Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Minphie (talk · contribs) is an editor affiliated with "Drug Free Australia". A participant of several content disputes with several other users, including me, he have now resorted to canvassing. Or rather more accurately, they have called out for fellow drug warriors to chime in and sway Wikipedia in their direction. This document with instructions on what to do flies in the face of most policies and guidelines. If not in words, so in spirit. I found it very troublesome and don't know what to do. So I leave it for you. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Notified. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that it is necessary to try to associate the WP editor with a real name, and I redacted it, But the call for meat-puppettry here is unmistakable. I think it warrants an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Resolute 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The target list of articles given in the how-to guide linked appears to be as follows:

• Arguments for and against drug legalization (perhaps this refers to Arguments for and against drug prohibition?)
• Cannabis (and all its derivative pages
• Drug policy of Portugal
• Drug policy of Sweden
• Drug policy of the Netherlands
• Harm reduction
• Insite
• Medical cannabis
• Methadone
• Needle exchange program
• Prohibition
• Recreational use of drugs (presumably this means the article Recreational drug use)
• Rhetoric of Drugs (presumably this means the article The Rhetoric of Drugs)
• Supervised injection sites
• War on Drugs
• Zero tolerance

-- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

• Support indefinite block for meat-puppetry. I would also like to note that they denied any WP:COI here and here, specifically in response to a question about Drug Free Australia. That is shown to be false by the PDF, above. Based on that, I would also propose an indefinite topic ban on any articles involving drug treatment, drug programs, or the like, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Point of order - Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They risk WP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The block notification says "it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia." I'm not disputing that (although there is an emphasis in the call for editors on citing sources) but I wonder whether this is any different to the Storming Wikipedia project. Why would one be allowed (even encouraged) and the other result in an indefinite block? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Because one broadly encourages expanding the encyclopedia and reducing systemic bias, while the other is a coordinated attempt to impose a specific point of view on a narrow range of related articles? Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

While the "Storming Wikipedia" project should have the effect of encouraging more women to edit, some of the quotes in the article referenced above do indicate possible POV problems, and I'm sure that editors are watching for any bias that may appear. For the most part the group is trying to encourage women to edit, assuming that since they are women they will add material of interest to women. (I, for example, am into bluegrass music, computer programming and science fiction, and you all know how men neglect these topics.) This is a far cry, though, from providing a specific list of articles and explaining exactly how to gang up on other editors to shift the focus of the articles to reflect a certain POV. IF the Storming ladies did this, it would be equally unacceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to add the above articles to their watchlists, in case the promised meatpuppet army materializes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Just reading the document, it gives a good grounding on Wikipedia participation. Hopefully we'll get some more editors out of it. We encourage all participants, and so long as we keep an eye on what's going on, where's the problem? Surely we are not running around in circles because - gasp - there might be editors with different views to our own? Mind you, I wouldn't put too much faith in the advice for slow-moving edit wars. Three reverts in a day is merely the "bright line". Reverting twice a day for a week is still going to get a block. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  Well, besides "teaching" from a very biased perspective ("[the other side] are very good at simply deleting [your addition] and putting some bogus explanation.", etc), the document also gives wrong information. It instructs recruited editors to use template:cite journal for every ref. It tells them they need to create an account to be able to contribute. It says that if you feel your text's provenance might be challenged, you support it by commenting on the talk page, rather than saying that you should support it in-text with a citation. It says that you only need to discuss after someone reverts you if you think the other person has a "reasonable rationale", and that otherwise you're "entitled to unilaterally revert" their revert. It implies that anyone reverting your edits is "the other side" who's operating "bogus"ly. It even gives instructions for how to game 3RR (in a way that's almost sure to get you blocked if you try it).

  It's possible to write a document that teaches a potentially-POV group of people the basics of editing Wikipedia well...but this isn't that document. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, it's not perfect, but we have a truckload of resources that are very good and aimed precisely at new editors. There's a bunch of people happy to steer any newcomers straight. A bunch of new editors - if we should be so lucky to get a bunch - are either going to conform to Wikipedia policy or find their time here very difficult. We've been given a headsup on what to look out for, we can do that. I'll add those pages to my watchlist and see how any newbies behave. Without biting. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like a fake to me. Its unlikely a pro-drug activist would be that blatant about violating wikipedia guidelines. Plus if you look carefully, theres a call for emails to be sent to him/her - possibly to entrap possible wrongdoers. Just a thought. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I know some of these outfits--this one and the ones listed on their "Affiliates" document. I wouldn't put it past them. Or, why would you think such organizations would not want to try Wikipedia, just as they try to influence the media and various governmental and non-governmental organizations? It's the MO of any organization that wants to accomplish change, and these cats are quite passionate about it. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) I don't see any reason to think it's fake. It's linked from [1] for example. And the website appears to be the correct website for the organisation known as Drug Free Australia [2]. I'm also in minor agreement with Pete that it's not really clear they're trying to violate wikipeda guidelines. Yes they've made numerous mistakes, but if you look at the document, it's clear they're telling people to properly respect the "rules" and to only communicate via wikipedia pages (the email bit appears to be to let them know rather than for offsite collusion, I suspect so they can disclose it if it ever comes up like it has now) etc. I also agree with StAnselm that whether or not something is inappropriate POV meatpuppetry or trying to correct systemic bias by recruiting a greater diverstiy of editors isn't always very clear. (Feminism may be wider ranging, but if you're recruiting editors to better represent the feminist POV, you're ultimately still recruiting editors with a specific POV with the belief that their POV is underrepresented which results in systemic bias and that by recruiting more editors with that POV, you will ensure it is fairly represented in discussions and articles will improve because of it.) Or to put it a different way, I can certainly see why from their POV they're being entirely proper and open about trying to correct systemic bias and help achieve NPOV by ensuring all viewpoints are fairly represented in any discussion by openly recruiting editors who's viewpoints they feel are underrepresented. It's not like this is the first time this has happened, e.g. as mentioned in Wikimania 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The metadata also supports it being genuine, realizing of course that this can be faked too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User 'Pass a Method' has a point, it could be fake. I can think of some editors here I would love to see blocked. If all it takes is for me to create a pro-meat puppetry flyer, stick their name on it and pass it around via pdf to have that accomplished...
  Anyway, (@Rschen7754:) why the rush to block? (blocked exactly 20 minutes after this ANI was created) The user has not even had an opportunity to comment here in their defence. It's not as if they were actively disrupting in the main or user space and a block was needed to protect the project. - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, in the (very unlikely) event that they can say something to effectively rebut the evidence, they can still do so on their talk page. Meanwhile, they are semi-active, and we don't want this issue to float away. --Rschen7754 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion - How about we pool our eyes and make a list of any new editors showing up on the pages listed above. We can keep a gentle watch over them, raise any concerns here, make sure all is good. Minimise disruption for all parties. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't only new editors who have POVs that should be monitored. The Medical cannabis page (and all cannabis pages) has just undergone massive changes in the past week, and has essentially been uglified (compare this with this) and apparently is closed to editing by anyone but the Project Medicine team. This same team, in the name of MEDRS, is using a rat study and a study confounded by cocaine use to prop up Cannabis in pregnancy, an article started by someone using sources from this Australian anti-drug group. Who's watching the watchers? petrarchan47tc 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a most curious statement, Petra. This discussion has just come to my attention; you seem to be implying something about anyone editing (to improve) an article started by this person/group/whatever they are in Australia. What is it that you are implying, because I came to the {{cannabis}} suite of articles via the merge of a now-deleted student essay on cannabis and epilepsy, and found a walled garden of poorly sourced text, cited mostly to old primary sources. Cannabis in pregnancy is now cleanly sourced to secondary reviews, compliant with our medical sourcing guidelines. Your allegations of a "team" at Medical cannabis have been raised with you, in the appropriate forum, on your talk (where they were archived generally with no response), and you have failed to adequately engage discussion on article talk, yet you continue battleground allegations here in another forum.

Yes, I do encourage more admin eyes here, and not only because of what some Australian group might be up to; a review of Talk:Medical cannabis and archived discussions at User talk:Petrarchan47 is instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've never encountered Mikael Häggström before, but I think he should be notified that you are mentioning him here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - (Not sure that as a non-admin I am ok to comment here, nevertheless) Can I ask what is different about the behaviour being investigated here and that of User:sgerbic - aside from the POV differences of the two? It doesn't feel evenhanded to me that this guy is being vilified for behaviour that on the surface simply reproduces SGerbic's. What am I missing? I'd love to know. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any editor is able to comment here, this is just a noticeboard to get admin attention. As to your question, the difference is that no one has brought Sgerbic's alleged actions to ANI. Admin's don't have the ability (read superpower) to know what goes on everywhere. If you find issue with Sgerbic's editing, you'd have to provide evidence of this rather than just a vague statement. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• The difference is that Sgerbic and the "guerilla skeptics" have specified that they are interested in producing a balanced encyclopedia, that they don't want to push a POV and they want to improve coverage of skepticism. If Sgerbic and the guerilla skeptics were trying to slant articles in a more skeptical direction, I'd be very concerned. They seem more interested in building up coverage of the skeptical movement though. Still I think we should definitely keep an eye on groups like them to ensure they are being neutral and fair. If they can contribute material that's fair, NPOV and productive, we should welcome their contribution even if they have silly, overdramatic names like "guerilla" or market themselves as "storming Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Interesting discussion, thanks for mentioning me so that I can learn more about this process. I read through the letter. It is similar to what we do with GSoW, we try to teach and we encourage improvement of something we are interested in. They seem to be really concerned that what they put in the articles will be reverted which worries me a bit as we all want to stay as far away from edit wars as possible. But just because some of us do not share their POV does not mean they don't have every right to look for others to edit these pages. They state they want to stay on the right side of the rules, and we need to assume good faith that that is what they will do. If and when they do start violating the rules, then take action in an appropriate way. And trust me, the amount of responses these people are going to get is going to be tiny. The amount of people who actually end up editing more than a couple months is even tinier. Writing a blog asking for editors is one thing, getting volunteers is a totally different thing. I know after running GSoW for 2+ years that it takes tons of encouragement, training and mentoring to get people to stay involved and editing. I really really doubt that this group will ever cause any of these pages any issues. Thank you DGG for bringing it to our attention, great discussion. Also I didn't see the statement by Roxy the dog as a a challenge, but as a good question.Sgerbic (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on my comment below regarding the actual policies at work here? I can't really see the fact that they may not be succesful in the canvassing for meatpupppets as being any kind of excuse. As you may notice from the quotes I highlighted below, the case is quite clear. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Observation – the section of the linked document authored by Minphie starts near the bottom of the second page, the part with the request for email notification and the biased editorialising etc appears to be writted by someone else at Drug Free Australia. Minphie's advice is poor in parts, no question, but alone it does not appear (to me) to be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. I think this has been done too hastily, and with insufficient evidence of meatpuppetry on Minphie's part. It appears that he was asked to give a brief introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Any of us might be asked to do the same. Certainly, we would avoid some of the things that Minphie said, but there is nothing here in what Minphie said about telling people what to write, or what biases to introduce. As mentioned above, that is a separate part of the document, written by persons unknown. This block is unjustified - if the editor is showing that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, he can be blocked on the basis of on-wiki edits; blocking him on the basis of this document is grossly unfair. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW while I stick by most of what I said above which was more intended to apply generally to what was going on, I think Minphie more or less screwed themselves.

