an editor who repeatedly writes vulgarities not only in his edit summaries but also here in an Admininistrator's board after an administrator warned the same editor not to repeat such behavior? Do other administrators agree with this? According to WP:ACCOUNT, Wikipedia is for both IP editors and registered editors. I do not need an account in order to participate in Wikipedia. It appears as if IP editors are being discriminated against, e.g. if the vulgar language was thrown at a registered account, the offending editor would be blocked, but since it's just an IP editor no action will be taken? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Wikipedia there is no single policy or guideline that requires anyone to have a registered Wikiepdia account in order to participate in Wikipedia. The issue here is not me as an IP editor, it is editor Second Skin who repeatedly has used unacceptable foul language in his edit summaries and also right here in this discussion. Since no action is taken against editor Second Skin, I have no other option than to bring this issue to the attention of other administators. Why do we have WP:CIVIL if its guidelines are not enforced? 77.4.144.255 (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this report about genre warring or is it about civility? SS was warned about their language and said they'll stop, so that should be enough. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that input, Clpo13. Since 2 admins have now agreed on this issue, that's good enough for me. 77.4.144.255 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (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.

Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries

I should apologize that being new to things around here I posted this at the dispute resolutions center first.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Karait (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YuHuw (talk · contribs)
• Неполканов (talk · contribs)
• Toddy1 (talk · contribs)
• Warshy (talk · contribs)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs)
• Wbm1058 (talk · contribs)
• 31.154.167.98 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a conduct dispute arising from harassment on Talk pages. The discussion began on Talk:Karait but soon spread to other talk pages:

Talk:Keraites Talk:Turkic_Karaite Talk:Crimean_Karaites Talk:Karaite_Judaism#Russian_Empire_Karaites_.28Qaraylar.29 Talk:Karaylar#Delete_or_Keep?

It spread to these pages is because User:Неполканов brought my attention to the issue of potential confusion with Crimean Karaites and various other ambiguous words which could be used to refer to them.

However the Harassment has also appeared on User Talk pages: User_Talk:Toddy1 User_Talk:Warshy

It began with my reversion of what I thought was vandalism (I apologized later) of an article here [69]

I looked at User:Неполканов's edit histories to try and pinpoint exactly why they started to harrass me. I found this here [70] apparently canvassing support for against the author of the article, an IP address from the biggest ISP company in Israel whose only contributions were on that article [71] maybe the Wikimedia Administrative Offices can identify if that IP has ever been used consistently by another user before.

It turned out I was not the first person accused of being a sockpuppet for taking an interest tn this at that time foggy topic. The User WBM1058 had also been accused of being a sockpuppet here [72].

Looking through Неполканов's history he only ever seems to start editing wikipedia when Toddy1 needs assistance accusing sockpuppets. Toddy1's canvassed Warshy into this as you can see from that talk.

DBachmann said that we may have all been duped by a sockpuppet of another user but it did not stop the harassments which are too many to post here but an initial list was made here but they did not stop, and neither did my requests for them to stop.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to turn the other cheek, I have tried to be warm and welcoming, I have invited friendship, I have tried to reassure the users that I do not have any negative agenda and encourage the users to engage in discussion pages and bring their sources for un-sourced disputed content rather than talk about me as if I am a sockpuppet everywhere. Any content recommendations from the Users which have been made I have tried to include into the articles, I have taken advice etc..

How do you think we can help?

The Wikimedia officials can surely see the IP addresses which I am assigned by my IP service provider (a major company in my country). I always edit wikipedia from an IP address provided me by that provider. I believe if I can prove my true identity to one trusted Wikimedia Foundation Official that the Users can then be reassured that I am not the person they think I am and they may then join in discussing the facts about the articles rather than continue their current path of Harassment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by YuHuw (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2016‎

I'm not seeing harassment at the locations you've listed. Perhaps you can list the diff(s) that concern you. Tiderolls 20:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was told that if someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you. Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[73] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [74] and the fact (s)he signed later [75] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [76] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [77]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [78], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [79] [80] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

But at least Nepolkanov has engaged in (even if he is aggressive and belligerent editing) some useful discussion on the issues which need to be discussed, unlike user Toddy1 who does not really engage much at all. I don't want anything but to reassure them I am my own person and make sure they don't try such tactics again just because they don't like the challenge. I don't mind fierce debate, I believe thrashing out diametrically opposed views can lead to a clearer picture on foggy issues, but preferably without the insults to intelligence and without the horrendous and potentially damaging references. I didn't create an account to hide my light. I hope I have something that given time will shine here. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I was drawn into this when I spotted technical issues. My first related edit was to the unrelated article about Bungarus venomous snakes, where I removed a hatnote because Karait did not redirect there anymore; but it seems that I stepped into topic areas where one needs to tread carefully, to avoid getting bitten by a Bungarus. I understand that there is no one correct way to spell "Karait"; that varies depending on what foreign language the word has been translated or transliterated from. I understand that peoples characterized as being "Karaits" may come from different geographic regions, far separated from each other, and I understand that some "Karaits" identify as members of the Jewish faith, or some variant of that, while others do not consider themselves to be Jewish. I've seen that Wikipedia has multiple articles covering various geographic, ethnic and religious variants of "Karaits", and that editors, some based in Israel and some based in Russia, cannot agree on how to disambiguate these topics. As an American who identifies as neither Russian nor Jewish, I have limited knowledge, and sorry, limited interest in, these topic areas. I believe that YuHuw is a good-faith new editor, and have no basis whatsoever on which to even remotely suspect them of "socking". Note that despite being an administrator, I don't have much experience at this venue. I hope my comments are helpful to those who edit here more often. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Thank you for that. @Tide rolls: As a follow up to this Nepolkanov albeit surrounded by a bit of endearing grumpiness and in the wrong place on my wall User_talk:YuHuw#Nepolkanov.27s_complaint seems to be attempting to make some sort of suggestion about something he would prefer. Perhaps if someone can help me understand his suggestion it this might help move things forward. YuHuw (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Cliff1911 refuses to add sources and refuses to communicate

User:Cliff1911 has nearly 50,000 edits in eight years as an editor. Every one of them is to mainspace. He hasn't used an edit summary in his last few thousand edits and may never have used them. He adds material to articles, but never adds sources. He has had hundreds of comments left on his talk page, but has never responded, ever; He has zero edits on his own user talk page. On that talk page are hundreds of disambiguation warnings, none of which have been corrected. This may be the Wikipedia world's worst case of WP:IDHT / WP:NOTHERE.

We've been here before -- in May 2013, October 2013 and again in July 2015 -- and did nothing.

Adding content is great, but the refusal to add sources, especially about living people, and the refusal to communicate -- ever -- should ring alarm bells.

We can deal with this refusal to observe policy regarding sourcing through a block. Or we can have editors systematically revert every unsourced edit one at a time. Doing nothing will mean thousands more unsourced edits from an entirely uncooperative editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at a sizeable sample of the more recent edits. Ignoring minor CE and adding wikilinks, most other edits are adding poeple to pre-existing lists. Yes: it is true that all the additions are unreferenced. The problem is: that the addition is being made to lists where most, if not all, of the other people on the list are equally unreferenced. It is difficult to censure an editor who is merely following the established format in an article that he edits.

A more relevant question might be: should the lists be allowed to stand with the almost lack of any referencing? 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a side issue, along with all unreferenced articles. The key point here is a user that never engages in discussions and edits are coming under question (and not for the first time). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course such additions are improper, and editors that continue to build such lists should be unwelcome at Wikipedia. It is, unfortunately, somewhat perilous to attempt to deal with the problem.—Kww(talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can you provide recent WP:DIFFs of "refuses to communicate", and of your recent attempts to resolve this with him on his talk page? Otherwise, I think this fails ANI criteria, especially when, as the IP observes, most edits are adding people to pre-existing lists where all the people listed are equally unreferenced. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Without any opinion on the merits of the edits (I haven't checked), "refuses to communicate" is self-evident just by a look at his talkpage. (Mainspace: 49,823, Category 5, User 2, Template 1, Talk 0, User talk 0, if you want raw stats.) ‑ Iridescent 23:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In my mind that's only relevant if the OP has actually tried to communicate with him, which he hasn't since June 2015, just prior to the last ANI (which ANI was not acted upon). This ANI is therefore moot. It could have been otherwise had WP:DIFFs been provided of actual really problematic edits (which there aren't any, really, per above) and of recent attempts to communicate about such putative problematic edits. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a prime example of unsourced WP:BLP, and be problematic? Scr★pIron^IV 14:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Would an admin like to enter the discussion now and make a decission? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've had a look, but unless somebody gives me a large amount of very recent diffs that are obvious disruption or BLP violations, I can't do anything. The diff ScrapIronIV supplied above shows Cliff removing a significant amount of unsourced content, so while the bland "they have since divorced" needs a source, it's at least heading in the right direction. The last person I remember blocking for a lack of communication (Ludwigpaisteman - who I will happily unblock the minute he says something) just disappeared and is probably just editing as an IP instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks

I'm not pleased to be posting here again so soon. However, Travelmite (talk · contribs) has recently launched (out of nowhere, from my perspective) a series of personal attacks directed at me, accusing me without grounds of vandalism, whitewashing, editing in bad faith, causing damage, violating rules, making threats, and corruption. As well, there is what seems to be an attempt at outing me.

• 15:57, 27 January 2016: [Under the header 'Canadian Monarchists vandalising this article'] "There is a user called Miesianiacal who is a writer for the Canadian Monarchist League. I can see a long history of severe violations of Wikipedia rules. He is relentless in removing parts of the article, that show republicanism is valid. I've just fixed up the vandalism that I've seen, whole paragraphs haven been taken out. Even the way Australians discuss the issue has been replaced by the whitewashing terms of Canadian Monarchist League. How much damage has been done, is hard to say."
• 11:39, 28 January 2016: "The edits of user Miesianiacal represent the aims of the Canadian Monarchist League. I think it's irrelevant if it's a paid position. The objective is to whitewash. The activity is certainly supported by the membership dues. Wikipedia should not be a tool for any organisation. If anyone goes over the history, there are dozens of edit-wars, where he has deleted or changed material and they were restored, but occasionally, a deletion is missed by the editors. Threats are made I found and restored three paragraphs. Miesianiacal's action was to undo the changes, and delete the crucial comment that he is speaking on behalf of CML. Other editors should be aware that this is a serious situation (arguably corruption) and it may be justified to place Miesianiacal under an edit ban."

I removed the attacks three times ([81], [82], [83]), citing WP:TPO: "[Allowable is] removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." I left pertinent discussion about content: [84]. I also left a note at Travelmite's talk page, again outlining WP:TPO, as well as WP:NPA. S/he reverted the removals of the PAs from Talk:Republicanism in Australia ([85], [86], [87]) and reverted my comment at their talk page without remark.

I am genuinely baffled at this hostility from Travelmite; as far as I can recall, I've never interacted with the individual before. Further, I shouldn't be forced to say anything about what I do outside Wikipedia, but, I am not a spokesperson or any other authority with the Monarchist League of Canada, paid or otherwise. I am not even a member.

Assistance with this matter would be greatly appreciated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Travelmite, you are too close to outing with your statements, and you are certainly making personal attacks/denying good faith. Do not restore that material. Discuss edits, not the editor, and please do so in a way that ... well, you should know. See previous sentences. Skyring, I trust you will, with your experience, function as a guide in case any of these editors are not aware of our policies and guidelines--on the one hand, OUTING and NPA and all that; on the other, RS, NPOV, and what not. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If Mies is acting as a spokesman for any monarchist organisation, he should declare it, given the vast number of pro-monarchist edits he has made over the years. However, I felt Travelmite was going a little bit too far, and I'm on Mies' side in the case of exposing personal identies - Wikipedia upholds the right of anonymous editing very strongly. I've just this moment wound back some very bold edits by Travelmite on an article that has been the focus of intense discussion over the years, suggesting he discuss his many controversial edits. Not sure what this editor's objective is, but they need to work with established editors. I just noticed this on WP:COIN. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is exposing any personal identity. There is no way a reader can work out the identity of user Miesianiacal from these comments. It's a matter of exposing a Conflict of Interest. I see that there is a bit of familiarly going on here to "Mies", even though Conflict of Interest is an serious matter. At least, it seems the Admins know what is an advocate for. Interestingly, there is a denial of involvement with the Canadian Monarchist League here. Travelmite (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are dangerously close to exposing personal identity and that's all there is to this. For clarity's sake: I am Dr. Mies, and in no way affiliated with the Person Called Miesianiacal Abbreviated (Erroneously?) As "Mies". It should be clear to you that Pete is playing on your abbreviation. For the record, I did see Her Royal Highness once, during my sensitive years, but only from a distance. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to start a discussion about her highness, you must notify them on their user talk page. Then we can see just how "distant" the relationship was.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear at all. I point out to you all, that I am making a claim of a serious violation. This is Wikipedia's problem, not my problem. He is violating your rules and of course, he has a right to deny it (which surprises me, but there it is). The rule says OUT-ing people is more forbidden than putting forward evidence for the COI. Why assume that I don't know something, simply because I am following the rule to not OUT people. Travelmite (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of WP:OUTING, please. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of harassment? ... so you're saying I've been personally attacked? No. I don't think so. If we tackle the COI issue, then different editors can over time will restore balance back into these articles. Travelmite (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

And here we have a perfect example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Drmies, but I wasn't trying to be clever when talking about (Mies)ianiacal. I usually address him as Mies, because I'm too lazy to spell out his entire user name, and I usually need a running start and two attempts to spell it correctly. As he has selected his name in apparent homage to the brilliant architect Mies van der Rohe, I see no problem with the abbreviation. Perhaps one or both of you would like to select another name to minimise confusion? --Pete (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for removing the PAs, Drmies. However, it seems Travelmite has only shifted his campaign against me to another forum. I suppose there he'll at least be asked to prove I am what he thinks I am...?

There's something fishy about this. An editor who's been active only intermittently over only the last year, focusing almost exclusively on Chinese Beijing-related topics and "white privilege", suddenly puts a laser focus on me, claiming to know who and what I am. It's very odd. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've just figured out he's been editing more frequently as 62.189.73.197 (talk · contribs). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I have no knowledge of the subjects under 62.189.73.197, nor do I know the person. They a knowledge of Shanghai and perhaps a lawyer. I see 5 edits about Republicanism in November 2015, but I didn't make them. As I explained, I looked at the page on Australia Day, to find a Canadian monarchist in charge, and I followed the chequered history to the source. I think these admins know what's going on. But to recommend Skyring as a "guide" with his history of disputes and bans, that is fishy! Anyway. The proverbial ball is now in their court. Travelmite (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting to ponder how it is you determined within less than the span of Australia Day that the page was under some kind of control by the Monarchist League of Canada; you make the assertion in the summary for your very first edit ever to the article. More interesting still is that you made that claim, plus the personal attacks and accusations against me, not after you "followed the chequered history to the source", but based on "evidence" that was, by your own admission, not on Wikipedia. And it took you only a max of 40 minutes to go through 10 years' worth of my edit history to apparently find some "proof"? It leads one to wonder who you are and possibly also who's been feeding you misinformation off-Wiki and why.

But, the COI question is moot now. So, it seems to not really matter anymore. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note - I just closed the case at COIN. I tried to teach Travelmite how we deal with COI in WP at their Talk page, here, to no avail. If Travelmite persists with this behavior (and they just brought it up again on an article Talk page), I suggest a 48 hour block. Let's see what they do. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Travelmite, unless you've got concrete evidence to back up your 'Monarchist League of Canada' accusations? then I highly recommend that you cease making them. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

evidence from within WIkipedia only! Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note - Randykitty has blocked Travelmite for 24 hours after giving a warning for the persistent COI accusations Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if 62.189.73.197 is Travelmite or not, however it is a | confirmed proxy, might either want to keep an eye on that or block it completely. KoshVorlon 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked attempts to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina and removal of POV tag

I made the following edits to address BLP and neutrality issues at Carly Fiorina:

1 This edit was made to a statement that is not currently supported by the sources provided (in violation of the verifiability requirements of a WP:BLP).

2 Added well-sourced content.

3 The use of the term "wrongdoing" is not supported by the source.

4 This edit removed WP:WEASEL words: "Despite this.."

5 This edit also removed WP:WEASEL words: "...what she called..."

The edits were reverted en masse. I initiated discussion in Talk here where I made a number of good faith proposals to address the statement which is not currently supported by sources. Thus far, the BLP violation has not been addressed.

Also, I added a POV tag to the section with the content that is currently disputed. That tag was removed by one of the editors involved in the dispute.

At a minimum, the BLP violation needs to be addressed, and the tag should be restored until the dispute is resolved.CFredkin (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is rather obviously a content dispute and nothing more. The assertion of "BLP violation" in connection with #1 above is laughable -- go ahead and click, you'll see the core of a political dispute where the edit does nothing at all to "protect" a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I will address the BLP violation. CFredln changed "Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for their involvement in fetal tissue donation" to "Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for its practice of selling fetal tissue."[88] Selling fetal tissue is an offense under federal law (42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue) punishable by a fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.[89] The original allegations that Fiorina relied on identify living persons as having broken the law. Mainstream media reports that no tissues were sold.[90] A grand jury decided not to indict Planned Parenthood staff. (See "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales".)

I have explained all this to CFredkin, yet they continue to argue that tissues were sold. Could editors please explain to them that making this type of edit could result in Discretionary sanctions.

Otherwise there is only a content dispute, which is how it should be resolved.

TFD (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The above statements are completely irrelevant. I'm not making a claim that the tissue was sold at this point. The sources provided in the article currently make no mention of the disputed statement. The editors involved the dispute (here and at the Talk page) have have been completely unwilling (or unable) to cite the specific content from the sources provided to support the statement. That's a BLP violation, plain and simple.CFredkin (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's been no effort at all thus far to justify removal of the POV tag that was applied for other edits which were removed without explanation.CFredkin (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This is worthy of a WP:boomerang, seeing as Fred is obviously pushing his own POV. It's pretty well-known by now that the allegations against PP were bunk, yet he's adamantly pushing against that.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

JoeSakr1980 is adding trivial information to leads of relevantly important articles such as:

• Economy of Ukraine
• Economy of Turkey
• Tourism in Lebanon
• Tourism in Turkey
• Economy of Suriname
• Economy of Argentina
• Economy of Venezuela
• Economy of Paraguay
• Economy of Colombia

...And many many more.

This has justifiably been reverted by a lot of users including: Hammersbach, SegataSanshiro1, Elie plus and many more. It also appears he works for the Lebanese government ([91]). And now he's edit-warring to get his way. Something needs to be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, there appears to be heavy disruption at this article by the same user: Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is also vandalizing several articles. Either that or they're not competent enough to be here (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecuador&diff=prev&oldid=701328645)142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of talk page messages to this editor. They haven't edited since then and I'd like to see how they respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Etienne, if they cannot abide by policy they should not be here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

JoeSakr1980 is still fairly new, so I've left a message spelling things out very clearly. Outside of the visa requirements article, he's mostly only at 1 revert, though on a variety of pages and usually for similar (if not identical) edits. His edits appear to be in good faith, if perhaps in the wrong part of the article or accompanied by other problems. I would not immediately dismiss arguments citing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself.

142.105.159.60: please read WP:NOTVAND. You are also edit warring just as much as JoeSakr1980 is.

If JoeSakr1980 ignores my warning, I will take further action. If another admin takes further action before then, whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: would you say this edit was likely in good faith? I can certainly accept that someone would mistakenly believe a wrong fact about English spelling, but the entire edit consists in subtly breaking the spelling of several words or changing them into different words. Also, what about the fact that JoeSakr1980, below, claims to never have known how to reply on his own talk page, yet he not only suddenly started doing so, but was as confident as to make a "cleanup" of it (i.e. deleted all the warnings)? To me, something about his good faith doesn't add up. LjL (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually could see some of my IELTS students making most of the changes in the link (particularly changing "two rivers" to "to rivers"). Those that I can't see my IELTS students doing, I know I've made the same mistakes in Spanish. I'd bet $10 he wasn't using ctrl+f. That link does support a potential WP:CIR argument, but doesn't quite spell out bad faith for me.

His first to his talk page was blanking the whole page with the summary "clean up" (not just the warnings). The next comparable edit (which was not labelled as a clean up) comes several hours after he said that he hasn't figured out how to reply on the talk page yet. Some less technologically proficient users get intimidated by the edit window, especially when English clearly isn't their first language. (When in doubt, imagine that the other user as that one elderly friend or family member who keeps installing toolbars, thinks Google "makes internets," and thinks that Facebook is a standard Windows application).

Again, all that could be part of a WP:CIR argument, but more edits of that type would need to be presented to overcome the fact that he's only been here a few months and that most of his activity appears to be repetitious or non-experimental. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

He's stopped his promotional posts for now, so I think this can be closed. If WP:CIR comes up again with this user or if he starts up his spamming again, then action can be taken.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the user who just reported me

EtienneDolet, Well I don't work for the Lebanese government. I work in the German representation office at Nicosia, TRNC. My edits were referenced and you may or may not agree with my edits. I revered the edits for some users and urged them to include then in a possibly new section. As a history or foreign relations topic. My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible. My main scope of edits on Wikipedia are concerned with Via requirements and Visa policies. I've been correcting those, updating them, and undoing every vandalism edit for some time now. Concerning the "Visa requirements for Tunisian Citizens". Me and a visa-policy veteran called TwoFortNights were undoing edits from a user who engaged in an edit war. His edits were wrong and he constantly denied our requests to discus it on the talk page. I have reported him on Berean Hunter's talk page for appropriate action to be taken. I'm not the one who imposes vandalism or engages in an edit war with anyone. I have previously reported many users for being sockpuppets on Wikipedia and the appropriate action was taken by blocking them. Check Vanjagenije's talk page. You shouldn't block me or take such action just because a user thinks I'm an article messer on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time and efforts in making Wikipedia a much better place. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You might want to try posting in the thread that's about this issue instead of starting a new thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved response to thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @JoeSakr1980: Please read and follow Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines and Policy on paid editing which says how to comply with wikiipedia's Terms of Use. Also please note Wikipedia is not for promotion and using it for such may result in loss of editing privlages. Thank you for your understanding and compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jbh^Talk 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• @JoeSakr1980: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, so when you say "My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible", that's directly contrary to a Wikipedia policy. Relent on this promotion and make your edits be about creating an encyclopedia, or you will inevitably find yourself in more trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, this is one of those instances where good English skills are needed when editing in an English-speaking forum. Yes, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", but it is obvious that (talk) did not mean "promote" in the sense of any of the 5 negative examples mentioned, bur rather in the dictionary sense of "to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further" as in the dictionary.com definition http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/promote?s=t In sum, I think too many people are hiding behind the text of some Wikipedia guidelines as opposed to understanding their meaning.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Leave me and my English skills alone already. You have been transparently trying to annoy me for too long and the game's no longer fun. You even randomly intervened on my talk page again after knowing very well that you're very unwelcome there. It's time to stop. LjL (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the user who just reported me

Jbhunley, you left a paid editting section on my talk page, as you said I'm still fairly new on Wikipedia. Been here for a couple of months and haven't figured out how to reply to a talk page just yet. I've felt I would be better to leave a section here and on your personal talk page too as you said I shouldn't edit before I clarify things out.

I state that my employer has no relation with my Wikipedia account and under all situations and conditions I take no compensation or financial gains from my edits what so ever. My edits are completely mine and I don't benefit from doing so in any possible way.

My edits were just to spread the info out in appropriate places and I have not an idea that it's prohibitted or would get me in such a trouble with dozens of admins. Sorry for everything. Please let me know about what should I do to end this mess up. Thanks. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@JoeSakr1980: All you need to do is not "promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy", just do not do it. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional behavior. You should read our core policies about how information must be presented from a neutral point of view and that information must be verifiable by citation to reliable sources. (Click on the blue links they link to pages than describe the terms.) That said, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for being willing to contribute here. Jbh^Talk 16:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ABStormWaveCD

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.

---

ABStormWaveCD has threatened to "destroy" my account by hacking it. Emotionalllama (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Emotionalllama has been replacing my reliable information with false stuff. I am a respected cryptozoologist and I know better than Emotionalllama does. She keeps threatening me with a block, and it must be stopped. I will reinstall my changes. User: ABStormwaveCD12:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)ABStormWaveCD (talk)

ABStormWaveCD blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2016 (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.

non-free image

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.

---

Akhila3151996 just made this edit to Millennials which added a photo. The photo was uploaded by Akhila3151996 who claims to have the copyright. The problem is I can find the identical image here so this can't be true. How do I propose the deletion of a non-free image? Emotionalllama (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Already tagged for speedy deletion at Commons. Nthep (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Akhila3151996 also uploaded another non-free image but I tagged that one in commons now that I know how to. Emotionalllama (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, there's a gadget on Commons called QuickDelete that can assist in nominating images for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Even forgetting possible copyright violation, what encyclopedic value does the picture have? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page

Editors dispute some changes that BushelCandle and EEng have made to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images guideline page about size and location, and there is currently a RfC going on about the size aspect of the guideline. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Permalinks here and here. EEng is steadily making significant changes to the guideline without consensus, and I feel that the page needs full protection to cease this disruption to the guideline page until the RfC is over and/or until other matters are worked out on the guideline talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If all you want is page protection, you might get a better outcome at WP:RFPP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of that page, Tryptofish. Taken there. Sometimes requesting page protection works quicker at WP:AN or here at WP:ANI, but that's more so for vandalism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake!

• At Talk:MOS/Images I proposed a reorganization of the MOS/Images#Size section, intending only to improve the presentation without changing the substance. Another editor -- not I -- went ahead and installed it on the live page, calling it "magnificently superior"; [92] other editors immediately commented on what an improvement it is [93] [94].
  • Flyer and other editors feel that certain language was better the old way, and opened an RfC on that. Depending on how that turned out we could have reinstalled the old language on that one point, or not, but either way leaving all the other new stuff (which no one objected to) in place.
• So far so good, so I gave the same treatment to MOS/Images#Syntax [95]. No objections.
• So I moved on to MOS/Images#Location. With no explanation other than, essentially, "I'm reverting because I can", Flyer reverted [96]. I un-reverted [97], with the edit summary Calm down. If you don't like a small part of a large, good-faith change which is obviously helpful overall, then just change the little bit you don't like, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of doing that, he's suddenly here crying "disruption". Blindly reverting the good-faith (and obviously useful) work of others, instead of modifying and building on it -- that's disruptive.

