Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Phoenix article

• DylanMcKaneWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.79.4.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Celtic Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish economic downturn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Post-2008 Irish banking crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DylanMcKaneWiki joined Wikipedia about a month ago and immediately started moving articles around. There were a number of issues with cut-and-paste moves and non-standard titles. Things generally settled down. Then he started the Celtic TigerCeltic Phoenix article—if we assume good faith, it's a split, but it leans into the realm of a POV fork to prevent only the good side of the recovery. That article has been tagged for a prospective merge into the article on Ireland's economy for a few days.

For the past few days, he has shown a pattern of editing while logged out, primarily with the IP listed above. If you look at the edit times over the past 24–48 hours, it's almost a clean handoff every time one or the other starts editing.

Today, he declared that he was giving in and allowing the merge to go ahead.[1] So, the logged-in Dylan proceeded to merge the article. The IP then unwound the merge, and Dylan logged back in to proclaim he'd changed his mind.[2]

Frankly, that was a bridge too far: the number of articles and templates he's edited in the last few hours will be daunting to correct for all of his edits. While I'd like to assume good faith that he just keeps getting logged out, it's starting to look like there's some intent to disrupt the encyclopedia with his edits—almost to the point of intentionally logging out to avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm reading too much in, but at the least, he needs some good guidance on how to work constructively with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC), amended 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Guliolopez has tried to engage with him, offering tips and advice. I admit to being snarky with him, but have also latterly offered advice, pointed out some of the problems with his editing, etc. Dylan rarely engages (only interaction with his talk page has been to blank it), and when he does it's to talk about us leaving "his" article alone diff. The cut-and-paste page moves have been problematic, the ownership is an obvious issue, as is logging out to perform edits/avoid his earlier block. A more serious problem is the complete ignoring of WP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

When I looked at his talk page before he deleted most of the content, I see a string of warnings for the past three weeks, asking and even pleading with him not to do moves which mess up the edit history of the page. It seems like this has happened on multiple occasions. Have you seen any improvement, C.Fred? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't so much say he improved through the first part of May as his editing just quieted down and there were fewer problems. He went away from the economics articles and focused on shopping centres. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no improvements just because he lowered his amount of disruption. I feel a long-term block is required as it is more and more evident from the several warnings he recieved that he has no intention to learn from mistakes and cooperate with others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note, this dispute is about the Celtic Phoenix article, not the Celtic Tiger article, which DylanMcKaneWiki does not appear to have edited, but which would be a good merge target. Paul B (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's (mainly) about the Celtic Phoenix article, but DylanMcKaneWiki has edited Celtic Tiger, too, albeit when logged out - see this diff from 15th May is an insertion that adds in a 'See main article: Celtic Phoenix' template, for example, and there are more. The "109.7*.*.*" addresses that edited Celtic Tiger are the ones also disruptively editing Celtic Phoenix. WP:DUCK. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And checking what links to Celtic Phoenix, I've found that the IP and/or editor concerned has inserted a chunk of text (that completely ignores WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTAL) into many articles, which includes a "See main article Celtic Phoenix" template, rather than directing readers to Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The chunk had been pasted into Economic history of the Republic of Ireland, History of the Republic of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Post-2008 Irish economic downturn. This is a definite PoV fork... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added the above note because this section was originally entitled by C.Fred "User:DylanMcKaneWiki and the Celtic Tiger article" with a link to Celtic Tiger below, and the inaccurate statement that "he started the Celtic Tiger article". Obviously just an accidental slip up on C.Fred's part, but there was no reference to Celtic Phoenix at all in the thread. I changed the title and link so the comment now seems semi-irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I had been trying to see what existed on ga.wikipedia; there is an article on the Tiger but not the Phoenix, so I crossed them up in my brain. Sorry about that. Paul B, feel free to whack me with a trout (which happens to be one of the main aquaculture products of Ireland, but I digress). —C.Fred (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin also semi-protect Post-2008 Irish economic downturn, please? It's currently got one whole page of edits by this user (both logged in and not), some small changes, some serious, many removing significant content, and what appears to be efforts to remove/alter admin-only templates. Most edits done with no edit summary. This is extremely disruptive editing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And now we have a page move - 2008–13 Irish economic downturn, because in Dylan's PoV, the downturn ended then. He has been repeatedly asked and warned not to do page moves like this, especially moves that may be controversial (and instead to use the requested moves procedure), and he simply can't be unaware that this wouldn't be uncontroversial, especially given it's talk page. Can an admin please do something about this? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've unwound the move. @Bastun: Had he been warned about the moving process and using WP:RM before? I know he's gotten prior warnings related to page moves, but I thought those were cut-and-paste moves. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he did another cut-and-paste move today: Post-2008 Irish banking crisis. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has certainly been warned about them before, and I've requested him to use WP:RM. See also his talk page on 1st May and your own prior warning to him. I'm a little too busy right now to hunt down diffs for the WP:RM warnings/requests, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again - can an admin please add semi-protection to Post-2008 Irish economic downturn - Dylan (logged out) is repeatedly removing Financial crisis from the article, not using edit summaries, not genuinely engaging on talk page, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Have added Post-2008 Irish banking crisis to the list above. Similar logged out edits, again removing Financial crisis from the article, without consensus and in breach of NPOV. (A parliamentary committee was told just yesterday that over 110,000 Irish mortgages are in arrears... that should be of concern to the banks...) Can semi-protection be added to this one, too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Semi-protection has now been added to the various Irish economic articles where disruptive editing by the IP listed above was taking place. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Note - re-added from Archive 887. Can we get an admin decision or recommendation on this? The user in question has stayed away from the articles in question over the last few days since SPP was added, but is still editing disruptively elsewhere - e.g., a series of seemingly random page moves, redirects and merges, done without discussion. The Quinnsworth merge was repeated again after another editor had already reverted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Update Dylan took a break for a few days but was back today, 4 June. Dylan made this edit (on other pages, too). Apparently, the "BANKING CRISIS ENDED" in 2013. Which means the government was very silly announcing all this just yesterday. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And again.... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm now proceeding with the Merge of Celtic Phoenix to Economy of the Republic of Ireland as per the consensus on the talk page of the former. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Admin here. Bastun, you should not have made the close to merge on Talk:Celtic_Phoenix, even though the consensus was clear. I'll add a note endorsing it, but sheesh, if you're going to ask editors to play by the rules you should do it yourself as well. Also, I do not see how this edit is so terribly disruptive, but hey, I'm in English so I know nothing about money, having only seen big quantities of it at my drug dealer's. Having said all that, it is clear that DylanMcKaneWiki's knowledge of how Wikipedia works is severely hampered, to the point of serious disruption. POV forking etc. is not a good thing, and it is blockable: DylanMcKaneWiki, if you keep this up you will be blocked. Now, I think we can close this, with the following point of order: any repetitions of severely disruptive behavior will be met with a block; editors can place a note here on ANI and refer to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why I shouldn't have closed the merge discussion? Consensus was clear, I thought, and I'd given plenty of notice. Removal of "Category:2015 in the Republic of Ireland" was disruptive in my view (and that of at least one other editor) as it was pointy, verging on WP:OR and breaching WP:NPOV. Dylan maintains that everything in the garden is rosy when it comes to Ireland's economy and banking - he has asserted that the economic crisis and banking crisis ended in 2013, so therefore was removing references to 2014 and 2015. Thanks for your help. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple: you started the discussion, you were intimately involved with its outcome. Of course you shouldn't have closed that. I see your point, now, with that category edit--make sure that, if it happens again, you explain--briefly and neutrally. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, DylanMcKaneWiki has since been blocked for 1 week by admin C.Fred for disruptive editing - page move of Post-2008 Irish economic downturn to 2008–13 Irish economic downturn (as discussed above), despite previous appeals to use WP:RM for controversial moves. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Numerous problems with EllenCT

Notice has been posted on EllenCT's Talk page about disruptive edits. This editor is a constant source of problems on several articles including Economic growth, Economic inequality and United States. EllenCT refuses to yield to editors' consensus. This editor is trying to monopolize Economic growth with income inequality, which by that editors own sources say that it is a minority view. This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material from Economic inequality and when questioned, promised to restore it but never did. In her Talk discussions EllenCT has not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to be qualified to edit and for diversion requests sources for comments made by other editors on subject matter that someone familiar with the literature should know, then criticizes the sources, even when they are classic works on the subject. EllenCT has created such a mess that it will take many hours to sort out. This needs to stop.Phmoreno (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, this needs some actual evidence, not content-free weasel-wording like "This editor has a biased POV and is believed to have removed properly written and sourced material..."

So, evidence, please. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As Calton says, Phmoreno, if EllenCT is "a constant source of problems" you should have no difficulty assembling a range of diffs supporting your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was my reply deleted along with so many other comments here? EllenCT (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies EllenCT, this was some sort of finger trouble I was not aware of, while I was posting at the bottom. I'm sorry. You've obviously reinserted your section; I'll go check the others. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that I have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge is contradicted by the fact that I base my article improvements on the peer reviewed secondary literature such as literature reviews published in the Journal of Economic Literature. Phmoreno has been trying to use primary source literature to avoid the importance of income inequality, and tried to delete this graph from the International Monetary Fund's large recent WP:SECONDARY study of the largest data set amassed on the question yet, which indicates that the income distribution is of top importance. Most of what Phmoreno calls "classic works" are monographs which have not been submitted to peer review. Also someone else notified me of this complaint. EllenCT (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a boomerang may be due here. I'm hardly EllenCT's greatest fan, but EllenCT is standing up for relatively high-quality content - and Phmoreno has left a long trail of flaky sources and WP:SYNTH. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow EllenCT's editing, but I haven't seen much "relatively high quality content". Anybody can look at my user page and judge the quality of my content. Using my 500 pages of notes I turned some important technology and economic history articles from total junk to accurate representations of the subject, including a highly viewed article that was rated as a Wikipedia good article. It's unfortunate that we can't have a face to face debate over the subject matter in the board room and have the looser fired.Phmoreno (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, be sure that any edits that purport to have been made by User:EllenCT were really made by User:EllenCT. There is a report below at this noticeboard that, among other things, mentions that an editor has a barnstar with a copy-and-paste of Ellen's signature that is therefore a forgery of Ellen's signature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang on Phmoreno for making unsubstantiated claims and spreading rumors about EllenCT without a single supporting diff. I recommend that the closing admin strongly warn Phmoreno about making baseless claims on ANI in the future. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree he should show up with diffs next time, Phmoreno isn't wrong. EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. At the time Arbcom took no action specifically against her (most likely because she was peripheral to that case's purpose and just showed up as an unrelated person to level false charges against others, including me, which is how we were roped into it; of course Arbcom took no action against us either), but it certainly established a pattern of past behavior that should be kept in mind going forward. I didn't interact with her much after that until recently and haven't followed most of the specific activity Phmoreno referenced above, but I can affirm that she's hit the United States page with a POV blitz across multiple sections that sparked an edit war which led to the article being temporarily shut down, and has caused another editor to seek to have the page's recently restored "good" status reassessed.

For a specific, recent example showing she hasn't changed, she agreed to a compromise proposal on content that she blatantly violated a few days later. I led off my proposal saying "The current long standing Government finance segment stays the way it is..." in exchange for me adding a separate segment to another section addressing her alleged concerns. She replied by saying, "I'm completely okay with that." Yet a few days after I implemented my part of the compromise, she tried to completely rewrite the segment she had just agreed to leave as is, deleting the most important parts. That's not good faith, and without good faith productive, collaborative editing is impossible. I don't expect this complaint to result in sanctions, but don't assume Phmoreno is just making this up and don't be harsh with him with a "boomerang" when he may not have understood how these things work. EllenCT has frustrated a lot of good editors over the years, even some who agree with her politics. VictorD7 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• While EllenCT has engaged in such behavior listed above in other topics (documented at this ANI that I brought forward awhile back), diffs are needed to show what the actual problem is (if any) in this particular case. Without that, there's nothing to discuss here. I suggest Phmoreno should look at how other ANI postings are set up and provide diffs to support these accusations. Without that, those of us who are not involved in this particular case will only assume there isn't a behavior problem that needs to be discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, SPECIFICO'S accusation against me in that discussion is completely false, and he posted no evidence or specific commentary to support it. If I was "mercilessly" hounding EllenCT I probably wouldn't have completely missed that ANI discussion that apparently lasted a long time and involved many of the other editors who have had to deal with her. VictorD7 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• To further underscore what I said above, I will add this recent illustrative quote that shows where she's coming from ([3]) in response to another editor's fairly innocuous post: "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats. That is not an opinion, it is a fact about the opinions of Americans on a per-capita instead of a per-dollar basis....If your idea of an excellent encyclopedia article emphasizes only the topics according to your discredited political preferences, then perhaps your skills would better serve your fellow citizens by editing Conservapedia." - EllenCT VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the mainstream run between the people and the corporate parties, or between the parties? EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think readers need to look through the diffs Victor has brought up. There is no need for boomerang as it clearly appears Ellen is conducting all she is accused of. For all the damage she is causing, she cannot simply get away with it just because the user was ignorant to how AN/I works.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not reassuring to see this edit by Phmoreno saying I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Though I agree Phmoreno is not conducting himself in a respectable manner, it does not excuse EllenCT for her editing. Perhaps the both of them should get blocked, but Ellen definitely deserves a longer duration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you would find anything wrong with wanting to remove material that misrepresents the truth and the sources. That message was to VictorD7 who understands what I am talking about.Phmoreno (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think people should look at the ongoing POV pushing by Victor and others at United States. Ellen is not the problem. For victor, this is an ongoing problem. Examples from another article, America: Imagine the World Without Her include edit warring 1.[4], [5], [6], [7] [8] [9][10] [11] [12][13] [14] 2. [15], [16] [17], [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Of POV Pushing: [23], [24], [25] [26] [27],[28] [29] [30] [31] [32], [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40], [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46][47] [48] [49] [50] Attacking other editors on talk pages: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. Ellen is defending well sourced material. Other editors are seeking to remove it or weaken the statements to support their POV. I would encourage any administrator to read the talk page of United States and examine the edit history. There are clearly editors who have problems with POV pushing, with the major problem being Victor. It isn't like he isn't pretty clear about his purpose here.[57]Casprings (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>Except that Casprings' case falls apart under scrutiny. He pads his diffs with routine edits, alleged "personal attacks" that are mostly me defending myself, and alleged "POV" pushing that really just shows me expressing concern for neutrality. There was some edit warring on the other article, but it involved several editors on both sides, including him, and was ultimately resolved by me and what Casprings called my "supporters" using clear, honestly constructed RFCs to gain input from the broader community. He and his cohorts were the POV pushers, and he already filed a complaint against me with all that "evidence" that Arbcom declined to even hear, as the issue had already been resolved by then and it was just him waging a content dispute by other means. EllenCT wasn't even involved in that dispute, so this is just a lame attempt by him to distract from this section's topic. Casprings has a history of trying to get posters he politically opposes sanctioned by any means necessary, as this embarrassing example shows when he went after Arzel (citing some of the same evidence against him that he cites against me here above, including his link to my alleged "purpose" here). The admin's rebuke for the frivolous report was harsh enough that Casprings felt compelled to retract it, saying that he had posted it because he was "mad", not that it stopped him from trying again later. Gradually he morphed from targeting Arzel to targeting me. Calling me "the problem" is absurd. Ellen's entire Wikipedia existence is about ramming as much low quality political propaganda as she can into articles. Ellen and Griffin's soapboxing triggered a period of instability in the United States article in 2013, and their departure from the article after responsible left leaning editors joined with me and other conservative ones in stopping her resulted in a long period of article stability that recently saw the page's "good status" restored for the first time since early 2012. Her recent return has triggered a new period of instability. I'm not the one trying to radically alter long standing segments throughout the article or shove in one sided talking points on random topics of interest to me without talk page discussion or concern for encyclopedic quality. As for your old link allegedly about my "purpose" from a year ago, that was on my personal talk page and was in the context of simply trying to create a neutral article in the face of relentless POV pushing opposition by you and others. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Casprings 100%. I find it incredibly ironic that some editors are calling out EllenCT as a "problem editor" while ignoring VictorD7, who has been edit warring and POV pushing on the United States article since he first joined Wikipedia, and has been called out numerous times on his own talkpage. And looking over the edits that culminated in the United States page being locked down, it seems to me that VictorD7's reverts were to blame more so than anything else. It also looks like he violated WP:3rr with these four consecutive edits: [58], [59], [60], [61].--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My reply to Casprings is above. As to Griffin, who often acts as Ellen's POV pushing tag team partner, just because someone makes an accusation doesn't mean it's true (it's telling that I'm transparent enough to leave even false accusations on my Talk Page). I wasn't even one of the last three people to revert before the article was locked down: [62], [63], [64], [65]. I did not violate 3RR, as some of my edits you cite were consecutive. If you had bothered to read your own link, you'd see that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It would show good faith if you were to retract at least that false accusation. I did arguably engage in a little edit warring, as did you in recent weeks in that article, Griffin ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70]),and Ellen ([71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81],[82], [83], [84], [85], [86]; Ellen often falsely claims in edit summaries that an item has been approved "per talk", even when it has received nothing but opposition if it was mentioned at all on the talk page, and lumps things under an "RFC" that had nothing to do with an RFC), but I've never engaged in the lying, misrepresentation of sources, or libelous personal attacks that she has. Blaming me for the page lockdown or POV pushing is absurd when I wasn't the one trying to make changes to long standing article segments. Ellen showed up after a long period of article stability that coincided with her previous departure and instantly renewed old efforts to shove political talking points into sections across the article, in most cases without even bothering to try gain a talk page consensus first. Without that I wouldn't even be editing the article right now. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I will have to sort through a lot of material to present the pertinent facts in the case in addition to my personal experiences. In the meantime this discussion should remain open. It should be focused on the person who the complaint is against and not go directly into character assassinations of those in support of my complaint.Phmoreno (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not character assassination if it is fact. I still think EllenCT needs to be blocked, but maybe it would be better if all three (Phmoreno, VictorD7, and EllenCT) be handed some sort of block. They are all in some way tied up in this POV pushing and deserve a block to be determined by admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be suckered by false claims, TheGracefulSlick, or knee jerk statements of equivalence. I've done no "POV pushing". Also, while I (among many others here) have engaged in some edit warring at times (in the sense that I occasionally reverted bad edits without breaking 3RR), my evidence against EllenCT in my first two posts above isn't even about edit warring. I lay out clear, salient examples of her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor of a specific outfit, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and showing disruptive bad faith in other ways. No one can find a single example of me doing anything like that, so don't lump us together just because we're involved in an argument with each other. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You might be the OP, Phmoreno, but other editors can add any facts here that they think are pertinent. And I think "character assassination" is overly dramatic when your words against EllenCT are just as harsh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one way forward (but not the only way) is for an admin to levy full page protection and for a new RfC to take place. I visited the talk page to see what all the fuss is about and made a few comments only to find myself quickly under attack by VictorD7, a wikilawyer par excellence. His contribution history portrays him as an SPA pushing an extreme, minority POV. I do not know if that characterization is accurate, but that's the impression I get from viewing his contribs. It needs to be noted that VictorD7 and Phmoreno have been actively feuding with EllenCT for at least the last year. Viriditas (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

False. You showed up and in your first post accused me of "engaging in outright denial" ([87]). You hadn't even commented on the right topic (the one actually being discussed), so in my reply I simply corrected your mistake and advised you to read more closely ([88], scroll down). In your next reply you attacked my motives ([89]), falsely accusing me of "intentionally attempting to manufacture doubt about inequality in the U.S." and "engaging in denial". The rest of your post, again, contained a straw man argument, and my next reply just corrected you again while defending myself. If anything you showed up and started attacking me, not the other way around.

I'd also ask that you retract the false "SPA" claim. As the SPA page states, that tag is not based on timeline. You are not to use it on established editors who have edited multiple articles in the past but focus on one for an extended period of time. I've posted extensively on numerous articles since creating this account in 2012. In fact I've been accused of being a "SPA" on two different articles in recent months, lol, which proves it's not true. If I tend to mostly focus on a small group of articles it's because I don't have a schedule that permits dozens of edits a day. That has nothing to do with being a Single Purpose Account, which is mostly about ferreting out paid advocacy (COI) and is a very serious accusation you shouldn't recklessly throw around. VictorD7 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang: Clear attempt to bully and intimidate a content contributor who does careful research. WP:BAITing of EllenCT is also inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for VictorD7

From the conversation above, I propose the following:

VictorD7 (talk · contribs) has aggressively pushed his POV, edit warred, and dismissed other viewpoints in the topic area of American Politics. This behavior has occurred over a long period of time. For example, in the article America: Imagine the World Without Her, he has edit warred 1.[90], [91], [92], [93] [94] [95][96] [97] [98][99] [100] 2. [101], [102] [103], [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] POV Pushed: [109], [110], [111] [112] [113],[114] [115] [116] [117] [118], [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126], [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132][133] [134] [135] [136] and attacked other editors: [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142]

He has POV pushed in the article United States since he first joined Wikipedia. In edits that culminated in the United States page being protected, VictorD7's reverts played an essential role. He also violated WP:3rr with four consecutive edits: [143], [144], [145], [146] He often attacks others editors on the talk page of the article. [147] [148] [149]

Victor edits primary on topics that relate to the Politics of the United States and has made his purpose for editing those articles clear. [150] As such, VictorD7 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction includes the article United States. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator. VictorD7 may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

Casprings (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I did not violate 3RR and I ask you to show good faith by retracting that false accusation. Consecutive edits counts as one revert. The rest of your post I rebutted in the above section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Really, Cwobeel? It doesn't bother you that he started this outrageous character assassination section with a blatantly false claim about me violating 3RR (actually multiple false claims but that one's salient, objective, and easy for anyone to quickly discern), a claim you had made about those same edits earlier that I've already corrected you on? On what grounds should this ridiculously over the top punishment be imposed? Have you even read these links? VictorD7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe it would be best of you declare a break, take some time off per WP:WPDNNY, come back after that refreshed, and maybe with a better attitude. That may save you from a block... - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm fine with taking a Wiki break, but I'd prefer you answer my questions. Defending myself from false personal attacks isn't reflective of a bad attitude. VictorD7 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support(uninvolved non admin) The numerous diff's provided leave little doubt a ban is needed for VictorD7. POV pushing and attacks on other editors should never happen. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  You mean attacks like false accusations of violating 3RR and paid editing? Did you actually read those "numerous" diffs? What were the most egregious examples of "POV pushing" you found? Mostly I just read sources and clarify issues for people on talk pages. The vast majority of my interactions are civil and productive. VictorD7 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read each and every diff, it took some time. You repeatedly pushed your own edits back in. You went off of the discussion of the article and aimed your replies at another editor. The one I find most troubling is the use of "any sane person". You did all this and looking at what has been presented it is more than enough. I will also caution you, as others have, that you do not help your cause questioning ever poster here, it in fact proves to me that you need a break from the area. AlbinoFerret 00:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect not defending myself would work even worse. Just to clarify, the "personal attack" you found most "troubling" was this one...[151]...where I simply used the same "any sane" wording the editor did in the post I replied to, visible above mine, where I was setting the record straight and defending myself from, among other things, his accusations of being "churlish" and engaging in "gamesmanship"? BTW, like most of the above "evidence", that was from last year (or the beginning of this year) in an article that did get heated on all sides at times, but I haven't been to that article in months nor have I interacted with that editor since. Is that really worth something as draconian and sudden as a broad topic ban? VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Overwhelming evidence against the user, and I propose a block with time to be decided by admin. VictorD7, don't bother commenting to this support as your counter-statements help little to whatever defense you have left.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I stopped being able to believe that VictorD7 has been editing in good faith years ago. I keep trying to work with him, but he refuses to accept only adverse RFC results, with an extremely asymmetric idea of compromise, always in his favor even when he has accepted facts which imply his judgment has been in error. I would be most grateful if the community recognizes that he is motivated by ideology instead of a desire to improve the encyclopedia, to the extent that corrupting the quality of articles and intentionally trying to mislead people about vital economic and policy topics means nothing to him when he has some glimmer of hope that he is scoring some long-antiquated political point for far-right corporate interests opposed to those of individuals. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reasonable case has been made for a block on VictorD7. It is just a list of the man's edits, not evidence of edit-warring, POV-pushing, etc. I followed up diff 173, which was an August 2014 edit to the article on the film : America: Imagine the World Without Her. Looking at the edit in the context of other the edits to the article, VictorD7 appeared to be acting reasonably. Though two editors disagreed with him, another editor agreed with him on that point (though disagreed with him on other points - so was not part of a tag-team).-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. (uninvolved) As with the discussion about EllenCT above at this time, I don't see a case laid out justifying a topic ban. A large number of diffs were provided, but they alone without context don't provide a narrative for a major NPOV issue. I'm only seeing involved editors looking to topic ban the other at this time in the conversation. If someone wants to rise above that, they'd need to actually demonstrate the actual ongoing problem at least somewhat concisely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is seeming typical of both sides of the political articles squabbles here at ANI – to try and knock editors from other side out by having them "blocked" for this or that. I should have boldly closed this entire topic down early on when I had the inclination (and before it morphed into a tit for tat exchange...). At this point, it would be a mercy for Admin to close this down, and send both camps back to their various articles to argue and fume some more. [sigh...] --IJBall (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Kingofaces43 I'm also not seeing the context within the diffs to justify a topic ban. I'm not familiar with this particular dispute, but I should note that I've worked with both Victor and Ellen in the past. I can't recall working with Phmoreno. Morphh ^(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Casprings, TheGracefulSlick, EllenCT and what I stated above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per the evidence, and the arguments, presented above. IjonTichy (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a unilateral ban in a case like this. There's enough bad behavior in both directions to go around between these two across a wide range of articles. Would support an interaction band or a bilateral topic ban to make the articles they fight over usable again by other editors. But a one-way action against the one initiated by the other is of no use. --Jayron32 01:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a mistake to equate me and EllenCT (or me and Griffin or Casprings for that matter). I've typed up an EllenCT section that would show just how out of whack that is, though I haven't decided whether I'm going to post it or not. For now I'm holding off, mostly because I just showed up here to defend the op from a harsh "boomerang" when he clearly wasn't familiar with how ANIs work. I didn't call for sanctions against EllenCT in my posts above, and the only time I initiated a report against her was when she refused to stop accusing me of being a paid editor, though I could certainly make a much stronger case against her than Casprings did against me. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with VictorD7. Each user should be handled individually instead of saying, "well, look at all the bad behavior going on".Casprings (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. On the contrary, I think context is vital. Besides, you've got a funny way of showing you believe that either since this section was created to discuss EllenCT. VictorD7 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and it is very disappointing to see such insinuations from such an administrator without any evidence. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayron, this dispute is hardly a one-way affair. There are uncivil POV pushers working in both directions here (which has created an interesting pseudo-balance in the articles about the politics of the United States). Banning one editor would not solve this dispute, but I would be in favor of a bilateral topic ban. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, if you are claiming sufficient bad behavior on my part to support any sort of a ban, please say what specific edits constitute that bad behavior. I have been editing strictly according to the peer reviewed literature reviews, not my personal politics. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This isn't a one-sided issue and any sanctions shouldn't be one-sided either. It takes two to tango. Calidum T|C 21:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I note that no actual evidence of any bad behavior on my part has been presented. The idea that "it takes two to tango" is as bad as he-said/she-said journalism when one side is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong. EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Strong support (uninvolved non-admin) Knowledgeable editors like EllenCT who cite neutral scholarly sources about contentious matters are so exceptional here that pushing for informed neutrality is seen as POV pushing by those (from both sides of the left/right divide) who are here to overwhelm and conquer by using their own pet junk citations. This is not a matter of one side trying to knock the other out in a left/right divide. It is a matter of who is here to contribute and who is here to just win. [152] makes it clear why VictorD7 is here. There are many knowledgeable editors who have EllenCT's ability to cite neutral, scholarly sources and just can't stand contributing here any longer because of "the numbers and persistence" of those who can't or won't find the best citations instead of the ones that allow them to achieve their goal for their team. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Leaving aside the fact that EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs (example: [153]), is generally terrible at selecting and comprehending sources, and is the least neutral editor I've encountered on Wikipedia, that quote by me you mention was context specific in regards to trying to pull a particular article toward neutrality from a tendentious group bent on propagandizing, and was simply an undeniable description of how Wikipedia works. It said nothing about "why" I'm here. By contrast, statements like this from EllenCT say a lot about her purpose here: [154] "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense." [155] "If this article were governed according to WP:UNDUE, right-wing views would properly be sidelined and marginalized because the demographic center of Americans' political preferences is to the left of the Democrats." VictorD7 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  The same editors who can't or won't evaluate textual context in sources also often fail to evaluate context in other editors' words. Using a blog (fringe or not) on a talk page to summarize opinions for other editors about what's wrong with an article is a great idea and is very different from using a blog in the article itself. Using blogs in the article will almost always harm the reader. Pointing to blogs in the talk page can often help the reader by allowing one editor to summarize things (fringe or not) for other editors. By simply writing "EllenCT routinely uses fringe blogs" without adding the context in which she uses them, you conflate discussion about an article with harming an article. My thinking is that this is a strong indication of your motives, and my opinion has changed from "support" to "strong support" as a result of this most recent failure to evaluate words in context. Of course, whether a blog is fringe or not is irrelevant to a discussion about editor behavior. EllenCT's comments at [156] that VictorD7 mentioned continue: It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior emperical data, and the other does not. Removing demonstrable nonsense helps the reader. My view is that VictorD7, by citing particular sentences that EllenCT wrote out of their context, simply wishes to win. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  Who said she didn't want to use the blog in the article itself? She defended the source (what Cadiomals aptly called "some twenty-something woman's rant blog"; it is a rabid anti-American screed on some random personal blog) when its RS status was attacked, and said she wanted to include points from it in the article and reshape the entire page according to its themes. Leaving aside the fact that using such a horrible source to dictate the entire layout of the United States article is even worse than simply using it to support one segment (perhaps one covering broader opinionated disagreement) per WP:NPOV (among other things), the blog itself uses fringe blogs (and sometimes Wikipedia or busted links) as sources for the points she wanted included. It does help to fully read what you comment on. EllenCT also has a history of using fringe advocacy/lobbying groups as sole authoritative sources (e.g. [157]; INSIGHT: Center for Community and Economic Development, Oakland CA), even when their claims are uncorroborated and strongly disputed by far more reliable sources (the most salient example is Citizens for Tax Justice, the lobbying arm of a liberal think tank called ITEP, whose tax chart she tried to force into articles across Wikipedia for over a year, causing enormous disruption; e.g. - [158], [159])

As for the quotes, it's interesting that you accuse me of taking things out of context when you above quoted a full four words from me in totally distorting what I was talking about. By contrast, the most pertinent element in my quote of EllenCT above is "There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion." That's not true. We all have our views, but we are supposed to edit in a nonpartisan fashion. Of course we're to avoid false balance, but simply asserting there is such a false balance in a particular case doesn't make it true. It's also telling that EllenCT believes Wikipedia is "mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense", and that most Americans are to the left of the Democrats. That means she believes Wikipedia is politically waaaay to the right of the American people, which is something to keep in mind when championing her as a supremely competent, knowledgeable editor with a firm grip on reality while attacking and dismissing the countless editors who have been frustrated trying to collaborate with her. For real context, read the rest of the link you quoted from (you actually posted the wrong link). She's replying to an editor who shares her politics and started off on her side, but started distancing himself when shown proof she was wrong. After she complains about him saying something positive about me, he answers, "I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the Tax Policy Center, which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults."