In particular, while the general idea behind the document may be understandable and some may even consider it acceptable, the documument itself does make out the other side to be the enemy. I don't think this is uncommon in this sort of thing, IIRC it did happen a bit in the outside wikipedia responses to gender identity issues raised by the Chelsea Manning case, and I'm sure some of the response in many other cases e.g. the feminism one, ultimately when you're associated with calling others the enemy lefties, you can't expect things to end well for you. And even if we don't accept the author of the PDF and Minphie as the same person, Minphie was clearly involved in a lot of it.

And just as important, and again without having to accept whether or not Minphie is the same person as the author of the PDF (who is strongly associated with DFA), it's difficult to see how you can logically claim you don't have a COI according to our COI policies if you were involved in that document. Precisely what is a COI and how our COI policies interact with our privacy policies may be contentious but in a case like that your options really are to either declare your COI or refuse to comment because of privacy reasons. Saying 'I don't have a COI' when you helped write a document posted on an advocacy's organisations website calling for more wikipedia editors, an advocacy organisation which is heavily involved in a lot of what you're writing about, well that just dumb.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think we were too hasty--we simply have blocked, as any other attempt at sockpuppettry, and there is no necessity to discuss whether the sockpuppettry was for the purpose of making trouble. It was a request to an interested community of people to edit WP to express a particular POV, and this is never correct. What makes it all the more striking to me is that it was an attempt by someone who clearly understand the guidelines at WP for how to evade the intent of our policies, by trying to edit under the radar. It was not an appeal to follow the guidelines, but how to stretch them beyond their proper meaning and hope not to be noticed. Our jurisdiction does not extend beyond WP, but when a WPedian uses his WP name in such an attempt, they must be blocked, as editing in this manner is destructive of the purpose of a NPOV encyclopedia. If someone makes such appeal without giving their WP identity, it is usually not right for us to try to detect it--all we need do is call the attempt to attention here or at COIN or wherever most appropriate, so people can be on the watch for it. We can obviously not eliminate POV editing on controversial topics, but we can at least publicize the more obvious and organized attempts at it. That the people involved have the intention of bringing their article to what they think is the neutral POV which is their own view is the very essence of POV editing. Their honesty of intentions on the topic are not the question, but their attempt to do coordinated group editing on WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Coordinated group editing? <gasp> Ummm... that phrase sounds waaaay overboard.  :-)   WikiProject Military History... those evildoers! Or any wikiproject. Heck, I attempted coordinated group editing just yesterday. (please do not indef me!) As for bringing in new editors, I am 110% in favor of that, and am in fact writing my own "survival manual" to help beginners navigate wikipedia.

  The real *meat* of the problem here is simple. "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side..." Emphasis added. That was the mistake that Minphie made, and that was precisely where pillar two was violated.

  While I would not say 'hasty' exactly, indef right now is perhaps the wrong approach, since it is clearly not a proportional response -- such a drastic step might create a bitter wiki-martyr. Did they actually *succeed* in causing any disruption, or in any visible-in-mainspace injury to pillar two? If not, then perma-banhammering them seems kinda like a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Maybe somebody should talk to them about the blatant issues like using 'journal' in all refs, and mandating registration, and other such foolishness? HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing this very important part of the sentence "... of a debate."Sgerbic (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Other information These discussions have happened with this user for some time. See
  • ANI complaint in 2010, alleged editing warring over Safe injection site
  • ANI complaint in 2011, alleged edit warring over this same article Insite
  • complaint on the RS noticeboard in 2012 discussing Drug Free Australia
  • and again in 2012 on the RS board discussing Lancet papers for this same purpose.

It is unfortunate that we failed to find a way agreeable for this editor to contribute to the mutual satisfaction of all involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "hasty". If there is evidence of disruptive editing over a long period of time, then that should be brought before the community. But I notice that neither of the two edit warring reports were deemed worthy of a block. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Minphie has edited for four years without a single block. It seems strange to block him indefinitely with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia". StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if he had confined his disruption to his own editing, it would make sense to try a shorter block before escalating to indefinite. However, in this case, the user himself has already invoked the "nuclear option" by recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The severity of the response is not surprising. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@DavidLeighEllis: - Riiight, so we should just indef him/her, with "torches and pitchforks", before he/she has even had an opportunity to respond to the issue? There is no evidence that what they might have done off-wiki, has led to any disruption on-wiki. This block is unnecessary and waaay over the top, It should be lifted until there is an actual reason to block. - ^theWOLFchild 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Minphie haven't been blocked before, but there have been no shortage of reasons. Just the other week at Talk:Insite he wrote: "Do you not want Wikipedia to reflect absolutely founded fact? /.../ If my text tells the truth on Wikipedia, why do you think that you should sanitise it according to your own private sympathies?" This way of arguing is typical of Minphie. He wants the "truth" to be told. When people - of other "truths" - try to explain that Wikipedia is not about "truth", but of giving a picture of what the most reliable sources say, he call the reasoning bogus and reverts. Would this be the only problem, an escalation of sanctions from short to more severe until he understands the basic principles of Wikipedia would be the right thing to do. But I share opinion of DavidLeighEllis and other. It is to much now. It has gone to far. Steinberger (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Per comments by Sgerbic, whose group I am not a member of, who I would not know unless woolly thinkers hadn't complained about the good work they do, and make up stories about work that they haven't done ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  It seems to me you are solely voicing your opinion based on the fact that you sympathise with their cause, and completely fails to adress the matter of off-site canvassing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask Saddhiyama on what basis you make your silly conclusions about how I think regarding the cause of the subject of this discussion? What part of my contribution here leads you to make such a statement - please do tell me?. For the record, you are quite wrong in this regard, and I assume equally wrong in your comments below. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment was based on the fact that you failed to adress the actual issue of canvassing, but managed to mention that "woolly thinkers" complained about "the good work they do" as a defence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind, I'm sure most here understood what I said. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet you still did not address the issue at hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to second Saddhiyama in apparently failing to comprehend your "simple English," in that my understanding of what you said (and didn't say) is identical to his. Also, silly comments like "your silly conclusions" and "your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired" are silly indeed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. From the document: "What those fighting for a drug free world need at present is a group of around ten committed Wikipedia contributors who are willing to take the time on a daily or weekly basis to put our perspectives onto Wikipedia while keeping within its rules, and also ensure that the weight of numbers in conflict resolution forums on Wikipedia are not always on the drug-liberal side". While they do take care to state that meatpuppets should be "keeping within its rules", the rest of that sentence is a very clear breach of WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate", thus making their disclaimer void, since the recruitment document is in itself a breach of policy. This obvious breach of policy seems not to have been noticed by a lot of the commenters above. This is not comparable to Wikipedia projects and the fact that they may have problems recruiting willing editors does not change the fact that it is a violation of policy. And regarding the comments about the document being fake: you are clearly grasping at straws here, since the link is from the official website of the group in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that quote comes from the part added as a preamble to what Minphie wrote? If so, we have no evidence that Minphie was aware of the preamble apparently added by someone from DFA. Looking at the part actually attributed to Minphie, I see some poor advice but I don't see a call for meatpuppetry and tag-team editing. I think an indef on Minphie on the sole evidence of the last two and a bit pages of the PDF is unwarrented. Other editing of Minphie's may justify it, I don't know, and I disagree both with what DFA seem to want to do and with the "truth" they wish to stuff into WP, but the evidence to date is not being evaluated in a balanced way, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it an extreme stretch to suggest that the user was not intimately involved with the production of the notice. Preamble or not, this is the user's document. I do think that Minphie was trying to stay within the lines of policy but probably stepped out. A block is fine but I am not convinced it should be an indef block. JodyB _talk 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It is as unlikely as the claims about the document being a fake. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block This is a blatant breach of WP:MEAT. Do we know with absolute certainty which portions of that document Minphie did or did not write him/herself? Of course not. We also don't know with absolute certainty whether two different registered user accounts, voting the same way at an AfD, and sharing an IP address, are actually sockpuppets of the same person, and yet admins still aggressively intervene in these scenarios because they're all ducks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Minphie posted an unblock request on his talk page, which has now been declined. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support block with Comment - He has confirmed the flyer is his, and therefore has admitted to meat puppetry. He has less than 500 edits, has come here with a very narrow pov focus and has a talk page full of warnings and past incidents. A block is required. But with that said, it should not be indef. He should clearly acknowledge wrong doing, give a clear indication that he understands the goals and objectives of the project, and should promise to abide by the rules. I would suggest 72 hours, followed by a topic-ban on all related articles. He should be given another chance to prove himself... if he wants one. - ^theWOLFchild 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block of Minphie (or of Petrarchan47 on the flip side). One canvassing sentence that may or may not have been by him/her offsite does not justify any kind of block. No evidence has been presented of disruption on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the articles in question do seem to suffer from non-compliance with WP:MEDRS, as discussed below. However per the recent AE consensus we can't do anything about biased editors, so there, pound sand. (By the way, simply by coincidence I have been recently working on an unrelated article that was the product of the recently AE-enshrineed wikitheory that all it takes to get a NPOV article is enough POV pushers with opposing views. The practical results of this that I've see are more like oodles of contradictory and unreferenced statements in articles. Of course, in the drug case discussed here, it's a bit more refined than that as in "my sources are (of course) reliable/appropriate and yours (of course) aren't". I'm not saying anything new here, I've read this in a wiki essay, although I can't remember the link. Can anyone help?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  I refer you to the policy on meatpuppetry (I have quoted it in my post above as well), which has no clause about there having had to be "disruption on Wikipedia". Offsite canvassing is the sanctionable offence, so yes there is indeed plenty of justification for a block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Would an uninvolved admin be able to close this discussion? StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update on cannabis suite

Adding to my previous concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:MEAT with frequent references to "our team" and "your team" (that is, distinguished by those using WP:MEDRS and those not), see Petrarchan47 comments including but not limited to: "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers." There is more of same. Of course new editors will be helpful if they follow policy and guideline, but I point out that the off-Wiki recruiting is not limited to this Australia group.

I continue plugging through this suite of articles, attempting to replace the numerous outdated primary sources with recent MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews,[3] but the task is monumental as the suite of articles at {{cannabis}} is chock full of outdated and cherry-picked primary sources, when there are numerous recent secondary reviews available. For my work, Petrarchan47 has continued to label my edits as POV (see above in this section), and continues to fail to engage on either article or user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated to Petra's activity on these articles, I also noticed today a new editor, MarkyRamone92. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Strangest removal, considering the thread above: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Australians have so far been a no-show, but we have Petrarchan47 gearing up to train her recruits. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially disruptive class project?

