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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

WP:COMPETENCE problem with Arctic Kangaroo on AfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Arctic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) is an enthusiastic young editor who has taken an interest in Articles for creation and helped reduce the backlog. Unfortunately, he's been making too many mistakes, mostly declining articles on people who are actually notable for irrelevant or spurious reasons (eg: Austen M. Purves, Jr., Paul Prucnal, Mike Feerick, Sarah Green, Nitzan Chen).

My impression is that AK is rushing through submissions, declining them too quickly. I've already had words with him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive#Increasingly frivolous multiple decline reasons, and Mdann52 has also advised him to back off AfC for a bit as he's causing too many problems here. I've also been advised by Geo Swan of a further problem over on Commons over a lack of understanding of our copyright policies here. Despite increasingly straight talking, I find he's still making questionable judgement calls on AfC today here. He really needs to just take a break from this area.

AK's not malicious, he wants to help and feels he is, but I just don't feel he has the required maturity to deal with AfC reviewing, and as such I feel a topic ban from AfC would help protect the encyclopaedia. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've recently been helping on out the -en-help channel of IRC and the week of the backlog, there were at least a few AfC submitters that popped in asking why their draft had been declined. Upon review, I had no good answer for them because I could see no reason to decline (some only had minor formating issues or bare URLs that needed fixing, not a reason to decline), and all had been declined by AK. I agree that AK is likely good intentioned, but unable to to reasonably assess these drafts. I've personally kept my reviewing to a minimum (instead focusing on improving the templates and the reviewer script) patiently awaiting the completion of Theonesean's AFC reviewer training program and think that an enforced topic ban would be appropriate here if AK refuses to self impose one until he can complete the training program. Technical 13 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Arctic Kangeroo has been notified. When he posts here, it would be helpful if he briefly explained why he declined the specific AfC's mentioned above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• AK is keen to be of help on Wikipedia, and always cheerful. However, maintenance areas are always a magnet to younger and/or inexperienced editors, and AK is no exception. I've tried to help him a few times as evidenced here, here, here, here, and here. His responses to me are always friendly and polite and he's the kind kind of editor I would willingly adopt if I did adoptions. I don't think any admin action is needed here other than a firm message to slow down a bit, stop reviewing and/or patrolling new pages for a while until at least we have a satisfactory report from his mentor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea an AfC reviewer mentoring program was in place, and I think sending AK on that is a much, much, better idea than any sort of formal action, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but in my limited interaction with him, I did not find AK to be "keen to be of help". Rather, I found him willing to cause a lot of disruption in order to get his own way, even when doing so would cause a lot of inconvenience to others. Mind you, those threats of disruption were over at Commons, and, traditionally, bad behaviour at one WMF project isn't held against a contributor who seems to be well behaved at another project. But AK threatened something highly disruptive there -- across dozens of projects.

1. AK requested deletion of a fine image, one widely used across many WMF projects, asserting he was no longer licensing it for use one commons -- because he wanted it to be used exclusively on en.wiki. His justification for doing so was, frankly, trivial and selfish.
2. Of course he can't claw back a legitimate cc-by-sa license -- it is irrevocable. We sometimes agree to delete properly licensed images -- as a courtesy. But no one could remember doing so when that image was widely used.
3. AK then seemed to announce that he would address the "widely used" objection, by going to all those other WMF projects, and editing the articles that were using the image in question, so they no longer used it. What AK threatened here was, frankly, extremely selfish and extremely disruptive.
4. Two followup comments AK made seem to indicate that AK actually started going to other wikis, to try to edit articles so they no long used his image -- only to be frustrated by instances when he lacked permission to perform the disruptive acts of selfish image removal. We have no idea on how many WMF projects he succeeded in this selfish image removal.
5. I don't think AK has shown any contrition. I've asked him on which projects he succeeded in his clandestine image removal plan -- no reply so far.

Since he started acting as a reviewer, at AfC, Arctic Kangaroo declined 614 candidate articles, and agreed to move 138 articles to article space. I am afraid I think we should have no confidence in AK's judgement and that all 752 decisions need to be reviewed. Here is a list of candidate articles that he declined: User:Geo Swan/AK's AfC declines.

Yes, I agree, that participating on WMF projects can be a good learning experience for keen young people. But providing that learning experience should only be accommodated when it is consistent with our primary goal of building an encyclopedia.

I suggest that when a contributor's record suggests a long learning curve before they can counted on to make contributions that we can count on being overall positive, it would be in the best interest of the project if we did not encourage them to try to contribute in critical areas -- like quality control. Over in the Commons deletion discussion AK insisted he did understand copyright and related IP issues, yet he kept making assertions that demonstrated he did not understand copyright and IP issues. For instance, he not only thought he was entitled to remove instances where his image was being used on other WMF projects he thought that if the image was deleted from the commons his release of his intellectual property rights would lapse, and he would have all his original IP rights restored. AK was not open to learning from his mistakes there, and I suggest this implies he won't be very open to learning from his mistakes here. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate AK's eagerness (even though he stole my signature without attribution), however, I have also found that he is not overly keen to accept critique. I'm not going to go digging for the details, but he once screwed up something pretty badly that he should not have been touching in the first place. He had already been previously warned not to do that type of action. I dropped a friendly WTF notice on his talkpage so that he could fix the problem himself instead of further action being taken. Many many days later, he tried to use that friendly kick as an example of me being "uncivil", rather than the helpful learning (and non-blocking) experience that it was. I would far prefer to rein him in than anything else - perhaps a voluntary ban on AFC, plus engaging him to assist in the re-review of all of his AFC actions (just like we do on CCI) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • @Bwilkins: As I have mentioned, it was not about "WTF". Rather, it was about the shouting (with ?!?!?!). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

AK, you probably want to let this one drop. I found the exchange, read through it, and concluded that Bwilkins was simply giving you good advice. You should take that advice in the spirit intended. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I dropped it long ago. I'm just explaining to let him understand. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A voluntary ban is a good option if the editor is patient enough to do that and learn through the process. It is better to have a large backlog instead of having discouraged first time article creators.  A m i t  웃   02:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• I ran into one of AK's poorly considered declines at AFC, on a biography I thought was quite worthy. Here is the decline decision by AK, based on the actress being "non-notable". After a call for help at the Film Project, a few of us teamed up to expand the article and nail down the references. The resulting Miriam Battista biography was soon featured at "Did you know?" and is now a cheerful little article assessed as C-Class. The editor who first proposed the article became more interested in Wikipedia and has been working on other articles. I shudder to think how many such promising contributors have been scared away by an unreasonable decline from AK. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• He probably is the least accurate of all the frequent AfC reviewers. Examining 3 dozen random declines from the list given, about 25% needed speedy deletion but weren't nominated, about 25% could be accepted with only minor changes, about 25% were not acceptable but the reason given wasn't accurate, and the others were declined correctly, though in no case did he offer what I consider sufficient advice. At least a few of the promising new editors have been scared away by the reviews, and I'm trying to bring back some of them, but it's probably too late. (About half of the declines were reviewed by one or more other editors . Many of these subsequent reviews were not correct either. My guesstimate that 60% is the average level of accuracy for AfC declines; that's a very poor figure, but his accuracy is only half that.

Frankly, I've tried to assist AK, but I don't think he understands. Most reviewers I try to help do learn to understand, and some realize they need to learn more before they continue. We have to clean up the AfC reviewing, and here's a place to start. If he won;t accept a voluntary topic ban from AfC (and NPP, because he'd do just as much harm there), he needs it done involuntarily to protect our new contributors. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In his time on Wikipedia, AK started just three articles; two are now Start Class and one is a Stub. I suggest that AFC volunteers ought to be familiar with the process of taking their articles at least to B-Class, and more than just a few of them. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

AK's AfC submissions for this month are in his July backlog drive chart here. As part of the backlog drive, other, more experienced editors, should review the submissions. AK has voluntarily signed up for his contributions to be reviewed, so if you want to specifically track his progress, this is the place to do it. 21 fails out of 79 checks so far is about 1 in 4 called wrongly, but only about 1/10 of his reviews have been checked so far. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So, will someone be telling him that such "quality" of work will most definitely not obtain the award he seems to be chasing after - just like all edits, it's quality not quantity that matters (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I've gotta say this, that it's my inexperience and noobiness that's spoiling the quality of some. The rest of the reviews are fine. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm. This is a confusing comment -- implying you have acknowledged that your declines fell short in earlier messages. But isn't this the first time you have acknowledged that your declines fell short?

Do you know the aphorism "even a stopped clock is correct twice a day". Using DGG's assessment of how often you gave the useful, correct reason for declining, are your declines really that much more accurate than random chance? Even the 60 percent accurate, 40 percent inaccurate DGG estimated for other reviewers determinations is disturbing.

I don't think you understand why a bad determination at AfC is damaging to the project. I question whether you really want to understand. How about you describe your understanding of how a bad determination affects a genuine newbie who has struggled hard to prepare a new article? User:Geo Swan 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the Commons thing, Commoners are being unreasonable. Sometimes, rules should be bent a little, especially if it is a mistake (yes, it was all a mistake to upload those images). But anyway, I'm not gonna delve into details, since this is not the place and what we are talking about. Back to point, I don't mind taking a short semi-break at AfC. Anyway, I've got the haze article to get busy with these few days, since Indonesia is back, and the haze has hit Malaysia yet again, although Singapore has been unaffected by the return. And BTW, I did not know about the AfC course, but I signed up yesterday after reading about it. As for not responding immediately, I just wanted to see some comments first, so at least I can respond better. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Besides AK, I think there is a larger problem with AfC... every time I take a look at the submissions, I remain often puzzled by the lack of competence of many reviewers... I think we should have a "method" to avoid these "incidents". Cavarrone 12:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm developing, with the help of the wonderful community at AfC, a mentoring program to reduce the chances of this happening again. This would possibly be linked to a reviewer whitelist, or blacklist, whichever would work best. So, changes are imminent. theonesean 04:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed

This is pretty alarming, especially DGG's experiences with the editor. AK is enthusiastic and wants to help — those are excellent qualities — we do want to be nice and appreciative and encouraging to him, but the risk of scaring off well-intentioned new contributors must surely take priority. AK hasn't chosen to take part in this discussion, even though he was immediately alerted of it, and is editing. That doesn't bode well for the idea of a voluntary ban which was broached above, and I just don't think we ought to wait for something like that. I suggest a topic ban from AfC and WP:NPP until such time as AK either can show that he "understands", per DGG above, or else gets a mentor who ongoingly checks all his work in these areas. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

AK has not touched any AfC reviews since this one two days ago, and has been working on content. If he says he's going to voluntarily abstain from AfC, let's take him at his word for the minute. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie: I'm on semi-AfC-break, as mentioned above. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the same. He has himself enrolled to the AFC course and we should assume good faith this time. And probably thats the end of this ANI too...  A m i t  웃   14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see AK declare a full break from AFC for six months while he works on content. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Six months, I would say, is almost impossible. Furthermore, it's a full break and I will be a free bird after October 2, having nothing to do everyday until perhaps, the start of 2014. If it's semi-break, I don't mind, but for a full break, especially one that's 6 months long, nah. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for seven years, on the internet in one form or another for about 20, and on this planet for nearly 40. And that's not saying much. You can do six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, I will only be reviewing Doncram's submissions. Easiest to find, easiest to review. For the rest of them, will discuss here. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, AK, that is not the offer that is on the table. As you can see upthread, some editors (not least DGG and BWilkins) are quite comfortable with serving you a mandatory AfC / NPP topic ban right here, right now, but Binksternet has given what seems to be a compromise. The offer is - no AfC work at all for six months, stick to articles, get a mentor and read up on policies. I think, unless anyone else wants to pass comment, the only question now is whether you want to accept that off your own back, or whether you want it to be imposed on you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333's assessment above. A semi-AfC pause presumably means that AK will do less AfC work than now, concentrating only on those areas which s/he judges to be uncontroversial. That's the problem; it's AK's judgement about what is and is not controversial which is at issue, and the consensus is that AK's judgement is poor. I'm not in favour of a semi-AfC pause. I'm not very keen on voluntary, self-imposed band either but a total voluntary ban, strictly adhered to, for 6 months would convince me. Failing that it's a community imposed ban, for my money. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec with Kim) Agree with Ritchie. A six-month topic ban makes sense, and a "semi-break" doesn't sound promising at all; impossible to supervise, in fact essentially completely up to the user's own judgment, which has been questioned here. That's probably why you never hear of "semi-bans". AK, did you really not think there were any comments here worth answering until just after an explicit proposal of a topic ban had been made (by me)? I can't admire your timing there. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

• Support mandatory 6-month holiday from AfC and NPP, per proposal. I'd also support a 6-month break from tagging articles for deletion, broadly construed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Anthony, I meant to support a six-month ban from NPP as well, as per my original proposal. But I can't see anything upthread about a problem with tagging for deletion (maybe I'm missing it). Could you specify about that? Bishonen | talk 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC).
    • I was assuming someone having trouble assessing AFCs would also have problems choosing articles to tag for deletion. On reflection, maybe spending time at AfD would be useful for AK - similar skill set but more scrutiny. Be that as it may, I was over-reaching, so have struck it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The attitude AK is expressing here is simply unacceptable. "If it's semi-break, I don't mind, but for a full break, especially one that's 6 months long, nah." AK, this isn't about what you mind or not--it's about what's best for Wikipedia. Based on the statistics cited above, your actions are cause clear and probably (as DGG points out) irreparable harm, by driving away new editors who are producing good content. Personally, I don't understand why we're "offering" a voluntary 6 month ban, since, if AK doesn't take it, the result needs to be a mandatory 6 month ban. That's like saying "Please volunteered to be lashed 40 times. If you don't agree, we're going to punish you by lashing you 40 times." This behavior has to stop, and I don't care whether we call it mandatory or volunteer, but just stop it. (that's a Support for the topic ban, in case this is about counting votes). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 6-month ban as too harsh. Support 3-month ban from AfC and NPP. I've proposed a 6-month ban in the past for an AfC reviewer who was an absolute menace, whose understanding of English was so poor that they would reply incomprehensibly to article submitters who asked for explanations for chaotic declines of submissions, and that proposal went nowhere. AK does at least have a reasonable command of English (so much so that there have been on-wiki suggestions that he's lying when he claims to be under 16!), and that's an improvement on some of what's happening at WP:AfC. Also, I see a lot of this decline-button-hammering as having been caused by the limitations of the WP:AfC drive itself; either the reviews of reviews need to happen more often or have more bite when they do, or else the "awards" should not be given to editors who have consistently failed to respond (sensibly) to questions on their talk page about their reviews. (AK is currently headed to receive the topmost prize for the current AfC drive; does that not indicate some problem with that process?) Finally, I would point out that AK is very young, shows remarkable promise considering his age, and has the benefit of a slightly older wiki-friend who uses the same WP:ENGVAR who has been offering considerable assistance (including doing much of the reviewing of AK's reviews). With these advantages, there's no reason to think he can't be ready to review again in 3 months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Prefer the 6 month, I can live with 3 months as per Demi's proposal on all NPP and AFC reviews as long as it's coupled with the right training/mentoring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: following AK's behaviour on this very discussion, I am no longer convinced that AK will have learned anything within 3 months. At this point, I'm leaning towards beliving that a 3 month BLOCK from the project, followed by 6 months Topic Ban from AFC and NPP along with intensive training to be the probably only way forward (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wait a minute...please justify that. I haven't been reviewing any AfCs these few days, and I have agreed to take an AfC adoption. It's just that I'm leaving the duration of the topic ban to the community, as you said. Even though I'm not topic-banned now, I have already voluntarily abstained myself from AfC, so that actually makes the total period of the ban longer, although of course, for example the ban is 6 months, the ban still expires 6 months after this discussion is closed. Anyway, I've got to get busy on the haze article already...the haze is back in Singapore! I will be rolling out lots of content already, and blocking me will mean missing it. I don't keep newspapers, dude, they are sold to garung gunis after a few weeks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's called you behaviour in this very thread. That's the justification (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• AK, have you participated in any sort of formal mentoring or WP:ADOPTION process previously? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support six month ban from AfC and NPP. My first comment on this case was rather positive in AK"s favour in so far as I believed, and still do, that he thought he was reviewing in good faith. However, his own statement of inexperience and noobiness strongly emphasises that no noobs or inexperienced editors should be interfering with the 'management' areas of Wikipedia. What I have discovered at AfC in the past couple of weeks has given me goose bumps and a shake up of the participants is long overdue. Some of the problems are due to the AfC project's own aggressive recruiting (possibly coinciding with school vacations) for reviewers and as with all management areas, has clearly attracted new and/or inexperienced users. The shake up has to start here, and unfortunatly for AK, he is going to be one of the catalysts. There won't need to be another long ANI like this one for the others; it will simply be a couple of official requests to cease and desist voluntarily or risk a TBAN or even a summary preventative block for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ain't no school vacations. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• support up to a month or successful completion of the mentoring program. Oppose for any longer duration. This is supposed to be preventative, and we all need to bear WP:AGF in mind. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: I just noticed that this discussion was initially triggered by Geo Swan’s attempt to find real age of AK on Ritchie333’s talk page. GS took part in that DR very late; and started attacking AK and everybody who behaved softly to AK, considering his age. Finally MichaelMaggs, a crat had to say "As a side note, I was sorry to see Jkadavoor being attacked for trying to help him. This is an international project and there are differences in culture and language; Jkadavoor was not trying to be sarcastic as appears to have been assumed above" to stop such attacks. Then GS uploaded all the works of AK to Flickr ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and started threatening him, violating Flickr’s community guidelines. (According to http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/: "Don’t upload anything that isn't yours. This includes other people's photos, video, and/or stuff you've copied or collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be deleted at any time." I informed this matter to Flickr/Yahoo support team and hopefully waiting for their response.) I think this is enough regarding the “common things”. JKadavoor Jee 04:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I dispute I attacked Arctic Kangaroo, Jkadavoor, or anyone else involved in these discussions, and said so in more detail on User talk:Jkadavoor.

With regard to whether I was trying to out AK's real age, after AK followed the advice he should claim to be a minor, I asked him to have his parents or legal guardian confirm his age, and I encouraged him to have them use OTRS to confirm he was a minor, in order to preserve his privacy. I don't care if Arctic Kangaroo is 17, 15, or even 12 -- so long as he can consistently behave responsibly, civilly, competently. Geo Swan (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This possible attempt at WP:OUTING is very concerning ... even moreso if you did, indeed, re-upload AK's images to Flickr. I'd like to see proof of the former, and would encourage you to undo the latter (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very concerning. Block! Outing is a no no, say the WikiGods... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I dispute I outed AK's age.

1. The first person to assert AK was a minor was Jkadavoor, on 2013-07-13, suggesting he should be cut more slack, because he was "a schoolboy".
2. After many suggestions he could get his way in the deletion discussion if he claimed to be a minor AK wrote "And, please understand that all the uploads were mistakes, as I was unfamiliar, and still young (U16)." I didn't "out" him, he volunteered this information.
3. In my reply I said I thought if AK really was a minor he should get his parents or legal guardian to confirm this -- VIA OTRS. I suggested OTRS to preserve his privacy. I don't want to know his personal details. Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• From the first to last comment, I had advised all the participants to behave properly following the guidelines, several times. But unfortunately many participants including GS behaved very poorly to him. You will get an idea if you read the entire discussion. JKadavoor Jee 17:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 6 month ban which is unduly punitive but Support a 3 month ban, which is more reasonable. A large amount can be learnt about Wikipedia in a few months. AfC needs editors with a sound knowledge of Wikipedia's basic principles. AK admits they are currently a newbie. Some of the problem stemmed from the fact they were invited to take part in a AfC backlog drive where there is a strong motivation for quantity over quality. AfC probably needs to review how and when they carry out backlog drives, rather than punish enthusiastic participants. Sionk (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • This is not punishment, it's self-preservation. AK has been burning off prospective contributors and I don't see any recognition from AK of the seriousness of that. There are squillions of other things a person can do here, the most useful of which - in terms of improving AK's ability to decide the fate of others' good-faith article efforts - would be to actually write content. Six months may seem like a lifetime to a child, but even under the constant coddling of a mentor it is a very optimistic time-scale. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Six months is a child's entire godding life!!!! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to be slightly awkward, but hopefully this'll be a good compromise to what everyone else has said so we can get consensus ... I will support a voluntary three month AfC/NPP topic ban if AK responds to it in the affirmative soon. By saying "yes, I will take the ban", it proves he is prepared to put the needs of the project and the community ahead of the needs of himself, and he is personally promising to improve as an editor. Otherwise, I will support an involuntary six month ban of the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I supported a six-month ban above, but I'll go with your suggestion which I don't feel to be awkward at all. I will however point out that while A large amount can be learnt about Wikipedia in a few months, it takes longer to assume an appropriate level of maturity, and helping users on their way to adulthood is not within our remit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support a 3 month ban, with mentoring & training in the meantime. GiantSnowman 11:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month ban, with mentoring & training included. Not punitive, but preventive, to avoid further "damages" in a very sensitive area that requires the highest competence, that in my view this editor proved not to have (yet). Cavarrone 12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• The purpose of a ban or block is to protect the project. I suggest we have good reasons to believe AK's actions will continue to be highly damaging. In particular Arctic Kangaroo has a pattern of not taking responsibility for mistakes. On commons, and on my talk page, AK is on record that he is not responsible for previous mistakes because he is legally too young to be held responsible. I don't care how old a contributor is -- so long as they contribute in a responsible, civil, competent manner. But, it seems to me, AK is acting like claiming to be under 16 means he should not feel responsible for his mistakes. Discussion above strongly suggests to me that AK is unable to really recognize the weaknesses in his contributions, and that makes me think he faces a long learning curve, may never understand what he was doing wrong. In that commons discussion AK kept insisting he understood copyright, when he very clearly didn't.

If we were to take at face value his claims to be under 16, and to interpret his comments as if he was saying he shouldn't feel an obligation to take responsibilities for mistakes because he was a minor, then we shouldn't expect him to try to act responsibly for more than two years.

I suggest the topic ban should include a ban on nominations in {{xfd}}.

I suggest the ban's duration should not be fixed, but that it should last as long as his mentors feel he is unready to act competently, civilly and responsibily. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there...let's investigate this Can you provide a diff where he even suggests that he has no "obligation to take responsibilities for mistakes because he was a minor"?? I think this is a very valid rabbit hole to start going down if such a thing was even hinted at by AK (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the diff is this one where AK says " I'm also just a minor, so how well do you think I can understand these copyright and law stuff?". Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hard truth: The pictures will stay. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • With regard to AK taking responsibility -- when he was told the commons image he wanted deleted wasn't eligible for courtesy deletion because it was in use on other projects he said he would visit all those other projects and remove it from those articles, so it no longer in use! No, I am not making this up.

    Later he complained he lacked sufficient permissions to remove all use of his fine image from all projects. I have told him that the responsible thing to do would be to go back to the articles on other projects, and restore usage of his image. He has not responded to this suggestion.