As for evaluating sources, maybe you can succeed where she failed. That same discussion was one of the multiple times she claimed [160] that this article [161] states that roughly 50% of corporate tax incidence is borne by consumers, even calling it "the best source". Except, like the rest of modern scholarship, it focuses only on different ideas about the labor/capital split. Searches show it doesn't even mention the word "consumer" in any variation. She made similar false claims [162] about "page 17" of this source [163] (everything she said about me there is false too), saying it shows "50%-75%" of taxes fall on consumers. Except page 17 doesn't mention the word "consumer" in any variation either, and is also about the labor/capital split. In fact it, like most of her own sources, totally undermined her own claims about tax regressivity. Discussion elsewhere indicated she didn't understand the difference between labor and consumption, or even that investment, labor, and consumption are activities rather than distinct groups of people. When I repeatedly asked her to support her assertions with a single source quote she refused to do so and has never retracted her claims. [164], [165], [166], [167], [168] Maybe you can find the source quotes she couldn't. Or, if you're unwilling to read and rationally engage in discussions like this then you shouldn't stridently make assertions you can't back up. I'm only posting this now because I couldn't let your above comments go unchallenged. Pretty much everything you said above is the opposite of the truth.VictorD7 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a pretty unfair application of bad faith to those that have had disputes with Ellen. Intelligent people can disagree on what sources say if we're not directly quoting them and what the weight should be for the given scope of an article. Ellen and Victor are both very passionate and opinionated editors, which tends to balance out. I hope that any admin considering action would take the time to read through some of these disputes and see the varying viewpoints in full context. Morphh ^(talk) 16:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Jayron and Flying Jazz, overwhelming a post with bullying and incessant tl;dr exhibits bad faith from a longtime tendentious editor. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we keep putting TBs on editors because of their interests in certain topics we will run out of editors, which happens to be a pretty serious issue WP is facing now. What happened to the brief cooling-off periods, like 48 hr blocks for both sides with unclean hands? Or how about a mandatory discussion at DRN or with a 3O? This new trend of TBs is rather disconcerting, especially when PP, and possibly imposing 1RR or 0RR for a set period of time are still options. --Atsme^📞📧 00:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You want to place an indefinite ban, "broadly construed", on an editor one side, proposed by an editor active on the opposite side of the issue, and based on the "discussion above" that didn't start out to involve the person to be banned, and appealable only after 12 months, without at first assessing more balanced and temporary measures, and you can get support for that? Wow. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, generally. They were also maximally obnoxious and unwilling to work with other editors on an RfC about how to describe progressive taxation to the point where I had to threaten to block them unless the remained civil. They have not. Protonk (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a casual read through the dozens of diffs VictorD7 has supplied show a strong prima facie case that EllenCT is on an unapologetic POV crusade. His documenting this at length may not please certain editors, but arguing, for example, tl;dr as a basis for a ban is absurd. VD7 has been nothing but civil and patient here, and there is no basis upon which to sanction someone for strongly arguing a case. μηδείς (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying Victor is civil or polite is like admitting you haven't read the evidence; especially that of his disdain for consensus decision making through the RFC process or building an encyclopedia based on secondary sources instead of a forum for primary source debate. EllenCT (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I note that experienced administrators have come to very different conclusions than those about whom I have complained of tag team and COI editing in previous ANI threads. EllenCT (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT- specific issues

Difficulties I’ve experienced with EllenCT are issues on Economic growth, although it appears that she is causing similar problems on Economic inequality and United States : EllenCT’s edits on Economic growth are primarily, if not exclusively, in the Income equality section.

1. EllenCT is the person most responsible for the Income equality section being disproportionately large relative to the topic’s main causes and to its coverage in growth literature. (See 5)
2. Despite the Income equality section being tagged WP:UNDUE several times, EllenCT continued to add to it.
3. It has been suggested several times that most of the material in the section be removed to I separate article. I added the main article Economic inequality, where EllenCT actively edits.
4. EllenCT then added income inequality related material into the productivity section, trying to use the supposed gap between productivity and median family income. In this discussion Soapbox 1 she exposes her POV by trying to change the focus from the importance of productivity to growth to how income is distributed by using a graph of median family income. EllenCT had to be aware that this graph was misleading because she was involved in discussions about it where papers said: Total compensation tracks productivity better than median family income and there was a change in “family” composition over time, with a rise in single parent households associated with poverty and income inequality.
5. Here is how some of the material the Income equality section is described by others on Talk:Economic growth#Other problems in the inequality section “I'm sorry but that whole section is crap.” And “The whole thing is still one big disorganized mess”.
6. On EllenCT’s talk page I asked her to leave a summary and take the rest of the material to Economic inequality. She ignored this request.
7. What do you make of this exchange?: Phmoreno: Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say.Phmoreno (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC) EllenCT: That is so dishonest! The only reason Temple (1999) says there has been little interest in income distribution because he spends the remainder of the literature review showing why it's so important. You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them, thank you very much. EllenCT (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Phmoreno: So that there is no confusion about what my statement referred to, here are Temple's words: Yet macroeconomists have traditionally shown little interest in the gulf between rich and poor. The study of growth at the aggregate level has often been something of a backwater, relegated to a brief last chapter in mainstream textbooks, and rarely taken on by anyone outside development economics.Phmoreno (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
8. Based on her edits and more importantly our Talk discussions, I have doubts about EllenCT’s knowledge of economic theory. She keeps asking for sources on basic concepts like the importance of productivity, then when I refer her several references used in this article and to the NBER, she criticizes the sources. She's questioning concepts that are fundamental to understanding her favoriet reference Temple (1999), which requires an understanding of macroeconomic modeling and analysis techniques. (Perhaps she can give us a section-by-section summary.) Also, thre was a comment to her on Talk:Economic inequality about the fact that developing countries should be handled separately from developed countries and I have pointed out here (as have her sources, suuch as Temple) that many countries do not report the necesary statistics (or they are of too poor quality) to put into production fucntions for analysis. Despite this she keeps mentioning that the IMF paper claims income inequality is the most important determinant of growth, failing to mention non-traditional, difficult to quantify variables have to be used in the analysis. Also, I had to go correct the statement about the IMF paper in one of the articles to say that income inequality is related to the duration of growth, not the magnitude.
9. However, she admitted that productivity was important in this exchange: Talk:Economic growth #"Needs to be replaced with real per-capita income versus productivity” EllenCT: @Phmoreno: re [169], how would per-capita (mean) income ever diverge from productivity? They are completely correlated…. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
10. I will not pursue claims of removing material which she admitted to here: Talk:Economic inequality#Recent edits EllenCT: “I intend to restore most if not all of that material absent persuasive arguments to the contrary.“EllenCT (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC) EllenCT’s removal of content was relatively minor compared to another editor’s.
11. In conclusion, the various talk pages show a long history of problems with EllenCT involving several editors. She has left some serious messes that will require a lot of work to sort through and clean up. She has made some attempts to do this, but still engages in posting slanted edits.Phmoreno (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the editor who has engaged with EllenCT the most with regard to the inequality section of the Economic Growth article. I'm the one who put in the undue/too long tags - because they need to be there. I'm the one editor who's argued with her the most about the issues pertinent to that section. I've disagreed strongly with many of her edits - in this particular section, in most other respects her edits were fine - and did at one point get pretty exasperated with the inability to find common ground.

Still, I see no reason for why EllenCT should be sanctioned in anyway or warned or whatever for these edits. This is mostly a straight up content issue. In fact, problems with Phmoreno, conduct wise, have been much worse than with Ellen. At least one can have a constructive conversation with Ellen, with Phmoreno it sort of degenerates quickly. I'm also willing to take some responsibility for the continuation of the existence of the dispute about economic inequality and economic growth. Basically, I know that if I had the time I could sit down and write that section so that both Ellen and I would agree on it. Problem is that it's starting with a pretty crappy draft to work with and properly revising it would take a lot of work. And I've been lazy about it. All this is a way of saying that's it's not all Ellen's fault that those tags are still there.

Anyway. Boomerang it or let it go. I got no opinion on all the opportunistic assholery that's showed up in this request above calling for Ellen's head but the nature of the comments makes me suspect that that's exactly what it is: "I have a chance to get somebody who disagreed with me once banned so I'm gonna act like an opportunistic asshole!"Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"It's not personal... it's strictly business."Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you have her agree to let you remove everything and rewrite it yourself, including some of her content. It would be easier than for you and the others than constantly agruing with her. Otherwise, this will go on for a long time.Phmoreno (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody who sympathises with Phmoreno's line of argument here - that EllenCT has put excessive weight on a topic, and lacks economic expertise - is invited to read Phmoreno's most-edited article, Productivity improving technologies (historical). You'll need a couple of days and you'll need to forget about the existence of WP:SYNTH, of course. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not disagree with Phmoreno that productivity is important. I have asked Phmoreno for sources comparing the importance of productivity and income distribution. There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. So far I have seen zero sources, from Phmoreno or anyone else, comparing the relative importance of the two. Phmoreno's productivity section is longer than the income distribution section in the Economic growth article, and he has insisted that it come first. Why does he want to downplay the importance of the income distribution? Several of his points enumerated above (especially 2 through 6) apply to the article in an intermediate state before recent improvements and the long series of improvements in January in which Phmoreno did not participate at all, and none of them are serious behavior issues. So far, Phmoreno has been unable or unwilling to identify a single peer reviewed literature review in support of any of his points.

Phmoreno's point number 7 is indeed an extremely dishonest further attempt to misrepresent a secondary peer reviewed literature review, Temple (1999), published in the Journal of Economic Literature. The review author was complaining that economists in general did not give sufficient attention to the income distribution among the determinants of economic growth, and his primary conclusion is directly contrary to Phmoreno's contention that it should be ignored. EllenCT (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not know and never claimed to know of any sources that specifically compares the importance of labor productivity to income distribution. But let's look at your statement here: There are abundant, recent, WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that the income distribution is the most important independent determinant of economic growth. This is a perfect example of how you operate because your sources do not make that comparison either, because of insufficient statistics on productivity and capital in developing countries. They are comparing a different set of variables. The burden of providing proof that income distribution is more important than labor productivity, capital or new products falls on you because it is completely outside of any mainstream view. If that were an accepted view you should have no problem finding multiple sources to support it. The literature only claims productivity, capital and new products as being responsible for economic growth. The importance of productivity is well noted in the history of economic thought where it was mentioned by classical economists, neoclassical economists and modern economists. Marx clearly stated that productivity and technical advancement were the causes of growth. Kendrick stated that labor productivity accounted for three quarters of US economic growth in the century leading up to 1956. There is a vast amount of literature on productivity and its relationship with growth. The opening sentence of this St. Louis Fed paper is typical: [170]Over long periods of time, increases in “real” wages-that is, adjusted for changes in consumer prices, reflect increases in labor productivity. If you compare real wages a century ago with those today you will see that they are between 10 and 20 times higher today. So what do you think would have happened to real wages if we had redistributed income 100 years ago and held productivity constant?Phmoreno (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit ignorant of many of these issues, so I went to the Income distribution article (which EllenCT has not contributed to in any way to the best of my knowledge) and found the link to INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND Research Department. Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Prepared by Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry1. Figure 3 on page 12 compares the impact of multiple macroeconomic factors on growth spell duration, and Income Distribution comes out on top. Labor productivity isn't mentioned. Why not? Here's a hint: it has something to do with the word "independent." Yes, EllenCT is up to the usual sneaky tricks that knowledgeable people have of using language in a precise way. You may not know what the word independent means in this context or in the context of any complicated function with multiple inputs and one output. If you do know, you may be intentionally hiding or misapplying that knowledge. Ellen and the IMF are, in effect, saying, "This car is faster because it is built a certain way." You are saying, "This car is faster because its wheels have a higher rotation rate." Why doesn't someone in the automotive industry compare the importance of wheel rotation rate to car design in determining speed? Because that would be a stupid thing to do. Why doesn't an economist compare the importance of labor productivity to income inequality in determining growth? Same reason. One editor has the background and knowledge to correctly utilize the word independent and the other without that knowledge seems to be ignoring it. All of that would be viewed as an amusing miscommunication and comedy of errors among editors talking past each other on a talk page. It's being discussed here because the less knowledgeable editor wishes to win an argument by preventing the more knowledgeable editor from contributing at Wikipedia. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding point #7, here is what I make of the exchange. It's difficult for a person who is knowledgeable in a particular field to know how to best react at Wikipedia when another editor misrepresents the literature of that field by taking a single isolated sentence or two out of its particular context in one paper. It can be immensely frustrating for someone with a strong background who knows and understands a discipline to see another editor advocating for overemphasizing one sentence in a misleading way. EllenCT recognizes the context of a particular sentence or two due to familiarity with the intent of the paper in the field as a whole. I believe (but I can't state this strongly because of my own lack of familiarity with the field) that Phmoreno not only doesn't recognize this context but accused EllenCT of not reading or ignoring that one sentence. Being called dishonest in that situation is well deserved, and the statement "You can take your unfounded personal attacks and shove them" is also well deserved. I want knowledgeable people here who are familiar with a field and care about it to contribute to articles. Unfortunately that sometimes means displaying appropriate impatience with unfounded accusations of ignorance from the truly ignorant. That's what I make of the exchange. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a simple argument over weight. Ellen is arguing that it's due weight as an important viewpoint (referencing the publication author) and Phmoreno is arguing that it's a small minority viewpoint (referencing the publication author). Both points worth further discussion - no reason for personal attacks or calling anyone ignorant. Morphh ^(talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

When I read "Sounds like you either not reading your references or ignoring what they actually say," I see an unjustified accusation from Phmoreno that EllenCT is ignoring something that she did not ignore. Ignoring something is ignorance personified, so I see an unjustified accusation of ignorance from Phmoreno to EllenCT in that statement, thus personalizing a dispute, where you only see an argument over weight. We have different eyes. I don't think the request "What do you make of this exchange?" was meant for editors like me with my eyes. I will not comment here again. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Cjhanley

User user:Cjhanley is a former AP reporter whose work earned him a Pulitzer. Unfortunately, it was found to have some holes in it, and he has taken this real world fight to Wikipedia. The author who initially embarrassed the AP team wrote a competing book on the subject and Hanley went so far as to contact the publisher and pressured them not to release it.

Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized.

He has been arguing for nearly 2 years that all of this material should be removed and has begun a large canvassing effort to accomplish this [171]. Interestingly enough, he has pinged nearly every editor I have had even an interaction with on this project. His COI is obvious, but no actions were taken when it was brought to the community’s attention [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=56826848 4#No_Gun_Ri_and_the_AP.27s_Charles_Hanley].

Now he’s attempting to dig for information about me off wiki as well [172].

His non stop insults about me, and a recent allegation that I am some kind of White Supremacist have put me over the edge though.

Hanley needs to be banned from this article immediately. WeldNeck (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban would seem appropriate in this case. Maybe we could have a vote on it to see if there is consensus to topic ban him. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban, but we should ensure that Cjhanley is given the standard advice to biography subjects on how to correct errors of fact (rather than interpretations of fact with which you disagree) without violating policy or damaging your reputation. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as well, given this user's problematic behavior. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at this diff, it seems like it's another editor, Oilyguy, who is calling you a white Nationalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Liz, @User:JoeSperrazza, Did you see the part of Cjhanley's post [173] which reads "He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism". (This was cited in Weldneck's original complaint.)--Wikimedes (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are kind of obsessed with the subject of cultural Marxism. I don't see him saying the editor was a "White Supremacist". And you are completely ignoring that Oilyguy did say white Nationalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, "some imagined threat to the white race" is not the same as "White Supremacist", but it does seem to be an accusation of racism. (I had not meant to say anything about Oilyguy's comments. Cultural Marxism is completely new to me.)--Wikimedes (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. @JzG, this is not a "biography subject," this is a Pulitzer winning career journalist and book author, a subject expert. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: "subject experts" aren't exempted from the fourth pillar. And the article will be just fine without him, just like any other article subject. ― Padenton|✉   19:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? And that means User:Brian Josephson, who has a Nobel prize, is free to promote woo to his heart's content, does it? The problem is clearly and credibly identified. Respecting someone's achievements does not give them a free pass on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse (edit conflict)Multiple attempts at inappropriate WP:CANVASSING, a guideline which is generally expected to be common sense, especially for a professional journalist. Specifically, the inappropriate canvassing violations here are Campaigning (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history diff, also directly copying and pasting another editors comments including their signatures without any statement that it was copied and not posted by that user), and spamming (and possibly votestacking, here:diff). I see numerous assume good faith and civility failures in these 2 diffs as well, and numerous personal attacks. I find it interesting, given the fact that he has almost no editing history for the past year, that he chooses memorial day to wage this new assault on the article. ― Padenton|✉   19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have nominated User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre, a page linked from User:Cjhanley for WP:MFD as it violates WP:POLEMIC. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. ― Padenton|✉   19:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can only assume anyone supporting this idea of banning me from the No Gun Ri Massacre article is not familiar with what has been going on at that article for the past two years, and is unaware that my colleagues and I, along with academic acquaintances, have by far the greatest wealth of knowledge and documentation relating to the subject in the English language. I urge any interested parties simply to review the section "Reader Beware" that was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre to get some sense of the damage that has been done by WeldNeck, at [[174]]. I use the past tense because WeldNeck unilaterally deleted my Talk posting within minutes. Isn't that the kind of offense that warrants a topic ban? In fact, his behavior should have been dealt with by late 2013 by responsible admins. Finally, to suggest that "the article will be just fine without him (Cjhanley), just like any other article subject" is to underline the problem that a huge number of serious people in the world have with Wikipedia, the attitude that "we don't need subject-matter experts; any Tom, Dick or Harry can write about anything." Driving experts away from WP will only deepen its problems. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 22:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

• This edit, seems inappropriate, per WP:TPO. The materiel meets none of the listed criteria that would make it eligible for User:WeldNeck to remove them. The comments very specifically discuss the article and ways that User:Cjhanley feels it should be improved. The revert should be reversed, ideally by User:WeldNeck. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban.

1. From the diffs presented, the complaints are either unfounded (e.g., per Liz) or don't show edits that are either disruptive or unsourced. He may need some guidance on Wiki policies and procedures, and at most perhaps a mentor for traversing Wikipedia's sometimes arcane rules.
2. In addition, I also agree with User:Carrite and offer the following rationale. Like it or not, there is a long precedence in WP in allowing competence to trump certain policies, as documented in numerous noticeboard and arbitration cases. Surely, per WP:IAR, if nothing else, it is for the good of WP for the community to engage subject matter experts and help them. We don't want to end up in a situation such as this. I don't mean to say we're there, but let's turn the ship and avoid it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@JoeSperrazza: - you dont see a COI with Hanley and his attempt to exclude a source that embarrassed him professionally? WeldNeck (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban and I find his choice of days to begin this fight absolutely disgusting. WeldNeck (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

!vote by nom above (stricken). Normally nominator doesn't !vote too. As one of the two parties, seems inappropriate to !vote too. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support a ban on editing the article, but not the talk page. Someone with an obvious and significant conflict of interest should not be editing the article. However, talk page suggestions for changes to the article should be allowed and should be evaluated by uninvolved editors. Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Both users User:Cjhanley and User:WeldNeck have behaved inappropriately, in my opinion. COI is a real issue, plus the level of personal attacks by both sides. I present:

WeldNeck attacks Cjhanley's credibility: [175]

WeldNeck deletes an entire section by Cjhanley: [176]

Cjhanley attacks WeldNeck multiple times: [177]

While I initially sympathized with each user for different reasons, I think the conduct is unacceptable. We need uninvolved editors working to ensure quality on this sensitive article. Examining the talk archives, it is clear that this is yet another resurgence of the same dispute from years back, and nothing has changed.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that removing his talk page entry may not have been in the best spirit of things, but I am sick to death of the constant attacks from Hanley on me which has now moved onto Hanley trolling outside Wikipedia to dig up information on me. The entire section I deleted has been replicated several times on Hanley's personal talk page as well as the article's talk page. Its the textbook definition of tendentious. I have never edit warred on that article and every significant edit I have made included a explanation on the talk page. WeldNeck (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence (from the previous debate in 2014):

Personal attacks:[178][179][180]

Another implicit attack on Cjhanley: [181]

My (2015) comment that reignited the whole thing in the first place: [182]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Although neither editor is blameless in this content dispute, I think that Cjhanley's apparent belief that he is the only expert on the subject runs counter to the collaborative nature of this project. Miniapolis 00:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Hold Our Horses (is that an option?) See submission on the same article below. I think we're going to try to work this out in talk. Both users at least pay lip service to thinking that it's a good idea. So we're going to take this an edit at a time and see if things will remain civil long enough to get something done. If anyone wishes to volunteer, I would love to have a fourth or fifth commenter that I can ping if needed to the talk to back me up (or tell me I'm stupid...either one works) if this gets (every bit as) nasty (as it has been for two years). So, I apologize for abusing the parenthetical. I suppose you can come over to my talk if you would like to volunteer. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanley's COI, and canvassing still needs to be deal with. WeldNeck (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck, do you have a WP:COI as well? WP:BOOMERANG (disclaimer: I was canvassed here). nom's vote stricken above. Widefox; talk 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A large part of this issue is that Weld seems to have rarely sought and (AFAIK) never gotten consensus on his edits. Hanley doesn't seem to understand policy well enough to know that a lack of consensus defaults to no change to the article. So intentionally or unintentionally, Weld has exploited Hanley's lack of understanding to do basically whatever he wants. I have addressed a lack of consensus in no uncertain terms on the talk. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of .... just a love of history and a strong sense of justice. WeldNeck (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck Let me put it another way...you've been or are employed by the US military. Correct? The topic is a historical US military event. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There are 21.8 million veterans of the U.S. armed forces as of 2014, are you saying every one has a COI and cannot edit? WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Are you serious? You think everyone who has ever been employed by the US military has a COI on any military-related article? Do you realize they're generally the only ones who build these articles? Well, I guess it's convenient to declare that anyone who disagrees with you must have a COI, but I don't think you'll have much luck with that one. ― Padenton|✉   17:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to have other experienced editors as "backup" if things deteriorate. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Padenton: 1. logical problem with that argument: big employer ≠ COI, 2. strawman argument: nobody said all military history (and nobody said COI can't edit, or no human can't edit a biography either). Back to the point, see WeldNeck's edit history for pro US military POV-pushing (including a BLP violation) for reporters exposing US military errors. This is the second one I've seen. COI may be a cause, but we don't know as there's (so far) no simple COI statement. Are you saying nobody in the US military has a COI? Valid to ask, right? If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different? Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether Weld has been employed by the military is not really relevant to the ANI. Saying someone who was in the military has a COI isn't the same as saying someone who worked for say Apple has a COI. "If this was another country's, say the Chinese military or Russian, would that be different?" Not at all. I might be suspicious of someone if they were North Korea military, but that would depend on the discussion at hand. ― Padenton|✉   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I am also military. If that's a COI then so be it. But perhaps it's important to note that most of the things I've learned about the military, I did not learn because I was in the military; I learned them because I was interested in military history. Not everyone drinks the Kool-Aid. Some people understand that war is bad and bad things happen in war. To anyone who thinks the US military is blameless: Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would like a word with you please. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and climb down from the soapbox. None of these events are relevant to the article at hand. Whether US military is to blame for Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, has no impact on whether they are to blame for this No Gun Ri incident, and whether the US military is to blame for the No Gun Ri incident has no impact on whether either or both of these editors should be sanctioned for their behavior. ― Padenton|✉   23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3 month topic ban or moderation by Timothyjoshephwood and GeneralizationsAreBad. Cjhanley’s repeated ad hominims against Weldneck on the No Gun Ri article’s talk page need to stop. (Weldneck also occasionally takes a swipe at Cjhanley, but much less often.) In this post, [183], 2 days into this ANI thread, Cjhanley goes so far as to title a section on the article talk page “A brief WeldNeck primer (please do read):”. Additionally, both the article and Cjhanley would benefit from some time away from Cjhanley’s WP:ownership of the article. On the other hand, I’ve found that it is possible to work with Cjhanley, it would be a shame to lose a subject matter expert, and I think Cjhanley is still capable of making positive contributions to the article. So while IMHO Cjhanley has well earned a topic ban, if this is the result I hope that it will be of limited duration. On the other hand, Timothyjoshephwood appears to be taking the talk page firmly in hand, and his and GeneralizationsAreBad’s efforts may accomplish the same things.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, I do not think a block is an appropriate solution. Part of the reason there is a situation is that Weld has consistently made substantial edits when no consensus exits, and has maintained those edits after much argument making it abundantly clear that no consensus exists. He has, in good or bad faith, abused Hanley's lack of understanding of WP:CON. Weld continued to make edits with no consensus after I began trying to moderate, and after being explicitly asked to postpone editing until we can talk things through. It took "you're wrong and at this point I'm going to revert any and all of your edits until to pass them through the talk page" to get him to stop. Hanely has clearly violated WP:CIVIL, but has done so out of frustration with Weld's violation of WP:CON. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No consensus can exist with Mr Hanley as long as you dont hold his POV. I haven't had issues with anyone else on the article and have worked fairly well with them. One user with both a personal and professional interest in the article refuses to consider any material that does not conform with the reporting he has done on it. WeldNeck (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that per WP:NOCON, when no consensus can be reached in proposals to add to or change the article, the default is to not add or change. You have ignored this. If no consensus can be reached with Hanley, the correct action is to draw uninvolved editors to the page to evaluate the arguments, which is what we are doing now. Rather than doing this you have simply added your edits and repeatedly reverted any attempt to remove or change them. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose two opposing COI POV-pushers. Standard COI editing applies. Widefox; talk 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Demonstrate I have a COI ... we know Hanley does and he has been very public about trying to suppress the work of competing academics. I have also striken your vote because you were (admittedly so) canvassed here. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WeldNeck, don't strike my !vote, I'm not involved or been asked to come to this page by anyone. WP:VOTESTACK doesn't say to strike. I'm not involved in the content dispute, and have not been canvassed to this page (but possibly to the talk of the article). My full disclosure doesn't mean you (as an involved party) get to disregard an opposing position, just like you can't nominate an action and vote. Widefox; talk 23:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. There's a bit too much drama going on here, but it can be resolved through standard channels, such as NPOVN and consensus on the talk page. Removing just one of the editors would be a bad idea, as it will give the other one free rein. Not to mention that we're discussing topic banning a subject matter expert, as Carrite pointed out. The ideal solution would be for neutral editors to get involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, that there is so much drama here that it has muddied the waters. The only thing that is clearly apparent to me is that Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre has been a battleground between two editors with a handful of other editors trying to moderate the dispute or move past it. This dispute was brought to COIN in August 2013 without any resolution or much of a discussion so I encourage a return to WP:COIN if that is the central issue or a visit to dispute resolution if the dispute is solely over content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I went to DRN, but my report was closed very quickly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The two editors are trying to score points against one another; they've got to get beyond this, if any substantive changes to the article and talk page environment are to be made. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Close. We have at least four third party editors on the talk and we are evaluating sources and proposed edits one-by-one. If we reach a consensus and one or another editor starts a war because they don't like the consensus, then we can return here. By policy we could ban both of them, or we could moderate the issue and reach a strong consensus that will protect the article in the future. I recommend we do the latter. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Timothyjosephwood and support Close. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out some of these editors or link to a talk page? I see many that were canvassed to the incident by Cjhanley. Wikimedes and GeneralizationsAreBad were both canvassed here: User_talk:Cjhanley#WeldNeck_seeks_to_ban_me. ― Padenton|✉   23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not actually canvassed here, by the way... GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Padenton, I was not aware Wikimedes was canvassed. I honestly have no idea where Irondome came from. GAB and I are doing most of the moderation at any rate. Topic bans seem silly at this point. We've already instituted an informal freeze on the article, that no edits should be made without establishing consensus, and that the person proposing the edit should not be the person doing the editing. See Edit 5 on the talk page where GAB proposed and I actually made the edit. There is no reason to continue this discussion so long as editors are on the page, enforcing and elucidating community standards. If other's would like to join in that's fine, but I think GAB and myself are sufficient at this point to keep things civil and productive. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi I work on COI issues a lot here in WP. In my view. Hanley has a COI here - he has relationships external to WP that affect his editing here - namely his Pulitzer, the attacks on it, and his desire to defend his work. He should not be directly editing the article about that subject nor about himself. So - topic ban is too strong. Instead"
  • CJ Hanley should be instructed to not directly edit the article - only if he violates that, he should be topic banned. Also,
  • CJ Hanley should be strongly warned not to violate WP:OUTING (l this dif is unacceptable behavior)
  • CJ Hanley should bewarned against WP:CANVASSING and
  • CJ Hanley should be urged to read WP:DR and to use those processes, calmly, when he cannot persuade other editors.