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

---

No idea what to do or what our policy is, so I guess I'll drop this in your guys' laps before I AFK.

There seems to be a class project to add content to Wikipedia, possibly regardless of weight or notability, some of whose edits may be disruptive. I wonder whether they're being graded on whether their content remains up, in which case it's an invitation to unconstructively edit-war.

Class project noticed here: [7]

I'm asking them what's up here: [8]

Sample edit that I would classify as disruptive: [9] (Edit: that was a weak example. Better example is one OlYeller21 was complaining about: [10])

I'm not sure how to follow "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." as it's not about a particular editor, but rather a group. I would take to SPI but I'm don't know whether it qualifies as meatpuppetry per se. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this should be cross-posted to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents? EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a notice at EN/I (in this section) which links here and to the NPOV noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have posted there instead of here the first place, thanks! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have notified two of the editors involved - Stellaiyeo (talk · contribs) and Midgeholland (talk · contribs) - about this ANI discussion. GiantSnowman 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. My name is Tavi, and at the risk of having my name added to the list of "Potentially disruptive class project" participants; I am one of the people who was in that class. I just had a few questions.

1. Is Wikipedia to be edited by anyone?
2. Were any students in the class willfully adding trolling, incorrect, or otherwise misleading information? Can you point to those edits?
3. Was it "disruptive" solely because we are all new, and make tiny errors here and there? Or is our actual information incorrect?
4. In fact, this whole incident seems very amorphous and unclear. Can you cite multiple examples with explanations as to why the edits do more harm than good?
5. If you'll see updated pages such as H. J. Mozans, and new pages such as Woman in Science, you'll see that we are doing our best to make sure that the new information is correctly sourced and cited. Or, are you also frustrated with these edits too?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this to be expeditiously resolved. TaviWright (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is to copy the contents of the article and put it into your user sandbox. And yes, everyone can edit Wikipedia, but see WP:COI. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I agree that GiantSnowman should post the articles there, and I would be willing to use my sandbox for such offending articles.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes, I do not know how there could be any. The class was graded on accuracy of content, and NOT graded more favorably if the information stayed up indefinitely - only that there was a discussion, and learning about how to edit wikipedia happened. TaviWright (talk)

I can't speak for other editors, but that addresses my personal main concern, thanks. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, just claiming things as a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive" without giving reasons doesn't help us reach a conclusion. TaviWright (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TaviWright: The reason why I am mentioning COI is because you seem to know a lot about the sources needed for the article, and about the topic for said article. Please exercise caution when you are working on articles on topics that you are familiar with. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I can see how that could be an issue. However I think you may be misinformed - we did not have prior knowledge of the article or topics. Most of the information was gathered while, or just before, editing. At the same time I understand that it is within interest to keep articles fair and unbiased.

Okay. I see that you are editing with good faith, rather than tendentious editing. Anyway, good luck with your project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are scores of disruptive class projects every term, and the fit hits the shan from mid-November to mid-December, and then again the US spring term. For the incident at WP:ENI, what is the outcome here? Sandbox? These kinds of incidents happen by the boatloads, and eventually something will need to be done, but for now, at least they are being tracked at WP:ENI. Do we know the course? I'd like to fill out the incident report at ENI for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

TaviWright and Midgeholland are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Students, whose instructor may be Wadewitz. With student editing, if you just keep following back all of their contribs, you eventually can sometimes find a course. Rarely. Most of the time we just never hear anything and the articles end up merged or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and repeated blanking at Raúl Cuero

Greetings -

I frequently patrol WP:SPER, and one of the recent edit requests is a bit over my head. Raúl Cuero was semi-protected earlier today following repeated content removal and blanking by IPs. A few hours later, User:200.114.28.224 posted this edit request to the article talk page. Since it involves a legal threat and potential BLP issues I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone a bit more experienced than myself.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a legal threat simply because I can't exactly tell what the IP is trying to say; it's clear that s/he does not speak English as a first language. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a legal threat: "the person who write this article can be exposed to criminal complaint by lie" is a threat to prosecute the article writer, not just to sue like most legal threats here. Dark Sun (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It'd be nice of someone that spoke Spanish checked out those sources. Anyone? John Reaves 15:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can read Spanish well enough to understand articles such as this one cited in Raúl Cuero. The Wikipedia article accurately reflects what the cited article said, which is not necessarily to say that the cited article was accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm. It might not necessarily be a legal threat, insofar as it could also be a complaint that the language of the article might be defamatory (even if that belief is wrong). See WP:DOLT. It's my understanding that there's a bit of a grey area between WP:NLT and WP:DOLT since, while NLT clearly prohibits the statement "I will sue if you don't change this article," the statement "The article's subject has threatened the publisher of one of the references with a defamation suit because of the same material we quote here," is probably different. Oblique references to legal liability can be tricky. I've always felt that where they're used to end a debate by chilling participation, there ought to be some recourse... but my long understanding has been that this is different than NLT. Anyway, I think in this case there's reason to think it might be the latter situation. But since the block's already out there, probably no reason to unblock without reassurances that it's not the IP personally threatening legal action. I do wonder whether an indef on what's probably a dynamic IP is the correct choice, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was templated as indef, but the block itself is only for one month. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That'll teach me not to check the log. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing at Talk:Morgellons

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

---

User Sierraparis was advised in this ANI case from July not to continue to cause problems. They have continued to chime in every so often about how the article needs to be rewritten (without actually proposing specific changes themselves) to give more credence to fringe views and include sources already determined to be unreliable. They literally do nothing else here on Wikipedia besides advocate for fringe views to be included in the article. They've already stated they are not here to contribute. Sierraparis isn't here to build an encyclopedia, is clearly a SPA, and needs to stop disrupting the editors. Proposing that they at least be indefinitely topic banned from medical articles and their talk pages. However, since not being allowed to edit doesn't appear to be a concern for them, I'd suggest going straight to an indefinite block. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

actually what I have suggested is that fringe theories be deleted from the article unless you can come up with stronger sources than popular press such as a magazine about "mechanics". Sierraparis (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're suggesting the use and inclusion of unreliable material that claims Morgellons should be seriously considered to be of non-delusional etiology. That's the fringe view we're against including in "serious medical stuff" parts of the article. The bit you're suddenly wanting removed is silly claims made about Morgellons in the media; in no way is the Wiki article suggesting that those claims should be taken seriously. The fact that you don't seem to possess the ability to distinguish between the two situations is one of the reasons why this ANI case had to be opened. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles. User was given WP:ROPE and then used it. Indeed, after being reminded a few weeks ago [11] (S)he has continued to re hash the same old stuff that almost got him/her topic banned back in July. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support and thank the anonymous user 69.23.116.182 for their continued crusade against disruption on Wikipedia. Maybe this should be moved to somewhere more conspicuous. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban from all medical related articles.. WP:Nothere and generally disruptive and a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, due to ongoing WP:IDHT problem. Most recently at Talk:Morgellons#Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection, makes repeated unsubstantiated assertions and misstatements about new journals using post-publication peer review, and doesn't appear to be reading or understanding the papers he suggests we use as sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support WP:MEDICINE-scope topic ban per above, unfortunately. Sierraparis was given WP:ROPE and warning in July but avoided a sanction as there wasn't enough evidence; now there's enough evidence. Although they have slowed down their pace of editing, the edits they have made exhibit a time-wasting unwillingness or inability to embrace sourcing policy in this area. Zad68 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support; as ever, Zad68 puts it more eloquently than I could. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - clearly a single purpose account who's only intent is to argue (disrupt?) the Morgellon's talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 07:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Action requested. Can we use the "snowball clause" here to save this suffering animal from more misery? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes please, this discussion has passed the threshold for action at ANI rather comfortably. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of adding a block for IP user 98.196.159.176? Their contributions to Wikipedia have been adding a quick anti-Wikipedia rant to the Morgellons article and deceptively calling it "spell correction" in the edit summary, removing the subsequent anti-vandalism bot warning they got from their talk page, and adding a similar rant to the Morgellons talk page. For what it's worth, I'm the IP user who originally opened this ANI discussion, just posting from work instead of home. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, probably not necessary to do anything with that IP just yet. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)it's obvious that anyone who has a neutral point of view eventually gets banned. Read the archives. In the short time I have been here I have seen several editors go down before me. Anyone who promotes even the slightest hint at the possibility of Lyme Disease or anything other than pure delusion gets the ax. So it is not surprising that the attack is now on me. I have never experienced such a controlling and rude group of editors anywhere. The first day I joined I was accused of being a sock puppet. Saw the same thing go down with pthers over and over. The archives have the history and your intentions are easily traced. Sierraparis (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do encourage others to read the archives, and to read the old ANI case linked above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What other group of editors would you say you have experience working with to make such a comparison? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Note I put in a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. Zad68 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User Iryna Harpy — report of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO

Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, please check if bellow posts of said editor violate «no personal attacks» and if talk page of articles used as forum for discussing other editors and POV, but not discussing the ways to improve the wiki-articles, as it should be according WP:TPG: 06:04, 3 September 2013, 00:36, 3 December 2013, 04:41, 10 December 2013, 09:55, 10 December 2013, 04:04, 14 December 2013. As you may see, such behavior is lasting for quite long time. If it really breaks WP:CIVIL rule, please do something with it. HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Iryna Harpy's comments have seemingly become more and more heated. While this doesn't really make any sense (and the idea that Wikipedia has "developed a zero-tolerance attitude towards politically sensitive areas such as Central and Eastern European issues" isn't even close to accurate), this is pretty out-of-line. I would suggest Harpy learn a lesson in civility. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful if the investigating administrators read the entire Holodomor talk page in order to establish the context in which any comments and missives were made, paying particular attention to this section; an RfC called by HOBOPOCCC as soon as his 24 hour block had been lifted; his assertion of 'proof' by recycling the rejected RS's once it had become evident that his RfC had been unambiguously rejected; simultaneous appeal to EdJohnston over content dispute where Ed's position on HOBOPOCC's approach are self-evident.

The very contributor who has accused me of "personal attacks" has violated a multitude of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would be happy to provide a comprehensive list of these violations if I am required to do so. I have also added proposals to the Holodomor talk page that the RfC and that HOBOPOCC's continuous additions of spurious 'proof' be closed off: the majority of the salient points as to the plethora of objections to both his content proposals and incriminating POV push are outlined there.