    I have asked him for an estimate of how many articles he succeeded in removing the image. He has not responded to this question. Geo Swan (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I feel an obligation to comment here. It's saddening to see an ANI thread concerning you (unless it's something good?). The fine prints of Wikimedia: Once you give us the goods, there ain't no takin' it back. Likewise I have to agree that once AK donated those photos, he could have never taken them back. Unless, AK, you say that you took those photos from another site, and it's not yours. I don't think that would work. Age should not matter on Wikipedia. I'm in favour for a three month AfC ban. I think it would be better for you to gear up and study. Don't trip on the final hurdle, AK! AK's a good chap, but all good chaps start out as bungling ones. With some time, this mess will be cleaned up and everything's good again. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 3 month - 6 months seems extreme in this case. Seems like 3 would be plenty of time to get up to speed. We can always revisit it then. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I will, very gladly, take the 3 months voluntary AfC ban, complete with AfC adoption. Case closed. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, AK, but that option is off the table. The community is discussing whether you will have a 3-month or 6 month (or possibly indefinite) community-enforced topic ban from NPP and AFC's ... you do not get to unilaterally choose something different - especially when you had that option long long long ago (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bwilkins: ??? They were asking me to volunteer for a 3-month or 6-month, so of course, I volunteered, after understanding that it would benefit Wikipedia. I don't see anywhere above talking about indef, but I actually don't see why it's needed, considering this is the first time, and I have good intentions. That leads to assuming good faith (as always). But anyway, an NPP ban would be almost redundant, as I only do NP patrol like, once every many many weeks or usually, months, although my userpage states that I'm on NP patrol. Most of the time, I do rvv, if you did look at my contribs. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BWilkins, I was going to say something like this too, but I'm not sure if AK truly meant that he was doing a "voluntary ban", or just meant that they "voluntarily submit to a formal topic ban". If it was the latter, then we're fine; that may have just been a confusingly worded way of saying he concedes to the topic ban. (This seems to be the case based on his post that EC's with this one.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm puzzled by what you mean. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to simplify: You don't decide how long your ban will be. (Sorry) We (the folks here) decide. You can accept it willingly oder unwillingly, either way you will serve what we want you to serve. Understood? Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Voluntary" bans are strictly up to you, in theory, its all up to you to uphold. "Topic bans" are actually enforced, and you'd probably get reprimanded and blocked if you decide to go against them. Based on your wording, I guess we're not sure exactly which one you're agreeing to. Agreeing to a topic ban would end the discussion. Agreeing to the voluntary ban...wouldn't really mean anything at this point, with so many people supporting a topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm volunteering, actually. Sorry for my confusing wording. If I ever try to/do break my voluntary ban, please slap me with 1000 whales and trouts, give me a huge scolding, and vandalise my block log for a duration of your choice. But two condition though, let me participate if there are further discussion on the current drive's page, and respond to any fails that I don't understand. Thereafter, I will shut myself totally from AfC until 24 October. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then, as others said, volunteering for a voluntary ban is pointless this far into the process. That's like "turning yourself in when you're already in the courtroom". (Sorry, its a pretty common tactic for people around here to quickly say they'll do it voluntarily just to avoid formal sanctions.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• AK: As already stated, you are long past the opportunity to self-impose a "voluntary topic ban" - consensus above is that a "topic ban" is required. You have no choice anymore. You can stop this discussion right now by stating "I accept the 6 month topic ban from NPP and AFC". Any violation of the topic ban (that is very clearly the consensus above), will lead to an immediate block, and then future blocks of an escalating nature. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic ban modified by the word 'voluntary' (implying that AK gets to choose whether and when it ends). Support topic ban of 6 months from AfC (and obviously any shorter ban as a second preference.) Sorry, but this negotiation process is not how we do bans. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for 6 months - voluntarily or not doesn't matter until he keeps his hands away from it and takes time to learn.  A m i t  웃   16:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support six month AfC and NPP topic ban. From what I've seen of (and about) Arctic Kangaroo both on commons and on here I have serious reservations about their work. They seem to think they can get out of things, and have things their way with complete disregard for policy and procedures (as seen here, here, and here one this thread and here at commons). Their whole attitude both here and at commons is quite unusual, trying to both claim competence and understanding (here) while claim 'I didn't know' other times and in the end claiming here and at commons that they don't understand (here), in what I assume is a last ditched attempt to get their own way. I feel it in the best interests of both Arctic Kangaroo and the project that a six month ban be enforced. I would however ask if there were someway that Arctic Kangaroo could review AfC articles, but through a supervising user? ie, Arctic Kangaroo looks at an AfC candidate, and writes up a review, proposals etc and send that to a supervising user who reviews their (Arctic Kangaroo's) review and then moves to the AfC candidates entry. This way Arctic Kangaroo could continue to contribute, but not directly (so as to limit potential harm) this could also be a way of providing valuable feedback, increasing Arctic Kangaroo's knowledge and competence. I do have two questions which I would like Arctic Kangaroo to answer though: Do you recognise that the way you reviewed AfC candidates was problematic, and that you have things to learn and improve on before you can go back to AfC? AND Do you completely understand the nature of licensing that is applied to all work across WFP projects (Wikipedia, Commons, etc), and can you - in your own words - explain it? (if these questions are out of line, I request an admin either strikethrough or redact them) Liamdavies (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I just noticed that GS still keeping AK’s works in his Flickr stream, attributing to AK; neglecting his repeated request to either remove them oder remove the attribution. Removal may a matter of courtesy and ethics; but I believe AK has full rights to ask for removing the attribution per [8]: “That said, CC licenses do provide several mechanisms that allow licensors and authors to choose not to be associated with their works or uses with which they disagree. First, all CC licenses prohibit using the attribution requirement to suggest that the original author or licensor endorses or supports a particular use of a work. This "No Endorsement" provision protects reputation, and its violation constitutes a violation of the license and results in automatic termination. Second, licensors may waive the attribution requirement -- choose not to be identified as the author or licensor of the work -- if they wish. Third, if a work is modified or incorporated into a collection, and the original author or licensor does not like the how the work has been modified or used in the collection, CC licenses require that the person modifying the work or incorporating the work into a collection remove reference to the original author or licensor upon notice. Finally, if the selected CC license permits modifications and adaptations of the original work, then the person modifying the work must indicate that the original has been modified. This ensures that changes made to the original work -- whether or not acceptable to the original author or licensor -- are not attributed back to the licensor.” JKadavoor Jee 03:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Attribution must be kept. But of course, it's better to delete the image. I have also placed a nice note explaining the steps I hope to take to make the decision I find best here, but the unreasonable guy is still talking crap. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • As you are teetering on the edge of a 6-month topic ban here AK, it might be better if you demonstrated a more level-headed editing style than this. I'd suggest that you strike this as an intemperate mistake, or at the very least that you think more carefully in future before you give your opponents more ammunition. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not striking that, but I'll try to control the blowing during this period. RL is making me fed up enough already, and Geo Swan just makes it get better. Can sometimes be hard to control, though. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• On User talk:Jkadavoor I said I would remove attribution to AK -- if he requested I do so. I don't believe he has made this request. If AK simultaneously requested commons also remove attribution I presume an OTRS ticket could be initiated for those who have a legitimate need to inquire.

I don't think it is on-topic here to discuss whether I have an ethical obligation to remove the flickr copies of these properly licensed images. I've encouraged Jkavadoor to explain his or her reasoning via talk page. I'll encourage anyone else with an opinion to explain it to me on Commons:User talk:Geo Swan. Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support six months AfC topic ban. Although he's been editing for about a year, 99% of his contributions are vandalism reverts. I think he lacks sufficient understanding of the more complex content policy issues to patrol others' work. Some of the articles he declined are rather complex as they require an evaluation via WP:ACADEMIC criteria, but in other cases he simply said that generally reliable sources, like the New York Times etc., are unreliable. In general, one should not stomp on articles he understands little about. It should be understood that more serial mistakes after the topic ban expires would result in an indefinite topic ban. Hopefully he'll use this time to contribute some new content as well, and in the process become more familiar with content policies. There are also problems with this vandalism patrol as well, e.g. [9] is not vandalism; they did have a loss that big for 2012 per [10]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I actually don't find it nice to talk about the wrong revert, considering the fact that that was almost 5 months ago. 5 months can help us make lots of improvements. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month topic ban. I hope that AK spends the time at AfD, learning the fine points of Wikipedia's notability doctrine. Read that every day with open eyes and an open mind, especially the closer rationales. Offer your opinions when you bump into articles you feel strongly about one way or another. Improper declines at AFC are a big problem; once a person truly understands notability doctrine that shouldn't be an issue. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support 3 month AfC topic ban if he refuses to self-impose a topic ban. Also, I would like to note that Category:Submissions by Doncram ready for review is not technically part of AfC as a result of this discussion at the AfC wikiproject, and I personally have no problem with him accepting/declining those with guidance from a mentor. Which, as I originally mentioned way up above, I support him taking part in an Adoption and going through the AfC Mentoring program (when it is completed that he has already signed up for). Technical 13 (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I have come across several of Arctic Kangaroo's later reviews when the articles were resubmitted, and I must say that he has been improving with experience, and taking time to leave specific messages for the article creators. It's quite likely that if he comes back to the Afc later on his reviews will be more acceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a 3 month ban from AfC and NPP, Oppose a 6 month ban per Demiurge. As shown below, this user has been following incorrect advice which is not his fault. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• . Thine Antique Pen, how that specific problem with Commons has something to do with his conduct at AfC and NPP? Unrelated issues. Cavarrone 08:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that AK was given incorrect advice on copyright, something that should be checked for in AfC and NPP. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry Thine Antique Pen, surely AK's wrong assuptions about copyright were/are a problem, but that's not "THE problem", at least not the main problem we are discussing here. I don't see any evidence that they have a significant weight on his lack of competence and on the bad reviews he made at AfC. They are, at best, an additional problem of competence, even if justified by a bad advice he received. But I don't see how this helps his position on the AfC issue. Cavarrone 10:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support a three month ban Bedrieger (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support a three month ban... with mentoring and close monitoring afterwards. He's extremely receptive to criticism (see my comments on User talk:Arctic Kangaroo/Archive 5), but he's a bit, shall we say, headstrong. WP:COMPETENCE has been mentioned to death, but it's very relevant here. My mentoring program should be (I've been really busy, sorry) completed in three months. The AfC community has been very helpful in this. Thanks, theonesean 04:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody please throw the topic ban at me and close this discussion ASAP? I don't wish to be kept waiting; this thread has been inactive for more than 36 hours and I have other things to settle at other parts of Wikipedia. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to close this and would judge the consensus to be a 3-month topic ban on AK from making decisions at AfC. However I expressed an opinion above and would much prefer a non-involved admin to do the closing (and I may of course have misread the consensus.) So if another admin sees this, please do the decent thing. I will close in 12 hours time or so, if it hasn't been done and if nobody objects. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Relevant conversations here where AK emailed Jimbo and Jimbo has "asked Wikimedia Legal to comment on the issue" and here on commons where AK was indeff'd for carrying out a disruption threat. Rgrds. --64.85.214.168 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the Commons image(s) is basically orthogonal to his competence at AfC on en.wikipedia. Please post in the relevant section. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright and incapacitation due to minority

Broadly speaking, a person not of the age of majority in the US cannot be legally bound to contractual obligations. Does this not apply to WP's terms of use, specifically: releasing their contributions as per our CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL? This user has a) declared their minority and b) questioned how they can be held responsible for "these copyright and law stuff". WP:COMPETENCE may be applicable, as well may be a block (until their minority has elapsed) so as to protect the foundation from potential exposure and also to protect a young editor. Rgrds. --64.85.216.104 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We have several editors who are under the age of majority in their respective countries. If that were a legal concern, WMF's general counsel would have brought that to our attention. I'm not a lawyer, and I wouldn't be WMF's lawyer if I were, so I try to leave the legal stuff up to the people who are experts in it and get paid to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion sometime back about underage editors in the village pump to be allowed to use WP and access especially the so called adult content. Most of us opposed. But in this instance for an editor who shows intentions to ignore the rules and legal contracts should be an issue especially when they themselves claim being underage as one of the loopholes. At the same time the above about putting a block on him because he is underage is going to discourage a lot of underage editors in WP, also how do we identify without an outing that when his block should lapse? A m i t  웃   16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

They have said they're under 16/18. I could say I am an admin, or Foundation staff; That doesn't make me one. Also, there is some doubt about their age at the file deletion page on Commons. I feel that we just can't tell about this, unless we make everyone to identify to WMF. Mdann52 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Amit, I think most people who favor a ban favor it not due to AK's claim to be a minor, but due to an unwillingness or inability to contribute in a responsible, civil, competent manner. Adults who can't contribute responsibly, who can't contribute civilly, or who can't contribute competently may also face preventative blocks or bans. Geo Swan (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  I agree and for the same reason you can see my already existing support vote for the 6 month block in the above section irrespective of his age. I do raise the outing question and made the point about discouraging underage editors in my earlier point which i meant to put in as i am not trying to favor nor oppose any action based on age.  A m i t  웃   18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The challenge here is that AK seems to have claimed that because of their age, they were not old enough to be able grant the license they did for their images, and as such, they original grant should have been cancelled. That's problematic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• IANAL, but I think if a case like this ever made it to court, the judge would rule that by letting him use the camera, and then letting hims use WMF sites where individual released images and intelledtual content under a creative commons license, his parents had authorized him to upload those images, and click save when he drafted new material.

  Until he takes steps to confirm he is a minor, through OTRS, I suggest we act as if AK is legally competent to surrender intellectual property rights through a CC license. Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your obsession with "winning" this war over this image, however important an image it may be, is unseemly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm reasonably certain a minor can hold a copyright. If there were issues with a minor disposing of (i.e., agreeing to license) such a copyright, I would imagine that would have been brought up by WMF legal counsel by now.

Regardless, however, a refusal to agree to the licensing terms is incompatible with editing any Wikimedia project, and we've normally revoked the editing privileges of any editor who's tried. While this incident occurred on Commons, rather than here, I'm troubled that it took place. I'm not certain AK should be editing until (s)he clearly indicates understanding of and willingness to follow the irrevocable CC-BY-SA licensing terms. That's true whether an editor is 15 or 50. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually WMF have already commented on that eventuality, so your being unaware of that suggests that you shouldn't be commenting until you're up to speed on the realities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, if the WMF have already commented, and you know where to find that comment, would you please link to the pertinent comment? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, I'll dig that out for you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would assume that minors are able to retain and also release copyright. Otherwise, it brings to question almost everything a minor is involved in on the internet, including DeviantArt, Facebook, and anywhere else that involves both a release of copyright and a contractual retaining of copyright. And those places do allow minors to be a member, so I would assume that such a thing is allowed. Though it's possible that copyright for minors is something the law leaves as a gray area until it becomes an issue due to a lawsuit. Is anyone aware on what the law, at least in the US, is regarding copyright for minors? Silverseren^C 23:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  Can a minor claim copyright? Short answer: Yes, but state laws may regulate related business dealings. alanyst 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  So, in short, it's complicated, huh? I hate it when that happens. Though, Wikipedia-related copyright isn't a business dealing, is it? So there shouldn't be a problem? Silverseren^C 23:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  I wouldn't read too much into that short phrase. Just because it doesn't mention state laws regulating non-business dealings (such as a minor releasing their writings and images under a free copyright license without being paid for it) doesn't mean there aren't any such laws. --Avenue (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  Can a minor claim copyright? Yes; probably. But can a consent of a person below Age of consent to grant/give-away his rights can be considered as a valid consent? No; probably. JKadavoor Jee 14:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I think you might have meant to link to age of majority, not age of consent. --Avenue (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Two conflated issues, I think. Contracts with minors are voidable. However, a contract must have several things in it to be such, and one is consideration. Because there is none here, there is no contract issue. A person neither gains nor loses anything by uploading media to WP, because rights aren't assigned (AFAIK, CC-BY-SA doesn't prevent the uploader from continuing to use the file). Second issue is copyright; any person can assert copyright regardless of age, but it would seem to me that by uploading media to WP that he does not wish anyone else to use, AK is using WP as a webhost, and is thus not conforming to the file upload licensing policies. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As has been pointed out elsewhere, copyright licences are not contracts, so contract law is irrelevant. Let's leave it for the legal team to determine whether the CC licence is legal. What is a contract, though, is everyone's agreement to the bit above the "Save page" button. Colin°^Talk 07:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo was following erroneous advice he was given

In April 2013, as part of a formal WP:ADOPTION process, Arctic Kangaroo, obviously confused about copyright of images, asked this:

"Umm...if I have a photo which I have taken myself, and I want to upload it, but just uploading it to help Wikipedia, but don't want others to use the work, then can I list it "non-free" or place a "<copyright sign> Arctic Kangaroo" on the picture?"

In reply he was told this:

"You could do the latter of those, but not the former because that requires it to be used, and just a notice asking for no usage would work. It is unlikely anybody will want to use right away anyway, especially if its not something that requires further illustration."

He was still uncertain, so he expanded on his question further:

"Could you explain further what you mean by "just a notice asking for no usage would work"? Because I don't really get what you mean."

In reply he was told this:

"Just write a sign that asks people not to use it."

So AK made clear he wanted to upload photographs without other people using them elsewhere, he was told that this was possible (or that probably no-one would want to use his photographs anyway), and he was told that he could retain more rights over his photographs than is actually the case. And he followed this advice.

I'm not saying AK's attitude has been acceptable here, but it seems to me that half the problems he has are caused not by "lack of competence", on his part, but in fact by problems with two WikiProjects - first, the WP:AFC project which is giving out its biggest shiniest award to someone who hammers the decline button on submissions without giving it enough thought and without replying to most of the queries about it on their talkpage, and second the WP:ADOPTION wikiproject which has given a kid who was already confused about copyright, the wrong information that has led him into exactly this mess.

This is not his fault. It's our fault. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As the coordinator of the drive, I want to make something clear - per the rules of the drive, AK is not in the lead. Every review that is reviewed as a fail does not count - and in fact takes points off. Also, on the adoption page, the user in question makes it clear that CC makes the work free - and says nothing about releasing the images under the licence in question. Mdann52 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the leaderboard currently shows "1 - Arctic Kangaroo - 808 - CRM.png and Goldenwiki 2.png". As for the adoption page, I'm not sure I completely follow what you're suggesting, and I don't think an inexperienced editor should be expected to follow it from the answers provided either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• That is interesting. Note, while his mentor seems to have given AK incorrect advice, AK didn't "write a sign that asks people not to use it." So, I suggest it is quite incorrect to assert he got into trouble because he "followed this advice".

AK was being mentored, this question could have been thoroughly theoretical -- not a reflection that he didnt' want his images to be re-used when he released them under a free license. This would explain why he didn't place the note his mentor described, when he released them.

I suggest the underlying lesson from his mentor's bad advice is the importance of vetting or monitoring those who volunteer for particularly important positions. Quality control is important -- too important to be undertaken by unvetted individuals who just aren't qualified. Similarly, the lesson of the bad advice which AK was given, is that those serving as mentors need to be vetted or monitored. I don't know AK's mentor, and I won't judge his or her competence on a single event. They are on a wikibreak, so we can't expect them to explain this advice here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the question could have been "thoroughly theoretical" if it weren't for the fact that the chronology is quite clear - (1) AK asks if he can upload images that then won't be used elsewhere, (2) he's told that probably no-one will be much interested in using it elsewhere anyway, (3) he uploads a rather fine image, (4) it gets used elsewhere, (5) he seems unhappy with this.

About the need for greater vetting or monitoring of those in quality control or mentoring positions, we are in agreement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I echo the above arguments, as I said in the main discussion, these roles (mentor, AfC reviewer) are too sensitive to be left free from every rule and every supervision. They are the entrance doors of WP, they should be assigned to persons of the highest competence. I think there should be some selective mechanism to avoid any incident and any bad judgement. Cavarrone 06:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So now that AK knows the correct policy is he backing off? he still seems to claim commoners are being illogical? Obviously this new information changes my vote above to Neutral.  A m i t  웃   14:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

One could happily pass of the assertion that Commons has problems to Jimbo. (The two have corresponded by email anyway.) Jimbo appears to be much more widely informed about Commons than AK, even if AK is fast learning the things about the current state of Commons that Jimbo already learned. I don't see that it has much to do with AK any more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• WRT Mr Wales's correspondence with AK -- he has gone on record that, after his private correspondence, that he is convinced AK is a genuine minor. I hope Mr Wales didn't intend his personal determination to replace OTRS confirming or refuting AK declaration. Perhaps every single one of us would agree with Mr Wales, if we could see that private correspondence. But it is private, and Mr Wales shouldn't share it.

We have an OTRS team. This kind of determination is their job, and, if we rely on them to make the determination, all their correspondence will be logged, on the ticket. It will be available 24x7 if new events crop up, and require reviewing the earlier determination. Presumably OTRS tickets are professionally backed up. Presumably, OTRS team members will explicitly record the reasoning behind the determinations they make. An additional reason I would encourage Mr Wales to leave this determination to the OTRS team is that I think it isn't good for their morale for him to do their job. Geo Swan (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Such matters only fall under Office_actions: “The most common complaints are defamation, privacy violations or copyright infringement.” I think the privacy of a youngster has high priority for WMF; so his action to forward it to WMF Office is very genuine and wise. OTRS is only for mere routine jobs (“The main use of OTRS in relation to Commons is to verify and archive licensing permissions.”) It is not for finding and recording somebody’s real age. JKadavoor Jee 03:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I strongly advise you to recuse yourself from this discussion. You actions throughout this issue (esp. the Flickr upload) have been unacceptable and just inflame the issue. I concur with Jkadavoor on the unsuitability of OTRS for this job. If there are legal issues, the WMF should sort them out. Not a bunch of internet volunteers. Colin°^Talk 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past couple of months or so we have had continuous problems at Morgellons and Talk:Morgellons. Most of these problems have been caused by tenditious editing by two users, User:Drgao and to a lesser extent, User:Erythema. They have repeatedly attempted to add low quality primary fringe studies to this medical article rather than secondary sources. There are numerous examples on the talk page, including this one [11] which is now in the archives (which, as an aside, gives a good indication of how long this has gone on). Many of us have explained WP:MEDRS and countless other policies to both of them, to no avail. Drgao has been asked, on his talk page to avoid personal attacks, to avoid commenting on editors and instead to comment on content, again to no avail [12]. Finally, User:Zad68 took the issue to WP:DRN [[13]. A clear decision was reached at DRN and the sources were deemed inappropriate. However, yesterday Drgao took these same sources to WP:RSN [14]. When this was done Drgao did not inform other parties to the DRN process that (s)he was doing this, so Zad68 let others know. Drgao then complained that Zad68 was stalking him/her and continued beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources [15]. I am asking that both Drgao and Erythema be topic banned from Morgellons and related articles. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is grossly misrepresenting the situation here. I was entitled to submit my inquiry to the WP:RSN page, because as far as I understand, the sources in question were only deemed unreliable by the DRN for the Morgellons article, but not deemed unreliable in general. Therefore, since I was considering using these sources in other Wikipedia articles, I wanted to get an opinion on their general reliability.

So Dbrodbeck is grossly misrepresents the situation when he says I was "beating the dead horse of these unreliable sources". My WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. And since my intention was to use these sources in unrelated articles, there would be no particular requirement to inform the editors at the Morgellons article. Furthermore, since I have found these editors to be quite adversarial towards my suggestions, I was hoping to leave these people behind, but to no avail. In fact, their group presence at my WP:RSN inquiry only served to derail that inquiry. I suggest that they need not have derailed that inquiry, and could have helped me instead, but they chose not to.

Dbrodbeck and other editors at the Morgellons article have been less than helpful in my dealings with them. For example, these editors decided that certain peer-reviewed sources were unreliable, but they would not explain to me their decision process as to why these sources were unreliable, just telling me that only they are properly able to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, as if there is some black art to such interpretation, only known to a special few. I am fully familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, but apparently, according to these editors, there is a special way to interpret Wikipedia guidelines that I don't know, or am not privy to, but Dbrodbeck and other editors at the Morgellons article are privy to. Each time I asked these editors to clarify for me their decision process as to why these sources were unreliable, they failed to provide any explanation, other than saying that only they know how to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't. I found this behavior condescending. I also found it worrying that the process of determining whether a source is reliable is so open to interpretation, with these editors' interpretations being superior to mine (or so they told me).

Even in the DRN decision (which I am honor bound to comply with, and I do so comply), the sources were deemed unreliable, but without any details being given on the decision process. I do not contest the DRN decision, because I agreed to comply, and I keep to my word; but it does seem strange to me how editors can just decide that a source is unreliable, without quoting any specific Wikipedia guidelines on which the decision is based. My view is that more transparency in the decision process in determining reliable sources would be a good thing, and would help prevent disputes like this one. Disputes arise when editors say that "only we know how to interpret Wikipedia guidelines, but you do not". More transparency is required to prevent such condescending remarks and the disputes that ensue from them. Drgao (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DEADHORSE, IDHT 198.199.134.100 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

See this conversation Drgao (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, but on all medical articles, as an involved editor. This editor (Drgao) has been a huge time sink, and a distraction to multiple WP:MED editors from content creation through their tendentious WP:IDHT behavior. Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors, they have shown no understanding of the issues involved, specifically correct application of WP:MEDRS. As they have expressed a desire to use the same bad sources in other medical articles (just yesterday in their posting on WP:RSN), it is necessary to topic ban them from medical articles to stop the disruption until they can show an understanding of how our sourcing guidelines work, and can work collaboratively. Yobol (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to medicine for user:Drgao. This user have persistantly refused to abide by a wide range of WP policies, including WP:MEDRS, and this problematic behavior is likely to occur not only on articles directly related to Morgellons disease, but to any other topic related to medicine. The length and intensity of his attempts to introduced unrelaibly sourced material into the article, coupled with his persistant tendentious and disruptive editting and dead horse argumentation, make it reasonable to assume that this behavior will continue both on the Morgellons article and elsewhere. Yesterday, I warned user:Drgao several times myself about numerous violations of both our content and our sourcing policies and guidelines, as several other editors had regularly been also warning him for the same for the past two months. Administrator user:MastCell also told him that his "tendentiousness is becoming a major drain on the time and goodwill of other constructive editors" and that he would block him "for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing, in order to enable other editors to improve the article constructively and in an environment free of disruption." The editors responses indicated that he has numerous fundamental misunderstandings of what WP is and how it works, and has no intention of modifying his uncollaborative behavior, and indeed had plans on using unerliable sources in other articles as well. As such, he is incompetant to edit productively on any article where strict adherence to WP:MEDRS is expected. Would support a total community ban for this editor until he can reassure the community that he will edit in compliance with WP content and behavioral policies and guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment: reserving judgement on User:Erythema until I examine the evidence more fully. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question. On what specific evidence is Dbrodbeck's suggested topic ban for User:Erythema based? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think [16] and [17] as well as [18] and [19] show a lack of understanding of our medical article sourcing requirements. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Erythema seems to have only made one post [20] since the dispute resolution process closed a week ago. While this post might well be seen as argumentative, I'd say that in of itself it wouldn't justify a block. I'd suggest that it might be best to give Erythema the benefit of the doubt, and rather than block, warn him/her that future conduct will be under close scrutiny, and that continuing as before isn't an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. The caveat about future conduct is important. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban of Drgao (I am an involved editor). I think this version of the user's page illustrates a number of the problems, including this illustrative quote: OK, I will try to avoid ad hominem strikes, and battle only in the arena of the actual subject matter. [21]. -- Scray (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for user:Drgao on all articles related to medicine. (I've been marginally involved) It seems self-evident that Drago is unwilling to accept the clear consensus over sources, and likewise unwilling to accept the broader principles regarding medical sourcing - his/her suggestion at WP:RSN that the rejected sources might be appropriately used elsewhere [22] is about as clear evidence of tendetiousness as one could get. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment above for why I thought my WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. I understood that source reliability decisions only apply in the context of the article they were discussed in. So since I was considering using these sources in other articles, my WP:RSN inquiry should have been accepted and considered. Drgao (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block for both users. The Erythema account is abiding by the DRN resolution, but they're clearly a SPA and continue to demonstrate an inability to understand WP policies. The Drgao account is and will continue to be an enormous timesink and even continued to argue with the admin in RSN after being told that doing so would lead to a block; I just don't see a personality like that as being able to maintain a relationship with the WP community that enriches either the community or the user. I'm the IP user 198.199.134.100 posting from home; I usually edit from work. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for Drgao, for all the reasons Dbrodbeck outlined above. This user has shown willful disregard for Wikipedia policies on sources, agreed to abide by arbitration and then violated that agreement, repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, and has asserted ownership rights on this article. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral on block for Erythema. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef WP:MEDICINE topic ban for Drgao (as involved editor) - this would include all articles in WP:MEDICINE scope, biomedical content in all other articles, and associated discussion on Talk pages. What was brought to light at the DRN discussion and the following discussion at Talk:Morgellons was Drgao's inability or unwillingness to understand and apply WP:MEDRS, the biomedical content sourcing guideline, in line with consensus. The DRN discussion listed twelve editors having from modest to extensive editing experience who were able to review the sources against the WP:MEDRS guideline and didn't have trouble all coming to the same conclusion about them: they are not reliable for sourcing biomedical claims. TransporterMan was able to do the same thing without difficulty. At Drgao's RSN discussion, AndyTheGrump and Dominus Vobisdu didn't find a problem with it. Instead of pausing to consider that his/her own interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS might be problematic, Drgao continues to question whether it's everyone else who's got it wrong, demanding repeatedly that WP:MEDRS be explained again and again, despite that fact that Talk:Morgellons is full of hundreds of kilobytes of futile attempts by many different editors to explain it, with only WP:IDHT in response. Further tendentious editing is evidenced by Drgao's continuation of discussing the exact same thing that the DRN participants committed not to discuss after its conclusion - the WP:MEDRS fitness of the exact same sources - with a stated desire to use them in other articles. Because the issue is not with Morgellons in particular but with Drgao's understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia's biomedical sourcing guideline, the topic ban should be WP:MEDICINE-scope content. Regarding Erythema, there's not enough evidence to recommend a sanction at this time. Zad68 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment above for why I thought my WP:RSN inquiry was legitimate. I understood that source reliability decisions only apply in the context of the article they were discussed in. So since I was considering using these sources in other articles, my WP:RSN inquiry should have been accepted and considered. Drgao (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I express no opinion either for or against the actions proposed here, but am available to answer any questions which any closer or administrator might wish to ask about the prior proceedings in which I was involved as a neutral party. (I may be mostly offline from about 22:00 UTC today through about 13:00 UTC on July 29, so if a quicker answer is needed, you might give me a heads up by email.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Drgao. (No comment on Erythema.) When an editor responds to a consensus at RSN with the assertion that other editors are telling lies and are "just not honest enough" about Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, it throws up a big red flag. It appears, based on the information above, that this is an ongoing, persistent, and otherwise intractable IDHT problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Drgao nor Erythema have done anything wrong. They simply have a more neutral opinion than the editors here who have ganged up on them. Sierraparis (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Experienced editors who review the situation for the first time have unanimously agreed that Drgao and Erythema are in the wrong here.