I do have questions for Weldneck - it sometimes happens that the people on both sides of a content dispute have conflicts of interest. Your military service was brought up. I agree that this is far too broad a brush. More specifically, would you please answer:

1. do you have any relationship with the 7th Calvary?
2. were you at all involved in the events around the Gun Ri Massacre itself, or do you have a relationship with anyone who was?
3. are you in any way involved in the RW with the controversy over CJ Hanley's reporting?

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No to all three. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Weldneck. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there's a thin line here between a COI and a WP:EXPERT. I don't think Hanley understood that these things were prohibited by community standards. Just as I don't think WeldNeck saw anything wrong with editing for WP:TRUTH where he thought it was lacking. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasnt editing for truth, I was editing to inlcude all significant POV's which were lacking from the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Cjhanley. BMK (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Cjhanley. An interaction ban would be a good idea, too, because of this kind of digging for personal information to gain leverage. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

:Strongly support interaction ban. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. I'm confident that ANI won't be necessary anymore to resolve this. To be sure, if things take a downturn, we might have to return to this venue. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes ? Pldx1 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support- cjhanley's attempts to dig dirt on users and canvass for his POV-pushing is uncollaborative and just outright low-down. Author or not, he needs to be topic banned and perhaps briefly blocked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Again move to close. We are going through a process. A ban on either user will at best delay that process or at worst delegitimize it, as one user will not be able to weigh in on proposed edits. I would remind those here that WP sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. There is no damage control to be done here. At this point neither editor is going to be allowed to unilaterally change the article. Military History has brought three users to this page and we will take care of our own dirty laundry.

Both users lack an understanding of WP standards and we will elucidate them.

Both users are biased. One needs to be taught the difference between hard hitting journalism and an encyclopedia. The other needs to be taught the difference between what is mainstream and what is controversy.

Both users seem to completely lack historical context. This event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to erase Japanese cities until they surrender. It is not unimaginable that a few hundred civilians would be killed. At the same time, this event is well upon the heels of the US campaign to flatten Japanese cities until they surrender. It is hardly a Holocaust level event.

Please let Military History take care of its own and leave sanctions for the point at which they can be expected to be preventative. That point is not now.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither the MilHist Project nor any other WikiProject owns their subject area. A problem has been brought here, and is being dealt with here. MilHist will just have to deal with whatever the outcome of that is, since this is not a content dispute, it's a behavioral matter. BMK (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

MilHist doesn't own anything, but this article falls within the scope of our subject matter, and we have responded with appropriate action to protect the article. There is no consensus here. There is no preventative action to be taken. We have handled it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since this is a behavior dispute, I think the following should be added. Since being warned, CJHanley's personal attacks continue unabated: [184], [185], [186], [187]. If he cant watch his behavior now, with all these eyes on him, what are the prospects once things have moved on? WeldNeck (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the community has concentrated focus on edits, rather than users, Hanley has been quite productive and has been receptive to criticism of his proposed edits. Meanwhile WeldNeck has proposed a single edit, which he claimed he would provide supporting sources for that evening, three evenings ago. WeldNeck is using this ANI as a weapon to punish a user he disagrees with. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley response

CJHanley here: I am deeply dismayed by this discussion. Anyone who actually studies what has gone on at No Gun Ri Massacre since August 2013 cannot possibly conclude anything other than that the article was seized by an uninformed user who was angered by its straightforward account of the massacre and who took a wrecking ball to it in order to push a pro-U.S. military POV, to whitewash a massacre. He deleted reams of material without discussion, reverted efforts to restore key elements, without discussion (let alone consensus), rebuffed attempts at reasoning and compromise, and, indeed, even fabricated material at times (when explicitly shown on Talk, with the source text, that these things were false, he refused to delete them). His POV is fed by material coming directly from 7th Cavalry activists, the regiment responsible for the massacre.

Help was sought at ANI and elsewhere, and the WP community failed utterly. “I’m in over my head,” one admin said. Now users here are actually listening to WeldNeck as he tries to eliminate me from the article? Can this be true? Three years after those of us, journalists and academics, deeply knowledgeable on No Gun Ri took a truly chaotic, mindless article and turned it into a solid account of an important historical event?

Ultimately sickened by WeldNeck’s behavior, and WP’s failure, I swore off the article and WP a year ago, as so many have done. I’ve come back because finally a real, competent effort is being made to restore some sense and more truthfulness to the article. My colleagues, academic acquaintances and I have the source material and the ready background knowledge. We want to help those who’ve taken an interest, shown real capability and made progress. WeldNeck, now facing more scrutiny, is lying low – for the moment. That effort should be given a chance. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 12:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems relevant here. Cjhanley is personally much too close to this story to edit our article on it in a neutral and unbiased manner. (Perhaps WeldNeck is too, but I've yet to see anything except accusations, no evidence.} I continue to support a topic ban for Cjhanley. 12:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)BMK (talk)

This statement also seems to contradict the assertion that the problem is being adequately "handled" internally by the MilHist Project. War is too important to be left to the aficionados.BMK (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK, we are currently in the process of thrashing out consensus through proposals and counterproposals for edits. I agree with your concerns, and I think we should keep ANI on standby in case the situation worsens further. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cjhanley: You should read your comment again: "I am deeply dismayed...", "Anyone who actually studies ... cannot possibly conclude anything other...", "...whitewash a massacre", "sickened", etc. You are well past the point of being an objective reporter of facts, and have become deeply entrenched in being a true believer. You admit of no possibility whatsoever of anything you have reported being wrong. You are, in fact, an advocate for one set of "facts", period.

For all these reasons, you have a serious conflict of interest with our article and it is not appropriate that you edit it at all. You can point other editors to sources of information on the talk page, even things you've written that have been published elsewhere (in reliable sources, of course), but you should not edit the article directly, because you are clearly incapable of being neutral about it. Yes, you have expertise, of a sort, due to your reportage, but your attitude towards that story is such that you are not suited to edit our article.

As for WeldNeck, I've seen a lot of accusations here, but there's been nothing about him as damning as your own statement is about yourself. What I've mostly seen is that your "side" thinks his "side" is wrong. That may be true, but he has not demonstrated the kind of serious conflict of interest that you have. Please stop editing the article. BMK (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cjhanley: per the above. BMK (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a dispute between two points of views. Should the Armed Forces use their resources to study and learn from their past or use their resources to whitewhash the former top ranking Officials (and provide larger opportunities for the actual ones to create yet another mess) ? In this controversy, it appears that Hanley stands strongly on the "Army should learn" side, while WeldNeck stands strongly on the "I attended graduate school with this guy" side. Perhaps, both of them are standing too strongly on their opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not the real world ! Despite the cruel context of the No Gun Ri Massacre, this is only yet another Wikipedia article, among so many other ones, about handball, movies awards, diacritics and even "The Dakota" himself. Nevertheless, trying to use the letter-soup drama board to silent the other point of view seems to be over the top. WeldNeck shouldn't be the Gracchos of the Juvenal quotation. Pldx1 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [restoring chronology: a remark made at 12:51 should appear after another one done at 12.39] Pldx1 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, BMK. If Pulitzer-winning journalists with 40 years’ experience in digging up, verifying and publishing facts, from wars to baseball games, are people who write with a Point of View and are not to be trusted, then Wikipedia’s in big trouble, because a hell of a lot of those citations at the bottom of articles show the information comes from journalists with even less experience and less recognition for their professionalism. Then there are the academics who work on subjects … too closely?

In fact, it was AP journalists who first amassed the facts of No Gun Ri, on which others built. If those facts cannot be trusted, you’ve got a pretty weak house of cards and, if you take them away, a pretty paltry WP article. Might as well just copy and paste the Pentagon’s report. That’s what they would do in North Korea.

You “haven’t seen any evidence” against WeldNeck? Haven’t you looked at the Talk pages and the article history, from August 2013 to March 2014? The article history is a veritable waterfall of reverts, re-reverts and re-re-reverts by this one guy, with nary a word of discussion, as he furiously rid the article of anything that might put the U.S. military in a bad light. If anyone wants a clear explainer, try this from late 2013 User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre, and this from early 2014 [188]. That second one (see the Reader Beware section) was posted at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre only recently, and immediately deleted by WeldNeck. That single act should be enough "evidence" to get anyone banned. There’s enough in those two “explainers” to get anyone multiple life sentences, especially for a guy who has clashed with, by my count, 28 other contributors in the same nasty way at various articles. One slammed him for “POV pushing at every article you edit.” Have a look.

Meantime, a process is under way at No Gun Ri Massacre. Sensible, energetic people are on board. Let’s let them work, with help from me and other knowledgeable folks as needed. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges, and you're clearly not understanding what the role of an encyclopedia is versus a reporter or publisher of investigative journalism. We don't go by the criteria the Pulitzer Prize committee follows, and they don't go by our rules and policies. We don't break news, we don't take sides, we don't advocate, we summarize what other people have written in a neutral manner (as much as is humanly possible). As I said to an editor the other day, if Einstein came back to life and had finally figured out the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, we wouldn't let him break the news here, and we wouldn't even report it until it had appeared in the appropriate peer-reviewed journal, because that's our role.

By our criteria, and without consideration of anyone else's, you're clearly an advocate for the story you tell (and I'm using "story" in a neutral manner, without knowing, or caring in the context of this discussion, whether it's "true" or not), and that gives you a strong conflict of interest, which means that it is highly inappropriate for you to edit our article. Other editors are free to cite your reportage, and it can be offset, if necessary, by what other reliable sources have written. Please make an effort to understand how our role differs from the one you're used to playing, and why that disqualifies you from editing the article. Publish any additional information you have in a reliable source, and editors can use it, but you should not be editing that artice. BMK (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, having read User:Cjhanley/Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre and your "READER BEWARE" comment (which you neglected to label as such in the diff above) makes me even more convinced that you do not understand that editing here is almost completely the opposite from being an investigative journalist. Perhaps you could fulfill the role of Wikipedia editor on other subjects that you're not so clearly invested in, but you shouldn't get near this subject with a ten-foot pole. Inow strongly think that a topic ban is essential. BMK (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, if you actually read those "explainers" and still do not understand what the behavior problem has been at that article, of endless reverts without discussion, by a well-known bullyboy around WP, I don't know how better to open your eyes, BMK. Be aware of one thing: The great bulk of citations at that article came from me and knowledgeable colleagues, from peer-reviewed journals, books by reputable publishers, responsible journalism by others, television documentaries and other solid sources. You may be under the misapprehension that the article is based on Associated Press reporting, period. Far, far from it. Instead, as the people who've followed the story for 17 years, we know all the sources, reliable and unreliable. Now, if I'm not supposed to come within 10 feet of the article, shall I remove everything we contributed to make it, as of 2013, a truthful, comprehensive and readable article? Charles J. Hanley 22:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WP:STOPDIGGINGTimothyjosephwood (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it any better. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note the strong element of WP:OWNership. BMK (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppose, hypothetically, that Einstein comes back to life and tries to help writing the Special_relativity article. The odds are that he becomes quickly topic-banned due to an obvious conflict of interest: who is that guy that pretends having some expertise in the field that he opened? Aren't there so many other topics to edit: butterflies? handball? The process is well known and should have been recognized by any letter-soup specialist. Bob wants to push a fringe theory. He detects the person that resists the most, say Alice. Then Bob keeps harrassing Alice and waits for an overreaction. At that precise moment, Bob starts crying and weeping out of loud, complaining about Alice. And then comes the letter-soup expert. The guy is overbooked and has no time for a further inquiry. He even has a feeling of ownership over "our article" (great lapsus). Guess what could be the end of the story? But let us go back to the current topic. As it was stated by User:Beyond_My_Ken, any specialist is replaceable, even a specialist in letter soup. In this "story", only the people that were shot to death at No Gun Ri are not replaceable. Pldx1 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite poetic, really. I think your analogy may be valid. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

And complete crap, actually. Specialists and experts are always welcome, as long as they follow the rules. Einstein can edit the Special relativity article to his heart's content, as long as he cites from reliable sources to do so -- even his own previously published peer-reviewed work. But if he has a sudden new revelation, that's WP:OR and he can't include it in the article, he has to get it published elsewhere first. And if he starts edit-warring against and displaying WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior towards other recently-deceased-but-returned-to-life-to-edit-Wikipedia physicists who oppose his views, he's going to receive warnings, and possible blocks or topic bans if he doesn't back off and edit within the bounds, Einstein or no Einstein. His expertise doesn't give him a free pass to do whatever the hell he pleases, and neither does Cjhanley's. BMK (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Pldx1, and I agree with you as well. (My "poetic" comment referred to his last sentence.) Conduct on the NGR talk page has been very bad in the past, but we're trying to hit restart. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that online accounts I've read concerning CJ Hanley's real world dispute with Robert Batemen, author of No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident, show the same personality faults which have been observed here, and which have led myself and others to support a topic ban for Hanley. I'm hardly in a position to adjudicate between the two views of the incident, but that's never been the issue in this thread -- despite Cjhanley's attempts to make it the issue -- which is all about the editor's inability to fit into the Wikipedia process. And that is also why MilHist can't "handle" this, because it's not the content issue which is under scrutiny here, it's the behavioral issue. BMK (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the past, WeldNeck has certainly cited Hanley's dispute with Bateman as evidence of COI. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

He's has also cited COI as a way to push through his preferred edits. It is, of course, a non sequitur to argue that "you have a COI so my WP:FRINGE theory should be included". I really find the whole ANI report suspect, in that it just so happens that the need to report two years worth of saved up grievances just so happened to arise at exactly the same time that uninvolved editors were attracted to the article, and started taking things seriously. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, if there is evidence that WeldNeck has a COI and is incapable of editing the article in a neutral manner, or that he is editing in any way against Wikipedia's policies, the evidence should be presented in an ANI thread and that can be dealt with separately. As far as the COI of Cjhanley, the evidence is very clear, and right here in this thread. The one obviously doesn't have much to do with the other: Hanley's problem does not necessarily imply that WeldNEck has a problem, nor does it mean that he's a white knight with no agenda. These are two distinct issues. I believe that one has been settled and so I call on an admin to close this thread and impose a topic ban on Cjhanley per the overwhleming evidence here. Anyone is free to open a thread on WeldNeck. BMK (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just counting beans, without concern for strength of argument, there are 9 !votes in support of a topic ban for Cjhanley and 6 oppose !votes. That's 60% support for a topic ban. In addition, the words of Cjhanley himself in this thread show severe COI, NPOV, OWN, BATTLEGROUND, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, IDHT, and NPA problems. BMK (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There's enough evidence on both users to fill up a good deal of server space. I just fear the repercussions if WeldNeck cites a ban on Cjhanley as endorsement of the former's editing. This is a unique issue on account of the COI accusations, and is exacerbated by the recent nature of the No Gun Ri revelations and scarcity of scholarship (at least it's been hard for me to find sources). GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban on Cjhanely is a reflection on Cjhanley's behavior, period.

The situation is unique only in the sense that Hanley has co-authored a book on the subject, and has taken that to mean that anything he writes it is unassailable WP:TRUTH. One of the first things a good reporter realizes is that, try as hard as possible, he or she is going to get some stuff wrong, that's just the way things work: poor memories, deliberate dissembling, access to only a limited portion of the possible documentation, unconscious self-bias, etc. The good reporter gets close enough to the nub that their representation of reality is very, very close to the fact, but they keep their minds open to the possibility of being mistaken, and accept new data to integrate it into their overall view of the story. Hanley doesn't seem like that kind of person at all; in fact, he rejects out of hand any other possible interpretations, and seems to deflect any new information which doesn't conform to his previously established viewpoint. That removes him from the category of a reporter directly into that of an advocate, hence the need for the topic ban. BMK (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us count the beans, indeed. User:Beyond My Ken has left 14 (fourteen) messages here. It looks like some of them (to say the least) are falling into the letter soup: NPOV, OWN, BATTLEGROUND, RIGHTGREATWRONGS, IDHT and so on. For example, one can say that, rather than over-reacting, C.J.Hanley should better attend a lecture about "Strategy and Tactic in Low Intensity Conflicts", at the Quantico Marine Corps History Division or somewhere else. But using weasel words to imply that Hanley could be a not so good Pulitzer seems, how did they say, slightly NPA ? In any case, the closing admin should consider how to INCREASE the womanpower working to redact the No Gun Ri Massacre article rather than giving too much weight to a procedural artifice intended against some IDONTLIKEIT. Pldx1 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, counting the many, many ways in which you are wrong would take much too much time of my time, and, frankly, wouldn't be worth the effort, so just.... wow. BMK (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Counting the ways that you fail to understand that WP sanctions should be preventative and not punitive is...actually very simple. I apologize that we've distracted your attention from removing talk page comments of other users that you don't agree with, and I apologize that you don't understand that things like WP:OR don't apply to talk pages. And I apologize that you don't really seem to know how this works, but I'll please side on the hours I've spent researching this issue, plus the hours I've spent involved in it, versus your cursory reading of this thread. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Abuse by Editor Taeyebaar

I would like to alert the Senior Wikipedia Administrators to evidence that user User:Taeyebaar is manipulating a series of Wikipedia articles towards a specific viewpoint - and in the process has improperly targeted users, businesses, Wikipedia editors old and new over several years - but much more acutely in recent weeks.

Although there are several examples, I would like to use the example of the Arrowsmith_School article. (Previous examples exist on this noticeboard for other pages).

The total edits on the Arrowsmith page are clearly biased towards adding and maximizing the information about "skepticism" on this page. Out of these 137 edits to date by user Taeyebaar (30% of the edits to the page), clear and undue weight has been presented surrounding skepticism of the program in relation to the other information on the page. This user is also clearly connected to the edit histories of IPs 192.0.173.58 and 192.0.173.58 (which made most of the skepticism edits until both disappearing suddenly when user Taeyebaar was created, as well as having similar editing history and shared relationships, so obviously connected), which is a further 135 + 11 edits (32%) - for a total of 62% of the edits to the Arrowsmith article - almost all in the additional/tightening of "Skepticism" by this user. (The user has been accused previously of multiple logins under the IPs in question).

Instead of focusing on information relevant to the program for Wikipedia's readers - the page has been modified so as to focus on Taeyebaar's skepticism of Brain Training programs in general. In fact, the edits appear to be designed to to do harm to the Arrowsmith business.

Some stats, for your ease of monitoring (note the edit headings);

• http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/?article=Arrowsmith_School&project=en.wikipedia.org (List of editors - top editor Taeyebaar and IPs)
• http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Taeyebaar&page=Arrowsmith+School&server=enwiki&max=100 (Taeyebaar edits)

Many of the edits are highly suggestive and editorialized, implying a specific viewpoint. Some examples;

• To help herself, Arrowsmith Young developed cognitive exercises that she claims help (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
• A lot of doubt and criticism has emerged (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized)
• lack of evidence of change in learning skills as well as the high costs. (clearly weighted towards a viewpoint, editorialized without sources)

This isn't appropriate editing behaviour on Wikipedia. It is clearly an attempt to damage the Arrowsmith reputation as opposed to providing a well written, balanced article for Wiki readers.

• This user has taken a similar approach to many other Brain Training Programs, including Cogmed, LearningRX, etc.
• A number of users have reported Taeyebaar, whose voices have been drowned out by Taeyebaar'sbetter knowledge of the system (primarily through accusations of sockpuppetry). Attempts to communicate with Taeyebaar on their talk page have been deleted by Taeyebaar. The user refuses to collaborate or have open discussion.
• The user has repeatedly posted notices directly on administrator pages and Administrator Noticeboards to undermine other editors.

Taeyebaar's Connection to the Loudest Critics, Dr. Siegel

It also appears that user Taeyebaar has a connection to and specific knowledge of an individual whose commentary forms much of the content of the Arrowsmith page - Dr. Siegel. Evidence exists to suggest that they are connected to Dr. Seigel, a vocal critic of the school listed on the article.

• Dr. Siegel is a known and active critic of the Arrowsmith program. On the Wikipedia article, said user has greatly weighted the article with criticisms from Dr. Siegel. In fact - the article now has more information about Dr. Siegel than about Barbara Young - the founder of the program. Dr. Siegel has been accused of crossing the line of libel before (see the references added by Taeyebaar in the article). There is no reason to have this weighted diatribe on this page - except to undermine Arrowsmith intentionally.
• The user has intimate knowledge of all external sources critical of the Arrowsmith program, far beyond "normal" research. This implies intimate understanding of the subject matter and personal relationships with individuals listed on the page.
• Of the three Loudest Critics of the program (Dr. Siegel, Max Coltheart and his student Anne Castles) - user Taeyebaar created Wikipedia pages for the first two, but not of the third (Dr. Siegel). When a page was created for Dr. Siegel - said user made minor edits to the page within a few hours (and had recommended others edit it immediately instead of doing it themselves, as noted in their talk pages). As this user is adept at managing Wikipedia through it's policy's (banning and reporting users regularly), and has edited dozens of other pages - it implies that this user is "connected", and didn't create the page originally out of an attempt to maintain neutrality.
• It is clear (for example in the documentary cited, where Dr. Siegel "is the only vehement critic of the program") - this individual is one of the few people who is compelled to add such an overwhelming amount of criticism to the Wikipedia article and other articles of its nature.

This is all circumstantial evidence given the nature of Wikipedia, but is compelling nonetheless.

Whether or not the individual is directly connected with Dr. Siegel or not, they are certainly aggressively advocating one viewpoint. Either way, their actions are still consistent with lack of neutrality by this user.

Wikipedia Users Targeted by Taeyebaar

This user has also improperly targeted many other users on Wikipedia, in some cases to the point of getting them banned or leading them to quit. They have leveraged their knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations to manipulate articles about Brain Training towards their own opinions. The Wikipedia editors have focused (rightfully so) on the actions and reports of Taeyebaar, not the edits to the article. However, this has enabled Taeyebaar to continue to edit and control various articles and continue to add skepticism to various articles to promote their own opinions.

Taeyebaar has had bans attached to all of the following editors who have attempted to provide balance this on the Arrowsmith article alone;

• User:StarbucksLatte (the person who brought this matter to my attention, got them banned)
• User:Wiki-shield (an unknown psychologist from Toronto, got them banned -wikipedianyt@gmail.com)
• User:Mishash (unknown individual, got them banned - possibly from the same office as Wiki-shield)
• User:Eaqq (since given up editing on Wikipedia)
• User:Brunasofia (since given up editing on Wikipedia)

These users were all accused of being "sock-puppets" by Taeyebaar as soon as they made improvements to the articles Taeyebaar has been "controlling". The individual also reverted all edits of several experienced editors who made edits to the article;

• User:Nyttend
• User:Wbm1058

Their edits were reverted without discussion or collaboration - one attempt to edit met with the feedback from Taeyebaar "Oh no, you don't". These experienced editors have now "stepped back" from editing the article as per Wikipedia's spirit - and the article is no longer being collaboratively managed by Wikipedia editors but exclusively is being used to espouse Taeyebaar's critical opinions of the subjects in question.

IMPORTANT - The user has currently advocated for a block on editing the article now that it has been significantly weighted (User talk:Zad68). Obviously, the user is happy with their unbalanced negative weighting of the article, and would like future edits/improvements to stop.

The user Taeyebaar has also made similar edits to various articles in the brain training space. When questioned about it on their talk page, they simply deleted the discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaeyebaar&type=revision&diff=664362450&oldid=664361198).

These articles include:

• Arrowsmith School
• LearningRx ‎
• Cogmed
• Dore Programme
• Fast ForWord
• Brain training
• Brain Gym ‎
• Fast Forward
• Lumosity
• Neuroplasticity
• Brain training
• Brain fitness

All with what appears to be a a strong goal of promoting a singular viewpoint (that Brain Training is definitively pseudoscience).

Taeyebaar has made a number of repeated posts to get users banned, posted to numerous Administrator pages asking for bans/blocks/etc., posted numerous complaints to Admin boards, etc. - all without engaging or openly discussing on their Talk page (or the user Talk page). This is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia - a place for all neutral editors.

Violation of Wikipedia's Policies

This user has violated the spirit of Wikipedia in many ways - but even more so, violated core policies;

• Taeyebaar, as noted above, has a clear viewpoint (against Brain Training). WP:NOTOPINION
• Taeyebaar, as noted above, has intimate knowledge of these programs and therefore is likely to be deeply connected to the sources. This is clearly an individual with a conflict of interest. WP:CONFLICT
• Taeyebaar clearly has the opinion that Brain Training programs are "without merit" WP:OPINION, and leverages the rules to accomplish the telling of their viewpoints.
• Taeyebaar exclusively adds undue weight towards their critical viewpoints towards almost Brain Training Programs WP:NPOV
• Taeyebaar has added many additional opinionated statements (for example, statements relating to "high cost", and "many people's opinion's), in order to promote their viewpoint WP:EDITORIALIZING
• Taeyebaar is not acting collaboratively, where "articles should not belong to any one person". WP:OWN
• Taeyebaar is concentrating on the negative aspects of the programs exclusively, to the detriment of all of the information about these programs on Wikipedia. The information presented is from a connected individual and is not neutral. WP:WEIGHT
• Taeyebaar isn't engaging on the talk page, but rather just making direct edits to the page, and undoing anything else added in conflict with their opinion. WP:EDITCONSENSUS
• Taeyebaar repeatedly edit-warred with senior admins and newbies, and managed to get this overturned through sock-puppet accusations WP:EDITWAR
• Taeyebaar repeatedly uses accusations of sockpuppetry when someone edits articles they don't like WP:LAWYERING
• Taeyebaar has had numerous individuals banned as sock puppets who were new editors, trying to help balance opinions and clean up editorializing. WP:NEWBIES

Taeyebaar is clearly using the system WP:GAME to accomplish their goal of undermining public perception of neuroplasticity-based products, programs and software. This is not the act of a group of editors working collaboratively. It is a single person's viewpoint being promoted - on all of the articles Taeyebaar has edited.

As there is notable and valuable information on various articles that this person has had deleted, they are clearly not an unbiased, good faith editor.

Past Behaviour

This user has a history of similar improper behaviour surrounding the subjects of dyslexia and (completely unrelated) subjects around various subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.165.246.181 (Same user*)

• Warned for edit warring on the subject of "dyslexia"
• suspected "multiple editors objecting to your misuse of tabloid sources to push your POV about dyslexia"
• "repeatedly reverted to their own opinions of dyslexia"
• Blocked from vandalizing "animal testing"
• Warned for edit warring on "Indo-Pak Confederation"
• Warned for edit warring on "Backstreet Boys"
• Involved in edit war on "Hain_Celestial_Group"
• Found switching back and forth between user accounts

• Recent connection: Several communications between user Mad_Hatter (recently and in the past) between this IP and Taeyebaar.

This user has also been previously accused of lack of collaboration - "A half dozen editors have disputed Taeyebaar's edits. None have supported them." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive809)

What's next?

I leave it to your better understanding to suggest a recourse of action. At the very least - the Wikipedians who have been banned for their contributions to articles "under Taeyebaar's control" should be re-considered as editors (and perhaps more research into additional user actions on other articles should be undertaken). At the very least, someone impartial and senior should edit these articles to return them to impartiality and a neutral point of view. Or alternatively, control should be returned to the collaborative space for multiple editors to achieve consensus on the various Talk pages and make future edits accordingly from there (read: don't allow Taeyebaar to edit articles in this space - ban them from all associated articles). Thanks in advance for looking into this matter, and sorry about the lengthy post.

Sean Stephens (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of things

• An admins an admin there arent levels of administrators
• It might be worth reading TLDR and then restructruing your report as its quite lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 May 2015

@Amortias: A couple of things:

• In the sentence "An admins an admin there aren't levels of administrators," the first "admins" is short for "admin is", and therefore takes an apostrophe: "An admin's an admin...". Further, "arent" is a contraction for "are not", and therefore also takes an apostrophe: "aren't". Finally, as it is a sentence, it needs a period at the end.
• In the next sentence, "restructruing" is misspelled; the correct spelling is "restructuring". The word "its" is short for "it is" and needs an apostrophe: "it's".
• After a fellow editor has just presented a complicated situation in a coherent fashion, telling them to go read TLDR is rather insulting.
• If you're planning on "correcting" someone's post on Wikipedia, you had better be damn sure that you don't make a bunch of stupid mistakes when you do so.
• You neglected to sign your post, but an important person like you, who doesn't have the time to read about someone's problem (but does, apparently, have the time to "correct" them), probably just didn't have the time to do so.
• It might be worth reading WP:DICK, and then restructuring your approach to commenting. Alternately, you could just keep your mouth shut and not say anything if you don't have anything worthwhile to say.