To be frank, HOBOPOCC has demanded an inordinate amount of time from myself and other editors who do not have single purpose accounts and have, as a consequence, are drowning in a backlog on articles in serious need of fact checking, copyediting and demanding serious work on talk page consensus over the content itself. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the article talk page for Holodomor include the {{sanctions}} tag? My reading of Wikipedia:General sanctions is that it was superseded by discretionary sanctions through motion.[12] Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:HOBOPOCC has previously been blocked for edit warring on Holodomor. After that happened he was warned about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Here he insists that a Ukrainian political figure should be re-identified and that 'First of all he was Russian.' His editing seems to be influenced by nationalist feelings. At Talk:Holodomor he insists that the deadly Ukrainian famine of the 1930s was just the local occurrence of a general Soviet famine, seeming to be unaware that there's a large nationalist brouhaha on that very question. His POV is so strong that it seems he can't read the sources correctly; any discussions that involve him seem to run on to thousands of words. His inability to work within policy at Talk:Holodomor suggests he is heading toward a ban from that page under the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize if I had you completely wrong, Harpy, but...that still doesn't excuse some of your comments. (Maybe you should have come here first.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend everybody who is discussing this case not to mix up charges (btw - absolutely ungrounded) on me and definite violations of definite rules of wikipedia of editor Iryna Harpy. Referring to my POV as reason to ban me from some topics - is nonsense! Editors shouldn't be banned just because he/she has some POV. Everybody of us has POV. Editor should break some rules of wikipedia, to be banned. And this is not the case about me — as for edit warring I was involved I was blocked already and I haven't committed any other violation of rules of wikipedia. Also I would like to remind everybody that content of the articles should be discussed on their talk pages, but not here. If everybody would like to discuss Holodomor issues - you are very welcome to appropriate place, your productive input, based on RS, would be highly appreciated.HOBOPOCC (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here should read the Holodomor talk page and its archives to see the extent of the problem with HOBO ... he appears to hold a visible strong POV extending to even translating Russian sources :(. Irina is not at fault in this. Collect (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another Incidient - I am an uninvolved party in the Holodomor article, but I have seen a similar level of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy against other editors (Poeticbent and myself) on other articles such as Białowieża Forest, where a simple request to follow the NPOV UNESCO naming conventions for the infobox name and an NPOV attempt to improve an article based on prior cross-border conventions garners a personal attack like this. It's not even a "heat-of-the-moment" edit, but a willful re-edit of her prior-posted comment. I firmly believe that over-the-top comments from Iryna Harpy such as ... I had been under the impression that you are an intelligent and FAIR man. Trying to disguise intentional manipulation of Wikipedia policy as a rational method of resolving 'disputed'/'controversial' subject matter because 'you' are unable to be neutral is an embarrassment to your status in the Wikipedia community.... Comments such as that are beyond the pale. Poeticbent is an upstanding and fair editor and does not deserve such abuse. I bring this up, fully expecting the wrath of Iryna's comments, but so be it. I warned her I would bring her reprehensible behavior up to ANI. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) EDITED Ajh1492 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's cold. Maybe neither one of them should be editing the article (btw, I am also uninvolved). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Before more of these "attacks" on my behalf are levelled at me, could I suggest that the entire talk page dialogue regarding Bialowieza forest be examined, please. In the first instance, I did apologise to Poeticbent and, to my understanding, neither he nor I have anything less than a good rapport both before and after this heated debate. Again, I would ask that the talk page be the reference point, rather than selected instances of behaviour being used to discredit me. The entire article has been split into a Belarusian and Polish 'version' of a single instance world heritage area. Splits may be warranted in some instances, but this was undoubtedly a POV fork issue. Perhaps I should have made a formal complaint against Ajh1492's POV content dislike of the use of Cyrillic on the page (stating, "I have been saying since the beginning that the alt names field in the infobox should be only stated as the name is inscribed in the UNESCO WHS list (Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest), nothing more, nothing less no cyrillic. I don't personally care if Belovezhskaya Pushcha is transliterated belarussian or russian.") Ultimately, there was nothing that would suggest that there was anything even resembling an attempt to reach consensus. The article was split into Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park, leaving only just enough to prevent it from being qualifying as a stub, the majority of the work on the article over the years having been wrested and turned into the predominant Wikipedia article as Polish Białowieża Forest. If you were to read through the talk page, I have no doubt that you would also find Ajh1492's finger-pointing at me as being seriously ingenuous. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Erpert, as you are not an administrator, rather than make comments like, "Wow, that's cold.", could I suggest that you actually examine the relevant talk pages, the talk pages of those who are making accusations, etc. in order to get a broader picture of the dynamics at work before making judgements? None of the issues being raised occurred in a vacuum, and judging any alleged violations by me in such a serious venue requires more that looking at a single quote. It is befitting to examine the calibre and agendas of those levelling accusations. Looking at their user talk pages, contributions, et al may also assist in informing you as to their motivation and any agenda/s they may have. I'm not saying this in order to be rude to you as I take your criticisms of my behaviour as being in good faith. I do, however, think that it is essential that it be understood that there are contributors who hide behind policies and guidelines as a method of gaming the system. Thank you for your patience. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI: you don't have to be an admin to make comments on this board. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of that and was not suggesting that you don't have a right to voice your opinion as a neutral party: I did note that I accept your appraisals as being in good faith and that I was certainly not deriding your input. I was merely suggesting that you check into a little of the backgrounds of those who are tabling complaints and those who are being accused of unacceptable behaviour. I am unable to defend myself without context being understood to be of primary concern. I edit in areas (including Middle Eastern politics), Eastern European history (hence politics), ex-Soviet satellite nation-states and other volatile areas of Wikipedia which are extremely demanding. Making best attempts at working on consensus building and intervening in order to create balanced articles tends to make me a prime candidate for a plethora of accusations being levelled at me. My objective is to keep Wikipedia a credible, encyclopaedic source. If that makes me unpopular and the target of disgruntled, biased contributors, so be it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ajh1492, you are aware that the comment left on Erpert's user talk page can be construed as being borderline inappropriate canvassing. Your bringing Poeticbent's attention to the matter was reasonable (although he would already have been aware of it as you had mentioned him), but alerting Erpert, who was already following this AN/I entry, was redundant. Expressing that, "I expect to get her wrath, but cyber-bullies need to be stood up to." on Poeticbent's user talk page is a little OTT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a track record of cyber-bullying that continues even here on the ANI. Anyone who disagrees with you is to be ridiculed and their opinion minimized. You are doing it to Erpert here just as you did on Białowieża Forest. As I wrote in early November, The splitting of the article was first brought up by AntonBryl, plus if you notice that I was originally opposed to splitting the National Park-related information from the Forest-information, but after researching PoeticBent's comments and looking at the foreign-language entries for Białowieża_Forest (especially pl:Białowieża_Forest, it became real clear to me that the Forest article needs to concentrate on the forest and two National Park articles need to be created. So the consensus at the time from the 3 editors was to split, so a bold edit later we have three articles (the NP articles were already redirects, Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park since 9 April 2004 and Białowieża National Park since 21 September 2006). I wouldn't call Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park a straggly piece of undeveloped nothing (left) behind[13], it is not a stub, it is over 4000 characters with a well-developed infobox - it would have qualified for a DKY if the time was taken to cite the information. Plus you claimed you were involved in the discussion to split the article occurred that in late October (the actual split occurring on 30 October 2013), yet your first comment on the article talk page isn't until 9 November 2013 and your first comment about the split wasn't until 10 November 2013. To this date I still wonder how can you claim you were involved in the October decision to populate the two national park articles when the edit trail clearly shows you weren't? Basically a lie to cover up for your uninformed rudeness. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• You keep bringing up some purported claim on my behalf that I'd been involved in the consensus. Where, exactly, did I state this? That is your misinterpretation of what I said, and there was no point disputing anything with you as you have a track record for not understanding relevant comments (as the talk page itself will attest to). What I did express was my dismay at the lack of an attempt to gain consensus and the haste with which the split took place. You were still in the process of moving sections of the original article while I was querying how 3 editors (2 of whom had hardly been involved in the article and the proposer, AntonBryl, having never been involved with the content or the talk page prior his proposal) could make such a bold split on shabby pretexts. The only motivation appears to be a POV fork in order to not have to collaborate with editors who were suggesting that the alt_name box did not preclude Cyrillic (particularly Russian). Any short outbreak of edit warring on this matter could easily have been resolved by asking relevant parties in admin to make a decision as to the correct nomenclature for the info box. Whatever their decision, I would have abided by it and it would have documented on the talk page should anyone try to change it in the future. I still believe that, as the heritage site is a single entity, there is no justifiable reason for splitting it and it should be merged again. The Belarusian presence on Wikipedia is seriously under-represented and most of the original article had been developed by non-Polish editors. Who is supposed to develop it without replicating the Polish entry? Now the "Belarusian entry" only links to the corresponding article in Macedonian, Hungarian, Estonian and Belarusian and finishes on an uncited statement, "The park's headquarters are at Kamyanyuki (Kamenyuki). There are also a small museum, restaurant, snack bar and hotel facilities (built during the Soviet era and currently in a state of disrepair). Due to the lack of facilities and little tourism in the country, few foreign tourists visit the Belarusian part." Meanwhile, the "Polish entry" reads like a glowing tourist guide and is the primary article for English Wikipedia (take a look at the sidebar). The whole thing smacks of flying under the radar by flouting naming conventions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As for any apology to Poeticbent, it's up to him to respond, but you only issued your snide attempt after you were warned [14]. I still haven't heard an apology after your brusque, uncivil and uninformed comments on the consensus-baed and justified article split such as a straggly piece of undeveloped nothing (left) behind[15] and similar. As far as I'm concerned you're nothing more than a bully. Ajh1492 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• My sole point with my comments on this ANI is that Holodomor is just one example in a clear track record of personal attacks by Iryna Harpy on any editor that dares to disagree with her. I don't believe that HOBOPOCC is pure as the wind-driven snow, nor is this discussion about me nor about any other editor, but THIS ANI is about Iryna and her persistent in-civil attitude toward editorial disagreements. Ajh1492 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  +1. I can put my signature to above statement. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  No, it seems to be about editors in the Eastern Europe topic area who have not been properly sanctioned for their behavior. There seem to be quite a lot of personal attacks in this thread, with few from Iryna. I can understand Iryna's frustration at having to deal with this kind of disruption on a daily basis and I sympathize with her brusque responses. There seems to be an attempt to distract us from the underlying problem by focusing on Iryna. This topic area is supposed to be under general sanctions and it is not being enforced. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So you, Viriditas, sympathize with her brusque responses? How about her treatment of Poeticbent on Białowieża Forest mentioned above? What about her ridiculing of Erpert's comment here in this very ANI? Seems that you think Iryna Harpy is above reproach and the rules? So in your mind some editors are more equal than others, eh? This ANI is about only one editor, not editors in the Eastern Europe topic area. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Your superlative track record for civility is showing again, Ajh1492. According to you, browbeating anyone who disagrees with you is not bullying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas can shed some light on this issue for you. Poeticbent talk 23:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A link to an WP:EEML coordinated RFC. Very interesting. Are you implying that the Eastern Europe topic area is once again being manipulated behind the scenes? This calls for implementation and enforcement of the already existing sanctions against the editors in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Although we get along, I can see how some editors would think that Iryna Harpy's remarks are sharp and barbed. But considering the editors who have been brought up on AN/I for civility issues and given a pass, I recommend everyone take a wikibreak and back away from each other. Not a real solution, I understand, but this community doesn't seem to want to police politeness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is this turning into an outright brawl? This is precisely why I was reticent about bringing the issue of the splitting of the Białowieża Forest/Belovezhskaya Pushcha article and was prepared to let it go for the sake of a little harmony. Personally, I can live with a few articles split on the grounds of POV forks. Wikipedia has more than enough interest group pushes to contend with without using this as a forum for retribution. Sadly, old grudges don't seem to want to go away.