Would it be possible to also seek similar corrective action for Sierraparis or does a new ANI report need to be opened? Problematic editor at Talk:Morgellons, SPA, IDHT, etc, etc. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: Sierraparis account just claimed to not be here to edit, but as a "neutral journalist". 198.199.134.100 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(involved admin) So, block Sierraparis per WP:NOTHERE? I don't think we're there yet, but, if he fails to rescind his comment that only editors who know Morgellons patients should edit, it should be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

support (involved) medical top ban for Drgao (Btw, it looks like they've been involved in pushing the infectious etiology for conditions other than moregellons, and I don't know if the references are up to snuff their either). Erythema and Sierraparis haven't quite reached the threshold of tendentiousness required for a topic ban, but are rapidly heading in that direction, since neither seem to have any reason to be on wikipedia other than to argue that apparently all of wikipedia is biased against them. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I may be biased, but I think Drgao is doing a great job in improving the Morgellons article. Drgao (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban from medical articles, as use seems to be unable to comprehend or abide by WP:MEDRS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• "OPPOSE" Drgao has much to contribute to the discussion of this article and there is no reason whatsoever for banning this editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierraparis (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for all three users. The disruption and IDHT needs to stop. I'd even support a community imposed indefinite ban. There seems to be an inability to understand our most important policies. While we're at it, User:Sierraparis and User:Erythema need to be included in the topic ban. They are indistinguishable from twins/clones of Drgao. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban The distribution wastes a considerable amount of editor time, and the editor doesn't appear capable of getting the issues. This topic ban should not be lifted until the editor shows an understanding of policy, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban I've checked the Morgellons talk page & it's last two archives and note that user:Drgao is displaying continual disruptive IDHT behaviour. Suggest swift expansion of the ban if s/he takes this behaviour to other wp:FRINGEy medical matters. Currently Neutral on sanctioning user:Erythema. Now also Support indef topic ban for user:Erythema rgds 188.222.98.201 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that Erythema, Drgao, and Sierraparis have honestly tried to abide by WP policies and I still believe that the NPOV of this article could be greatly improved. However, I don't believe in beating a deadhorse, and I do not feel that anything will be achieved by trying to discuss this topic further when the majority of the editors are not receptive. If you feel that Erythema, Sierraparis and Drgao have not followed policy then copying the relevant sections of policy would have been helpful. Many times they have asked for more specific objective justification concerning rejection of their proposals and have been met with hostility or sarcastic comments rather than useful discussion. One example I can think of was something to the effect that "fair and balanced is not what we do here". Erythema (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

comment From the very beginning of when you & Drgao started to edit the talk page (late May) other editors repeatedly gave you links to the relevant policies and explained - again repeatedly - how those policies judged that the sources you were advocating were not suitable, and that your editing/talk page etiquette were failing to adhere to the communities norms of behaviour. The majority of 'hostility & sarcasm' was coming from user:Drgao and if some of the other editors were occasionally testy it was because of the abovementioned & amply evidenced tendentious editing. As for "We don't do fair and balanced here, read WP:UNDUE" This was in the context of the questionable reliability of your supporting sources and was discussed in Archive 9 here. 188.222.98.201 (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This is further evidence that all three editors (if they are separable in any manner....) still, even now, fail to understand our policies. They have been provided plenty of explanations and links to read. They are not suited for editing here at all, so now I support a total ban from Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MilesMoney Personal attacks, non-reliable sources and general non-constructive editing.

User:MilesMoney Has been repeatedly using Think Progress and The Daily Kos as reliable sources in a BLP article, and then resorting to personal attacks. On the talk page this has been discussed, but he does not seem to care.

A simple notification to him that The Daily Kos, Think Progress, and The Colbert Report are not reliable sources for BLP issues would be appreciated. Arzel (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User has been notified. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the context of the use be important? For example, I don't think Think Progress should be uniformly excluded as a source for BLP. A current discussion on thinkprogess, is taking place here. Second, as far as being insulting, I would be concerned about WP:boomerang.Casprings (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new here but Arzel has been on my tail from day one. He's following me around, undoing my work, threatening me and trying to get me to stop editing. His edit comments are full of lies, half-truths and insults. I'm really sick of him. Please send him away. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you are new, perhaps you are unaware that your claims will be much more plausible with diffs demonstrating them. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The main focus of his attacks have been on Steve King, where he's repeatedly lied about lack of sources. If you look at the section he keeps cutting, it refs ThinkProgress, Washington Post, and DailyKos. It is part of a larger paragraph that refs the Humane Society and Agri-Pulse. One of the secondary sources brings up the coverage of this scandal on the Colbert Report, so we include a link to the primary source for reference. Everything is cited, balanced and accurate, so BLP is not involved.

Since you asked, I tried to grab some diffs, but I'm sure I missed some and included a few that aren't important.

Arzel edit-warring over Steve King:

"Not reliably sourced"

"Now it is just vandalism"

"These ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES."

Censoring scarlet letter quote that is easily sourced [23]

Censoring Boehner quote cited by Politico, using false argument

"Repeated inclusion of non-reliable sourcing" but there were already three reliable sources and I then added more

(there may be more edit-war diffs that I missed)

Bonus:

Censoring another article about Steve King by deleting it

Here's where he acts like he owns the article and stays just barely over the line while baiting:

Aggressively attacking Robofish

Insulting Casprings

Attacking Caspring's motives again

"what is your problem?"

"you need to stop editing WP now"

Accusations of activism

Unreasonably taking insult and telling me to stop editing

Bottom line: he doesn't want this accurate stuff in the article so he's trying to intimidate me into silence. Stop him. MilesMoney (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the diffs. I am not seeing censorship, hounding, or intimidation. They seem mostly to be Arzel trying to get the page and you to follow policy, with a little impatience and some slow motion edit warring. Some suggestions: Assume good faith WP:AGF, ie don't assume the worst about someone's motives. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can mind read and discussions where someone assumes that they could get acrimonious very quickly. The archives for this page are full of examples. Second suggestion: slow down and learn the rules around sourcing for WP:BLP. They can be tricky and not everyone is born knowing them. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking me to learn the rules is reasonable. Demanding that I stop editing -- as Arzel has -- is not. MilesMoney (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. What's your position on being asked to slow down on editing biographies of living persons until you are more familiar with reliable sourcing rules? WP:BLP is a special case of reliable sourcing and can trip up even a very experienced editor. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have interacted with Miles a bit on a BLP. He is new, and obviously has a lot to learn policy-wise. But it strikes me as deeply wrong to sanction a noob (read: potential friend of and contributor to our community) for relatively garden variety bickering over a good-faith content dispute. This is particularly true since the above diffs indicate that Arzel is guilty of not only WP:BITE by harshly criticizing a newcomer but also of WP:PA against Miles, by saying Miles is "incapable of editing WP properly".

Given OP's own (and in my view, more egregious) violations of policy, and the need to provide noobs emotional encouragement as well as policy mentoring, I think it'd send the wrong message to formally warn or sanction Miles. I would however like to see Miles reiterate her or his commitment to abiding by WP:BLP standards, including in regards to sourcing, in any future edits to King's page, and to those of others. Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that many personal attacks renders a block really. What positives has the user given to this project? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and his method of attempting to defame (yet again)

this editor continues to bring up issues unrelated to the topic at hand, and will not stop. He constantly makes claims of WP:BADFAITH and personal attacks, when it is he who's been doing it. I've gave him a warning several times but this time, he's done it again. shown here: [24] and i stress this isn't the first time he's done it. luckily i have access to a computer just to share this 1 quote, but i can't find the rest of the others this editor does. I'm tired of it, and i'm tired of ANI ignoring the things he does.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, your longstanding grudge against this other editor is clear for all to see, and in my opinion, you would be well advised to ignore the other editor and focus on other things. Continued repetition of your complaints on various administrative noticeboards is unlikely to result in an outcome any different from past complaints. Please move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Time for a two-way interaction ban between both editors, anyone? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The core of the problem is a simple one, whether or not a full article can and should be devoted to the manga. A second problem exists whether or not a topic level article should be made to handle the 30 something titles, of which 8-10 do not meet N or GNG for their own pages. I want the articles at FA for the anniversary of Toren Smith's passing. I am not dealing with Ryulong or Lucia Black outside of DRN venues; as I indicated in the post she brought me to ANI for. I am serious about going to DRN, Mediation and even Arb Com to solve this situation, but she believes I do not want the problem resolved.[25] I already agreed to formal mediation, but Lucia did not file and I doubt it would be taken without a fair DRN on the matter. So I made the DRN section. This was in response to Lucia's continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, after discussing how her concepts of "win, lose or defeat" are "not personal". Especially concerning is: "whether i associate it with defeat and victory is none of my concern."[26] Those post she cited is me defending myself from her accusations of PAs and bad faith. I still AGF and I don't believe her editing is malicious, but it often introduces major errors or cut good content when sourcing is widely available. Our interaction should be minimal, and for at least the time being; purely at DRN venues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this and believe a two way interaction ban is best for both editors and for the community. I fully support Luke's proposal above. Nick (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• On an interaction ban: both users are (or at least were) pretty active in the same articles and talk pages. WP:IBAN forbids either of them to respond to the other's comments. This will, undoubtedly, make for some difficult discussions. That's not to say there shouldn't be an IBAN, but I am wondering what its effect will be in those discussions. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps a topic ban for one editor or the other is in order instead of, or in addition to, an IBAN; but I've not looked into the dispute properly, so can't tell which is being problematic (if either are) in that regard. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

All you can see is who throws the first punch, and it's obvious is ChrisGualtieri. This editor never stays directly on topic, he always has to bring up history, and i admitted i hated this editor FOR GOOD REASON because despite his "compliments", they don't come off as real because, not too long after those compliments, he raises strong issue. I'm sick and tired of not being able to prove the comments he does directly because i have had little access to a computer, and takes too long to look for every edit he's done just to show you. But if you look in talk:Dragon Ball, you can see how EASILY irritation gets to him and brings up topics that aren't relevant. and it goes on and on and on. And i'm not the only one who has a problem with him. You can see throughout WP:ANIME how he attacks other editors aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

He helped me get my article to GA status in less that three days, we expanded together and we stayed on topic the entire time, we expanded it and worked night and day pursuing our goal of getting the article to GA hes a productive and efficient editor in my opinion. Prabash.Akmeemana 01:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prabash, it doesn't matter who he gets along with, if there is anyone out there that he doesn't get along with, it's going to be more valid. When it comes to anime and manga, this editor simply gets too bias. And you're bias yourself, don't you remember how you even got to know him in the first place? It's too bias to mention your personal (yet minor) experience. Right now taking account of the bad is more important than taking account of the "good". He helps who he chooses, and i admit i hate this editor, but i know how to not let it bother me, and this editor continues to throw it in my face. Think he's a productive and efficient editor? No one is denying that, but the ability to take wevery discussion personally? Thats what counts.Lucia Black (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And that's why Lucia Black is a disruptive presence: some unqualified and unproven claim that Chris always starts it, followed by a semi-coherent rant ("it's going to be more valid"? what is?) that typically includes the statement that one way or another diffs cannot be provided. What Chris is supposed to do with wevery discussion (take it personally? or not?) is not clear, though it is pretty clear that the first person to claim Chris is a helpful editor gets his ass chewed out ("and you're bias yourself").

ANI sees this periodically, and I suppose it will continue until someone presses that block button for longer than I did--for disruption and personal attacks and frivolous threads, maybe. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but if you want an understanding of the origin and nature of the entire matter, please read it in full. Our first interactions at Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell/GA1 is rather indicative of the entire matter you see here today. I took the GAN for Ghost in the Shell because it is something I know extremely well, and I professed my affinity for it. Its philosophy, symbolism and even base details are all critically analyzed by scholars, with essays and sections of books dedicated to it.[27][28] And I know the material extremely well as a result of this interest. Lucia took issue with that knowledge and affection as a claim of “bias” in her second response, ever, to me.[29] She raised the issues with my "bias" at multiple venues at once, [30] and even using (EMERGENCY) in the title at the Wikiproject.[31] A second opinion was made by user Aircorn, who suggested failing the article. Another editor Niemti would later add additional comments for its failure. For more reasons then I care to list, the GA was a complete and utter disgrace which couldn't even get the plot summary right, had vast amounts of incorrect assertions, bad prose, OR and Synthesis and Lucia's axing of good content. Let's be clear; Lucia hates me, as she admits here. The original content dispute is exceedingly simple; but it is hard to improve content when it gets moved, altered and cut down. I can and have proven myself capable of adding detailed production and critical analysis of the material to topics. The most recent is the entire production section at Ghost in the Shell (film).[32] I can do this for each title of the property; but every time I make changes they are “fancruft” or gets deleted including a list of artbooks and official works. I want DRN to handle the content dispute over whether or not the international bestseller mangas warrant their own page, but I think that a one-way interaction ban (Lucia's comments towards me) be considered until she can get over her professed hatred. Over a month ago she professed, “I hate [Chrisgualtieri], and I hate [Chrisgualtieri] with a passion. I see [Chrisgualtieri]'s name on my talkpage and I see red.”[33] (Note: “that editor” is swapped with my name for context here) And given how she feels over a month later, I doubt Lucia will be feeling any more friendly in the foreseeable future. I'm not going to feed her hatred, and I probably shouldn't defend myself so vigerously, but I'm all but compelled to voice my side or be swept up in the drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, but honestly more because of how Lucia handles herself in the discussions. Kind of a boomerang if you ask me, but boh editors are more productive when not interacting... Sergecross73 msg me 04:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Having watched and been involved in a few disputes and discussions with Lucia, I've always had concerns about the tone and attitude (as well as quality of language), and this is yet one more example. See previous discussion, and few sections down in the same archive. It led to a block and a community-suggested break. Chris is not blameless but the issues are evident; I considered the potential for a one-way IBAN but the AN/I discussions I linked to above reassured me that it can only be helpful for Chris also. Obviously support an indefinite interaction ban, and in addition, a narrow topic ban from Ghost in the Shell topics, which seems to be the core of their dispute, as per the concerns raised above by @Drmies:; I worry than any IBAN is doomed to failed if not accompanied by a narrow TBAN of the main dispute. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uh "It led to a block and a community-suggested break." Huh? This never happened to either Lucia or me from any ANI. The "Wikihounding" section was made by a troll who was blocked, I didn't sock and Lucia didn't sock.[34] Other ones popped up like User:Lucia Block and such. Please don't confuse those with us; I've not been blocked and I don't sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for allowing me to clarify. In regards to the AN/I thread, Lucia was blocked. After further verification, I'll admit there doesn't seem to have been a significant break. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should ideally be decided on the merits of arguments and I wanted a process to be followed, but it has not yet been done. Of the 8 other editors who commented on the GITS matter, many shared my views, but they were drowned out in the discussion. I've begged to work together on this; I've begged for assistance with the RFC and DRN... I'm still begging that someone here can sit us down, make a call and we will be bound to accept it, because both of us have agreed to mediation. I'll be indebted to you regardless of the decision you make; I need someone to make the final choice that is not me or Lucia Black on the GITS matter.I'd even propose a single 2k word argument to represent each parties side because debate back and forth is utterly pointless. Barring that, I have planned to do two pages in my sandbox to deal with the topic-level and manga page. It would take me some time, but I will be glad to provide the sandboxes as evidence of my assertions under N, GNG, and SS. Even if the decision will require a GA or FA level article before my page goes live, the mere promise that a professional article can exist after reaching such a point will allow me complete such a mammoth undertaking. Also, given my expressed desire for GA and FA hopes, I'd hate to be punished for striving for accuracy and correctness and completeness of the material. Any editor willing to do this will have my full support and cooperation and deepest thanks. Please do not dismiss this plea; I've tried to make peace with Lucia, three times in fact, even Drmies saw the last of these efforts. I cannot solve this by myself; I desperately need assistance and Lucia too seems to want this resolution. Please help us resolve it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It does not look like this is something ANI can solve because of the interwoven content and personality disputes [35]. Given the shared interests of the two editors, an interaction ban will only add to the drama another procedural layer. So, I suggest taking this case to Arbcom, even though their track record lately seems to be poor. (The Tea Party case appears to have been dragging its feet for something like six months!) Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've been kind of avoiding this but I should point out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters is still current. If that cannot solve things then ArbCom is obviously the next step.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My "Hate" for this editor, is completely true. Whenever a discussion is made, no matter HOW neutral i try to be, he makes quick accusations, he brings up topics that aren't even related to the subject just to defame, and this is when he doesn't get his way as you can see in talk:Dragon Ball. I'm not the one trying to bring up "Hate" constantly in a discussion, he's the one bringing it up. this editor always changes topic, he deliberately tries to make things personal and you can see it constantly throughout WT:ANIME. And these things happen BEFORE i proclaimed my hate. And whatever "peace" he attempts, doesn't come off as genuine. He makes compliments right after insults and vice versa. so his compliments or any praise don't come off as genuine, they just come off as insulting. User Drmies seeing whether or not Chris tried to make peace may not be completely true, and i know I've accused someone else of bias in this discussion, but this one seems much more apparent. For example: When an editor claimed to be ChrisGualtieri. it would be BADFAITH to assume it was someone else's sock, so why would Drmies come to me and tell me something insulting? He didn't need to give his opinion of me, nor did he have to give me a warning for something that can be completely justified. If someone claimed to make an alternate user, would you believe it the first time it happens? [36][37] And it doesn't help that this editor tries to use the same accusations Drmies used for 1 situation, in every new discussion. For example, constantly accusing me of WP:IDHT when there is hardly a consensus that has been reached, which WP:IDHT is heavily based on. this editor can accuse me of WP:HOUNDING as much as he likes, the discussions were made public in WP:ANIME, and for everyone to see and considering i've been active in that wikiproject, so "hounding" is HIGHLY inappropriate. Also accuses me of a liar so blatantly. He has no idea how much poison he spreads in a discussion. My hate for this editor just continues to grow, because this editor brings up things that arent relevant to the topic. ANd i could care less that i hate him, and his ways, but i warned him before DO NOT BRING UP THINGS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. He WANTS to defame me, and it's obvious in that edit, which i EXPECT admins will see it and remove it. Because it's not right for him to do that [38] and only poisons the discussion, and causes more hate.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is literally nothing wrong with Chris' edit there. It's a perfectly understandable reaction to your edits. I'm beginning to think more and more that you deserve a topic ban, since it appears to be you that is the disruptive presence - and you've laden that statement above with personal attacks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that, but that's not true. You can see my following comment is completely CIVIL, but he does the exact opposite. What does he do Luke? Did he in fact quote me of something completely unrelated to the issue at hand? yes or no? It fathoms me, that an admin can't see what he's doing. there is no justification for that, and i WOULD never do that UNLESS it was directly related to the topic at hand. WHich in this case it's not.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, Lucia's claims above are false and is just distracting drama. User:KuroiNekoko-chan made the "wikihounding" report.[39] User:Chibi Kusanagi, was similiar, but no where did this troll claim to be me despite Lucia's claim.[40] While I don't want to probe this too far, Lucia made this statement to Drmies and now at this discussion.[41] The word "lie" is indeed strong, but given the context of the event, it seemed that these false claims were knowingly used to redirect suspicion on me and protect herself. It was not the best term to use, I'll admit that, but my reasoning is likely justified. Lastly, it should also be noted that I requested Kuroi's last three edits be revdeleted because it was likely to be used to for a conspiracy - which Chibi Kusanagi referenced. Unless I am mistaken about the "deal". With that being said, please understand my frustration in dealing with Lucia and my desire to protect myself from personal attacks whose details are grossly exaggerated or unfounded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, there was no reason to mention that in said topic. You're the one trying to make things personal. It's not my fault, these issues are being brought up in WP:ANIME. But in every discussion, you always reference past encounters unrelated to the issue at hand. i'm not lying and i'm not being dramatic.Lucia Black (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: BOOMERANG topic ban for User:Lucia Black

I think it's become apparent to all that this user is an enormous time sink. They constantly drag things to ANI for invalid reasons, so I think it is time for a topic ban from both WP:ANI, and all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed, for an initial period of three months. Throwing an IBAN in here might not be a bad idea either.`

• Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support All - She seems unable to compromise or work with others, and keeps on starting up these bogus ANI threads. I'm all for it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Lucia's level of disruption seems to far outstrip her constructive editing behaviour these days and seems to be going out of her way to pick fights that aren't needed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Spending an hour reading the talk pages and this grudge match I can feel the emotional heat from Lucia. Several talk page examples show User:ChrisGualtieri attempting to squash the heat repeatedly but his words are constantly twisted in attempts to make them look like personal attacks. Lucia's responses look like polished trolling and absolute refusal to stick to content discussion, IMHO. Topic ban should be preceeded with something stronger to allow this emotional level to lower some. Perhaps a 1 week ban, first? Wow! 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Kommentar - Keeping alive as we need more eyes on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, Support interaction ban. Bans should not be punitive, and we should start low on the chain and work up as needed. If necessary, we can always impose a topic ban later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• How is this at all punitive? Lucia Black drags Chris here at the slightest opportunity, has dragged other users here inappropriately on several occasions, and there are clearly issues with their editing within the ANIME scope. You perhaps could argue a case for the latter being punitive (which I would disagree with, but let's put that to one side briefly) - but the ANI topic ban is not only preventative, it's necessary, and necessary now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Interaction ban at minimum. Seems necessary at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support topic ban and and the interaction ban, draginng productive editors to AN/I is not wise considering the amount of trouble this has caused. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and interaction ban. Repeatedly expressing "hatred" of another editor is strong evidence that these bans are needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful IP editor

For the past week or so, someone on Hanaro Telecom in Seoul (dynamic IP) has been making a series of unnecessary changes ot several articles. In the past 24 hours, he has been edit warring at Super Sentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the following IP addresses:

• 114.205.127.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.216.183.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has also edited as

• 118.216.183.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.216.183.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He does not seem to know the proper rules and regulations or etiquette of the project and because his IP is dynamic it is hard to prevent abuse from him. As he is now edit warring, this raises other problems. I think we need to block him so we can at least stop further disruption.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After researching the article Zord edit history, I see you have some issues there. You clearly need to read WP:OWNERSHIP. Many details and additions have been attempted by various editors and you have just reverted them all. Perhaps if you supply specific diffs that you are concerned about, other editors can zero in on your problem. This article seems particularly specific in interest to editors of this geographic area and of course they would use similar IPs. I see no abuse or editwarring in this article other than multiple complaints on the talk page regarding yourself since May 2013. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After further reading of the Zord talk page I have noticed your edits can be very nasty, insulting, and rude to other editors there. I don't know if this is classic behavior on your part in other articles but with 15 seconds of reading your own talk page I found this with another editor complaining of the same attitude. I would find it very disturbing to have my length of appearance here used to win a content dispute ridiculing my opinion. How is it related to accuracy? Perhaps a wikiBreak could help somewhat for you to respond in a less aggressive manner in content discussions? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

None of these concerns of yours, all of which have been addressed by now, have anyhing to do with the issue at hand. That diff you attempt to link to I immediately apologized for, and the issues at Talk:Zord have also been addressed as evident from the talk page.

And it is quite obvious that the operators of these IP addresses I listed above are all the same individual. The first three listed all perform the same edit and act as if they are the same person by intending to put the exact same information onto the page.