BMK (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A little harsh, don't you think? There were other ways to comment about what Amortias (not sure if I typed it correctly) wrote instead of "shut your mouth". Personally, I do agree that Amortias did not pay attention to the report at all and seemed to only focus on "senior admins". However, there were other ways to explain what you said in other and better words. Frankly, I would consider what you've written, especially in that tone, WP:NPA. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, not harsh at all. Too many people seem to think that posting "TLDR" is a sufficient response to what may be, after all, a complex situation, and that impulse needs to be sharply discouraged (as does the impulse to say "XXXXX is thataway" instead of dealing with the problem: the correct response is to deal with the problem to the extent that one can, and then say "BTW, next time you can go to XXXXX"). There certainly are "wall of text" complaints, and if they are poorly structured, formatted, and written, they may justify a response of "TLDR", but this was not one of them, and Amortias' reply was, in my opinion, a total knee-jerk, compounded by poorly written advice. BMK (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, something is either "a little harsh" or it's a personal attack. Those trains don't meet. BMK (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Should I Spinoff? I know it's long, but it shows a pattern which goes back years by a specific user. Always genuinely eager for suggestions from more experienced admins. Sean Stephens (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems odd to me that this editor, who stopped editing in 2013, would suddenly come back and file this report, while having no recent interactions with Taeyebaar, or any at all as far as I can see. As well, Sean Stephens has made arguments that involve knowledge of Wiki policy that seems completely misplaced when referring to WP:SPI. The arguments by this user would have us believe that Taeyebaar has been the prime reasoning behind the banning of some sockpuppets, however anyone familiar with SPI knows that Checkusers determine who is to be blocked, rather than the filer. And, anyone who has cited wiki policy would also be sure to read about SPI processes before making claims such as these. It could be that he did not feel that the reason to the socks being blocked was worth a deeper look. (Which would then make his argument shallow). But, this whole thing is producing some noise that I can't quite place. Anyway, FYI Sean Stephens, all the users you have listed that were 'banned because of Taeyebaar' were banned for legitimate reasons, not the control of one editor. These should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again for any reason. Socks of these accounts should be put back in the drawer. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment - At this point I don't have an opinion about Taeyebaar because I haven't examined the issues closely. But Sean Stephens, you have made one very glaring false assumption. Taeyebaar didn't get anyone "banned". The editors you name above got themselves permanently blocked because of very inappropriate behavior; in fact, three of them have been confirmed as the same person (sockpuppets). As for those who "gave up" editing, do you have any clear evidence other than speculation as to why they "gave up"? Lots of people stop editing for a lot of reason. If your other evidence against Taeyebaar is as weak as your arguments about getting editors "banned", you need to rethink this entire report. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

After reading other responses to Sean Stephens, I agree it is odd that he returns after a two year absence to point the finger at someone who recently came into conflict with one of the socks mentioned. Could we be dealing with a WP:BOOMERANG situation? A sock investigation might be in order. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have recently awoken from a long editing slumber by someone who saw me speak on the value of Wikipedia's neutrality and collaborative practices. Her user account User_talk:StarbucksLatte was banned as a sock when she created a private account after reading the book "The Woman Who Changed Her Brain" and noticed the abundance of negative comments on the related Wikipedia article. After looking into it, she noticed the user Taeyebaar had edited highly politically charged articles (e.g. "Jihad Watch" and "Iran-Pakistan Relations"), and didn't want to use her normal editing account given the inflammatory editing history of the individual. When she started editing the article under this account, she was "confirmed" as a sock, though she wasn't the individual with the inappropriate behaviour - and now she has quit. For the record - I'm happy to start a sock investigation on myself, if you'd like. I've used my real name here, I'm not hiding (but admittedly, I'm not a particularly experienced editor either). I am behind this report to maintain my assertion that the Wikipedia collaborative process works - even for the lay-editor. Who wants my phone number? Sean Stephens (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this report should be reformulated but the issue remains. I would have made this report myself if it wasn't done already but real life keeps me busy. The issue of socks is independent of the issue. In no way does completely ignoring the rules of Wikipedia and then trying to pass it off as a problem with socks make it justifiable. User:Taeyebaar has clearly taken ownership of Arrowsmith School and refuses to discuss any changes on the talk page. I have left it alone for now as there appears to be no end in sight for his edits and reverts so there is no point in 2 of us being banned for violating WP:3RR. I'm at a loss to understand the point of your comments about the person who made the report while completely ignoring the subject of the report. Can we address the issue and not the players?--Daffydavid (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited in this area and am not familiar with Taeyebaar but I don't think suspicions about the OP should preclude consideration of this incredibly lengthy complaint. At the least, it should be seen whether a COI exists regarding the use of Dr. Siegel as a source. I think it is WP:UNDUE for an article to be primarily composed of criticism rather than facts about a company or organization like at Arrowsmith School. But clearly looking into this in any detail will take some time. I look forward to hearing from Taeyebaar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of the unhelpful originator of this thread, I see ownership and POV pushing on the part of Taeyebaar. As I found the article, most of it was dedicated to attacking the subject, with the "Skepticism and criticism" being larger than the rest of the article (5018 characters of skepticism and critism, vs. 4629 in the rest of the body), so I chopped a bunch of completely unsourced content and removed content published in news media articles, which being news media, aren't vetted by experts in the field. I then cleaned up a poorly written chunk discussing reliably-published criticism from some Australian neuroscientists, adding commentary from the neuroscientists in place of a couple of paragraphs that basically said "these scholars have opposed it" and spent only half a sentence discussing what they'd actually said. The result? Wholesale reversion: restoring the paragraphs of unsourced and off-topic criticism, removing the information about what our Australian friends said, restoring the non-scholarly publications, restoring the article to being heavily weighted against the subject. Not at all neutral, especially when you keep it up by going way past 3RR edit-warring with other editors a few days later. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no idea whether the rest of the OP's complaint is valid, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mishash/Archive where User:StarbucksLatte, User:Beardocratic, and User:Wiki-shield have all been blocked as socks of User:Mishash by the closing administrators. Voceditenore (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore - I can't help but notice that you also edited the article for Dr. Siegel with Taeyebaar, within a few hours of the page being created. You were also invested in accusations of sockpuppetry for the users above. Are you connected to Taeyebaar or Dr. Siegel? Or is this just circumstantial? (Not trying to be a jerk or wear a tin hat, I apologize in advance if I am off the mark here - you seem like an experienced, neutral admin). Sean Stephens (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I am not aware that I was ever accused of being a "sock-puppet" by Taeyebaar, or any other editor for that matter. Would appreciate see diffs where anyone made that accusation. Looking at the article history, my edits were limited to reverting WP:CUTPASTE moves, and ensuring that proper procedures were followed to determine whether the article should be titled Arrowsmith School or Arrowsmith Program. I would be interested in seeing diffs where positive information about the school or program from third-party sources was being removed. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked Sean Stephens as a  Confirmed sock of Beardocratic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Mike V • Talk 22:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, this complicates things even more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Regardless of whether or not the complainant is a sock the issues raised are the same as I would have raised. Why is no one addressing the completely blatant violation of WP:3RR? Is the consensus here that Taeyebaar can do whatever they want with no consequences?--Daffydavid (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No Daffydavid, you haven't missed anything, except perhaps a little patience. The issue will be addressed in time; sometimes it takes a while. The OP's report justifiably raised a lot of red flags, and it turns out those of us who were concerned about sockpuppetry were correct. And I agree with Liz's comment that a report by a sock with a vendetta complicates the situation. If you have concerns about 3RR, feel free to take it up at WP:3RRN. In the meantime, let's wait and see how the issues with Taeyebaar turn out. Sundayclose (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And not just a sock, a block-evading sock of an editor indef blocked as being WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. That throws an entirely different light on the allegations. BMK (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If I've parsed the data correctly, Seanstephens stopped using his account in October 2013, then created Beardcoratic a week ago to post complaints about Taeyebaar on AN and got indef blocked for it within a couple of days, so the editor went back to using Seanstephens. Clearly, this person has a thing about Taeybaar, but if his complaints are legitimate, he has reduced the chances of something being done about it substantially by his own misbehavior. BMK (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree BMK. The editor might have been a sock account but that doesn't mean this incredibly detailed case should be thrown on the bonfire (that is, archived into oblivion). We can "shoot the messenger" but that doesn't mean that the message is meaningless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since I am preoccupied with real-life matters, I am going to make this short. Admins should see this and this edit. As for the links on anything positive about these 'brain training' programs being removed by me is a lie. Multiple users removed positive links to the program because they were poorly or primarily sourced, including administrators. I only cared about reliably sourced material being left alone. I also have NO connection to Max Coltheart, Linda Siegel or Anne Castles. I NEVER created any of these articles. A user created an entry on Anne Castles, so I felt Max Colheart, who Castles is or was a students of, deserves an entry as well, but it was not me who created them, just suggested them. The accuser thinks that other users don't have the capability of checking an articles creation history. The accuser also has a habbit of claiming that anyone who is opposed to him or edit wars against him has a 'special connection' to the subject that they are editing (see the links I shared for details). That is my response.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Linda Siegel article is an interesting case. It was originally created by the sock StarbucksLatte. It was an appalling coatrack which consisted solely of criticising her research on Arrowsmith School, referenced solely to material written by the head of the school and published solely on the school's website. So here we have an eminent academic whose 40 year research career on learning disability is presented on Wikipedia as consisting primarily of her criticism of this school. I and another editor were in the process of cleaning it up and turning it into a proper biography, when it was deleted as the creation of a blocked sock. The other editor who was cleaning it up quite rightly re-created it, and it is now a decent article about a notable academic. (Admins can view the original version of the article.)

I've now had a close look at Arrowsmith School and it is equally appalling from the opposite perspective. I'm going to leave some recommendations on the talk page later today. Taeyebaar, I strongly suggest you step back from editing that article. In my view your additions were not helpful to furthering a concise, balanced, and above all encyclopedic coverage of the subject. To Seanstephens and assorted socks, who I'm sure are reading this... Don't sock (in all its definitions, including "meat puppetry" via off-wiki canvassing). The reason it is so heavily sanctioned on Wikipedia (and the reason why I personally detest it) is that it destroys trust amongst editors and makes coherent, constructive dialogue impossible. To both Taeyebaar and the assorted socks, I strongly suggest you all avoid speculating about other editors' motives. It does nothing but muddy the waters and it rarely ends well for any of the parties. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I found a notice about this discussion by Seanstephens on my former talk page. He did an amazing job collecting evidence against rogue editor Taeyebaar. Well, not surprisingly, he got himself blamed for sock-puppetry and blocked. Taeyebaar is a skilled manipulator and he is clearly supported by many influential editors and admins. I seriously question WP CheckUser policy, to me it has clearly become a tool to silence opposition. I was under impression that the goal of this tool is to fight vandalism and it can ONLY be used when somebody suspected in vandalism, it clearly states that "It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects." It is clearly not the case here. I personally can no longer edit WP thanks to misuse of CheckUser. My former WP account was declared as a sock-puppet of my business partner John. Ok, I can at least explain this by IP overlap when we both did editing in the office. Next, few people come to my defense and raised questions about dubious edits by Taeyebaar... within days their accounts were declared as sockpuppets of John (ironically, John doesn't even know who Taeyebaar is). There is absolutely no way that CheckTool could show any IP overlap for these accounts, so the results of CheckUser tool were clearly manipulated. To demonstrate this just consider that some "very trusted editor" based on "results" of CheckUser tool first declared Beardocratic as a "confirmed" sock of Mishash, now Beardocratic is declared as a "confirmed" sock of Seanstephens... People who care abuse of WP should (1) investigate this sockpuppetry farce and (2) take accusations of Seanstephens a bit more seriously. I don't know who pays Taeyebaar, but they clearly got their money worth. [My home and office IP addresses are blocked thanks to Taeyebaar, but I am visiting my son in Montreal, so I can write this post-mortem...] 24.114.107.238 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)block-evading sock

I would like to bring your attention to the actions of admin Guy. He just tried to hide this entire section of noticeboard. He was also the admin who edited all brain training articles back to Taeyebaar's biased version after all the opponents were blocked. Something fishy is going on here... 24.114.94.82 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) block-evading sock

The above IP has now been, of course, as pretty much anyone reading this thread knew it would be, blocked for block evasion. @Seanstephens: Every time you do this, you're making it less and less likely that anything is going to be done about your complaints. BMK (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You should really act upon the content of this thread rather than dismiss it based on presumed "sockpuppetry". Sockpuppetry or meetpuppetry become a convenient tool to eliminate opponents here, as you can see from my comments above, IP match doesn't even matter for CheckUser anymore, one user could be in the UK and another in Canada and they still be labeled as "sockpuppets" just because they oppose the same type of biased editing. As for blocking dynamic IPs, that's just plain stupid - to block me while I am in Montreal you'll need to block IP range of the entire downtown Montreal :). Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.103.65 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2015‎ (UTC)

I thought you had been blocked as a sock? BMK (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, yet another block-evading sock of Seasnstephens. BMK (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The 24... IP claims to be Wiki-shield, who according to the CU, is technically indistinguishable from Mishash. Meanwhile, according to the CU, Seannstephens is technically indistinguishable from Beardocratic. 'Quite coincidentally' three of these four all ended up making a fuss over the same issue and the same article at the same time despite each sock pair claiming not to know the other pair at all. Then there's User:StarbucksLatte, who took up the fallen Wiki-shield's baton at Arrowsmith School and who Seanstephens claimed 'just happened' to contact him about this problem. Meanwhile, both StarbucksLatte and Beardocratic were pronounced by the CU as possible/likely matches for Wiki-shield and Mishash as well. So you pays your money and you takes your chance. At the very least there's is meaty collection of sock pairs here. None of which surprises me given the shenanigans at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LassoLab back in 2013. Some of the current issues they've raised are valid, though. It's a pity that they chose the "tangled web" route. Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion

As noted above by several of us, Taeyebaar's editing has been going against the WP:OWN and WP:NPOV standards, and several of us good-standing editors have already participated in a discussion attempting to get these standards enforced. Don't close the discussion just because it was started by a sockpuppet. Nyttend (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it has not, at least not always. His edits include balancing material. And I am not happy that this thread is started by a block-evading sock, who removed hatting, again evading the block. We should ignore this trolling per WP:RBI unless and until an independent and neutral request is brought. Meanwhile, the entire series of articles is a walled garden and needs ruthless pruning. Brain gym is bollocks, and most of the programmes sold by these firms are bollocks as well. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So Taeybaar has finally made a comment here which is surprising since he has steadfastly refused to comment at the Arrowsmith talk page. I find it interesting that he ignores the discussion and instead tries to provide more evidence against the OP. The key takeaway I believe is this - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive809) where we see Taeybaar engaging in (and admitting to)sockpuppetry and engaging in the same behaviour that leds us here in the current instance. So if socks are fighting with socks do we have a drawer of socks? --Daffydavid (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I propose the washing machine. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Washing machines aside, Zad68 has already given Taeyebaar an unequivocal warning about his/her unacceptable behaviour [189]. People now know that the various "brain training" articles, including Arrowsmith School still need a lot of clean up and have probably put them on watch, since all of them are subject to COI editing. I suggest that Taeyebaar step back from them all and let other editors monitor and improve them for a while. If Taeyebaar doesn't step back, and there's more trouble, that would be the time to lower the boom. And Taeyebaar, if you're reading this, stop assuming that when two or more editors disagree with you, they are sockpuppets. Sometimes it happens to be true as in the Arrowsmith case. But most of the time it's not. Filing SPIs on that kind of evidence rarely ends well and poisons the atmosphere. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to the warning. Isn't anyone reading? Daffydavid's accusations are nothing but absurd. He has made edits to the Arrowsmith article (and possibly others) by de-listing the names of school's that use their program. I honestly think it was unecessary, but I did not revert him. However when he reverted the article to the version of Mishash's sock (which included adding a lacking references tag in the middle of the article content), I reverted him, only for him to engage in an edit war and then start pointing fingers. I even explained to him what the revert was for. And from the look of his talkpage, DaffyDavid does seem to have a history of interjecting himself into edit wars and then pointing fingers. This kind of behavior doesn't help wikipedia in the least. Also I never accused anyone of disagreeing with me for being a sock. What a lie! Amazing how much confusion and chaos a troll can cause. The criticisms of these programs were not added by me for various programs, such as Dore and Brain Gymn. They were added by other editors from before. Mishash even tried to remove them, only to be reverted by someone else. I think I'm done here.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar: in 2013, you filed a sock puppet investigation against Gothicfilm after he reverted you. Shortly after that, you admitted to editing while logged out to avoid detection by Gothicfilm. This is ancient history, though. The real problem seems to be that you're edit warring to maintain a version of the page that other editors have found problematic. Some of them are sock puppets (or meat puppets), yes, but others are obviously not. From your reply to Zad68, it sounds like you see nothing wrong with your behavior, and you will continue unabated. I don't know about anyone else, but this has made me reluctant to edit the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL, filing one RFCU two years ago based on what I felt was reasonable suspicion at the time, does not mean I accuse everyone who I come into loggerheads with being a sock. In fact that ANI report was posted not long after the mistaken RFCU. Exploiting, or rather attempting to exploit, another editor's previous mistakes seems to be the first-hand response at disputes nowadays; especially when many of these editors have been in disputes on other issues before.--Taeyebaar (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Exploiting, or rather attempting to exploit, another editor's previous mistakes seems to be the first-hand response at disputes nowadays" It is so bizarre to hear this statement from you... isn't it exactly what you were doing with other editors to maintain your version of brain training pages? 24.114.96.132 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that's rich, Taeybaar, I'm a troll now? I have to commend you for giving me a good laugh. On to the subject at hand, trying to whitewash the issue by trying to defame the other editors only shows that you indeed know you are well outside the Wikipedia policies and as pointed out above you have no intention of stopping. This is the issue, even if you think you are correct it does NOT allow you to continue with your reverts. I stepped away while this was ongoing, you on the other hand have carried on like you own the place. I clearly missed the Wikipedia policy that precludes me from editing on a page when I disagree with content (or as you put it - inserting myself), please point me in the direction of this page. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Daffydavid, I believe that Taeyebaar was referring to the original poster of this discussion as a "troll", not you. Having said that, I find the use of "troll" to dismiss the substance of an argument to be extremely unhelpful, and I'm not the only one here who has pointed this out to him/her. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• On a more general note, I am in the process of trying to remedy some of the problems at Arrowsmith School which I've outlined above and at Talk:Arrowsmith School. It would be very helpful if there were more eyes and fresh ones on the article itself and more participation in the current talk page discussions. I am also going to ask WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Education for input—something which should have been done long ago. Voceditenore (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless whether it is started by a sock or not, this thread is not just about Arrowsmith School but about multiple articles in brain training area butchered by Taeyebaar and about this person's editorial practices and lack of respect for WP rules. Yet, you try to defend him and narrow it down to Arrowsmith School article. 24.114.89.109 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User 174.3.213.121

This started with an edit I made to Scotiabank,

I removed an image of Scotiabank Place that was in the article as I felt it wasn't relevant to the article anymore because the bank itself no longer sponsors the arena and the other two images were of branch locations themselves.

User 174.3.213.121 undid the edit and put in the summary "just because you love euge & nhl hockey, doesn't mean the corruption RE: cdn tire/scotia/canada banks should be ignored" which I still have no idea what he means. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotiabank&diff=prev&oldid=664735983

I then tried once again to delete the image and was greeted with another summary of "unexplained removal. likely conflict of interest (NHL hockey fan interested in protecting scotia/cdn tire's corruption to prolong league's duration". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotiabank&diff=prev&oldid=665054835

The user doesn't appear to be active on his talk page and his talk page just is other incidents of him getting into edit wars or issues with comments made in summaries. They did not respond to any of the users/notices posted.

His user talk page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:174.3.213.121. This is the only link I can provide as he doesn't have an actual user page created.

--WestJet (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the next step you might take is to go to Talk:Scotiabank to begin a discussion with other editors who watch this article. It would help to see if your edits had support from other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the article itself is really active. The user doesn't respond to anything posted on his talk page and just basically does what he feels is right. In the past he's made comments about other people's religion in edit summaries. WestJet (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So are we resolving this? WestJet (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the complicating issue here seems to be what you said earlier: based on 174.3.213.121's contrib. history, they have only posted once since June 1. And they already received a warning about their earlier problematic edit summaries (from another editor) at the IP's Talk page. So I'm not sure there's anything "actionable" here until they do this again. ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa competence on medical topics

Ozzie has promised to be more careful with sources in the future. Request withdrawn. KateWishing (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) is an enthusiastic and good faith contributor to medical articles, but his reach exceeds his grasp. On Paternal age effect, Ozzie deleted several references while leaving the associated claims intact.[190] I reverted him with an explanation.[191] He has continued this behavior on several articles since. Here, he deletes a high-quality 2008 Cochrane review for the claim that "Steroids help reduce the risk of death or disabling neurological deficit." In a later edit, he adds a new reference for this statement -- a single 2004 trial republished in a book. To find "better" references, Ozzie searches keywords of existing statements on Google Books. If the result shares enough similar words, he adds it, even if it does not mean the same thing. I explained this to him with three examples from his edits to Paternal age effect. Here is one of those: Article text Source text Source link Diff "Later age at parenthood is associated with a more stable family environment, higher socio-economic position, higher income and better living conditions, as well as better parenting practices, but it is more or less uncertain whether these entities are effects of advanced parental age, are contributors to advanced parental age, or common effects of a certain state such as personality type." "Research has demonstrated an inverse relationship between maternal age and child maltreatment. [...] Youthful parenting is intertwined with other factors. For example, less positive parental nurturing and discipline were seen in mothers who were younger, who had more than one child living at home, who were single, who had a lower level of educational attainment." [192] [193] This unintentional misrepresentation of sources has continued. In one edit to Acute erythroid leukemia, he adds a single-sentence cause section, later reverting my removal of it: "The bone marrow creates cells that become leukemic white blood cells." The reference says nothing of the sort. His other edits to the article are also problematic, such as making "History" a subsection of "Epidemology", populating the Symptoms section with the ambiguous and irrelevant claim that "Acute erythroid leukemia representing less than 5% of all cases," and adding the misleading claim that acute erythroid leukemia requires a bone marrow blast count of more than 20%, when the source is referring to acute myeloid leukemia in general (AEL has more specific requirements). Numerous other examples of accidental source misrepresentation can easily be found in Ozzie's recent history. More often than not, his references do not fully support the attached claim. I don't have time to mentor Ozzie or review every one his edits, so unless someone else volunteers, I do not think he should be editing medical articles. KateWishing (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I follow MEDRS as is dictated by wikipedia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Doc James should be present--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) What we need is someone to show Ozie10aaaa the ropes and explain the MOS when it comes to medical articles (I don't mean to be patronizing). Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC) absolutely we all improve everyday--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I hope you can at least see why you need to read the entire article when citing it and not just use it because it showed up on a Google search based on a sentence or phrase. You have to understand the context of the sentence, it's not just a matter of finding a statement in a respected medical journal through a search. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I always do, but there is always room for improvement (for me )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but why are the sources being replaced in the first place? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [194] (the first question being made) was changed to a book which is MEDRS compliant Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) [195] (the second question being made)...I pinged DocJames in regards to it May28 (the talk page history indicates he visited the page [196]) [197] (the third question being made)...I had changed the source...here I asked the editor to please take to talk page [198] having shown the above, due to these proceedings I will not only be more careful but have lost some interest in editing the articles in question...(we all have room to improve, and I welcome advise given, so that I can improve everyday )...thank you for your time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC) So long as you're very careful with sources in the future, no topic ban will be necessary. I suggest only adding sources for unsourced statements (no replacements), and only when you're certain the article and book say the same thing. I'm sorry to subject you to this; all of your edits are clearly made with the best intentions. KateWishing (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC) If Ozzie is this incompetent with sources, why wouldn't he ask for consensus or a second opinion before removing sourced material? Perhaps he could start doing that in the near future until he reached the competency to do it independently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [199] May 24 this editor was asked please do not leave any more messages on my talk page (banned) [200]from my talk page (just so you know) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Interesting, I did not realize AN/I was your talk page...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) could someone please close this ANI. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock of JackTheVicar

JackTheVicar (talk · contribs) was blocked by Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) for three weeks due to actions in this thread. I noticed Jack had no chance to give his right of reply in that thread and was blocked without any real discussion. He's filed an unblock request and I have proposed to unblock him if he takes a self-imposed interaction ban with Winkelvi (talk · contribs). Jack has agreed to this, but Kevin is strongly against unblocking him under any circumstances. Since we don't have consensus to unblock, I'm going to have to ask the community as to what we do. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin is in fact emphatically not against the idea of altering Jack's block, but just isn't willing to do it until the causes of the block are addressed. Kevin Gorman
• The IBAN condition and Jack's statements that they understand what the problem with their actions was (both the civility and canvassing elements) is good enough for me. It might also be worth a warning that further civility and NPA in general likely won't be looked upon kindly, but that's up to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The promise to avoid the conflict from now on, under parole, would be a way worth trying. I have noticed the editor as a solid contributor of content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone in every situation should be given a right to reply and, if relevant, explain. This is a very basic aspect of human life that is ignored in Wikipedia. I implore closers of discussions here to please check the recent contributions of people who are reported here to check whether it is clear or whether it may be reasonable to assume that they have at least been on line since the submission of a report. Come on people. This should be basic. GregKaye 08:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At a minimum he violated harrassment , civility, canvassing and hounding. He approched ten people off-wiki asking for them to come to his ANI to suppor him. He consistently refused to acceptresponsibility for his own action, and ignored alll the excellent advice people gave him. there's a big in the newest MW release that someone used to delete my first comment while insuliting me. it's 1;30 am so i'm not rewriting it fully tm, bit i don't really imderstand how the totality of his be

Also, i have never stated that i with certainty against unblockng jack. That;s a really, really big reading of my posts, one of which I copy here below ````

I would be inclined to reduce his block length if he indicated he understood why what he did was wrong. Every time he posts he minimizes his own actions, and stresses, to paraphrase, 'other bad people made me do it.' Blocks are preventative; unless he understands why what he did was (severely) wrong, he'll likely repeat it, unless he has the stick of a threatened block. At this time I am not modifying his block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs)

In the recent conversation on Jack's talk, you wrote "I normally am supportive of early unblocks... not here .... Please reflex to ANI if you must"[201] so that is what I have done. The only other options were to go back to Jack and say, "sorry, you're going to have to have a 3 week holiday, cheerio", or "screw you Kevin, I'm unblocking him anyway", neither of which would have led to a peaceful conclusion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock – I don't know this editor but I have looked through the diffs and agree, some of them were a little hostile. However, the block term is a little excessive and, with no explaination allowed by Jack, a little unfair too. Still, this wouldn't be the first time Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) has been heavy-handed when it comes to "incivility" complaints. Cassianto^Talk 11:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So.. you're pretty much saying I was wrong to block someone who canvassed ten admins off-wiki to try to get matters decided in their favor because I was wrong about one block? Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. Off-wiki canvassing via email goes on all the time; are you naive enough to think that it doesn't? FWIW, the block was justified under the circumstances, but the length, in my opinion, was far too excessive. Unfortunately, you seem to never get the balance quite right, do you? Cassianto^Talk 00:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• • @Cassianto: If you're going to make the accusation (re not the first time) could you please provide evidence, otherwise it seems to be personal attack territory (I'm not threatening or waving an admin stick, just a polite request). Thank you :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • See the dispute where Gorman blocked Eric earlier this year. Not an accusation, more of a factual event. Cassianto^Talk 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock. A three-week block for someone with no previous blocks and a record of improving the encyclopedia is excessive (especially when you consider the third week was added on for something Jack had already been blocked for). Jack has agreed to avoid interacting with the other user in question, so keeping him blocked would be more punitive than anything. Calidum T|C 11:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reread my initial post, and also note that Jack still has not seen anything wrong wth massive canvassing. Jack produces content, yes. That kind of canvassing drives away content producers, and that kind of action undermines the core values of Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Calm down dude, no need to bludgeon this. I'm not saying the block wasn't warranted to begin with, only that's excessive and overly punitive at this point to keep it in place. Jack has agreed to avoid the other user in question (under threat of an indefinite block, mind you) and has said on his talk page he understands he made mistakes. I'm not sure what else you would like to see; would a pound of flesh suffice? Calidum T|C 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If he had recognized the problems, including the intimidation and canvassing, in a way that made it seem like he actually sounded like he got it (and my threshold for believing people isn't too high, and accepted responsibility instead of blaming the part - then I would've been content altering the block. Nothing he has said that I have seen has indicated he sees the (very, very significant) problem with off-wiki canvassing done with the intent of intimidating a user. I don't think a three week block is too long for that - others have gotten longer for the trio of npa, canvassing, and deliberate illicit intimidation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock Jack has made the offer. This kind of threat from Kevin reeks of someone with a vendetta/on a powertrip. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: Are you referring to the last sentence? If so I agree it was quite ill advised to say the least. I'd like to hear Kevin's thoughts on that during (his) tomorrow. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's to the last sentence. Seems to have no policy-based rationale and not helpful to anyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jack has offered to avoid interaction with someone, Jack has not addressed the rest of the issues. I view massive canvassing used to intimidate someone as significantly against the encyclopedia's interests. Letting someone know that if they do it again the block length will increasse hopefully has a deterrent effect and certainly is based in policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: - Can you point to the policy that allows you to block someone "for at least six months", so we're all crystal clear on that one? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Policy makes it clear escalating blocks are endorsed, and that their level can vary based on level of offense. Offwiki canvassing and intimidation has gotten people arbcom banned plenty of times before; I believe six months fits in with the general policy of escalating blocks. I'd rather give a user a warning about what would come if they repeated an action than just escalate a block without telling them if they repeat an action - it both seems more fair and acts as a preventative. Out of honest curiosity, how do you view the seriousness of canvassing ten people off wiki and using the results to intimidate another user? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"I believe six months fits in with the general policy". You believe? That's the best you have? A hunch? A gut-feeling? That doesn't sound very robust to me. Canvassing/requesting an opinion. I'd assume good faith and believe it was done in good intentions. I've not seen the alledged canvassing emails either. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laure nt is dead} 18:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"You haven't seen them because sharing them with would violate a policy with legal implications and if I showed them to you I could be banned. Escalate blocking is clearly stated in our main blocking policy, WP:Block. It doesn't specify durations, and leaves them at the discretion of admins. Given he severity of the offense, I view - and I think rightfully - that six months would be apropriate. Please read our policies about stuff like this, even if just briefly, before. If you didnt know our block policy was WP:BLOCK, google would;ve gotten you there, ctrl f 'duration' would've gotten you to the policy secion that supports what I did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"It doesn't specify durations, and leaves them at the discretion of admins" - ahhh, got it now. Carry on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock. Are you all seriously saying this? You're calling telling a user there's an entire group of people who hate them, and that you've been conspiring with that group to ensure any complaint about your behaviour will be ignored, is "a little hostile"? Jack's problem is not the other user, Jack's problem is Jack. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying what Jack did wasn't problematic. We're merely saying keeping him blocked after he agreed to stop the behavior in question is unwarranted and there were problems with how the block(s) was doled out (excessive length and not being allowed to defend himself/provide mitigating evidence). Calidum T|C 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Where did he agree not to canvass off-wiki, or give the impression that he was canvassing? I must've missed that. Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's one such example of Jack admitting his mistake [202]. What else are you looking for, an op ed in The New York Times admitting he was wrong and won't do it again? Calidum T|C 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd read a message saying "okay, I messed up but he started it why isn't he blocked" as a recognition that the behaviour won't be repeated. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman while I uphold and support the view that JackTheVicar is well advised to consider his situation and that some action may be validly taken despite anything said please note that, before issues were raised with JtV, his last previous edit was an admittedly argumentative Revision as of 23:13, 29 May 2015