What a waste of time and effort. Pinging BushelCandle, Dennis Bratland, David Eppstein to back me up on this. EEng 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion related to this issue has been going on for some six months now. Every time someone thinks things have died down and achieved something resembling consensus (or at least enough of one for a bold change) and tries to implement the changes that have been discussed, it gets reverted with a message that it can't be done until we reach a consensus. SlimVirgin is only the most recent to do this (and in general I agree with her that the discussion was still ongoing this time); before that, Sandstein reverted twice. It would be nice if we could get this guideline modernized but we seem to be stuck in a perennial filibuster by editors who are happy to take advantage of the rules under which no clear consensus equals sticking to the old version (rather than even recognizing the lack of consensus and ripping out the non-consensual parts of the guideline). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think EEng's points are wrong per se, but I really like and trust the principle WP:NOCONSENSUS which means that I favor reverting to the stable version while we hash it out. If one or more editors think we haven't reverted back far enough to the stable enough version, then we should revert to that until the discussion ends. At the same time, if the RfC or other discussion is WP:SNOW -- a waste of time, over trivial nits, or whatever -- then a closing admin should be proactive in declaring the discussion over and consensus achieved. On top of that, I think getting articles to look good in everything from a tiny iPhone 4S like late adopters like me stick with, all the way to those crazy super eight foot wide concave screens I read about somewhere -- it's impossible. No rule will ever cover all those, and if you could write hard rules that way, somebody would write a script called "make this Wikipedia article look great on every display." So what difference is there in going back to the old version until WP:Consensus is consensus? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think I may bear some responsibility for this perturbation and if I have done something wrong then I most humbly and earnestly apologise. I apologise in any case for diverting editors from the important task of building a better encyclopaedia.

I think the summary above is fair and accurate. I came to the Manual of Style page about images by accident and found it in what I thought was a quite outdated, unhelpful state with scope for improvement in the clarity of the advice it offered. After I checked its accompanying discussion page, I thought there were changes that could be implemented on a consensual basis after 6 months of discussion that had been followed by a comparatively lengthy hiatus. I made the relevant changes which were reverted. The reversions were discussed and the admin making the reversions excused himself from further reversions or discussion. Proposals were made that received no objections. Before those proposals could be implemented, EEng made his "magnificent" proposal which I then implemented using an edit summary of "Be very bold and attempt a great leap forwards: see discussion page for rationale". I expected to be immediately reverted if that leap was unpalatable, but no substantial reversion occurred until some 2 days later with User:Flyer22 Reborn's reversion of 20:37, 26 January 2016. Rather than throw away the progress made after nearly a year of exhaustive and exhausting discussions I suggest that we revert to Flyer22 Reborn's consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and allow discussion to continue. Vigorous discussion does indeed continue. I am somewhat surprised that the editor who has brought this matter here did not ask editors on the page's discussion page to stop improving a specific section or sections if he was so greatly concerned. If she does so now, I will certainly voluntarily abstain from editing the sections that she specifies, but to block all editors from editing a whole page seems both strange and unnecessary. The editor concerned has been asked to specify exactly what wording would placate him her and I await their her response with interest. BushelCandle (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we revert to Flyer22 Reborn's consensual version of 20:37, 26 January 2016 and allow discussion to continue -- fine with me. But can we stop talking about "consensual versions" -- it sounds like a college date-rape hearing. EEng 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#Resuming_discussion I've made a proposal for incorporating Flyer's desired wording. EEng 04:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We (y'all) could use "consensus versions", which doesn't sound like a college date-rape hearing. I !vote for that. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my whoopsies. I didn't start to use English until I was 5 years old and first went to school and I still make some bad howlers. I'm also a bit mixed up in my colloquialisms because some colleagues speak Indian English, some South African, some Australian, some Canadian, some Filipino English but most Singlish. BushelCandle (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng can ping all the editors he wants for backup on this, and it won't make him any more right. Why I reverted EEng and requested page protection was made perfectly clear. And it is still perfectly clear judging by the current editing of that guideline page. The guideline has been a mess, for the reasons noted by GoneIn60. I requested that EEng stop via an edit summary. He often edit wars on guideline pages. Asking him to stop on the guideline talk page most likely would not have helped a bit. And, BushelCandle, I'm female, by the way. And what you call my consensus version clearly is not my consensus version. I reverted EEng on that section twice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That stated, EEng is currently trying to work things out with me on the talk page, and I have known him to make good proposals to our guideline or policy pages. It's just that I don't always agree with his methods, or proposals (obviously). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was always happy to work with you, but you would never say anything specific about what your objections were (other than the one phrase about which you opened the RfC). Thus I made one last entreaty for specifics, and went back to work. EEng 02:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thrasher1988

• Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
• Thrasher1988 – On User talk:Myxomatosis57:. User harassment. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You are in a content dispute. This page (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism) is for vandalism. You are looking for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Curro2 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: @Curro2: I would personally block the user. There have been many genre trolls on Wikipedia that abuse the articles/pages. Also this user used profane language that was durrogative towards another editor/user. That should not need a previous warning in the first place... Astral Heat (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

His/her edits, while egregiously uncivil, are not vandalism and therefore should not be reported here. This entire conversation should be moved to WP:ANI. Curro2 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. Also, this. GAB^Hello! 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note that Thrasher1998 was not notified of this disucssion as the big orange box at the top of the edit window instructs; I have done so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BushelCandle

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 continues to violate WP:NFCC#9 on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy by re-adding File:SGD 10000 Paper f.jpg after multiple removals. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Prefixing "File" with a colon is the right way to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was an exemption for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, Stefan ?

In any case, isn't this a free, copyrighted image within our peculiar meaning of the word?

If you approach the Monetary Authority of Singapore (which has responsibility for both Singapore and Brunei banknotes) they will confirm that their 'Licensing Scheme for Currency Reproduction' that was introduced with effect from 1 October 2000 was initially relaxed with effect from 11 August 2006 and again recently. The rules on reproducing the Singapore currency for advertisements and publications were relaxed to grant permission to any person "to import, manufacture, sell, circulate or otherwise distribute any specified merchandise or product containing any photograph of or any drawing or design resembling any currency note or coin or part thereof." where 'specified merchandise or product' stated above means "any publication in which the reproduction of currency notes or coins is used for educational purposes, or in connection with any news or factual article or report, not being an advertisement for any merchandise product, or service."

There are remaining restrictions, but I believe we can comply with all of them:

1) The use of the reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall maintain, and not detract from, the dignity, integrity and image of the currency note or coin; and
ii) shall not have any risk of confusion with genuine currency note or coin.

2) The reproduction of any currency note or coin:
i) shall not distort images of the President or any national symbol;
ii) shall not show the currency note or coin in a manner that is offensive or against public interest; and
iii) shall be on a material which can unambiguously and easily be distinguished from coins, paper notes or polymer notes.

3) The reproduction of any currency note:
i) shall, unless the reproduction is in an electronic form, be at least 150% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is enlarged or be not more than 60% of both the length and width of the genuine currency note when the reproduction is reduced in size;
ii) shall, when the reproduction is enlarged, reduced in size or to be viewed at an angle, be depicted proportionally;
iii) may be depicted at various angles, except that, where the whole currency note is depicted flat to camera, the reproduction shall contain the word "SPECIMEN" in black and bold lettering diagonally across the reproduction and which shall not cover any part of the portrait; and
iv) shall not be by way of duplex printing (that is, nothing shall appear on the reverse of the reproduction that may give the impression that it is a genuine currency note.

BushelCandle (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That's limited to educational use, making the file unfree. And the exemption for certain administrative pages only means that there's about half a dozen of categories which do not need __NOGALLERY__. Other pages may not include non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It should stay as a link, as I had it. Commenting it out is not necessary, and posting it as a picture on that page is not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful suggestion, Baseball Bugs. It's a good one since, with my limited understanding, that would comply with our policies AND allow Adam to see how much loot he (potentially) missed by not accepting my wager. It also has the serendipitous virtue of showing the file syntax used without having to bother to inspect the source code. I was going to do just that when another very helpful and knowledgeable editor added the dinky little colon for me. BushelCandle (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• BushelCandle's wrong about this -- though you have to click through about three links from NFCC to find out exactly what the exceptions are -- but for fuck's sake, can we please have some perspective about what's an ANI-worthy incident? This isn't all that important and it's certainly not urgent. I've dealt with Stefan2 before and to be blunt -- since this is the page where we let it all hang out -- while his dedication to keeping WP and Commons license-compliant is admirable, his communication skills ain't so good (see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_June_4#File:WugTest_NowThereIsAnotherOne_FairUseOnly.jpg). My suggestion is that he find a NFCC-knowledgeable admin who he can call on in future to explain things to newbies he's having trouble getting through to, instead of wasting the eyeballs of 100s of stalkers here at ANI. EEng 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignorant miscreant being herded into the seahorse coral

Please don't be too hard on Stefan - his native language and culture may be very different and he probably has a huge task on his hand herding into the coral corral all the ignorant miscreant heifers like myself. I'm not convinced that the non-free content criteria are as inclusive as they should be, but obviously I need to comply with whatever misguided policy we have until and unless it is changed. Consequently, I think the helpful solution proposed by yourself (of choosing lower value banknotes to illustrate both my wager and the sizing equivalence of |20px| or |frameless|upright=0.1| for the vast majority of our readers) or by temporarily making them links as Baseball Bugs proposed are both good solutions. Sorry again for the trouble I've caused! BushelCandle (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Herded into the coral? EEng 02:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely you would be coralled into the corral? As that is the act of coralling? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Herded into the corral; only after in the corral have they been corralled. Scr★pIron^IV 18:13, 1 February 2016 (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.

Criticisms of Marxism

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.

---

We've seen a number of socks (both IP and registered) on this page, and I'd appreciate blocks for all of them, if possible. I've reported this to RFPP, but that might take a while. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected two weeks. Katie^talk 21:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! GAB^Hello! 21:26, 1 February 2016 (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.

Incivility of Knowledgekid87

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.

---

Accusing someone of incivility is a grave accusation in Wikipedia. On 6January2016,14:31, Knowledgekid87 accused me of having been uncivil, without specifying that accusation. So, I asked him on his page(16Jan), to corroborate that accusation. For an answer, he said(16Jan): ‘I gave an answer over at WP:AN’, which he had posted on WP:AN on 16Jan2016,21:48.
That answer reads: “I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: (30)”, pointing at my edit of 6Jan,14:23 at Talk SCW. But at the time of Knowledgekid accusing me (6Jan,14:31), Legacypac had not yet commented on my edit of 6Jan,14:23. So: Knowledgekid’s answer(16Jan), that he just agreed(6Jan,14:31) with an (not-existing) opinion of Legacypac is nonsense, a lie. I therefore have to conclude, that Knowledgekid87 refuses to give any corroboration of his accusing me(6Jan2016,14:31) of having been uncivil. That turns his accusation of 6Jan into an harassment/ill-considered accusation.
That altogether constitutes two acts of incivility from Knowledgekid87: harassment (6Jan) and lying (16Jan). It’s obvious we don’t need and don’t want uncivil, harassing, lying editors on Wikipedia. I’m not very acquainted yet with these procedures, but I suppose Knowledgekid87 needs to get a serious warning for this; and I suppose, this is the page to ask for such a warning. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nice you are concerned about incivility/unsupported accusations/lies/harassment. Could you please provide the diffs to substantiate your allegations of [98] of cursing at you. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

...the above reads like nothing so much than an attempt at manufactured outrage, using tortured legalese. I can't even follow the reasoning, much less discern the grievous affront it is supposed to describe. How about not clogging up this board with inanities? -- Elmidae (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2016 (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.

79.78.168.63

The IP 79.78.168.63 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account, who keeps edit warring and endlessly arguing about a cause which two experienced editors disagree with him about. Pages he visits: only Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays and Hebrew calendar. Unsubstantiated concern has been voiced that he is a sock.[99] I would like to ask for recommendations or help in dealing with this editor. Simply blocking him is the easy way out, but I am not sure if we can take that way, since his behavior is annoying, but not a violation of any strict policy, because he edit wars without violating 3RR. Unless he would be a sock, of which I am not sure. I have warned him in the past,[100] but apparently to no effect. Your ideas, please. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have left an edit warring note on the users page. Note that one can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't break 3RR. HighInBC 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

IP alleging Jewish conspiracy, personal attacks, you know the usual

• 64.231.64.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Talk:R v Elliott

Anon editor insisting there must be a Jewish conspiracy and casting aspersions about several editors' and real-life persons' ethnicities. Requesting swift block. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dammit--that IP is on to me. I am in fact a Jewish feminist, intent on ... I forgot what. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• On monarchism, of course![101] Bishonen | talk 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

• Glad I read it a second time. I thought you accused him of monorchism. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• 74.216.198.142 - another. Why does it always have to be a Jewish conspiracy? Agnostics have conspiracies too, you know. We just don't care very much about them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agnostics might or might not have conspiracies — we just can't be sure! Carrite (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing nutjobs gunna be right-wing nutjobs.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's probably the same old Jew-hating ref desk troll. And why a Jewish conspiracy? Well, if they started talking about a Sealandian conspiracy, who would notice? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How about us Illuminati? We never get any attention these days. GAB^Hello! 22:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, nobody shines a light on them nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha. The Illuminati are just a distraction so that the chemtrails can go unnoticed. GAB^Hello! 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, they have long since been taken over by the Jews. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Other biographical articles covered by GMO sanctions?

I'd like to know if certain biographical articles should be included in the 1RR/DS per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms: all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. For example Yvette d'Entremont, who is known for her GMO advocacy (which is mentioned in the lead section of the article). Other involved biographical subjects, such as Kevin Folta and Gilles-Éric Séralini, have the editnotices on their pages. I'm sure there are some other articles that should have the {{ARBGMO_talk_notice}}, et al, but this is the only one that has come to my attention recently, and I'm not sure what to do about it other than call on the assistance of an administrator.  Adrian^[232] 23:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think it's reasonable to consider that the scope is "broadly applied". Admins have limited ability to answer your question, but the ideal place to ask is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think more of what I am trying to say is, if it's obvious that the page is included, then the templates would need to be added to the editnotices there, and those are locked to admins. It seems obvious to me, but I have zero experience in these matters.  Adrian^[232] 00:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Anyone under the GMO topic ban who is editing the Science babe article is actively courting a block. It is obviously in scope. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yvette d'Entremont? Oh, yes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the page is clearly within scope. Any editor can place

{{ARBGMO talk notice|style=long}}

at the top of the talk page, and that is good enough to get started. My experience is that, once one does that, a template editor will come along and upgrade it to an edit notice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this decision is up to you all; I have been requesting clarification of this very issue from the Arbs and hope to receive it soon. To me some BLPs are obviously those of advocates, but the Arbs may not agree. There are probably some parameters we can use to make these determinations. petrarchan47คุก 00:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Until an arb says they aren't, they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well SageRad has declared Yvette d'Entremonts article biased, so no doubt they will be along soon to "improve" it. Shame their topic ban is not for all GMO related topics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• According to the lead section of the page: "She also works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement." (Bold font added by me.) There is no question about it. This page falls within the topic area of genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. As Bushranger said, that's what it is until an Arb says otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Akash3141

Akash3141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has dedicated several months to rendering The Undertaker a fan page, violating numerous policies including WP:RS, WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. As can be seen from the edit history, numerous – more experienced – editors have chided User:Akash3141, but he instantly reverts their efforts to remove his fanclub-esque edits and makes shocking insults like these in his edit summaries: [102][103][104]. People seem to have given up trying to combat this truly relentless individual, who has seriously undermined the credibility of The Undertaker, and insulted many people in the process. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice complaint, but you are required to notify the person complained against on their talk page as the big yellow notice at the top of this page says. You have not done this. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. 82.132.226.196 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I know everything involving IPs is suspect, so let me just verify their claims. Akash3141 has repeatedly readded similar puffery material to The Undertaker. The user in question has also edit warred and has shown incivility, such as calling good faith editors trolls[105], dumb[106], dumbass, lousy scums, stuck up, etc. They had another account, Akash Bedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which was blocked and their user page was deleted for being an advertisement. Akash3141's userpage is identical to Akash Bedi's. Akash3141 borders on an WP:SPA as 90% of their edits either add bloat to The Undertaker or contribute to the advertisement on their userpage. Akash3141 previously contributed to Akash Bedi before it was deleted.LM2000 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add that he was warned about edit warring on January 19 and asked to discuss changes on the talk page and to stop calling people names on January 22. A quick look at his contributions shows that he continued his bad behavior after these warnings. Nikki♥311 14:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations is thataway. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is less about the (obvious) sock puppetry and more about the uncivil edit warring, ownership issues and general non-collaborative behavior. The sock puppetry is just another reason to indeff them. Which is what I propose. Clearly acting in an utterly non-collaborative manner to force in OR, INUNIVERSE and other terrible edits. I believe they lack WP:COMPETENCE and have worn out their welcome here. oknazevad (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No need for a sockpuppet investigation, Akash Bedi was already blocked for being Akash3141. That wasn't much of a sock case, they never tried to hide that they were the same person, Akash3141 just wanted to create a biography page on a userpage that had his real name on it. The larger issue is the The Undertaker fluff being added and the incivility we're having to deal with, the advertisement on his usepages is the icing o the cake.LM2000 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's an edit where he called another editor "dumb" and "dumbass' in one summary: [107]. CrashUnderride 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

See this edit. Leaving ANI notice now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

They used that word, I do not think it means what they think it means. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What a mess. I think I've cleaned up everything. I blocked the IP, two sock accounts, deleted the bad-faith and malformed AFD page, and semiprotected the target article for a week. I'm off to bed, if anything else turns up, let us know here, and hopefully, another admin will take care of it. --Jayron32 07:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Jayron32, and goodnight. Sweet dreams. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't have pinged you--did I wake you up? I didn't mean to... Drmies (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The same person tried this back in 2013. Also see User:ACE1234. Someone really wants to make sure we use a very specific title for a local politician who died in 1950. The Moose is loose! 10:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC) _{"Intellectual property" also definitely doesn't mean what they think it means, Bushranger.} The Moose is loose! 10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably this person wants to use the pagename Edward Jeffries for the actor [108], and thinks that the best approach is to move the current occupant to a different page. The approach adopted is clumsy and foolish, but not incomprehensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Independently of this ANI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red~Adman happened. User:ACE1234 was blocked for socks back in 2013, along with a few Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ACE1234. Should they go into the Red~Adman SPI, and it be renamed for ACS1234 as the master? Should the IP whose action led to this ANI be added there as well? DMacks (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See also the SPAfest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Director Edward Jeffries. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions

Closing with no action as none is merited. Any discussion of potential changes in editor behavioral guidelines can be take to the pump or other appropriate places. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. I asked him to retract that but he ignored it. Other editors also challenged these remarks as aspersion. Ping involved editors AlbinoFerret, Semitransgenic, The Four Deuces, Aircorn, petrarchan47, Tryptofish -- prokaryotes (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a profound difference of meaning between statements like 'Arguments like this are used in climate change denial' which seems to be what KingOfAces is saying, and 'The editors arguing this are climate change deniers', which seems to be what Prokaryotes is accusing KingOfAces of having said. Not sure how those two are being confused, although statements like the first one can be logical fallacies. Geogene (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also explained exactly this to Prokaryotes prior to this posting at WP:AE where their behavior is currently being looked at.[109] My only comment actually directed at editors and not on content/subject matter was that multiple editors were misunderstanding some of the concepts behind some scientific content. I'm not interested in addressing the hyperbole that I'm calling editors climate change deniers further, nor do I think we should entertain the silly idea that I was doing that. I was actually careful on wording my posts to focus on the subject and not editors to avoid these kinds of comments as we're subjected to drama pretty often in this topic. Either way, the topic is under discretionary sanctions, so even if someone thought my sourced comments on the subject matter were some sort of violation, that's for WP:AE, not here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The first two links are diffs of comments that show no problem that I can see. The claims are generic and appear unexceptional. It certainly is true that people use Wikipedia to promote WP:FRINGE ideas, and often sources are cherrypicked to make claims that aren't valid—the same tactics of climate change denial. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you link a comment from there where someone is promoting a fringe theory? prokaryotes (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

He wrote:

• "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus"

  "...but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial."

To understand his comments you need to read the discussion, the main point being that none of the sources cited supports the consensus, except for a single author (who was criticized for a flawed assessment by the Union of Concerned Scientist). And besides the WHO states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Pointing out the lack of consensus prompted him to write above analogy to climate denial - states ..."editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial" He is not calling us deniers, but compares our honest policy based input to climate denial. Hence why i wrote above, he essential frames...and this is what qualifies as aspersion.prokaryotes (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To make this clear he started with denial when he wrote, "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus." . But there is no consensus at all in the world of GMOs (in regards to an overall assessment as discussed).prokaryotes (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional look at the discussion and judge for yourself, are the arguments there the same as in climate change denial, as Kingofaces claims? prokaryotes (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Coincidentally there is an article about recent discussions on the food safety consensus, we discuss here, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to ping. Maybe I have thicker skin than others, but despite some robust discussion that is not going anywhere fast I am not seeing much in the way of "very serious aspersions" from either side. I think the OP missed the point as far as apparent "accusations" of climate change denial goes. Nobody on either side of the debate thinks of the others as denying climate change, quite the opposite in fact. It is more presenting the paradox of how similarly presented science can be seen so differently depending on ones ideals. Something not unique to GMOs or climate change. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• As noted above, "this is the kind of thing climate deniers do" is not an accusation of climate denial. It has been observed elsewhere that some anti-GMO activists are massive fans of science in the area of climate change, and resort to fallacies such as the "pharma shill gambit" when science fails to show GMOs to be dangerous, I wonder if that is the problem here. Regardless, I see nothing actionable here, on either side. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've been pinged, and I am responding with no small amount of annoyance. This is "vexatious litigation". It is abundantly clear that saying that an argument is the same argument that has been made in other contexts is not the same thing as saying that editors have actually made that argument in other contexts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Vexatious Litigation? If you were all for avoiding conflict, then why did you take Prokaryotes to ArbCom Enforcement almost less than 1 hour after after the 1RR violation here without first asking him/her to self-revert? No warnings, nothing. Just straight to ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Because that is how Wikipedia works. The difference is that there really was a 1RR violation there, with an abundance of prior warnings, whereas there have not been aspersions here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no "abundance" of prior warnings. One only need look at Prokaryotes talk page history going back to 2013 to see that the only warning from you was after you filed the case at AE. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A day or so ago, I thanked you at the article talk page for being willing to work together, but here, you are sounding rather partisan, especially given your professed preference for "avoiding conflict". Please see the AE page. There is a section in my filing that details prior warnings to him. ArbCom imposed 1RR, and they had good reasons for doing so. The way it is imposed, prior warnings are considered the appropriate procedure. And it took him well over a day before he finally got around to self-reverting, but he was a lot quicker to open this retaliatory complaint here at ANI. In any event, here we are discussing whether admins should block KofA. It is abundantly clear that they should not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being "partisan". I am not trying to create conflict, but point out what I see as double-standards of calling this unnecessary litigation. Prokaryotes did not wait a day to self-revert. Prokaryotes self-reverted here only 21 minutes after being asked by Aircorn here. If you had politely asked as Aircorn had, it would have saved us a lot of time at AE. Instead you supported a topic ban for Prokaryotes. It is true we seem to be able to work together and appreciated your positive comment there. I would like you to try harder to work with Prokaryotes instead of threating a topic ban. (I apologize if others see this is off-topic.) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly coming on strong with your beliefs that I am at fault and Prokaryotes should be excused. It was a day from the AE filing. An editor who understands why there is 1RR would not spend a day arguing at AE that the reverts were justified because he was supposedly right in the content dispute, only to self-revert after someone points out the obvious to him. This is not a double standard. The AE filing is appropriate, and two administrators there have agreed about it. This ANI filing is unnecessary. If you are such a fan of asking politely, why didn't Prokaryotes try to discuss it at KofA's user talk, instead of coming here? See? And I have been quite polite to Prokaryotes at the article talk page, even saying that I fully supported the edits that you and he had made at one point. His response to me saying that? He accused me of not cooperating with other editors. And while we are veering off-topic here, I'll point out that editors were quite noisy about wrongly accusing me of SYNTH, but when I supplied the requested source, the response has been silence. There is a source for "scientific consensus", and editors suddenly lose interest in discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And to be very clear: 1RR does not mean if you make a second revert other editors are supposed to explain to you that you need to self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close with no action, per comments above. Geogene (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I too find that KingofAces43's frequent use of the term "Fringe" and "climate denier" problematic and needlessly antagonist. We are supposed to discuss how to represent what is in RS, not use our personal biases about the science (or a scientist) to dismiss any position (or person) we do not agree with as "Fringe". For example here, King claims that José L. Domingo who is editor and chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal with a high impact factor is "fringe". It is little more than an ad hominem argument, just like calling editors "anti-GMO", POV-pushers, etc. This same editor was none to happy when accused of having a COI here, which resulted in a very lengthy AN/I and successful block against the person suggesting King had a COI. You would think King would give other editors the same respect and not use ad hominem arguments, but after repeated warnings, this has not stopped. I am not surprised this case was brought. I think a warning to cease the behavior would be sufficient. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Besides the ongoing OR discussion, Kingofaces is now what appears to be edit warring at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_crops&action=history, where he edits against talk page consensus, of several editors. prokaryotes (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial. Advocacy of fringe beliefs and climate change denial are a long term problem on Wikipedia, hence WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBPS and the like. It is a clearly established principle of Wikipedia that the mainstream POV is Wikipedia's POV. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reason to throw editors who are questioing recent edits by King, Air and Trypto in with climate change deniers, unless you want to distract from the real issue. And it is simple: Jytdog wrote a SYNTH/OR "scientific consensus" statement that after a months-long, well attended RfC, was closed with agreement by all that the wording does not have support with available RS. As no new sources have emerged to support some version of 'no scientists doubt the safety of GMOs', these editors who are now ignoring that RfC cannot claim to be doing it in good faith. So sling mud, then no one will notice. It's a PR statement and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-science establishment mouthpiece. Guy argues that Domingo 2011, which shows that HALF of all independent studies done on GMO food safety found "serious cause for concern", should be ignored by WP and not included in these articles until various governmental agencies have adopted different language (admit that questions of GMO safety exist). We have suggested for going on a year now that the solution to this contentious and unsupported generalizing statement is to simply quote the various groups. We don't do that. WP summarizes upwards of 18 different sources in order to claim that this 'general consensus' exists. Having been through the RfC and the related ArbCom, these facts have been well covered so i won't be added diffs again. WP can continue to host unsupported PR statements that fly in the face of MEDRS, and it can continue to be a laughing stock that people are warned to stay away from. Up to you. But PR doesn't work if no one trusts you. petrarchan47คุก 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point about direct quotes, I have suggested this here, and guess what - the involved editors ignore this entirely, besides we do this for Scientific opinion on climate change. Their reason is probably because the WHO (statement in link)- the highest authority in the field, directly contradicts a consensus statement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That we are being forced to reargue that gargantuan RfC, but unofficially in barely-related noticeboards, shows disruptive editing. That this consensus statement is being added to WP and you are the one who ends up in trouble (again, for simply tending to RS issues) shows that "discretionary sanctions" and handslaps from ArbCom do not actually help anything. This issue needs to go to the authorities and they should be forced to address it. [But I'm not volunteering; I am ignored even when I ping and ask very direct (even bolded) questions.]