You seem to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia considering these two comments here are the only ones that have ever been made from this particular IP address. That in itself seems a little suspicious.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When were you going to notify any of these editors of your attempted case against them? This seems like the same consideration given all your "conquests" and another example of your lack of consideration towards other editors. Your talk page alone is enough evidence you need a kick in the pants for your behavior, foul language and bold demanding text. For example: in response to a question of you

...if I institute a spelling change you better fucking accept it as having a damn good reason

Proper progressive discipline may have turned that vicious attitude towards others into a helpful co-operative editor. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Digging further I have come across another WP:BULLYing example from your talk page history. In article Halcyon_Days_(Ellie_Goulding_album) [42] (see history) you have clearly editwarred in your attempt to delete the article without any prior discussion and three other separate editors reverted your edits. You were warned of this on your talk page where your response was "What the eff are you doing" and removed it without any consideration. I am not sure this behavior should be tolerated from such an experienced editor here. This is the stuff that drives other editors away in droves. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already determined that this is a dynamic IP address so it is going to be impossible to contact them in any form. Several have been left messages but it's obvious that they have not been read. Now, pardon my French, but why the fuck are you attempting to dig up all of these less than perfect instances of my behavior? Everything you're bringing up is currently being dealt with in the proper channels (apology to Saluki.N, discussion with Status). What purpose is this? And why are you acting on this from an unregistered IP address? I came here seeking assistance and it's almost as if you want me to be punished for something else. Who are you? I have the right to know because WP:SOCK says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" is considered a violation of said policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to this unnecessary sideshow, the operator of the IPs I initially reported has continued his deleterious edits as 118.217.145.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I will leave this to an admin to evaluate your WP:Ownership of these articles in the edit history of Kyoryugers and Zord. Ryulong has made hundreds of edits in these articles and about half of them have been reverts to many dozens of other editors contributions. Many of them include foul language and insulting tone in the edit histories of his reverts. It won't take long to identify this behavior. This complaint appears to be just a general content dispute with an attempt to squash contributions from these IPs. There may be some dynamically allocated multiple IP usage and language fluency problems but I see no abuse or attempt to deceive using multiple IPs (self support). I also see no attempt to resolve, help or advise any of these IP editors on personal or article talk pages. Overall behavior towards others has been atrocious, as noted above.99.251.120.60 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously who are you and what is your beef with me?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just a drive-by editor, part of a study of the process on WP:AN(I). I have never used a named account and randomly researched your claims about an alleged multiple IP abuser. The case attracted me due to a complaint from an editor with so much experience claimed and yet cannot provide any diff evidence. Some sample results of my simple research are stated above. I have had no previous contact with any of the IPs or yourself and certainly have no bias against you. You have dedicated a lot of your own time for the project. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Diff evidence seems unnecessary when the IP addresses only possess a total of 20 edits between the 8 of them. And I find your story very hard to believe.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Page is protected as of 27-jul-2013, is there any other issue needing ANI assistance? If this above discussion is not part of the context of the ANI then both should probably leave this page now.  A m i t  웃   15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  The IP is still causing problems on countless other pages as 118.217.145.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated hostile, insulting remarks by User:Carolmooredc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an RfC on Gary North, the above user has maligned me for "want[ing to destroy a living person on Wikipedia" and alleged I am motivated to do this ot "bolster [my] own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously." She provides no evidence for this allegation, and therefore it constitutes WP: Personal attack. When I called her out on this, she attacked me as "hypersensitive"; when another user (a libertarian who strongly opposes my view on the RfC) characterized Carol's ocomment as a personal attack, she erroneously accused him of "harassment"

Since Carol to heed to warnings from her peers, and since I am banned from her talk page due to prior warnings about her PA, I need to ask admin to give her a warning about a conduct and a ban from the North article, where she continues to be disruptive. I am willing and able to detail a truly extravagant and massively extensive history of carol's personal attacks/erroneous allegations against other users if admin deems this context to be helpful. Steeletrap (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• First, I did not review who wrote what of the WP:OR under discussion. I made a general statement of frustration about attack BLPs. [Added later actual quote this diff: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules.] I specifically told User: Steeletrap in response to his complaint - at this diff: "Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak." I struck "hypersensitive". Suggestions on more Wikietiquette compliant phrase to explain my frustration over a false allegation welcome. [Added clarification: False allegation being that I specifically was talking about Steeletrap; I have not seen diff of who put in the info.]
• Second, I asked another user a few weeks back not to contact me on my talk page except with official notices. He forgot and I just wanted to remind him how I felt. He thanked me for reminding him. It's really none of User:Steeletrap's business.
• User:Steeletrap seems to have forgotten I had to do a WP:ANI a couple months back to get others to help stop him from posting questionable comments on my talk page. (Official notices being explicitly exempted, of course.) User:Carolmooredc 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Carol, your comment at the RfC about "destroying" was, if not a personal attack directed at a particular editor, inappropriate in any context and certainly inappropriate in an RfC. I suggest you be more careful in the future and limit your comments to content and issues and not attacks on editors, whoever they are.
• Steeletrap, why are you posting this sort of notice of the RfC? Not very neutral, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not at all unneutral; I completely reject that insinuation. I was simply describing the disputed material related to North views, which is in and of itself inflammatory, and how it relates to the noticeboard in question. I did something similar at the Calvinist noticeboard: describing the RfC and how it relates to Calvinism. These posts were accurately describing an inherently inflammatory subject, but were prescriptive or putting any sort of spin on the situation. Steeletrap (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, I'd hardly call it an "insinuation". If you prefer to be obtuse over this, it will only lead to trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. Or I see enough editors supportive of BLP policy working on an article, so I can relax and not blow my cool. User:Carolmooredc 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed resolution Since Carol has apologized for her conduct, and (to my eye) indicated she will steer clear of the article in question, I support ending this matter without sanction provided she 1) confirms my impression regarding her intention to stay away from Gary North, where her disruptive behavior has occurred and 2) crosses out her insulting, hostile remarks on the Gary North RfC. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think removing the offending two word phrase was sufficient. Though I do think it was a false exaggeration and I probably should just have said so. Will control self and not add it now. I don't think it's a good precedent to let minor complaints be used to chase an editor off a BLP where there are issues. Plus I did put the RfC on a couple Wikiprojects much more relevant than others posted to and am curious to see if there is a response. Plus I am curious to see if the BLP subject is that bad why certain libertarians put up with him. Is there some explanatory text somewhere that's WP:RS? I found a few interesting things, mostly WP:OR (like the WP:OR cherry picked quotes in contention) and others not quite WP:RS. My female curiosity so often gets me in trouble... User:Carolmooredc 23:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I will withdraw my suggestion and suggest a ban on Carol's participation in Gary North, since she refuses to cross out her speculative, bad-faith assuming, PA assertion that I am out to "destroy" and libel North to promote myself on Wikipedia, rather than out to contribute to this encyclopedia. (She incorrectly thinks only the "hypersensitive" slight was a violation of policy.) Given Carol's extensive history of PAs on me, and her repeated refusal (despite prompting from peers and an admin) to acknowledge her editing is disruptive and to change that editing, I think banning her from editing North is necessary. Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, just so you know, any admin can block Carol if they believe it's warranted. However, a ban requires a thorough discussion and a consensus; it's not something an admin can do unilaterally except in circumstances not present here. I would discourage you from pursuing such a ban because I don't believe there is enough to support it, but I also wanted to point out the procedural hurdles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, as I clarified above I was not writing specifically about Steeletrap when I wrote at this diff: However much an editor may want to destroy a living person using Wikipedia, and thus bolster their own status among their peers, assuming their peers would take such activities seriously, they still must follow Wikipedia rules to do it and using primary source out of context WP:OR is against the rules.

Again I still haven't seen the diff of who put the material in. However, given the tadoo, I can see as a general statement it was not a good one and will strike it, especially since Steeltrap takes it so personally. As frustrated as I may be when I visit various BLPs, I have to stop taking BLP rules so seriously and editorializing about generalized people breaking them! User:Carolmooredc 01:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Given your "mea culpa" and acknowledgement of error, I have no further concern on this matter. I remain very concerned with your general pattern of personal attacks, to which my (literally) dozens of (saved) diffs attest. I recommend that you resolve to focus on content, not contributors, if you wish to avoid other ANIs in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Not commenting at all on Carolmooredc or Steeletrap, but when I look at Gary North (economist) I see a BLP nightmare. Negative claims sourced only to broken links, opinions from ideological enemies presented as unattributed facts, personal interpretations of primary sources, you name it. Zero^talk 05:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I'm no big fan of the guy, but I just hate such untidy nightmares of wikipedia articles that are ripe for use (or being used) in Guilt by Association references in other BLPs! User:Carolmooredc 05:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make Off-topic remarks on this thread. There is an RfC where you can share your (distinctly minority) opinion as to "BLP" concerns. Steeletrap (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's relevant to the discussion because that is what Carol said was the concern that she was discussing. As someone who has both collided with and worked side-by-side with Carol for at least three years, I can tell you that her focus is only on well sourced articles in conformance with Wikipedia standards, not on drama with other editors. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I highly disagree with North8000's statement regarding an interest from CarolmooreDC solely on well sourced articles. Based primarily on the sheer volume of "drama" associated with this editor, along with numerous edits CarolmooreDC has made over the years regarding an M.O. on Wikipedia of defending very specific political pages from what CarolmooreDC considers "bias". While not involved with this particular article, I can speak from experience in noting that personal attacks are User:Carolmooredc's standard operating procedure. She consistently uses relentless personal attacks and assumes as a matter of course than anyone who disagrees with her has a non neutral POV. For example, a user page from another user documenting CarolmooreDC's persistent attacks on his/her user page:

User_talk:Goodwinsands#Under_the_green_bars:_documentation_of_a_tag-team_harassment_campaign

And from other users "Your_lack_of_good_faith The last two sentences in this edit show an appalling lack of good faith. Is every person with whom you disagree going to be tarred with the false accusations of your choice?"

CarolmooreDC and I had been involved in a longstanding dispute on an article (Gilad Atzmon) I supported both of us being banned from the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Please_ban_two_users_from_article_Gilad_Atzmon) as I had confidence in the Wiki community. CarolMooreDC opposed the idea, and her comments lead an admin to propose she be banned from Wikipedia entirely "The fact that you think it's appropriate to post a message like this while the ANI discussion is going on makes me wonder whether a permanent ban from Wikipedia might be more appropriate." Drsmoo (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: DrSmoo: If one looks under the GreenBars one finds evidence that my charge User:Goodwinsands was a sockpuppet were worth looking at. (Obviously he changed the titles of every posting a couple of us made about his questionable editing habits to something reflecting his viewpoint and deprecating our concerns. Rather tacky.)

Then you link to two 2009 discussions. Finally, I don't notice that either of us have interacted at Atzmon since December 5 of 2011. So I have to wonder why you bring such stale material here. User:Carolmooredc 00:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Even here you're personally attacking other users. Why call him "tacky"? Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In this thread, above -- at 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC) -- I understood carolmooredc to say that she would stay away from BLPs until she could participate without getting upset. Then, beginning almost immediately she posted the first of over 20 additional edits on the North article. Three weeks ago, after a making a barrage of harassing and personal attack posts, she made a similar promise to stay away from BLPs she feels are contentious. That promise lasted until the recent uncivil behavior relating to the North article. Carolmooredc has not been able to confine her contributions to content and policy and consistently phrases her remarks in edit summaries and on talk pages in terms of adversarial, and frequently hostile, personal comments. I am not convinced that this problem can be addressed without an explicit remedy, either voluntary or imposed. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

First, this is the User:Specifico who has been brought to WP:ANI numerous times since last fall and was discussed at length in this ANI in June for harassing talk page notices. [Later clarification - and this was after I asked him to stop following me and responding in some way to me at 4 different new pages in 30 hours was evidence of Wikihounding. Could it be this is one reason I was upset about BLPs?? And that an ANI about did not get what I thought was a very appropriate response?]

Re: 20:29 above, I said it was best to stay away until User:Steeletrap demanded I promise to stay away from an article where I feel Steeletrap is engaging in yet another incredibly biased editing adventure. As I wrote, that would considering a single diff, a misinterpretation of something I wrote, was used as an excuse, that would be a really bad precedent.

However, after wasting another few hours on the article last night I decided that I really could not deal with seeing what goes on in the articles Specifico and his academic economics colleague/collaborator User:Steeletrap work on, so I quit the article. (I assume Specifico is not Steeletrap's MBA advisor who steered Steeletrap to Wikipedia? Steeletrap didn't answer when I asked. They certainly agree many Austrian economics-related articles must be rewritten to serve their academic biases.)

This NPOVN deals with the bias issues. ANI searches will show they were shared at various points by other editors who have now left (or been driven off?) Wikipedia after interacting with User:Specifo (and his past allies) or Specifico/Steeletrap: User:Xerographica, User:Byelf2007, User:Sageo, User:Id4abel. These editors also lost their tempers over heavily biased editing behavior.

FYI, the subject of the bio I just quit, Gary North, wrote really creepy stuff in the 80s/90s and still may hold the same views, even if he doesn't write about them in various libertarian publications. However, I speculate that editors may see it as great article for poisoning other BLPs of people who have even a loose association with North.

A current example of how destructive the editing is this: Specifico and/or Steeletrap removed from the lead of Murray Rothbard any mention of Rothbard being an "economist of the Austrian school" - despite seven high quality references to that effect. I put that info back last night, but Steeletrap reverted the edit and removed this important factoid again. In June an editor who is not a Rothbard fan wrote at Wikiproject Economics that she was appalled that anyone would consider removing economist from the Infobox. Steeltrap/Specifico removed it from there and the lead of the article itself!

I personally think Wikipedia, especially regarding BLPs, is too broken to stop editors who hate subjects of bios from making poorly sourced or minor incidents the focus of whole articles, not to mention removing well sourced neutral or positive information. (At least in the Israel-Palestine issue there were enough strong voices against this sort of thing, even if it was a constant battle; far less in the Austrian/libertarian area, I'm afraid, making it more frustrating.)

I am relieved that I now have an excuse to cut back on my Wiki editing and get my own writing done. However, I do have a long letter I'm writing to the Wikimedia Foundation about the dangers of allowing BLP abuses to flourish. I'll suggest a couple things they might do to see if there isn't some way they can promote more effective protection from POV pushers out to ruin others' reputation. (Feel free to leave suggestions via my talk page or email.)

But, to be a bit sarcastic, I confess: if I'm so evil, and Steeltrap/Specifico such paradigms of neutral BLP editing, please block me for a few weeks. I need to avoid temptation anyway! Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 02:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User carolmooredc has again posted a defense which rationalizes her conduct by stating that such disruptive and uncivil conduct is somehow necessary in order to maintain the BLP policies here. But there are numerous instances of her uncivil behavior and personal attacks that have no relation whatsoever to content or policy. For example after user Steeletrap objected to a personal attack by Carolmooredc, she responded with a gratuitous anti-Semitic slur in reply to user Steeletrap, who self-identifies as Jewish on her user page. On numerous other occasions carolmooredc has post entirely gratuitous and irrelevant anti-Semitic slurs on talk pages, such as in this edit summary here. Carolmooredc has made hundreds of uncivil, harassing, disruptive, and personal attack posts and edit comments which cannot be rationalized away or justified by her empty claim that such attacks are necessary to support WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to her repeated anti-Semitic insinuations ("Zionists" is a favored code word of this crowd) and personal attacks, Carol often engages in baseless personal speculation about editors, such as her false suggestion that SPECIFICO is my "faculty advisor" for an "MBA" program. Her conduct is detrimental to this community and needs to be dealt with. Steeletrap (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: How many times does one have to tell Steeletrap that a question is not an accusation?

When you repeatedly refer to your close relationship to SPECIFICO, and have written about your faculty advisor, one begins to wonder. And this came up in the context of Talk:Sharon_Presley where less than 24 hours after I made a minor edit to the article you came there for the first time and questioned if she was notable enough for an article. Felt like wikihounding to me, by your and/or someone else tracking my edits. But when I asked you you said a "colleage" had recommended you look at it - and in the past you said your Faculty Advisor had told you to look at some of these people. So I asked ifthat collegue was SPECIFICO and was he your advisor. You didn't bother to answer.

To make myself clear, just because I choose to drop off a bunch of controversial articles, in part because Wikipedia doesn't take my complaints about bad editing seriously, doesn't mean people should feel free to follow me to new articles and try to make me quit them too. User:Carolmooredc 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

--@carolmooredc: Please provide diffs for your statement to Steeletrap, "you repeatedly refer to your close relationship to SPECIFICO" It is weird to learn that you're speculating and posting about me on articles I didn't even know existed. You have repeatedly referred to this imaginary relationship you project on me and user Steeletrap. You've repeatedly been told that we do not know one another except as anonymous editors on WP, yet you continue to state what you call your "question" or to outright assert that some relationship exists. To be frank, it kind of creeps me out. Please provide diffs that document the statements by Steeletrap in which Steeletrap refers to a close relationship. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• To save anyone else the bother, investigating the first couple of links shows that the complaints in this report are baseless. The wording used by Carolmooredc was fine—pointy, but fine. It did not name an editor, and there was no hint concerning whether a specific editor was the target of the comments. The comment could be argued to be off-topic as it did not refer to a policy, but all experienced editors who have tried to protect BLP articles from enthusiasts have had to use similar wording to explain the core issue to those involved in the discussion. This report should be closed and discussion focus on the issue—is it acceptable that certain words (portraying a named person as a nutcase) are used in Wikipedia's voice based on primary sources? Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Rather than "saving anyone else the bother" it would be better to let people come to their own conclusions. Carolmooredc has been making personal attacks on users, and editing in a highly disruptive manner for years. She's even making personal attacks on this noticeboard. She openly baits, harasses and threatens anyone who disagrees with her on a topic, and has been doing so for years. Drsmoo (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Which links above provide evidence for those strong claims (which, without plausible evidence, are personal attacks)? I just checked a couple more links and they do not show what was claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't bother to follow the one link of "evidence" provided by Specifico, this link reads: "Such hypersensitivity. Obviously you have never edited dozens of BLPs on Jewish critics of Israel like I have or you would know of what I speak." How can defending Jewish BLPs be an ant-Semitic slur?? Makes no sense. (A few of many articles off the top of my head are Richard Falk, Mondoweiss-related articles, Israel Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky, Oren Ben-Dor.)

There have been a couple ethnic conflict areas - not to mention Scientology-related articles - where lots of people angrily protested biased editing and sock and meat puppet behaviors. I haven't seen any diffs showing that my anger was so much more outrageous than theirs.

But obviously bringing up in the RfC the generalized issue which transcended that particular article, series of articles or that RfC was wrong. For various reasons, but particularly Wikipedia's years of failure to deal with editors who repeatedly "attack" BLPs (even putting back bad info rejected at BLPN's weeks before, but don't get me started), I decided recently to unwatch the articles where repeated problems arose. As I've said in the last ANI regarding SPECIFICO's (and Steeltrap') problematic editing, I've been waiting a while for the straw to break the sexagenarians back and blessed be!, it has finally floated down from the heavens! But after five years it can be hard to break the pattern of trying to defend BLPs, and some topic areas, from abuse and thus I let myself get sucked into an RfC. Again, Mea Culpa. User:Carolmooredc 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol can be a bit rough (and over the years I've been the recipient) and maybe her dialing back a 1/4 notch would be a good thing. But I consider that to be minor (and which pales in comparison) to the nastiness and trying-to-do-people-harm which prevails in Wikipedia. Her focus is always on building quality, well sourced articles, and not on battles or drama with editors. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The OP quite misstates the issues, personalities etc. regarding the Gary North (economist) article which are the subject of several noticeboard discussions. I suggest that those wading trough this wall of text should read such posts as ones saying that conservative Christians hate gays and that we must be sure to make that clear in their BLPs, and the like. (see WP:BLP/N and WP:NPOV/N for the relevant discussions and the posts by the OP and others) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad to see that while I largely stopped paying attention other editors have been dealing with these issues with these two editors!! Makes me feel better about Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sample of personal attacks from Carol As a brief sampling, Carol has ridiculed my capacity for academics 1, accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism see: 2 and 3, and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia 4 I encourage Admin (User:Bbb23) to ask for more examples of violations of policy regarding WP:PA before taking action to resolve this question. It seems to me that flagrant and constant violations of policy must be addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've debunked all of those before at ANI, but don't remember which one.

1) When you made more excuses for not referencing some material I said: Don't give us ten thousand words of explanation why you don't need one. Do the work. Do you give your advisor all these excuses why you don't need references? It can be very frustrating when someone is so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on so many policy issues, especially when they are trying to write a lot of negative stuff on BLPs.

2) When here User:SPECIFICO accused me of venting rage I wrote in response: "Generally speaking males often experience strongly held and clearly expressed female ideas as psychotic rage. Have you heard about the Wikimedia Gender Gap project to bring more women into wikimedia/pedia so males will get more used to it? " Shame on me for mentioning one of the issues oft discussed in this WikiFoundation project!

3) I alluded to being physically hyped up from drinking too much coffee (which I do myself sometimes) or whatever - who remembers now? Obviously I should have been more explicit. Shame on me! User:Carolmooredc 20:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• This thread reveals again the broken state of Wikipedia's dispute resolution. A couple of editors have posted tons of links and claims regarding Carolmooredc, yet it is easy to click some of the links and discover that the claims are false. It is absurd that this nonsense has to be tolerated by someone who is defending BLPs, and an admin should take charge because waiting to find out which team of supporters can repeat themselves longer than the other is never productive (actually, it's counterproductive because it's usually those with an agenda who have the motivation to keep going). Would an admin please check a few of the links claiming Carolmooredc is bad, and if agreeing that the claims are clearly false, close this thread with a strong warning that ANI reports should not be based on misunderstandings of policy. If someone uninvolved does not agree that the claims are false, please post a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! I agree with the suggestion by Johnuniq. Please put a stop to this unproductive series of accusations. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another personal attack was just made by Carol~ Here, she accuses me, based on no evidence whatsoever other than my editing of LGBT articles and having publicly stated my transgender identity, of caring about LGBT rights above and at the expense of the rights of women and other people. I regard this baseless, stereotypical comment to be hateful and bigoted.

Admins really need to read the Carol-related content, posted above, in its full context; that full context shows that Carol continues to fail to assume GF and level baseless accusations and personal insults at users with whom she disagrees. I submit that her conduct contradicts the basic principles of our community. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about a BLPN discussion. BLPN's purpose reads: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. The topic is your trying to insert homosexuality into a section header even though homosexuals are not the only people mentioned. (Pardon a female if she gets upset that execution of females for abortion is given so short a shrift!) At Hans-Hermann Hoppe you did this so many times, and were reverted so many times by various editors, that it's difficult not to think this is an obsession of yours that you are imposing on Wikipedia biographies of living people, which is very disruptive. Maybe I should just do a WP:BLPN on that with a link to the reverts, the numerous and repeated discussion sections and subsections, and whatever noticeboards the issue ended up on. It's out of control. If people want to block me for saying so, fine! User:Carolmooredc 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One glance at Hans-Hermann Hoppe#Academic freedom controversy over remarks on homosexuals shows a seriously problematic BLP concern, in my opinion, by blowing up a controversy way out of proportion to the rest of the man's biography. This is nothing new, there has been agenda-driven article inflation by activists across the project for years. The problems arise when other editors try to identify and rectify such editing, they get labeled as racists, bigots, homophobes, antisemites, depending on what the subject matter is. Being concerned about a BLP that has may have an undue focus on an LGBT-oriented "controversy" does not make one a bigot, nor make their concerns bigoted. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"it's difficult not to think this is an obsession of yours that you are imposing on Wikipedia biographies of living people, which is very disruptive." I suggest not concerning yourself with the personal lives of other users, or threatening them. Drsmoo (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[inserted] Tarc, I just reviewed the talk archive of Hoppe's article. I do not see any instance of one editor calling another a bigot or homophobe for their edits and opinions at that article. I think it's been inflammatory that editors who become frustrated with their counterparts in content disputes make the kind of implied or strawman (call it what you will, it's certainly not documented) reference to such behavior. What did happen is that Carolmooredc has just again, directly above on this page, projected inappropriate behavior -- violations of core WP policy -- to Steeletrap with no evidence or diffs. Carolmooredc's apparent inability to curtail this behavior raises questions about her WP:COMPETENCE to edit here. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If Steeletrap keeps posting ridiculous claims like Another personal attack, WP:COMPETENCE should be invoked to remove the editor from ANI, and possibly from Wikipedia if the same lack-of-clue shown here is evident in more general editing. Steeletrap is reading information that is not in the post. Basic competence with understanding English is required when editing an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• John, please refer to WP:PA. It is a personal attack to imply, on the basis of no evidence, that a user lacks "basic competence with understanding English". Please cross your remarks and resolve not to violate wikipedia policy in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose I have to provide some evidence in view of the above mud spreading, but I would prefer that this thread not extend to WP:TLDR because that guarantees no admin will bother taking the corrective action required. However, in a post above at "00:52, 30 July 2013" (diff and tweaked), Steeletrap justified "Another personal attack" with this diff. The last diff shows Carolmooredc making a comment at "21:17, 29 July 2013" on BLPN, and the comment includes: "The problem here is POV pushing. Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals. Other people think the NPOV way to put it is all people who fall into the class of sinners. This kind of narrow focus on wrongs done to only one class of people, downplaying that done to others, does not make for NPOV editing, looks like an attempt to rouse certain groups to hate and/or action, and is extremely disruptive of the encyclopedia. We had the same problem repeatedly with Steeletrap at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And it's insulting to everyone else who nutty Xians might want to execute."

    The context is a BLPN discussion on whether Gary North (economist) should include a section titled 'Support for executing homosexuals and other "sinners"' (as in this "sinners" old revision). Apparently North has written that a bunch of sinners should be executed, and the discussion concerns whether the targets "homosexuals" should be highlighted in the title when several categories of "sinners" are listed. In that context, Carolmooredc's comment is asserting that "Steeletrap thinks the most important issue anyone can focus on is wrongs to homosexuals", and Steeletrap interprets that as "caring about LGBT rights above and at the expense of the rights of women and other people. I regard this baseless, stereotypical comment to be hateful and bigoted." Stirring stuff, but totally unconnected with what Carolmooredc wrote. It's ok to be wrong, but making so many mistakes at an ANI report with claims of gross attacks does show a COMPETENCE problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  Without agreeing or disagreeing with your argument, you made it in the context of Wikipedia policy. Carolmooredc makes her arguments in the context of insinuations about the personal lives of people she disagrees with. That is a fundamental difference, and it's not acceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  After all the above, we get another claim with no diff. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  There are many diffs posted. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make it so. Drsmoo (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please copy one diff to a new comment and briefly describe what it shows (is it an attack? why?). I have checked a few diffs, and they do not show the problem claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

John, do you really think you are in a position to lecture others on policy when you are personally attacking other users? Your statement that I lack "basic competence" in English (which is quite distinct from a question of my editing capacities) simply can't be taken seriously in any respect other than as an attempt to demean or insult. Steeletrap (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My characteristics are not relevant, and discussing them is only a distraction from the issue of this thread. Please respond to the substantive comments at "02:52, 30 July 2013" just above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who noted the section being too long "guarantees no admin will bother taking the corrective action" it's curious that you would ask for things that have already been posted to be re-posted. You have already stated your opinion, no need for you to restate it. I would also advise other users not to fall into being baited and responding to personal attacks. All that is relevant are the personal attacks from the user in question.Drsmoo (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask because the diffs I've looked at do not justify the claims made. So please choose a diff and briefly explain why it is an attack. I also checked the diffs shown below: Carol might be mistaken or off-topic, but why would Steeletrap think "it's used to make me look foolish and duplicitous"? Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

False personal allegations by User: Carolmooredc. In this edit, she claims I have (despite having no formal training in the matter) self-identified as an economist; the context of this claim is too convoluted and cumbersome to explain here, but it's used to make me look foolish and duplicitous. Her initial claim was made without any evidence. Then, after she was criticized for making baseless claims, she substantied it with a shamefully out-of-context quote by Stalwart111 (who does not identify as an economist), which she erroneously attributed to me. (see: 2) Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I clicked on your links, but cannot find the instances you are refering to. Could you provide the diffs? I ask because merely saying someon is (or considers himself to be) an economist hardly seems to be a demeaning statement, so I want to check the context. -- Fsol (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fsol, I've added diffs for context below. The context is that Carol attributed a quote of mine (stating quite plainly that I do not have economics qualifications) to Steeletrap and then used that mistaken attribution to assert that he, "thinks he could refer to self as economist" and "have final say on who's a real economist". She's effectively claiming that Steeletrap lied about economics credentials and has mistakenly used a quote of mine as proof. Stalwart111 07:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I assume you mean that taking it out of context was shameful, rather than that my original quote was shameful... ha ha.