An editor began the Civility thread on JtV's TP at 01:48, 30 May 2015 with comment in agreement regarding JtV's incivility coming at 05:06, 30 May 2015. Following this came the comments:

• "Jack, I've blocked you for two weeks. Your actions are not okay. Follow NPA/Harrassment/etc in the future, or you will be blocked for a longer period of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)"
  • "Kevin Gorman • usually, ANI gave people a chance to respond to the accusation which I would have done within the next few minutes. To do so without a response, smacks of arbirtrariness. But I don't care. I have other hobbies. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)"

IMO, despite anything that JtV may have done, he is right here. The final timings may seem questionable but JtV's contributions show a history of starting editing sessions beginning in the 13:00-14:59 time period and it is reasonable to consider that s/he was just logging on. Please consider giving people a chance to respond. The aim of sanctions surely is resolution and I personally don't have any faith that a cornering of an editor in TP isolation for some personal and potentially private interrogation is a fair way to proceed. This is not to say that a block may not be warranted but this is not the way to do it. I await your response and hope that this thread will not be closed until you the chance to give it. GregKaye

Kevin is currently dealing with some meatspace stuff, so I have no idea when that will be. JTV was, prior to his block - and this was the reason for the extension of the block - emailing me very frequently asking me to intercede in discussions because he felt hard done by. This was the core problem; the off-wiki canvassing. I'm happy to forward the initial email he sent to any administrator. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This page has archival settings of three days following last edit. There is no hurry. GregKaye 14:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds, with the best will in the world, is any of this drama as important as writing the encyclopedia? I suspect not. Now, can somebody find me more reliable sources that show any notable musician outside of Mike Rutherford using a Dewtron synth so I can spin an article out of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, if you think this thread is unimportant drama, why did you open it? Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I answered that upthread, but to summarise I had no other choice other than leaving Jack with a block I didn't agree with or wheel warring with an admin. It should have been obvious by now I want him unblocked and this thread to close; indeed, every time I have posted on ANI it has been with the aim of closing a thread down so we can get back to work. Apologies if that sounds a little harsh. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, alternately, coming up with a solution that addresses the canvassing etc... I never said I wasn't comfortable unblocking Jack, just that I found your unblock conditions insufficient. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

it doesn't seem harsh, it seems naive. I'm sick and tired of users going "this is just drama! Let's get back to writing the wiki! Writing the Wiki is the most important thing!" Because, you know what? I agree with you. I think writing the wiki is the most important thing. And that's why I have such a problem with users whose actions create chilling effects: because we should care that the wiki gets written and tolerating users who drive off others reduces who's writing the wiki. If you're tired of this discussion, take it off your watchlist, but please stop acting like the best thing for the wiki is for us to unblock anyone smart enough to productively edit an article without looking at the impact their behaviour has on other users. When that impact is negative, we lose users by retaining this one, and that's a zero-sum game. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Which users have been lost? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that this is the behaviour that drives people away. Ideally we shouldn't lose those people to address it, and "but he writes articles!" shouldn't be a defence to that kind of behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So your point is pure original research. Thanks for clarifying that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of experience (and I've been tracking this since about 2007) have shown me that the biggest things that drive people away are speedy deletion tags and reverted edits, generally done by editors in good faith that you'll never see on this board. The stuff we're talking about here seems to be way down the list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of experience (and I've been editing since 2006, and am, in meatspace, a full-time researcher into how collaborative platforms and environments work, specifically...Wikipedia) has taught me that tags and reverts drive away the early editors, but that there's nothing better than toxicity to drive away more experienced contributors. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Jack had his edit [203] reverted by the other user [204] which seems to have started this whole mess. The revert was one of seven made by the other user in a span of 30 hours. Maybe if someone had done something about that this could have been avoided. Calidum T|C 15:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Kevin should remember that blocks are not disciplinary. Extending the editor's block in the midst of their interchange was ill-advised; two weeks is plenty enough time to attempt to reason with them. Jack should remember not to personalise disputes to such an extent. At the very least, I support reinstating the original block period. Jack has promised to stay away from WE, so the block has outlived its purpose. Alakzi (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

See my reasoning above as to why I fully believe the block is preventative and not personal. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Alakzi: are you aware that the block was extended for off-wiki canvassing around the initial thread, and things the blocking admin had missed, not the things the user was initially blocked for? Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  The length of the block is not a function of their accumulated offences. Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the correct answer. Looks like Kev and IH need to bone up on that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm very concerned by the comment regarding conspiring off wiki, and I don't think it has been adequately addressed. At one point after the block, in reference to the post regarding off-wiki planning for retaliation, he said "It was probably bluster"... Either there were off-wiki discussions, with 10 people, consistent with the comment, or it was bluster and there weren't, how is there any room for a qualification of probably? JackTheVicar is the one that would know, to say probably is evasive. If that sort of off-wiki conduct did occur, it is a very serious problem, and we need to treat it as such. I'm not opposed to considering the block duration once that is fully addressed, but I'm loath to let it just be brushed under the carpet. In the interests of transparency, I would also like to know if anyone currently participating in the discussion was one of the 10 canvased per the comment, (I think only 1/10 has been identified) or were otherwise alerted to this discussion off-wiki. (Not to accuse anyone here of being canvassed, but in light of the circumstances, it seems reasonable to ask) Monty₈₄₅ 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not I, first saw it here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would unblock him myself under certain circumstances, but not these. Jack's posts minimize his own actions, and frequently, paraphrasing, state "other people made me do it." He canvassed ten users and then used that as a threat against another user. Ignoring his NPA etc violations, the intimidation alone is absolutely not okay, and I'm surprised people don't see the issue with it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kevin Gorman: What would your unblock conditions be? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock until Jack the Vicar has dealt with the totality of the problem. BMK (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock JackTheVicar's hostility and threatening behaviour are clearly meant to have a chilling effect. This sort of intimidation is damaging to our ability to create a neutral encyclopedia. I think this is a big deal, and I think Kevin made a good block. It is good that Jack agrees not to do it any more, this can be demonstrated in 3 weeks. Chillum 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain how WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE is not applicable. Alakzi (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The third bullet under "Blocks should be used to" that says "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Right above the second bullet describes that blocks may be used as a deterrent. The unblock request sounds like lip service to get unblocked. There is deflection of blame and there are still a lot unanswered about the nature of this conspiracy he used as a threat. Who exactly was canvassed? Someone was threatened and told they had a group of people out to get them. This is not punitive, it is to protect the community. I think a 3 week block is very lenient considering. Chillum 18:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Chillums: Ironholds is the only person who has come forth so far, the claim of ten as from JtV. I have a copy of the email he sent to Ironholds and although it's not the worst I've seen, it's also definitel not appropriate and is active canvassing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Deterrence ought to be interpreted in the context of the likelihood for the problematic behaviour to be repeated. Do you believe that he will continue bothering Winkelvi, or that he might similarly bother another editor? If not, it would be fair to say that his block has outlived its purpose - would it not? It is quite rare that people will readily (and fully) admit to all of their transgressions; it is not our job to extract a confession. Alakzi (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that based on the off-wiki stuff, we may not be able to tell if things are going on. Obviously when it comes to offwiki conduct, our ability to monitor is minimal, but I'd still like to see some commitment in that regard. Something along the lines of promising not to discuss the conduct of other editors or editing disputes off wiki, unless all those involved consent to it, and with an obvious carve out for reporting things to functionary mailing lists like Arbcom. Monty₈₄₅ 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I believe that this user will find new and creative ways to be disruptive and that it is reasonable for the community to get a 3 week break to recover from this recent incident of bullying. Chillum 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's pure conjecture; this was his first offence. And, unlike the American justice system, we try not to demonise first offenders. Alakzi (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that totally unnecessary remark just won you a lot of friends. I assume you prefer the justice system in Saudi Arabia or North Korea? Or how about Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or Cameroon? [205]. Or perhaps you might want to keep your political views to yourself, since they have no relevance to this discussion. BMK (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe that this merits a response. Alakzi (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet you just did. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated to thread topic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm an anarchist and thus lacking in nationalist sensibilities. I apologise if my comment offended anybody. Alakzi (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC) You are an "anarchist", and yet you're arguing over the interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and procedures? Don't you see a certain ... weirdness about that? If Wikipedia was an anarchy, there wouldn't be any policies or procedures, and every interpretation would be as good as every other one. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not an anarchy, although thanks to the political proclivities of its co-founders it's much more libertarian than is healthy for it -- but that's still a far cry from anarcy. BMK (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC) That's not what anarchism means. You can ask on my talk page if you'd like me to explain. Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC) No thanks, I'm 60 years old, and I know what anarchism is. Be happy in your dream world. BMK (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I don't understand why you're being hostile towards me, but OK. Alakzi (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, I'm absolutely certain that there is much that you don't understand. BMK (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Ummm.... you say above quite definitively that you are an "anarchist", but your user page says that you are a "libertarian". Are you under the impression that these are the same thing? BMK (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, in the rest of the English-speaking world, libertarian means anarchist. Alakzi (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) No, no it does not. Anarchy is a very different thing. Chillum 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC) You could've just read the lede of our article on libertarianism: "While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism." Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC) About a year ago, I closed an RFC that involved definitions of anarchism and capitalism. I suggest that this off-topic discussion be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC) No, let's just see how long before BMK's incivility will elicit anybody's protest. [206] Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC) So, when the Sex Pistols sang "Anarchy in the U.K.", what they really meant was "Social or political libertarianism in the U.K."? Uh-huh, sure. Yes, certainly, their conception of "anarchy" was childish and puerile -- "Give the wrong time, stop a traffic line" -- but, then, so many so-called "anarchists" are. The more intelligent among them grow out of it, eventually, and learn to live inside the rules, sometimes even to appreciate having them. (Add then there are those who go too far and slide right past liberalism to become hide-bound reactionaries, sometimes even fervent nationalists.) The human world's a pretty complicated place, social psychology and anthropology are just babies among the sciences and cannot as yet explain most of those complications, and yet the anarchists, with their simplistic view, have managed to get it all down pat. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." BMK (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Anarchism does not mean a world without order. At its core, anarchism is the tendency to question repressive forms of authority. Anarchists do not abhor rules, but they'd just rather rules are expressly democratic and be instituted in the most democratic way possible. You appear to be confusing anarchists with hooligans. Alakzi (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Actually, "anarchy" does mean a world without order: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority" "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal" "a state of society without government or law." "political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control" "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" "Absence of any form of political authority." "Political disorder and confusion." " a complete lack of government — or the chaotic state of affairs created by such an absence." "a lack of organization and control in a society or group, esp. because either there is no government or it has no power" "chaos due to lack of authority to enforce rules." "general lawlessness and disorder, esp when thought to result from an absence or failure of government" See? BMK (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, in other senses of the word. When people say they're anarchist, they mean that they adhere to anarchism, the political philosophy. Alakzi (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC) There is no other sense of the word "anarchy", it means what is listed above, either literally or figuratively, and "anarchism" is, by definition, a philosophy that supports the concept of anarchy. Any other definition is pure sophistry. You've been sold a bill of goods, kid. BMK (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Etymological fallacy. Alakzi (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Argument from ignorance. BMK (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose unblock, per the ANI report [207], their personal attacks were seriously out of line and unnecessary. It seriously goes against WP:NPA, WP:Harassment and WP:Wikihounding. JTV promising to stay away from Winkelvi does not prove that he will not restart his attacks once more against some other user. Secondly, he seriously violated WP:Canvass, by contacting, or seems to have, 10 editors to in fact intimidate Winkelvi over whatever was going on. Then, they contact admins. Two violations so far. Thirdly, he only admitted to his wrongdoings under a threat of an indefinite block. This doesn't seem very truthful if you ask me. And what bugs me the most is their reasoning to their actions was because "they made it me do it". I'm sorry, but that is lame. No, they didn't make you do it; you are at fault for your own actions. They could have easily reported the user, but they decided to violate a bunch of policies. Saying "they made me do it" only proves the temper the user may have in content dispute, 3RR and edit warring by personally attacking users and harassing them. And quite frankly, they also have this reasoning of "he also did a bunch of things; why isn't he blocked?". I am well aware of WP:OUCH, but it only proves the case weaker as they don't see the wrongdoings. They only focused on Winkelvi. Again, they could have easily reported the user. However, I do agree that it was unfair that JTV didn't have the chance to respond to the ANI report. That's my only issue in terms what other people are saying. Otherwise, I agree with the block and I disagree with unblocking JTV. Callmemirela (Talk) 00:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock; Jack's incivility crossed the line, and his block is quite justified. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note Kevin was blocked by GorillaWarface as a compromised account this morning. What's going on there? Arkon (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  Now Kevin is "temporarily" desysopped. Arkon (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  The block and removal of permissions is completely unrelated to his block of JackTheVicar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin has asked me to post here and let everyone know that his computer's been compromised and he can't safely access his account right now. He will return here as soon as possible, if you need to contact him his email is under his sole control. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure whether it matters whether JtV serves the two week remainder of his block or whether the block is lifted. While he offers a weak apology for his behavior, he still holds Winkelvi responsible for his own acting out because he argues he acted out of frustration with the other editor. When I've seen these kinds of incidents on ANI before, it takes more than one ANI thread to deal with these personal disputes. Despite promises, the parties usually can't seem to ignore each other. As long as JtV views Winkelvi as the truly guilty party, I predict that there will be future interaction between the two editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this kind of drama usually goes on for a while. The "notoriously difficult user" language in his unblock request probably isn't helping Jack's case any. If I were him, I'd strike that out. But it's probably a bit late to change anyone's mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• oppose unblock - Kevin Gorman gives strong blocks and gives blocked editors a lot of runway to clearly acknowledge what they did wrong. To the extent JtV is not taking personal responsibility there is no reason to reduce length of the block.Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

69.132.34.133

IP 69.132.34.133 continues to restore challenged, unsourced content to List of programs broadcast by Me-TV, without any participation in discussion, despite there being two open discussions on the talk page, and despite the IP editor having received a [direct invititation to discuss, and despite numerous edit summaries from me, pointing out the open discussion and urging participation in discussion. The IP presumably has seen these things, but still restores the problematic content, like here where he writes, "Cyphoidbomb, it was NOT a backtalk, but it WAS vandalism recently. To me, you are one rude user! >:( Now, if you don't cut out that unfair bull****, some administrator will as well BAN you for good! >:( So, your ass needs to leave it the way it was! >:("

Most of this began with this edit by Vjmlhds, who removed a lot of unsourced date ranges. The IP editor reverted with the explanation, "Vjmlhds, it IS vandalism, and if you don't cut out that unfair bull****, some administrator will as well BAN you! >:( So, leave it the way it was! >:(" I happened to agree with that bold edit, and commented thusly on the talk page, since none of the removed data was sourced and I feel there is virtually no reasonable way to verify that X series ran between Y and Z dates, which creates a verifiability concern. We're talking about a network that airs a lot of reruns, not original content, so even if we were to scour television listings, how do you prove definitively when Beverly Hillbillies started airing on this network? Unless you could source the start/end announcements, (and typically there would be no end announcement) you'd be trying to prove a negative, that Beverly Hillbillies didn't air before this date, and didn't air afterwards. There is also an issue of whether or not reruns are notable, and where the people who submit the volumes of this ponderous content get their information. But this is a bigger discussion for a different venue.

Per the behavior and comments made by the IP, we clearly have NPA violations, AGF violation both with me and with Vjmlhds, and ownership problems. I'm also assuming the editor saw my talkbalk link and is confusing that for "backtalk"? This might suggest competence issues. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• • 69's behavior and edits are way over the top. And Chypho is correct in that this network airs reruns that have aired and tons of channels over the years - no need for such intricate (and unsourced) detail. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This IP editor has 4 edits over the past 7 weeks. Is this an urgent situation? Because blocks are supposed to be preventative. They responded to you on their talk page but but all of the warnings have been from you. Maybe a higher level warning from an admin might get their attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever administrative intervention prevents the disruption, I'm happy with. Like you or any other power user, I don't have time to waste on editors who are involved in long-term edit wars. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That's amusing, I never considered myself a "power user", I'm just an editor like millions of other users. But I do dive into conflict and see if resolutions are possible where both editors can continue to contribute to this crazy encyclopedia. Conflict is inevitable whenever people are involved but there are ways to not focus on our differences and instead focus on those areas of the project that we truly enjoy working on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is obviously very passionate about LGBT issues, but I'm afraid has suffered some sort of meltdown, judging by their recent edit history. The main area of contention relates to Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce, for those under a rock), and which name should be used on articles before her transition. Skyerise was warned yesterday for violating 3RR, and things settled down a little bit, with a discussion opening at WP:VPP. This discussion has drawn large numbers of editors; both Skyerise and I have contributed there and in other fora. And yet, today…wow. Skyerise has:

1. resumed edit-warring;
2. attempted to bully new IP editors by warning them for "vandalism" for perfectly legitimate edits Special:PermanentLink/665345041 Special:PermanentLink/665345537;
3. reported me for "vandalism", when they know full well that good-faith edits are not vandalism (and have been warned for false accusations of vandalism beforehand);
4. and left four separate warning templates on my talkpage over four separate edits within a period of less than 20 minutes, despite my repeated warning for them to stop harassing me

I think a cooling-off block is in order, as passions are obviously high, but the project mustn't continue to be disrupted. If the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP thrashes out a new consensus that aligns with Skyerise's views, then Caitlyn Jenner and related articles can be changed accordingly. ¡Bozzio! 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And now they've opened up a copy-cat ANI report. How very mature. ¡Bozzio! 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a spurious report. Bozzio is describing as "perfectly legitimate edits" edits to modify wikipedia articles around transgender individuals to refer to them by their previous name, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY. That is something to warn about. I don't see any warnings from you to Skyerise except edit summaries, and we don't notify people with edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has made 6 reverts to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon in the last 24 hours. BLP Violations are an exception to the 3rr rule, but I'm not really convinced the edits being reverted here are BLP violations. Just because a policy deals with living people, does not make it's violation a BLP violation under the 3rr rule. 3rr BLP exceptions should be clear violations of the primary WP:BLP policy. But its not clear enough so I don't think think a block without consensus would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: usually I'd agree with you, but I don't think the BLP policy was written with this in mind – in other words, to cover situations where something can genuinely be tremendously hurtful, but not defamatory or libellous, which is the standard we apply. The result is a policy that says "we should respect our subjects" but then provides a specific legal test for whether we respect them enough to enforce that respect with no holds barred. And this is fine, if the law keeps up to date. But: it doesn't. Deadnaming is a tremendously hurtful thing to do to any transgender individual, unless they've said they're okay with it, and the presumption we apply is that they haven't. It's just as hurtful, just as offensive, as what we'd class as "defamation" or "vandalism". It's totally within the spirit of the 3RR exceptions to prohibit it, and to give users some leeway in enforcing that prohibiton. That it isn't in the text is a deficiency in the text as a result of the environment it was created in. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what you say is logical enough to justify not blocking for 3RR right now, but given how obviously controversial the changes are, I think any resumption of edit warring should be met with a quick block. That said, Skyerise appears focused on talk page discussion at the moment, I believe that may prove unnecessary. Resolute 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think your position may be a bridge too far. I certainly strive to respect transgendered individuals, as well as all subjects of BLPs, and I think as a community we have come to accept your position at least in so far as it applies to an individual's Biography. But when it comes to historical events that the individual participated in, recorded on other pages, I think your position may be going substantially further then the community is willing to support, at least judging by the current state of the RFCs. More to the point, I think we need to be really careful about allowing 3rr exemption creep. There is a lot of good logic behind not trying to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to 3rr violations, and the carve outs should be as small as possible to protect particularly important concerns, such as actual slanderous falsehoods, and where they can be applied with minimal ambiguity. I just don't see the core concerns of BLP policy compelling us here, and again I think the 3rr exemption should be limited to that core purpose. Certainly other policies should, can, and do provide broader protection to BLP subjects, but again, we need to be really careful about when we authorize edit warring. Just waving BLP policy around can't be allowed to give you carte-blanche. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I just had a run-in with Skyerise, who I didn't know from a pile of sand an hour ago, and found their approach to defending an edit very aggressive. In the space of about 10-15 minutes, I had two warnings and an advisory on my talk page, with neither warning needed or particularly applicable. Any comment on their editing, including the spraying of talk page templates, is interpreted as a personal attack, yet I found this heavy-handed approach to be both aggressive, as I noted, and an attempt to intimidate me into backing down. There seems to be a lot of frantic energy expended in an effort to skirt the discussion at WP:VPP and to force name changes in articles listing or describing Caitlyn Jenner's achievements while identifying as the male athlete Bruce Jenner. Skyerise needs to take a deep breath, step away and calm down, and gain a little proportion that appears to be lacking at the moment. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, please refrain from repeatedly offering advice in multiple venues. You are coming off as extremely condescending and your advice is unwanted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeat violations of MOS:IDENTITY by User:Bozzio

Bozzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly engaging in WP:BLP vandalism by editing against MOS:IDENTITY on article related to Caitlyn Jenner. They have already received a discretionary santions warning from User:Ironholds yesterday but has chosen to ignore it. They have also engaged in user talk page vandalism by removing valid warnings because they disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. The warnings were valid under that policy. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please provide diffs of where they have removed warnings from other users' talk pages so that we can evaluate that part of your concern. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. [208] and [209]. Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I've never said I disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. I think it's a perfectly sensible guideline, but you've misunderstood and misapplied it completely. You've tried to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobic nutjob, I think you need to settle down a bit and actually take in a little of what other people are saying. I know you're pretty passionate about this, but try and work within the Wikipedia guidelines rather than fighting. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is really on the same subject of the above, I have now made it into a subsection. Epic Genius (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bozzio is well aware of the discretionary sanctions these articles are under – sanctions that mandate users "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". It's impossible to look their most recent edits and conclude they're doing anything of the sort. My suggestion would be that an admin block to prevent this situation being perpetuated, although if that doesn't work I suspect a topic ban will be pretty much the only way to de-fang this situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both users arent really acting their best today, so I slapped them both. If both users know what they both did wrong, we can be done with this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess Skyerise isn't really a fan of fish. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian. :-) Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is awkward. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for a bright line WP:3rr violation, with 5 reverts to the same article in the last 24 hours. If someone wants to implement a separate discretionary sanction, I have no objection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of them

Isn't there a big RFC with heavy participation going on about this right now at WP:VPP? Why is anyone on either "side" changing it in one direction or the other before that RFC is concluded? Is there any reason not to topic ban both Bozzio and Skyerise under the discretionary sanctions? Both are clearly treating this as a battleground, making it less likely that cooler heads will prevail, and both have been warned about the discretionary sanctions. I'm probably going to do this sometime today unless someone can convince me not to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen Skyerise engage productively on the talkpage; they're a consistent voice of reason in discussions. I suspect that banning them will make things less cool and reasoned because it will result in a vast imbalance in the voices. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have participated in the discussion and am thus involved, however my opinion would be that page protection would be better suited than blocking editors. There are just so many people involved that it would likely not stop with 2 blocks. Chillum 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need full protection on Caitlyn Jenner's main page because there are numerous editing disputes there right now. Then, there will only be a need to block people who edit war across multiple pages. Just my two cents. Epic Genius (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the area is under discretionary sanctions, so a 1 revert rule might be a good thing to try. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, Monty845. A 1 revert rule has to be well publicized on the talk page as there has been a lot of reverting this week (including two by me on Monday). I hope we have learned some lessons since the Chelsea Manning case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has had a few run ins with skyrise over the Caitlyn Jenner article recently, I do not think that they have done anything which would warrent sanctions at this point. I appreiciate the subject knowledgeable editors who are willing to watch busy artcles even if they do tend to be passionate about it and make some mistakes probably out of frustration with editors who are still on a learning curve with WP policy as it applies to BLP who profess a pronoun change request. ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)—

We still have 1RR sanctions imposed on the article. This should be made prominent at the article's edit notice. Epic Genius (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't find Skyerise's well-intended but ideology-inspired effort to sweep historical facts under the rug[210] on Wendy Carlos constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

..by listing it in the infobox? Yes, that's certainly sweeping it under the rug. Perhaps you could approach Skyerise with the same good intentions you read into their actions, hmn? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise just plastered a huge "discretionary sanctions" on my talk page concerning my alleged edits to Hebephobia, a page I never edited. These are tantamount to a vague threat, are very ugly, rude, and since I have never, ever edited the page, false. Skyrise then said no, it was my edits to decathlon, where I changed one reference to Jenner to list Bruce, then Caitlin. I did this (with the caption "consistency") in good faith because there were three references on the page, two of which listed Bruce first. Skyrise needs to be more careful when templating the regulars and stop this antagonistic behavior. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, but nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people and that is the basis of their edit. They are not open to discussion and intentionally misinterpret or ignore MOS:IDENTITY. The template is appropriate as how a transgender person is treated in other articles falls under its umbrella. I apologize since it is now clear that your edit was not negatively motivated, but honestly, more editors need to be aware of how we currently are expecting to treat transgender subjects under WP:BLP. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, then tried to get me to self-revert with a veiled threat, and an implication of authority that did not exist, as the information you provided about referring to them by their current identity is still being debated. How could you possibly think that is reasonable behavior? Jacona (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "it is currently being debated" does not invalidate the current guidelines. It's endlessly debated every time a notable transgender individual comes out. Those past debates have not yet resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed. Until it is changed, it's proper to observe it. Skyerise (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"...nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people..." Skyerise, you need to dial it back about five notches. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise, what you were doing on my talk page appears to be an attempt to intimidate. I suspect you wanted someone other than yourself to revert because you have a topic ban or some such. That may also be the reason you posted the false article name. Is that it? Jacona (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the damn template, dude. It's worded the way it's worded by ArbCom, I believe. It also clearly states that it does not imply that you did something wrong. Again, ArbCom wording, not mine. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I was not talking about the exact wording of the templates, but your acccompanying verbage. Your behavior was very aggressive, rude, devious, and misdirected. Jacona (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Merged from seperate section Mdann52 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This ANI report follows on from my earlier report, and concerns Skyerise (talk · contribs), in their interactions both with me and with other editors, and their editing behavior as a whole. As a result of the earlier ANI report, I was banned for edit-warring. I have no quibble with that, but it did deprive me of the chance to carry on the discussion there. Quite a bit of what I'm posting here has already been detailed on my talkpage (the only place I could post, obviously), but not in any structure. To sum up, I think Skyerise's editing behavior has been detrimental to the project, and something needs to be done.

Interactions on my talkpage and requested interaction ban

I believe Skyerise's continued insistence on posting on my talkpage, despite repeated requests not to do so, constitutes harassment. This is detailed below:

1. Skyerise's first post to my talkpage was a level-three (?) warning for adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" – obviously false, and an example of warning template use and a violation of Don't template the regulars.
2. This was followed by a "final warning" for violating the BLP guidelines – see above.
3. I reverted both of these edits, and my edit summary for the second reversion would to most editors be an indication to "back off". I do acknowledge that I lost my temper there (and that foul language should be avoided), but I'm sure other editors can understand that being templated without any attempt at an explanation is extremely frustrating.
4. Skyerise then almost immediately posted two more ([211], [212]) warnings for "user talk page vandalism". The edits in question were of course not vandalism by Wikipedia standards. I do understand many editors have only a faint idea of what actually is vandalism, as opposed to, say, disruptive editing, so I am willing to assume good faith there. The warnings were posted in bad faith, however, again with no attempt to discuss the issue at hand.
5. My next edit summary was again profane (apologies), but I was quite frustrated at that point. Again, a reasonable editor would take that edit summary and the continued reversions as an indication not to continue posting on another editor's talkpage, and to pursue other venues.
6. However, after those edit summaries, Skyerise posted one, two, three, four more times, all of which I reverted. This included one comment gloating over the fact that I had been banned for edit-warring.
7. I issued a further warning to Skyerise to stop posting on my talkpage, and finally a formal note where I stated that I felt harassed and would be requesting an interaction ban.
8. Skyerise's response was that they had chosen to ignore my earlier requests because "edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors", and "I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries". I would take this to mean that Skyerise read my edit summaries, but chose to ignore them and continue harassing me.

For all of the above, I am requesting a formal interaction ban between me and Skyerise, with all the attributes laid out at WP:IBAN.

Editing behavior

1. Ever since Caitlyn Jenner announced her name, Skyerise has been edit-warring constantly. I really can't be bothered going into it, but I think their recent contributions speaks for itself.
2. This behavior is what led to the run-in with me, and various other run-ins with IP editors and especially Drmargi (talk · contribs) (pinging @Drmargi separately, they may wish to chip in).
3. Skyerise is a very aggressive and rude editor, using templates that threaten sanctions or blocks against any editor that disagrees with them (see also use of sarcasm/passive-aggression at [213], [214]). This, combined with their edit-warring, can hardly be called conducive to a collaborative environment.
4. Skyerise has also produced a blatant example of canvassing. Another user, @Trystan:, pointed this out and suggested a re-formulation of the canvassing attempt. Skyerise's response was "I'll speak as I like, write as I like".