It is clear that an encyclopedia would uphold the notion that we add content, well-sourced and neutrally stated, and then if it can be summarized in a simple statement, great, add it to the intro. I call this a PR statement because for one thing, the opposite happened in this case. The statement was written, and the sourcing was dealt with afterwords, largely through drama board gaming by gangs, as we see today. Even though official WP processes were used to determine that statement is without support, longtime editors can still find a way around this inconvenient fact. I call it a PR statement also due to the fact that any true mention of opposition to this POV is left out of articles, again through these same methods. To this day, WP does not mention the percentage of Americans who favor GMO labeling, even though I have complained about this many times in very public places. I've mentioned many times Domingo, who's paper is the very best MEDRS source available on the subject of GMO food safety, and literally everyone at this encyclopedia snores. So, by what WP does say, and by what is being kept out, we do indeed have a PR statement written by a topic banned editor, now being reintroduced and defended by his buddies. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice Petrarchan47's shill gambit above? Comments? Geogene (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, stop following me around. It's becoming ridiculous. petrarchan47คุก 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Following? I posted here (top of the thread) before you did. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite. The apology will be interesting. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene has been following me for a long, long time. I had to say it, even if it doesn't immediately apply. Anyone can do a little search and find this to be true. I see no reason for an apology, but it's easy to believe you weren't aware of our long history. You can check Geogene's talk page archives for more. petrarchan47คุก 00:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Then ask for an IBAN. A two way IBAN. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking you to leave me alone. It's been over 2 years. Let it go. We don't need to call the cops. petrarchan47คุก 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here still discussing whether there should be administrator action against KingofAces, or are we just warming up for another round of dispute resolution? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this was dead on arrival and should have closed yesterday. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Suggestion (from uninvolved editor): I suggest that the community make it a policy, in DS or AE/ArbCom areas, that participants on either side must not name-call or falsely characterize/compare the participants on the other side. Therefore, in this particular DS topic area, no use of the word "shill", no mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar such as flat earth), and no use of insults/name-calls such as "GMO paranoia gang". Can we all agree on that? It seems like such directives should be included in every ArbCom ruling in these sorts of DS areas. It would solve a lot of problems. Especially if sanctions were forthcoming for any breach of these principles. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, and I've been trying to get the community to see pretty much that in the thread about Elvey higher up on this page. The thing about "shill" was actually codified in the ArbCom decision. But what is happening is that editors are getting sophisticated about skirting the spirit of the principle. Instead of calling someone a "shill", they talk about "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good", and in the thread I referred to, administrators are saying that they don't see anything about "shill" in that. But the opening complaint of this thread here was about an editor saying that an argument resembled the arguments used by climate change deniers, and some editors are trying to spin a critique of an argument as being the same as saying that editors are climate change deniers. It gets messy when you get into the weeds, just like civility. I wish it were clear-cut. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Spot on Softlavender prokaryotes (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It would all be settled if any mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar) were prohibited. I'm not talking about this ANI case. I'm talking about going forward. And, going forward, "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good" and similar statements would be prohibited as well. If someone has a COI claim or investigation to make, that belongs on WP:COIN, not in content discussions or disputes. It's fine to discuss whether research or a source is independent of a company/ies or not, but in this DS area, it's not fine at this point to discuss or hint at other editors' motivations, period. Or compare their arguments/behaviors to other groups, period. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the problem with comparing an someone's argument to arguments used by climate change denialists. For one, that's a critique of the argument, not the editor. It isn't flattering, but this is not the most horrible insult to hit ANI this week. Geogene (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely the point: It is an insult, and in these contentious DS/ArbCom areas, we need to prohibit insults of every kind, on both sides of the equation. Again, I'm not talking about this particular ANI case; I'm talking about going forward. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to be able to objectively, and honestly discuss the qualities of arguments other editors use. If it's a bad argument, the editor behind it might feel insulted. But that's not necessarily an insult. The problem comes in when they attack the editor, such as by assigning them problematic motives. That isn't what's happening here because this area has no connection to climate change, and there's really no threat of anyone constructing bad arguments about GMOs because they're climate change denialists. If that were true, if a reasonable person might be worried about denialists sneaking in and using bad arguments, etc, in GMO articles then it might have been an aspersion. Civility and AGF are already required by policy but they aren't consistently enforced. Banning certain words or phraseology would just be another "gotcha" trap for newcomers to Wikipedia and wouldn't accomplish anything because thesauruses exist. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguments are based on logic. You can objectively critique the logic of any argument without comparing it to the arguments of a disparaged group, or indeed any group at all. (Just as you can critique someone's claims without fulfilling Godwin's Law.) I see no point in explaining this further, so that's my last comment to you on that score. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, "discussing" needs to be done in all kinds of ways, but "honestly" isn't necessarily one of them. I agree with Softlavender that such a comparison is insulting, and is meant as a put-down. Analogies can work very effectively, just ask Donald Trump or any other politician, but some of them work by way of rhetorical sleight of hand. If you cannot say something in literal language, you probably should stay away from using metaphorical language. I'm speaking now as a person who has a block button: I am very likely to consider the comparison a personal attack. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll remind you that editors such as Prokaryotes were made fully aware this couldn't be construed as a put-down before this thread opened as described in my original post here, with even more explanation here, and my comments at the AE case. They were implicitly told I was focusing on the sources and the arguments sources put forth and that the criticisms of arguments for "no scientific consensus" being like climate change denialism were also sourced. The only time I ever directed a comment at editors was: 1. Some were misunderstanding some technical aspects of the sources [110] explained in previous discussions. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at the board.[111]

As a legitimate question to hopefully end this, maybe you can offer some insight both from the admin/ArbCom perspective and the content side? If even introducing the content issue that science denialism in the GMO topic fringe sources and the methods the sources use causes this much of a call for blood, how would we even approach writing about this content in an article? Such content would describe many of the arguments against GMOs being safe as ranging from unsupported to pseudoscientific and described as similar to climate change denialism, vaccine controversy, etc. by sources. That's content and a huge consideration in WP:WEIGHT on the topic. No one should be getting insulted by that content not directed at editors. That's especially if editors that may not personally agree with that view are checking their personal views at the door at login. Not checking such views at the door should be the only way to claim personal offense in this area of the content and contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED.

How would you go about dealing with this dynamic of separating content from behavior issues on this specific topic? I for one am interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack. I'm open to thoughts of clarity on this, especially now that we've fulfilled the point of Godwin's law where editors are invoking Nazis as part of arguments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content. Accusing an editor of using an argument like climate change denial is not at all the same as citing content from purported RS that does so, and then discussing whether the source is RS or is the best RS. Besides I have not seen quality RS that accuses those who question the purported "scientific consensus" on GMO safety as being akin to climate change denial--it is usually GMO proponents like Jon Entine or Pamela Ronald who write in mainstream who say things like that. Nor have I seen RS using terms like "pseudoscience" or Fringe. The word "Fringe" is purely a Wikipedia construction. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Softlavender's suggestion and agree with all of Softlavender's responses to Geogene. We need more civility. These insults are unnecessary and unhelpful and also create a lot of text that does not serve the project. Instead, let's look at the RS and what it says and discuss it without attacking the other editor's intelligence, competence, motivations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Do you consider a comment like "I understand the industry does not want the critics' voices, but I think our article is supposed to be about the "controversy" not just the industry perspective. in relation to a reversion to be any different than the ones being discussed here? I was personally not offended by it in any way and didn't even give it a second thought until another editor linked WP:AGF when responding. I think it highlights how easy it is to make these unnecessary aspersions and the difficulty in enforcing them in any meaningful way as the level of offence experienced by editors varies a lot. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a very subtle accusation of biased editing in the first part of that comment. So it was okay for the other editor to call me out on it, and so I regretted it after making it. I should have just said that there is too much of the industry perspective. In fact, I would be willing to strike that part out if it helps. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is good opportunity, a bit more of a hopefully final explanation of my original intent plus general issues we're dealing with in this topic. Part of the problem with what Softlavender described is that general science denialism tactics (e.g., denying scientific consensus where climate change has the most examples) are content issues, not comments on editors. I fully acknowledge that editors sometimes may blur the line between the two in heated debate, especially in cases when an editor personalizes a point of view that might have significant criticism and gets offended (I'm not singling anyone out here). Editors should be detaching their personal views from content when they log in though per NPOV. That's all why I was purposely careful to focus my post about the content, not editors, as I made abundantly clear to Prokaryotes before this thread was even opened and at the WP:AE case against them (where I find it very curious that they went to ANI with this instead of AE during their open case).

Saying we can't talk about sourced science denialism in a topic at all would be restricting content. It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism. Those things are going to come up as part of legitimate discussions on real-world content in these topics. Obviously no one should be going so far as to personalize it into insults directed at editors such as claiming they are an anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOer, etc. We focus on content instead. It's one thing to deal with obvious personal attacks like just I described. It's entirely something else when an editor gets offended and tries to claim personal attack because the subject matter in the controversy has been characterized as pseudoscientific, fringe, on par with climate change denialism in method, etc. by sources as happened in my case. Especially in controversial subjects, we can't be restricting content because someone will create offense out of that focus on certain content. I hear your comments on trying to cut down the drama (we all want that), but we'd be violating multiple policies and ArbCom decisions if we apply your suggestion to these kinds of situations. We instead need to cut down on instances where editors try to falsely claim personal insult when discussion of controversial subjects comes up, not restrict the controversial subject from the content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Stated above: "It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism". Not at all. There would be no need to compare the editors or their arguments to climate change denialism, since the subject would be climate denialism and the arguments would be discussed directly and would be directly relevant, not an attack by using an Association fallacy with something unrelated to the subject matter that is designed to denigrate those making an argument. Should we allow those who dispute climate change to have free reign to say that those who disagree with them are using the same arguments used by the Nazi's, since limiting such comparison to the Nazi's would negatively impact the articles about Nazi's? See Godwin's law.

To say it another way, I think the concern King raised about Softlavender's proposal, is that he believes it would make it impossible to challenge the LOGIC of the climate change deniers. No. The LOGIC, facts, RS, etc. of arguments related to climate change or GMO's can be challenged directly without any need to compare the two. The objection made here is of the unfair comparison of the two with the purpose of denigrating the editors. I would be just as concerned if Nazi's were used for comparison. (Ironcially, when I searched for this section, Godwin's law came up on one of the other AN/I cases. Softlavender mentioned it too.) --David Tornheim (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That is among the most fatuous suggestions I have seen on Wikipedia in recent times. Censoring Wikipedia discussion to prevent mention of such well-documented real-world problems as climate change denial would not only be completely unenforceable, it would also be an abrogation of our mission to be neutral and accurate. Of course climate change denialists hate being called climate change denialists, that's their problem, not ours. Climate change denial is real, and to make climate change denial denialism a formal policy here would be outrageous. What would help is for those who self-identify as climate change not-denial-at-all-ists to stop getting so indignant whenever we mention the D-word. The global scientific consensus on climate change is extremely robust, and the continued pathological opposition of a group dominated by fossil fuel interests and fundamentalist libertarians is justly characterised as denial: a form of motivated reasoning. And we're not going to stop calling it that, and if people are uncomfortable with a project that is unashamed to call climate change denial by its name, then they will surely be most welcome at Conservapedia, where climate change denial is the official editorial line. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are reading a different suggestion here than the one I see. Call a climate-change denier a climate-change denier or an anti-vaccine advocate anti-vaccine. This is not a problem. The problem arises when shallow comparisons are made, saying anti-gmo groups are like, or make arguments like, anti-vaccine advocates, when the groups, arguments, and science involved have almost nothing in common.Dialectric (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually from my own observation of anti-GMO activists and anti-vaxers at work, they use very similar arguments: "not adequately tested", for example, the pretence that they are not anti-X but pro-safe-X, "think of the children" and so on. The tactics of antivaxers are more rabid, but anti-GMO activists and climate change deniers - two groups with almost no overlap in personnel - both make liberal use of tactics straight from the tobacco industry playbook. And there is also quite an overlap between climate denial and antivaxers in US politics at the moment. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are your observations, but we are supposed to be reporting what is in WP:RS, not making up our own theories. If someone said, "These editors are using the same arguments as Nazi's in order to promote their agenda here on Wikipedia", and the writer defended it saying, "that's just my personal OPINION and OBSERVATION", you wouldn't seriously be okay with that would you? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's crude and proves Godwin's Law, but aside from that, what's the big deal? After all, Wikipedia more than occasionally deals with true-to-form honest-to-goodness Nazis, doncha know? Are you saying that if we find a Nazi we should never point it out? Honestly, I'm getting the impression that you lack critical thinking skills here. jps (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Editors have agreed that denigrating one's argument by lumping them in with climate change deniers is indeed "casting aspersions". As these articles are under DS, I would support some action taken. Guy said:" I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial." In my opinion, it is equally agregious to use these terms as it is to use "shill" (a term I have never used, by the way, and wouldn't support). These needs to be made clear. petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree. In my opinion there is no way that mentioning "climate-change denial" (or "fringe", or "anti-vaccine"), when discussing a completely different topic is not casting aspersions. Nor is it content-related: it's behavior-describing. For instance, saying "We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." needs to be re-worded as something like "I'm seeing tactics to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated anti-GMO sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of aspersion-by-association has gone on for some time now on the GMO articles and this behavior should stop. It does not contribute to dialog. No argument in this area requires nakedly biased wording such as 'fringe', shills', or association of arguments or individuals with 'climate change denial' and the repeated use of such wording is divisive. While it may take a few more words to articulate one's concerns without such language, many editors manage just fine without resorting to it, and as most of the editors involved so far in this discussion have written many thousands of words on GMO topics - a few more in the service of a fully articulated argument free of aspersions won't hurt.Dialectric (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your revision still says the exact same thing I originally did and my comments were referring specifically to sources and content. It's time for people to drop the stick that I was somehow referring to editors even after multiple clarifications on my intent being on the sources and the arguments they put forth. WP:NPA is clear that discussion of content in this manner not directed at editors is not a personal attack even if people may be offended by the content itself, and we need to stick to that policy, especially when it comes to misrepresenting editor's statements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Who and what are you replying to Kingofaces43? If, as you say, you are truly 'interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack' then a clear statement from you that you will stop mentioning climate change in any capacity in GMO articles article talk pages, and an acknowledgement that the two areas are completely unrelated, would be a good start.Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Following the threading, I'm replying to SoftLavender. You're suggestion though is that I violate policy by restricting content when sources describe a topic as pseduoscientific, fringe, and all the other nuances of those terms, including when sources say they are similar to other fringe points of view. That's what I'm currently looking into expanding in some articles. If someone is opposed to that, that's a content discussion and not something suited for ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have clarified that I meant talk pages, which are being discussed here.Dialectric (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, if you're going work on developing content, you can't restrict mention of that content from talk pages. That would toss WP:CONSENSUS policy out the window. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-censoring in a controversial area in no way violates policy. I am not suggesting it as a punishment, rather as a voluntary route for you to avoid further distracting digressions over this issue which I don't see coming to any resolution here unless you agree to one. I can't see how not mentioning climate change will prove any real impediment to work on GM articles.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's violating WP:NOTCENSORED if some editors have gotten offended because of what sources say on the matter and the solution is to not talk about the offending content. We're not here to WP:RGW on content as some people may perceive them to be. We just write about reality as sources describe and leave it at that regardless of whether the content offends some group. If someone consistently has trouble with NOTCENSORED policy, that can be taken up at ArbCom enforcement. I don't see any reason to continue this particular conversation beyond that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content as I explained here --David Tornheim (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This sure reminds me of the debates about enforcing WP:CIVIL. One editor's reaction to the word "cunt" ends up being far different than another editor's. And one editor's reactions to "climate deniers" and "companies with deep pockets" ends up being far different than another editor's. I really do not know what to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You could begin by refraining from using a word you know will insult people. Please use "the C word" to get the point across without offending people, in this case large numbers of women. petrarchan47คุก 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend to offend anyone. There is a specific history on Wikipedia about that word, with some editors feeling about it the way that you do (and I pretty much agree with you!) and other editors feeling very much the opposite. It even became the centerpiece of an ArbCom case. (For context: some editors from the UK consider the word to be not much different than "buddy"; to US ears, that seems surprising.) I'd rather not link to the past dramas, but my intention was to utilize a word that has been Exhibit 1 in Wikipedia's inability to get to consensus about WP:CIVIL. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I know the history, as do you, which is why you cannot claim that you meant not to offend, you've just admitted you know the word is highly inflammatory, especially to many women on this site. I'm suggesting you can make the same point in the future without using the word and potentially upsetting people. There is no reason to spell it out unless you want to inflame, or if there is no other way to convey your point. petrarchan47คุก 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not even make sense, which illustrates how far this dispute has become intractable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am staggered to hear that any English editor would consider that word as meaning "buddy" except in a very private conversation between people who know each other extremely well. I am not fanning flames here. I will go away and do my own research, but I am shocked by this possibility.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I live in the US, and my understanding of the word is in accordance with US customs, and I am no expert on UK culture. I was not endorsing the use of the word. Rather, I was trying to point out to grown-up people that Wikipedia has had a history with it. Given WP:NOTCENSORED, I assumed that other editors would understand it that way. The background for it is what led up to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. If anyone wants to argue about it, you can identify editors to argue about it with by looking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I did not mean in anyway to comment on your use or interpretation of the word. What I was doing was expressing "to the world" my amazement that some English editors would make such an argument. I am striking my comment above so that hopefully there can not be any misunderstanding.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! That was very kind of you. For what it's worth, I find it rather surprising too, but if I've learned anything from editing Wikipedia, it's the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it just has to be done on a case-by-case basis. If someone is making strong attacks directly at editors or casting aspersions, then sanctions should deal with that. If it's actually a focus on content like in my case, that's not any sort of violation (could be a boomerang situation potentially). Let's take a parallel example from the "other side" of the topic. Saying the statements and literature that GMOs are safe are just bought off by industry could technically be twisted to be a personal attack too if someone was pointy about this. Some examples:

1. An editor trying to discuss potential source conflict of interest, etc. would be fine in terms of civility, aspersions, etc. (not going to get into validity as content).
2. Saying that the editor is just siding with Monsanto, etc. is crossing the line into aspersions territory or more.
3. If they said Nazis would use those arguments (unless pig's fly and it's amazingly sourced), that would still be aspersions territory even though it's discussing content as it's unwarranted guilt by association rather than solely content. Nazis just get mention because some people triggered Godwin's law and trying to frame that mentioning fringe subjects is equivalent.
4. If they said the arguments for GMOs were just fringe (e.g., if the scientific consensus was GMOs are unsafe) and reasoning trying to push the fringe idea is pseudoscientific in nature similar to that pushed by industry in climate change, that's not inherently an aspersion, and definitely not if it's sourced (again talking scenarios and not actual content validity).

Basically, I'm sitting in situation 4 right now. I can think of some situations where editors have made a very similar argument as 4 though, so if we're going to consider that inappropriate and blockable, I think we could clear out a lot of editors from the GMO topic. I highly doubt anyone is going to seriously consider that valid though. Any thoughts on this framework though? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if we accept that such statements aren't aspersions, what purpose do they serve? When is 'you sound like the climate change deniers' ever the best argument in a given discussion? Any forward progress we've seen in the GMO articles has come from finding and discussing good sources, not on pigeonholing editors into an objectionable association.Dialectric (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What is a good argument when you are trying to convince someone who has rejected reasonable approaches? I think it can be helpful at times to get people to see what others see of them. It's not always effective, but let's take a particular editor here, prokaryotes. This particular editor is topic banned from vaccines for promoting anti-vaccine nonsense. And yet the editor has been very good in certain climate change articles. Here they are seeming to fall into the same habits as their anti-vaccine editing rather than in the good habits of their climate change editing. At the very least, it seems to have gotten their attention. Now, whether it is persuasive or not is hard to say. I'm not sure what the best persuasive technique is when it comes to these hot-button points. But it's not fair to accuse someone of pigeonholing when discussion at times needs to break free of the usual litany of bad sourcing, poor science, and, yes, denial of facts that characterize poor editing practices in this area as well as the other areas herein referenced. jps (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. I think your argument has fallacies. (a) Calling someone names is not a reasonable argument against a poor edit (b) Suggesting someone is unreasonable is to suggest that your argument is perfectly reasonable and that you have absolute knowledge of the facts and truth. Wikipedia has a procedure called Dispute Resolution for dealing with content issues that does not include incivility. If editors can not control themselves, they should not be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree, especially with (a). --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of your preference for form over substance. It is part of the reason you're topic banned. jps (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would fall into 2; I'm pretty sure I was clear that wasn't ok at all. It's entirely different to discuss there are similar scientific denialism methods within content at play like in climate change to obfuscate scientific consensus, especially when discussed in sources (#4). That's part of this controversial topic, and even if someone doesn't like that, they need to accept that it's going to be part of the content discussion just as claims came up that there is nefarious doing within sources related to industry on the other end. We can't have double standards here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Softlavender -- this is a serious obstacle to constructive editing and dispute resolution, and must be addressed by the community to avert many more instances of future conflict. GAB^Hello! 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Softlavender These comparisons and labels simply make a tense situation into a battleground. It lumps editors into categories and is contrary to consensus building. The results is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with SoftLavender and many others, that dialog must be open to all, without prejudice, and name-calling disallowed. It's not okay to frame some ideas a "fringe" and therefore to poison the well against them. Simply rely on sources. You may find that there is a lot of nuance in the results. Some concepts have some validity and some falsity. There are indeed power dynamics that shape knowledge. If we rely on sources and act with integrity, then it will not be necessary to engage in witch-hunts or inquisitions, and the finer edge of reality will reveal itself, instead of a caricature version of what's real. SageRad (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• 'Oppose While well-meaning, I think that any policy or guideline level advice like this would only be used to shut one side down, by ignoring the content of argument in favour of some specific of how it's phrased. Especially as, in this specific case, pointing out similarities of tactics in denialist movements is the subject of major academic texts, e.g. The Merchants of Doubt, which compares and shows continuity in, offhand, denial that tobacco causes cancer, denial of the nuclear winter/support for Reagan's Star Wars initiative, climate change denial, etc. No personal attacks is a rule, but no attacks on viewpoints cannot be without harming the encyclopedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no article for The Merchants of Doubt. Can you please provide a proper citation? Also, you did not say this source mentions arguments related to GMO's in the context we have been talking about. As far as I can tell it is irrelevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment on whether it is relevant, but the wikipedia article is Merchants of Doubt.Dialectric (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with SoftLavender...such labeling and name-calling of editors is clearly being used to taunt and harass. It makes for a battleground atmosphere which could so easily be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with SoftLavender - Adopting this policy, with sanctions for repeat violations, would remove a tactic long used by POV warriors to shame and blame those opposing their cherished views. Jusdafax 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with SoftLavender As per my earlier comments. Comparing the questioning of GMO safety to climate change denial is a talking point pushed by Jon Entine[112] who does this on behalf of industry.[113] This comparison, and claims of fringe, are not encyclopedic and have no place here. Further, as I wrote earlier, questioning GMO safety is becoming the majority viewpoint in some areas, and has a true scientific basis, as evidenced by the amount of countries now banning them, the fact that 93% of Americans want them labeled, and the findings of harm reviewed in Domingo 2011, for instance. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Several problems, but one simple solution

Problem 1: A small number of editors hold fringe beliefs which they hate to be characterised as WP:FRINGE. A small group of editors are sympathetic to climate change denial and hate it being called climate change denial. A small group of editors are sympathetic to pseudoscientific ideas and hate them being characterised as pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs.

Problem 2: These editors are persistent, and most others long ago bored of arguing with them. That risks one of two outcomes: either those who remain, burn out and end up in trouble; or, everyone wanders off and the POV-pushers get to dominate the article and this claim "consensus". Neither of these is good.

Problem 3: Some people who advocate fringe beliefs are hurt badly in the feels by Wikipedia's unashamedly reality-based stance. This is not our problem to fix.

Problem 4: Some people interpret a polite response as an invitation to keep advocating content that violates policy (e.g. by pretending that climate change "skeptics" are Just Asking Questions), and interpret any forthright response as "bullying" (see Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia for an example of what happens when you get a climate change denier, a holder of multiple topic bans and a serial WP:OWNer to collaborate on how to make Wikipedia "better").

Problem 5: Most Wikipedians could not care less about any of this bullshit and just leave the toxic areas alone, thus leaving only warring factions active there.

Problem 6: I am a nasty suspicious bastard and every time I see anybody trying to suppress mention of climate change denial, I want to stand them on a piece of low lying ground just before the next unprecedented arctic melt (i.e. each successive summer right now).