Yeah, I think somewhere along the way Carol misinterpreted this diff (or that discussion in general). The line Carol quotes in this edit is most certainly my line, to which Steeletrap was responding. I'd like to think the misquoting was unintentional but Carolmoore's recent editing has included some quite bizarre stuff and I'm just not sure what to think any more. She seems to be getting very frustrated and upset at some pretty mundane policy discussions and the ad-hom stuff is starting to creep in (like her describing editors as trying to, "use a few jerks to tarnish all freedom lovers everywhere"). I'm not even sure what that means - I asked but got no response. Stalwart111 06:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It would indeed be nice if Carolmooredc's misrepresentation and incivility were unintentional, but when such instances are pointed out to her -- as I did on that same thread or as Stalwart says he did above, -- Carolmooredc goes silent and fails to provide the requested documentation and declines to retract her unfounded remarks. Unfortunately, her WP posts over the past two months -- in edit sumnmaries, talk page comments, and noticeboard postings -- read like her personal diary of accusation, conjecture, and harassment of other editors who disagree with her regarding WP content. She regularly posts links which fail to support her assertions and attacks. Her numerous tours of the noticeboards and ANI have failed to sustain her accusations, yet she continues to cite them as if her accusations themselves, rejected on noticeboards, were primary evidence against the editors she targets.

Carolmooredc has conceded that she has become agitated and has cited various reasons for her uncivil and disruptive behavior. She has promised several times to take time off from editing the articles that upset her, most recently in this very ANI above, but she has been unable to stay away. What to do? SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another response to yet another exaggerated accusaton.
This edit of mine was a really messy correction of my misinterpreting many remarks of User:Steeletrap as saying he was an economist in training working on an MBA in economics. In this diff I alluded to there Steeletrap writes: "I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree." [Struck misinterpreted quote.]

If you want to read Steeletrap and Specifico writing at length about their economic expertise and their views of those horrid Mises/Rockwell/Rothbardians, as well as conflict of interest questions about her masters degree and her faculty advisor (which also led the inaccurate impression it was a masters in economics), etc, see this diff of a big deleted talk page section. Read it quick enough and you'll get confused on some points but definitely get certain impressions I'll allow you to describe for yourself. Many of the points they make there are repeated over and over in various fashions on a host of talk pages.

As for my writing "have final say on who's a real economist", that's the impression I get from 15 or 20 times when either Steeletrap or Specifico have pontificated on their opinion of whether a host of Austrian economists they don't like were or were not economists,or notable enough to be called economists. See Murray Rothbard,Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Jesus Huerta de Soto talk pages for starters; I haven't paid attention to several other such economists' articles they've been busy working on (or over?).

But seriously, if neutral editors think I am misinterpreting the following by pointing out absurd amounts of editorial bias 1/3 of the times I see it, please do tell. I asked on the talk page of the policy FAQ but never got an answer.

Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors: I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page ...(etc more advice).

So that's the response to today's inquisition. User:Carolmooredc 14:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Carol, he didn't write that at all. Again, that quote is from me. Please re-read that diff you keep posting. The section shaded in grey is the part I wrote to which Steeltrap is responding. It was not written by him. Here's the whole comment from me, one edit earlier, including that line. I just don't know now if you're trolling, being intentionally obtuse, or you still just haven't actually read that diff? Stalwart111 14:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

After so many go-rounds and so much editor time spent responding to Carolmooredc's disruptive behavior and its reverberations, we need not speculate about her thoughts and motivations. What is important, I think, is to consider whether she has the WP:COMPETENCE to edit at the present time against the standard in Competence is Required. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to review Stalwart111 comments more carefully but there's only so much one can respond to before brain freeze sets in.

In a quick look at the diff I did NOT understand that you meant you wrote you wrote the following: "I could call myself a economist" etc... Well, the rest of my comments hold. Read the big long diff from the deleted talk page fast enough and many other things written by Steeletrap and one easily can get the misimpression Steeletrap is an economist in training working on a Masters. So I have no idea what the subject of Steeletrap's Masters is and don't have the energy to read that long diff and figure it out.

Also on your asking what I mean by "use a few jerks to tarnish all freedom lovers everywhere". What I meant was

a) to make it clear that I did NOT agree with every jerky thing said by some of these Austrian economists - non-wikipedians HAVE used my wikipedia editing offline to make such false claims against me. So sometimes I have to call these subjects jerks and nuts for stupid things they say/think just so my offline stalkers can't claim I'm defending them. It's a nasty world out there... (Especially if one naively signed up here under one's own name.)

b) Obviously an editor could emphasize the most ridiculous aspects of a couple of Mises/Rothbard/Rockwell associates to try to make living people those associates have said nice things about look bad. I often suspect that's the reason that a while back an editor removed a nice comment about Murray Rothbard from some neutral WP:RS and replaced it with a fatuously glowing comment from Hans-Hermann Hoppe whose article focuses to an absurd degree on a couple of academic comments he made that happen to mention homosexuals; read article for details. Of course, per this talk page discussion some people want to have it both ways, don't put in the neutral factoids from Rothbard acqaintances but let those whose articles have been transformed into partisan hit pieces say all they want?? But there I go again, taking seriously Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. At least I avoided using names; I'm sure this would not be the only kind of BLP where this happens. User:Carolmooredc 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I have never said I am an "MBA" student, a claim which you are using to somehow imply I identify as an economist. Please provide a diff to substantiate your remark. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope editors will take a look at the line ------------ that I added near the top of this discussion. CMDC said "mea culpa" and OP accepted it. At that point this discussion could have been closed. I'll add another line just below this post. I hope it will serve as a point that allows for closure. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Rich, the title is broad enough to include a broad discussion of policy violations. Please do not close the discussion. And please note that my accepting the "mea culpa" was contingent on Carol making no further PA; as well as Carol ceasing to post on the North page( neither of which she managed to do). Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Because of this website(s) widespread use by million of people I may refer this information to the FBI in regard to how their information is being used to mislead people". Talk:Homosexuality#Violence against Gays and Lesbians from User: Ranleewright.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect a person interested in truth to do, the edits to entry and its subsections of this page are going further away from the truth everyday, it is misleading the public who use Wikipedia, a public who feels it is a unbiased resource? I have not as yet went to the step of sending copies of the information to the FBI or other outside organizations, that is why I said I may refer. Are you so determined to mislead and be biased that you would have me blocked or removed from Wikipedia? This further proves you want no criticism of your edits on this resource, your not interested in improving your wording in regard to the references, this is a very sad outcome for Wikipedia as far as use and being unbiased. Ranleewright (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

These are valid concerns / issues I wish to draw and direct attention to, misleading or information skirting falsehood should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia if you want it to be regarded as well regarded resource for the public in general as an encyclopedia and such. Now if you have no concern in regard to the information being unbiased and non-misleading then go for it but put a disclaimer on each page to show that is the fact of the matter. Ranleewright (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• The statement by Ranleewright is not a legal threat. The material is apparently sourced to an FBI report, and the user is saying that they would report that the report is being miscited. That said, the comments by Ranleewright strike me as, at best, unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is a simple content dispute. But accusing other editors of misleading the public is uncivil behaviour and it will not contribute to the resolution of any outstanding issues. -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think is more than a content dispute. The editor appears to have an agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If Ranleewright was truly interested in improving wording in regard to references, one might expect that as a first step, they may have responded or passed some comment on the 3 suggestions I made on the article talk page in which I indeed attempted to improve the wording. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, Bbb23. Only meant insofar as the ANI report goes, there does not appear to be a legal threat. The problem remains with the content...and certain conduct. Taroaldo ✉ 23:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect Bbb23's opinion on this. I feel that the wording when looked at with the previous comment: "I hold forth no hope that this will be corrected or mitigated because this seems to be Wikipedia's purpose to spread biased and misleading material to the general public, even allowing pornographic material displaying sexual themes, relations and organs to underage children without restriction, this is illegal in every other form of media." makes it appear that the intent is a legal matter of finding Wikipedia liable for its content and an accusation of a misuse of an Official US Government agency. This seems a borderline legal threat and could be interpreted to mean that they intend to seek legal action. I feel the issue can be left as is, unless the editor continues to make threats of off Wiki action.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This, as quoted by the OP here, does indeed qualify as a legal threat: "You better fix this, or I'm calling the FBI." The rest of his posts are loaded with accusations of the "conspiracy theory" type. Certainly that SPA has an agenda, though it's not clear just what that agenda is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my basic, original thought.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note - This is why it is helpful to add all the relevant diffs at the beginning of the discussion. Still, "calling the FBI" does not constitute a threat of litigation. WP:LEGAL -- Taroaldo ✉ 00:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It does constitute a "Perceived legal threat". The language was meant to create a chill effect and stop editing and intimidate editors. I'm back to calling this enough of a legal threat that intervention may be needed for prevention as the editor is making it clear they intend some action.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That point seems to come up here from time to time. It's not the specific nature of the threat that forbids it - it's the attempt to intimidate editors. That's why threatening to call the FBI is every bit as much a "legal threat" as threatening to call Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement is, indeed, intended to chill the discussion and to get their way in the argument. As such, I believe it is a clear legal threat, in violation of WP:NLT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

While our interpretations of WP:LEGAL may differ slightly, I concur that contributions in the talk page appear to be an attempt to intimidate or bully other editors. I think most of us can probably agree that some kind of action would be appropriate in this case. Taroaldo ✉ 01:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I'm with Bbb here. I normally consider 'I will report you to some LEO' claims as in NLT territory since they have the same chilling effect but in this case as the comment appears to be 'I will report you to some LEO because it's their source you're misusing' not 'I will report you to some LEO for criminal investigation', I don't think this is auite in NLT territory. That said, I would discourage further comments of this nature as it does risk having the same chilling effect because we are ultimately talking about a LEO and it's unlikely to help matters. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, exactly what they are saying is: "Submit to my moral judgment that this article violates pornography laws by depicting relations between same sex couples or I will contact the FBI to begin a legal battle to make Wikipedia liable for the content. THAT is what they are saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Truth painful and is intimidating and bullying, hmmmm that sounds unreasonable to me. You can not get consensus when individuals for what ever reason choose not look at the independent facts of a matter. Just the same who ever has the power to stifle freedom of speech exercise it, the power always makes right I guess. Ranleewright (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Here look at the conversation more closely: Violence against Gays and Lesbians[edit] Ranleewright (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC) (Copyright/Attribution violation removed)--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Two things you should read: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Make that three because they need to read our terms of use it seems as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What gives? Copyright/attribution violation when it was a group of posts between me and several other editors, how could that be so, are you making up rules as you go? What are you doing deleting my posts, is that not a violation of freedom of speech? Are you disrespecting me because I'm new to this forum or are you bulling me? Ranleewright (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WE can violate your 'free speech' all we like here. Or rather, you don't have any right to 'free speech' on Wikipedia, any more than anyone else does - see Wikipedia:Free speech. As for removing the huge chunk of text you copy-pasted here, whether it was a copyright violation to do so or not (it might be, due to lack of proper attribution, but I'm no lawyer..), it shouldn't have been pasted anyway. Either post a link, or at least tell us where it is - filling the page with walls of copy-pasted text is disruptive and unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may post only your own text without the need to attribute others. However, if you copy text from one place to another within Wikipedia that belongs to other contributors you are required to give attribution to all those who's work you copy. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. But, the original post I made already has a link to the discussion so copy pasting that entire chunk was very disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So your saying it is a copyright violation to copy or link information in any form from one place to another in the entries or in the talk forums unless it is you. If it is not you then it is disruptive, in violation and unnecessary. No one has any right to free speech on here but you, you can move, delete, rewrite, block, ever what you want to do, you have the freedom to do that but no one else does. You don't want anyone to see what has really been posted so you obscure it or delete it. Sounds strongly of communism in some form to me. Ranleewright (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the founder of Wikipedia would think about a statement like that? Ranleewright (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not to say that the Wikimedia Foundation intends to extensively exercise that legal right, if it can be avoided. Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributors, and is dedicated to assuming good faith with those here to contribute constructively and assist in helping expand access to the sum of human knowledge. I have given constructive cpmtrobitions and have done all in good faith to assist in helping expand human knowledge, but have been blocked, ridiculed to an extent and bullied. The information I put forth was from the FBI website that contains the reports that were used. Also the edits I made were from the same source word for word in some cases to clarify the information being used in the entry, but no that was not good enough. Ranleewright (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone threatening to call the FBI in can fairly accuse others of 'bullying'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist AndyTheGrump Is abusing their powers as administrators on Wikipedia, I have given constructive contributions and have done all in good faith to assist in helping expand human knowledge, but have been blocked, ridiculed to an extent and bullied when all I have done is put forth factual information from the same sources / reports as in some of the entries on Wikipedia. In this way they are causing the information in these entries to misrepresent the statistics, percentages and facts put forth in these reports. This seems to be contrary to what Wikipedia should represent. Ranleewright (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. Does this not include administrators??? Ranleewright (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I never claimed to be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Then who is acting like one and deleting some of the stuff I put up? Who says they are going to block me on here? Ranleewright (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Also why are you AndyTheGrump changing my edits on entries when I put up the sources for those edits? Ranleewright (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"why are you AndyTheGrump changing my edits on entries when I put up the sources for those edits"? What exactly are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Before you do anything else, you need to remove and disavow your threat to contact the FBI, or you will be blocked from editing here - guaranteed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So now we go past bullying and have the threats, I have used Wikipedia as a resource since 2007 and I get threats for my loyalty. Like I posted before, who ever has the power to stifle freedom of speech exercise it, the power always makes right I guess, your doing the same thing you say your fighting against. Ranleewright (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The threats came from you. Withdraw them. Or expect to be prevented from making further threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, I don't make threats. Ranleewright (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Well? Ranleewright (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Come on abuse me AndyTheGrump, come on ol powerful one??? Whats going on nothing is happening? Ranleewright (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Enough of this unproductive WP:TE nonsense. Issue a block and be done with it. Taroaldo ✉ 08:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes issue a block don't even consider the truth, facts and be done with it, break all the grand words of Wikipedia,Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented, the roots on what it is based, show your true colors, prove what you are. Ranleewright (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

See  • above. Taroaldo ✉ 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Something isn't right here. I think it's true to say that in the thread on the article talk page, I was the only editor who attempted (repeatedly) to incorporate and address Ranleewright's concerns, yet it seemed to be me who Ranleewright chose to ignore. Ranleewright recently edited the article (see here) to include a note which clarified the FBI's definition of a victim, then afterwards on the talk page stated that "the edit I made to the entry clears up the meaning of the percentages referenced in the FBI report" (see here). Yet the day before on the talk page I had explicitly suggested doing exactly the same thing (see here) - note my sentence "Maybe a footnote could also be added after the use of "victims", explaining the FBI definition of that term" - but Ranleewright's reaction was to completely ignore me and instead get on a soapbox (see here). Maybe this was pure oversight, but a similar thing has happened on this page; if people look higher up, they can see I again referred to the 3 suggestions I had made to change the wording in the article. Does Ranleewright state that they hadn't seen those, and ask me to highlight them? No, I am completely ignored again, whereas Ranleewright proves quite capable of responding to other editors. I think that sometimes, for whatever reason, some people just like fighting. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• As far as the legal threat is concerned, I was not at first convinced as the threat was not credible. However, I find the argument that the editor's intent was to browbeat other editors compelling, and agree that WP:NLT was violated, in spite of the fact that the threat was not credible.

Furthermore, we have a major problem with WP:COMPETENCE here. The editor clearly has fundamental misconceptions about what WP is and how it works. While that is to be expected with a new account, it does not seem that the editor is amenable to improving their competence and constructively edit in a collaborative framework, based on their tendentious comments on the article talk pages and in this discussion. Mentoring and friendly advice are unlikely to be of any avail, as the editor's comments strongly indicate that he is WP:NOTHERE. Because it is reasonable to assume that disruptive and tendentious behavior will continue, an indefinite block would be the best option at this time. If, in the future, the editor can convince an adminitrator that they understand what WP is and how it works, and that they intend to edit productively and collaboratively in compliance with WP policies and guidelines, the account could be unblocked. Until then, this editor is "not ready for prime time". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

All one has to do is look at the editor's contributions list to see that he or she is WP:NOTHERE to help create an encyclopedia. This is clearly a POV-pushing SPA, and not a civil one at that. A block needs to be issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The only comment I'm going to make about sanctions is I don't think the editor has done enough yet to warrant a block. He might deserve a final warning for his approach, but not a block. His edits are a mixture of various components. He actually makes some good points, but they are mixed up with a poor approach, some incompetence, and a hostile manner, particularly when challenged. In any event, I've made some comments as to content on the homosexuality talk page, taking into account some of the points that Ranleewright made, as well as other problems with the language we use in the article, which, in my view, is not fully supported by the source. That now makes me WP:INVOLVED, so I won't be the admin who takes action against Ranleewright, if any action is justified. By the way, to get a fuller picture of Ranleewright, editors might want to look at his edits to the Vegetarianism talk page. His comments there are sometimes odd, but they are less controversial and more human. Please remember that there are people behind these accounts, and we need to be sensitive to that. I'm not saying that justifies persistent disruption, and for all I know he may be a sock, but let's not be too blood-thirsty at this point. He's made only a few article edits so far, all of which have been poor, but none of which has been vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors calling for a block are "blood-thirsty", and frankly, it's a blatant violation of WP:AGF on your part to say so. Nipping in the bud what is certain to be continued disruption is a legitimate use of a block so that other editors can edit in peace. Remember, they are people, too, and don't deserve to be subjected to hostility and aggression. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block Legal threats, lack of competence, not here to build an encyclopedia, disruption and "I don't here you".--Amadscientist (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved, non-admin comment) Let's see. Ranleewright's very first post at Talk:Homosexuality was a blatant violation of WP:AGF, alleging "intentional misrepresentation" of the source [my emphasis], and their subsequent posts strongly indicated a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Despite more than one editor's attempts to take Ranleewright seriously and address the substance of the content question they raised, Ranleewright clearly preferred to engage in unconstructive discussion, reiterating the baseless allegation of their first post, calling a good-faith editor's comments "moot and argumentative and suggesting the article be "removed", accusing other editors of wanting to hide "the truth", accusing the article's writers of being "biased", issued the threats that led to this ANI report being filed, and then pointily made an edit they knew would be reverted rather than seeking consensus.

  Bbb23 may be right that there's not enough there for a block just yet, but unless Ranleewright makes a serious effort to assume good faith and "play nicely", it's pretty clear that a block is in the future. Up to y'all how much time is spent on discussing the problem before dealing with it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I try hard to work with difficult editors to find ways to understand their concerns and address them, work with them and attempt some manner of retention of them as contributors. I tend to be like Bbb23 and not necessarily look to block and even look at the overall picture. But, this time Bbb23 is wrong. There is clearly enough to block the editor at this time and their main effort here is to attack a controversial article, rile up its editors and disrupt the project. The editor lacks the competence to work here, and even when directed to information to explain the simplest rules here, such as attribution, they use it as further attacks. Sure, I find the opinion that tying up a man to a fence and beating them to death for their sexual preference as being nothing but sensationalism and gossip to be disturbing, but it is far more telling about their lack of neutrality and the direction they are insisting the article take. Mathew Sheppard is a perfect example of violence against the LGBT community, but the editor is too biased against homosexuality to see that. I have to wonder if the editor even has the maturity to work here, let alone the competence.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Rivertorch is right, it's a matter of how long, not if. This user's combativeness has convinced me to block until the threat is withdrawn, and this will also serve as a cooldown period for a combative editor. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good call. Looking at Ranleewright's contributions as linked by Rivertorch, it was clear to me that the user was here to push an agenda rather than build an encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. CtP (t • c) 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Until the threat(s) are withdrawn, it should be block, and mentorship. Or if all else fails, indefinite block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.60.157 (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to some opinion, I think he is here to build an encyclopedia - I simply think he believes that ref's must be used his way to support his POV, "or else". The block for NLT is valid, and can be removed as per process. Of course, I half expect to see evasion instead, which opens up a whole different can'o'worms (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic editing by TomPointTwo

I know about all the civility enforcement difficulties etc. and for sure I have no intention to stir up any unnecessary drama but I started a modest thread at Talk:Steve King warning editors there about breaching 3RR during a recent spate of edit-warring. The thread is not long and anyone interested can read it to get the full picture. To cut the story short, I cautioned TomPointTwo about making unhelpful remarks which could provoke another user and I got this response: I found them to be helpful as a motherfucker. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC) with an edit-summary feels good man. I reverted per WP:NOTFORUM but TomPointTwo keeps edit-warring his reply into the talkpage, escalating with attacking edit-summaries such as: (Censorship! Fascism! Your subjective deletion of my contribution will not stand! My critical evaluations of previous material is not in violation of WP:TPNO. Read it, son.). I don't find this acceptable. I ask that an admin redact that reply and take any further action as they deem appropriate. In addition TomPointTwo used edit-summaries like (Undid revision 566113825 by MilesMoney (talk) Actually now that you're up against 3RR you can eat it.) trying to bait his opponent during the edit-war at Steve King in which he arrived at 3RR himself but did not seem to recognise it as shown from this discussion at RFPP: [43] and this response at 3RRN: [44]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I found my previous talk page comments to be helpful. Helpful as a motherfucker, in fact. My expression of 3RR angst (actually 5RR by that point) was succinct and honest. Suckhonest, maybe. Context can be found at the Steve King Talk page, the 3RR noticeboard and the additional entry Dr K made to the edit war noticeboard. Aside from that I don't have a ton to add. I do so hope my contributions are not interpreted as anything less than "professional" or of the super serious business required of participants here. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• He has now resorted to personal attacks against me at 3RRN: [45]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm confused. Are you crying about my conjecture that you feel dumb? TomPointTwo (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Carrying on the battle here is not wise. I suggest you stop. Taroaldo ✉ 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The formatting here is a mess, and not of your doing. Whom are you addressing? TomPointTwo (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The situation has been presented and I think it would be best if you both would step back until some outside input has been provided. Carrying on arguments in ANI is not constructive. Also, TomPointTwo, you seem to have a sharp sense of humour (if I have been interpreting some of your comments correctly). But, since this is not being welcomed by the other involved editor, it would be appropriate to tone it right down. What may appear as humourous comments to you appear as uncivil comments to others eg: "[a]re you crying about my conjecture that you feel dumb?" -- Taroaldo ✉ 09:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're an affably charitable sort. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Outside look