Threatening the project

Perhaps the most concerning thing Skyerise has said is this:

1. "I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks" (the last bit is pretty funny, but even funnier to me given that I'm a bisexual man whose username is taken from a 1980s gay icon). Also note the status quo is actually the opposite of Skyerise's position.

I've never interacted with Skyerise before a few days ago, and judging by their userpage they seem like someone who's done a hell of a lot of good for the project (although with four previous blocks). This is what is really peculiar to me, and it's a bit worrying that someone's behavior could change so rapidly. I understand that passions do tend to run very high over LGBT issues, and Skyerise seems to be very passionate. I'm taking a break from editing LGBT topics and cutting back my Wikipedia editing as a whole for a short while, and I personally think it would best if Skyerise did the same, in a way that is hopefully self-enforced rather than imposed by the community. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could be offered, or someone Skyerise has interacted with before could have a word. I'd like to hear from others, and I think I've said everything I want to say, so I'll be butting out. ¡Bozzio! 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Quick, somebody call the wahbulance! Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. I, at least, and I suspect others, would like to see you seriously respond to the complaint here. Please take the time to do so... --IJBall (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, User:Bozzio has either not read MOS:IDENTITY or failed to comprehend it. Due to this, he began to edit-war and I unwisely engaged him. In the process, he exceeded 3RR and got blocked and now holds a grudge. I have not continued to edit war, limiting myself to one revert per day on related articles. That's about it. Not watching this train wreck. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do take a look at the summary of my work on my user page. Feel free to block me or whatever, I don't (usually) get paid to edit here. Of course, be sure to remember: blocks are not punitive but preventative. I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong at the current moment. Discuss me all you want, I've got better things to do. Especially since the OP apparently can't be bothered to stay present in the discussion him or herself. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First, Bozzio, you neglect to mention that you also posted warning messages on Skyerise's talk page. But the number of messages Skyerise posted to your talk page seems like overkill. Skyerise, you talk about a block but Bozzio was asking for an interaction ban...would you have any objections to that? Of course, it would either have to be voluntarily observed or adminstered by an admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed not to post on his talk page once he actually requested somewhere other than in an edit summary. Is that sufficient? Seems like he continues to try to engage me by posting thread such as this, but wants to bow out of the discussion himself. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, blocked users cannot post on user's talkpages other than their own – you know that and you know very well I was blocked at the time. You've already acknowledged that you saw my edit summaries and made the choice to continuing posting. ¡Bozzio! 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REVTALK. And using profanity in your edit summaries while simultaneously expecting another editor to obey them seems like baiting to me. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, everything I've posted to Skyerise's talkpage is basically mandated – edit-warring warning, EWN notification (regrettable edit summary, my bad), then two ANI notifications. Hence I didn't feel the need to mention them. Also just noticed this relevant discussion on Skyerises' talkpage. ¡Bozzio! 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of your templates were mandated. And if you hadn't started an edit war (and made more reverts than me), the template you just mentioned wouldn't have been "necessary" either. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which templates weren't mandated? ¡Bozzio! 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR warning. You had the option not to edit war yourself. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not be mandated like ANI, but it's common courtesy to warn someone before going straight to the admins. ¡Bozzio! 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is mandated if one intends to file a 3RR report, since the report from requires a diff of a 3RR notification. BMK (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we can basically agree upon the past. Going forward, can you two stay away from each other? Think hard about this because it means not checking their editing contributions, not lurking on their talk page, just going about your business with no contact with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I wasn't going to say anything further about this matter, having no wish to be part of Skyerise's drama, much less a further target of her sarcasm and vindictive abuse of process. But after seeing the antics of the last few days, her sarcastic responses to advice from a fair few other editors, and her reduction of editors who don't share her views to crass stereotypes, I feel like I must add one final comment. What's regrettable about this whole affair is that it largely escalated because Skyerise doesn't understand or refuses to recognize one critical, fundamental point of human nature: you can't force another person's respect, whether it be of you, or of what you believe. It has to be earned. Spraying accusations of transphobia like confetti at anyone who disagrees with what she wants, abusing all manner of wikipedia templates and noticeboards, ignoring the advise of other editors, making threats, adopting a "fuck you!" attitude, and especially standing on the mountaintop and shouting, "You'll agree with me because I am right or you'll pay the price!" will get her nowhere. Reasonable, calm and respectful discussion will.

Sadly, all Skyerise has done, via her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and her various tantrums, is to do her cause far, far more harm than good. Calm, reasonable arguments have no effect -- she sees herself as the sole arbiter of truth and what we all must do, and refuses to move from that posture, using it as a justification for confrontational behavior and edit warring. Moreover, she displays a stunning lack of understanding of a range of wiki-policies, a worrying trait in someone who both claims to be the last word on the section of MOS:IDENTITY she wields like a baseball bat, and has edited here for ten years. All the quibbling, nit-picking, and game playing with regard to other editors' behavior won't change the one, problematic common denominator in this sad affair: Skyerise's aggressive editing. How she's eluded another block escapes me. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and personal attacks

This post by Skye [215] is loaded with personal attacks against users they disagree with. It's also a blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS. Calidum T|C 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I mention any names? That's what makes a "personal" attack personal. This is an "if the shoe fits" sort of situation. The only editors who could possibly be offended by it would be those who fit the general description. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that's a big deal. Skyerise! Nice to meet you. You got a ton of edits, and yet you don't seem to realize that responding to every single note is counterproductive. If you'd stop pissing people off you'd be much more likely to avoid a ban/block. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is correct. Longevity on Wikipedia is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm quoting that... Carrite (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) /// Now snipped on my User page as "Liz's Law of Longevity." Carrite (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Like" Jacona (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and thus, edit war, at College tuition in the United States

• Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo, 71.101.54.88, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention.96.59.141.215 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's evidence of talk page discussion? Weegeerunner's on wikibreak^{chat it up} 05:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this original discussion and this more recent one is what 96.59.141.215 is referring to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion it's clear that there was no agreement "that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article." There is no vandalism here, and no edit war. This is just normal BRD. The anonymous editor made an edit. I reverted it. And now we're discussing it. Flyte35 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you, everybody, for weighing in, but again, I've done my part: I have, as others have requested and noted, participated in talk-page discussion. We're still at an impasse, and thus need more discussion on the edits. My 3 bones of contention are as follows: 1) The edit is, indeed, contributory to the topic, and thus does not place undue emphasis, since, of course, credible sources could be found. 2) All 4 sources (or at least 3 of the 4) are, indeed VERY credible. (How are they not?) 3) Oh, one more thing: Yes, all 4 sources do seem to support the edit in question. So, I will wait for further input on my requested edit before proceeding further.96.59.142.246 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 96.59.142.246, ANI cases generally involve editor misconduct (or perceived misconduct), not disputes about sources or references. If you feel that the article talk page discussion is at a stalemate, you might try posing your questions at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN to see what more experenced editors think of the arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was this thread moved down from where it was (topic #16 earlier)? We don't work on "bumping up" topics, and it should probably be moved back. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I was also confused by this. Threads are archived based on how long it was created and if it was closed. I will restore the thread to where it was --->  Done. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 00:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

FaterNatan editing

Dear Sir, Madam,

I am being accused of "vandalism" by a Wikipedia partial User-Inspector > who erase my posts. I am a Sorbonne Scholar and I have been working for 30 years on the Location of the Real Site of the Temple of Jerusalem (2.500 pages with reliable sources) www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org I dont want to force anybody to be convinced by my discoveries. I just wish my point of view to be known, even if it is not conventional, but just common sense. I will give you one simple example : The Second Temple (Hasmonean) was completely destroyed by Herod -including its foundations > and Herod built an entirely New Temple : Therefore, I just say that Herod Temple should be called "The Third Temple". Is such a common sense affirmation "vandalism" for Wikipedia ? In other words > can I contribute to Wikipedia -with my erudite discoveries in History and Archaeology of the Temple of Jerusalem- and will the User-Inspector stop to erase my Contributions ? Thanks FaterNatan — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaterNatan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are not vandalism, but we don't allow original research in Wikipedia articles. It is an encyclopedia and so all content must be sourced to reliable sources. I'm sure you are doing good research, but your website does not count as a reliable source. I suggest reading up on Wikipedia policy and don't hesitate to ask for advice from me or other editors.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations at Chooriyan

I didn't want to bring this here, but I'm not sure how else to resolve this. In this edit, Meenalraut (talk · contribs) removed a copyvio tag added by CorenSearchBot without fixing the issue. After I removed the copyright violation, he began edit warring to restore it: first time and second time. I have asked him on his talk page to stop restoring the copyright violation to no avail. I guess there could be a language barrier, but given the number of license warning templates on his talk page, I don't think Meenalraut cares much about copyright. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate or anyone, Can you provide evidence to show that this is Copyvio?

Meenalraut or anyone, Can you provide an argument to indicate that it isn't? If it is decided that it is copy vio can you give assurances that this behaviour will stop?

Thanks. GregKaye 18:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, like I said, CorenSearchBot tagged it. If you click the link, the bot cites this page as the original source. I've since located another copyright violation at Solid Patels from the IMDB. I'm guessing there are more beyond that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on his talk page and will monitor his contribs. I will hunt through his contribs and see what else can be found. Thank you for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk: AndyTheGrump

An IP troll is attacking his talk page. I have reverted several times but need to go to bed. Thanks to anyone who can help/block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's been protected and I'm blocking some IPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's continuing at User talk:Malik Shabazz/Talk, and with a new IP too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is where a privilege to temporarily block vandals and/or semi-protect pages would come in handy... especially when the admin corps appears to be asleep at the switch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Given that the user ID is a built-in personal attack, isn't there some way to expunge it from the system? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ — Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why bother? It's not as if anyone with an ounce of sense is going to take it seriously. And thanks, by the way, to all who have dealt with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur, I take the same attitude toward impostors and insulters of my own ID. But maybe the other user wouldn't feel so generous. In any case, the longer-term solution is get your talk page permanently semi-protected, and then create a separate, unprotected page which can be a dumping ground for those kinds of attacks without soiling your actual user page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

They've already expunged it all from Malik's visible history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There's another bozo attacking SchroCat's page now. Presumably an admin will soon semi-protect it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tiptoety has got there already - as I was part-way through leaving a request here. Thanks to all - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

For those criticising the admins here, WP:RFA is that way, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• And the new user [...] (redacted) has started up on my page again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the vile nature of the attacks, your page should be semi'd for a short interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the third sock leaving messages, Tiptoety has done just that, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • (ec)And they did it already. I apologize for the "asleep at the switch" comment. They're on it now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have revdel'd some comments that were still in the open record. I have asked for renaming of the user account in this diff: [216]. Please list diffs for any other usernames that should be renamed as offensive. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there has been more widespread user talk page vandalism than normal lately. I know my talk page has been hit twice, first by IP accounts and then with newly created accounts just in the past couple of weeks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I even got a weird Talk page message from an IP the other day, and I never get any Vandals bothering with me. This must be a very dedicated troll... --IJBall (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why is it that we allow IP editing again??? Carrite (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ya got me. BMK (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• It might be because of the answer to the question, "What would it take to require registration in order to edit?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Internetwikier

This user is a single-purpose account, whose interest is focused exclusively on one institution – the United Synagogue, a union of orthodox synagogues in Britain. She has edited two other articles at Wikipedia, but those edits were intended specifically to support her particular grudge against the United Synagogue. Originally she tried to add to the article an extensive section relating to a letter by a disgruntled blogger criticizing the synagogue for its pro-Israeli positions. See, for example, this revision. In an RFC suggested by administrator User:Dweller, editors agreed that the material was inappropriate and it was removed.

Internetwikier then added material suggesting that the United Synagogue was the object of criticism for its position. For this, he relied entirely on a three-word quote from the Iranian state radio; he added other references, but none of them mentioned United Synagogue. Every attempt to edit the article or to introduce other material relevant to controversy surrounding the United Synagogue (if there is such controversy) has been reverted by Internetwikier. See this edit as an example.

Internetwikier's posts to the talkpage have been more in the style of outraged tirades than of reasoned discussion of the issues facing the article. It has been pretty much impossible to conduct serious review of the article there.

I would like to suggest that Internetwikier be topic-banned from any articles having to do with British Jewry. If in the course of the next few months, she proves to be a disciplined editor who abides by Wikipedia's policies, she could be reinstated.

Note: I have referred to Internetwikier as a female, but I have no idea as to the gender of the editor. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, this is true. I am also a specialist in the area of international politics and, for what it's worth, Cybernetics. The accusation of 'single-purpose' account is symptomatic of my early contributions to Wikipedia, nothing more.

There is nothing is my current contributions to the United Synagogue website that is against Wikipedia rules. I am more than happy for any user to contribute and indeed alter any text that I submit. However, what is not correct is when editors decide to alter direct quotes from a website to 'clarify' what they mean when my submissions makes patently clear that my contributions are direct quotes.

As I mentioned in my comments when reversing the changes that have been made to 'improve' the direct quote, if the direct quote is not to other editors liking then they need to request an amendment to the original source material or find new sources that better clarify an institutions viewpoint. There is no possible way that a Wikipedia contributor can submit unverifiable qualifiers to direct quotes for which they have no possible way of diving the speakers 'original intentions'.

This is a direct quote and as such must be quoted directly.

This seems simple enough to me.Internetwikier (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been party to the dispute, but for various reasons this article in my watchlist and I have been watching from afar. I would like to back up Ravpapa's complaint.

Internetwikier started editing around the time of the 2014 Israel-Gaza War with a Wikispace rant about the United Synagogue: [217][218]. His or her edits thereafter basically consist of similar negative sentiment toward various British Jewish and Zionist organizations, with a particular emphasis on the United Synagogue, where his or her edit warring resulted in temporary page protection which he or she denounced as "censorship" and other such talk.

Arguments on the talk page seem to consist mainly of long and intemperate soapboxing about Israel and Zionism and paranoid rhetoric about "the Zionist-propaganda machine", Fox News, and "US Neocon world views" (a personal attack on bobrayner [219]).

Since there is basically no constructive edits in his or her entire edit history, I would advocate a block instead on grounds of WP:NOTHERE. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: This is a direct quote - why alter this a pretend that the quote says anything other than it actually does on the original sources webpage?

If you wish to add new sources, please add them.

Personal attacks are unwarranted as I am quoting DIRECTLY from the organizations' website. If they had an issue with the content then they clearly would not have produced the material and worded it in such a way as to be ambiguous. Internetwikier (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I find Internetwikier's edits problematic. For example,

• 'The United Synagogue was among the groups encouraging its members to lobby MPs. Its pre-Yom Kippur message to congregants led on the issue. The Board of Deputies issued a "call to action" on Monday, saying there was a risk of a "significant PR victory for anti-Israel, anti-peace groups".' [220]

seems to have been turned into:

• "...by formally advocating that United Synagogue members put pressure on their local MP to not support the motion to recognize Palestinian as a state and that United Synagogue members instead suggest that their MP add support to Pro-Israeli and Pro-Zionist organizations, such as Israel Advocacy UK, We Believe in Israel and the Jewish Leadership Council." [221]

Suggest the editor focus on something else. [222] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Although professing to be an uninvolved editor NeilN's is clearly not disinterested. While he contributes no sources, quotes or extra material to the conversation he objects to the inclusion of extra material and references provided by others.

Extra references have have come to light ( www.borehamwoodshul.org/aboutus/files/BESNews609.pdf ), produced by those affiliated with the organization, yet you provide no justification for not including it. This needs to be addressed. Internetwikier (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in making sure what sources actually say isn't distorted. And any interpretation of a primary source (i.e., "President of the United Synagogue, Stephen Pack, took a political stance on Palestinian statehood...") needs to be sourced to a secondary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• wouldn't this article as edited by internetwikier fall under WP:ARBPIA? I checked their talk history and there have been no notifications. That might be a way to start. Otherwise I would support a topic ban per WP:NOTHERE. holy cow. SPA indeed and seems to be one note POV pusher making this kind of editorializing edits and this, and on talk, this kind of thing and this. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now notified. [223] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• We already have a surplus of POV-pushing, source-misuse, and personal attacks. We don't need any more. This should be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to hear from StevenJ81 and Mutt Lunker who have been editing this article and its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to say much, because I know my own biases, too. I will say this much:

• I offered to set up a sandbox page to try to create a consensus around some reasonable accommodation to Internetwikier's point of view. Whether I like it or not—and I'm not afraid to admit that I don't—I felt the sort of information that Internetwikier wants to put on this page was likely to show up somewhere, eventually, because it was likely to have at least some coverage in some reliable sources. So what I wanted to do was to try to create a space where the critique of United Synagogue might be aired, but in a way that is proportional to its importance within the overall context of the full range of United Synagogue's activities. And everyone seemed to be satisfied with this approach. Nominally, even Internetwikier agreed.
• But I didn't create the sandbox page instantaneously, because of real life. (I warned everyone at the time that I would not be able to get to it right away.) And before I knew it, Internetwikier had started editing the United Synagogue page again. I would have assumed that s/he would have allowed some time for everyone to work on this, but apparently that was not to be the case.
• Additionally, Internetwikier took the perspective that s/he was entitled to write whatever s/he wanted, and that it was entirely up to all the rest of us to make up the articles' balance, if we saw fit. That may be one way to create a NPOV, but it's not much of a way to create consensus.
• Frankly, I walked away, about six weeks ago, because I know my biases. I had really been willing to bend backwards to give Internetwikier some air time. But I just couldn't take it any more. It was clear to me that User:Internetwikier has absolutely no interest in creating an unbiased encyclopedia article. Internetwikier is only interested in her/his perspective, and only wants to edit the article on his/her terms. There is no interest in consensus, and if there is any interest in neutrality, it's technical: the rest of us are invited to "neutralize" her/his edits.

To conclude, my offer to create a sandbox is no longer on the table. Internetwikier is simply not interested in working to create consensus on a neutral article. I can't speak one way or another to the issue of WP:NOTHERE. But I do think that Internetwikier has no business editing this page or related ones. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe it would be instructive, in light of the opinions of the few editors here (who admit that they have a 'bias' yet who fail to provide primary or supporting secondary sources in support of their own bias), to compare the United Synagogue page NOW with what it was, and what it had been for a very, very long time proceeding my intervention last June 2014.

There is a clear night and day difference between the United Synagogue page of today with that of pre-July 2014 simply because the editors in question here, who object so vehemently to my contributions, comprehensively failed to pay the United Synagogue wiki any attention whatsoever - to the point that a clearly pro-United Synagogue wiki-editor had copied and pasted vast chucks of the the United Synagogue official website and passed this off as 'objective fact' about the institution in question.

Leaving aside my clear disappointment with the lack of interest paid to this page entry before July 2014 it is also apparent that the wiki-editors in question who have chosen to 'undo' my contributions display, and admit to displaying either in person or from their listed areas of interest of their personal pages, a pro- Christian, Jewish Zionist or US perspective. This is necessarily problematic such perspectives imbue the writer with a set of beliefs that they deem to be unquestionably objective fact.

It is for other editors to merit the 'quality of my contributions', and I will indeed be making sure that Twitter users who have a range of political and historic backgrounds are now drawn to this wikipage to add their own (arguable better) edits, but what can be deduced without a shadow of a doubt is that none of the editors here have produced even a scintilla of insightful commentary or a shred if evidence for their objections to my sourced points. There are literally no entries from anyone who has any sources for their opinions, except mine. Why is this?

Also worth noting is the clear bias against any news organization who doesn't conform to the narrow world view of politically right-leaning US foreign policy. The clear hatred for an Iranian news agency is a litmus test for the impartiality and objectiveness of the editors who have objected to its inclusion into the category of 'permitted source'.

It is not, and clearly can not be, my responsibility to provide sources and evidence to the contrary that many people believe that being a religious organization and espousing a direct political opinion on a nation state is PROBLEMATIC. With the separation of Church and State, the 'norm' in 21st Century Europe, such a stance by a religious organization merits explicit mention and inclusion in a wikipage. Again, I repeat, just look at how far this page has come since July 2014. Readers can now , quite rightly, see that The United Synagogue has an overtly political active, Pro-Zionist, Pro-Israeli viewpoint that pervades its every public mention of Israel and Palestine. To hide this fact, despite my 'poor quality entries' is to engage in explicit deceit. Internetwikier (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81, thanks for coming to ANI and offering your experience. Internetwikier, I just wish you had a better understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSPIRACY.

As for as politically right-leaning? Usually Wikipedia gets accused of having a liberal bias and I've frequently seen Wikipedia accused of being pro-Israel, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim or Islamaphobic. Wikipedia reflects the editors who contribute to it and the reliable sources they can find to support their arguments and governed by generally accepted policies, guidelines and principles. It's a social and cultural construct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier, Liz has it exactly right with regard to NPOV. Also we try to build content progressively related to references made in what are considered to be WP:RELIABLESOURCES in Wikipedia as considered to be relatively more reliable in general than sources that may have developed less of a reputation for fact checking. Please also make use of reference at CITING SOURCES. On various occasions looking at your citations I found it difficult to see how the citation related to the content that you had added to the text.

Please also consider WP:TALK#USE which states "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.." While WP:Original research does not carry weight in Wikipedia it may be helpful if you can explain how you developed your views.

The most major thing that I considered to be an issue on the TP was the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics adopted by both sides with Dweller, StevenJ81 and Technical 13 providing a potentially balancing approach throughout.

A search on site:www.theus.org.uk/ regarding zion, zionist or zionism developed a large content in regard to a controversial issue which deserves report. I sympathise with Internetwikier's desire to see this covered but don't consider the manner with which this has been pursued to have been appropriate.

Internetwikier please do some soul searching and respond to these issues. GregKaye 06:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye I appreciate you calm, measured comments. I will take on board your suggestions. I would ask that Wiki Editors here help the community to understand why relevant and non political additions to this website are continually removed (I would say censored) but leave that to the individual admin to take a look and see if I'm misspeaking here: I for one am lost for a justification for the continued removal of the Registered Charity No. of this organization and its physical address (Registered Charity No 24255; Executive Offices: 305 Ballards Lane, London N12 8GB; Tel: 020 8343 8989). Please assist the community here. Internetwikier (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Internetwikier Various editors have commented on edit warring and adding unsourced material. Even the seemingly moderate StevenJ81 has questioned the validity of your contribution to the mentioned pages. I have mentioned battle ground tactics. One route you could take is to say how you view the situation and to give any relevant reassurances regarding any potential change in approach. I appreciate comment so far regarding taking things on board. GregKaye 08:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I see. For the record, let it be noted that those editors who have made comments on edit warring are one and the very same editors who have undone my contribution 3 times in a row, rather than they themselves taking to the talk page to look for consensus or writing on my talk page first. As I am relatively inexperienced to WP and they are not, surely it there is a point to be made that trying to enforce others to adopt best practice, without doing it themselves, is a wholly self-defeating tactic on their part.

Specifically on 'edit-warring' it is no so much a question of me adding un-sourced material as the material I add being deleted buy other editors which appears to be exclusively motivated by a desire to remove sources simply because RT News/Press TV has the audacity to print articles that these editors do not agree with, claiming that the aforementioned organizations are not reliable sources of news. Are we really going to censor any output of RT News and Press TV because they're the United States' boogieman of the day?

Wikipedia 'represents consensus' and as such hotly political issues represent a challenge to Wikipedia as sometimes there is no consensus, rightly or wrongly, to be found (Wikipedia apes real life in that respect). However I am not attempting to force anyone to agree with what I believe in nor am I removing any other contributors material - I encourage other too add material to 'balance' by assertions. If it matters to anyone out there, and you appear to suggest that it does matter, then MY personal opinion is that if a religious organization blurs the distinction between religious body offering spiritual guidance to the flock and political lobbyist designed to promoting a racist, inaccurate version of a historical narrative that is 1) deeply divisive and offensive, 2) controversial 3) not independently referenced and, for me the most worrying, 4) behaves in flagrant violation of the rules of a UK registered charity which, according to the UK Charities Commission states that:

Charities can campaign to achieve their purposes. But a charity can’t A) have a political purpose, or B) undertake ::::::::::political activity that is not relevant to the charity’s charitable purposes

then, yes, I do believe that this irresponsible and deeply partisan behavior should be documented publicly on Wikipedia. I would hope that you all too would share these modest goals and hope you can suggest ways of helping me to achieve this in fair and 'balanced way'. (Edit unsigned by Internetwikier, 07:03, June 7, 2015‎)

@Liz: Since you invited me here, I'd like to make sure you see one more comment I will make here. Then I'm going to un-follow this page, because as happened when I was previously working on Talk:United Synagogue six weeks ago, I no longer feel I can participate constructively; it is upsetting me too much.

Internetwikier is repeating a pattern here. Initially, s/he is happy to "take on board your suggestions" about handling things in a measured, balanced way. S/he is a good writer, and knows how to say the right things to suggest s/he will stay within the rules. But soon enough an agenda clearly emerges:

• "MY personal opinion is that if a religious organization blurs the distinction between religious body offering spiritual guidance to the flock and political lobbyist designed to promoting a racist, inaccurate version of a historical narrative ..." (emphasis added). I'm a big believer in WP:AGF—including, early on, assuming so with Internetwikier. But that is such a strong bias that I do not really see how Internetwikier can possibly contribute constructively to this page.
• "A charity can't ... B) undertake political activity that is not relevant to the charity's charitable purposes." I think the United Synagogue itself would argue that what it is doing is entirely relevant to the charity's charitable purposes. But unless Internetwikier can find a reliable source that says that US is undertaking political activity not relevant to the charity's charitable purposes, then Internetwikier's proposition on the subject is WP:OR, and has no business here. And if Internetwikier has such a source, quote it, and let it speak for itself.
• "... I do believe that this irresponsible and deeply partisan behavior should be documented publicly on Wikipedia." Again, this is an incredibly biased and partisan point of view in and of itself. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There are many, many places that Internetwikier can go to express an opinion, try to document and report partisan behavior (sic), and so forth. But that's not the proper purpose of Wikipedia, until and unless the facts are firmly established and of encyclopedic reliability.

If anyone is asking me, the article as it now exists covers the topic appropriately. It devotes a small, but non-trivial, amount of space to the subject of United Synagogue's support of Israel and Zionism. This is reasonable in view of the fact that Israel advocacy is just one piece of what the United Synagogue does—again, not a trivial piece, but not the majority of what it does. Then about 60% of that small section speaks about what US does, and about 40% is devoted to critique of what it does. Again, I think that shows pretty reasonable balance.

I just started writing "I'm not sure why Internetwikier needs to add more along these lines to the article," but actually, I do know why: Internetwikier has an agenda, and wants to expose what s/he sees as racist, irresponsible, partisan behavior. So I welcome Internetwikier to do so—in a journalistic setting, not in an encyclopedia.

I'll add one last thing: If Internetwikier is really so concerned about improper behavior under UK charities laws, s/he can write to criticize charities that encourage members to support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Somehow, I don't think we're really going to see that very soon. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban
So, on June 5, Internetwikier was given notice of discretionary sanctions. The very next day, internetwikier invoked Godwin's law on the United Synagogue talk page. That is about enough, right? Propose topic ban from Judaism and Zionism, broadly defined. If an admin wants to do that via DS, more power to them. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC) (struck due to sound of wind whistling through empty streets Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

Persistent violation to MOS:FLAGS

JamesG2000 (talk · contribs) keeps ignoring the messages left at their talk page regarding the use of flags in aviation-related articles, and made two similar edits [224] [225] after a final warning regarding MOS:FLAGS was given. Please also note that the user was pinged at WT:AVIATION. There were no replies from them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I added a warning to their talk page. Let's hope that helps. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• The use of flags as icons in the project is extremely common. There's open disregard for WP:MOSFLAG in a multitude of areas across the project, to the point that WP:MOSFLAG is functionally defunct. Policy/guideline are intended to be a reflection of current standards, not as proscriptive barriers that prevent evolution of the project. WP:IAR ultimate trumps. I'm not making a comment on the editors in question here. But, edit warring over it? Really? Have a look at Albanians, Romani people, Germanwings Flight 9525. Ottoman Empire, 1994 FIFA World Cup, Operation Barbarossa, (I could go on for a long time here). Can you really tell me with a straight face that enforcing this defunct guideline is worth a report to WP:AN/I. Sorry, this should be closed and the target of the complaint left alone. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disagree, but the fact that a lot of new users start going againtst policies and guidelines doesn't mean we should review them. This is not a laisser-faire, laissez-passer site.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to disagree of course. But, try to enforce MOSFLAG on various articles and you will be reverted, and revered hard and often. There's guidelines, and then there's what actually happens. Reality trumps ideals. You can't win this. I've tried. Threatening someone, edit warring with someone, etc. over this is counterproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The fact that people get away with murder is no reason to endorse it. A policy says X; X is thus enforced wherever it is found, and those that complain... are directed to policy. It's a bit like every other policy we have. Just because a lot of people like adding ickle pictures to articles doesn't make them right if WP:CONSENSUS says otherwise. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I'm being clear. First, this is a style guideline, not a policy. Second, it's not enforced. Third, if you try to enforce it, you're reverted. Fourth, if you try to get consensus to support the decision to remove the icons, it fails. Whether it is murder or not, this is the way things are handled with respect to this style guideline. I am speaking from a wealth of experience on this point, trying to enforce this guideline to little avail. Anyone who disagrees with this exhibited behavior is of course welcome to disagree. But, with respect, you are spitting in the wind. You can not enforce this style guide. It's obsolete in the face of overwhelming common practice on the project. It's not a case of othercrapexists. It's a case of this is what the project is doing virtually project wide, and you can no more change it than you can change the color of the sky. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Of course MOS is supposedly descriptive and not prescriptive, so if the project-wide behavior is not what's in the guideline (and I agree that it is not), the guideline should, in theory, be changed -- but try to get that pushed through. (Or, for that matter, try to get WP:BRD elevated to a policy, as it should be.) BMK (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Regardless of the MOS, the user has replied neither at their talk nor at WT:AVIATION and continued with their preferred version of articles. Considering the MOS, of course it can be changed, but with a previous discussion. JamesG2000 did not do this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Changing MOS (or pretty much anything else on Wikipedia) is nigh on impossible unless you've got a coterie already in favor of the change. Otherwise, you'd better count on spending almost all your times trying to convince other people whose minds are already made up, and then having the proposed change be defeated. Wikipedia's lost a great deal of its ability to adjust its policies and guidelines to new circumstances, or even to allow editors to color outside the lines without being hassled. BMK (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
                • Yep. Pretty much every existing guideline already has a cadre of editors who will oppose any change to it (even sensible ones), while readily throwing out WP:BURO and WP:CREEP (the latter seems to be the preferred method of clubbing down any editor who has the temerity to think a guideline should be changed...) as the preferred reasoning for opposing. Occasionally, something will happen in the real world which will lead to a big RfC which may lead to a change (as I suspect is about to happen to MOS:IDENTITY), but that's pretty rare... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Stetson7

• Stetson7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.191.14.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.191.102.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.217.4.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Stetson7 has been sockpuppetting to insert POV original research in articles such as Veil of Veronica, Shroud of Turin, and Waldensians.