There is a solution. People with fringe beliefs who want to make changes to articles that do not achieve consensus on Talk are free to start an RfC with a specific, actionable request. They should then abide by the outcome. The policy Wikipedia needs is not WP:CUDDLYBUNNIES, it is WP:STFU. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In trying to think of a practical solution that can be discussed meaningfully at ANI, I am especially drawn to points 2 and 5. I would be delighted to see more fresh eyes on the pages where the disputes are happening. Please, let's have more uninvolved editors taking a look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had to google "Wikipedia STFU", this is the first entry, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STFU prokaryotes (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You have led a sheltered life, clearly. However, now you understand. The solution to 90% of "uncivil", "bullying" comments is for POV-pushers to start taking "no" for an answer. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is problematic. You start out by grouping people into categories with the word "fringe". It's a grating word to some who see how it's applied. It's a McCarthyism. It's a silencing. We come down to sources and sensible dialog. There is no need for a slanderous word to group some people together in that way. It's off-putting and makes a toxic environment. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Guy's statement. Oppose SageRad's hysterical and ahistorical response. BMK (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My position is based in principle, and is based on observing what is happening within Wikipedia. The proposal buy Guy is a foundation for people like you and Guy to rule what becomes "acceptable" knowledge according to your prejudices. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by requiring sourcing, and having good dialogue about the sources. There are good policies that result in good articles when applied with integrity. We do not need an over-layer of pre-determining some things "fringe" and others things "acceptable". That creates a hierarchy of control that is unacceptable within Wikipedia, and i have observed for a year now the way it leads to a flavor too similar to McCarthyism. It removed nuance from discussions. It creates caricatures of reality. It is an unnecessary layer, and it leads to a bad editing environment. I personally know that climate change denial is denial, but i don't declare that this is the new rule on Wikipedia. That's against policy and spirit, and it's not necessary, and in fact it gets in the way of good editing. The sources alone, and reasonable dialogue, are powerful enough to maintain the articles in good form. There may be a constant conversation and that's okay. On other topics, it's not as clear. There may be nuance. Some things may be partly A and partly B -- partly correct and partly incorrect. We need to admit this possibility, and not set up a panel of judges who determine "This is A!" and "That is B!" -- That is the format of fascism. That leads to binary versions of reality in articles, not the richness that Wikipedia can achieve if we simple follow the policies. SageRad (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In this crazy mixed-up world, you are actually trying to argue that your preference for people not to say what they think will somehow lead to a freer exchange of ideas. I guess that's because you think it will somehow raise the level of discourse. But if people are forbidden from discussing their preferences for what ideas should and should not be stated plainly in articlespace, this clearly will not allow for a free exchange of ideas. jps (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support SageRad's statement. This thread started with KingOfAces referring to "tactics" seen in climate change denial and "arguments" being used to deny the GMO consensus, while making references to alleged groups isn't helpful, it's also not harmful to an individual editor. The related topic of assigning an editors work to this or that disparaged group is harmful, there is an intention to invalidate the editor by association. If you really want to challenge an editors work, do it one on one and be specific. Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does

Once upon a time, the self-described "climate change skeptics" were mad about being called "climate change deniers". Because holocaust deniers were evil and they were good. The presence of lots of sources that eventually pointed out that the term "denier" was more accurate than "skeptic" put to bed these concerns. I'm sure there are lots of threads in the archives complaining about the uncivil way in which climate change deniers were characterized.

Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers. Because the climate change deniers are evil and they are good. I sense a similar story a-brewing.

Bad science is bad science regardless of the venue in which it is found. Comparing bad science to bad science is simply to say that it is not good science. To argue that climate change denial and anti-GMO activism are "unrelated" is to miss the point of the comparison just as it was missing the point to argue that climate change denial and holocaust denial are "unrelated".

jps (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm really struggling with this issue, in terms of what is the right thing for Wikipedia. My personal opinion (as a not-reliable source) is that you are correct. In the present, there is a clear scientific consensus about GMOs, albeit with caveats, and Wikipedia needs to push back against POV-pushers who want us to obscure that fact, and there is a pattern that is very obvious to me of, as you say, they consider themselves good whereas climate change deniers are evil (WP:RGW). On the other hand, as of right this second, I don't think that we can say that the science about GMOs has gotten to the point where we can place skeptics in the same category as holocaust deniers. Maybe five years from now, the science will be at the point where fear of GM foods will be widely seen as being on a par with thinking the earth is flat. But maybe not, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shades of gray certainly draw the short straws on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, for me, the point stands that current evaluation reveals a general anti-scientific bent found in the anti-genetic engineering arguments. This is true even while there is a reasonable broader argument to be had over public health, safety, risk management, and environmental protection which form part of a WP:MAINSTREAM corpus and are part of the overarching goals for many of the same activists who adopt the pseudoscientific thinking. Where they seem to lose the plot is in an over-reliance on categorical claims about genetic modification that lack empirical backing. It is, of course, possible to genetically engineer dangerous organisms. It does not follow that all genetically engineered organisms are dangerous. It is also, of course, possible that certain genetically engineered organisms are dangerous unintentionally. These are questions of empirical science and they have to be interrogated empirically. There are lots and lots of papers on these subjects and the consensus is pretty clear to me that genetic engineering as a process is no more dangerous than any other form of artificial selection. This fundamental point is utterly lost on those in the anti-GMO movement, and it is a point of departure that strikes me as being entirely denialist. jps (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment' Can we please stick to the point of the thread. The above and several other postings are simply POV unrelated to the subject of the thread.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My god but you are tiresome. If you don't like a conversation, don't comment in it! For someone who complains about harassment, you sure do seem to like to wikihound. jps (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not the contributor WP:FOC. My comment was that postings are increasingly off-topic. I suggest someone looks at hatting these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My comment is that your contributions here are garbage. jps (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I am sure that the vast majority of editors here will understand that your last comment is totally inappropriate for this noticeboard. My replying to you here would be just as inappropriate. Am I welcome to post at your Talk page regarding your unacceptable behaviour?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For someone who links to WP:FOC as much as you do, you certainly don't practice what you preach. You are always free to post at my talkpage. Don't expect the conversation to be fruitful if all you want to do is declare what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Open and honest discussions are always welcome. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quote from admin Guy/Jzg: "Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers." Can you identify the editors of your so called group of anti-GMO paranoiacs? I edit GMO topics and I am unaware of such a group. Also can you maybe provide a link to an example where this "group" you claim exists at Wikipedia, where this group displays anti-GMO paranoia, which is similar to climate change denier arguments? prokaryotes (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

He said that in the talk section before this one, so you really should ask him about it there, instead of implying that other editors said it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually Prokaryotes displays all of his customary care to follow factual accuracy over predefined agenda: it was someone else entirely who said that. It is, however, true, that the anti-GMO brigade and the climate deniers do use many common tactics, which is ironic as they are generally at opposite poles politically - and sources often considered left-leaning are the ones who say this, by the way: Slate, New Scientist, Grauniad. Anti-GMO activists are as passionate in their promotion of the pharma shill gambit as they are indignant over the activities of the fossil fuel industry. As an outsider to both worlds, it amuses and perplexes me in equal measure. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, the problem is with these "opinion pieces", that they are or potentially are biased (based on past incidents), For instance the Slate article is by Keith Kloor, someone with ties to the industry, http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/ The second article by Fred Pearce is not really supporting your claims you make here, and besides Pearce has written in the past critical about Monsanto http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/03/monsanto-water-greenwash Didn't checked the 3rd opinion piece authors background. prokaryotes (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• The truth is, even this conversation is riddled with aspersions. You're making a leap from editors rightly questioning your use of wording and sources based on the results of a previous RfC, to the assumption that this is motivated by a desire to push an "anti-GMO" POV. The ArbCom case made very clear that casting aspersions in order to kneecap critics of your editing is forbidden.

An encyclopedic approach to this issue would be to list the various opinions and statements, credited to their sources, rather than what we have presently: written as a summary using WP's voice, without proper sourcing. A recent article in TIME puts our coverage to shame with this balanced, accurate wording: The science community holds a variety of opinions on GMOs... and then goes on to list of few of them. The article is titled Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs, which makes these proclaimations that any questioning of GMO is fringe, look a bit absurd. I would argue that this language has the effect of discrediting opponents in place of having actual support for arguments.

The present editor in chief of Elsevier, Jose Domingo, reviewed the literature regarding GM food safety. It is the only review of these studies that exists, and meets WP:MEDRS requirements. Of the studies done not by industry, but by independent researchers, roughly half showed what Domingo called "serious cause for concern", meaning that there is no possible way to claim that the science is settled. Further, this review is being disallowed from not only our summarizing statement, but from gracing any page on WP.

The NYT states that 93% of US citizens support GMO labels (fringe?) and even this fact has been disallowed from WP articles. It is only because of the bias that is being allowed to rule the GMO suite that you can make claims that some bad faith editors are pushing an anti-science, fringe POV.

The World Health Organization states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." But we have been disallowed from properly quoting them.

The problem does not rest with some anti-GMO faction on WP, no matter how many echo this claim. petrarchan47คุก 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Excellent argumentation. V Opinion and with no RS to back it up + unnecessary ad hominem --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is really poor argumentation, akin to a lot of what I've seen at climate denial points as well. Yes, it is well known that Europe's Frankenfood paranoia is about as pseudoscientific as certain countries' uncritical acceptance of homeopathy or their belief in hudenfolk. That goes for the WHO as well which doesn't make scientific pronouncements as a general rule and is sadly held hostage to the political whims of the member states when it comes to its white literature (there is a godawful WHO statement on acupuncture I can point to). Labeling arguments, while not being based in science at all, miss the point that 1) organic food already works as a perfectly good label and 2) strict labeling would require identifying precisely what a "GMO" entails which is why any labeling regulation or law would be subject to massive legal wrangling and not a small amount of impossible to verify claims about how you can tell when something is "GMO" or not. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for empirical points. So whadya got? A much criticized review article by Domingo. Hell, I can point to some pretty damning review articles by climate science deniers too. Right now, the issue that petrarchan47 and his clan are pseudoscientist POV-pushers and probably shouldn't be allowed to touch articles on the subject. They just aren't competent. Just like the global warming deniers aren't competent to edit articles on global warming. jps (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of opinion, not a lot of fact. In fact, you are wrong. Domingo's review has never received one iota of criticism. Encyclopedias should be based on science, not hand-waving rhetoric and downright lies. petrarchan47คุก 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm.. you're just plain wrong about that. jps (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A much criticized review article by Domingo. Prove it. Domingo's review has not been criticized; I find this apparent inability to accurately read or understand science highly troubling. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here ends the lesson. Evidence provided and dismissed. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The first study you link above, Matt Demont's project has received millions in grants, including from Syngenta and several grants from Monsanto. I don't have access to the study, so i can not say if this conflict of interests is mentioned by the study authors.prokaryotes (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The 3rd study from Italy, is not ruling out risks from GMOs, the abstract "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense." So what are the indirect hazards? Probably pesticide residues. prokaryotes (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the claim that there isn't one iota of criticism is just plain false. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are 3 studies you linked above, how are these criticism of another study? Can't find anything, unless you suggest that their findings indirectly critic other study findings. Bu this would be considered WP:SYN prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are direct criticisms of the study championed above in each of the papers. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously credible criticism able to discredit the review and the studies, as you suggested had been done, was what I was referring to. petrarchan47คุก 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So provided. Sorry if you can't understand that. jps (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

jps: You have not provided any evidence of the criticism of the Domingo's 2011 study. Please provide quotes from the articles. Although I was unable to find copies of the first two, the last study is available here and it does not criticize Domingo's 2011 review. Why did you say it did? And you are throwing around accusations of incompetence? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to do your research work for you. The study most certainly does criticize Domingo as is seen in the list immediately following the citation. It's fairly easy to read the part where it is cited. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not asking you to do any research for me; I am asking you to prove that you did not lie. You said above that Domingo 2011 was a "much criticized review article by Domingo." As evidence to support your claim you provided three sources, the last of which is this in abstract. I reviewed the full article of this last source, and the article does not say what you contend it says. I asked you for quotes from the article to prove that you are not misrepresenting the contents of the article. Again you are unable to do so. Instead, you say to look at where Domingo 2011 is cited and the list that follows. That material is here and it does not criticize Domingo 2011, but instead is used to support the author's review:

However, as indicated by the significant increment of the publications after 2006, it seems that the GE crop developers acknowledged the necessity of an improved transparency (Domingo & Bordonaba, 2011). The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:

(a) there is no scientific evidence of toxic or allergenic effects;

(b) some concern has been raised against GE corn MON 810, MON863 and NK603 (de Vendoˆmois et al., 2009; Se´ralini et al., 2007, 2012), but these experimental results have been deemed of no significance (EFSA 2007, 2012; Houllier, 2012; Parrot & Chassy, 2009);

(c) only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazilnut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed (Nordlee et al., 1996) and the not verified case of maize Starlink (Siruguri et al., 2004);

(d) during the digestion process the proteins generally undergo degradation that leads to the loss of activity (Delaney et al., 2008);

(e) even though there are examples of some ingested proteins that are absorbed in minute quantities in an essentially intact form (e.g. ovalbumin, ovomucoid, b-lactoglobulin) (Kier & Petrick, 2008) or proteins that are hydrolyzed into smaller absorbed bioactive peptides (Udenigwe & Aluko, 2012), the consumption of transgenic proteins contained in the authorized GE crop does not result in any detectable systemic uptake (Kier & Petrick, 2008) and transgenic proteins are usually rapidly degraded and not detectable in animal derived products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) (Ramessar et al., 2007);

References

Domingo JL, Gine´ Bordonaba J. (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environment Int, 37, 734–2.

This kind of dishonesty falls under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY and should be sanctioned. The entire demeanor and name calling behavior of this editor starting this section is uncivil as well, for all the reasons mentioned in this AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you don't even have basic reading comprehension. Go back, read what I wrote, read what's written here, and see if you can find your mistake. I'll give you a redo. jps (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was able to obtain full copies of the other two journal articles you cited that you claimed are evidence that the Domingo 2011 literature review is "much criticized". They both cited Domingo, but neither of the other two criticized the review either. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You did not learn. Sorry, fellow. You're not only wrong, you appear to not be able to understand what you are reading. jps (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the dance and really can't stay, but as a part-time DRN volunteer, I wanted to express my concerns over the unsupported criticisms and downright aspersions being cast against editors who did nothing to deserve such treatment except disagree with a very strong POV that favors censorship or extraordinary downplay of information in our articles. According to PAGs, our articles are supposed to include information that is compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. The constant bickering and aspersions by those who apparently want to censor general information under the guise of fringe are turning this into a behavioral issue, and appear to have made Petrarchan47, Prokaryotes and David Tornheim the targets of their misbehavior. I don't understand why because those 3 editors have presented excellent arguments without castigating anyone or using any unacceptable terminology except to condemn the bad behavior by others. I also researched how our PAGs support the fringe claims that have been thrown about, and used against the 3 named editors and quite frankly, our PAGs say quite the opposite and condemn such behavior - as did the recent ArbCom hearing on GMOs. As for the fringe/ps claims made against the 3 editors, our PAGs read:WP:FRINGE/PS

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Those editors who are aggressively asserting their POV with objections to different academic points of view and labeling it fringe/ps and casting aspersions against other editors as a result have already been advised by Drmies to stop that behavior, yet they appear to have ignored the warning and have chosen to continue as evidenced above. This thread is not progressing as a result, and while some interesting points have been made on both sides regarding the issues that plague this topic, it is actually information that belongs IN THE ARTICLE, not on this noticeboard. Just saying.....Atsme^📞📧 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You cannot stop me from pointing out that people who are afraid of GMOs because they use genetic engineering are advocating for pseudoscientific claims. I will continue to make that point over and over and over and over and over again until we get the encyclopedia in a shape that makes this point abundantly clear. We're almost there, but it does help to be placed in the crucible once in a while in order so that we can make it clear. People who think that GMOs are dangerous because they are genetically engineered are arguing a basic pseudoscientific conceit of the GMO paranoiac group. See what I did there? I pointed it out again! Naughty! jps (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't me who will stop you. I'm quite happy to feed you as much rope as your little heart desires. Atsme^📞📧 07:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the 3 sources Jps used in his failed attempts to prove a false claim, one of them was from the "Genetic Literacy Project", which our Jon Entine article calls "a pro-GMO biotechnology and genetics outreach organization"; Entine is the founder and executive director. Mother Jones calls him an "agribusiness apologist", and he was recently found via FOIA records to have received Monsanto funding, written pro-GM articles, and failed to disclose that funding.

Jps is arguing a claim that hasn't been made. He is arguing against the RS showing that questioning the safety of GMOs is far from "fringe" by lying about Domingo 2011, and claiming that over half of the EU suffers from "Europe's Frankenfood paranoia". These hollow arguments are being used to keep well sourced facts out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this is rapidly becoming another GMO conspiracy theory for Petrarchan47. Do we have any benefit from keeping his crazed argumentation around? Wouldn't he feel better posting on a blog dedicated to conspiracy theories? It certainly doesn't fit here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing by Kingofaces

Kingofaces is now canvassing here. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A single comment at the venue where the whole shitstorm appears to have started, is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may want to read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, especially the parts about getting relevant noticeboards involved. This thread has devolved (or evolved) into a wide conversation of how we deal with discussing fringe topics. WP:FTN is more than appropriate when we need people familiar with how to deal with exactly this. It seems like we're reaching the point that accusations are just being thrown to see what sticks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is canvassing. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JzG - it is not canvassing. In fact, WP:Canvassing clearly states

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.

The verbiage probably needs to eliminate "uninvolved" because it is somewhat of a contradiction. Atsme^📞📧 07:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close

This has gone on long enough. At the end of the day I made two comments[114][115] that were focusing on the fact that sources describe many of the arguments that there isn't a consensus on GMO safety as tactics similar to climate change, vaccine controversy, etc. with that direct comparison being made by sources. That was direct mention of content that conflicted in a WP:WEIGHT perspective with the content previously being mentioned at the board very similar to how many of those same editors bring up source conflict of interest in weight discussion.

Editors such as Prokaryotes, who were heavily involved in the ArbCom case and nearly sanctioned, have tried to twist that into saying I was commenting on editors. I made it repeatedly clear to those editors I was talking about the content aspect of opposition to the scientific consensus on GMOs, not editors both before and during this thread.[116][117][118] The only instances of me actually commenting on editors (appropriately) even loosely was: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN (more here).

Seeing as some editors are unwilling to drop the stick at this point in claiming I was commenting on editors in terms of climate-change denialism even after repeated clarification, they are either purposely misrepresenting my comments and ignoring clarification, or insinuating I'm lying. Both are direct violations of WP:NPA Repeating calls that I intended to direct the climate-change denial remark in any way towards editors either directly or by aspersion after this post will be taken up at WP:AE to impose sanctions where things belong for this topic. People who still try that can't claim they didn't get ample warning. The open case related to Prokaryotes behavior here and elsewhere will still be handled at AE, and there's nothing left to deal with here at ANI, especially since I've asked admins at AE that I'd even open a case on myself if they thought my actions legitimately needed a look. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no action. It's time to wrap this up. Clearly, there is not going to be anything remotely close to a consensus for admin action here. Arguments about content belong elsewhere. And proposals about civility on related talk pages should probably either be made as formal RfCs or dropped. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose close - The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way, especially with SoftLavender's proposal above. Gee, what a surprise. I for one am utterly sick of this gaming the system. Jusdafax 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There being only two editors commenting before your comment, and with me being one of them, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to shut down discussion of anything, but rather asking that the discussion be done at the right place. This is ANI, and the issue of blocking anyone as a result of this discussion is clearly done with. Nor do I think that it's not going my way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. While they have been interesting, meta discussions belong at their respective noticeboards or guideline talk pages. I'm all for addressing this in the proper forum if admins at AE think these specific claims actually need a look, but ANI was no longer the place to deal with this after the GMO case ended. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I purposefully did not involve myself in the GMO case because I have a dim view of arbitration, but it sure looks like it made things worse rather than better. The biggest problems I have is that the fundamental dispute has not been addressed. The pseudoscientific argumentation promoted by anti-GMO activists continues to infect the decisions relating to content and apparently the activists were under the impression that they could be insulated from such plain words about their positions. See below. jps (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Close -- at a minimum the discussion started by jps (aka I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) titled "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does" needs to be concluded and assessed. After a long diatribe, asserting the existence of group of editors who are "anti-GMO paranoiacs" (who jps compared to both "climate change deniers" -and- "holocaust deniers" (see Godwin's Law)), Jps went on to make some highly questionable factual assertions that have been challenged without an adequate response. Jps's behavior and credibility should be brought under scrutiny too. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Laughable. The lack of WP:COMPETENCE is strong with this one. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG, David Tornheim. jps (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The insults and threats just keep on comin', don't they? David's comment goes to the heart of the issue: the ongoing attempts to intimidate respected editors and equate them with mass murder apologists. This has gone too far and per David, I now call on an uninvolved admin to take prompt corrective action. Jusdafax 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You guys don't seem very intimidated. Whoever feels intimidated, raise their hands. And "murder apologists"? If I wasn't so amüsierten, I'd be verklemmt. jps (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are creating a hostile work environment. I do not mean it in the legal sense, but just in terms of behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means. jps (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it count as an insult to say "The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a follow up, in the section above "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does", jps cited three journal articles as proof that the Domingo 2011 literature review was "much criticized". Because I (and others) did not have access to all the journal articles, I asked jps to provide quotes proving the point. None were provided, just further taunting. However, I was able to obtain all three full articles. He lied. None of the articles criticized Domingo 2011 as jps purported. Such lying about what is in the RS is a major waste of time for editors (or worse Wikipedia's readers) who wrongfully rely on such misinformation. Lying is properly designated as uncivil behavior under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY. The combination of the lengthy diatribes of ad hominem attacks and dishonesty about RS warrants a strong message and sanction to this editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You persist in parading your inability to comprehend a simple discussion and read the basic texts that criticize the particular claim in particular. Your tendentiousness is rather astounding, but entirely predictable. I used to accuse people of lying and people got mad at me. Here's one for you. You're not WP:COMPETENT enough to be editing and probably should be banned from Wikipedia for lacking basic reading skills. jps (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Admins, please do something. I can't even believe what I'm reading here. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What would you like admins to do? Indefinitely block David Tornheim for the reasons asserted by jps? Block jps for making those assertions? What if the assertions are correct—should admins care about that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would like Admins to check into the assertions, yes. Jps is lying about sources above, and this rant against David is pure projection of the highest order; it is Jps who has displayed tendentiousness and incompetency. Admins will have to get access to the papers her has cited to determine which assertions are correct. Beyond that, the way that this person talks about other editors is unacceptable, sophomoric, and completely disruptive to building an encyclopedia, and to the process at hand: KingofAces43. petrarchan47คุก 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

^Of course you should find out if he is lying or not and make a decision on what to do based partially on that (please see my response to Bishonen below), but additionally consider his other incredibly uncivil behavior. If a decision about my claims that he is lying without out any investigation of the claims and only relying on my or jps (and others statements) about what is in the sources is about as useful as relying on heresay--a waste of our time and prejudicial. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the admins should also investigate whether jps is guilty of heresy, a much more serious crime that was overlooked by his good faith accusers. Also, I hear that aside from projection, he is also guilty of introjection, injection, reinjection, rejection, objection and perhaps even surjection. The bastard. I hate him! jps (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, jps needs to be warned that questioning editor competence as a rhetorical tactic in a thread of this nature is a blockable offense. However, the ugly nature of the continuing hostile badgering by jps, clearly observable just above, in my view calls for an immediate preventitave block, with unblock conditional on agreement to knock of the problematic comments. For crying out loud, this is the admin's noticeboard, and if there isn't one admin willing to stand up here and now, then we as a community are circling the drain towards all-out "Wild West" warfare. Please, administrators, let's enforce existing policy on your own turf. Jusdafax 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about I block Johnuniq for implying jps's assertions may be true — will that do? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC).

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room! jps (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously? All you have to do is find out if jps is lying or not. If you want me to email the PDFs of the sources to you I can. Once you have the sources, it is easy to see he is lying. Judging others' statements about the veracity of the claim who have not bothered to investigate the claim by editors who have not investigated the veracity of the claim is a waste of time. Having a grand jury indictment of such an editor is also a waste of time until the facts are checked. Just look and see if he is lying and we can move forward. We are here to write was is in RS, not speculate about it without even looking at it. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I'm in some parallel Idiocracy universe where the people present evidence that I am right and then triumphantly declare that I am wrong. Playing chess with a pigeon comes to mind. jps (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

For those who do not have the time or motivation to look up such links, Playing chess with a pigeon is actually a redirect to Internet troll. It is widely regarded that referring to editors as trolls is incivil. I leave it up to Jps to clarify who the comment was directed at.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What's worse, he made the redirect himself. For that horrible behavior, I vote that he be drawn and quartered and made a mockery of on the front page. Also, he should be indeterminately blocked for at least one second for accusing himself of bad behavior. And then you should annotate his block log with a clear reference to WP:TROUT. Yes. Yes. Excellent! jps (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Request to closer I have just noticed that another discussion (WP:ANI#Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page) with similar evidence of incivility has been closed by a non-admin with no action taken. I am not making any comment whatsoever on the closer of that discussion, but I suggest that this discussion should only be closed by a non-involved admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support close with no action taken. This is an incident reporting board, not a forum for content disputes. For content disputes, other venues and mechanisms are there (RfC, etc.). Additionally, if someone wants to go and call fellow editors "paranoiacs", he/she should perhaps rethink his/her further participation in this collaborative editing project. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I do agree with you that there are other venues for content disputes and indeed these issues are being discussed there. This AN/I is about using ad hominem attacks, such as calling other editors "paranoiacs". I agree with your assessment which seems to be that such language is highly objectionable; otherwise, why would you suggest an editor who uses that language consider leaving the project? What I do not understand is why you think this matter should be closed with no action when editors are using ad hominem attacks like this? If nothing is done, this adage comes to mind: "What is allowed is being taught." At an absolute minimum, the editors who have shown no restraint whatsoever and seem to take pleasure in using such fallacious and uncivil reasoning, should be warned, but for jps, the intransigence warrants a more severe reprimand, such as a 24+ hour block perhaps or perhaps being topic banned from GMOs for several months for disrupting this AN/I having to do with ad hominems used against editors working on the GMO pages. Allowing the behavior creates a needlessly unpleasant editing environment, and makes us have to waste our time with these extensive AN/I's. Doing nothing means we will just have this issue come up again here, or in ArbCom, where editors were topic banned and ibanned for such uncivil behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Correct, but the dynamics of this venue is such that the tide hardly ever turns against the reporting editor. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with David totally here...well almost totally. Please take a look at the block log for jps here.[119] I have doubts a 24+ hour block will have any effect whatsoever. I suggest the starting point should be a one (1) month+ block.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Kashmiri: You have again confused me with the comment "but the dynamics of this venue is such that the tide hardly ever turns against the reporting editor". The reporting editor for this ANI was Prokaryotes reporting KingofAces43 for comparing the argumentation of editors similar to climate change deniers, fringe and incompetence. Jps came to King's defense and doubled-down in this AN/I repeatedly asserting that it was fine to use such ad hominems and using even more that were more severe, including calling editors incompetent, conspiracy theorists [120], comparing editors to pigeons [121] and making a mockery of the process [122], [123], [124]. This participation is disruptive to AN/I and to the project. I was not aware of the previous blocks which obviously have not been effective. A strong message needs to be sent to this editor to behavior with civility. This behavior should not be tolerated. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no action taken. The diffs originally at issue do not warrant sanctions and this entire discussion is a trainwreck. Alsee (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

An inescapable fact

Last year's GMO case at ArbCom was intended, as all ArbCom cases are intended, to bring a difficult dispute to a resolution, for once and for all. Clearly, it did not accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much so. Despite the imposition of wide-ranging topic bans which should not have been administered but which have been adhered to, it has clearly failed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it has not failed. It is being constantly attemptedly-undermined by repeated WP:WIKILAWYERING by those who refuse to accept the fact that their editing has fallen under it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I think there is very little doubt that the bans were amply justified. The remaining question is whether sitebans should have been used instead. You make a good case for sitebans being a better solution. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The other question might be why DrChrissy and SageRad are here commenting on a thread entirely focused on GMOs in violation of their GMO topic bans even though there were directly told even standing on the sidelines of ANI discussions like this was a no-go. It might be slightly different if it was a tangent on a policy or guideline page. I'm not opening a case myself at AE though to avoid even the illusion that I'm going to mimic what Prokaryotes did in opening this thread with their AE case open. Broadly construed topic bans need to be respected though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the inescapable fact is that the subject of this thread is "Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions". The irony is obvious.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you certain we can't escape the fact? Seems like there are quite a few active here trying to escape facts. Maybe if we all try really, really hard.... jps (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Personal attacks by Claudebone reported by Jim1138

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.