As an outsider that has not dug in to the whole problem yet, I must say I dont like TomPointTwo language at all. I suggest you start being polite and write with a friendly tone. It is better for everyone, because it is more civil to read, and people may judge you differently if you use another language. I dont feel like the choice of words is good etiguette, so at least consider reading WP:ETIQ. QED237 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply incapable of responding to that in a way that isn't despicably petty as you no doubt speak my language better than I speak yours. Or so I hope. In the mean time I do very much hope you find others whose language is more in tune with your sensibilities. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you capable of responding in a way that does not include sarcasm, insults, battleground behaviour, or indeed can you respond in any manner that respects the community nature of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am, as repeatedly demonstrated by my edit history. I've also reached that point where I'm totally unconcerned for my wiki-cred and treat the absurd in kind. Self-aggrandizing, self-appointed, fussy wiki bureaucrats and people who want to cite the Colbert Show in a BLP can pretty much go pound sand. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I woke up to see an edit summary which was inappropriate, and responded to TomPointTwo at their talk page. That occurred before I saw the ANI thread and before I saw the subsequent comments of TomPointTwo. Because I have edited the article, and commented on the content issues, I feel uncomfortable taking admin actions, but we need to send a clear message that the language of TomPointTwo is not acceptable. I urge a warning that further such language will be grounds for an immediate block. Coerced apologies aren't worth much, so I don't wish to coerce one, but I hope TomPointTwo considers one. While it is clear that MilesMoney's style can be exasperating, the editor is new, and unfamiliar with our guidelines, so we can be firm, but do not need to be insulting. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've fully protected Steve King for three days, and left messages on TomPointTwo's and MilesMoney's talk pages. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll tone it down, there isn't much left to get up about anyway. I'm unsure exactly what it is you want me to apologize for. For being rude to a pain in the ass newbie who was shiting all over a BLP? Or hurting Dr. K's feelings and not deferring to his stern finger wagging? In all seriousness though, if my disregard for the institutional faux mutual regard around here has caused this much hyper-ventilating then people will either put on their big kid pants, and move on or they'll serve my up some block that doesn't much affect me anyway so they can feel better about that intolerable Tom jerk on the Steve King article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was watching the RFPP thread with growing incredulity; TomPointTwo was behaving bizarrely, and neither user seemed to understand what the other was saying, creating a vicious circle. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your evaluation is without merit regarding my replies at RFPP. I was replying directly to TomPointTwo's comments and he was shifting the replies ever so slightly to create the conundrum that you see there. He exhibited exactly the same attitude at 3RRN where he never admitted to edit-warring despite multiple detailed explanations from my part and made multiple false statements about my evaluation of his behaviour as having reached 3RR as you can see from the link here. At 3RRN I had to tell him not to put words in my mouth due his false statements about me. He also repeated multiple times that I had to "read WP:3RR" when I told him that he was also edit-warring and in one of his replies he even called me a clever little wordsmith, repeated that "I had to read WP:3RR" and implied that I was "dumb"; all for telling him that he was responsible for edit-warring. At both 3RRN and RFPP he feigned misunderstanding of my replies and I think that kind of reaction from TomPointTwo is some short of defence mechanism when he does not want to face his responsibility. At RFPP he became patronising and insisted multiple times that I made an error by reporting there. In one of his replies he patronisingly implies that "I had it bacwards" by not filing a single report at 3RRN only for his perceived opponent with a patronising edit-summary re Dr. K: Oh, I'll do it then implying that I filed the wrong report. In another patronising reply at RFPP when I told him that his newbie opponent was not warned about 3RR and thus any report about MilesMoney at 3RRN would not result in his block he sarcastically retorted that I was "a member of the cabal" with a sarcastic edit-summary: *Gasp*. All part of his strategy to shift the blame to his newbie opponent. It was his version of Who's on First? trying to evade his responsibility about the edit-war and ignore my clear comments about it. Either that or he has genuine trouble reading other editors' replies no matter how clear. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is very troubling behavior, both here and on the article in question. Also there's fun incidents like calling another editor a liar in his recent edit history. Scrapping with a combative newbie is one thing, but his responses to Dr. K. and QED237 are uncalled for. I'm tempted to block, but that might only encourage anti-social behavior. I think perhaps a better solution would be to topic ban him from this particular article for the duration of this particular editing conflict while more level-headed editors sort it out. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I called him a liar because he was transparently full of shit. I could have pretended we didn't all know he was transparently full of shit and done the phony, passive aggressive "I'm going to assume good faith here" routine but that's incredibly taxing. And old. I'm unsure what you're angling for in a topic ban, I almost never edit Steve King's page, I don't even remember why it' on my watchlist. I just saw a new, pushy editor doing something belligerently stupid so I popped in to let him know. If it would make you feel better, like you've "done something" about all of whatever this is then have at it. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

One of his edit summaries here: "I have some tissues left over here. BAWWW party, my place?" Assuming he isn't a troll, I would also consider his earlier comments on this thread ("totally unconcerned for my wiki-cred", "fussy wiki bureaucrats [...] can pretty much go pound sand") an admission that this behavior isn't going to stop. I support a block. ProtossPylon 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He is on a campaign of self-righteousness and denigrates and belittles any comments concerning his personal attacks as well as his edit-warring behaviour and does not show any kind of sign that he understands the impact of his behaviour on a collaborative editing environment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been a super big meanie over the past 12 hours. And one time I called a liar a liar. I'm pretty sure I've insinuated a few editors are dealing with cognitive handicaps. If you go back far enough you might even find an instance or two where I have, without any proper perspective on our reverent air of community collaboration, told someone that their contributions were garbage. If I'm not blocked soon I could fly off the handle and, again, remove non-policy compliant garbage and even hurt someone's sense of self importance, or worse, their emotional well being. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes as TomPointTwo writes, if he is not blocked soon he could hurt the emotional well-being of other editors. If he does that, it will hurt our encyclopedia. I thus support a block. (NB I had an interaction with TomPointTwo in May 2011 here. (sdsds - talk) 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I initially supported only a topic ban, but based on the comments of other editors and his latest comments here, he's talked himself into a block. It's clear that discussion won't resolve the issue. He clearly understands the problem, but he is clearly determined to not only disregard the issue, but exacerbate the problem as much as he can, so this is a matter of merely self-fulfilling prophecy. And based on what I'm interpreting as his assent above, I don't see why we shouldn't also place a topic ban on him for this article for the duration of this current editing conflict. I'm calling it a night, so if there is consensus here for an unblock or changing the block, you need not contact me first. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The block seems a sensible move given the latest comments. I'm not so sure about the topic ban though - not the idea of a topic ban per se, but whether we have the authority to impose one. There hasn't been a community discussion leading to a ban, so I don't think we can impose a ban under that authority. Is the article in question under any form of discretionary sanctions? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we need them? If there is a consensus here for such a ban, that should be sufficient. Given his assent, I thought there was no harm in imposing one. If consensus here disagrees, I have no problem lifting it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

New user, likely sock--anyone know the master?

A new account, BrewJay (talk · contribs) appeared, and its first edits were to WP:TPG and WT:MEDRS. That certainly seems to me to not be a new user. While I considered bringing the matter here first, the user had a "mailto:" link in her/his signature (again, a customized signature is a clear sign of a non-new user). I didn't want that to propagate any further. If you look at this edit you can see the email address. Does anyone know who this is? Or have I needlessly overreacted? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to be an IP regular at Talk:Cruciferous vegetables (see Special:Contributions/75.152.119.213, Special:Contributions/75.152.127.203, Special:Contributions/75.152.117.14 and Special:Contributions/75.152.124.222). In response to one series of edits, I have expressed concern about behaviour which, in WP terms, may be considered disruptive, including a specious attempt to game the system [46]. Fwiw, I believe the MED project at least should be spared this sort of disingenuous time-wasting. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just stated on BrewJay's talk page that I still believe he's a disruptive sock, but that since I don't have definitive evidence or a specific master, I won't oppose an unblock if he should choose to request one and another admin is willing to grant it. My full explanation is there. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user has been editing as an IP since 2011 (or earlier), but a search for "BrewJay" in all namespaces finds an account blocked indefinitely in 2008, which was probably the user's original account. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user has stated in an email to me that they are a new account because their first account was indefinitely blocked; after looking at the contributions of that account, there is no doubt that the user is the same, and that this type of disruption date back at least until 2009. I've withdrawn my offer, and reblocked the account without email or talk page access. However, given how long this has gone on already, it seems plausible that he'll return.

While we're here though, a question: I would never have found the user's original account unless he had told me via email. Given that email communications are considered private and not revealed on WP without permission...can I legitimately link the two accounts via a sockpuppet tag? Or is that revealing private info? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that sockpuppet tags linking the accounts are necessary here at all, whether it involves revealing information from private communications or not. The pattern of editing is recognisable enough without it, and the "sock puppetry" here is only for the purpose of block evasion (of a block issued 4 years ago). If the original account you were told about is the account I found (in use 2006-2008) this doesn't even look like an attempt to create a new identity. If IP edits resume maybe it would be worth linking the IPs to the BrewJay account. Peter James (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Swamilive seems to be back

I decided to take this here instead of WP:SPI because it's so obvious. For example, he added this to User talk:Delicious carbuncle, which is definitely classic Swamilive. The IP he used definitely seems to be in the same range as previously used IPs, too, such as the ones used to vandalize Winnipeg Folk Festival-related articles back in 2009–2010. For further info, check this out: 216.26.215.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 13:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I decided to chime in here. Yes, this is John (or Swamilive). I've just served the sentence imposed on a range of IPs, and I have decided to come back (since the block has expired) and contribute constructively, although probably not very frequently. I said hi to DelCarb because well, I wanted to say hi. Since the last time I was able to edit Wikipedia there have been some changes to how one updates. I see now that you can resize an image right there on the page. This was new to me, and I'm pretty sure I made some saves to images that might have been inappropriate. I ask that the community ignore those one or two edits and allow me a period of adjustment to the new editing style. I assure you that, despite my past transgressions, I am ready and willing to be a positive contribution to the project. I have served a very long block sentence. Please do not assume the worst an reinstate the block. I should be afforded a chance to prove myself. 216.26.215.100 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion and the IP's edits are nothing but vandalism. I suggest someone block the IP.--Atlan (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco

Please see message posted by new user Anarcocapitalista austriaco here: [47]. – S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've told him that if the threat isn't immediately removed I will block him indefinitely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This might not be a legal threat. User:Anarcocapitalista austriaco says that a third person might sue Wikipedia. He doesn't claim to be or to represent this third person. Please account for the possibility that the user's message is a good-faith warning about someone else's threat to take legal action. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He says " I am Huerta de Soto's close familiar and I believe he is very annoyed with the lies that are being written in wikipedia" A threat made on behalf of his friend is still a threat, and should be withdrawn. If we accept your argument, we might as well abandon the policy, along with any other incivility (Mr X thinks you are a %??!!ing ~**### because of what you put in the article, just thought I'd let you know that). I'll block him if the threat remains, I'm not splitting hairs on this, there is no valid reason for keeping intimidation active, whatever the source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't blocked yet because he has made no subsequent edits and may not have seen the message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a threat made on behalf of a friend is still a threat. But my point is that this user never claimed to be speaking on this friend's behalf. If I were a new user who learned that someone I knew was about to sue Wikipedia for publishing false information about them, I might do exactly what this user is doing: I would first try to resolve the matter by removing the allegedly false information, and if my actions were reverted and called into question I would explain, perhaps with some desperation, that I was only trying to head off impending legal action. Of course I wouldn't be so rude about it, though not every new user is used to containing their indignation in the face of Wikipedia bureaucracy. I see the relevant policies and procedures have now been explained to them, so hopefully they will now understand what it is they need to do in order to get their corrections adopted. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also it is possible the editor is not aware that if Jesús Huerta de Soto is upset about User:Specifico's editing he can see Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. Conveying messages inferring threats to sue User:Specifico is not necessary. Since I'm involved in an ANI which touches on Specifico's editing in several articles, including this one, it might not be appropriate that I do it. User:Carolmooredc 12:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[inserted] Interestingly, a check of new editor AA's diffs shows that much of the text which AA disputes is from edits contributed by user carolmooredc. SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have notified the user. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If the user has claimed close connection to the person and is making edits and pushing for edits that are not correct then there is a case of potential conflict of interest too. The accounts only edit has been to this page + the claims of closeness to the person this could potentially be a single purpose account. The editor should probably be given more information on these policies too.  A m i t  웃   15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Giano

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure how to proceed with the editor User:Giano - that seems to have a problem communication in a mature fashion and is attacking me every time I come across them. What has lead me here is the most recent blanking of a post as seen here. I have only encountered this editor on 2 or 3 occasions. My problem with this editor started when they simply called me lazy - then progressed with post making fun of my MS as seen at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility dos and don'ts#Quotations. I let all this go as I assumed I would not see the editor again - but then I encountered them at Talk:Montacute House#Article mentioned at Manual of Style and the same type of behavior started again - that progressed to calling me a troll at an MOS conversation, deleting my post ect. The editor seems to believe I have some sort of an associations with infoboxes and related editors - for the recorded I don't add or removed infoboxes and have never reverted the editor in question contributions. They seem to have a problem that I am an advocate for accessibility for the disable and our readers at large.I am looking for a small sanction - so that this type of behavior has been documented In case it happens again in the future. This is the type of behavior needs to be nipped in the butt. Moxy (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prior to this notice, I reverted the edits which deleted Moxy's post; and left a note on both editors' talk pages, pointing that out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) How Freudian. Giano has been nipped in the butt before now. Andy, surely you're aware that you're the absolutely last person who should leave notes on Giano's page. That's completely not constructive. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen, I would not bother to get too involved, nobody in their right mind is going to take this seriously. Moxy is always very Freudian, he found me 'appealing' earlier today. Mabbit and Moxy patrolling in union remind me of a Wikipedia essay I wrote years ago [48]. Don't bother commenting to them, it will only serve as encouragement.  Giano  18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You think I should not have notified him of the revert? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that's what I think. The new notification system informs users when their edits are reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

It doesn't tell them why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I will let each of our reputations and interactions with editors speak for themselves. if you where to actually investigate before making wild accusations you would see that I and Mabbit dont see eye to eye on many things (currently in a civil dispute that is progressing well) . -- Moxy (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any of the history of this, particularly betweeen Giano and Andy apparently, but I could really live without the continous self-indulgent sarcasm. Giano, Moxy clearly meant appalling, not appealing, and your constant mocking is not constructive - and you do it with such relish. On that one talk page, it was unrelenting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh no <sob> are you telling me that Moxy does not find me 'appealing'? Why not - is it something I've done? Next you'll be telling me that Moxy doesn't want to 'nip my butt' - I was rather looking forward to that. You North Americans are all tease and no action.  Giano  19:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is very clear you dont have the maturity to engage editors in a respectful manner. I think you need a holiday to reflect on how you could better interact with people in the future. I am now formally asking for a 1 month block in light of the ongoing incivility and mockery. -- Moxy (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, telling Giano he looks like a fool in this exchange and telling him to "grow up" in your edit summary does not advance the cause of civility either. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct after being attack many many many times I voiced my concern - then posted here. As would anyone who is being bullied and harassed. -- Moxy (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You really can't have it both ways Moxy. If Giano is blocked for incivility then so should you be. Eric Corbett 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And how is that? Show me how I was anything but very tolerant of his behavior for the past few months. All can see the events that took place and the order things happened in. We are simply tired of having to deal with editors like this. You may personally like the person and think there cool, but that does not excuse the behavior all of us can see clear as day. if this were an IP there would not even be this tlak. -- Moxy (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Giano has always engaged me in a respectful manner, and I have fired back in the same spirit. A quick overview of clashes between English and Italian battleships will give an idea of the results! If a holiday is needed, we could all meet up in Malta. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be your experiences with this editor - but as demonstrated above if the editor in question does not like you they go out of there way to make sure they insult you and even go so far as to delete posts. Not sure what others think but this type of behavior is simply not acceptable to us older editors. -- Moxy (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're taking this entirely too personally. I very much doubt that Giano has an opinion of you at all as a person, as I assume you don't know each other in real life. But you have to remind yourself that he worked hard on the Montacute House article to get it to where it is today, and inevitably he'd prefer not to see it turn into the usual WP grey goo. Mabbett's involvement has clearly not helpful either, given his long-standing dispute with all and sundry about infoboxes. Eric Corbett 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant spin on NPA. If you don't know each other in real-life, and you don't have a declared "opinion" of that person as a person, there logically can be no "personal attacks". Doc talk 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I never mentioned NPA, so I can only assume that you must be among those who see "personal attacks" around every corner and in every word. Eric Corbett 10:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You all can do or say whatever you like, but my view is that Giano has been and will probably continue to be uncivil. And warning him of it will do scant good as he seems to be protected. If I were you, Moxy, I'd ignore him completely. He'll just feed on any response you make. Indifference is best.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree will just ignore the person - But do think the community needs address editors of this nature - they are a determent to the project at large and the community needs to step-up and confront bullies like this -- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but if Giano is being uncivil then someone should block him for a day or 2 to think about it. He's not an admin, just a regular old run of the mill editor so it shouldn't be a problem. Part of the problem with this place is that we are too tolerant of bullies and uncivil editors, especially those with admin tools. We shouldn't be afraid to block them for it. Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not start by blocking a few of the bullying and uncivil admins if you want to make a difference? If there was no bullying from them and their acolytes there would be no temptation to respond to it. Eric Corbett 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, unfortunately the only thing harder than becoming an admin is getting rid of one. With that said though at the rate the admins are resigning their tools or stopping editing due to things like VE it may not matter. In a few months time there won't be anyone left. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I left Wikipedia for a year, and come back and the same people are being discussed about at AN/I for the same reasons and with the same results ("let's ignore them"). How sad admins will block some people but not others, and those that get bullied and stand up for themselves are told "well you were uncivil too". There's a difference between standing up for yourself and just being an ass; we should never attack the victim. I remember one person who I took to AN/I saying "I don't have to defend my actions, I just have to bloody the victim" which is a statement that comes from rape cases where the defense was to bloody the victim. Some here are pros at doing that. It should be against policy. Instead we enshrine in policy that you shouldn't be bringing this to AN/I unless you yourself are spotless. It's a shame and at least in the real world our laws have been changed to prevent such defense. Wikipedia however has not been so advanced.Camelbinky (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Very disappointing to see no actions has been taken yet on the concerns raised by a long time editor like myself. Not sure what type of community can run smoothly when concerns of this nature are not addressed on the spot. We spend lots of time and effort trying to have a collaborative environment and even set out policies to guide us all. Editors have an expectation of being able to work and voice an opinion without being insulted or posts deleted. I find it discouraging that the admin community does not take things of this nature seriously despite all the concerns raised about theses problems as of late. Moxy (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've argued for the past year, how the administrative system seems to have changed. It all depends on who they want to keep tabs on the most. If it's not so blatantly obvious it's someone who is INTENTIONALLY doing harm, then they'll act. but lately, ANI has been moving very sluggish. i brought up a topic of edit war three times over something an editor had no consensus. and although, it is claimed to be an offense of temporary block. It has never been addressed.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not up to speed on all the admins - but do have a question - do we still have admins that were here 6 or 7 years ago? There was a time that things of this nature were handled with hast and gusto. I think all the badgering (hate posts) admins have had as of late may have cause many to question their actions and leads to no action being taken at all sometimes. Us normal editors seem to be left in the wind trying to deal with all the incivility that has gotten out of control in the past few years. -- Moxy (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that no one has taken up your ridiculous request to block me Moxy is because I have not been uncivil to you; speaking bluntly and frankly are not the same as being uncivil at all. Most people (including me) when they realise that another editor finds them grossly irritating do their best to stay away from them - they do not pursue them around the project commenting and wanting absurd changes to their edits - especially when those pages are about subjects on which they know nothing. I could say that goes for Mabbitt too. Now as I have told you before, for your own sake, it would be a good idea for you to find something productive to do and put your silly vendetta aside. There are millions of terrible Wiki-pages and stubs desperate for your earnest attention - I suggest you go and find them and leave perfectly good GAs alone, that way you won't be making a fool of yourself here.  Giano  06:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be right no one cares about your odd behavior and the way you conduct yourself. As for making a fool of my self - I disagree we all here can see that your not up to par when it come to your interaction skills. I can only hope in the future as you become an adult and enter the real world you will come to understand how to communicate with your peers and those that disagree with you. Surprised I did not even get a sorry - the youth of today simply have no manners. I also hope this does not embolden you and others to not give a shit and keep being uncivil. -- Moxy (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Where have you got this strange idea from that Giano is a youth? And why in the context of your complaint do you consider it acceptable for you to make such personal remarks? Eric Corbett 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• The destructiveness of those pursuing the technophile line in the infobox wars against those who build content cannot be overstated. Re the OP question ("I am not sure how to proceed with the editor User:Giano"), the answer is to leave them alone. If you notice Giano damaging an article or driving off content builders, please post at ANI, but until then, just drop the matter. Who knows, perhaps WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes will resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ahem, I'd advise Moxy to drop the stick. Otherwise I may have to bring up evidence about a certain editor logging out to attack others anonymously back in April. This particular guy used his IP address (a Canadian one, no less) so he could make up a new identity and pretend to be an "ex-Wikipedian" who had been treated so badly he had had to leave the whole project. Unfortunately, said editor failed to disguise some very striking stylistic quirks, making identification rather easy. In fact, the whole attempt was so laughably bad and immature that I and another editor decided not to seek any admin action at the time. However, circumstances can change... --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Great just great - an old editor come here with some concerns about behavior and gets threaten by those hes asking for assistance from. Great work guys just great. This whole process has been very eye opening.-- Moxy (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, it wasn't an old editor, it was a certain user pretending to be an old editor. As you probably remember. --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and you should probably familiarise yourself with WP:BOOMERANG before brinnging complaints to ANI. --Folantin (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Giano has a huge group of friends willing to stick up for him at every turn. There is simply noting a lone content editor that does not engage in Wikipedia friendships can do here. I simply dont have the network of friends to help as he does. -- Moxy (talk)

Give it a rest. --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Brandonworld

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please look at this guy's contributions? Mostly in his userspace appear to be hoaxes and/or articles fictionalised entries about himself and his friends. Also managed to unhelpfully move his talk page to User talk:Brandonworld/May Fitzgerald and Myra Solosolg which shows other stuff that's been deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted a number of subpages in his userspace, moved back his talk page, and left a note for him explaining acceptable uses of his user space. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slavić

Slavić (talk · contribs) has thrown yet another hissy fit at Talk:Bulcsú László, IMO proving they're not here to build an encyclopedia - they seem to have an agenda in promoting the subject of that article and when people call them out on these fringe views, they respond with assorted insults. I gave them the benefit of the doubt in June when they re-created the article deleted after AfD, but it only led to a civility block enforced by myself. Today they started pushing their POV again, I was less patient but I again tried to reason with them on Talk, but it was apparently just delaying the inevitable - they still treated the other editors with nationalist slurs in their last talk page post.

Note also that the same person has already been blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia for pushing the same agenda. This is almost amusing - the Croatian wiki editors have engaged in a public feud with the English wiki editors over the Croatian language issue, and yet Slavić has managed to alienate both. We might need a new kind of an anti-barnstar for this kind of a feat.

So, would another admin please wield the axe the second time so that I don't have to. Thanks in advance. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Slavić for some more background. I agree this is a case of WP:NOTHERE: combination of obvious tendentious agenda, frequent personal attacks and a deliberately impenetrable idiosyncratic style of talkpage contributions that makes constructive collaboration with him near-impossible. This [49] latest affectation of a "purist" mangled English really was the straw that broke the camel's back. (Seriously, "does not havest a clue", from an editor who prides himself of his linguistic achievements, deserves a block for mangling English grammar if nothing else.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cryellow

The last days Cryellow (talk · contribs) started to behave disruptively. First at The Sherry-Netherland[50]. I don't know much about this, so I will contact Ken for this. The reason I'm reporting him/her is because at Pope Benedict XVI s/he has been inserting this text that clearly violates the BLP policy by inserting alleged ideas that he resigned for contentious reasons and not personal reasons, the worst part is that s/he believes that suggested information is factually correct. Also he violated the BLP policy with me, and possibly Elizium23, with the comment "sorry to shatter your Catholicism" at the moment he assumed that at least I was Catholic, when I'm not. While I was writting this report, he continued the BLP violations with this. It is clear that this user comes here to insert his/her points of view, and believes this place is a vehicle for doing that. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the edit warring. The BLP violations on Benedict XVI are unacceptable. Equally well this personal attack on BMK is unacceptable.[51] Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I am having problems with adding the following:

In the 1969 Academy Award winning movie "Midnight Cowboy," Dustin Hoffman's character Ratso Rizzo tells Joe Buck (Jon Voigt) that he can reach him at the "Sherry-Netherlands Hotel" after setting up a con job in which Joe is burned and Ratso, who is squatting in a condemned building and could never walk into the Sherry Netherland without being ejected let alone live there, doesn't want Joe to ever find him.

to this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sherry-Netherland

when I add it, Beyond my Ken immediately removes it. I opened up a TALK discussion on the matter and left the TALK open for MONTHS, after which the majority of those who commented agreed that my edit should remain, but still Beyond my Ken removes it.

SEE: the Sherry-Netherland Wikipedia page, Sherry-Netherland talk page, and MY (cryellow) talk page.

2) Same basic issue on this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

where I am adding the following to the article:

It has recently been suggested that Pope Benedict XVI resigned because he himself was part of the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals, that he was being blackmailed by those with proof of his complicity, and that he resigned to avoid a scandal.

and someone Tbhotch keeps edit warring with me to remove it. I have referenced two sources, and yet he keeps undoing my revision.

---

I think the over all issue is that you have people like Tbhotch and Beyond my Ken who think they OWN Wikipedia, and bully less frequent users into removing any edits to what they view as “their” Wikipedia articles. Cryellow (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This kind of edit is highly disruptive and shows zero knowledge of WP:BLP.[52] Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I looked over Beyond my Ken's TALK page, and it is one torrential dispute after another where Beyond my Ken reverts edits to "his" Wikipedia pages, and then foulmouths the users who dare to debate him. Cryellow (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? And that gives you the right to insert smearing speculation about Benedict XVI being involved in child abuse; and independently to make puerile personal attacks on BMK? Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The issues here are whether or not my edits should remain. On the Sherry Netherland page, the edit should remain after the majority of those who considered it, even Beyond my Ken's "buddy" felt that it should remain.

Whether my edit remains on the Pope Benedict XVI page will depend on whether it is okay to include substantiated but not absolutely verified facts about a person in a biography. As a matter of fact, there is NO biography of any historical figure that does not include some speculation in it, and for you to say that biographies do not include speculation would mean then that there need be only one version of a biography of a person, which is absurd. You may pick up ten different biographies of John Lennon for example, and in some it is claimed that he had a consummated sexual affair with Brian Epstein, and in others this claim is disputed. Yet, all of the biographies are still valid ones. Cryellow (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is how disruptive your edits are at the moment. You should not be making these infantile personal attacks. Please reread WP:NPA and WP:BLP, and note that the "L" there stands for "living". Lennon and Epstein died some time ago. Ratzinger is still alive. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia takes a dim view of BLP violations. Continuing disruption in this fashion isn't advisable. Taroaldo ✉ 08:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Cryellow account was created in March 2008, yet the editor has not learned anything about core Wikipedia policies. Inserting "it has been suggested" in front of an extreme claim does not entitle an editor to violate WP:BLP, WP:EW, and WP:RS. Would an admin please issue a final warning and close this. Cryellow should ask at WP:HELPDESK for basic information about policies in order to avoid strong sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• The situation at The Sherry-Netherland is fairly simple. Cryellow wants to include what I believe is a trivial mention of the hotel in the film Midnight Cowboy. Two other editors (Elizium23 and Jim.henderson) agree that it should not be in the article, while one editor (an IP who describes himself as a "good friend" of Cryellow, who has never edited before or after) agreed with Cryellow. Cryellow asked for a third opinion, and got one from TransporterMan, who agreed that the entry should not be in the article. Despite this clear consensus against him, Cryellow continued to attempt to insert the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As for the Pope Benedict situation: the source Cryellow provided is a blog, and therefore not a reliable source according to our standards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No one here seems to care much about what Beyond my Ken or Tbhotch thinks. Tbhotch created this page with much fanfare and threats and it is turning out to be a big *yawn. Cryellow (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And BTW, the Sherry Netherland dispute was posted on the Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Sherry-Netherland

for that article on December 24, 2012. On 12/26/12, an editor came along and agreed that my edit should remain. That's one vote for me! Then, on 12/29/2012, Beyond my Ken's OWN FRIEND Jim.henderson came along and agreed with retaining my edit, but proposed some compromise language such as "In the film Midnight Cowboy, impoverished con man Ratso Rizzo claims to live at this hotel." That's a half vote for me! again. Then on 1/17/13, another editor came along and voted that my edit should remain AS IS - making a total of 2 1/2 votes in my favor, and none (other than of course Ken's) against me (but then Ken's vote is cancelled by mine, so in sum we have 2 1/2 votes for me, 0 against).