Stetson7's addition to Veil of Veronica is comparable to 101.191.14.182's addition to Shroud of Turin. Stetson7 has also been hopping between that IP to edit war ([226], [227], [228], [229]). The material he's trying to add cites an Encyclopedia Britannica article to claim that it "proves" that the Waldensians are older than Peter Waldo -- Something that the EB article does not say or imply in any way -- whether he's making it up, lying about it, doesn't understand it, or just didn't read it, that sort of POV-pushing is unacceptable. This has been explained on the talk page, and he refuses to address that issue. He did make uncited primary source claims before completely bungling the EB citation, but he has been told before that we do not accept original research.

This is not the first time he has done this. He has previously claimed that the Arles entry of Jewish Encyclopedia discussed Joseph of Aramathea, Jesus, Mary, and Boronius, even though those figures are not named in said entry. He also used his IP address to edit war to keep this material in. Even after it was explained to him that the Jewish encyclopedia did not support his claim in any way, he restored his uncited primary-source claims, calling them secondary sources.

At a minimum, Stetson7 needs to be topic banned from articles relating to Christian history. Whether it's dishonesty or incompetence, he cannot be trusted to accurately cite sources. When his mistakes are pointed out to him, he continues to edit war to reinsert the material based on uncited primary source claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Stetson7 finally did respond on the talk page, though the response amounted to nothing but WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH. He did not address the fact that the source he cited does not (as he pretends) claim that the Waldensians predate Peter Waldo, and was even disingenuous enough to pretend that the group he was talking about somehow wasn't the Waldensians (which would have made the addition completely irrelevant). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Stetson7 and hardblocked xxx.182 for 72 hours for socking with IPs on Waldensians. If he resumes then we'll need to have an SPI case filed to keep track. Leaving open for continued discussion on topic-banning.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion, we can probably close this thread and revisit if he continues.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Koolpo's vandalism of The Voice (U.S. season) articles

• Koolpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Voice (U.S. season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Voice (U.S. season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Voice (U.S. season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Voice (U.S. season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user created a user account on 30 May 2015 and has been vandalizing many of the The Voice (U.S. season) articles. Some of his vandalism appears to be benign (changing colors of tables), but he has also been changing the results of the series. Recommend a temporary or permanent block.

Pinging User:Musdan77 who reverted some of the vandalism.

Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

a) Can you provide some diffs (examples) so editors can see some evidence that support your assertion that he has been disruptive? A link to the article isn't sufficient.

b) Have you tried to discuss this dispute on the articles' talk page or on Koolpo's user page? ANI is usually the last place one comes to resolve a dispute after other avenues have proven to be unsuccessful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Koolpo at some point, perhaps once a clear case has been presented, can you give your thoughts on your editing of these articles? GregKaye 03:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

a) Here are some diffs: [230][231][232][233]

b) As for discussing it on talk pages, I have not done that. Sorry about that. It seemed to me that Koolpo was being overly disruptive, so I wanted to bring it to someone's attention at ANI. Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If it's clear cut vandalism, WP:AIV is your best bet. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Persistant spammers on two articles

A spammer with rotating IPs has been adding links to some turkish game server site on the articles PvP and Metin2 for a few years now. Check the recent IP edits on both. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to semi-protect the articles for a short while. Eik Corell (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If they have been adding content for years, why is it suddenly imperative to protect the pages now? Also, please provide links to the questionable edits. Thanks. If this is not an emergency, WP:RPP is the place to go. John from Idegon (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• yenipvpserverlar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• 91.93.77.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 195.155.180.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.185.220.47 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.185.220.232 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

• pvpserverler.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• 78.168.151.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.166.127.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 78.182.119.85 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Blacklisted. It looks like there is some sort of spam war going on, please list any further URLs here with the spamming IPs. I don't think a short semi-protection will work because, as you said, they've been spamming for 1.5+ years. This should. MER-C 13:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

84.208.216.16

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

I propose to indefinitely block 84.208.216.16 (talk · contribs). On the talkpage there is nothing but warnings. Today he removed thousands of characters from an article in an edit war,[234] and removed Kurdish categories from a number of articles even though in most cases the Kurdish descent was clearly in the article. Nothing good seems to come from this IP. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: IPs don't get "indefinitely blocked". However, particularly disruptive ones can get relatively long blocks (e.g. on the order of months). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Congratulations on passing your WP:RFA- I must have missed it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

However, all that said, this IP is a long-time editor (going back to 2012, at least), so this seems to be a stable IP. And their Talk page is a long string of templated warning messages (esp. in regards to Kurdish topics), with no indication that the IP has even touched a Talk page. So a block of some sort may be in order here, if just to force the IP to a Talk page if nothing else... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The principle against long blocks for IPs is because most IPs change hands sooner or later, so we should reduce the risk of a new editors being lumbered with blocks intended for other miscreants. However, if an IP has shown the same problematic behaviour for a longer period, it's reasonable to assume that it's more static and hence apply a longer block. bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Imperatrix Mundi Had I indeed passed a WP:RFA, I would surely have read up about the finer details of blocking nuisance IP-editors. :)

In that case a long block would perhaps be in order. In view of the frequency with which this editor visits Wikipedia, that would have to be a least a month, perhaps up to three months. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of ¼ year. After ¼ year the user will be automatically unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

173.182.136.41 on Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

Hi,

173.182.136.41 have repeatedly introduced factual error on Fifty Shades of Grey (film) ([235][236]). When I reverted his vandalism of the page, he reverted my revert and posted the comment "Your lying chinese editors have no brains just like your lying british editors they own.". I believe this constituted unacceptable personal attack and request that administrators consider banning the user for vandalism and improper behaviour.

Thanks, — Andrew Y _talk 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Links: 173.182.136.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not this person again. The IP has been doing this change since early February with two other separate IP address: 184.162.146.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 207.134.235.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They began changing American movies and whatnot into British things sine January [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] on other articles. However, they have merged to a Fifty Shades of Grey related article, such as Dakota Johnson [242] [243]. They took a break and returned adding factual errors on the film's article [244] [245] [246] [247] (using 207.134.235.81). They moved IPs and started vandalizing and edit-warring again using 184.162.146.227: [248] [249] [250] [251] [252]. They returned in April after those edits and resumed vandalizing once more: [253] [254] [255]. They were consequently and finally blocked on April 8 by Materialscientist. And now they've returned with bogus editing again. After using an IP locator, I discovered the three IPs are from Canada: two from Montreal and one from Toronto. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Completely unacceptable grammar, more like... Carrite (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like a job for an edit filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• • I agree that an edit filter might be the way to deal with this. I'm not going to block at this stage as it seems the person in question IP hops fairly frequently, so a block won't achieve much and would run the risk of collaterally blocking someone else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC).

Possible SPA promotional editing of university articles

• Ticktock01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have a recently registered editor, User:Ticktock01, making mass edits to American university articles, adding the university ratings for something called the Social Mobility Index (SMI), and displacing the established ratings services in the articles: [256]. Another editor has already attempted to engage our new friend on his talk page, as have I, but he has stated that he may add any sourced information to Wikipedia articles. As we have seen from time to time in our university articles, these edits appear to be a fairly promotional in nature by prominently adding a relatively unknown ratings service. I think this could use some experienced admin eyes on this. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

it appears to be a reasonably useful indicator, but I would like to see some third-party evaluation of the validity of the measures before assigning much importance to it. We've had no comment from my IHE's administration about it, which suggests they see little value in it. Regardless, it should not lead the rankings section of any university article, much less displace more reputable ratings and rankings. One wonders if Ticktock01 has a COI, given his eager defense of his edits. Drmargi (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

178.71.254.119

178.71.254.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Non-constructive editing/vandalism at Slingshot 6 7/8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([257][258][259][260]) and some other articles ([261][262][263][264][265]). Have discussed this issue with the editor at User talk:178.71.254.119, and the editor said "I removed the content, because GlueBot NG believes [edit] possible vandalism.". So this would appear to be an revenge to ClueBot's revert. Technically not yet violate 3RR but I cannot revert on Slingshot 6 7/8 because I'm on the limit of 3RR because this does not seems to be an obvious vandalism without talking into the context, in particular the discussion on the editor's talk page.

Possibly linked to 178.71.250.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which has been blocked for vandalism on a similar category of articles.

Possible to block at this stage? — Andrew Y _talk 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

DesmondCoutinho

DesmondCoutinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Irom Chanu Sharmila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA editor DesmondCoutinho edits his fiance Irom Chanu Sharmila's article. He is a controversial figure amongst the activist community Sharmila hails from. He has ignored warnings and suggestions about conflict of interest editing and original research. Most of his talk page comments contain personal attacks against other editors and BLP violations. He was blocked for making personal attacks, but has continued to do so after the block was lifted ([266] [267]). -- haminoon (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I don't think this comment rises to the level of a "blockable" WP:NPA offense, but it's not good either. However, DesmondCoutinho has not edited at all since posting that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No its not blockable on its own, but it came after many warnings and worse personal attacks against other editors; likewise the OR, COI and BLP violations he constantly makes and ignores warnings for. I think we can assume he will be back to edit the article at some time in the future so any advice on dealing with this would be welcome. At the very least the article needs more eyes on it. -- haminoon (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

E-Meter

In the last few months, I have researched a number of sources on Electrodermal activity and the E-meter. I carefully rewrote those articles and expanded them as well as I could in accordance with WP policies. Within the last few days, Scottperry (talk · contribs) began discussion on the talk:e-meter page, arguing that E-meter was no longer neutral according to WP policy. Scottperry suggested he would be reverting it prior to my edits. I answered him that it was fully supported by peer-reviewed references and he should read them. He said the history was all wrong with "such nonsensical claims as its [the E-meter's] supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims." Again I referred him to the journal references. Instead of addressing the sources, Scottperry reverted the page prior to my reconstruction of months ago. I reverted his change and requested him to (1) study the sources and (2) address the issues on the talk page. Scottperry reverted the page a second time and has now opened an improper RFC that is highly prejudicial and misrepresents the history of the discussion as a "consensus." I have enumerated my objections to that RfC in the responsive body. This is much more than a content dispute. Scottperry's conduct is not within the spirit of the Wikipedia and cooperative editing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Somehow my first reply here seems to have disappeared. I will repost it here from memory.... The "e-meter" is a device that is used by the Church of Scientology, and by some former Scientologists, to try to sort out what they believe are "disturbed memories". The e-meter is a device that was patented by Hubbard ca. 1954, and the name coined by the Church of Scientology, around about the same time. In so far as I know, the Church has never advocated for any other device to be used in its auditing practice. The "electrodermal activity meter" is a device used by law and law enforcement agencies to assist in determining the honesty, or lack thereof, of interviewees. It was invented sometime around 1900 and is manufactured under different patents with slightly different components. Law and law enforcement agencies have never advocated for the use of Scientology e-meters for their work in monitoring electrodermal activity. Now to assert in the article, as SFarney would assert, that the Scientology e-meter has been in existence since ca. 1900, to me seems a bit of a stretch. I felt that this "confusion", along with numerous other "confusions" throughout the article gave me cause to perform a major overhaul of the article in order to bring the article back into compliance with WP policy. I wish my posts here didn't disappear so easily too. This too concerns me. By the way, if anyone from WikiMedia security might happen to read this and want to get in touch with me, I'd be happy to tell you some more happenings that would be guaranteed to knock your socks off! In fact, I could explain to you how they did this deletion, and unless you knew better you would never be able to find a trace. No joke here. Scott P. (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to sort out the RfC train-wreck myself, having seen what I read as a notification for the RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (I have no prior involvement in the dispute). It now appears that Scottperry was actually trying to start a second RfC there, rather than merely notifying the project - which suggests to me that he is hopelessly out of his depth, and doesn't really have much idea about the way Wikipedia works. AS to the appropriate course of action, I'm not sure - beyond suggesting that an uninvolved admin should take a look at the two RfCs, and if they agree with my assessment that they are malformed (and in the case of the one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, entirely misplaced) to close them summarily as out of process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly I mistakenly initially did not follow the correct procedure for the RFC. I have since removed the Medical page RFC as was suggested by Andy, and the RFC is now hopefully properly made. If not, I will be happy to fix whatever mistakes I still might have made with the RFC. I know my RFC skills are not good, but hopefully they are not hopeless, I hope..... Scott P. (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that you probably didn't click 'save' after previewing your post - an easy mistake to make. There is nothing in the edit history of this page to suggest that posts have been deliberately removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I am absolutely certain that I hit the save button. This is not the only rather strange "WP-software-glitch" that has occurred with me for the first time in the 11 years I've been editing here, but only when dealing with a Scientology article, of course. Not good. Scott P. (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

And with that, I'm out of here. Someone else can sort this mess out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, just say the word, and I will remove the RFC, I leave it up to you Andy. Scott P. (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that I have already told Scottperry that I wish to have no further involvement. If he lacks the competence to make such a decision for himself, he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That is OK, Andy. I will ask no further decisions of you. Thank you for your help of this clumsy editor. Still, my decision is therefore, that I feel just barely able to continue with this RFC, despite my obvious ineptitude. Scott P. (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

According to his own statement in a source comment, ScottPerry twice reverted the page to a version from 2007, discarding the work (and consensus) of many editors. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that under any other circumstances, taking into consideration ArbCom's discretionary sanctions[268] on Scientology-related articles, Scottperry would have been either topic banned or blocked indefinitely for his actions, none of which have any consensus support. In addition, he has been canvassing on external anti-Scientology forums, as well as flagrantly violating WP:3RR on E-meter. Laval (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional ScottPerry message canvassing for editors: [269]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that that:

1. In Laval's claim that I have somehow supposedly "flagrantly violated the 3RR rule" in his head Laval must for some reason have redefined the 3RR into his new 2RR rule. If he could please point out where I supposedly made three reverts to that article in a row, I would be quite happy to see this. A word: It's not fair to make up the rules as you go along... By the way, you did notice that your party's cross-posted complaint at the edit-war admin board was closed without even a comment, didn't you?
2. Laval has yet to show me where our off-site behavior is regulated by Wikipedia in the manner as he is now claiming. Anyone who might go visit the board he speaks of will see that nowhere did I counsel any type of unethical behavior by anyone.
3. In light of the fact that Laval has not yet once explained his total lack of concern for the WP:Due/ Undue violation at that page, it seems rather obvious to me that he has now run out of any rational arguments for keeping that page so out of balance, so instead he must now stoop to attempting to derail that question which I have asked at that RFC, and thus attempt valliantly to convert it into an ad-hominem attack on me. Smoke and mirrors, no?

Scott P. (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Laval (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the next time you try to make the claim that someone is: "Flagrantly violatiing the 3RR rule", you might consider following it with the phrase in parenthesis, (my own personal interpretation of the 3RR rule), no? Also, why don't you spend your time specifically answering the question of the RFC and not here? Do you actually think that article is in compliance with Wp:Due/ Undue? If so, why? Scott P. (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the problem at hand, which is a pattern of anti-Scientology behavior on your part that is emerging, a pattern of editing behavior clearly prohibited and proscribed by ArbCom sanctions. The problem is when you go to an external forum and basically claim that the Church of Scientology is covertly taking over Wikipedia articles on Scientology — here is an exact quote: "Right now there seems to be some kind of a systematic infiltration of Wikipedia going on by the CoS... I'm an old hand editor for the last 11 years at Wikipedia and some of us are trying to stop this CoS operation over there." [270] That is just one quote. There are many others there where you apparently accuse Wikipedia "management" as having been "infiltrated" by the Church of Scientology. Laval (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but right now I have an RFC to run. Apparently since you can't find anything to the point to say, so you have now made it your business to try to divert me from there. I must say you are doing a better job at this than I expected, but I feel I have said enough here, at least for now. I give you my permission to make claims that I have Flagrantly violated the 33RR rule, investigate my personal off-Wiki life, or whatever types of amazing things you do here. Obviously you will do them regardless of whether or not you have my blessings, but I give you my blessings, none the less. Good luck. Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you had opened the WP:RFC as I had originally advised and conducted it according to the way an RFC is supposed to be conducted, there would have been no need for anyone to post to ANI to begin with. There was no consensus for your wholesale reversion of the article to a version from 2007. Laval (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd just point out that, whilst clearly falling under the Scientology discrectionary sanctions, this article almost certainly falls under the Pseudoscience ones as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• That is a content issue, of no concern for this board. Let's keep the focus. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually it's of considerable concern for this administrators' board, since they're the ones who would implement the blocks and topic bans that are authorized by discretionary sanctions which cover contentious subjects such as Scientology and Pseuodoscience. Editors working in those areas have less leeway for behavioral anomalies then are generally allowed. BMK (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor's behavior has crossed the line: [271] JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though would say he crossed the line as soon as he began accusing other editors of being a part of some sort of covert Scientology attempt to takeover Wikipedia, canvassing on external forums spreading this conspiracy theory, and then threatening to rollback articles like Psychiatry to versions from several years previous [272] before a mass of other editors chimed in, stopping him in his tracks. On E-meter, he decided to preempt any attempt at discussion and decided to revert to a version of the page from 2007! [273] And then when he was rolled back on that (which any competent editor would have done), he reverted back to the 2007 version again. [274] He has made similar threats on Citizens Commission on Human Rights, going so far as to claim an RfC was not actually needed to rollback the article to a version from several years ago. [275] That's only the tip of the iceberg, and considering ArbCom discretionary sanctions, it is still surprising to me that he was not at the very least topic banned and given some time to cool off and have an admin explain policy to him, because apparently the word of ordinary editors is not sufficient enough. Laval (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any cursory review of the matter will furthermore show that Scottperry has basically made a big fuss about nothing and wasted all of our time for nothing. There is no Scientology conspiracy to take over Wikipedia, there is no covert attempt on anyone's part to slant the articles in question to a pro-Scientology bias, which are absurd accusations to begin with, and this is to say nothing of the further accusations against myself and others as apparent throughout this section. Laval (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Even more bizarre is Scottperry's attempted involvement of the police [276] and allegation that " I am dealing with some rather unpleasant folks here"? [277] Laval (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All of those edits have been rev-deleted but oddly, there is no message about this on Scottperry's talk page. I'm not sure what kind of warning to offer since I don't know what the contents of the edit were...vandalism? BLP violation? disruptive editing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: They were contact details [278]. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, those of us coming to this discussion late in the day will just have to trust that there was material that should have been deleted because the log, wisely, doesn't disclose the nature of the content that was deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I look into this matter, the more snarled up it appears. I read most of the 17 now-deleted posts, and a bit more than "contact information" was in them. Useless to discuss them now, since they are suppressed. Again, this matter appears to be complex. Jusdafax 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed block of Scott P.

I'm not sure what to make of this person's claims, but Wikipedia needs to be free from them, in my view. For the record I have no involvement in this matter in any way. Jusdafax 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Indef block Scott P. - As proposer, I've seen enough. The phone number, the police references... (now suppressed) These are covered by WP:NLT, and the ArbCom sanctions make a block an easy call. An admin needs to step up. Let's block and move on. He can email ArbCom. Jusdafax 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional bizarre accusations and statements by Scottperry: [279] [280] [281] How much longer do we have to put up with this lunacy? Laval (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• ScottPerry overtly canvassing for Wiki editors to counter the Scientology "infiltration" of Wikipedia administration.[282] Many messages on the same theme in the last few weeks.

First off, as I understand it, you are Laval editing under a different name? You wrote this last unsigned post as User:Sfarney, who has a three day old account largely focused on this matter. Jusdafax 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not post the unsigned comment in question and I always sign my own posts. Laval (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by User:Sfarney having a "three day old account" — based on their edit history, User:Sfarney has been an active editor since 2012. Laval (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I neglected to sign that post.{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=666092930]. My editing history is here.[283]

• Oppose Seeing as Scott P has had a relatively calm and productive editing run here, this latest drama excluded, I'd be more inclined to support a topic ban instead. I'm not sure the project is well served by an outright indef block over what is essentially a content dispute that has escalated (albeit unnecessarily). I'm sure Scott feels strongly about the idea that Wikipedia is being taken over by the Scientologists, and that's fine, but perhaps that's precisely why he should stay away from the topic in general. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of attempting any further edits on any Scientology related articles until after the mess I just pointed out is fixed. I have just held my hand over the fire, and I seriously have no intention of putting it back there until some fairly major things change around here, you have my word. Of course you remain free to spin this however you may wish, with a topic ban or whatever, but as for myself, you have my word on this. No more edits on CoS related articles by myself until this rather "huge mess" is fixed. (Hopefully that will be before the end of this century.)  :-) Scott P. (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is this "huge mess" you are referring to? Is it the alleged Scientology conspiracy to infiltrate and takeover Wikipedia you are continually writing about? Or is it the fact that you have an apparent need to ignore and act against consensus and make wholesale reversions of articles to outdated versions from several years past? Laval (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your continued allegations and threats over at User_talk:Scottperry#Tyranny_and_ignorance_vs:_freedom_and_wisdom, including your misunderstanding of WP:3RR and why its not okay to revert 2 times instead of 3 in order to avoid violating 3RR, your inability to communicate properly, not to mention all the other issues going on and in past disputes you've been involved in (such as your attempts to whitewash A Course in Miracles [284], ironically), illustrate why you should never be allowed near any Scientology-related articles ever agains. Laval (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to say that there won't still be a "few little sparks" from this little adventure, that I may still find "smoldering" here and there in my life over the time ahead for myself. But I will not "fan them", should they arise. Water usually works best. In this case that would probably in most cases mean the local sheriff. All in all, it was still well worth it for me. Scott P. (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean.... Scott P. (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and security folks, please look at the interesting timing of the three remarks just above. Interesting....... Scott P. (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• What, specifically, are you alleging? You are beginning to sound a bit WP:NOTHERE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Holy conspiracy theory, Batman! Someone's talk-page comments have a later time stamp but precede an earlier set of comments - just like these do! Let's see, possible reasons are:

1. (To be confirmed with WMF Security, once they get their Hugo Boss-issued black uniforms back from the dry cleaners) Secret talk page process # Z109 was used to intercept your comments, pass them to agent Laval, so his team of writers could craft a special response designed to make you look like a raving loon,
2. (To be confirmed with the FBI, once they recover from celebrating Donut day) All of your electronic communication devices have been hacked. To recover, please place them all (cell phone, DSL or cable modem, router, Wifi access point, USB hubs, laptops, desktops, tablets, and even land-line and wireless phones) into the nearest microwave. Run for 10 seconds for a quick wipe of the infection. If that doesn't work, try moving them outside, coating with lighter fluid and igniting).
3. The editor in question chose to place his comments before yours, as I did.

• Special note to anyone who's sarcasm meter is broken - items 1 & 2 are remarks made in jest and should not be followed. Sheesh JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The time stamps show me posting before Laval, but my comment was placed after his. Have you ever seen that before? When I posted, my screen showed me that my comment would be placed immediately after my own last comment. Still the system interjected a slightly older comment just before a newer comment (thanks to Laval). I've never seen that before. I think I know why the system did that, but I would have to speak with Wikimedia Security to explain. Thank you for asking Joe. You were right, it is good that I got a chance to explain a little further. Scott P. (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of what, exactly? Laval (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You did nothing intentionally, and I am accusing you of nothing but doing what all editors generally do, posting a fairly typical rebuttal. But I believe the exact timing of our two posts may have just revealed a certain "security hole". I would assume that you believed your post would immediately follow my comment about the "huge mess", no? Scott P. (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what Laval says, Robin. Scott P. (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Have you ever seen that before?" Yes. Quirky behaviour from the Wikipedia editor is more or less the norm when posting on frequently-edited pages like this. Posts appear out of order sometimes. It is software. Outdated software. Arguably not very good software. It has bugs. Bugs not (as far as I'm aware) injected by Scientologists in order to... In order to do what exactly? In order to insert posts out of order so pro-Scientology contributors gain an advantage in discussions by... By what? You really need to drop the tinfoil-hattery, for your own good. All you are doing is ensuring that nobody will take you seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Andy, I'll take your word for it. I've never seen it before, but maybe I just never had that misfortune before. I'll take your word for it Andy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I had never seen my post disappear either, along with a few other very blatant "system malfunctions" that I had never seen before either. Now that disappearing post, I will not chaulk up to quirky software, much as I would like to, I am not quite that gullible. Scott P. (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The way my computer is now interfacing with the Wiki software, I still say the mismatched timing is significant. I could tell you a whole slew of "anomalies" that my computer is now exhibiting, that... yes..... "I've never seen before". Only now I'm taking screen shots and notes, as per suggestions by law. Scott P. (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently for me to point out that I've also seen posts disappear despite apparently being saved would be a waste of time then. Enjoy your paranoia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It just did it again.... I think the "timing belt" on this system must be broken. Eleven years of editing here, and now their software starts to act up for me for the first time with this "stuff" going on. Enjoy your blissful ignorance. As for me, no I'd much rather be on a beach right now enjoying coconut milk in the sun, but hey, why not. Scott P. (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You must not be a regular visitor to noticeboards like ANI. I lose half of the comments I post due to edit conflicts. It happens all of the time because there are people posting edits at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (and it just happened again right now)

Speaking from experience, it's no use engaging Scott on these kinds of matters. Suggest you stop wasting your time and focus on if there's enough support for any editing restrictions you want to implement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I just love it when one of my "admirers" posts for me. Scott P. (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit-conflict posting issues are common, when the red EDIT CONFLICT notice pops up right after you hit the "Save page" button.... But posting a comment with the click of the "Save page" button, verifying that it worked, then having it disappear, now that was a new one for me. Been here twice as long as Andy, according to his posting record, and never had it happen once. Scott P. (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And don't worry, I've got enough odd screenshots just now to satisfy me. Good night to all. Scott P. (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I needed to get home anyways. Good night Neil. Scott P. (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure if you understand how edit conflicts work. If you get an edit conflict, the software will automatically try to resolve the edit conflict. While it often can't in edits to the same thread in discussions, sometimes it can and when it can it's possible that your edit will end up in a slightly different place from where you expected. (Very very rarely, the software seems to remove an intermediate edit, it will be completely visible in the diff this happened of course.) This is completely normal behaviour and if you've been editing highly active discussion pages for long enough you will probably encounter it. Edit conflicts which the software can't resolve and gives you a warning is only one kind of edit conflict.

Anyway, your edits to User talk:BeenAroundAWhile were suppressed but nothing visibly has happened to your edits here. Nominally Wikipedia:Oversighters could suppress their log enteries but there's no obvious reason why they would do so here. Therefore as Andy and others have indicated, continuing to claim publicly that your edits simply disappeared is not going to help your case in any way. There far more likely possibility is you screwed up and failed to save them. I think people could perhaps imagine a single instance or may be two of the mediawiki software suggesting the edit was save when it wasn't (which does seem to happen very rarely). But in that case, you couldn't have verified it worked.

These screenshots aren't going to prove anything but they haven't even been presented anyway. If you really believe you have evidence of possible misuse of suppression (oversight), you should take that up with appropriate people at the WMF privately. So repeating what I said earlier, I suggest you stop with such wacky claims publicly as perhaps it isn't too late to avoid a indef block or community ban.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your last sentiment, and will do so. However, until I am able to minimally gain the ear of someone in WMF who would be willing to keep a file on things like new and unusual vandalism reports potentially on myself, I will continue to report such incidents with breif and succinct descriptions, on this incident board. I will be happy to call WMF tomorrow, however tonight, being American EST, I must go to bed. Hopefully no further reports will be needed here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All this distraction aside, Scottperry has violated a number of principles of Wikipedia editing, and that is the reason we are here:

• He canvassed for editors on other forums to effect an issue gang-up on the Scientology pages
• Accused (and continues to accuse) the Wikipedia administration of being "infiltrated"
• He began a conversation in the talk page, suggesting roll-back to an earlier date. He got two editors to agree, and one strongly opposed, with references and citations, requesting specific problems. He declared a consensus and reverted the topic to a version more than seven years in the past.
• This is the third (at least) incident of Scottperry's radical reversion in the last few months, all in the face of significant community protests
• When another editor reverted his roll-back, he immediately re-reverted it.
• He has threatened to involve the police
• He complains that his electronics are are being "messed with" over this editing conflict
• He has refused to deal with any of the content issues and the RS support for the updated topic. His arguments are almost entirely color, not substance.
• He has "conceded" that his attempted roll-back is a failure, but only because it was overwhelmed with pro-Scientology protest, not that it was incorrect. He even said he "expected" this would happen.
• He implied and continues to imply that everyone opposed to his roll-back is a Scientology agent or dupe.