---

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

• Personal attacks and uncivil behavior towards a number of editors
• Repeated unsupported accusations of socking
• Accusations of editors "being obsessed with a 13 year old boy"
• Accusations of incompetence of other editors

Other editors involved

• 888AlexanderAranda888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Arada) Claudebone personally attacks, accuses of being "obsessed with a 13 year old boy", accuses of socking
• Paulvincentcable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (PVC) Claudebone accuses of being "obsessed with a 13 year old boy", accuses of socking w/ Arada
• King of Hearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (KoA) is an administrator, much of this discussion taking place on his talk page. Claudebone accuses KoA of being incompetent more than once:.
• Jim1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The reporter also a target of personal attacks by Claudebone
• Callanecc an administrator warned Claudebone w/ NPA more than once
• Uncle Milty an administrator advised and warned Claudebone on reporting on socks

I seem to have started this after twice reverting Claudebone redirecting Ayrton Cable to Vince Cable (his grandfather) 1 2 without adequate reason. After which Claudebone opened an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayrton Cable The AfD was closed by KoH

• a Claudebone to KoH Discussion on KoH's page starts here. Please review this yourself or I will otherwise have to do it properly.'
• b Claudebone to KoH: There is a subtlety in understanding nuances of AFD debates that you seem to be missing.
• c Jim1138 to Claudebone questioning assertions
• d Claudebone It would help if we didn't have absurd and angry ranty off-topic contributions from those so lacking in basic understanding of WP:HOWWPWORKS that they tried to use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in a deletion !vote. Let's just say if an SPA smells like a sock it usually is.
• e Jim1138 to Claudebone A major issue here is that you have repeatedly accused others of socking without addressing questions made to you about your evidence for this. So, please answer.
• f Claudebone reply Oh For fuck sake stop being such a prig. It's quite clear that we have 2 SPAs, with non-overlapping histories, who are obsessed with 1 13 year old kid. I'd put my fucking mortgage on them both being the same person and both being Master Cable. You're not being helpful here to Wikipedia, which is deeply concerning.
• g Callanecc NPAs Claudebone's first sentence above.
• h Uncle Milty re civility and sock reporting procedures
• i Claudebone accusation of incompetence.
• j Callanecc NPAs part of Claudebone's comment
• k Callanecc NPAs a second part of Claudebone's comment
• l Claudebone: ...Just to clarify - I did not personally attack (KoH),despite my comments being disgracefully edited above...
• m Claudebone to Arada: ...I'm not an SPA with both an unhealthy obsession with a 13 year old boy and a mysterious twin who agrees with everything I say, am I?
• n Claudebone "about" Arada: I am not talking to you - I am talking about you. Overwhelming evidence suggests you ARE indeed an SPA, personally intimate with Master Cable's father, with an unhealthy obsession with a 13 year old boy and a mysterious twin who agrees with everything you say. This is ringing so many alarm bells particularly related to WP:MINOR that it's almost impossible to hear myself think.
• o Jim1138 to Claudebone: Again, asking for socking evidence
• p Claudebone: Oh For fuck sake Jim1138. Even if your pathetic screed is true and we have a separate bunch of puppets...
• q Jim1138 reverts - NPA
• r Claudebone reverts - ES: FUCK YOU
• s Claudebone adds: Meanwhile, I note that user:Jim1138 continues to beahvae innappropriately by vandalising my comments for perceived (not intended) personal attacks. I am astounded at how much restraint I am actually showing.

Warnings to Claudebone on his talk page

• a Uncle Milty on how to tag SPAs
• b Uncle Milty first warning on personal attacks
• c Callanecc's first warning
• d Callanecc's final warning
• e Callanecc addition on implying incompetence

End of post Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Moved above Callanecc's notice for readability. Jim1138 (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Other personal attacks and accusations of incompetence by Claudebone

• a Claudebone on Uncle Milty's talk page
• b ES: you're a fucking idiot.

Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits after block

• a Claudebone ES Jim1138 can go fuck himself he's a retard.
• b Claudebone unblock request?

End of post Jim1138 (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that I am not an administrator on any Wiki and if something I said led anyone to believe I was I apologize. I do appreciate the compliment, though. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Claudebone for personal attacks and harassment and because the account seems to be WP:NOTHERE. As I said in the block log, if Claudebone appeals and actually understands the issues and agrees not to repeat them feel free to unblock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact he continues to accuse editors of an "unhealthy obsession" after being blocked is decidedly the opposite of promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yep. Let them rant, I say. If there's ever an unblock request it'll show up on our to-do list; in the meantime I think we're done with business there. Thanks, Bushranger, for trying. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I gave one final old college try, but after his most recent response, that's all folks, he's solidly WP:NOTHERE. If he doesn't do a 180 on his tune if he answers again his TPA should be revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Block needed

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

---

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:Ensign Harry S. L. Kim is making implausible redirects to Muhammad and will not stop. Could an admin please block to get this person to talk about it? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (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.

You are aware that Ensign Harry S. Kim is a fictional character aboard the enterprise, just like User:Tom Parris and Neelix right? I'm not saying this is Neelix, it would be too obvious, what I'm suggesting someone's doing a joe job and you'd probably want to block Ensign Harry S. L Kim for more than a day KoshVorlon 12:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Cough* Voyager *Cough* Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a troll trying to impersonate Neelix using other characters from Voyager (it's not Neelix, but a separate SPA troll). I'll see if I can find the SPI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• There wasn't an SPI, the other accounts were just blocked for being obvious, so I created one: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helmsman Tom Paris. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit summary delete request per WP:CHILD

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

---

Please delete this IP edit and edit summary and this one per WP:CHILD. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's a 9 year old, then I'm the King of Siam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, BB, that's a good one - a thigh-slapper in fact. BMK (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 19:07, 2 February 2016 (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.

James British

This is very very similar to past trolling. WP:DUCK, WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 3 February 2016 (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. One potentially offensive material I've found on OSX's talk page: the f-bomb. Today, which is the 2nd, I decided to go to his talk page, and, one I scrolled down to the beginning of the page, I found an f-bomb wrote by the above user. It scared me, and I was like, "WTF?! What's this word all about?!" I made my first attempt to remove the f-bomb, and warned James that, if he swears one more time, he will be indefinitely blocked. I could explain how dumb he is. On the way back to the page, I discovered that an anonymous user reverted my change. I was shocked, and had to undo it. What the hell is his problem? I redid the change, but got reverted again by the owner of the account. I was shocked again, and redid it for the second time. And, that's all I know. Here are some of the revisions between the reverting user and me. (CAUTION: it may not be suitable for you guys, but you may be brave, except for me.) 66.87.65.115 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Profanity is not covered one way or the other in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. While it stands to reason that avoiding profanity helps keep conversation going smoothly and civilly, that's not an absolute. (If we wanted to get picky, we'd take the IP to task for using h-e-double-hockey-sticks in his comment above. :) ) There are a few words—which there's no need to enumerate here—that derail civil discourse so severely that they need dealt with immediately. The f-bomb is not quite to that level, IMHO. That said, the phrase it's used in could be taken as a personal attack. However, if the owner of the talk page—the person being addressed in the comment—restored the content, then it's not a personal attack. So, there's no reason to edit James British's message. Finally, I think the IP is acting in good faith, so there's nothing further that needs done here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Some people don't mind profanity on their talk pages, others do. If OSX doesn't mind the swear, there's no problem and you should respect that. What a user wants on their talk page outside of inflaming or outrageous content that violates community standards is their business, and you should move on from this before you end up with a block. I've also removed your warning from James English's page; it was a year ago and both parties seem to be well over it. We don't block on an absurdly late warning. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Sometimes, when being assaulted by low-life talk, it can feel like a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can editors at the ref desks offer legal and financial advice?

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 Wikipedia:General disclaimer says, in part Not professional advice If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Yet we have a repeatedly posted/unblocked question by a single-purpose user asking whether someone offering to transfer him money out of the blue is a "scam".

By definition a scam is illegal. Our disclaimer, and the ref desk guidelines both make it quite explicit that we don't give legal or financial advice. Yet editors keep insisting on answering and reposting the question when it is posted. Do we, or do we not, by policy, offer advice about manners dealing with finances and possible money laundering schemes?

At this point we've got User:Reference Desk Fan, User:71.119.131.184, User:76.69.45.64, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Nil Einne, User:SteveBaker, User:ShakespeareFan00, User:Dbfirs, and User:StuRat entertaining this discussion that potentially deals with the felonies of fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering not to mention other crimes. I have closed the discussion repeatedly per the ref desk guidelines and the general disclaimer. Am I wrong to think that a single individual asking about $70,000 transfers to his bank account from a stranger is outside our purview as an encyclopedia based on referenced sources? If I am not wrong, will an admin please remove this item from the ref desks? Thank. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User Medeis's hatting can become disruptive. The answer to the question posed is that editors are not supposed to offer such advice. However discussion of the hatting should take place at the reference desk talk page, and not here under WP:BRD. For the section that is being hatted, this cannot be really considered legal advice, as it is so obvious, and there is a fairly clear advice to contact police (not a lawyer). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My involvmennt here, was soley to post a reference link, to an official (in the instance FBI site) on the subject of Advance Fee Frauds, which given the original posters concerns was felt to be the most appropriate response. If there's going to be a 'Do Not Answer' policy, some guidance on when to apply it would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's blatantly clear the OP for that question (Reference Desk Fan) is one of our regular trolls trying to get someone to close down his breaching experiment and generate maximum drama. It worked. --Jayron32 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not asking for legal advice, and suggesting someone contact the police is not offering legal advice, and I do not see how any normally competent person could, in good faith, say it was. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar behaviour from User:Medeis is found in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&curid=2535910&diff=702204069&oldid=702201315 where a troll like question and some answers were removed without an edit summary. I would expect at least an edit summary, and preferably if people ahve already answered the question should not be removed. Remove the question when not one has responded. This will upset less people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't put an edit summary, given past discussions on the talk page that said we should try to keep comments to a minimum when dealing with trolling. In this case I did both comment inside the hat, and link to the disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• We're feeding a troll and stretching AGF to the breaking point. The ref desk, in entertaining such questions, has little to do with the encyclopedia's mission. I participate at the ref desk from time to time and it's interesting, but it's peripheral to the purpose of the encyclopedia and should not be a distraction from our mission, which is to write an encyclopedia, not to be an advice column. Given the extensive history of disruptive trolling at the ref desk, the name of the OP at the ref desk doesn't create confidence. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP should also note that his signature violates WP:NLS in that it consists entirely of unreadable non latin characters. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Violates? Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is worried about signatures, he should check out this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The general disclaimer says what you claim (but see below). However, the reference desk guidelines (at the top of the page) do not. They state "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice" - no mention of finacial (which the subject question qualifies as). The linked guidelines like the general disclaimer page says "The reference desk does not provide answers where an opinion from a qualified professional is needed, such as advice of a medical, legal or financial nature ...". But for the subject question, the opinion of a qualified professional is not required. Any reasonable competent contributor can answer the question. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the reference desk.

Its original purpose was to help improve Wikipedia articles.

Over time, it has become more a place where people ask questions, maybe give answers, and have interesting discussions.

Trolling there is a perennial problem: just as Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can also troll, WP:RD is the Quora or Stack Exchange that anyone can troll.

There have been any of discussions at WT:RD about how to address that problem.

(Quite frankly, it would seem to me that the problem with ref desk trolling is that the ref desk regulars are quite happy to respond to the trolls.)

The best solution is for the ref desk regulars to simply ignore the trolling questions. This is not going to happen.

So maybe a least worst solution is to have each ref desk semi-protected or given pending changes protection, with a clerking system of community-nominated clerks with a sub-page where questions or pending edits are discussed and evaluated. Again, this is not going to happen.

Medeis has taken it upon herself to be a self-appointed WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner. And. that. is. fine. with. me. Who better to be a WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner? As a second least worst solution, accepting Medeis's hatting and just moving on seems to me a way to move forward, and get on with writing an encyclopedia.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It must be disruptive to repeatedly hat a discussion that multiple established editors are un-hatting in good faith. It's very presumptive, if nothing else, to assume that your judgement must be correct and theirs must be wrong. Also, so far as I can see, this was not taken to the reference desk talk page, which suggests μηδείς is not certain consensus there would go in his or her favor. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many of those so-called "good faith" editors don't like the rules against professional advice and will fight over anything that looks like a borderline case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to apologise for respond in to that question. I was tired and didn't read it properly. I mistakenly thought it was some generic run of the mill scam where a person got an email, SMS or other message from a scammer and they'd made the mistake of responding and the scammer was now trying to hook them in. I missed the fact the editor was claiming this happened in person, and also them being a new editor. The main reason I responded was because I wanted to point out while there was no actual harm in reporting it to police, if you hadn't gotten involved there was probably little point (since such scams are dime a dozen). I also wanted to point out while a typical advance fee fraud was one possibility which had already been discussed, another possibility which had perhaps been hinted at but not discussedf was that it was an attempt to launder money stolen from bank accounts (via phising etc). I belatedly realised the editor was claiming the approach was in person. So if it did really happen this is far less common and probably worth telling someone about. Reading the question more carefully and given the poster's history, I do agree it looks like a troll. One thing I clearly don't agree with is that discussing scams and scammers automatically falls in to legal advice territory, it does not and there are times where it's definitely appropriate with references. Nil Einne (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Something Caustic in Ohio

Should we be answering questions about drinking caustic acidic and basic solutions to see what they taste like? See the latest OP question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#If_I_drink_10_mL_of_HCl_.281M.29_and_drink_10_mL_of_NaOH.2C_would_it_just_taste_like_salty_water.3F. These questions are not requests for references, but for comments on personal risks. I think we really need serious oversight of this, as the regulars seem all too happy to speculate without sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Bigger Picture

I could be in the wrong here, but I'm led to wonder whether the Reference Desk is worth the trouble it causes, and if it really helps us build an encyclopedia. I admit I'm far from a regular, but every time I've ended up at the Reference Desk it looks like a toxic mix of (a.) trolling (b.) inappropriate requests for legal/medical help (c.) do-my-homework-for-me requests (d.) simple requests that could have been answered in a 10-second Google search. It all seems more like a waste of time than a useful or productive part of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I find the reference desks an excellent source of information, when they are properly used. Ask evanh2008 whether or not he has found ref desk help helpful. That being said, I simply can't understand the "we...must...entertain...every...policy-violating...troll" attitude. For this reason I think we could do with stricter guidelines and oversight. But the last thing I would want to see is doing away with the ref desks. They are perhaps the best source on the internet to look for actual scholarly information, when they are not filled with scatological or racist questions about felonies, fraud, and BLP violations. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were possible to move to a question/answer format more closely modeled on StackExchange or one of its close relatives, I think quality would go up. That's a proven formula that pretty clearly works better than wiki talk page, which was never really designed for Q/A. (For example, on sites powered by StackExchange, both questions and answers can be voted up and down. If a post hits a certain negative threshold it is automatically hidden. No need to argue over which questions are unworthy trolls, or which answers are blatantly wrong, just cast your vote and don't worry about it. It eliminates a lot of drama and stress.) Sadly, I assume making that kind of change would probably require a lot of technical effort that just isn't worth it for what is basically a side mini-project of the encyclopedia. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How about changing the ref desks to nothing but external links to that site. Then the trolls would become their problem, and from what you're saying, they have low tolerance for trolls or flaming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this thing again. While I rarely use it now, I've found the reference desk extremely helpful in the past. I think it's not only a good thing (particularly given the abundance of Yahoo! Answers and similarly useless venues), but also a logical extension of the WMF's mission to "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Wikipedia is fairly unique in that it is a broadly respected outlet with contributors who are, to varying degrees, serious about being helpful and communicating knowledge. This is the fundamental problem with statements like "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library." There is irreplaceable value in "oral" (for lack of a better word) instruction: A static written text cannot be interrogated and cannot adapt itself to a given reader's needs or to an unforeseen context. The most fruitful ref desk questions are those that are (neologism alert) "unGoogleable." Wikipedia is not an educational institution in any traditional sense, but our mission is explicitly educational in nature.

As Medeis alludes to, I've actually made tangible academic use of sources I've been referred to by ref desk users (Medeis among them). There are a fair number of "Is battery acid really that bad for you?" questions, but analogies regarding babies and bathwater come to mind. I'm not familiar with StackExchange, but the idea of censoring comments on a popularity contest model seems counter to the open nature of this project. My basic perspective on this is all very idealistic and very forward-looking, perhaps naively so. I think the ref desk is a good example of what the Internet in general, and Wikipedia specifically, actually has to offer from a "knowledge-growing" point of view. I have access to Britannica and the OED and dozens of other resources that duplicate virtually all the WP article content I'm ever going to need to access, but the reference desk is the kind of thing that cannot be duplicated, specifically because it is available 24/7 and brings together people with different areas of interest with access to different sources. It's worth noting that I'm typically opposed to the kind of proposals that get branded with words like "open" and "free"—I still find it unconscionable that we allow unregistered edits. But the reference desk is a resource with real value to our readers. The idea of doing away with it is silly and short-sighted.

In con-freaking-conclusion, I'm short on time and am not familiar with the incident that precipitated this thread. But I am profoundly annoyed that this idea of blaming the ref desk for users' disruptive behavior is still being tossed around. It's the equivalent of dealing with an edit war by deleting the article. Hell, if people were as quick to jump to drastic solutions with article content as they are when the reference desk comes up, based on a dispute I was involved with a few years ago we might have banned the word "Tthe." Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Yes. Is the reference desk part of an encyclopedia? No. The solution is that there should be refdesk.wikimedia.org created, for Wikipedia and the Online Reference Desk to go their seperate ways, and then Wikipedia won't be saying the Ref Desk needs to go and the issues that the Ref Desk creates for the encylopedia won't be being created anymore. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't oppose that suggestion on principle, but I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea either. Without going into detail, I've seen problems at Wikimedia Commons languish for months without being resolved, mostly because, well, very few people are actually active at Commons. My worry is that if the Ref Desk were forked it would be forgotten and die of neglect. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually love this idea, though I share Evanh2008's concern that forking may lead to decreased attention. Really, my conception of what RD should do is to work like the resource exchange, except perhaps less specific: A place where editors looking to improve articles can request information (and related sources) to subjects from research-knowledgable helpers who don't have the level of interest to dedicate to editing those articles themselves. So, an open-ended question like "is battery acid really bad for you?" would get removed/turfed to an external RD because it doesn't request information in the context of improving articles. Moving the full RD elsewhere lets it be governed by a more appropriate body of policies. I don't know, it just strikes me that Bushranger's suggestion that the RD falls out of Wikipedia's project scope makes a lot of sense: Many questions call for original research and attract responses containing unverifiable information; the RD, when combined with its archives, resembles a a collection of indiscriminate information; and while the project namespace doesn't explicitly place RD-like boards out of its scope, it seems the main intent of that namespace is to provide information about Wikipedia and deal with "meta-issues" of encyclopedia building, such as providing policies and guidelines, essays, important processes to managing the project, information about editing tools, and similar. I know this isn't exactly the right place to hold this particular discussion, but it's an intriguing one that perhaps should be held sometime soon. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Evan wrote : "It's the equivalent of dealing with an edit war by deleting the article"

The refdesk is a unique feature of WP. And needs to be treated uniquely.

When crafting an article for the encyclopedia, it's OK that it be wrong now, but right eventually. It's worth putting a considerable amount of time and effort into figuring out what "right" even is. It's OK if it takes a hundred man-hours to figure out the best way to write the lede of an article, because that article will stand forever and educate millions of people for many years to come.

With the refdesk the opposite is true. Decisions must be made quickly, because in a week, nobody will care. (And numerous more questions will have come in.) It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of collective man-hours on any individual RefDesk thread.

A mechanism is needed to deal with troll questions and badly wrong answers in a timely way.

Right now that mechanism is revert-wars, long pointless arguments, and regular threats to "take this to AN/I". I honestly think that a new mechanism is needed, and I'm surprised that this is a controversial opinion.

Treating a question/answer service as though it was substantially the same as writing an encyclopedia is a fundamental mistake that is the biggest barrier to the refdesk's usefulness, and the root cause of the never-ending disputes that have caused so many useful contributors to the desk to get frustrated and leave. (including the dispute that prompted this discussion.) ApLundell (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been advocating a similar perspective for years now, but with a few very important caveats, many of which Mendaliv touched upon immediately above. Yes, I absolutely agree that the role of the ref desks on this project is unique, and that some degree of latitude in the methodology there is justifiable. Unfortunately, there is a severe and persistent problem there with regard to a handful of consistently-active regulars who have completely lost the thread on what the purpose of the refdesks is. The desks were constituted under the presumption that they would serve to improve sourcing for the encyclopedia and to help editors improve and contextualize content, not as a kind of extended Dear Abby experiment meant to serve as a playground for wild speculation on any topic that tangentially relates to any question asked there, for any purpose.

The refdesks are a part of Wikipedia, not Reddit and, as such, WP:NOTAFORUM applies there as absolutely as it does on any other space on this project--unless and until the broader Wikipedia community decides to stipulate otherwise. Unfortunately, some of the afore-mentioned over-eager regulars clearly view the desks an excuse for them to validate their notions that they are absolute polymaths, capable of answering every question imaginable, often leading to meandering tangents into WP:Original research and WP:synthesis of the most unabashed and unambiguous sort. After years of some of these users being told, on an almost daily basis, that this kind of speculation is not appropriate on this project, whatever the space, I'm afraid to say that its time that we recognize that some of these users are clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build the encyclopedia, but rather to serve their own intellectual exercises and engage in casual discussion of empirical topics as if the desks were an open forum. This is unfortunate because most all of these users are very civil and collegial members of the Ref Desk community--but the fact of the matter is that if one cannot reference a contentious/speculative claim, it has no place in a Wikipedia discussion, be it on a talk page or in a reference desk thread. And it's past time that the RefDesk guidelines were overhauled to reflect this, since these contributors cannot accept that broader community standards still apply in that space, without it being stated explicitly. I surely wish this step wasn't necessary, because it will clearly slow the process there for all contributors, including those who can tell the difference between speculation and non-synthesized original research and thus might wish to omit sourcing for straight forward statements that they know can be sourced, but unfortunately we dragged down to the lowest common denominator here, vis-a-vis those with no breaks on their perception of their own mental gifts, inclinations towards synthesis and an inability to distinguish speculation from sourceable claims.

Now let's also acknowledge a dirty little (non)secret concerning the RefDesks; only a small fraction of the questions asked there are ever intended to serve improvement of an article, as opposed to satisfying personal curiosity (or indeed to troll on some occasions). However, as a practical matter, it is clearly impossible to police these questions in the sense of determining which are in fact for WP:HERE purposes. So I'm inclined to always give the benefit of the doubt as to possible utility for the project, even when the evidence clearly points in the other direction. But when the answers fail to even pay lip service to the notion of sourceability (as opposed to an intellectual fishing expedition), it becomes obvious that Wikipedia is not the priority. So, yes, a serious and broad discussion needs to take place soon in which the broader community's input is requested to set down some standards to constrain the RefDesk's activities to those that might at least have some potential for serving the needs of the encyclopedia, rather than the egos and the whimsical intellectual pursuits of those of us regulars there. But not here; WP:VPP, WP:CD, and a number of other central community spaces might serve as an appropriate locality for that discussion, but ANI is clearly not the place to have it, as everyone here surely knows. As a matter of fact... Snow ^{let's rap} 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy close, please?

ANI is clearly not the place to be having a substantive policy discussion on the topics implicit in Medeis' inquiries. If Medeis, or any party, wants a resolution to these issues, backed by broad community consensus, WP:Central discussion and WP:VPP would provide the appropriate forum for that discussion and significant community involvement.