What I can't abide by is allowing HOBOPOCC to continue with his disruptive editing and levelling charges against me in order to cover his own tracks. Even now, today, he's still warring away on the Holodomor talk page despite having initiated an uncalled for RfC (which was rejected); repackaged his RfC 'submissions' and continuing to push his pseudo-content on other editors who have asked him to desist; sought third party opinion (in the form of EdJohnston) who didn't give him the answers he wanted. I agree with Liz that I can appear sharp, but there is a very, very distinct line between being a little sharp and being accused of being uncivil and a bully/cyberbully. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Like the way you treated Poeticbent? That WAS being a bully and absolutely uncalled for. I strongly suggest you think first and pause before immediately jumping on an established editor trying to follow existing cross-border national parks conventions. Poeticbent tried to explain the convention, but you jumped on him also. It is better to try the velvet glove first than going right to the stick. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that you've been a bit bitey but only in the face of an editor who has been extremely frustrating to work with. IMO, this warrants nothing more than a verbal warning to be mindful of how we conduct ourselves. To veer into 'cyber bullying' is silly. This notice being made against Iryna appears to be nothing more than trying to get her out of the Holodomor talk page discussion on a technicality.--Львівське (говорити) 05:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

She was a bit bitey right from the start on Białowieża Forest towards two editors. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If anyone believes that the behavior of one or more editors on the Holodomor article repeatedly or seriously violates Wikipedia policy they can make a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement. The criterion is "..that the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The topic of the Holodomor article is covered under WP:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe which provides for discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Governors added to incumbents at Year X in US history

I'm more interested in eyes than in direct action, though I could argue that administrative intervention is an option--at least mass rollback is. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Yesterday Fundingmoney (talk · contribs), a relatively new editor, started adding long lists of US governors to the "Year X in US history" articles (not yet the names of those governors)--this one is representative. I asked them about it, reverted one, I asked them to stop, and then I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, where predictably there has been no response yet. At any rate, my argument is that since governors are hardly as important as other listed entities (Congress, prez) this is a waste of server space (to the tune of 1000 bytes per article).

Well, since then they started filling in the blanks. So here's the thing. They haven't responded to my questions, and without such an answer, and without any discussion at the US Project, I am in something of a bind. Their continuing those edits is, in my opinion, disruptive, and I think these lists are worse than useless, but I can't really start hitting mass rollback all by my lonesome. So this thread is, I suppose, an attempt at a. getting more editors to look at this; b. getting Fundingmoney to start talking; and c. figuring out what needs to be done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My take is that since we're talking about Governors, which are state elected officials, that the material doesn't belong. It would make more sense if they were adding the names of all the U.S. Representatives and Senators but even that seems unnecessary.--MONGO 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've warned the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue Do all of these edits need to be rolled back? Epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back the 1865 example and agree that these particular governor lists are unhelpful and inappropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Following from your example, I have reverted all their edits up to the 1875 example up to the beginning of the 20th century examples Drmies reverted all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

i have changed the title of this section to a more appropriate one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Are the swarms of "Year X in ..." articles intended to serve readers in some way, or are they just a place for editors to spend their time making thousands of edits? bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The editor initially in question has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm not closing this thread, in case broader discussion of the "Year in country" articles leads somewhere. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So the chickens have come home to roost. Salvidrim, I hope that some of the US project editors will take this suggestion, but so far there's only one taker on the project talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

i removed all sec of state additions = bloat since not elected official (just as useless - name everyone in cabinet) - i disagree on govs thou - i think that thru 1860 but not after is ok--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

Harizotoh9 reverted hours of work on the Jung myung seok page including edits by multiple contributors and lumped everything into one category. I will not participate in edit warring but would like an admin to offer a warning and a block to this behavior as it violates wiki policy. Furthermore on Richwales talk page the user acknowledges their lack of familiarity with wiki procedures. I posted on the users page that they should ask for help and not perform edit warring. I just noticed that this is not the first time for this user to participate in this behavior and has been warned by Rutebega in Feb 2013. Is a warning or further action in order? Please help. MrTownCar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MrTownCar, judging from this, it seems like you're forum shopping because you're upset that the article doesn't look the way you want it to (no one owns articles on Wikipedia). Regardless of whether Harizotoh9 had been warned, you neglected to mention that you have been warned yourself about that article; and it definitely doesn't help that you insulted him afterwards. (You might want to read WP:POT.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the brilliant observation erpert. The difference is I learned to work within the rules of the system even if I don't like the system or what is posted in the article but I have made the effort. For some one to make a broad sweeping edit reversion reverting multiple contributors with opposing persectives and then claim ignorance about the process is quite ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. cheers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You've learned to work with the rules of the system? I don't know; this section makes me think differently. And after reading all the bickering on the article's talk page, it appears that the information that Hari removed was all based on unreliable sources. Basically, if you were tendentiously editing and another user reverted your edits in good faith, you can't then come to a noticeboard and expect people to want to overturn the reversion, much less block that user. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of all the rest, this is a BLP with some fairly serious stuff. In such a case, it's not unresonable to removal material which seems to be questionably sourced while discussion takes place. In any event you're apparently referring to a single edit (plus a merger request). Harizotoh9 hasn't edited the article since October before that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has already been going on for over a year. The usual pattern is that a consensus is reached, and several months later the two SPAs start editing again simultaneously. Shii (tock) 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Even more reason why it's unlikely Harizotoh9 is going to be sanctioned in any way. (To be clear, I wasn't suggesting Harizotoh9 was necessarily editing without having discussed first but rather even without having to look carefully it's hard to see how there's anything on Harizotoh9's part warranting administrative attention since the OP is basically complaining about a single edit which was per the edit summary the removal of questionably source content and it was on a BLP.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Some background. On Dec 16th 2012 I came across the article. I had never heard of Providence or its leader before then. To my horror, I saw that a lot of the article uses primary sources from the Providence religion directly. Imagine an article on L Ron Hubbard that relied heavily on Scientology's official sources. I started to remove them and to restructure the article so it looked more like a standard wikipedia biography article. On the 29th, Macauthor reverted those edits. That's the pattern that has been going on forever. Eventually I thought that a consensus was reached about the unreliability of the Providence sources. Finally on Oct 28th of this year, I removed the final providence source from the article. With those gone, the work to refining and improving the article could begin. I stopped paying attention to the article. Then again, on Dec. 13th, I looked at the article again and was shocked to see those very same sources back in the article. So I reverted the article to a previous time.

Read more about the edit warring here:

• Administrators noticeboard: Long-term edit warring at Jung Myung Seok

Sometimes you have to say that a spade is a spade. These are two single purpose accounts. They have only edited articles related to Providence. They continually re-insert primary sources, try to remove sources critical of Jung Myung Seok, and edit war. I made the post on RichWales' talk page out of frustration. I wasn't sure which noticeboard to contact. This is an ongoing issue, and no one seems to be doing anything about it. The article was semi-protected, and protected, but these are inadequate actions.

At the very, very least more people need to have the articles on their watch list. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that primary sourcing is permitted under BLP rules? there are guidelines that dictate what is appropriate and what is not but nonetheless it ABSOLUTELY permitted. As I see it most of macauthors contributions WERE NOT primary sources if you took the time to review the citations and some were ie sermon content to further explain his teachings.MrTownCar (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the massive repeat POV additions in the article. I second the observation made by Shii here above, and find this filing is a BOOMERANG. A suggestion of topic banning the two SPAs would have my support. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant idea ban the two people who are part of Providence and know the most about Providence from contributing to the article.MrTownCar (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what happened to the Scientology articles in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-01/Scientology arbitration. Shii (tock) 14:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, for an editor to be "part of" the subject of a controversial article is not always an advantage on Wikipedia — not because we're trying to promote ignorance, but because we are required to cover subjects in a neutral encyclopedic fashion, and people who are too heavily invested in a given position may not be able or willing to deal with the subject in the required dispassionate manner. Someone who is intimately involved with Providence may be able to help here by bringing up potentially relevant source material, but it may still be necessary to allow other editors (people who are not connected either with Providence or with anti-Providence groups) to weigh the available material and decide what to use and how to use it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

MrTownCar should have due credit for finally and frankly disclosing that they and Macauthor are part of Jung Myung Seok's organisation Providence.

As part of a long post on Talk:Jung Myung Seok MrTownCar writes 6 November:

I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. His greatest desire in this life is to please the heart of God and save spirits of human beings. Akin to Jesus, he loves those who persecute him and prays for their salvation. He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses. It is truly ironic and shameful that the very thing that he preaches against from the deepest part of his heart is that which the false witnesses accused him of and had him sent to prison for ten years.^{[Diff of Talk:Jung Myung Seok]}
— User:MrTownCar

Shii in their COIN filing^Diff politely reflects "Obviously this is a statement of faith. To me, this soapboxing on the talk page places doubt on his ability to withhold his bias in a way suitable for Wikipedia."

To me there is no doubt that an editor who believes that Jung Myung Seok, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping young girls in Providence in a trial tried by all three different levels of Korean courts, should have undergone a sham trial, is an editor with a COI that makes neutral editing impossible. Ey have a long history of flat out denying existing sources and deleting content ey do not like, e.g.

• Diff of Jung Myung Seok
• Diff of Jung Myung Seok
• Diff of Jung Myung Seok
• Diff of Jung Myung Seok

Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My current concern is that Sam Sailor is reverting to a version that includes anonymous quotations that are very contentious. I dont do block reversion like him/her but line by line edits with clear explanations. Herefore I state that SAm Sailor is not editing in good faith and is including anonymous quotations from lawyers and an alleged victim which violates BLP policy. another admin richwales has suggested on the talk page that better sources be used. Not difficult to see my contention. MrTownCar (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If an administrator, editor, or even an SPA improves the article by adding relevant verifiable information and does so according to wikipedia policy, then their work should not be reverted, or at the very least be discussed further before being taken down. Does, "Disruptive editing," refer to the addition of edits that were discussed and agreed upon beforehand, or does it refer to the reverting of those edits without discussion? As for the edits that I made recently and were reverted, they were based on suggestions by other editors. I even quoted the previous discussions that had taken place about the content I introduced at the bottom of the talk page. The article was reverted based on an old argument over the neutrality of ProvidenceTrial.com as a source. That reason is not even relevant because the new material is not being sourced to ProvidenceTrial.com. That suggestion was made more than 6 months ago and is not relevant to everything or almost anything they reverted. It seems that editors are editing/reverting without thoroughly reading the recent discussions on the talk page. Could we at least agree to read the discussions on the talk page before any further suggestions of penalizing editors or reverting their edits? Macauthor (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

These are edits that I referred to above as being reverted. 3 major additions reverted without relevant reason Macauthor (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru

User:QuackGuru has been displaying disruptive editing for some time now, especially at the GERAC and Acupuncture articles.