These actions indicate rather convincingly two things:

1. He cannot work cooperatively to edit and improve the Encyclopedia
2. He is not here to create an encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia to push his ideas

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Further seeming security related anomalies

I don't know who to bring this concern to, but after 11 years editing here, some slightly "strange things" are now happening to the way my computers are now interfacing with WP, including some of my IP's now giving back reports to me before I log in, that my IP has vandalized WP, which I have not. This is now the second time in the last few weeks that this has happened, and this most recent IP associated with vandalism is 50.33.219.112. The vandalism now associated with my most recent cell phone's IP is rather silly looking vandalism, something about gummy worms and such, but I minimally felt I should at least report this here, in light of other recent events in my editing history. I don't know if this "silliness" might rise to the level of any major concern for anyone.... but if it did, and if anyone might want to reach me privately, and if you might have access to a recent post of mine that was "suppressed" then you might already know what phone number to call to reach me. Otherwise if this is nothing, which it probably is, I will also naturally monitor this complaint to see if this is anything more than a minor issue for anyone. Sorry for this, but at this point I prefer excess caution over unnecessary risks. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The one example you gave, 50.33.219.112, has not edited Wikipedia nor been warned about the two nonconstructive edits they contributed since November 2013. We don't want you to post other, more current IPs here, since that would potentially violate your privacy, but if this is characteristic it simply means that you happened to be assigned an IP someone else used at some time in the past to edit Wikipedia, perhaps unconstructively. General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note this user is also being discussed above at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed block of Scott P.. This is more then likely not a security threat at all.TheMesquito^buzz 02:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently, despite claiming to have the knowledge to be able to detect security flaws in Wikimedia software, Scottperry doesn't even understand elementary details concerning dynamic IP reallocation, which suggests to me that regardless of what else we do, it might be in his own interest to topic-ban him from discussing such matters further - he is needlessly giving away personal information. This would not of course prevent him contacting the WMF directly if he has genuine evidence of security flaws, which in any case shouldn't be discussed in public. Though frankly, if the 'evidence' he has is on the level presented in this thread, there is nothing to be concerned about anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Andy believes that even though I've been posting here for 11 years and never seen this before, I should whistle "Sunshine", pretend I didn't see it, tell nobody, and go on my merry way. I thank you the Mesquito for your insights, and Andrew for his merriment. Scott P. (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing said so far in this subsection or the one above is evidence of a MediaWiki security flaw. If in the future you genuinely believe there is a security flaw in MediaWiki, contact the developers privately. As has been pointed out, a public place, including ANI, is not the place to post reports of security issues. I'd recommend any future security messages here by Scott be removed as they're either not security issues, and therefore just a distraction from the discussion, or they are security issues and therefore publicly announcing them is itself a security issue. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia started acting mysteriously just in time for this ANI thread. It's just mind boggling. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup. When have the developers ever managed to deliver software on time before? ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mtd2006

Mtd2006 (talk · contribs) just made an edit on Ramadan even though he knew perfectly well that it would be reverted. There are two talkpage sections about this issue and he is well aware that his edit comes down to the beforehand contested removal of well-sourced information which he and another editor either don't like or regard as dubious (for unsourced and unclear reasons). In addition his edit[285] deliberately mocks my edit of a few days before that[286] and the Wikipedia policy of consensus in the process, both explicitly and by the very fact of the edit being made.

On the one hand, I think this irresponsible and childish behavior should not even make it to WP:ANI. On the other hand, I have met only too many editors who with such behavior try to push through their opinions, and it is best to nip this in the bud.

I propose a 3 day edit restriction for Mtd2006 on this article, not including the talkpage. This would not really affect him, but it would serve as a warning signal to him, that mocking WP:CONSENSUS will not be tolerated and that removing sourced information is a big no can do on Wikipedia.

Mtd2006 has been warned and informed about this thread on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the warning mentioned above was made ~8 minutes prior to the opening of this incident report. GregKaye 11:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I reject Debresser's assertions. I and other editors have an ongoing problem with what I perceive as Debresser's tendencies toward ownership practices, as he attempts to have his own way in the Ramadan article. The event that triggered Debresser's complaint is as he says... he made a bold revision to implement his is interpretation of consensus stating he hopes he got it right. Debresser's narrative omits several significant events.

• Debresser and I discussed our differences on his talkpage. Note that he ends the discussion with his assertion, "I really think that editors should abide by WP:BRD, which I think is one of the most important guidelines in Wikipedia to help advert [sic] edit wars."
• Amid spirited give and take among several active editors at Talk:Ramadan#Origins and Talk:Ramadan#Ramadans Alleged Pagan Origins., Debresser made his bold revision. I strongly reject Debresser's assertion about unsourced or unclear reasons. Please review the discussion in the talk sections I mentioned. I did not invoke BRD, Debresser's own preferred method to avert edit wars.
• Instead, I explained my concerns at Talk:Ramadan#New pre-Islamic section lacks consensus, before continuing the BRD cycle. I waited. Debresser dismissed my concerns stating "stop wasting ink on wikilawering [sic]."
• I engaged Debresser using the BRD conflict resolution method he insists upon. I reverted his interpretation of consensus and made my own bold revision that implements consensus as Fauzan and I understand it.

Debresser claims to rely on BRD; he should expect other editors to revert his bold revision and to discuss... abiding by the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I suggested that Debresser rejoin ongoing discussion to establish consensus, propose changes and seek agreement before revising the article. I avoided escalation, although I feel there are grounds to have done so. It's apparent that Debresser disagrees. At this point, I ask for help to resolve this dispute. I have prior commitments that prevent me commenting as promptly as I'd like. Thank you for your consideration. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Debresser is not addressing concerns raised by multiple editors. I asked him repeatedly to provide a quote to support the first paragraph (Abu Zanad mentioning Ramadan), and he failed to do so. He then edit warred to keep the first paragraph even though it fails verification, contrary to wp:v. The second paragraph is also still under discussion, with valid wp:due objections. I agree with Mtd2006 edit. The section as is should be removed, pending a rewrite with better sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55 That statement is sourced and verified, and what was not sourced has been removed. With me in agreement with everybody else. Not nice to say lies here. The WP:UNDUE objections are not valid, for several reasons as explained on the talkpage. In any case, the main issue in this post is the behavioral one.

@Mtd2006 I never left the discussion. You did, when you made an edit that you knew would was contested and would be reverted. And that edit summary to mock me and WP:CONSENSUS was really not nice. That is bad behavior, and that is why we are here. At the same time I am still actively participating in the discussion, as anyone can see. Debresser (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Ignoring wp:v and lying about the content of sources is a behavioral problem. Now, here is a diff of the first paragraph currently in the articles.[287] What does the cited source say about Abu Zanad's claim concerning Ramadan's origin? Quote it here please, so that we can move forward on this issue. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I will respectfully decline to do so, because 1. the content issue is not the reason for this post, only the behavioral issue. 2. Any interested editor can check for himself what is written, what the source says, and what changes I have made to the article. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: It isn't optional. The burden is on you to point out where exactly Aby Zanad mentions Ramadan. Otherwise, the 1st paragraph should be removed, including the misrepresented sources and fake citations. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked at the talk page I personally have concerns that there may be WP:TENDENTIOUS attempt to unencyclopedically remove reference of the historical context of Ramadan and would encourage other editors to become involved. GregKaye 10:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same feeling, and have raised this concern on the talkpage as well.[288] I feel a little overwhelmed as a single editor in view of those attempts, but try to uphold the integrity of the article as best I can. I am a little worried by the silence from other editors on this article, although I recognize the efforts of editors like Mtd2006 to adhere to the high standards of Wikipedia as genuine.Debresser (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

IP editor undo abuse

216.177.129.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
216.177.129.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:590:4802:1CD:1A82:9DC8:F15B:FA91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
63.141.204.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
98.124.175.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
216.177.129.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:590:4802:2f9:2b1f:133b:35fa:2cd5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
67.71.140.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
just undid several of my edits across multiple unrelated pages without any reason given, as visible from their contribs.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep expanding the list, and we can hopefully find the ranges we need to block. Monty₈₄₅ 02:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ceased for now.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't think that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. All the IP editors are doing is reverting the OP's undoing of their edits without leaving any reason for doing so, just as the OP is complaining. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Acroterion (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything I looked at was unhelpful on the IP's part and helpful on Anders' part. Consider this edit, for example; the IP changes [[inheritance|hereditary]] to [[hereditary]]; the displayed text is the same, but inheritance is the most relevant article, while hereditary is a redirect to Heredity, a genetics article that has nothing to do with the legal concept of inheritance. This is the kind of thing that can be undone or rolled back without need for an edit summary. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I accept your basic premise. I still think it is a bit much when someone complains that someone else is not leaving an edit summary when they are not leaving an edit summary themselves. There are plenty of AN cases that have been declined where someone has complained of someone else not raising a controvesial edit war on the article talk page where they have not used the talk page themselves - exactly the same principle. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The rapid IP changes involved here really undermines any argument that the editor behind them was acting in good faith. Combined with the clear targeting of the reverts at the editor, on a variety of articles, it is hard to not find the IPs to have acted in bad faith which justifies a revert without further summary. Monty₈₄₅ 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

MarioMarco2009 part two

MarioMarco2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also the previous thread: [289]

MarioMarco2009, a single-purpose account focussing exclusively on Homeopathy has, despite repeated warnings (including being warned about discretionary sanctions [290] in January) continued to waste contributors time with repetitive and tendentious postings on the talk page, and has despite being informed of the WP:MEDRS guidelines more times than worth counting, still continued to spam the page with dubious sources, outdated primary studies, and similar material - see for example this latest post: a primary study from 1989. [291] Or indeed see Talk:Homeopathy in general, for a classic example of chronic WP:IDHT syndrome and general tendentiousnes. [292] Since at this point it seems self-evident that MarioMarco2009 either refuses to conform to expected standards, or lacks the competence to do so, I ask that per discretionary sanctions, he be topic banned from the homeopathy topic, along with all medical and 'alternative medicine' subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support this editor has become a massive time sink and chooses either not read our PAG, or just cannot understand them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, he shows absolutely no sign of either giving up or attaining Clue. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Done. I'm about to log this. Please feel free to check if there's more paperwork I need to file. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for extreme IDHT and competency issues. A time sink is a very good description. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a lovely word, isn't it? But I gotta tell you, I'm also starting to like the word "asshat". Drmies (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:YESPOV on Somali pages

In the aftermath of the departure of User:Middayexpress, I've been working to restore a more NPOV (precisely, WP:YESPOV) view of issues on several Somali pages. WP:YESPOV states that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." This means that material that happens to disagree with anothers' point of view should not be removed, because it decreases the completeness of coverage.

The Puntland Maritime Police Force article particularly caught my eyes, as I hope to encourage another user driven away by Middayexpress's POV-pushing to return to editing this and other articles. I reintroduced content based upon United Nations Group of Experts' reports to the PMPF article, and became entangled in reverts with User:26oo. He repeatedly removed these reports on the basis that their content was in some way prejudicial or biased. I advised him that edit warring was not the fashion that this encyclopedia handles these cases, and he told me that he was not concerned with the welfare of this encyclopedia [293]. This raises the question of whether he is not here to build an encyclopedia. I told him that the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard was the proper manner of disputing whether sources were unreliable, and he he just continued to try and tell me that the UN Group of Experts' material was undue [294]. Thus in addition to ignoring YESPOV he is distorting the meaning of UNDUE. He has also changed User:Cordless Larry's signature to another user's signature ([295]), though this may have been some sort of mistake.

The community has recognised that Somali articles have been suffering from POVpushing for some time, with its topic banning of User:Middayexpress. Unless we thoroughly implement WP:YESPOV on these pages we will be continuing to allow violations of WP:NPOV. I would request that User:26oo be warned about the importance of adhering to NPOV, and if s/he is not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia, that s/he be counselled that continued editing here is probably unwise. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06 is either lying or misconstruing much of what transpired. It's all in the page's history. I reverted large blanking of sections which Buckshot06 said was twisted.1 I asked them to go to the talk page to discuss the trimming down of the sections because it was wholesale removals that were well referenced and balanced. The user responded with what he referred to hostile 'blunt' talk in my talk page saying that "things have changed around here". At this moment I do not understand what he is referring to. After I reverted the blanking, the user removes unbalanced/redundant material in a more amiable approach. I proceed to do the same. During this time, we came to an understanding regarding another page called Corruption in Somalia (refer to my talk page).

Afterwards the user introduces WP:UNDUE material in the introduction which they didn't do previously. This summary is not balanced as per the material in the article. So I removed it until the user either balanced it or we come to a consensus. (talk page Refer to talk page) The material he introduced was clearly in a bad faith given the strategic locations on the article and previous history of removal. The user has no previous edits on the article so reffered them to a third opinion already given in which the same situation is being tackled. It is then that Cordless Larry makes me aware of the fact that user Middayexpress who was a very active member of WikiProject Somalia has been given a topic ban which is why the blunt quote about things changing around here made sense. The material in question however has absolutely nothing to do with that user and was not introduced by that user. Cordless Larry also suggests that the material can be balanced rather than removed altogether which was what was happening however the user is intent on bulldozing his UNDUE material.

The user is using Middayexpress' retirement as an excuse to introduce new material without balancing it. The allegations about Cordless Larry's signature is also untrue. I merely copied and pasted another user's article because I didn't want to type it out and one of the pastes is next to his signature which was by mistake, not replacing it. It was meant to go in my paragraph not both places and I didn't notice it. If you check the talk page's history/time I remove things by accident when I refresh too so it's clumsy not malicious. I also apologized for that, in any case. It's a complete non-issue.

In regards to me not caring about the encyclopedia, I said this; Past run-ins you've had with [other] users do not concern me nor the well being of the encyclopedia.1 So that's also false. 26oo (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This summary clearly demonstrates that User:26oo doesn't understand what YESPOV means, as he continues to say that that YESPOV material is 'undue'. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A summary in the introduction is supposed to be balanced as per the material in the article. How can you just take one side of the coin and put it in the introduction, it makes no sense. United Nations questions/alleges/asserts... needs to be due. It's not even a major part of the article yet you insert it in the introduction as if it summarizes a large article like that. Can't you see that your material is clearly in bad faith? There is not even a section regarding legality. You mention Middayexpress, a faulty signature and YESPOV as if I'm the one pushing the undue material. 26oo (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

26oo, you have replaced my signature again, and this time also deleted an important part of one of my other comments explaining why I objected to your removal of sourced material. Can you please stop doing this? You didn't paste another username next to mine, you replaced it both times. I'm trying to help facilitate consensus on the article talk page, but that's not easy when I keep finding my comments attributed to other users or deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's another lie. It was fixed 3 minutes later edit fix. Buckshot06 made a comment before me [edit conflict] before the page updated so Wikipedia removed it when I submitted, hence why it's fixed 3 minutes later. There's no need to divert attention from the subject, admins can check the history page. It's an edit conflict, not my fault. Your involvement has been reverting back to newly introduced UNDUE material. Your only productive input was suggesting balancing the paragraph. (Refer to talk page). This is a classic case of Wikihounding. 26oo (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of lying, 26oo. That edit didn't fix your deletion of part of one of my comments or your edit to my signature - see the diff. It wasn't fixed until I did so this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With reference to your comments above 26oo, it's a little irrelevant for this discussion where I started to introduce new text. You'll see that I've done so in the body of the PMPF article in my most recent changes. Please concentrate, for this discussion, on why you believe it is appropriate to continually try and remove one, referenced, point-of-view, which only happens to be from a worldwide IGO with specific responsibilities for international peace and security - a WP:THIRDPARTY. (To address your specific order-of-editing concern, the reason why I was readding material in small chunks was the fact that battleground editors in other Somalia articles had consistently removed large edits I made. The specific place in the article had very little to do with it). Buckshot06 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, there's one from 6th and one from the 9th. I'm not intentionally replacing them, it's the edit conflicts as I copy and paste names, that's why I tried to fix them. My apologies. I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to bring it up as it's malicious. I think it's an attempt to move the goalpost. It would be a very strange way for me to try and undermine a person. 26oo (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only raised it here when you did it for a second time. I wasn't interested in raising it in this discussion the first time, but when it happened again it started to seem that you were doing it deliberately. If it was an accident both times, then fine, but please be more careful in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Cordless Larry. I will be more careful and preview before I submit. 26oo (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06

• An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. WP:BALASPS

• The strategic input of UNDUE material in the introduction, as well as using WP:Weasel such as "ostensibly" is not correct and should be balanced. That's the whole issue here. If it does not accurately sum up the contents of the article, then it has no place in the summary. Also, as pointed out in the talk page, the credibility of the UN Monitoring group has a third party has been questioned given the recent resignation of one of its members for unrelated advocacy. I suggest that we should balance the paragraph and summarize the contents of the article. 26oo (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RussianDewey

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

We have a user here named RussianDewey, who has been pretty aggressive toned and uncivil since he joined Wikipedia. I've tried to tell him to refrain himself from being like that from the start, but it seems that he doesn't really care, his recent uncivil comments being on this talk page [296], saying things such as these [297] [298] [299]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing your issues on his talk page? A personal note is better than placing a template warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

HistoryofIran did warn the user several times on an article talk page, if that counts for anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Template talk:History of Iran, I see plenty of venom from both Russian and yourself, HistoryofIran. The Banner has done a respectable job of trying to bring common sense on the talk page (although he did get a little heavy with the reverts). NeilN had to full protect the template due to warring. That particular page is a case of some edit warring, and as such, ANI isn't the best venue, particularly since that seems under control for the moment. Still, I did a spot check through his previous talk page additions, and see he has taken issue with you since he arrived. This does appear to be a personal problem that is mainly focused on just the two of you, although I can't say exactly why without more research. For the matter at hand, I can only assume that NeilN saw the discussion and events and decided that template protection was adequate. HistoryofIran, looking at your contribs, you aren't always the pinnacle of civility either, although it pales in comparison to some others.

That said, let me be clear in warning RussianDewey that there DOES seem to be a pattern here, and it does look like you are targeting HistoryofIran for constant ridicule. It is one thing to get into an argument over a template, which happens sometimes, it is another to harass. Your very first edit was [300] which I find quite unusual for a new user, to come in guns blazing and harass someone. I strongly suggest you quickly develop some tact in your communications. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collaborative endeavor. If you can't cooperate in a collegiate fashion, then you don't belong here. Tone it down and quit making personal observations on the character of other editors. If you make another comment like this, what we call ad hominem, you are likely to find yourself blocked. It is unhelpful and unwanted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"and it does look like you are targeting HistoryofIran for constant ridicule"

Why are you lying? This wasn't a target on one indviudal to ridicule this was to bring back the old template back, if you are gonna twist my words at least do it right and better than that.

"Your very first edit was [300] which I find quite unusual for a new user, to come in guns blazing and harass someone."

Wait a minute? Am I missing something or does every first new editor act the same, that page is what made me an editor today. I had to edit and bring back the guy's first name? Sorry that I like my things in order. Also "gun blazing" wow. It is clear you are one HistoryOfIRan's side, painting me ine one image while leaving the other guy as the angel sent from heaven.

"I strongly suggest you quickly develop some tact in your communications."

I do't need to take your syuggestion after what you have said about me? I request another adminsitator or another wikipedian to asses this siutation with no bias.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a collaborative endeavor. If you can't cooperate in a collegiate fashion, then you don't belong here."

I do collobatore, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean I don't do, work on your logic there buddy.

"If you make another comment like this, what we call ad hominem, you are likely to find yourself blocked. It is unhelpful and unwanted."

Petty threats again to marginzliae new editors and let the old gaurd hold this place down.
RussianDewey (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you might have a battleground mentality. We are here to make an encyclopedia, not be uncivil towards each other. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That being said, @HistoryofIran: can be a little intimidating at times, but that's just what I think. If we all act a little more civil towards each other, a lot of disputes won't happen. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• RussianDewey, the very fact that you started your comment to me with "Why are you lying?" demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. Indeed, a battleground attitude with no tact, and shows an inability to work in a collaborative environment. I've not heard of either of you until today, so to assume I'm picking sides is a fool's errand, particularly since I pointed out his incivilities as well. What you have done is confirm my suspicions that editing an encyclopedia may not be suitable for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"It seems like you might have a battleground mentality. We are here to make an encyclopedia, not be uncivil towards each other."

Then be civil. If you be civil, I will be civil. Golden Rule.

"the very fact that you started your comment to me with "Why are you lying?" demonstrates exactly what I am talking about."

So you have a telepathic abilities, or am I not allowed to question your integrity here, where is your dignity? You see another question I can ask.

"Indeed, a battleground attitude with no tact"

No tact but some strategy. I'm looking in the longterm mister brown not short term.

"and shows an inability to work in a collaborative environment"

What a load of bull, so the incident in the template and Malik-Shah's page represents all my edit and collaborative effort in Wikipedia? Who the hell do you think you are?

"I've not heard of either of you until today, so to assume I'm picking sides is a fool's errand"

Excuse me of thinking in worst-case scenario, you have to have your back.

"particularly since I pointed out his incivilities as well"

That is what you call it? WOW, *claps hand slowly*

"What you have done is confirm my suspicions that editing an encyclopedia may not be suitable for you."

Did you epext me to back down? Sorry I fail to understand after the way you talked abiut me, did you truly expect me to say "Sorry Mr.Brown I will behave like a good by and listen to HistoryOfIran"

You already knew I wasn't suitable you already had your opinion fro the get-go so don't beat behind the bush and man up. RussianDewey (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your current behavior is just confirming my idea of a battleground mentality Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Guys I strongly recommend you perform a range check on my current IP. I suspect you may catch some sleepers. Where do I post such a request? 82.132.234.244 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SPI, but you need to provide evidence in the form of diffs, not just vague claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Trolling of a blocked editor

Block evasion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User David J Johnson is baiting a blocked user (Billy from Bath) by posting factually incorrect information on his talk page while he is blocked. Here [[301]]. The user Billy from Bath (talk) was also blocked for the very same reason in 2011. Here [[302]]. 86.131.172.186 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You are really not helping your case here. I could see a decent argument against blocking you on the basis of your block evasion in 2011, as you have managed to not create problems since. But your use of IPs to evade your current block, whether or not that block makes sense, undermines it. If you want to stand any chance of getting unblocked, you need to respect the block and appeal it properly. Monty845 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based harasment by EconomicsEconomics

EconomicsEconomics has been making continuous ethnicity-based attacks since 1 June 2015 on Greek editors at Talk:Greek government-debt crisis constantly accusing them of WP:COI based on their Greek-sounding usernames and other identifiers of their Greek origin. I have given this user multiple warnings about harassing other editors including a final level 4 harassment warning on their talkpage yesterday but to no avail. Today, after I accepted Danish Expert's compromise wording he again came to the talkpage today to accuse me of COI:

(Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT)

Another attack here from 8 June

Please kindly accept that "username and motivations" are not irrelevant to WP:CONFLICT, even the opposite.

COI attacks against Greek editors from 1 June 2015

May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia).

There are many more ethnicity-based attacks but I have added just a sample that I hope is representative enough and shows a persistence through time as well as unresponsiveness to warnings or discussion. Can an admin please put a stop to this ethnicity-based harassment? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not harassing as User Dr.K. knows better but he omitted the following statements (all on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis") (I am technically not so versed in showing diffs, the bold typefaces are only put in when citing). There are many editors having problems with Thanatos666 and Dr.K., as they show clear behavior of WP:CONFLICT and try to "own" the article "Greek government debt crisis".

Citation 1:

"@Dr.K. , you know it better:

(so why the show if you hate long discussions?)

I am not "targeting Greek editors" but I proposed (after very frustrating and blocking discussions with Greek editors) to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT (Thanatos666 himself said that his agenda is to have "Greek interests" represented and that "Greek interests etc.[need to have] a prominence") that they should refrain from blocking the article improvement. You strongly supported Thanatos666 in blocking everything. What are you trying to convince me? That I'am blind?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)"

Citation 2:

"Dr.K. now picked the only option that is blatant WP:SYNTH ( "Due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption - as part of meeting one of the conditional terms in its bailout program, the corruption level improved to a score of 43/100 in 2014" ) - this is totally made up - and anyway not very believable if one has read the press the last years. Also again a very astonishing double standard of Dr.K. who has tried with his other edits on this talk page to make everybody believe he would fight WP:SYNTH (even if there was no WP:SYNTH.). (Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT )--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and it is even intentional deceit by Mr.K. as the title of the Dec 2014 source is the opposite: Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece, detailing: "In fact, if anything, people are now so squeezed they have fewer inhibitions about taking bribes than before the crisis.", and: "Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders" - I don't trust in no word anymore from Mr.K., if I ever had.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)"

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to show the language of Thanatos666 works in concert with Dr.K: (also on the same talkpage)

Citation 3:

"You are exactly confirming what I said: With a mainstream understanding how economies work it is easy to understand that BOTH happened - Greece got a debt cut worth 100 bn, bailout loans >200 bn, various other supports AND there was a firewalling and support of the international financial and banking system, too (no conspiracy thoughts needed, just common sense). With common sense it is also easy to understand that a 10 mil population with >300 bn debt and a high debt/GDP ratio and >10% annual deficit has to execute a lot of hard changes to arrive again at a sustainable state.

To comment the measures in the debt crisis with a phrase like "the interests of the Greek people were arguably sacrificed" seems to be as POV as to reducing it to a sentence like "the interests of the Eurozone tax payers have been sacrificed because Greece circumvented the Euro treaties and now wants the other people to pay for it". But even if you prefer one-sided sources like Paul Blustein to comment or "better understand" the debt crisis, it does not change the way Wikipedia should describe the crisis in a summary, i.e. the main causes, main measures, and main evolvement points. So, why still block a transparent summary of the debt crisis? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)"

You fucking racist idiot, the very fact that it was only ~100bn and that had been for so long delayed and that such a huge new loan(s) was given under such conditions is the very point of it being extremely negative for the interests of Greek people, tipping the scale greatly for the interests of the creditors, even that is, if one limits oneself to a framework of a supposedly, a so called mutually agreed upon, amicable agreement and exclude a Grexit etc (...)

--Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All I see right now is a bunch of people wielding spears and wearing tusk-proof armor, on both sides of the debate. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not link to humour pages. This is ethnicity-based harassment and it definitely is not funny at all. How would you have liked someone to use your ethnicity to accuse you of COI in editing an article, assuming you were transparent enough to divulge such details about your background? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no humor tag on No Angry Mastodons, and my point still remains. You need to calm down, there is no evidence of blatant harassment because of your ethnicity, I know what ethnicity based harassment is like (as I have dealt with it), and I don't see it here.

Don't tell me to calm down, per WP:CALMDOWN. It is a form of trying to portray an editor as out of control. Please don't do that. If you don't recognise the harassment that's your problem. Not mine. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying calm down as per WP:AGF. Its clear you are worked up about this, and I don't recognize the harassment because I don't see any evidence of harassment, all I see is incivility all around. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked EconomicsEconomics 24 hours for the personal attack above.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Unblocked after seeing that he proxied Thanatos666's comment from talk page. I would like to hear from Thanatos666 regarding the personal attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This diff has the attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • Hi Berean Hunter. I am not trying to justify Thanatos's intemperate remark, but if you check the date it is from 2 June 2015. One day after he was provoked by EconomicsEconomics's statement:

      May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia).

      Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just applying the "find"-function on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis" for the three words

• f...ing
• f.ck
• shit
• idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomicsEconomics (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• liar

will always lead to the user Thanatos. But I don't think he is addressable as being very emotional with this article. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Thanatos's behaviour justify your ethnicity-based harassment of the other Greek editors? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of that? I don't see any harassment coming from EconomicsEconomics. Just basic uncivilty, but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So you dismiss the three quotes I provided at the top of this section? It is your right and your problem of course. I can't be any clearer about the harassment which I think is clear enough. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The three quotes there are simply accusations of COI, I don't see how that means he is harassing anyone because of ethnicity. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Can you specify why I am wrong and what did I put Economics through? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What you did wrong is quickly assume EconomicsEconomics is attacking you because of your ethnicity, and when I said "but seeing what he has been through," I was referring to the "fucking racist" comments he was pummeled with. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And you think the three quotes I gave are not ethnicity based attacks. I think we are going in circles. And do you think that Thanatos's remark gives him the right to say that other Greek editors have a COI? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When did I say that? He has the right, as a wikipedian to suggest that someone might have a conflict of interest based on their edits, not their ethnicity, nowhere in those quotes does he mentioned the ethnicity of an individual or group of wikipedians, so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth editwarring to retain BLP violations in talk page

User:PeterTheFourth has restored three redactions of his BLP violating material (and his first inclusion appears a bit point and gratuitous, as well as the gratuitous BLP violation on my talk page). initial edit using name gratuitously in violation of consensus and BLP. revert BLP vio 1 (my redaction), revert BLP vio 2(Bosstopher redaction), revert BLP vio 3 (my redaction). He cites [303] as consensus but it is very clear in that discussion that mentioning the accused name on the article page are very strict and talk page discussion should only use the name to formulate content, not idly repeat allegations of rape that have been investigated and rejected. Other noticeboard discussions have ended with cautious approach and not to add it [304]. To date, the consensus is that Noticeboard requirements cannot be met.[305] He repeats the BLP violation on my talk page by gratuitously mentioning the name of the accused person who has been exonerated multiple times and claiming he is an "alleged rapist." There is no point in doing this other than to violate BLP and be inflammatory. The person is not a public figure, is not facing charges, has no biography on wiki and there is no venue (or need) to defend him of these charges or even explore them so using non-public figures name in connection with a vile crime is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF and WP:BLPTALK especially in light of previous discussion and the current discussion. Repeating it on my talk page shows an attitude of indifference to BLP violations. User:PeterTheFourth is a SPA with few mainspace edits and that began his career editing the GamerGate ArbCom page.First edit. His singular focus appears to be related to topics regarding rape and rape threats. Edit warring to maintain a BLP and restore BLP violations should not be tolerated. He's been here before and obviously knows policy and his way around and should know better. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)