Indeed, I'm inclined to say that Medeis deserves, at the very least, a severe trouting for raising this drama here with essential zero chance of reaching any kind of resolution but to amp up the acrimony. They should especially be aware of the impropriety of raising the issues here in light of the fact that it was just a few weeks ago that they were brought here for as the subject of discussion of perceived disruption stemming from their activities in that area--nor indeed was this the first (or even the tenth?) time that their behaviour in this exact vein (contentious removal of threads at the RefDesks) has come under the examination of their fellow contributors here at ANI. In the last such discussion, as on several other occasions, I acted in defense of Medeis in light of strong calls for a TBAN or other strong sanction with regard to their involvement on the desks, because I didn't think it was appropriate in those circumstances. But enough is enough--this is the point where I lose the ability to assume good faith for Medeis' actions in light of exceptional context. I have to say that I now feel very ambivalent about my !vote in the last proposal on a sanction and wonder if I should have headed the predictions of others that there was no chance that Medeis could stay clear of contentious, battleground behaviours on this issue. Creating this thread, and baiting this discord, especially so close on the heels of the last round of complaints of their behaviour in this area shows that they just cannot disengage. I'm not calling for a new TBAN proposal, but I seriously, seriously recommend to Medeis that they take my comments here as an indication that the last of the patience is evaporating even amongst those editors who have defended them in the past.

In the meantime, I suggest this discussion be closed as outside the purpose an ANI thread and that it be moved to a more appropriate platform that is actually meant to serve to discuss policy, as opposed to behavioural issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So;

1. WP:Village pump (policy)
2. WP:Village pump (proposal)
3. WP:Centralised discussion
4. WT:Reference_desk
5. Any other ideas? I'm sure one of these pages would love to host this discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think any of those would do in a pinch, although I'd argue the RefDesk talk page is not ideal, as it has almost invariably proven ineffective at resolving differences of opinion amongst the regulars in recent years, owing to the fact that positions are so entrenched, leading to a more or less perpetual maintenance of the status quo for just about every major point of contention amongst regulars. In some respects, I'm very much concerned about the implications of what it might mean for the desks to solicit broad community involvement in resolving how the desks should operate, but I just don't see any other way forward but to seek those opinions. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 3 February 2016 (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.

Misuse of commas

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.

---

I know, it's about as trivial as you can get, but User:68.228.230.203 seems to think that they understand how commas should be used, quotes MOS to support their position, and reverts multiple editors who correct their mistakes. They do not respond on their talk page, and "communicate" only through repetitive citations in edit summaries. Unfortunately, not only is their usage of commas wrong, and damaging to the flow of sentences in outr articles, but they are refusing to engage in the consensual process necessary to keep us operating. I believe they need a short block to point out to them the importance of engaging with other editors, and the fallacy of simply reverting using the same criteria each time. I haven't cited specific edits, because looking at their contrib list and bringing up any edit with a summary which included the word "comma" or a "," will illustrate the problem, as will the attempts at dialobue on their talk page. BMK (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Notified. BMK (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the IP is correct. A comma is needed to close the appositive in such cases where you reverted the IP's additions, as you will see here. Your behaviour here is quite distasteful, and is directly opposed to the guidance at MOS:COMMA ("In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation") and standard English grammar. I suggest that all of BMK's reverts of the IP be reverted as disruptive. I had tried to start this myself, but was quickly reverted by him. I shall let others deal with his errors. RGloucester — ☎ 00:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately, RGloucester, who has a habit of disruptively sticking his nose in where angels fear to tread, has now entered the fray, so instead of being a simple matter of an IP who refuses to engage and misuses commas, we're undoubtedly going to be treated some abstruse discussions on the not-so-finer points of English grammar, and perhaps to one of RG's persistent demands that IT IS ABSOLUTEL:Y IMPERTIVE THAT such-and-such MUST BE DONE before the world ends. RG is going to defend commas in sentences such as "Herman Kountze (August 21, 1833 – November 20, 1906) was a powerful and influential pioneer banker in Omaha, Nebraska, in the late 19th century. when "Herman Kountze (August 21, 1833 – November 20, 1906) was a powerful and influential pioneer banker in Omaha, Nebraska in the late 19th century." is a perfectly acceptable sentence which flows without unnecessary interruption. BMK (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not perfectly acceptable according to our MoS or any other English style guide. Perhaps you've never familiarised yourself with grammar, but I can assure you that you are making a grave error. I've cited a source, the MoS, and there is nothing supporting your position, which is simply incorrect. Appositives must be closed with a comma. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's the end of the world as we know it. Uh-huh. BMK (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of Rgloucester and the IP is clearly correct in terms of our MOS. This is however one of the places where the MOS itself is unreasonable and following it damages readability. But that is a discussion for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Sensible style guides however demand a comma only after appositives that are necessary for understanding the sentence (restrictive)- usually state names would not be considered restrictive appositives but simply part of the place name. But this is not currently what our MOS says. I edited my comment because apparently even otherwise sensible styleguides consider this rule to be standard as Rgloucester and the IP says. I would say that this makes little sense linguistically, but in terms of grammar it is clearly considered the correct usage in most style guides.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed the "end of the world" when people such as yourself decide that merely because an editor is an IP, he can be reverted as if he knows nothing. In truth, you show your lack of knowledge of our guidelines and the English language, and furthermore, you show a disdainful temperament that has no place here. I know that it is difficult, believe me, but please try and accept that in this case you are wrong. An appositive is a piece of information that is tacked onto a noun to clarify it. Let me give you an example that might be more familiar: "Ms So and So, my teacher, is very smart". The "teacher" bit is an appositive, serving to clarify who "Ms So and So" is. Likewise, the "Nebraska" in the aforementioned sentence services to clarify where "Omaha" is. One would not consider writing "Ms So and So, my teacher is very smart", as that changes the meaning of the sentence and does not flow. Likewise, one cannot write "Omaha, Nebraska..." This is not an unreasonable demand on the part of the MoS. There is no acceptable use of English that allows the lack of a comma here, nor any style guide that does so. RGloucester — ☎ 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 - @Beyond My Ken and BMK: and @RGloucester:, it should be "... during the 19th century" for proper readability; so you're both wrong actually. Just saying. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty standard grammar: [125], [126]. IP is right but uncommunicative. BMK is edit warring to violate the MOS. I suggest we just close this up as too lame to act on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue of apposition has been discussed time and time again at MOS and on individual article pages. It is irritating, to say the least, when users can use various grammatical textbooks to demonstrate its use before the person making the most noise about being convinced of the fact that it isn't has to concede that they were in the wrong. It may be embarrassing to find out that there's something you didn't know about the English language, but putting others through hell because your ego is too delicate to withstand the fact that you're fallible is unacceptable. Most editors are unfamiliar with the complexities of punctuation. Instead of getting your back up, try using it as an opportunity to learn something new. I, Iryna Harpy, have now served my 2¢ worth. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, my back's not up. I just know how to right gud, and I'll keep on doing that despite ultra-grammarian bullshit such as this discussion and the MoS. ("Apposite" my great Aunt Fanny - those who can't, make up rules.) BMK (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bullshit such as this discussion"? Um...you're the one who started this discussion! Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Erpert, I believe that Beyond My Ken may need to use the {{fbdb}} template on their comment. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Duly banked ... unfortunately, your 2¢ cheque has bounced @Iryna Harpy:. Please deposit another 2¢. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I'm not clear on what the close here was. "Give me a break" is somewhat opaque. I guess it's dismissing the original plaintif's complaint as either trivial or wrong? But which it is (trivial or wrong) matters.

Doesn't really seem trivial since the complaint is of an IP who "reverts multiple editors who correct their mistakes... do not respond on their talk page... their usage [is] wrong, and damaging to the flow of sentences in our articles, but they are refusing to engage in the consensual process necessary to keep us operating..."

Looks pretty non-trivial to me. My understanding is that you can stand to be corrected, and even get in trouble if you don't take correction, for those kinds of behavior.

The subject certainly isn't trivial. Correct comma placement is pretty important, obviously.

Or maybe the plaintiff was just wrong on the merits. I think he may have been (one complaint being that the allegedly offending editor "quotes MOS to support their position" as if that's somehow a wrong thing is kind of a red flag) although I haven't looked into it.

In closing:

• It's the Admin Board, not the Random Person board.
• So if you're a Random Person and not an Admin you ought to be particularly thoughtful and careful when closing a thread.
• And "Give me a break" with no further explanation does not strike me as particularly thoughtful, enlightening, or even kind.

Ergo, let's not have have any more of this. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• See User talk:Oiyarbepsy/topic/re "Give me a break" Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2016 (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.

72.235.27.231 on Muppet*Vision 3D

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.

---

@72.235.27.231: has consistently been adding un-sourced statements about Muppet*Vision 3D reopening at Disney California Adventure, despite receiving multiple warning. I am not sure if it is really seen as vandalism, hence why I did not make the request there. However, I am seeking a block on the user, since they have been warned multiple times and still continue to provide unsourced material. For background, the attraction was closed/put on hiatus on January 7, 2015 so that For the First Time in Forever: A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration show could be put on in the theater. Though the event that the Frozen show was for has ended, the Frozen show is still in place, as seen here. Elisfkc (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (Note: Muppet*Vision 3D was on my watchlist) I made a request at WP:RFPP. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (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.

Need help

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 seriously messed up. requuires action now. Beyond my pay grade to cure. (Protection log); 16:32 . . Pinoy Flip (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from User:Elockid to Tago nang tago ‎(Redacted) (Move log); 16:32 . . Pinoy Flip (talk | contribs) moved page User:Elockid to Tago nang tago (Redacted) (Tag: a new user moving a page out of the userspace) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that the user's been blocked for harassment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (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.

Clarification on the use of socks

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

---

Hi. I'd like to ask for clarification on whether it's ok to use socks under the following circumstances: (a) I am unable to use my main account due to COI arising from previous edits (b) I will surrender the sock account once its purpose has expired

Obviously it won't be a block evading or vandalizing sock, so should be fine right?

Regards, (Anon. for now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.1 (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Er... if you're using it because you can't use your main account, then aren't you by definition block evading? And if the other account isn't blocked, then why not use that one? --Golbez (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you do have COI of some sort, just declare it on your user page. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't really do that. There's a pernicious "vandal" reverting all my edits to a particular article, and only my edits to that article. I appreciate I'm being vague, but if I reveal who I am, which page I edit, and what my sock name will be, that vandal will start attacking that account as well. I've already reported this user many times, and there's currently a thread elsewhere where resolution is being discussed. In the meantime can I create socks so as not to attract attention? (Anon) 12:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

While you have my sympathies, if you're previously edited this article, I would take great care, particularly if you've ever gotten into any dispute with editors who aren't banned or blocked. At the very least, I strongly suggest you let some admins you trust (but who can't be considered to have a COI when it comes to you) know what you're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not a valid use of an alternate account - although I sympathize, you're specifically using it to hide your conflict of interest. See WP:SCRUTINY. I also suggest letting the admin processes work out to rid you of this vandal, and perhaps use COI edit requests from your main account. A vandal blanking posts from talk pages is very easy to spot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that Jytdog said below that it doesn't sound like anon is trying to hide a COI but rather they want to hide from a vandal. However if it's only one article, I don't quite get why semiprotection doesn't work. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would bet a pound that the "vandal" is reverting promotional edits tot he article where the OP has a COI. Either way, this is unquestionably not a valid use of an alternate account. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't ~think~ the OP meant "COI" as in "conflict of interest" because if they did, what they wrote in (a) is nonsense and horrible. ( a COI arises when somebody with an external interest wants to edit a topic related to that interest here in WP - the conflict is between their obligation to WP and their obligation to the external interest -- it doesn't arise from "previous edits".... and socking to "duck" a COI is not acceptable in any way). I think they just meant "conflict" - as in an ongoing dispute with some other editor. Original poster, would you please clarify? Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2016 (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.

Llihybbag shitting up random articles/promoting his twitter account

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

---

User:Llihybbag has been warned several times. Appears to have not noticed or not care. Recommend block to start with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingsuntil (talk • contribs)

Dingsuntil, Gabby stopped ahead of her final warning; for now. If she starts back up, it goes to WP:AIV. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind; blocked by Nihonjoe. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:16, 4 February 2016 (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.

NOTHERE

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's contribs are brainfucked rants in talk pages nothing else. Distrupting normal work of other editors. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

After two months and 157 edits, it's obvious The5thForce is not here to help, so I've blocked him indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2016 (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.

St Mary's Church, Haddenham - copy/paste from ext website

Two editors have been repeatedly adding copy/pasted material from an external website. The website has an "All rights reserved" notice, but the book itself is apparently public domain. I am adding this here as I do not know whether it belongs on 3RR, or due to possible copyvio, here, or somewhere else.

• Apparent source: William Henry Page (1 January 1902). A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, Parishes: Haddenham. pp. 281–286. ASIN B00MG5KYIK. Retrieved January 31, 2016.
• 80.177.210.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dog7005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Dog7005 Has restored content once, but not since an EW notice was left on talk page.
• 80.177.210.212 Has added / restored content five times or more. Once since a EW notice was added to 80.177.210.212's talk page.

Dog7005's account was created about when 80.177.210.212 reached uw-delete4. Page's book was cited by Dog7005, but then the cite was removed by 90.17.210.212 Much, if not all, of both editors' edits appear to be copy/pasted from Page's book. I have left a number of messages and suggestions on the editors' talk pages w/o a reply. Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably one to take to WP:SPI I'd say. Mike1901 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The text is the public domain and available here, so it's not a copyvio. It is however, disruptive to copy/paste the entire text into the article, and he's edit warring to keep it in. I've semi-protected the page for a week to stop that disruption; perhaps in the meantime someone can take this PD source, distill it into some cited references, and remove those maintenance tags. Katie^talk 12:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

SPA Account - Highly POV Slanted edits on Israel / Palestine

Fgz1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

[127],[128],[129]

Newly registered account, making a lot of POV edits on articles likely to have little oversight. All uncited and definitely POV, does this come under sanctions related to this topic? WCM_email 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Might fall under WP:ARBPIA3, especially since they're a new account. clpo13_(talk) 01:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:RolandR has already left a discretionary sanctions plus a 500/30 prohibition notification on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It does fall under PIA3. RolandR has dealt with it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should those changes be reverted? WCM_email 12:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

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

---

The editor keeps adding Bubbling Under chart peaks at Rick Ross discography, which cannot be verified through sources provided. I tried to explain to the editor that those peaks s/he adds cannot be verified at his/her talk page. But s/he removed my explanation, and reverted the page to his/her revision 1, 2. S/he keeps saying in the edit summary that These are routine calculations. Very much allowed. I'm not sure what routine calculations have anything to do with the fact that the peaks aren't verifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So very happy you chose to involve other editors in this issue. WP:CALC, a sub policy of the WP:No Original Research policy, states specifically that:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."

The Bubbling under charts act as extensions of other charts. For example, if a song charts at #5 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart, which serves as an extension to the Hot 100, one could most certainly deduct that 100+5=105. This is simple addition, and to argue that this doesn't qualify as "simple arithmetic" is asinine. Additionally, this user has began edit wars on the pages Rick Ross discography (as well as my personal talk page), without adding any further explanations of his edits other than the argument made in his original edit summary, despite the fact that I presented a policy that specifically countered his argument. Though I personally feel that Harout72 is guilty of disruptive editing, I'd personally prefer that no repercussions are given to him and someone just simply explain to him that what he's doing is incorrect and violates WP:CALC. Funkatastic (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You simply do not want to hear what others are saying to you. You were not brought here because you added Bubbling Under peaks, you were brought here because you kept adding peaks that cannot be verified through the sources that your edit here adds. This here is one of the sources that supposedly supports those chart peaks, which does not list any chart peaks for any songs whatsoever. The issue here is about the fact that you're either not familiar with WP:Verifiability or you knowingly keep disrupting that page. Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section.--Harout72 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You literally just accused me of exactly what you're doing, you're not listening to counter arguments. I did not add a single source to this page, so if that's the argument you're switching to now that's great, because now you look even dumber. The only thing I did was take the Bubbling Under positions from the Notes that already existed on the page and reflected them to the tables. So if your new issue is with the references, you're not even talking to the right person. This is hilarious. As you added in the final sentence of your last argument, "Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section." is once again, completely ignoring the policy WP:CALC.Funkatastic (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your edit. You have copied and pasted an entire older revision of the page from which I had to remove all of those sources and peaks due to unverifiability. By doing that, yes, you are adding sources which do not support your added chart peaks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Except the proper move there, isn't to completely remove all of the content. It's to add a notice at the top of the section & article saying that the article is unverifiable and it's sources need to be updated. So once again, you made a mistake. Funkatastic (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this at Rick Ross discography and I'm not getting involved beyond this except to point out the fact that Funkatastic, you don't seem to understand it is not "basic arithmetic" because the Bubbling Under chart only tracks songs that have not yet reached the Hot 100. Therefore, a song that falls out of the Hot 100 will not reappear on the Bubbling chart. Thus, that particular song might be #101 in Billboard's calculations in a given week. To then list what is #1 on the Bubbling Under chart as #101 is inaccurate, because in reality it might be #102 or even #110; without actual figures, one cannot know. I've noticed what you've done at Meek Mill discography with Azealia911 (talk · contribs) with re-adding the Bubbling Under peak onto 100 and it's inaccurate, persistent and disruptive. Please recognise that you are misconstruing what the Bubbling Under chart actually is, and what it isn't is a simple extension chart (if it was, songs that fall out of the Hot 100 would reappear on it). This isn't anything personal, it's just that I've come across this misunderstanding many times over the years and it's frustrating to see it all over Wikipedia. That's why the note should be placed next to an mdash, because in the end, it did not chart on the Hot 100, its exact position outside the top 100 is not known, and the Hot 100 and Bubbling Under chart are two different charts. (Also, WP:CALC was not created for this reason and the cited passage indicates there must be consensus about said "calculation" for it to be added. There clearly isn't consensus among users about this, even beyond the scope of this.) Ss112 10:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Echoing what Ss112 has just said: the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension of the Hot 100 because it only includes songs that haven't yet reached the Hot 100, and does not account for those that have fallen off yet might still be just below 100. WP:CALC does not hold here, because the criteria are not the same between the two lists. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears Funkatastic has either not seen this or still does not care, having just edited 2 Chainz discography, still operating under the assumption one can add the Bubbling Under onto 100 and citing WP:CALC in his edit summaries. It needs to stop; it's disruptive, persistent and inaccurate. Disruptive because he will restore his edits if anybody takes him up on it. Ss112 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if the user in question had indeed seen the above explanation on why CALC does not apply here, not been bothered, and carried on doing what they want regardless. I was originally wary about partaking in this discussion, as all attempts to contact the user via discussion or their talk page usually result in them blanking any attempt of communication, usually accompanied by an insulting statement in the edit summary (see their talk page history). I was also reluctant to add my thoughts as I didn't want the conversation to completely derail (see this discussion about a content dispute, which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up. If the user is simply ignoring what Ss112 and BlueMoonset are explaining here, then further action may be a possible route to take. Azealia911 _talk 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Funkatastic hasn't been pinged here lately, so I'm doing so now to ensure that the conversation is being followed as well as the explanations as to why the calculations are producing invalid results, rather like adding apples and oranges. (WP:CALC simply doesn't apply when the numbers being combined are determined based on differing criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that unlike other policies and guidelines that instruct users to be bold, CALC specifically states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious" I have yet to see one discussion in which there is consensus amongst multiple editors that CALC can be applied in this manner, rather the opposite. Azealia911 _talk 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

*@Harout72: You've forgotten to notify Funktastic about this ANI complaint. I have done it for you, but given the fact it pops up in a big orange box every time you edit the page, I fail to see how you have missed it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Ignore this. I noticed he removed the ANI notification. My bad. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

LMAO, that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. If a song reaches the Hot 100 then any charting on the Bubbling Under charts wouldn't be the peak. I understand the concerns, but not a single one of you has raised a valid argument as to why WP:CALC doesn't apply to the use of Bubbling Under Charts. If you'd like to try and start a discussion on any of these pages to try and create a consensus that simple addition doesn't qualify as basic arithmetic please go ahead, but because that claim is so farfetched I'll continue to make these edits. I've yet to do anything that qualifies as "disruptive, persistent or inaccurate". Two more things I'd like to point out, I have never stated that the sources on these discography pages, nor have I ever personally vouched for him. Secondly, the above user says "which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up" is completely irrelevant as it happened over a year ago, the only reason to bring up this dispute would be an attempt to personally attack a user instead of discussing the contents of the topic. Don't know how you could still deny these as personal attacks when in this scenario the content isn't the slightest bit pertinent to the current topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's valid because it's proof that, as you have also just stated, you (will) continue to add what you consider "routine calculations" persistently to the point of disruption. As I and other users have just explained, it is not a routine calculation; they're two different charts and the Bubbling chart is no longer a simple extension chart, otherwise it would still be listed as such (#1 being #101 and so on--there is no proof this is the case today). Even pointing out that if a song makes the Hot 100 "the Bubbling Under position would not be its peak" demonstrates you still do not understand what any of us has just said. Claiming without proof you have consensus to make said edits is wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this now. Ss112 01:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Funkatastic still keeps reverting Rick Ross discography to the revision which adds sources that leaves all of his added Bubbling Under peaks unverifiable. He still chooses to do so even after he accepted that his edit adds sources that do not support those chart peaks. Even after being told that Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. Hopefully administrators prevent further disruptions by this editor. He even reverts edits of other editors at all discographies where he's told what he's doing is wrong.--Harout72 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The above two posts both claim I said things that I never posted here or anywhere. I never once claimed I had a consensus, nor did I ever claimed I added sources to the page Rick Ross discography, both of those claims are 100% fictitious and furthermore prove that these users aren't even aware of the point I'm trying to make, let alone the topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You cited WP:CALC here and in your edit summary, which claims you need to have consensus to add numbers together for it not to be considered original research. You don't have consensus on the matter of adding Bubbling Under peaks to 100 to be adding it anywhere. You are now reverting @Cornerstonepicker: and claiming their reversions of your disruptive edits are "vandalism". Also, do not change the heading of this discussion; that's not your place. You didn't start this discussion, Harout72 did. Most of your edits are also unsourced, as you don't have any proof Billboard considers #1 on the Bubbling Under chart #101, which makes it original research as well. Since you are the user changing dashes into inaccurate additions (inaccurate, as I and others have explained above) of numbers, the burden of proof is on you. Ss112 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially Kanye West discography with WP:3RRV. Since his explanation is invalid, not sure why the persistence with unhelpful edits. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Would a topic ban proposal be too extreme? One that would prevent the user from editing discography articles completely. It's evident that no matter how many users attempt to explain how CALC can not be evoked as a reason for their actions, they clearly do not want to listen. What do others think? Azealia911 _talk 22:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• If no administrator blocks Funktastic for those erroneous additions despite consensus to the contrary, which is the only other thing I can think of that might get said user to stop without going to a ban, then I would favor a temporary topic ban on editing charts and chart data in discography articles and discographies in regular articles, perhaps a month, to be made indefinite if the behavior is resumed after the temporary ban is lifted. A line was crossed with the claim of "vandalism" when one of the CALC edits was reverted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Saw this topic fly by: I can only add that I warned Funkatastic about this while I was an administrator, and, were I still an administrator, he would be indefinitely blocked until he acknowledged that his edits violate policy, guidelines, and that most horrible thing to mention, truth. As multiple editors have explained to him, the Bubbling Under charts do not function as an extension the main chart.

For those that aren't versed in charts, the Bubbling Under charts are a chart of the fifteen or twenty-five best-selling songs that have not made the main chart. If a song ever charts on the main chart, it cannot reappear on the main chart. Thus, if the 101st best-selling song used to be the 99th best selling song, it will disappear from the charts entirely, and the song showing a position 1 on the Bubbling Under chart is actually position 102 or lower. That's the reason that WP:CALC doesn't apply, and what Funkatastic is able unwilling or unable to understand. A WP:CIR block would be quite appropriate here: even if Funkatastic is well-intentioned, his edits are damaging.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban or similar form of disciplinary measure. After a few days' rest, it appears Funkatastic has resumed disruptive editing; reverting BlueMoonset's edits at Wale discography. This persistent refusal to accept they are wrong and adding incorrect information needs to stop. Ss112 05:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban

I propose that Funkatastic be given a one month topic ban from editing discography articles and from making any edits related to Bubbling Under charts and music charting in general, broadly construed, said ban to be made indefinite if the behavior is resumed at any point after the temporary ban is lifted. I'm happy to entertain modifications on specific details, and alternate proposals can always be made. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Funkatastic's disruptive and inaccurate edits continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the assertion that WP:CALC does not apply to the nuances of content involved here, but even if it did, that guideline still stipulates that Funktastic must secure consensus for these changes--which, in any event, specific policy reinforcement or no, he needs embrace for any controversial content change on Wikipedia. Since he seems determined to go his own way on this issue, across multiple articles, a topic ban seems the only appropriate measure at this time--though I wonder, given his disposition towards collaboration, if a topic ban will be sufficient or headed. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Funkatastic is never going to stop disrupting discographies. This editor doesn't have the ability to listen to what others are saying to him, and surely isn't willing to work with the rest of the community.--Harout72 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support, although I think a complete site ban would be preferable.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's always a possibility it may come to that, if the editor doesn't begin to appreciate the principle of the collaborative process, but I have to say that proposing a full site ban based on present activities would be a massive over-reach of a sanction, thoroughly disproportionate with the disruption being examined here, not withstanding their editing philosophy and propensity towards IDHT in this narrow context. A temporary topic ban or a very short term block would be appropriate, either of them, but an indefinite or long-term site ban would surely be excessive, in my view. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no value in retaining an editor that hasn't got command of basic logic skills.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to make such a sweeping analysis of his absolute net value to the project as a unilateral decision predicated on a short span of disruption on one narrow issue--permanent WP:SITEBANs are not applied on the basis of "I just don't have a great impression of this guy's logic skills", but rather for a prolonged pattern of disruption which the community cannot ignore. We're way short of those circumstances here. Let me be clear, as I thought I already had been, that I share your doubts that this will have a productive turn-around, based on the IDHT that disposition in evidence here. But we don't ban people from the project for a handful of controversial (or even outright disruptive) edits--not when intermediary measures, including a conventional block, have not been attempted. You're jumping way ahead of the appropriate process for addressing behavioural issues here. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the disruption has lasted for months: it's not "short-term" by any reasonable definition.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support The user displays tell-tale signs of WP:IDHT. No matter how many times it is explained to them, they will not cease to use WP:CALC as an excuse to disruptively edit discographies. I'd motion to extend the 'trial' topic ban from one month to three or four. I also concur with Kww that a better route to take would be a site ban. Azealia911 _talk 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per comments by Kww and Azealia911; either a topic ban or site ban. Ss112 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Consensus seems clear and unopposed, could an admin close and enforce this please? Azealia911 _talk 13:18, 4 February 2016 (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:Giovannigiulio continues to block evade using IPs - rangeblock needed

I have been banreverting numerous IPs beginning with 5.90... for about a year now ever since Giovannigiulio was indeffed for abusing multiple accounts. While he has used some registered accounts to block evade, the vast majority of his block evasion came from these IP addresses, which he usually uses to make a few edits, then stops using, only to use another IP address afterwards, thus making these IP socks harder to block. Worst of all, this user typically flies under the radar of admins, leaving me to report and/or tag these socks.