• Disruptive tagging ([16], [17], [18]) even though he's been asked repeatedly to stop this ([19], [20])
• Stubbornly referring to other editor's contributions as "nonsense" (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Nonsense deleted) even though he has been asked a long time to refrain from doing so ([21])
• Refusal to accept talk page consensus (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Results should not be should be limited in the article, Talk:Acupuncture#Rate of serious adverse events).

The last time that several users asked GQ to stop his pattern of disruptive editing was on 02-Dec, but to no avail. Discussion with GQ is further hampered by him deleting all messages on his talk page as soon as possible. I request a topic ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder if you even tried to discuss the matter with the user—all I see on their talk page is a link directing them to this page. User:QuackGuru removed the messages from their page, so not Mallexikon's fault. --Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. WP:BOOMERANG. And please explain it to me. We got an almost constant discussion at the acupuncture-related pages. And we used to have a lot of problems with fanatic acupuncture proponents in the past, but recently it's just that hard-core skeptics bunch with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is killing the very spirit of WP. I do understand that QG and Roxy and Brangifer do what they do in good faith - I'm a skeptic myself. But when they overshoot their mark like QG, or like Brangifer here yesterday and administrators keep on turning a blind eye, article quality will drop. Cause anyone with a different opinion will feel bullied and silenced. I appealed to AN/I some time ago because another hardcore skeptic user deleted 80% of an acupuncture-related article (all sourced material), and then took the remaining stub and nominated it for deletion - administrator's interest in this was almost zero (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC). Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep me out of this GERAC mess. I haven't been following it enough to understand the issues. All I know is (and I'm speaking generally here) that when pushers of fringe POV try to keep mainstream opinions out of articles, that's a type of violation of NPOV we do not tolerate. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Could some admin PLEASE, PLEASE take a look at this? This is starting to turn into an edit war at GERAC. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring is at WP:3RRN. MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

persistent nasty incivility

I confess to being increasingly annoyed at the escalating incivility toward me shown by User:Katydidit at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt in the last few days. (examples: "Would you at least do that and turn honest on that point, or do you want to continue lying with your repeated falsehood that has been proven untrue? If not, I can only surmise you don't want to honestly discuss this topic, and only want to smear and make-up stories because that is all you have to go on."; " You are mad, thoroughly, completely mad to make-up such outrageous, amateurish gibberish in vainly trying to support your unverified assertion, and that you refuse to add one cite as I have repeatedly asked. Blind, and mind completely shut tight, not just incredibly biased to the facts of consumer shortages, but blind and mindshut." "When will you finally wake-up to the truth and stop believing the government's propaganda that an increasing number of people are realizing are just a pack of lies?") He just gets worse and worse. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are losing the debate, and continually refusing to acknowledge other authors that I cited--that was the reason for my reply to you, so you resort to doing this, and you still refuse to provide a source link as WP:Cite requires for unverified assertions. You are now smearing me unfairly, and I'm done trying to discuss this topic with you. I finally lost my patience with you, and that is why I said the things I said, in trying to get you to stop saying things that were proven false. Maybe I did go a little too far, but you weren't discussing fairly or cared about my links in citing others, and that is why I said those things I wouldn't have normally said to others in a discussion. --Katydidit (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Katydidit, I don't see your attacks as being justified. What I see is disruptive editing on the article (5 days ago) and contentious remarks - to say nothing of walls of text - on the talk page (the present). This board is hardly the place for bringing civility issues, but your comments are personal attacks, not just incivility. If you can't control your frustration and your tongue, go do something else. Based on your history, you mostly edit articles (as opposed to talking); as long as you can avoid your recent edit warring, perhaps you should stick with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I know I lost my patience with that other editor, but he was an exceptional case. It won't happen with him or anyone else again, because I haven't met anyone else as stubborn as he was in refusing to acknowledge the other authors and links I posted for his edification. --Katydidit (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You said that it won't happen again, which was fine...but what you said after that wasn't the best thing to say. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute that got personal. Katydidit's personal remarks are pretty bad here... but I don't think the situation is quite ripe enough to merit administrator intervention. I think working through other steps of the dispute resolution process, especially focused on clearing up the content dispute, might be a better first step. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:80.195.139.78

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

---

80.195.139.78 (talk · contribs)

Hi. This IP editor keeps adding unsourced dates-of-deaths to lots of BLP articles. I've warned them on their talkpage, but they continue to edit articles without sourcing them. Can and Admin step in and help? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptions by Evildoer187

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

---

Evildoer187 is apparently on a WP:TRUTH-mission on Wikipedia, causing disruptions everywhere. As is evident from the user's talk page (even though many blocks, warnings and topic-bans have been removed by the user (eg [22], [23], [24] many others remain), the user is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of pushing his POV concerning topics related to Jews and Judaism. The user has already been topic-banned from editing areas related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. My first interaction with the user was today, though I see many others have encountered the same behavior previously. On Ashkenazi Jews, several users had discussed the intro. To give a very brief background, it is a fact that good, serious peer-reviewed scientific DNA studies have arrived at different views on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. In keeping with NPOV, Wikipedia should not to take sides between these, but report the fact that science differs. According to Evildoer187's POV, Ashkenazi Jews are of Levantine origin. This view is contradicted by a recent and very extensive DNA study by 18 researchers, published in Nature. As far as sources go, an extensive study published in Nature is pretty much the gold standard of WP:RS. This study, which has been widely reported in leading media, shows that the origins of Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European. This, however, does not fit Evildoer187's POV, so he repeatedly deletes and rewrites, removing any reference to a possible European origin [25], [26], [27] As seen in the diffs, the user has deleted it both from the introduction and from the infobox, while gladly keeping references to smaller studies in less known journals which are in line with his POV.
In short It's apparent from Evildoer187's history that this is a single-purpose account for the WP:TRUTH, it's apparent from the user's talk page that this is done in a way which has led to countless warnings, blocks and topic bans. The fact that the user still continues in the same way despite all these warnings is indicative. Given this user's history on Wikipedia, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear, I feel a topic ban for [User:Evildoer187|Evildoer187]] on any article related to Judaism or the Jewish people would be in order. It is evident that this user is here to push a certain POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your inflammatory and aggressive attacks on me here are reflective of POV pushing on your part. I may have made mistakes in the past, which I will readily admit to, but it should be evident to anyone who looks at the page in question that I have done no such thing on Ashkenazi Jews.

I did not delete the peer reviewed paper in question. I deleted the news articles which discuss (and in some cases, misrepresent) the peer reviewed paper, which I believed was superfluous. Further, none of the studies cited in the article even remotely indicate that Ashkenazim are purely European, as he is trying to portray in the article itself. They only suggest that 80 percent of mtDNA origins are traceable to Europe, with the rest being of Middle Eastern origin. Genetic studies do not differ (among the ones cited at least) on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. They all agree on Levantine origins. I was also under the impression that the related ethnic groups category pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common, but also culture, geography, linguistics, etc.

In short, this editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent the study, and that in itself is indicative of POV pushing.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you see "inflammatory and aggressive attacks" nor is it clear to me what you mean by "reflective of POV pushing on your part". I've taken great care to respect NPOV, giving equal weight to equally valid scientific studies, and I've argued at the talk page that the article should represent both views. The fact that you find that "POV pushing" is unfortunately very indicative. When you say I edited to suggest that "Ashkenazim are purely European" you're entering into lies and slander. Could you provide diffs to a version of the article by me that says that "Ashkenazim are purely European". If you can't (and you can't), kindly retract your slander above. I said quite the contrary, as can be seen from my edit of the talk page ([28]). I fear the unmeasured response by Evildoer187 only reinforces my impression that this user should not edit articles related to the Jewish people or Judaism.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You immediately came out with attacks on my credibility and threatened to block me (even though you are not an admin) after just one edit. Instead of discussing or reverting rationally, you instantly demanded that I be topic banned. That is pretty aggressive, no?

If you were actually representing both sides adequately, then you'd have a point, and I would never have reverted you. But as this diff here indicates (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), you posted that some studies claim that Ashkenazim are entirely European in origin, whereas none of the studies arrive at this conclusion. Further, you needlessly added news articles discussing a study which was already cited in the article.

I will not retract my accusations of POV pushing, because from what I can see, that is exactly what you are doing here.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Taken directly from the diff. None of the genetic studies say this, so either you're lying or you're not paying attention. I am inclined to go with the former.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. You're clearly trying to deflect the discussion.

• I did not threaten to block you, I posted a standard Wikipedia warning on your talk page.
• This discussion is not based on one edit or one article, but on your whole edit history.
• First you claim I said Ashkenazim are "entirely" and "purely" European, then you link to a diff where I wrote "mainly European". "Mainly" and "entirely" are two different things.
• The claim about Ashkenazim being mainly European is not mine, it's from the sources I used. That's how Science, one of the main scientific journals in the world, reported the findings of the study. NBC News and BBC News both did as well, though they are not scientific. Whether you agree or not is quite simply irrelevant. Science most certainly satisfies WP:RS and the fact that you accuse me of "lying" and "POV-pushing" for citing it is, once again, indicative of how you refuse to accept anything or anyone not agreeing with you.Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the study claims that Ashkenazi MATERNAL origins are mainly European. Your diff said "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." If you had clarified that part, or if you had cited the Zoossmann-Diskin study from 2010 which DID arrive at that conclusion (i.e. that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly European), I would never have had a problem with it, although it may have raised WP:UNDUE concerns since the bulk of genetic studies posit that a significant portion of Ashkenazi ancestry is Levantine. Further, it would still have been completely unnecessary to link to anything outside of the main study itself. Additionally, I stated my intent to remove the NYT article and replace it with the actual study, which I was not able to track down, so your accusations of censoring the other side/POV pushing don't hold water here.

I will, however, concede that I made a mistake with regards to your first two *'s. I will be more careful about that from now on.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is not the article, there's a talk page for that. My edit took into account both sides, and was even more careful in the claim that the article in Science was. Nuff bout that. The topic here is your behavior on Wikipedia and the way you edit, apparently causing inflammatory reactions all around.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

http://forward.com/articles/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/#

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.551825

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/most-ashkenazi-jews-are-genetically-europeans-surprising-study-finds-8C11358210

These are the citations I removed in my original revert (see the diff). Notice how they each pertain to the same exact study, which was also cited in the same sentence (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html). This begs the question: why is he linking to all of these news articles when the study itself is already there (and which I did not delete)? I should hope that the reason is obvious and that I won't have to fill in the blanks. Moreover, notice how the study in question does not say, anywhere, that "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin". Rather, it says that maternal origins are mainly European. If he had added the word "maternal" in the sentence, this dispute would never have happened. But he didn't, and so here we are.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are the sources you deleted. Science.NBC News. BBC News. Among the best sources available to us, and Wikipedia welcomes secondary sources. Science wrote "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe.", my edit was perfectly in line with that. And your behaviour in this thread is typical of your whole Wikipedia history. You deflect from the topic, you repeatedly lie about me. You declare one of the leading scientific journals in the world unfit as a source. That is the topic here. You do not contribute to Wikipedia, you disrupt it.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not told any lies about you. The evidence of your actions is right there for all to see. As for myself, I have done nothing wrong, save for not going to the talk page when I should have (which I admitted to).