FINALLY on July 25, 2013, after waiting six additional months for any further comments - and none were posted - I reverted the edit. I would say leaving the comment period for this matter open for seven months, during which time 2 1/2 votes were in my favor and none against, is long enough to have settled the dispute.

And then of course, immediately after I reverted the matter Beyond my Ken panicked and came on, immediately removed my material, and brought in a couple of his hacks and cronies (TransporterMan and Elizium23) who voted against my material.

But - how long must a TALK dispute remain open before the matter is settled? I waited patiently for seven months and did not revert my edit until, during those seven months, every editor who stepped up agreed with my material. Why does it matter that AFTER the dispute was settled that a couple of editors came along to try to put in their two cents worth ("too little, too late, and predictably pro-Ken editors.") Where were these editors while the dispute was ongoing?

Then as far as the Pope Benedict XVI material it does not refer merely to a blog, but to newspapers articles in Italian newspapers. If the quantity of references is at issue, I can certainly add more references for the material. How about if I add this CNN reference? Cryellow (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you try to reinsert that poorly sourced and dubious content about Ratzinger, your account would almost certainly be blocked for repeated violations of WP:BLP. Please also stop making personal attacks on other wikipedians: please do not refer to other editors as "hacks and cronies". Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

When I have the time, Kirk, I'll escalate the Sherry Netherland matter although already settled, to the next level. I'll open a dispute on the Pope Benedict XVI material. I don't live on Wikipedia and it is pretty clear who does, which is why certain editors take things too personally and think that they OWN content. This exercise here continues to be a big yawn and not relevant to the real issue of whether or not the material is germane and should remain. (Damn! that sh*t rimes.) Cryellow (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything you have posted here denotes something, you think you are right regardless if you are right. I don't care about the hotel edit-war, but neither about Ratzinger personal life. Whichever my personal views in religion are, I care about Wikipedia when I am in Wikipedia, and I don't mix my opinions over a topic with my life here. In this hours did you read WP:BLP? In case you haven't I will resume it for you: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material is challengeable, questionable, negative and speculative about a living person, it is not that I own the article, in the first place because I am not watching the article and your edit was filtered by Huggle when I was in my routinary checking of vandalism. The sources you present have pure speculation about an event, with poor or no real evidence this to say it is or "may be" the reason why Ratzinger resigned. You did an absurd comparison with Lennon-Epstein, absurd because L-E died years ago and BLP doesn't apply to them, but you didn't care to read their articles. Epstein was openly gay, he with his own mouth revealed it; Lennon, according to his article, said once: "Well, it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But it was a pretty intense relationship. It was my first experience with a homosexual that I was conscious was homosexual...", apparently you are not reading. Do you have any evidence of this? Because if you can't have a reliable reference, being Ratzinger himself or his staff, of having other preferences or that he resigned for polemical reasons, you can't simple say 'I am going to search for more references' to justify you POV pushing, because it is what you are doing, and it is demostrated here: "Whether my edit remains on the Pope Benedict XVI page will depend on whether it is okay to include substantiated but not absolutely verified facts" (italics mine), if it is not an "absolutely verified fact", why should we post a BLP violation with possibilities of a legal sue from Ratzinger against the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation or being a vehicle to allow defamation? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be useful for User:Cryellow to read WP:BATTLEGROUND, because his comments above -- "One vote for me!" etc. -- are not those of an editor who appears interested in discussion, compromise or consensus, they appeear instead to be the the comments of an editor who believes he is in the right, and that everyone opposed to him is wrong. This is the kind of editor we cannot afford to have here, and I'm afraid that it may be necessary to -- at some point or another -- indef block him from further editing. I'm sure that the admin corps would prefer to give him a chance to redeem himself before that happens, and I have no objection to that, but I do think it's important to make it clear to him that his attitude towards editing is not ideal, and is likely to lead to his being blocked in the near future. As usual, such warnings carry more weight if they come from an admin, rather than from a rank-and-file editor such as myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in this situation, it's informative to look at an earlier version of User talk:Cryellow, which provides some insight into Cryellow's original purpose in editing Wikipedia, which appears to have been promotional in nature. [53]. Although he does not appear to have made promotional edits since, it's clear from the present circumstances that he really never has understood what we're here to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

39.44.26.215

I told him that his edits were reverted on Shehla Raza ‎because he wrote Urdu on it. I reverted as good faith edits and warned him with {{subst:uw-test1}}. He then wrote on my talk page all these which just meant 'cut your mother'. Jianhui67 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for userpage vandalism and personal attacks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:81.107.158.116

I've come across this comment when I was going to leave Murry a message. I doubt I've ever seen anything as rude on the wiki. I note from the record that this user has already been blocked once. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of hoping somebody is going to look at this incident and agree with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The user claimed to be Harrybhoy67 in that message, and there are similar edits from that account. I've warned the editor (on the account's talk page) about BLP and verifiability - that's more of an issue than one incident of incivility. Peter James (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Request Indefinate Block on IP user: 62.7.90.195

Special:Contributions/62.7.90.195 This user has been blocked for vandalism as they keep removing bits from articles which involve controversy, accidents or incidents on certain rollercoasters. The two rollercoasters they have done this on so far belong to Alton Towers. I did a quick bit of research and it is a definite conflict of interests. [54] reveals IP address belongs to Merlin Entertainment who own the theme park who's articles this IP address keeps editing. The block imposed on the user is only for 31 hours but I would suggest an indefinite ban is more appropriate. The user has made no valuable edits to wikipedia, only these C.O.I. vandalisms.

Today this user is removing (covering up?) bits about controversy and accidents on articles about Alton Towers... Merlin own a lot of theme parks and attractions in the UK, including Alton Towers, Chessington World of Adventures, Thorpe Park, Madame Tussauds, Sea Life Centres, The London and Edinburgh Dungeons, Seal Sanctuaries, Warwick Castle, the London Eye and Legoland... -the potential for more is enormous.

I think nip it in the bud and block the IP indefinitely. It shows this sort of editing is not welcome on wikipedia. -- Rushton2010 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits are disruptive, but not vandalism. The main problem is lack of discussion or explanation of the edits. Some of the information removed belongs in the article, but other parts probably don't. Peter James (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately removing valid and fully referenced information is vandalism. Even more so with the worrying C.O.I. and the fact it was the bits about incidents and accidents that was being removed.

The question is not whether it constitutes vandalism- The user is already blocked for it being vandalism. This is about getting that block increased to stop it happening again. The last time I found C.O.I. vandalism the user was blocked indefinitely straight away, as should have happened with this one. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that the editor doesn't understand Wikipedia's purpose or policies, and that's why I suggested disruptive editing instead of vandalism. A block could be effective, but IP blocks are rarely lengthy and bad faith shouldn't be assumed yet. Most indefinite IP blocks are the result of mistakes or misunderstandings. Peter James (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Improper behaviour?

Hello. I would like to ask you regarding the appropriateness of User:John's recent behaviour. On 5 July he criticised User:Sjakkalle ([55]). In response to that, User:Quale criticised said post on User talk:John yesterday ([56]). John reacted to that by telling Quale that the conversation is in his opinion outdated, and branded his post trolling ([57]). After that I criticised John's reasoning ([58]), and John reverted my edit with the edit summary "fuck off and troll elsewhere, will you?" ([59]). He then proceeded to use the "troll" word again ([60]), and since I do not consider such behaviour proper, I placed a template warning on John's talk page ([61]), after which John reverted my edit with the edit summary "*flush*" ([62]).

Is this sort of behaviour considered proper? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Toccata quarta, I really really appreciate your and Quale's attemts at defending me. In my view John's behavior breaks all the rules of civility, AGF, and NPA into pieces, but I don't want either of you to get into a conflict with him over me. I would simply prefer to have as little to do with John as possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but there is also the issue of his behaviour towards me. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: User:John has now reverted the ANI notice I left on his talk page, and marked it as "minor" ([63]). Please note that before an edit is undone, editors get told that "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." As this last revert did not contain any text of his own, I have now been accused of both trolling and vandalism by John. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing improper about that; he's entitled to remove messages from his own talk page, and an ANI notification is just that, a notification. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Toccata....are there more recent issues between you and John? It's a little late now to worry about a conversation from July 5.--MONGO 16:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well its his talk page, he is free to do what he wishes with it(is a F word on his own talk page comment an issue here?), unless he is insulting you or misrepresenting facts about you. Reverting/Removing is neither insulting nor misrepresenting (it just well just plain reverting and removing). Is accusing you of being a troll an issue here and you believe you were not trolling even when you or the other editor were raising some concerns about a month and half old closed AN, then I did find a good essay for you to read about trolling and misidentified trolls  A m i t  웃   16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Reverting on his own talkpage is of course acceptable. I agree with Roscelese with that. However the edit summary ""fuck off and troll elsewhere" is not acceptable, so I cannot agree with the evaluation that "there's nothing improper". There is no exception in the WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL policies that say that you may swear at people on your user talkpage. But please, Toccata, don't continue this one. I know from my experience that it is very frustrating when people can make vicious attacks on your character and apparently be let off scot-free. However, I have also learned from my experience that editors who continue with that type of behavior sooner or later get their comeuppance since it over time alienates a larger and larger portion of the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Editors should be careful about referring to other editors as "trolls", but bringing up an old, closed issue was hardly likely to elicit a warm & cuddly response, and leaving a template warning for a user who's been here since 2006 is just straight-up rude. There may be issues relating to these editors of which I'm not aware, but looking at the evidence presented I see engagement with the apparent intent to provoke a negative response, which has been mildly successful. It may not be trolling by the strictest dictionary definition, but it's close enough that the distinction is largely trivial. Even giving a massive benefit of the doubt that that was somehow not the intent, it still comes off as a very minor and petty thing to bring to ANI. Sjakkalle doesn't look too good in being attached to all this, but to his credit he seems to want Toccata to drop it, which is wise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• • MONGO: I can't recall having previously interacted with John. I consider the rudeness that Quale and I faced improper, which is why I created this discussion (since the template warning led to no response other than "*flush*").
  • a.amitkumar: WP:CIV says: "The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact." Telling somebody that they should "fuck off" is a form of interaction.
  • Starblind: "leaving a template warning for a user who's been here since 2006 is just straight-up rude"? Since you think this issue shouldn't have been brought up here and John has "better things to do than wrangle with trolls" ([64]), what am I supposed to do? And since he's been here for so long, isn't he expected to know how to behave?
  • "but bringing up an old, closed issue" – again, see [65]. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop poking the bear. If someone is a prolific editor, instead of dropping a template you can leave them a personalized note that you've worded yourself addressing your concerns. And finally, what administrative action are you seeking? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Toccata, you templated an established user over a complete non-issue. If anything, the "flush" edit summary you got was extremely gentle, many editors here would have torn you a new one. Your actions here come off at best like unwanted nannyism and at worst like authentic trolling. Neither scenario is especially positive for you and I would suggest thinking hard about the likely outcome before undertaking similar actions in the future. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Toccata, Really I would like to know what admin action are you expecting here. The F word has almost turned colloquial nowadays instead of an insult. The editor thinks you are a troll, he reacted. Now do you have justifications that this is not trolling, you go to a editor and post this insult and you expect a good decent reply which this post did not deserve (I don't think he being experienced or being here before Jesus was born makes any difference). The initial post which John reacted/reverted itself was a personal attack and something that should not have been on the talk page and did not follow the recommendations for dispute resolution as per the same civility policy that you are trying to point every time. Johns questions on a persons competence is not a personal attack and I see it pretty polite and totally not rude.I would suggest you to drop the stick here.  A m i t  웃   14:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and well said. Sticks not dropped oft' turn into boomerangs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of talk page by blocked user 69.117.96.21

69.117.96.21 (talk) was just blocked. Immediately after being blocked, he posted this to his talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He was reverted a while ago and has since posted this. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Marcos Stupenengo, journalist, autobiography

Marcos Stupenengo is a minor journalist who has created a self-biography (CV like) both in this wiki and in the Spanish one. The Spanish version was already deleted (and as he was repeatedly creating the page again it was blocked forever). In this wiki he has been deleting Talk comments, removing the self-biography template. He doesn't seem to be very skilled as he always come from the same IP 207.38.225.26 (talk · contribs) (when he doesn't use the user Coconuto (talk · contribs), which is obviously him checking in Google).

The page in question is Marcos Stupenengo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spanish deleted page: es:Marcos Stupenengo

It would be great if somebody could take a look a this issue. Thanks!

I first posted this here Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Marcos_Stupenengo.2C_journalist, but I got no reply.

Thanks!

niqueco ✍ 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• AfD discussion already initiated by a user, I don't think additional ANI action is needed.  A m i t  웃   18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Oh Yeaaahh creating many short unsourced articles and not responding to talk page requests

Over the past few days, Oh Yeaaahh (talk · contribs) has created 34+ short, unsourced articles, mostly about train stations. They have not responded to multiple communication attempts and warnings. This may be a promotion only account, or a well intentioned editor; it's difficult to tell because there's no response. Perhaps an admin could offer them some Kool-aid and, if they still don't respond, perhaps a brief block will get their attention. - MrX 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Oh Yeaaahh's station articles except that he copy/pastes infoboxes & text from one to another without remembering to make the needed changes in geographical coordinates and other data. If Dr. Blofeld and others can mass-create unsourced articles consisting only of "X is a village in Y", what's the problem with these? We have articles on just about every railroad station, both current and defunct, in Britain and the United States, for example. Deor (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that we allow substantial latitude for geographical articles, but WP:STATION#Stations (apologies to Bowie) does not indicate that we do the same for railway stations. In any case, I may be mistaken in thinking that it's a problem that a new editor is creating many short articles and not discussing them with other editors.- MrX 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of Oh Yeaaahh's articles are decent enough to move ahead with a stub and/or citation needed tag, but I do see a hint of forum shopping in MrX behavior, first he AFD's all of Oh Yeaaahh's articles which doesn't go well(an editor even mentioned WP:DONTBITE to him), then he reports him as a vandal to admins, and then he is here.  A m i t  웃   18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse yourself a.amitkumar. The AfD was made in good faith. You will also notice that I specifically asked for guidance at AIV, which I received, thus my post here. Let's stop this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests. - MrX 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You expected to come to ANI and not have your interactions with or about the editor you are complaining about scrutinized? What do you mean by this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests? If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place. How many editors do you need to convince you that this is not a major issue? Why did you have to report the user to AIV as a compromised or a promotion only account and ask for suggestions (link to this AIV report is present in my previous comment) when AfD consensus swayed against your nomination and has not even been closed yet(AfD was logged 2 days ago and link for this too is provided in my previous comment)? These remarks are not going to help you in your case especially when you fail to clarify your own actions.  A m i t  웃   20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I find MrX's blatantly inappropriate use of warnings to be more problematic than any of Oh Yeaaahh's articles. Quite simply, if you do not have the time nor the inclination to communicate with the editor and explain why you consider these articles to be inappropriate, rather than to tag them all for deletion and stack warnings on the talk page, you should not involve yourself in this issue. And people complain about editor retention issues. —Dark 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, I guess.

I thank Deor for addressing the topic and not engaging in ad hominem. - MrX 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved

There is a difficult POV dispute at this talk page. In the discussion thread at Talk:March Against Monsanto#Fringe?, some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations. The main statement of these accusations is this: [66]. Three of the accused editors have explicitly denied the accusations: [67], [68], and [69]. I have attempted to suggest that these concerns be raised at the appropriate noticeboards instead of repeating them at the article talk page: [70]. Unfortunately, all that is happening is that the accusations are being repeated and the back-and-forth is continuing on the article talk page, and it is making it very difficult to get to any consensus about content.

If the accusations are true, then offending editors are violating WP:NPOV and WP:COI. If the accusations are groundless, then those continuing to make the accusations are violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Whatever the case may be, I think that it needs to be figured out (to the extent of what can be determined on-Wiki) and dealt with (at least to the point of moving the accusations to the proper place). I have put a link to here on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion began when another editor raised the point that Monsanto had recently chosen Fleishman-Hillard to handle their PR in the wake of the protests against the company. I mentioned that this thing has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot noting in "The Covert Biotech War" that Monsanto shills were running around the Internet in 2002 playing all sorts of dirty tricks. Is there some kind of PR operation occurring on Wikipedia? It's possible. Reliably sourced content critical of Monsanto is removed on daily basis by editors who seem to just "show up" out of the blue from absolutely nowhere. Firemylasers (talk · contribs) is one of the latest obvious WP:SPA's. Then you've got SpectraValor (talk · contribs), whose first edit was to remove a reference to the Monsanto Protection Act in the lead section.[71] User:Thargor Orlando has been at this nonsense for months, recently removing the fact that the "HCIA is "partly funded by Monsanto"[72] while three editors, SpectraValor, User:Arzel, and User:Thargor Orlando all removed the fact that "American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".[[73]][74][75] Today, Thargor went hog wild, removing critical commentary about Monsanto and the media from The Louisiana Weekly, Thom Hartmann, and the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, replacing it with an absolutely hilarious personal paraphrase that makes no sense to any human being on the planet,[76] except for maybe SpectraValor who tried the same thing just a few days ago[77] and User:Alexbrn who tried it earlier in the month.[78] I have dozens more of these diffs showing anything critical about Monsanto is deleted, watered down, or altered in a way that it no longer reflects the original source, while new user accounts and users who have never touched this article before seem to just "appear" out of the blue to revert to each other's versions. They tried to get the article deleted and they failed.[79] Now they are trying to delete the content. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You've pointed out that an obvious SPA is an obvious SPA. Great. You've also accused a number of other editors, including some who have been here for quite a long time, of being "paid shills" simply because they disagree with you on an article about an event that's only a few months old. This is eminently unproductive. You certainly managed to run me away from the article by escalating the rhetoric.

This may be an issue that some people have strong feelings about, but that's no excuse for broadly failing to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. a13ean (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A13ean, I'm sorry you feel falsely accused, and perhaps my wording confused you, but you did remove the content about the march sourced to the AP in this diff while replacing it with off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this subject in violation of WP:NOR. Yes, you left the AP source in the article, but the content it cited was no longer there. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed

Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling.[13] Although 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[14]

to this

Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton currently grown in the United States are genetically modified. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] However, critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues,[16] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact GM plants (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property law. Some advocates have pushed for mandatory GMO labeling, [22] and while 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[23]'

I understand that you objected to the sourced statement I added about the scientific consensus. However, the rest of my edit in that section only expands on the concerns of the protestors, and continues to rely on the AP source in question. We disagree on one point; you could have addressed it in a reasonable manner. Instead you responded with this. This is no way to act in a collaborative effort. a13ean (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has acted with extreme hostility towards myself and has accused me of being a SPA, editing in bad faith, trolling, astroturfing, etc numerous times. Here are some diffs: [80] (unfounded accusation of bad faith), [81] (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), [82] (direct accusation of being here to disrupt), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566206688&oldid=566204885 (direct accusation of being SPA in a manner that violates AGF), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566376264&oldid=566371720 (accusation of trolling, astroturfing, bad faith, etc).

Here's two more general examples of this kind of behavior (with other users/generalized): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566199730&oldid=566180385 (accusation of grand conspiracy to protest Monsanto or something), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566200209&oldid=566199730 (same thing but slightly more direct).

At this point I'm attempting to back away, but Viriditas babysitting of the article and constant attacks mean that it is impossible to discuss anything with the other editors without Viriditas popping up and interfering. He/she is being extremely disruptive and is actively denying that WP:FRINGE claims are fringe, as well as attempting to spread discredited studies and completely ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter.

To be quite frank I am disappointed with this reaction. I was hoping to have a discussion over the page's issues, not some sort of massive argument over simple things like WP:FRINGE claims. And for the record I don't work for Monsanto, or a PR firm, or any of the places that Viriditas seems to think I work for, and am quite willing to prove it through whatever means are necessary if desired - these accusations are absurd. Firemylasers (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your account was created approximately a year ago on 18 July 2012.[83] You never used it, preferring to let it "sleep" until 22 July 2013,[84] at which point you launched right into attacking the reliably sourced "Monsanto Protection Act" material (HR 933) in another thread.[85] You've also admitted[86] to creating another sleeper account, User:Garzfoth, which you created on April 30.[87] Further, you have disrupted virtually every discussion on the talk page, distracting away from the topic under discussion and efforts towards article improvement by attacking every editor who disagrees with your efforts to remove reliable sources as a "pseudoscientist" promoting "fringe" beliefs. Meanwhile, you continue to "challenge" every reliable source that criticizes Monsanto or quotes members of the March Against Monsanto, and claim that we can't write about this topic because the reliable sources violate every policy and guideline. The fact that you are an SPA dedicated to disrupting the talk page and the fact that you have admitted creating multiple accounts tells me that there are strict limits to AGF. You created your account a year ago, didn't use it, then created another account in April, and didn't use it. That implies questionable intent, and as any SPI/CU can tell you, follows the typical pattern. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In Viriditas' defence, his edits seem to me to be broadly in line with a coherent view of the Topic and tend toward a coherent article which could be defended as being in-line with WP policies ... although I think there are some problems to be resolved over whether/how fringe guidance applies to some aspects of the content. The problem is that it is difficult to have a genuine discussion when his assumption is that any holder of differing views is operating in bad faith (and I see I am included in his rogues' gallery above) - this makes progress towards consensus difficult or impossible because of the often combative and personalized nature of interactions with him on the Talk page (and he is not the only editor behaving in a less-than-civil fashion). The bad behaviour around this article is a problem which needs to be resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I noted that you, SpectraValor, and Thargor all "coincidentally" happened to making similar edits to the same section stretched out over a period of a month, and this is not an isolated incident. Thargor might make an edit and talk page argument, disappear, than SpectraValor would come back and make similar edits and similar talk page arguments, and then disappear, and the cycle would repeat. Just yesterday, you complained on the talk page about the so-called pseudoscience in the article and how it needed to be balanced out. I asked you to point out this pseudoscience for me, and you could not, so you went ahead and added it to the article to support your argument.[88] Ironically, you engaged in WP:PROFRINGE while at the same time complaining about it. When confronted with this, you argued that we shouldn't whitewash their beliefs. So this kind of editing also appears to be disruptive. You complain about fringe concepts, and when asked to identify them, you fail to find them, so you decide to add them to the article! That's very strange editing behavior. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the wiki rules prohibits possessing multiple accounts. I have

A) Disclosed the only other account I have.

B) Have NO edits on the other account.

C) Am ONLY using THIS account.

D) Am using the account that was created FIRST.

E) Have done NOTHING to warrant these repeated accusations of grand conspiracy, astroturfing, bad faith, etc.

As such your accusations of bad faith are completely unfounded. There are no rules against a delay between account creation and first edit. You have NO excuse for your repeated attacks, nor does choosing MaM as my first article to contribute to mean that I am some sort of astroturfer or acting in bad faith. YOU have disrupted EVERY conversation ever created on that page - blaming it on me is highly amusing but ridiculous. I am not the one who decides to edit war over every minor change to the article. In fact I have not even made any contribs to the article proper - I wanted to discuss it on the talk page first, and instead was met with EXTREME hostility from you in reaction to every single comment I made. Your claims that I challenge every reliable source are false, as your sources are not reliable, and you have been actively attempting to use discredited research in order to justify your promotion of WP:FRINGE claims. You have attacked every editor on the page for attempting to provide a NPOV on the article. In no way am I dedicated to disrupting the talk page - in fact I argue the opposite, I argue that YOU are dedicated to edit warring your opinions into the article, disrupting every single attempt to discuss the article, pushing pseudoscience, and adding as many opinion pieces as possible in while simultaneously excluding any opinion pieces that you dislike. In no way are your violations of AGF justified by my actions. Firemylasers (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any contribs to any article on Wikipedia under this account except the talk page, highlighting the SPA issue I've raised. My "opinions" are not in this or any other article, Firemylasers. The entire purpose of your account seems to be to attack editors who are trying to actually improve the topic area. Every discussion you've participated in involves attacking reliable sources. Then when editors respond, you attack the editors. And you post large, unformatted, one line screeds that scrolls the discussion right off the page and makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. Further, you continue to make an enormous number of absurd and patently false claims, such as claiming that the COI between employees of Monsanto and the government is a "conspiracy theory", that economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and monopoly of the food supply "lacks evidence", and that every reliable source which describes the "Monsanto Protection Act" is a "misinterpretation". What you don't get is that we don't write from an editorial POV, we write from the POV of the sources and we attribute those views to the sources. This fact seems to keep eluding you, hence your continuing problem dealing with what you perceive as "conspiracy", "pseudooscience" and "fringe" theories. We are not dealing with editorial opinions, we are dealing with the opinions of the sources. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have avoided making contribs specifically to avoid having an edit war, which has been your default response to any contrib that you disagee with. I was initially going to follow the "be bold" directive, but after reading the page's edit history I decided to take it to talk. Your claim that the entire purpose of my account is to attack editors is completely false - you may notice from my contribs that I agree with other editors on the page and have attempted to discuss issues with the page, which was made rather difficult from your appearance and subsequent personal attacks and attempt at pushing fringe claims. The definition of reliable source is not yours to write Viritidas. You've been attempting to justify your fringe views with fringe sources. I merely pointed how said sources were pseudoscience/fringe. My responses were detailed because I felt that including detail and citing sources would help explain the issue in detail - unlike your responses, most of which consisted of blatant abuse of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and outright denialism of my sources. Claiming that a COI had been acted upon is what I was calling a conspiracy - this is exactly what that claim was implying. The economic losses indeed lack evidence, as was proven by OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto and the subsequent appeals. Your "reliable" sources on HR 933 were biased and did not provide a NPOV, and you explicitly attempted to exclude reputable sources such as NPR on the grounds that they were not providing the biased narrative used by a certain article. You have repeatably reverted changes made by other editors in order to ensure that the article is littered with opinion pieces and devoid of NPOV in as many sections as possible. Firemylasers (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

According to you, all sources that criticize Monsanto or represent the POV of the protesters and their march (the actual subject of the article in question!!) are "biased" and are full of "pseudoscience", "fringe", and "conspiracies". Such is the extent of your conversational skills. It sounds to me like you really need to read up on WP:NPOV before doing any editing. Again, we do not write from the POV of editors, we write from the POV of the sources. You keep confusing the two. It's really funny that you keep accusing me of POV pushing when all I am doing is representing the sources about the subject. On the other hand, you keep arguing that we cannot use this or that reliable source because you know as an editor it is "fringe", "conspiratorial", "pseudoscientific", or "lacks evidence". But that's not how we use sources. In fact, we use sources entirely independently of what editors believe or think about them. Whether you think sources are "biased" about HR 933 or not is irrelevant. We represent their significant views. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the aggression in this comment. (Viriditas has been using POV sources) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no "aggression" in my comment at all, and all sources are POV. You appear to share the same confusion as Firemylasers. All sources have a POV. Our job as editors is to best represent that POV using the framework of our policies and guidelines. This means using reliable sources. And when we are dealing with a topic about the March Against Monsanto, it is important to best use sources about the subject to avoid OR. We don't use sources about other subjects that have nothing to do with the topic we are writing about (which several editors, including the OP keep doing). I hope that makes sense. When we write about the March Against Monsanto, we use sources about the March Against Monsanto. Those sources will inevitably contain a POV that an editor disagrees with. Our job then becomes one of figuring out how to best represent that POV based "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". It's actually very simple, but some editors bring so much baggage to the job, they begin to engage in a dispute about the content rather than describing what the sources say about the dispute. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As an initial disclaimer, I should mention I have had interactions with Viritidas before and I've never thought much of the way they interact with other editors and explain their POV. But I have to agree that some of Viritidas's accusations seem careless at best. For example, Viritidas accuses 'they' of trying to get the article deleted.