So, I personally think we should calculate a rangeblock for all IPs in the 5.90... range, so that this user can no longer use these IPs to block evade. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That'd be 65534 hosts blocked if my calculations are correct (they may not be at this time of day). No idea what the collateral on that would be but I suspect it may be high. Amortias (T)(C) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it may be high ... Someone just got their Masters Degree in Understatement. It likely would be, but would it be balanced with the removal of a SockMaster? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I remember correctly, I've run into this sockmaster before. He was annoying but not so bad that I'd do a massive rangeblock. Maybe I didn't get the worst of it. As I recall, it was mostly nationalistic, Italian POV-pushing on film articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: True that, but to get a bigger picture of what I'm dealing with here, and how to identify socks of this user, take a gander at his LTA page, which I created based on what I knew about him. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, my words have been immortalized. Yeah, that's pretty frustrating. It might help if you gathered IP addresses, like User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker. Sometimes you can get a limited rangeblock on the most commonly-used IP range. That's what happened with this list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 British editor, British humour, British stiff upper lip. Amortias (T)(C) 18:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You're humour does seem to fit Amortias ... but I'm a bit sus' - waitaminute, the userpage saayyyssss ... *checks userpage* ... "Suffolk", that clears up my confusion. Good to meet a Suffolk-in-resident. How's the move to the horrible English going for you? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Sounds like a good solution to this, instead of the suspectedly high amount of IPs that may be impacted. Then we keep an eye on those rogues that get through the ranges. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drcrazy102: Based on the IPs I had already tagged, the most commonly used range by the sockmaster is "5.90.**.**". ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this something an AbuseFilter can help with - makes it easier to find which IPs have been used in the last spree by detecting (and possibly blocking) some signature edits. I do the same with an editor who just can't stay away in defiance of a block (I block what I can with the filter, and the rest I revert per WP:RBI). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

181.134.2.199 reported by Meters

181.134.2.199 (contributions) appears to be trolling but since it is just barely possible this is a case of incompetence instead I'll take this here rather than to AIV. Either way it seems time for a block.

Every edit has been a comment or question that had no place in the article and was immediately undone by other users or bots. There has been no response or change in behaviour after multiple warnings on the user's talk page (other than perhaps just enough of a break for warnings to start over at level 1).

See [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], and [137] Meters (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, you never know... I left a note; if this happens again we should block. Thanks Meters. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Feels like I'm bending over backwards here, but if it isn't good faith it's just sneaky enough to raise a whisper of a doubt. Meters (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like the user isn't aware that articles have talkpages, or that they themselves have one. If this condition persists after Drmies' warning, I agree there will be no other recourse than to block. The edits are timed quite far apart, so I'd suggest a block of a couple of weeks; we don't want them to miss it. (It's a static IP.) Once, or if, they respond constructively, they can be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

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 don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Does that observation actually add anything to this case? I've heard it before, and I wonder sometimes if it doesn't rather work the other way. I would agree that threatening ANI is not generally appreciated, but what I actually did was told PepperBeast it was certainly going to happen.. but when I could find the time. Perhaps not the best way of doing it in retrospect, but he could have just backed down and apologised you know - that can work wonders in situations like this. What is certainly a fact here is that I got quite upset and I let it show. I had nothing to gain from creating an ANI in terms of the article or anything - ie it couldn't have been pitched against PepperBeast doing anything, except perhaps apologise. Please don't assume that it was. My personal ANI would have actually centred around a point that I am raising below instead... Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BMK that there are various flavors of the month that are yelled in order to try to "win" a dispute. It is also popular to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling usually doesn't help, especially when what is being yelled is wrong. There are a few editors who like to yell "bullying". Sometimes yelling "bullying" is done by bullies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding it all a bit mysterious in how much I'm supposed to have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt Lewis does not appear to have edited since this thread began, but I concur with your read - his reaction is not acceptable conduct. I worry about the response we will get when he does come back and comment here - it may likely be more of the same. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I think you are just wrong to voice that here. It’s negative speculation and I find it somehow prejudicial. I haven't said anything yet...

Ok, I am a person with very strong values, and I feel that needs to be said first. I’m not particularly good at interfacing and making friends here etc, but I am normally very collegiate I promise you. I can get into occasional scrapes though and I'm probably not particularly liked. I certainly don't scrub my personal pages enough. When will I learn? But I promise you that I do not look for incidents like this, and I do not ever want to see them. I come here either to read or to edit. Looking at some comments above, I've seen some advice has already been given for some kind of punitive ruling towards me. But before people get ahead of themselves, can anyone here tell me how bad my conduct has been, and actually provide actual examples of the areas I have been unfairly or even unduly upset? No one has yet addressed my position in this case, or my point. It's actually a weirdly pre-emptive ANI. But I will accept any point where I have personally gone wrong. Why would't I?

A few days ago on the Sat 17th I made one [edit] (ie nothing to wave sticks at), in an article I’ve never edited before or since (so absolutely no reverts etc) and the next day it was removed and I was basically Warned for making it. It could have been the case that Delta13C thought I was a sockpuppet. If so, he or she was wrong - and that would be a simple AGF matter, soon resolved hopefully. The problem is that I felt that the Warning, combined with the "No." that Pepperbeast gave me when removing my single contribution, meant that ‘a Level 2 Warning’ was on the cards for anything similar that I may have contributed. I felt I was being told to 'back off' basically, and I didn't like the feeling at all. It felt threatening, and that is why I reacted as I did. I saw a very valid improvement to make to the article here. I made one decent-enough edit (better than what was there for sure), and am always willing to work on things when people treat what I’ve done with due respect. It’s not the removal of my contribution that is the problem here (or 3rr or anything like that) – it’s how my contribution was dealt with.

In terms of ‘harassment’(!) of PepperBeast (who I do find very cocky and rude I'm afraid), I made one admittedly-upset and fairly-long comment on his Talk page, and then left one very short reply after he responded to it. I admit that I am prone to longer comments – I can’t help that, and I’m sorry. But please people - don’t be too rude about that, it’s just the way it is. It's partly a time thing - I don't really have the time to shorten myself, and I always begin big. But yes that was all it was – two comments to him, one long, one short. How can that be "harassment"? PepperBeast has also suggested that he’s started this ANI because I said I would make one myself (which was to be in part about patrollers in general). Is this really the right way to treat ANI?

I wasn't going to create my own ANI today (I suggested I was too busy at the moment to PB when I gave him my timeframe), but I have to find the time respond to this particular ANI now. I accept he wasn't going to be ecstatic bout having a pending ANI hanging over his head, but I'm really busy (as a carer who works all hours) and ANI's like this one really do force people's hand – as mine has been forced here. So I don’t think it was right of him to do this for a number of reasons. There were plenty of other options for him. Certainly no harassment was around. I think this is all about respecting the real-life lives of the various people who make edits to this place.

Now please - I genuinely would appreciate knowing what exactly I did wrong in the first place, including regarding Civility in my reaction to the very-antagonistic reception my single contribution received. I can’t always help being annoyed, but I do want to help being “uncivil”. I believe I have a very clear point indeed here, and as I suggested on [talk page], my own ANI was actually going to question the correct attitude for 'patrollers' in general, and whether there shouldn’t perhaps be a ‘code of conduct’ in their behavior to people - including new accounts, returning users (like me), IP's etc. Basically to avoid upsetting decent well-meaning people, and especially in delicate areas surrounding health. I think ‘curt reverting’ (to give it a name) can be an extremely negative thing for Wikipedia. I’ve already explained this to Delta13C, after he apologised for his Warning upsetting me. I accepted that apology and moved onto discussing content, as he suggested, and as can be seen. I wanted this level of conversation to be on my talk page really (or the article's), but it ended up on PBs as Delta replied to me there instead of on my own. I couldn't do anything about that, obviously. I'm entitled to respond to someone under their comment, and I already told Delta that is what I always do - but he says that he missed me asking for that. So there was two conversations going on PB's page. I didn't personally see any bother though. I did feel these two people are a bit too connected with each other, though.

Yes I'm sorry, but I did originally see PB and Delta13C as ‘tag-teaming’ in some sense – because it was the only way Delta’s out-of-the-blue Warning made any sense to me. I simply assumed that one of them says “No.” to an edit he doesn’t want, and the other “Warns” the user. You have to admit that is basically what happened, with no policy-based reason behind that I can see at all. Isn’t that the basis on an ANI issue? ie unless it got sorted out otherwise?

I have to say that if Pepperbeast simply apologized as Delta13C quite-easily did (though he is rather rough on me here), it would have all been fine. I have never turned away an apology from anyone on Wikipedia. But I began quite upset and I think I had a right to be. My edit was in good faith and ALL content edits take some time. Removing text takes only seconds. People really do sometimes forget that here – the actual time that ALL content-makers put into this place. I believe it is wrong to be curt to people who have taken the time to make an edit like mine. Especially in areas like this to be frank. I’ve felt in that past that Wikipedia somehow tolerates rudeness to people in the area of alternative medicine. It that right? The oft-maligned ‘Wikipedia is Not the Truth’, general Policy, AGF etc – it all points to the same thing; find the right balance because you do not need to judge. I can tell you from experience that these people are usually ill, often with cases where conventional medicine is sadly not really working for them. You’ll be surprised how many people turn to herabalism especially. In certain cases I've even seen them pointed there sometimes (with the usual provisos), when doctors reach the end of what they can do. Placebo? Who knows. When the results /sup>are really good they are soon taken up by the pharmas. But those are still used by the herbalists though. Why don't we give thse vulnerable people a break and stop being so cold and nasty to them so often? I’m not personally associated with any alternative health, nor do I lean towards any of it really - though a chiropractor did once manage to sort my back and I'm a big fan of 'good food'! I think it's just wrong to assume that people are ‘involved’. All I did was make a simple edit. I didn’t deserve to be effectively warned away. I think I just editied perceived 'protected content' that really didn't deserve to be protected, that's the underlying story here. And it was protected far too overzealously - that's the bottom line.

Regarding this ANI, the obvious question for me to ask is where is the actual "harassment" I'm accused of giving? I haven't harassed anyone, I never will and never have. It’s a particularly bad thing to do in my opinion. PepperBeast has also suggested he created this to ‘pre-empt’ my ANI, and he seems very confident about it doing it too. This confidence really concerns me to be frank. Do I not have a right to be concerned about him? I personally think that the over-exuberance of some change-patrollers can actually be a negative thing for the act of encyclopedia building. I certainly don't feel like I made my edit on a level playing field in this case, or that my edit was valued in any way at all. I think there could be a problem that some editors with particular 'jobs' can see themselves as being on a higher plain to others, and perhaps even subject to a slighly different ruleset. I think it's a problem for this place: a place I can promise you that I've always tried to help improve.

If this response is seen as "more of the same" (I'm at a loss with that one I’m afraid), it's because I actually have a point isn't it? I won’t be making my personal ANI now though - and actually, how can I? My question regarding patroller conduct is raised here instead. Someone perhaps could think about it if they want. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to apologise to you because I haven't done anything wrong. Your edits are not sacred and I did my best to explain to you what I thought was wrong with that particular edit.
• I don't know why you keep saying "harassment", when, in fact, I deliberately avoided what I think is kind of over-the-top language. I said you were hassling me and threatening to take whatever your big problem was to ANI. Well, here we are.
• Actually, you made two long comments, the first, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700317501&oldid=696396936, starting with If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Wikipedia's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. After I replied to that, you came up with a second, much longer rant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700373035&oldid=700356227, and finally, you repeated your ANI threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700851858&oldid=700407744 I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it.
• I am not responsible for Delta13C's warning, or anything else that Delta13C does. I have no idea why you think I am "too connected" to Delta13C or even what "too connected" means.
• My talk page is not a place for you to rant about everything that's wrong with WP.
• Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, you made this ANI a lot more personal than I was intending to do with mine. Yes I did make a mistake above, missing the my middle response to you. You called my angry reaction a 'personal attack' (does that ever make things better?) and said my edit contained Weasel Words, which doesn't make sense to me in this case, as I explained. In my opinion the reading of the term and the refs contains Original Research. I mainly addressed the content of the edit and my feelings surrounding it. If you feel that my explaining my own views over a content issue that you've addressed yourself constitutes a 'rant' and a point of harassment (or 'hassle' as you actually did say, but in terms of an ANI people are obliged to see it as the same thing), I would say that's very subjective, and hardly an issue for an ANI complaint. Btw, your point about the Intro needing to be so decisively negative because the rest of the article is so singularly negative (or has become so perhaps), is actually a very complex one. And as I've said, I've always felt that imperfect improvements should be improved upon, not given a straight denial. 10 years ago I think that was far more likely to be the case. As I remember it, people were much more inclined to edit or hone things out in turns, and the general atmosphere was far more productive. I’m sure that articles like this one contained more balance then too – albeit with various issues surrounding weight and wording. It's quite rare to see a perfect first edit anyway, isn't it? What you've got to ask is, does the contribution improve and progress or advance things? I think that over the years Wikipedia has become too much of a static shop front, but these kind of articles are nowhere near good enough yet. Very often when I use Wikipedia I see broken or misrepresenting links and failing statements, and they certainly exist in this article still.

So yes I can see that I fully responded to you twice, and not just the once as I said above - but with this ANI you really forced my hand here when I effectively said I wasn't ready yet. And it's an awkward hour right now. I can only find pockets of time, and in no time some people call for beheadings in these places - ANI's can be quite OTT at times they really can(!) I've got someone now asking for sanctions over my supposed "screeds". Look, I apologise if I got it wrong about you and Delta13C being a 'tag team'. But you did manage to appear like one, which I am sure you can see if you really looked at it. Look at your sharp and conclusive 'edit note' followed by his completely out-of-the-blue warning. But that was just an unfortunate sequence perhaps. And also unfortunately, Delta13C did make his reply to angry-me not on his own 'Warning' section, but on your Talk page instead - even though I clearly asked him to keep it all in the same place. It was wrong of him really, and it was another thing that made it look like you were 'combining' to me.

I do think my points on patroller etiquette are very much still valid though, and that is what my own ANI would have focused on. If you simply apologised for being so 'owny' (saying "No." to me over this Intro basically, as you did to the other guy on the discussion page) I would never have gone onto make an ANI of course - as I said. I think most ANI's can't really be done when someone's apologised. I may still have dropped-off my thoughts on patrolling in some relevant discussion page somewhere however, like I used to do with these things (the Patrollers page or whatever). And finally, surely no one should ever be above apologising here, but you will know that I'm sure. And it's especially the case when you know someone wants to hear it surely. It should be just standard practice when you've done something 'off', and you can surely still make all your points after doing it, and in whatever way you choose. It worked between Delta and me (though he hasn't quite continued the sentiment here unfortunately for me) and it would very-easily have worked for us. Sorry I called you cocky and rude above, but I do think you could perhaps come down just a step to my humble editor level. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought your comments on my talk page fell a little short of being personal attacks. Calling me rude and cocky here, however, does not. I'd accept your sort-of apology, but you're still haranguing me for some kind of mea culpa for undoing a single edit, and it's not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did call it a 'personal attack', and I took you up on it and talked of ANI if you didn't apologise for your attitude. I was pissed off! It was purely the way you made the revert that upset me - curtly saying "No" (the rest of the edit note is more complicated to deal with, and this isn't the right place to talk of article-balance or strict Intro rules re the rest of the article.) You'd never seen me before, and I'd made one single edit! And of course I was immediately Warned by Delta too, which doubled my anger to the "pissed off" level you saw. It was not the fact you reverted that really angered me at all. As I've said below, you have to expect quite a lot of full reverts in Wikipedia these days. I've certainly never asked for an apology from someone for doing that. It was the way you reverted, and the way it all happened wasn't good. It felt like I was being warned away. Surely you can both see that now, to some degree at least? ie after it happened - though not at the time perhaps. I admit it was bit paranoid of me to see you as 'tag teaming'. Tbf, I think you should have seen my point of view, and maybe apologised the way Delta did instead of making this ANI. I'm sure I wouldn't have done anything then, despite the point I wanted to make on patroller etiquette and the need for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sanctions may be needed Matt Lewis has made it clear that he is unwilling or unable to take on board the criticism of his conduct that has come out of this thread. The huge rant (10 KB!!!) he posted in this very thread is combative, suggests his prior combativeness was a desire to prove a point (?) along the lines of WP:DTTR, and in general displays an attitude reminiscent of the Wikipedia of eight or nine years ago. Wikipedia does not need to drive off new editors, and I question whether someone who snaps at established editors over a templated warning would react much better towards an inexperienced user who actually does post an unfriendly message at his user talk page. I just get a terrible feeling about Matt Lewis at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

10KB!!! Huge rant! Oh come on Mendaliv. It's takes about 2 minutes to read out loud. I write the length I write and I apologised for that when I wrote it. If you don't like it, don't read it, or just don't read it all perhaps. Don't you think you are being bit over the top yourself here? If you really have a "terrible feeling" about me, maybe you need to take that "chill pill" you recommended to me above over another 10k post! They are just a long posts. Give me any amount of longer posts over a typical group of sometimes completely needless comments and I'll show you which take up less k. Some Wikipedia pages can seem to go on forever, but it won't often be down to the longer posts. As anyone who knows me on Wikipedia will tell you, if I ever write anything at any real length it's always constructive. I really do feel that Wikipedia risks driving off new and even old editors at times. I don't see how you can categorically say it doesn't. It’s just my opinion, and it's not a crime to have one surely (unless I've missed anything truly radical the past year or so). As I just suggested to PepperBeast above, I think that 10 years ago in certain ways Wikipedia was actually a more productive place. Not in every way of course not, just in some. And I never said any solution was easy did I? Discuss, absorb.. or ban? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you being so aggressive? I seriously think there's something wrong here if you think this is an appropriate way to respond. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not really 'aggressive' is it? Look at your comment towards me again please. Is it really the right way to approach this? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree the reaction here seems OTT. And I'm someone who does often write long posts and can be quite aggressive in defending myself. Probably the warning wasn't necessary, but I imagine an article like Naturopathy does often have problems with well meaning editors who support naturopathy but don't understand our sourcing and other requirements. And while looking at the long term contrib history or perhaps the long talk page of Matt Lewis may suggest that they are not new and didn't need such a warning, a quick look at the contrib history may not clear things up so much. Ultimately I guess, if you are an experienced editor and don't need a warning, then it's not like there's some harm in receiving one. If you're not an experienced editor, then receiving a warning served to inform and also makes it difficult for the editor to claim they weren't aware of our policies and guidelines.

I do agree improvements with mistakes that can be easily corrected should be corrected rather than simply reverted. In fact I got in to a minor dispute with another editor over this about a week ago (not much about my edits). But on the flip side, sometimes edits are problematic enough that even if you think there is some minor improvement in some area, it's better just to revert and require the improvement to be far better. Colloboration can sometimes mean "sorry that's just too bad" rather than just "I see what you're trying to do but there's a problem so I'll fix it". Also, sometimes editors may just genuinely disagree about whether improvements are necessary (or perhaps they will agree, if they say proper improvements but can't see it until they see them), in that case, there ultimately needs to be consensus on the best wording so you're going to need to initate discussion.

And while editing in situ can be easier, other times for a variety of reasons it's better to come up with some draft on the talk page. The biggest confusing thing about this is if it's such a big deal, why is there zero discussion on the article talk page? Does that mean Matt Lewis now accepts that improvements aren't necessary and if so, why is there still so much fuss?

P.S. Just a quick reminder that edit requests are only intended to be used for simple changes that already have consensus (whether from previous discussion or which can be assumed). A simple "no, please establish consensus for your change" to an edit request is fine although that doesn't seem to have been what happened anyway. If editors are using edit requests incorrectly, it would be better to educate them on the correct usage of edit requests not to require long discussions when rejecting an edit request. Admitedly I'm not really sure what discussion page is being referred to anyway, since there's no comments by Pepperbeast on the Naturopathy talk page (perhaps in archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I explained in great detail above. This is all happening on my talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read all you said, but I see zero chance you can come up with a good explaination of why the discussion should be held in your talk page. If you want to modify the article and get into a dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. (There are some exceptions where it may be fair to hold some discussion on an editors talk page, but I won't go in to detail except suffice to say if there is actually going to be any change, the primary point of discussion should be the article's talk page.) This means if you haven't discussed it in the article talk page, it's pretty much impossible to make the claim people are being unresonable or rejecting any changes. So either you care about the changes and they are a big deal and there is a discussion in the article talk page, or you don't really care about the changes and this whole long discussion is largely moot.

And BTW, you've made a big deal about how you're an experienced editor who didn't need warnings, but then seem to be giving us an example showing you still don't understand how wikipedia works (if you do think the changes are justified but are not discussing it in the article talk page), so perhaps the warning was fair. (I'm assuming you do at least understand people can give you as many level warnings as they want. But nothing is likely to happen to you unless you violate some policy or guideline. And some resonable comments in an article talk page proposing changes particularly if you've taken on board what has been said before and our policies and guidelines, carries almost zero risk of being blocked simply for these comments, unless you're either a sock of a banned editor or have a topic ban.)

Also one thing I learnt from the above discussion before my first reply was that other people had told you to take it to the article talk page so I see even less chance you can explain why there is no discussion in the article talk page.

Your rants about how poorly your proposed changes were handled is of course offtopic on the article talk page. However such rants are rarely going to get far if they're over a nonissue (i.e. there was no change needed for the article anyway). Come up with an example where good, or nearly good changes were rejected (or perhaps it was impossible to know if the changes were good because they were reverted for a trivial error which could have been easily resolved to allow proper assessement), and you may achieve something productive.

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all [138]. Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

TL:DR version; no discussion in the article talk page = no evidence you really tried to collobrate on improving the article = almost impossible to establish people are being "owny" or rejecting resonable changes = no issue for us on ANI = don't give warnings about how you're going to take people to ANI over such non-issues = if people come here because you gave such warnings, just say "whoops, sorry my bad" not write out long replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I can't disagree with you more. Matt Lewis's explosion in response to being reverted and templated is flat out disturbing. First of all, Pepperbeast's revert was perfectly in line with WP:BRD, insofar as Matt Lewis introduced new material into a stable article without discussion. Matt Lewis, being a regular, should know well enough how BRD works. It might've been courteous for Pepperbeast to then let Matt Lewis know why he was reverted in a more lengthy explanation somewhere, but not strictly necessary. Now, Delta13C templated Matt Lewis with {{uw-unsourced1}} for that contribution, which would have been the appropriate warning otherwise. Last I checked, WP:DTTR hadn't become a guideline—with WP:TTR still listing good counterpoints—and, honestly, I'm not sure you can even call Matt Lewis a "regular" in the sense of DTTR considering his level of activity in recent years. Perhaps article talk discussion was lacking, but that's on Matt Lewis within the BRD framework. You can't just go and blow up, threatening to take everyone to ANI in response to what is, in the scope of things, the tiniest slight. If we take Matt Lewis's conduct as indicative of his general attitude, which I believe is reasonable, we have a person who is very rapidly demonstrating himself to have a civility problem. Loquacious threats to drag unsuspecting editors to the dramaboards have a distinct chilling effect, particularly against inexperienced users. It's disruptive, and the fact that Matt Lewis immediately leaped to that level leads me to believe we need to take a much harder look at his user interactions if there's no indication this was an aberration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Will you stop calling me 'flat-out disturbing' etc please? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find the phrase upsetting, but I've got to call a spade a spade here. You need to understand that your conduct here has been inappropriate and disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nil, I find this a bit hard to accept this when you admit you haven't read all of my defense. I don't want to repeat too much for you, as long-post repetition is not well-liked is it? But I will say this (as I've already said I think in two different places)... I didn't discuss the edit first as I saw PepperBeast's "No" to someone else on the article Discussion and I didn't find it very welcoming. So I was bold. I’m always prepared for anything I contribute to be removed by someone on Wikipedia, especially as the years have gone on. I expect that era of 'can I improve?' has simply gone, for these kind of articles at least. I have said very-clearly that my anger towards both Delta and PepperBeast (but was it really "hassle" from me, though?) was NOT about my contribution being removed! And I did NOT make one single other edit! I am very HAPPY to work with anyone who isn't rude to me on content. It's was ALL about the very particular way I was 'received' by them. Deta's Warning seemed to just appear out-of-the-blue, straight after PepperBeast said "No" in removing my edit. And when Delta14C moved his 'Warning' discussion from my Talk onto PepperBeast's Talk page (even though I asked him to keep it on mine), I felt even more sure that they were 'team-working' together on protecting this essay from certain unwanted edits. However I accepted Delta's apology re the Warning 'iking' me - though he didn't seem to accept that a warning was completely unjustified here. I then discussed a content issue in the whole article to him (as he suggested I do, though perhaps not there obviously) and then PB said “take it elsewhere”. Ok, fine. But why was Delta even on PB's Talk? And then this highly unconventional ANI suddenly happened.