And you still have not answered my question: why are you using all of these news sources which merely report on the study, when the genetic study itself is already cited? Especially when said study does not arrive at the conclusion you say it does. It reeks of POV pushing, and I don't know how you could argue otherwise. Further, I never said the Science journal source was unreliable, just superfluous and unnecessary because the study it talks about is already cited in the article.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And upon closer inspection of the Science article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

It is indeed referring to mtDNA specifically, which hardly equates to "Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin", as you put it in the article. If you had wrote instead "Ashkenazi Jewish maternal lines are mainly of European origin" (never mind the fact that you needlessly padded out one study with at least 5-6 news articles reporting on it), there wouldn't have been a problem. But you did not do that. So tell me again how this is not lying, on your part?Evildoer187 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You deliberately deflect and do not WP:HEAR. I discuss the article on its talk page. I leave it for uninvolved admins to consider your disruptive history on Wikipedia, which is the topic here. It is evident from your talk page and edit history. You are not here to build an encyclopaedia.Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:HEAR "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you; see if you can see their side of the debate; and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed."

I fail to see how I've violated this rule. You are the only one, to my knowledge, who is incessantly battling me on this issue. There was one guy who disagreed with me yesterday, and another on the talk page who ostensibly agrees with me. That's not consensus, last I checked.

Moreover, I have seen your side of the debate, and I understand exactly what the problem is. You are misrepresenting a study in the article and padding it out with news articles reporting on the same study which is already cited. So on the contrary, I did WP:HEAR you. The fact that I'm calling you out on this does not mean I'm not listening to your side. You are dissembling here.Evildoer187 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing your deflection game and this isn't about me. Your claim that only one other person has commented on your behavior is ridiculous. You have been topic banned and you have been blocked several times for your extremely disruptive behavior. Any admin can check out your talk page, or rather your talk page history as you've deleted most warnings and blocks.Jeppiz (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm refuting the charges you've brought against me here, and pointing out how the entire dispute on the Ashkenazi Jews article (which resulted in this thread) is a result of your editing behavior. As for me, I acknowledged that I've made mistakes, and I've been working to improve on it. You, on the other hand, manipulated sources and violated WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Moreover, I did not claim that only one other person commented on my behavior. I stated, clearly, that one other person disagreed with me on that issue. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on that topic, when it is evident that I did not.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I said you don't WP:HEAR in this thread. You continue to try to deflect by discussing Ashkenazim. That is not the topic here. The topic is your disruptive behavior throughout your entire history on Wikipedia, your many blocks, topic ban, and the inflammatory arguments you bring to articles.Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not. You accused me of violating WP:HEAR on the Ashkenazi Jews article. You even said so in your initial comment i.e. "Given this user's history on Wikipedia, and the apparent inflaming behavior and unwillingness to hear". This was prior to our argument on this page, indicating that you were accusing me of violating this Wiki norm on Ashkenazi Jews. Further, I have acknowledged (this would be the third time, in this thread) that I have made my share of mistakes, and that I am working to improve, so your accusations of deflection don't hold water. I should also note that I have sought WP:ADOPTION, but was never picked up.

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out your problematic behavior, as it provides relevant context.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Oh, for crying out loud...this is the longest thread I have ever seen in a back-and-forth argument between two people in a single day. I'm not sure who's right and who isn't (although Evildoer, making an entirely new thread about this same situation wasn't the best idea), but both parties might want to consider taking a wikibreak for a day or two.

And now Jeppiz has commented in that thread. Seriously, you both need to chill out. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I don't want to spend all day arguing on here, so I'm gonna back off and wait for an admin to show up.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Since I could not reply to Jeppiz on the thread below, I will do so here instead.

• No, not revenge. I even told you on your talk page that I was going to take action against you here. I've been pre-occupied with other things. I don't live on the internet, after all.

• You did not try to reflect both sides. You took one genetic study (whereas you claimed there were several), misrepresented its conclusions in the article, and buttressed it with at least 5-6 news articles which pertain to the same study. That is POV pushing. Dictionary definition of it. Evidence for this is provided in the diff.

• I only did that in the related ethnic groups template, because my impression was that related ethnic groups pertains to groups who share more than just genetics in common. What do Ashkenazi Jews share with Southern Europeans and Italians other than genetics? What do they share with Arabs, Samaritans, Sephardi Jews, etc? That was my point. Also notice (check the diff) that I did not remove the genetic study in Nature, which is what all of those additional news articles were discussing. He is not being truthful here, and that's the problem.

• Taken from the same article. "So a different team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups. The team focused on mtDNA, which is often employed in genetic studies because it is easier to sequence and allows analysis of huge population samples. However, mtDNA is inherited through the mother and not the father, so it reveals the history of maternal lineages only.

Geneticists have identified certain mtDNA markers that define lineages in different parts of the world. Behar’s group had traced the Jewish founder groups to two mtDNA genetic lineages called haplogroup K and haplogroup N1b. The Jewish lineages were nested within these two larger groups, which include both Jews and non-Jews. So Richards and his colleagues first set out to understand the history of these broader lineages. They analyzed about 2500 complete and 28,000 partial mtDNA genomes of mostly non-Jews worldwide, plus 836 partial mtDNA genomes of Ashkenazi Jews, to see where the Ashkenazim fit into the overall history.

The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy. The results imply that the Jews can trace their heritage to women who had lived in Europe at that time. Very few Ashkenazi mtDNAs could be traced to the Middle East."

He made no reference whatsoever to maternal DNA, which would have provided some much needed clarification. Instead, he (tellingly) omitted it and put "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" in the article.

• Adding news sources which all discuss the same genetic study is problematic, and you know it. It would seem that you are deliberately trying to bypass WP:UNDUE by making it appear as though these studies (and you did say "studies") are more numerous than they actually are. For the passage pertaining to the Middle Eastern origins of Jews, the citations were much more varied and clearly extracted from different studies. Needless to say, if you are being honest, I expect there will be no objections if I employ the same tactics vis-a-vis the Middle Eastern origins of Ashkenazim.

• My accusations against you are not unfounded. The evidence I have posted here shows that clearly. I do not think I should be topic banned because although I have made mistakes, I have not edited the Ashkenazi Jews topic in a disruptive manner, as he claims.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Rarevogel

User Rarevogel has been engaged in a long-term edit war over the ethnicity of Alhazen. For example, they initially replaced a long, referenced discussion of Alhazen's identity with "Iraqi Muslim": [29] They've been engaged in making similar edits to the same text for nearly two months now. They have been warned for edit warring on the article [30] They did recently finally engage in a discussion on the Talk page, but at the point where it was still far from clear that there was consensus for change they went ahead and made an edit to the same text anyway: [31] There was some support for deleting the overly long discussion in the lead, so in the interests of moving the article forward I largely let the edit stand. Rarevogel then basically implied that their opinion was the only thing which mattered in the article. When I said that if the consensus in reliable sources was that Alhazen could be described as an Arab, that's what we should use, Rarevogel told me "Go fuck yourself": [32] I haven't looked at Rarevogel's other edits to other articles, but interestingly they have recently been warned for removing the word "Arab" from articles: [33]. I personally think Rarevogel's behaviour is unacceptable, and that some sort of block is required to make that clear. --Merlinme (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rarevogel's response to being told "Go fuck yourself" was unacceptably rude was "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope". [34]. --Merlinme (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I warned him/her about the personal attack. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even see the second attack at first (I'm not sure what "piss up a rope" even means but I am sure it was meant to be pretty derogatory). I second a block. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Exceptionally rude user, would need some time to reflect on their behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but grumble a bit that the issue that brought this to ANI (and what everyone seems to be focusing on) is that Rarevogel swore at another editor he was arguing with. I also question whether being told to fuck off constitutes a personal attack instead of simple incivility. By the way, being told to "piss up a rope" works essentially the same as "fuck off" (both could be seen as vulgar variants of "go fly a kite"). And reviewing the other edits here, while I do see evidence of perhaps overly BOLD editing, I think the description of the first diff at the very least belies that this is at its core a content dispute (though one of a traditionally highly contentious nature: the ethnicity and nationality of a historical figure). I really think more diffs are needed to demonstrate a pattern of incivility rather than isolated frustration stemming from this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't think it's relevant that Rarevogel has been warned for removing "Arab"? And I've never had someone swear at me like that in seven years of editing the encyclopedia. I described it as gross incivility, it was another editor who described it as a personal attack, but either way I don't see why I should have to put up with it. The Talk page conversation goes: Me: "You may have a point, but please give references to support your viewpoint"; KansasBear notes Rarevogel's tendency to remove "Arab"; Dicklyon finds zero sources for Iraqi, some sources for Persian, some for Arab; Rarevogel then deletes the section; I let it stand but remove "Muslim", which was rather over-emphasised in the lead, and note that Rarevogel really shouldn't have made an edit in such a controversial area without much clearer consensus; Rarevogel comes back with "It shouldn't be controversial bro... The only thing we know for sure was that he was an Iraqi and a muslim, and that he wrote exclusively in Arabic", giving zero sources; we then get: Me: "I'm not your bro. And if the consensus of authorities is that it makes sense to describe him as an Arab, please don't impose your own personal opinion otherwise on the encyclopedia." Rarevogel: "Go fuck yourself. Its not a matter of opinion. I've stated the facts. The burden is on you to prove that he was Persian or chinese or whatever, ehrn there is no evident proof. Its not on me to prove he wasnt." Me: "a) Yes it is up to you to justify your opinion, using reliable sources; b) "Go fuck yourself" is unacceptable. I'll now raise at WP:ANI." Rarevogel: "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people." Now, could anyone please explain to me what on earth I did to justify being told to go fuck myself? And why Rarevogel's relentless determination to assert that Alhazen was an Iraqi Muslim while providing zero sources is helping the encyclopedia? --Merlinme (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

All I see going on here is Rarevogel said something rude during a content dispute. That doesn't make it a behavioral dispute warranting administrative action. And as to your points about the content dispute, this is decidedly the wrong forum to hash them out, but I'll point out that from my admittedly ignorant perspective, that someone is a Muslim and hailed from what is now Iraq (sources for both points are in the article) makes it trivial to say he was an Iraqi Muslim. At the very least, that's what I gather Rarevogel's position is. If that position is wrong for reasons other than sourcing (which, as I've argued, is not a problem), then I suggest you respond along those lines at the talk page and follow the dispute resolution process. ANI just isn't the right forum for this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get sidetracked over a (resolved) content dispute, but to explain why calling Alhazen Iraqi is controversial, it's like describing Sitting Bull as American would be controversial if you didn't explain the difference between the geographical area and the modern country; that's why no reliable source describes Alhazen as Iraqi.