But looking at the linked AFD, of those who nominated to delete, we have the nominator who later agreed after the article was improved to keep it (although still felt the AFD was justified). RMcC remains involved in the article talk page but otherwise is an experienced editored with a wide range of interests, and in fact that's the only involvement a related area I noticed [89].

We have User:Matticusmadness who's comment may have been a little quirky but seems to have had little or no involvement in the subject area, instead involved in other things particular video game related article and they do sometimes participate in the AFD process [90] and has edited as an IP before again with no evidence of involvement in the topic area ignoring vandalism apparently from others using the IP.

We have User:Jytdog who does have a fair amount of involvement in this area but also other areas related to the health, medical and biological sciences, particularly from what I can see in opposition to fringe and pseudoscience and poorly sources claims; and other related areas like IP law and economics. They are a somewhat experienced editor including regular deleting spam like stuff.

Finally we have User:IRWolfie- who also has a fair amount of involvement in the area but also other science related areas particularly it looks like, fringe science and pseudoscience areas [91] as well as other stuff, for example, tech (IT) related areas and is also a fairly experienced editor.

There is one more editor who was initially a weak delete, later changed to a weak keep who I'm not mentioning. Meanwhile there was apparent external canvassing from someone with little involvement with wikipedia in favour of the 'keep'. While the 'keep' seems to stand regardless of the canvassing, it points even more to the suggestion there was any conspiracy involved in the AFD being unfounded considering the evidence shows none of the editors suggesting delete being SPAs or having any evidence of a COI.

While this doesn't preclude some of the editors named by Viritidas above as problematic SPAs and who's editing is worthy of analysis, it does demonstrate the problem when Viriditas accuses anyone who disagrees with them or undertakes edits they disagree with as being potential Monsanto shills, without even considering the editor's history and experience, and raises the likely negative effect this will have on any discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I don't mind you mentioning me. I've had little-to-no involvement in the topic area in question but spend plenty of time at AFD. I was particularly put out by the suggestion that I was somehow a Monsanto "agent" trying to "censor" debate through standard WP processes and said so. It was a rediculous suggestion and one made by both SPA IPs and experienced editors alike, which was disappointing. I would feel the same if those sorts of things were still being thrown around on the talk page. Stalwart111 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I note those accusations continue even here, above - "They tried to get the article deleted and they failed". Lumping experienced and uninvolved editors in with silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about pro-Monsanto "agents". We - those who initially supported the deletion of an article about an event that clearly failed WP:EVENT - are not part of some giant pro-GMO conspiracy. We are editors who tried to uphold policy in the face of hysterical and emotional personal attacks at that AFD from (ironically) clearly anti-Monsanto SPAs. Stalwart111 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever discussing you here, nor did I participate in the AFD. But, I am curious now. How do you maintain that this failed WP:EVENT when we have reliable sources saying just the opposite, commenting on its impact, its influence, and its lasting legacy? This is what irks me the most. I think the sources are at odds with your personal opinion, and we write articles (and determine their notability) from the sources, not from personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You discussed me when you referred to the "they" who supported deleting the article, as I initially did. And I don't "maintain" that view - that's my point. As I said above - initially. The original article was a horrible mess started only days after the event with basically only social media for sources. As the AFD continued, coverage increased and some of that substantiated a potential legacy. Thus my changed !vote (and the nom's). Despite our obvious willingness to be convinced (would a "Monsanto agent" be so willing?), we were still accused of trying to "censor" the subject organisation. Be glad you didn't participate - it was pretty disgraceful behaviour - but don't make the mistake of jumping on the bandwagon now. Stalwart111 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor I've been watching the discussion and edits for a only short period, but find the statements made by Viriditas to reflect pertinent aspects of the situation from a balanced perspective with respect to policy covering content. With respect to the SPA comments, looking at the this Special:Contributions/Firemylasers would seem to support that observation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but no, Viriditas's believes currently marketed GM food is dangerous etc, and has been pushing this viewpoint. That is completely out of line with the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's strange, since I have never said that anywhere. What I have said, is that the protesters believe that, and I have explored virtually every aspect of their argument since editors have been disputing every source about the subject. I have analyzed their claims in the sources and I've traced them back to the published evidence and studies, showing where their beliefs come from and how they started. In any case, let's test your claim. You said I believe that currently marketed GM food is dangerous and I've been pushing this viewpoint. Could you provide a single diff to the article showing this? No, you cannot, because all I have done is best represent our reliable sources. On the other hand, the OP and others keep adding off-topic sources to this article that have nothing to do with the march. That's called OR. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas's edits are very much in favor of his expressed POV (and the anti-scientific claim) that there is no scientific consensus on GM food and that they are unsafe. It's in basic violation of multiple policies and guidelines. He may be right on Firemylasers, he may be wrong, but Viriditas has a history of crusading against users he believes are socks beyond what the evidence suggests. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to refute you, Thargor. Here you go: [92][93][94][95][96] Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Viriditas has been aggressively pushing his points of view about this topic. He was even doing it on his userpage during his last block. I suggest uninvolved editors and admins have a look through some of his comments to see the sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever, IRWolfie- (talk)

• On the contrary, you will not find a single diff or contribution showing that I have "minimized the mainstream position" at all. Here are my contributions for you to look at. Please provide the diff that shows me pushing a POV. The diffs will actually show that I have repeatedly promoted the mainstream position, and I am responsible for adding the vast majority of pro-GMO POV content to the article itself using sources about the march. The problem is that some editors don't understand writing for the enemy and have come to this article with a POV warrior chip on their shoulder intending to do battle with other editors and to add off-topic sources to push a singular POV that has nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. Oh, and btw, here is a link to your contributions. What do we find? Well, your very first edit was to violate NPOV, by removing an Associated Press story that reflected the mainstream coverage of the event where "organizers said that two million people marched" around the world, and replacing it with content that misrepresented a single source noting that "an estimated 200,000 marched worldwide".[97] Should we look at more of your contributions, IRWolfie-? I suspect we will find more egregious violations. Another example of "he who smelt it, dealt it" at work. I mean, you got a lot of nerve complaining about me, IRWolfie-, when your very first edit is a NPOV violation. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I wake up to find notification of this in my E-Mail inbox? Well it's nice to know an issue I've been involved in is at ANI for it's third time etcetera. I only touched on the AFD because I was trying to better my AFD Record, didn't think I'd end up being part of an ANI Discussion! Anyway, as already established unless I read over the article all I could tell you about the subject is that it's a match that took place in Monsato. IP, yes, I have, but if you check its logs first of all it's a SHAREDIPEDU registered to my (at the time) school, one or two of its edits were me clearing up mess others have made on it generally. I dunno what else to say really, I'll cast my eyes over things if you need the extra head? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with IRWolfie on this one. And using terms which are noted as "being used by critics" as though they were the proper Wikilinks violated NPOV even here. In this case, Viriditas is quite "at fault" and his rejection of science and NPOV here as an editor is not helping him. We use what the reliable sources state (yes - including the anti-GM sources, properly attributed - I would not dream of being unbalanced in any article), but extensive side excursions attacking other editors without providing clear evidence of violations of Wikipedia policies is a violation of Wikipedia policy in itself. Viriditas - you are beating a very dead horse at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If we decide it is true, or simply probable, that Monsanto's PR team is manipulating Wikipedia articles, our problem is much bigger than perceived rudeness. Collect, I really appreciate you, but I'm surprised to see you describe Viriditas as "rejecting science". What do you mean by that? groupuscule (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, Collect, where have I rejected science anywhere? Where have I rejected NPOV? Where did I make these edits and to which article? I suggest that we won't be getting any actual diffs anytime soon. Oh, and Collect? What are you talking about? Can I get the little bouncy ball thingy, cause I'm just not following you. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ask IRWolfie that (He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever) - it appears that you have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view on certain products which have undergone rigorous scientific examination. Perhaps I ought to have said "dislikes the scientific consensus on GM foods"? Collect (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What an unusual response! Am I talking to you or IRWolfie through you? (Could you ask him to pass the salt?) In any case, do these diffs support your claim that I have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view?[98][99][100][101][102] Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We are posting on a noticeboard -- no need for nice personalized commentary. [103] shows you removing "scientific consensus" and changing it to "many scientists" and then adding Some people are concerned, reports the Associated Press, about whether "genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment". Due to these concerns, some consumers, companies, and organizations have advocated for mandatory labeling laws. The Biotechnology Industry Organization supports voluntary labeling but opposes mandatory labeling laws because it believes it would "mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe. I suggest this is reducing a sourced claim about scientific consensus and adding material quite specifically implying that the foods may not actually be safe. And removing a slew of reliable sources at the same time. Perhaps you did not intend it that way? Could the "consensus" be wrong? Yeah. Does that mean we reject and remove the reliable sources making that claim? Nope. Do we seek NPOV with all sides correctly presented? Yep. But removing the claim entirely is not how to do it. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

• As per the opening statement, seeking clarification; I am an independent, volunteer WIkipedia editor - as per my user page I work at a university and I work on WIkipedia for fun and because I think it is a good thing to do - it serves the public good. I do not work for Monsanto or any PR firm. I have no sock puppets. With respect to the March Against Monsanto article - I actually stopped watching and working on it because I find it too unpleasant to edit with Viriditas - his/her discussion style on Talk is generally (not always) too uncivil for me (which I have found sadly ironic since at the top of his/her Talk page, one finds a quote: "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law".) I have wondered if Viriditas was going to get him/herself in trouble for going too far with negatively commenting on other editors. Sorry it came to this. Viriditas - please stop focusing on other editors and please don't bring your battlefield style even here (as per your comments above). Please take this thread - which is not about the MaM article, but is rather about your behavior on Talk - as a wake-up call to try harder to meet the high ideals of your quote in your daily editing work; in Wikipedia terms, to meet the high ideals of the 4th pillar. More particularly, if you had focused your comments on content, not contributors, this thread would not even exist. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought you left because you were tired of blanket reverting my edits.[104] You can imagine that kind of behavior doesn't exactly encourage a civil response. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm. bummer. Please take this as an opportunity to hear the community. Please be more civil and focus your comments on content not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation but if you feel strongly about the SPA shouldn't you open an SPI over at AIV? That would get the checkuser run and either confirm or deny anything you can draw conclusions to. Just saying because multiple editors can have very similar writing styles, thought they tend not to be identical. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've actually tried very hard to ignore the little guy. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved tangential comment: I would be surprised if Monsanto is not working to influence our coverage of their business domain. I think Monsanto and GMO is an area where we should be very careful to use only high quality sources - the kind that is neither funded by the pro or anti lobby. Viriditas is right that all sources have a POV - but not all sources can be considered reliable sources of information about facts. We should prioritize academic treatments of this field because the scientific dialogue is the only dialogue that we can depend on to be influenced by facts and to be striving towards uncovering the actual risks and benefits of GMOs and the business models of Monsanto. Partisan sources should be given little priority.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that it's true on both sides. I think there's a lot of influence to get specific types of biased sources into the encyclopedia, and I think the March article has enough editors on both sides trying to keep good sourcing in. The issue is more the bad faith and the bad science (even if its from generally good sources). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The scientific consensus is that currently marketed GMOs are safe, yet Viriditas acknowledges he is pushing for claims of dubious safety (or that he would, at this point he was still blocked at the time) in the March Against Monsanto article at [105]. It is this insertion of fringe claims without the mainstream position that is at issue. Viriditas's commentary is that of the supporters ("Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false", "Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. ", etc etc), and is not supported by the evidence (it's more like Seralini's position which was utterly discredited). As in all such monologues from Viriditas, it eventually comes down to a conspiracy about Monsanto. I suggest people read through some of his dialogues during his blocks (ironically one of his blocks was for making unsubstantiated allegations), it is most illuminating. Reading through his comments you see the aggressiveness and the same false allegations appearing in one way or the other. I asked Viriditas to stop calling people shills, he said he would, but he has continued. If I recall, Viriditas believes the statements by the March Against Monsanto people are in fact representative of the mainstream position about safety ("Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination."), IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • it seems that as far as the content aspect is concerned that you and some others have raised concerns about how the general issue of GMOs is addressed in this article about a protest movement whose existence is premised on raising public awareness about the potential dangers of GMOs. I would have to agree with Viriditas that much of that material is off topic and should be linked to the article on GMOs. This article is not directly about the science related to GMOs, but indirectly about the science related to GMOs through the related stances adopted by the March Against Monsanto that is the subject of the article; that is to say the topic upon which Wikipedia is supposed to be providing an informative article to the reading public.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a argument that can reasonably be made, and some people, such as yourself, have made this argument in a reasonable manner. I don't entirely agree with this, and think that there should be a brief mention of the mainstream view in the article, but this is something we can discuss like adults and come to a consensus or compromise on. However, it's never appropriate for any user on either side of the debate to personally attack, insult, and accuse of paid editing anyone everyone who disagrees with them. That's the concern here. a13ean (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is that fringe theories must be addressed wherever they occur. This is not to say that the March page must be littered with fact checks on every line, but the opposition to including scientific evidence to combat fringe claims (most importantly regarding the scientific consensus on GMO safety) is the problem. We even have sources that link the consensus to the March, which was also removed by the same person who thinks ALEC is bankrolling me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• While reading through this discussion I began to get a knot in my stomach, and I realized that it was reminding me of several discussions at meetings that I have had in the real world in which I tried to speak against planned actions being supported by skilled PR people and management experts. In each case I was unable to get my point across because such a person was so good at turning the discussion into an extremely polite attack on me that my point about the topic of the meeting was ignored rather than refuted. I have nothing to say about Monsanto myself, and have never interacted with Viriditas, but I ask you not to dismiss his/her concerns simply because he/she is not very diplomatic. Even if every allegation made here against him/her is true, this is not a reason to assume that the concerns he/she brought forward are unfounded and should not be looked into. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but you are missing the point. Uncivil behavior destroys Wikipedia. There are means within Wikipedia to deal with concerns about COI/sock - V's way of addressing concerns - by making harsh accusations in Talk - is the wrong way. The 4th pillar (a pillar, mind you!) exists so that even when editors disagree about content, Wikipedia remains a decent community to work within. And that is why there are specific means to address concerns about socks/COI - so they can looked at and dealt with carefully, intentionally, respectfully, and as per policy and guidelines. If this is not clear to you please revisit WP:CIVILITY and WP:No_Personal_Attacks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes truth and honesty are favored over sticky-sweet speak. I've seen talk pages completely derailed whilst editors remained incredibly polite. We are adults with limited time trying to write an informative encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 17:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Petrarachan. You are the other editor at Wikipedia that I have left pages on account of; your comments continually express a misunderstanding of WP:CIVILITY, as they do here. The 4th pillar has nothing to do with your opinion of other editors (positive or negative), nor with "sticky sweetness". Truth & honesty on the one hand, and civility on the other, are not mutually exclusive. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia; it is not optional. I hope you come to understand civility and its importance one day. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Itsbydesign

I am starting this post because user Itsbydesign (talk · contribs) has presented a months-length repeated behaviour of slow edit warring and ownership of tour articles. This pattern goes back many months back, and by only checking his contributions, a glance of the problem can be verified. The modus operandi of Itsbydesign looks pretty straightforward: He appears once or twice a month, only to revert every tour article he has edited to his last version. Examples of this can be verified at this The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour edit reverted by Adabow (talk · contribs) today, or this edit to The Truth About Love Tour, reverted by Status (talk · contribs).

This is just a mere example of a problem that has been happenning for months. For example, prior to today, the user did the same on July 6, reverting three times (without leaving an edit summary) on Dance Again World Tour, as well as on The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour. He did the same on June 22, June 7 on The Truth About Love Tour and Diamonds World Tour, June 2, etc. He is supposedly "updating boxcore", but what he really does is to change tables and information to his own preference without seeking consensus first with any of the other users that edit such articles, even when reverted.

Actually, when reverted, the only thing Itsbydesign does is leave a warning, like the one he left to Lolcakes25 (talk · contribs), or to Status, or to Adabow, or to Binksternet (talk · contribs). This long-term behaviour needs to end. If he wants something added to an article, he needs to discuss, specially if several users, not only one, have reverted him in the past. I seek a solution to this problem as soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All I do is revert edits? I guess the hundreds of articles I've created and ones I've updated from a mere paragraph mean nothing. Reverting edits means you disagree with them. If an editor chooses to blindly revert an edit without analyzation, I will revert it. Seen with The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour today, the editor claimed that references were removed when none were removed. Moving a reference from one section to another is not an example of removing a reference. Furthermore, I have discuss this issue with the edior, Status (talk · contribs) and he/she chose to ignore and delete the message from his/her talkpage. Thus, a discussion was not wanted. There are only 8 tour articles out of thousands that follow that specific format. It's been that way long before myself, Status or Hahc21 began editing Wikipedia. How is this my personal preference? No other editor has followed in presenting tour dates/box office data in that format. There is no guarantee that every single concert's box office data will be reported, so why lump it all together? There is no rhyme or reasoning for doing that. Status is the only editor that follows this format, thus, he or she should have taken it upon themselves to discuss a common format change before implementing it. This became an issue with Status asked Hahc21 to step into the situation. This is when it became an issue. Creating a fuss over how to format a table is a lame edit war I choose not to participate in. This more of a case of someone sticking up for their friend. Itsbydesign (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore or delete your message... I replied to you... and the response is still on my talk page, so don't be spreading lies. I asked to start a conversation about it with you, and I was ignored, and you come back online almost a month later and do the same edits to the same articles, once again. You clearly will not stop changing articles to how you like them to look; you do realize that other WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and there are many different ways to do things. I have been working on Red Tour, The Truth About Love Tour and Dance Again World Tour from the bottom up and formatted each of them that way from the beginning. Yes, creating a fuss over the way to format a table is lame, so why do you continue to do it, if you think your edits are so lame?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I was supposed to be templated by Itsbydesign—it looked a mistake to me, especially since I have never edited the MDNA Tour article, just its talk page. I deleted the template and did not think about it again. Itsbydesign did not apologize or explain the action. At the MDNA Tour article, Itsbydesign move-warred with Bluesatellite in May 2012, but never discussed anything on the talk page. Because of the user's uncommunicative style interaction, and the obviously mistaken template, I did not pick up a positive impression. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Itsbydesign, you're right; you didn't remove any references. Sorry, my mistake. However, you did remove several tour dates without explanation. It seems to me that you simply copied-and-pasted or reverted to a previous revision of the article before these dates were added. Furthermore, there was reformatting of dates to a personal preference. The article is about a US subject, so mdy dates are used. Adabow (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Status. I have noticed this behavior too and he has the attitude of his edits are final and correct and everyone else must obey him when in fact his edits are so disruptive and unnecessary a lot of the time, for example: his most recent edits to The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (which all were thankfully reverted), removing multiple tour dates and changing information within the tour infobox was completely unnecessary, inaccurate and outdated. I did like mentioned above receive a "warning" from him, to which I got no reply when I contested it on his talk page. --Lolcakes25 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jayemd

User:Jayemd is back as User:JMD15, at least according to this. ANI 1 resulted in mentoring, ANI 2 resulted in an indef block, with increased restrictions for cross-wiki abuse and edits likethis. So far, he has only edited my Talk page. I also find it odd that he specifically referred to me by my old username. While I don't exactly consider this outing, I changed my username for a reason, to avoid IRL connections after off-wiki harassment. (Not by Jayemd, of course.) Now if Jayemd wants to return, that's obviously a community or admin decision, which is why I'm bringing this here. Woodroar (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• blocked indefinetly Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Daufer again

After coming off his block per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive805#Hounding_of_Niemti_by_Daufer we have [106], [107], [108] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please could an administrator block Daufer? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed offensive messages here [109][110][111]which also accepted that a block would follow, and reblocked. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

He is already blocked for one year by Jimfbleak Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the response of Jimflbleak that you removed, probably accidentally. Please be more careful in future. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've just removed talk page editing since the abuse continued [112] Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good gracious, I would support a community ban of Daufer for repeated racist statements of the Nazi kind ("subhuman Polish" -- see Untermensch). Clearly Daufer is not WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, or perhaps his vision of Wikipedia is that it should be like a neonazi forum. In either case, his approach is totally incompatible with the five pillars. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Five blocks, two talk page revocations, no sign of any attempt to improve behaviour, racism and unpleasant messages even after my long block. I'm not going to argue with any anything up to any including the kitchen sink. I dread to think what he's like on Twitter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Talk about squandering a second chance. Support community ban. "subhuman Polish" is way, way, way over the line. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just glanced at the contribs, and besides wondering why this is not an indef-block, I have three words from English, Chinese and French: Hoe. Li. Phoques. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Recent contribs make eye-watering reading and leave no hope for improvement. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban - there's not here to contribute, and then there's this. Holy shit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Reading his diatribe is enough to do so, without other factors. GregJackP Boomer! 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• You know what scares me? Things like [113] sitting in articles for 8 days. I'm going through their edits now, checking no more of this type of bullshit has been left in articles. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They should have known better than to make those statements after a block. CtP (t • c) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. He has been only hounding users, and that is not productive for the encyclopedia. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Wow. I would have blocked and closed this had I been signed on to my admin account. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. Seems incapable of working collegially. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Community ban. I saw these comments earlier this morning, and it's clear he isn't here to help. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support community ban. A deplorable case. Taroaldo ✉ 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Whiggsgerm

User created a new account and used their Talk page to make an entry in German that appears to be an attack page, complaining about inappropriate treatment at German wikipedia. I initially nominated for speedy deletion and the tag was repeatedly deleted, however as it is not perfectly clear to me what the page says, I am listing here for review. This is a diff of the content. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. Even if their concerns are valid, and I'm certainly not saying that they are, it's pointless to post them here as the English Wikipedia doesn't have any special dominion over what goes on at the German one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. There is no polemic, there is no insult and there is no attack but only a copy of a page for memorizing to me. I repeatedly wrote to Flat Out, that there is no complaining or attack. I could not understand, why he is repeatetly spreading this untruth. Whiggsgerm (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:OWNTALK: ".... the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." The talk page is not there for you, it's there for other members of English Wikipedia to communicate with you about your edits here. The purpose of your talk page is certainly NOT to preserve "a copy of a page for memorizing to me". You need to download it and save it to a Word document or similar, or save it to the Cloud, or email it to yourself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's not an attack page, it's a request to have an indefinite block on the German WP overturned, including a request for sanctions against a couple of admins there (I've taken a look at what is behind this on the German WP, including reading the ANI-case about user BrummTiger, which is the user account that this is really about, and it seems like he might have a reason for complaining, having been unfairly treated there, including being blocked indefinitely for dubious reasons). But a user talk page on the English WP is hardly the right place for filing such a complaint. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mass changes

Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this user is targeting my changes and reverting the addition of Social groups of Pakistan category. The tribal and clan identity is fading and they identify themselves with their ethnic group. I have added Social group category with removed by Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with mass changes using Twinkle. This has taken me long time to review and make changes. Please resolve this matter. Delljvc (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I enjoy the fact that you used the template {{vandal}} as a link to Sitush. The template explicitly says "This user information template is intended only for use when reporting accounts or IPs who are vandalising Wikipedia". Please don't personally attack people and/or misuse the template. Insulam Simia (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. And my "mass changes" are in fact reverts of your edits, Delljvc, so who was making "mass changes" first? Have you actually looked at the various messages I've left on your talk page over, say, the last month? The issue of overcategorisation was mentioned, for example. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access of blocked socks

Today, User:Ranleewright posted this on his talk page. I have never e-mailed this user. A quick look at his user page does not even show a link where Wikipedians could send e-mail even if they wanted to. If he is referring to the automatic e-mail notifications Wikipedia sends out when talk page content has been changed (which are obviously not sent from individual users), he should refer that technical question to an appropriate area at the Village Pump. In my view, this is a sad attempt to cast aspersions, given that I initiated his SPI case. The talk page access for User:Ranleewright and sock User:Jimbob Williams should be revoked. Taroaldo ✉ 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)