I'd actually like to know if Delta gave me the 'Warning' (which of-course many people will find intimidating however you say they don’t all matter) because he thought I was a sockpuppet of the IP who also got a "No." from PepperBeast regarding a similar type of Introduction change? And maybe also if anyone really thinks that this ANI was a particularly good idea, and was made quite in the right spirit? Readjusting the track with me might have been a better idea I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Some real advice for all you guys out there, please do not post essays, it doesn't make your argument a pinch more believable than what it'd be without all the fluff. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I get this. In the sense that Matt Lewis has been all but screaming "Don't Template the Regulars" from the git go as though it's policy, I agree that it hamstrings his credibility. In the sense that I'm calling him out on demanding other editors follow nebulous essays by linking to the essays, then I don't really get how that hurts my credibility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay. And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Silly me, I should've understood that. I agree wholeheartedly. Essay-length responses on any talk page, let alone ANI, are really counterproductive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping not to comment here again, but sorry... you've been given a 500 word English essay to write? That's less than 20 lines on my monitor, which is about 2 average paragraphs surely? My 1,600 word post (if that's what it was) was my main defense to an ANI. I've got to ask you what your English essay it was on? English is my 'subject' (I'm 45 btw, I'm not still studying it) and I am really interested in what they ask of students now. Tbh, I don't see how anyone can practically request this kind of thing of Wikipedians. If a long post is too much for someone to personally to manage, surely they can just leave it to someone else? My defense wasn't made to anyone personally - and people's hands are rather forced in these situations. I think you can look at this both ways really - ie some people find it a bit of a chore to read more than a longish paragraph or so (and presumably do all they want to do), while others have real difficulties keeping their comments to a single paragraph. But Wikipedia is a big place and is supposed to cater for a broad spectrum of people - so what's the bother? There is no great hurry here, or a shortage of staff is there? I've not been repeating anything over and over, which can be a real pain over many long posts I'd agree. Surely you wouldn't say this to anyone outside of ANI, so why say it at ANI? And isn't it rather picking on a defendant? You probably don't see it as being rude when in here, but I think it is. I'm a decent human being who has already pre-apologised for writing the length that I have (and often do). And I'd like to say that in 10 years I've never once complained about anyone's writing needs or style, nor ever made suggestions for anyone to be punished in any particular way either for what it's worth (I've never personally seen that as my role). And believe me, I've wrestled with some notorious sock-farmers and article disrupters over my really active years here too. I just do not like being totally-needlessly needled at, with Warnings or whatever. And I really do not think it's good for Wikipedia. (380 words). Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. The shorter the speech, the happier the audience. I didn't critique your writing style, just the need of writing 1.6k words to defend yourself. Since, I probably have some informal kind of ADHD, I went through the first three paras of what you said and it has missing commas, periods and uses words that are not related to the context. Undue exclamation marks, a display of battleground mentality and no quotations from policy. And you thought was I said previously was critique. Ha. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What are "words that are not related to the context"? You mean I went off topic? If I opined over an area of Wikipedia, I assure you it is related to all this. And "missing commas" indeed! How does that work out? For people like yourself, I've actually taken to using as many commas as I can these days - eg placing them before and after using 'and'! I use them all over in fact. Your list is just wrong, and is totally needless too.

I just can't believe that I actually said above "there isn't exactly a staff problem here"! Attending to ANI must be a nightmare for Wikipedia in general, and it's always been full of passing poppers posting pointless comments. I should have told PepperBeast I'd be taking the whole 'patroller etiquette' issue to a noticeboard-type place, or ask a decent admin or something - ANI is a crazy place to take anything that isn't clear disruption or abusive 3RR or something seriosuly article-effecting like that. I was just rusty that's all, and really cheesed off, and ANI is the place that came to mind. I don't know what PepperBeast was thinking of either in counter-reporting here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking "fercrissake, I'm getting blasted and ANI-threatened by some guy I've never interacted with before because I did something perfectly normal. It's going to be ANI'd anyway, and I don't know what else to do about it". PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

PepperBeast, you just to understand that there was nothing perfect about the way you began our interaction. Or with that other person too. Because (aside from imo non-policy-related article 'ownership' issues) this 'tough' "No." approach is just really unsuitable for a communally-built encyclopedia. You still argue that this manner of reverting someone's contribution is perfectly normal. Nobody is supposed to have an elevated editing position on Wikipedia, and it seems to me that even this ANI suggests you likely feel that you have some kind of special position here. We all should know that everyone is supposed to treat complete strangers with civility, equality and respect, and especially in this controversial area - an area I think too-many people think they can be rude by default.

Nobody is going to support any of that here though, and I don't even know why this ANI is still open. I'm tired of coming back to check if it's been archived yet, or if something has happened. And I expect you are too. I wish I never even thought of the bloody acronym.

It's all about the attitude. I've just had a quick look at that frankly-unwelcoming article talk page, I can see even-now Delta13C is being intimidating to someone who had questioned the article's neutrality. He's asking if he/she has a "a conflict of interest with naturopathy in any way?" I don't think you can just ask that kind of question out of the blue at all. Not without a very good reason stemming from the actual editor, and not purely the subject matter! It's all too intimidating. Delta14C was the editor who 'Warned' me for making one single edit - so yes that does relate to this ANI. And (before you complain again) I was obviously going to bring him up in here, as he was entirely following your lead, and some of you do seem to work as intimidating groups. What did you expect when you made this ANI?

It's ALL too intimidating, and I worry that all this is typical in complimentary medicine (ie 'CAM') areas on Wikipedia. I think you both feel too empowered and neither of you have any right to lean on anyone. The angry way I reacted to you both? Well, that's a separate matter. It's a reaction, and a really pissed-off one. I just hate seeing bullies. I am certain that you both feel you are fighting some great 'war' against pseudoscience, and set out to be tough guys toward every fool you feel you come across. Can't you just edit Wikipedia like you are supposed to for pete's sake? Using core policy properly should make these articles work - avoiding your own 'POV' is always the key. The idea of WP:NPOV has to work both ways to work properly. When people think they are somehow exempt from POV (in this case partly due to this highly unscientific ill-defined, super-conclusive, fits-all, and ultimately-unsourced and 'OR' idea of "scientific consensus" for everything to do with whatever alt-health is supposed to cover at any one point), you end up with articles needlessly reading like they are hatchet jobs. That is the net result. Wikipedia should not have that vibe, nor give that impression. It's highly unprofessional, and no doctor or scientist would approach it like this. You can tell the real story here without being macho about anything. The only reason that a reasonable probably rarely happens in these articles is because it's made so unwelcoming for moderate editors to step in and help. The hardliner ethos seems to be so completely entrenched that changing to more typically encyclopedic approach is pretty-much met with ridicule and/or distrust. Regarding my own single edit, it's pretty obvious that I was seen as a 'possible' sock puppet frankly too (ie if not just some silly-billy alt-health proponent) - but ignoring AGF like that is just not on either. It's just not the rules.

Please, just show some basic respect to normal people please. Behind all this is actually just a carer asking you people to offer a level field of respect to perfectly-decent and perfectly-intelligent people who often just happen to be (sometimes quite seriously) ill. It just happens to be a group that deserves basic respect. It's all about your approach. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can add to this discussion. Any comment I make seems to elicit an increasingly grandiose rant. Matt Lewis, you're hardly in a position to lecture me about "basic level of respect". PepperBeast (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well we all know the mechanics Wikipedia sometimes operates under. It's like a simple but effective machine; from the article interaction to the notes to the responses. Shorter criticsm gets advisory wikilinks including on 'personal attacks', longer critism is always dismissed to as a 'rant'. Just add a small array of colourful cliches to release in turn. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a patroller's 'bot' around that effectively automates every form of human interaction. Is this done yet? Matt Lewis (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt, Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Nobody here has to read your rants on ANI, but do because they are skilled at assisting in behavioral disputes. You speak of respect: Where is your respect for the people who read this board? For the volunteers who edit this site? I find it lacking, as evidenced by your absolute fervor in response to (1) a revert, (2) a level-1 user warning template, and (3) an ANI thread. All you had to do was explain yourself and walk away. Preaching about lofty principles is interesting, but not pertinent in the least. Even in terms of righting great wrongs, the three things that were "done to you" are hardly great even if they were wrong. That sort of fervor over what is, honestly, an exceedingly minor slight, sets off alarm bells in my head, and should do the same for other regular participants here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Too long, didnt read most of the above. Seriously, if you cant make your point in 500 words or less, you dont have a point. For complainant: 1. Accusation. 2. Diffs in evidence of accusation. 3. Resolution you are requesting (if known). For responder: 1. Why evidence does not support accusation. Anything else is waffle. Pepperbeasts complaint is that Matt Lewis is hassling them by their overly-long screeds in response to a simple editing conflict (and yes, it *is* a simple one that should have been resolved in 5 mins). They have provided evidence to that and Matt Lewis's extensive comments in this thread corroborate their excessive wordiness. I would certainly feel hassled by someone who posted those rants on my talkpage. Proposed solution: Matt Lewis, stay off Pepperbeasts talkpage or you will end up being blocked by an admin. Discuss editing conflicts at article talkpages. Refrain from commenting on editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't so much the wordiness for me. It's the content-- the aggressive tone, the lecturing, the repeated demands for an apology, the threatening to "report" me, calling me rude, cocky, and disrespectful, etc., etc. PepperBeast (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If you can't gather your thoughts and sum them up succinctly in 6 lines or less, then the writer has descended into rant / histrionics territory. I tried to read all the way through the posts, I really did. But after the third such post, it would have been masochism to push on. Blackmane (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support the recommendation to Matt Lewis that 1) he has vastly over-reacted to a mundane and in-all-respects minor content dispute, 2) blowing things this massively out of proportion is especially problematic when coupled with a deep personalization of the issue, 3) this is a topic which should have been taken to the talk page for a cordial, collaborative effort at a middle-ground solution, 4) long-winded screeds on user pages are not a well-advised alternative to this process and an even worse idea when trying to defend one's sense of fair-play and proportion at ANI, and 5) an inability to scale back the hyperbole and long-winded claims of persecution is likely to result in sanctions. Seriously, any (extremely minor and certainly common-place) brusqueness on PepperBeast's behalf in that initial edit/edit summary was outdone in terms incivility by a factor of twenty in the first post to his talk page, to say nothing of the following comments there and here since. For an editor with a decade's-worth of experience who likes to gripe about what other editors "simply cannot do" in behavioural terms, said contributor really needs to get a grasp on basic conflict resolution strategies. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought this discussion would be dead by now. But since it isn't I'll point out there's still zero comment by Matt Lewis on the article talk page which strongly supports my view Matt Lewis never actually had any legitimate complaint about anyone reverting them. Their edits were inappropriate and as an experienced editor they should have known that and accepted the reversion with grace rather than going on a very long rant about some perceived problem with the edit summary and comments left to other editors in response to WP:edit requests. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2016 (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.

Uncivil IP user on Talk page

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

---

Would be grateful for help in blocking abusive user 2a02:8109:983f:fdf8:857e:42ae:8d8a:ff7e shown in the history of my Talk page. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like according to this it's been done: [139] RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And I've also range-blocked 2A02:8109:983F:FDF8::/64, as they have shown some IP agility in their recent edits. -- The Anome (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2016 (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.

Rapid-fire multiple IP vandalism

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

---

We seem to have an IP-hopping vandal, adding text in Russian to multiple articles. They initially edited from 213.231.44.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). On that IP being blocked, they switched to 109.200.236.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since they seem to have come prepared with access to more than one IP address, presumably we can expect more of the same. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And now from 109.200.230.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- The Anome (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped, for now. All the IP addresses trace back to the same ISP in Ukraine, so range-blocks are an option. -- The Anome (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I spoke too soon: see 109.200.254.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've now made short-term range-blocks on the ranges of 109.200.0.0/16 and 213.231.0.0/16. -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2016 (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.

Persistent copyright violations

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.

---

Ngrica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has basically exclusively uploaded blatant copyright violation images to Wikipedia (upload log). Despite multiple deletion tag notifications, followed up by {{uw-ics3}} and {{uw-ics4}} warnings, the user has not engaged in any discussion in an attempt to better understand copyright and image use policy on Wikipedia. The user returned from a bit of hiatus to continue uploading copyvio images, and continues to claim them as their own self-work. I recommend a block to prevent future copyright violations given the user's lack of response. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 23:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a month. If they fail to change their behavior when the block expires, they can be blocked for longer, or indefinitely if needed. -- The Anome (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2016 (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 talk page found in project space

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.

---

• COMMUNIST YAŞAR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While new page patrolling, stumbled across Wikipedia talk:YASAR (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), which is a redirect from User talk:COMMUNIST YAŞAR (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). Wikipedia:YASAR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also seems to be a redirect from User:COMMUNIST YAŞAR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Obviously not a case for MfD, but action may be needed to bring these pages back into userspace? -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 01:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

diff to notification -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 01:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged Wikipedia:YASAR for CSD. This account definitely seems to be a COI and SPA. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I declined the speedy and just moved the user pages back where they belong. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yay, another decline on my CSD record (lol) - For the record, I suck and I'm a terrible person. I'll take my ten lashings for CSDing instead of moving. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 5 February 2016 (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.

Craig Busch

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 article has a long history consisting of single-purpose accounts deleting all material critical of the subject. I am not really sure how best to proceed. There are neutrality concerns in the article, and the subject is a living person, but I don't see the section blanking and censorship to be appropriate. Some administrator insight into this page would be useful. --Azure Anteater (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Such issues are generally handled at WP:RPP, but I doubt the article will be protected as it doesn't appear to get much activity. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have pending changes protected for some time. Lectonar (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor and a possible sock embedding hardcore porn in Wikipedia article

The main discussion on this topic is currently at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#Should we move full-length movies from article space to Commons? (please keep discussions in one place). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

Content dispute. Hash it out on article talk. Note that Yann did leave a note about it at Project Porn so no doubt on of the fine denizens of that group got involved that way. Anyhow. Not an administrative matter. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A year ago I uploaded a full copy of Debbie Does Dallas to Commons, after discovering it had fallen into the public domain: [140]. I then embedded it into the Debbie Does Dallas article: [141]. Several months later an editor removed the video asking me to "get a third opinion, and have them agree that we can add pornographic films in full to articles.": [142]. I subsequently did at Talk:Debbie_Does_Dallas#Censorship_of_article. Four editors participated in the discussion and we arrived at a unanimous consensus to provide a direct link to the film on Commons, instead of embedding it: [143]. The outcome was satisfactory since my goal is to make public domain films easily accessible to readers; I usually do this by embedding the films, but just adding a clear link instead is acceptable to me. I have no wish to force porn on to people. However, since this consensus was achieved, Right Hand Drive (a single-purpose account) embedded the film back into the article in the Fall. The direct link to the film on Commons was subsequently removed by Yann: [144]. I restored the Commons link but it was once again removed by both Yann ([145]) and Right Hand Drive ([146]). I have a couple of concerns. First of all I don't see this as a censorship issue: excluding a link altogether from the article on the basis the film is pornographic would be censorship, but I do not interpret WP:CENSOR as a mandate to embed as much porn as we can into Wikipedia articles. I personally thought a direct link rather than embedding the film took full account of WP:CENSOR and balanced the need to to be sensitive to readers' concerns. Secondly, we have a couple of accounts (one of them an established editor) explicitly editing against a clear consensus. If they feel so strongly that the content is not being a provided in a way that is in the best interests of the readers they are free to challenge the consensus on the talk page and to build a fresh one. Tag-team edit-warring is not acceptable, especially when the issue has been discussed and there is a consensus in place. Finally I also have concerns about the nature of the relationship between Yann and Right Hand Drive. Right Hand Drive is a SPA with just two article edits to his name, the first and only edit (until today) being in September. Within hours of me warning Yann about his actions this account suddenly comes back to life and makes the exact same edit. I doubt it is a coincidence; even if the account is not a sockpuppet operated by Yann, the account is clearly someone who is already active on Wikipedia and possibly has the article on their watchlist. I would appreciate it if somebody could look into this. If the consensus to link rather than embed is not policy compliant then it would be useful to know this for other projects. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hi, This is a joke, isn't? You accuse me of socking to pursue a prudish agenda. I explained the issue quite well in the talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Maybe you would care to explain to the board why you don't believe community based decisions apply to you? I would also like to know your connection to the SPA, since I doubt it is a coincidence that a latent account emerges from months of slumber just to supprot your edit. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Not sure about the link, but accusations of socking are ridiculuos. Yann has been registered here five years longer than you have been registered, has tons of edits globally, his real name is known, and he has never been noticed using sock accounts or smth. Let us just drop it and discuss the real business.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Either way, put money on Right Hand Drive being the sock of someone. And obviously, don't put porn on wikipedia just because you can. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC) I'm no prude, but honestly... are my donations going to buy server capacity for full-length storage of pornographic films? EEng 09:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Plus there's the thing about Wikipedia being read and available to persons under the age of 18 (or whatever age). I don't know if it's a legal thing, but most pornographic or sexually explicit sites/pages/media require you to confirm that you're over the age of 18 (at least in the U.S.) before they allow you in. Since Wikipedia, and that file, have no such barrier, I don't see any way we can be hosting porn. Nude photos and sexual topics/images are one thing, but full porn films are another. This probably needs a site-wide discussion rather than a discussion between a handful of editors on one or two talk pages. Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) I suggest we start by all viewing the film privately, so we'll all know what we're talking about. EEng 09:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) For the record there is plenty of pornographic material on Commons besides Debbie, so I am presuming it is not a factor in terms of what Commons can and cannot host. I would assume that hosting such material is a legal issue for the foundation rather than something to be resolved by site-wide discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Though widely used, age verification mechanisms are not legally required in the US. Congress has proposed such laws a few times but for the most part failed to garner enough support to enact them. A somewhat similar requirement to filter sexually explicit materials from computers in libraries and schools was struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech. Whether or not it is a good idea to host such movies, I don't believe there is any legal restriction that would stop us from doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) As a functional note, a lot of schools in the UK (I cant speak for other countries) use fairly rigid censor software - entirely to protect children from unsuitable material - this would potentially trigger that. As an ex sysadmin there is no way I would be whitelisting a website that hosts hardcore pornography. Links to commons is one thing, embedded material is another. I am pretty sure no one on wikipedia wants to actively restrict the encyclopedia to schools. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC) To be honest many schools block Wikipedia (completely, or certain pages) anyway because it already hosts unsuitable material for younger children. I doubt if this would make any difference to their policies, if they even found out about it. Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC) My understanding is that a lot of workplaces, all around the world, use such software as well; or use software that reports when the user is viewing sexually explicit footage. So I'd say there are plenty of reasons to keep porn film footage off of WP and restrict it to Commons. And I disagree with LauraJamieson: This is an entirely different thing/level from "unsuitable material for younger children". Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, I can't see the point in hosting it here either. But the only difference between a porn video and a lot of images that are used in Wikipedia already is that one is moving and one isn't. Neither are child-friendly at all. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC) "the only difference between a porn video and a lot of images that are used in Wikipedia already is that one is moving and one isn't." That's not true at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) You're missing my point. Both that video and many Wikipedia images are unsuitable for children, which is why UK schools - by law - have to have filtering software. An addition of a video to Wikipedia won't change that fact, and it certainly won't mean that more schools censor Wikipedia, because they should already be doing so for unsuitable material. Hopefully that is clearer. Laura Jamieson (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Generally that software is keyword or reactive. So sections of big websites may have bits unaccessible due to keywords being on the blacklist, and reactive to something it picks up once its been viewed. We really do not want to get in the situation where some parent goes to the press with 'Wikipedia hosts hardcore porn and my 9 year old sons school cant stop it!'. (As a matter of process more than a few schools I have contracted for block commons outright, so anything hosted on commons is non-visible anyway) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC) That's flawed logic. Most schools don't block Wikipedia, and most images on Wikipedia are suitable for anyone who has had sex education, which is taught as early as age 11. Porn however is not considered by any school as suitable for anyone under the age of 18, or indeed for any student while at school. Softlavender (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC) We'll have to agree to disagree (though having said that we agree on the fact that this video should not be hosted here anyway). Commons is a different issue, and is indeed blocked by most standard educational content filters, whereas Wikipedia pages just tend to trigger keyword algorithms. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC) I was pointing out (in my locale) that Wikipedia is often not blocked, but commons is (due to the huge amount of unsuitable media). Embedding in my experience (depending on the software used) can often bypass the controls on commons media. Child-friend firewalls can (if fully featured) allow you (as a sysadmin) to be very specific in what is/isnt let through. Thats assuming you even have control and its not being operated by a central tech team for the local government. The less expensive software tend to have a block one block all approach where that sort of filtering just is not possible. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC) This is a fatuous dispute. Just because you can do something alnd legally may do something, doesn't mean you should do it. This looks very much like one of those times. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Just pointing out that Seattle Public Library (SPL) has an explicit policy to allow viewing of porn on library computers and over the library wifi network. And yes, minors are allowed into the library. Sources: Despite Complaints, Seattle Public Libraries Say They Won't Censor Porn KUOW, February 1, 2012 Seattle Library to porn watchers: come on in Seattle P-I, September 8, 2013 Testing Seattle's porn-friendly public libraries Vice, October 1, 2013 I'm not sure exactly what this means to the Wikipedia debate, but it's a data point that there are serious freedom-of-information concerns here that have been defended by serious people. SPL is one of the top 20 US libraries by some measures[147]. – Brianhe (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) And Seattle is a famously liberal city; its library is not representative of other libraries in the U.S. or around the world. This isn't a "freedom-of-information" issue; the film is already in the public domain, and it's accessible on Commons or anywhere one can find it on the internet, and anyone is free to watch it. It's a matter of hosting. There is no valid reason for Wikipedia to host or stream hard-core porn. It has no intrinsic encyclopedic value. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Seattle doesn't seem to be the only one though [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]. Anyone no one has suggested we host it on wikipedia, the question is whether to embed it in the article or simply to link to it. If some filters are bypassed when it's embedded in the article, then perhaps that's a relevant point of discussion, but we still aren't hosting it on wikipedia. And this still isn't a discussion for ANI so comments here aren't likely to achieve anything. Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC) (I ECed with the closure since I was doing something else at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)) I have to agree Right Hand Drive is probably a sock of someone. However I doubt there's enough evidence to run a CU and in any case WP:SPI would be the place for that. It seems unlikely RHD is a sock of Yann, beyond Yann's long history, there's no real evidence linking it to Yann beyond them both trying to add the link. Notably as mentioned above RHD actually first edited the page back in September then didn't come back until now. I'm guessing what happened is RHD recognised as an SPA and likely sock, they wouldn't get very far so gave up but was probably watching the page and when Yann got involved they saw their opportunity. In any case given the lack of evidence, I suggest the accusation be withdrawn and an apology offered. It seems to me the issue over whether to embed or link is a WP:content dispute and so best held at the article talk page following the normal avenues of WP:dispute resolution. Per WP:BRD and the fact that there has already been discussion before where some sort of consensus was reached, people should refrain from converting the link to embedding the video, or removing the link until the discussion is held. If people want to make a wider issue about it, try a WP:RFC somewhere appropriate. If people want to discuss the appropriateness of commons hosting pornography either try Meta:Wikimedia Forum, Commons:Commons:VPP or maybe WP:VPM. In other words, I don't really see anything to deal with here, unless people really don't stop changing the article while discussion takes places. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Perhaps I have a filthy mind after all (though I'm sort of guy who would go to De Wallen to look at the traffic signals), but I immediately assumed "right hand drive" was some sort of slang for masturbation (if you're right handed, that hand's going to be easier to ... oh, use your imagination) Now, if I go and look on our articles on sex, masturbation, pornography and prostitution, I expect to see some explicit content I would not feel comfortable about my kids watching, but no more than necessary. I don't need the full uncensored video to know exactly what is involved in "Debbie Does Dallas", and I don't need to; as Guy says, just because you can, doesn't mean you should - I am certain that we do not really want a reputation of a site where adolescents run full speed to jack off to (or is that what Commons is anyway?) so I would support removing the link as not being of any encyclopedic value. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC) I think the obvious compromise is for somebody to upload the video to some porn tube site and link it from the Debbie Does Dallas article. Any disagreements? Dingsuntil (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC) I don't particularly see how this helps resolve the current dispute over whether to link to the commons video or embed it. It seems if anything it's more likely to annoy both. I guess it may help for those who believe we shouldn't have it on commons point blank, but since we're not likely to change commons policy here, and in any case it doesn't seem like any of them have participated in discussion on the article talk or elsewhere, their opinions ultimately don't really matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Apart from enjoying annoying both sides, I see a lot of support for "Don't host porn on wikipedia" balanced against "Preserve access to public-domain films" and "Don't censor wikipedia." Since we have these big corporations in the business of hosting and streaming petabytes of porn, we may as well get some use out of them on the preserving public-domain films front, and save wikimedia foundation the trouble while still preserving access to free hardcore porn via wikipedia. Everybody wins AND they're all annoyed! I can't think of a more desirable outcome. Dingsuntil (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC) I don't see any on the article talk page or anywhere else that matters. As I said above, random opinions here are basically irrelevant. Note also that it is not hosted on wikipedia but commons and although some people mentioned something about hosting it on wikipedia, I don't know why that came up since no one ever suggested hosting it here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong and I do not appreciate being accused like this. The editor who made the accusation, User:Betty Logan, is the editor who uploaded "hardcore porn" movie Debbie Does Dallas to Commons and embedded it in the Debbie Does Dallas article in the first place. And my user name has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation, thank you very much. Right Hand Drive (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2016 (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:Max Araldi

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.

---

Max Araldi is an obvious sock of indeffed editor Alec Smithson (more than half of his 12 edits are to pages created by Smithson, note also the userspace tabs copied from mine). Bringing this here because he also claims to be a checkuser, edit filter manager and oversighter. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the claims of them being an Oversighter, Edit Filter manager and OTRS volunteer least anyone who is looking for help is misled. Amortias (T)(C) 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Isn't there something we usually do when a blocked editor creates a sock? Smithson is straight back to his old ways: Gazzetta di Venezia, which "Max Araldi" created today, is an unattributed and totally incompetent translation from the corresponding article on it.wp, and thus yet another copyright violation. This is a highly disruptive editor, and I'm still working through his articles providing attribution where necessary. Please, at the very least, prevent him from creating any more. Of course, if anyone can suggest how the IP block evasion could be stopped as well, that'd be better still; I'm not clever enough to see any pattern in the IPs, other than them all being in Italy. The discussion that led to Smithson being blocked is in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive908. Thanks, Amortias, for removing those deceptive claims. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them based on behavioral similarity to Alec Smithson; note that I am not a CU.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2016 (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.