That wasn't why I came here though, I came here because I thought that telling someone to "go fuck themselves" is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is the first time I've ever reported anyone for incivility, but I thought that clearly crossed the line. There is apparently a difference of opinion on this though, so I've had a look at WP:Civil: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." "Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor." "3.Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, before any admin action is taken." Personally I think Rarevogel obviously and uncontentiously crossed the line; being told to "Go fuck yourself", and then told to "Go piss up a rope" is surely "extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor". Rarevogel has given absolutely no evidence of any intention to give an apology or modify their comments. I do not have great confidence in my own ability to resolve the matter calmly while being abused, which is why I have asked for outside assistance in making it clear to Rarevogel their behaviour is not acceptable. Whether it justifies a block according to current policy, I don't know, but I would appreciate at the very least that Rarevogel is warned to not to use that kind of abuse again. I am relatively thick skinned in these matters, but I can imagine (for example) expert editors rather being put off editing if the atmosphere on article Talk pages is closer to flame wars than scholarly debate. --Merlinme (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1)You analogy of the Sitting Bull doesnt make any sense. Youd know that if you kbew anything about the history of the Mid East. Iraq is an ancient name for the lower Mesopotamia, the region where Alhazen was born. It was in use since the earliest Arab presence in the region. Its official name was Iraq al-Arab, that part of Mesopotamia south of Baghdad. Everything above Baghdad was sometimes included, but often given a seperate name: al Jazira (the island, because it is almost entirely surrounded by the Tigris and Euphrates). The was another Iraq, namely Iraq al-Ajam (the non-Arab Iraq). This was what know is the mountainous border region in Iran. If we can call Rembrandt a Dutchman,evrn if in hie lifetime noone would idebtify hims as one, why is it wrong to use Iraqi for Alhazen? Ehen Alhazen himseld undoubtedly used that word to describe his homecountry: it was THE word for where he came from.

2) The lack of ANY evedence of him being Persian should override any obscure writers that call him a Persian. I have explained to you why those writers describe him as one. Its a very silly cobclusion they make.

3) I said bro to you, and you responded by saying that Im not your bro. Where Im from thats a slam really, very disrespectful, especially when I did nothing to deserve sucha rude reply. Im not smart enough to com with a witty comeback, so I juet dropped the f-word. Works all the time. Anyway I apologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link from a book discussing the extent of the use of the name Iraq, by the 10th century it was THE name for the region as north as Tikrit, present day north of Iraq.

http://books.google.nl/books?id=MVHtRZwU-cAC&pg=PA98&dq=iraq+al-ajam&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=F26vUsXtMoab1AW-7IHABw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I kind of figured something like that when I saw the "I'm not your bro" response. I don't know why people take it upon themselves to respond that way to being called "bro". Not saying that justifies the incivil retort, but it just goes to show you the importance of civility and collegiality from both parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As everyone can clearly see, Rarevogel's argument is that other editors do not have knowledge of the Middle East, he has not presented any facts to support his opinion, continues to ignore two university sources stating Alhazen was an Arab, and when Merlinme addressed these issues is told to "Go fuck yourself". Rarevogel has not addressed the two sources on the Alhazen talk page stating, "Please remove that first sentence and feel free to cobtinue your guesswork in the autobiography section." and "Whether or not you think he was Arab or Chinese or French, its stupid to have the page start out with speculations: '...is an Arab or Persian scholar..'. Thats a childish way to open up the page." and "kansasbear you have a tendency of blindly allowing false info to stay on these pages". This is what Rarevogel calls "The Oxford History of Islam" and "The Encyclopaedia of Islam", "false info". It is clear Rarevogel refuses to get the point and is not here to build a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, this isn't the place to hash out the content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, I am showing a pattern of behavior for this editor(ie. blindly allowing false info, stupid way, childish), implying the ignorance of other editors(Youd know that if you kbew anything about the history of the Mid East.) --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anyway I apologized: "I meant to say: Go piss up a rope. Sorry for using the f-bomb, but you shouldnt be so rude to people". Just to be clear, that's the apology we're talking about, right? --Merlinme (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:70.134.229.223/User:70.134.228.221

Since a couple days this IP user is Wikihounding me and my edits, using 2 IPs (I assume 70.134.229.223 is also 70.134.228.221 same subnet whois Private Customer - SBC Internet Services SBC07013422800023051028141157 (NET-70-134-228-0-1) 70.134.228.0 - 70.134.229.255) , inhibiting my work, making poorly based complaints and generally being rude/arrogant (not only on my talk page but also in an article I'm currently improving). Please check the user's contribs. I feel annoyed and harassed. I have no problem with polite critic or people pointing out that I made a mistake, but in a polite tone. Any help is appreciated. ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stormmeteo: Sorry, but that doesn't look much like wikihounding – you and 70.134.228.221 only edited four pages in common (two of which are your respective talkpages). You and 70.134.229.223 only edited two pages in common: Medicane and Appleton, Wisconsin. WIth only three pages in common, that doesn't exactly constitute stalking. Four? Maybe. Five? Definitely. But two or three? That is probably just an overlap. Correct me if I am wrong. Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless Stormmeteo has diffs exhibiting something more serious, this isn't wikihounding, and isn't a candidate for administrator intervention at this time. It looks like a single, narrow dispute, where one of the IPs has stated things a bit more aggressively than I might (but definitely a far cry from incivility). And frankly, the statement that the anonymous editor is "inhibiting your work" on an article you're improving is concerning; you don't own the articles you work on here, and there's every indication the IPs are editing constructively (see this diff or this diff). Honestly I really want to know exactly there was in this revert that served to harass you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I might currently be a bit thin skinned (having a 2 year old daughter at home who currently is very sick), nevertheless I still think that this IP is rude and could be way more polite without that "know it all better" stance. That being said, I withdraw this report as per comment from Mendaliv "...isn't a candidate for administrator intervention at this time." ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 20:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

MilesMoney (talk · contribs) has re-added -twice- obviously contentious and potentially defamatory content to the BLP of Dana Rohrabacher, supported by a partisan source with a less-than sterling reputation. Diffs: [35] [36]

Miles has elected not to start a discussion, nor has he made any attempt to find a better source (which may well be available, if he were to bother looking). Instead, he prefers to try to force in his edit, even though it has been pointed out that it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Roccodrift (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did start a discussion, but you went directly to WP:ANI, bypassing the talk page, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. To repeat what I said:

Dana Rohrabacher said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable.

I stand by this. If you disagree, however, let's take this to the appropriate forum, not this drama page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No. No. No. MilesMoney filed this SPI against Roccodrift and Belchfire. But he also included me, NazariyKaminski, in his witch hunt. He has zero evidence that I am a sock of rocco or belch. He is not editing in good faith. I edited one article that MilesMoney edited and he did not like my editing and so he started an edit war. I backed off. I was right but I backed off. He then followed me to another article and started another edit war. I am not a sock of rocco or belch. I don't even know who these editors are and MM has no evidence to support his claim but that has not slowed him down. Also, I don't know Brangifer but he assumes, even before the results of the SPI are concluded, that MilesMoney's SPI is justified. Brangifer's comment above is completely bogus. Why are MM and Brangifer dragging me into this? Seriously, edit Wikipedia and stop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a flurry of disruptive edits by User:MilesMoney, who really ought to know better. This could perhaps be better discussed at WP:EWN, but the user in question has been editing disruptively across a range of article - adding dubious categories unsupported by the article, and then reverting while refusing to discuss. User:Roccodrift is correct to remove the poorly sourced material on a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The best reason not to go to WP:ANI is that it gathers well-wishers such as StAnselm, who's unhappy with me for reverting a flurry of bad changes he recently made. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Two corrections. First, I'm always willing to discuss my edits. Second, I didn't add categories: I restored the ones you tried to remove because you were wrong to remove them. Hope that helps. MilesMoney (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding Miles' additional BLP violations from today: Pamela Geller [37]; Gary Bauer [38]; Robert Spencer (author) [39]. The common thread here is that I had performed an AGF revert on each one of them within the last hour. In fairness, it should be noted that Miles' didn't attempt to edit-war on these other articles. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The common thread is that these BLP accusations are false. Rather, the two of you are guilty of whitewashing articles. MilesMoney (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. If you think I violated WP:BLP, go to WP:BLPN. This bit of forum-shopping appears to be retaliation for my earlier report. MilesMoney (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Right Wing Watch" is not a reliable source for anything, except maybe details about Right Wing Watch, and it is certainly not a reliable source for a BLP. Using it to label various living people as "far-right" is extremely inappropriate. It violates basic policies regarding categorization, and especially violates BLPCAT.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, but this is the wrong venue to discuss such issues. I've opened a WP:BLPN report on the original complaint. You are free to open reports on any of the others that's been piled on. I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read where other editors are "guilty" and they are "whitewashing" articles. The truth is that Miles is too eager to add unwarranted spin to articles – MM is categorizing the people as "far-right" when a simple "right" is/might be supported by the sources. (The term "far right" is not used in the blog (rightwingwatch.org) for the Robert Spencer article.) Gary Bauer gets a "critics of Islam" category because the rightwingwatch.org blog mentions him in passing. Worst of all, MM posts the references in-line rather than using proper citation format (as in the Dana Rohrabacher edit). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we read that an article entitled Anti-Islamic Sentiment Cheered at Values Voter Summit depicts Bauer as anti-Islamic. But I already posted that on the appropriate talk page so why am I repeating myself here? No good reason, so let's end this. MilesMoney (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This report has been made obsolete by the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Murdering_children, where Rocco and I have agreed on two reliable sources to replace the original source. Now we're done. MilesMoney (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Bauer#Critic_of_Islam is where we came to an agreement on sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, you are "always ready to discuss" and yet as a minimum you have banned people from your talk page as follows:

• 22 September Srich32977 (talk · contribs)
• 26 September Adjwilley (talk · contribs) - not sure if this is a ban: it says "go away"
• 3 October PrairieKid (talk · contribs)
• 8 October Yworo (talk · contribs)
• 16 October MrX (talk · contribs)
• 21 October Sitush (talk · contribs)
• 2 December Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
• 2 December 65.102.177.223 (talk · contribs)
• 5 December Roccodrift (talk · contribs)
• 7 December HectorMoffet (talk · contribs)

There was a bit of a hiatus part way through that sequence when you were involved in the discussions regarding your article ban/WP:AEGS. All the above were then unbanned on 7 December during a prior ANI thread involving you, when I was preparing the above diffs on-wiki. But then you started again on 10 December. I know that you are keen to see article-related discussions take place on article talk pages and that is fair enough but the pattern does not suggest one of co-operation. Put simply, if people object to your article edits then you ban them from your talk page. Sure, you're now saying that this thread is irrelevant because a discussion has now opened elsewhere but, again, that seems to be a common event: take it to the limit and then make a tactical withdrawal. Why not try avoiding taking it to the limit in the first instance? Or just drop out of it all, as I have done? - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly for joining in but you are entirely mistaken. As I stated on this very page quite recently, there is only one person banned from my talk page, and it's Rocco. Please get your facts straight instead of trying to meddle. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken. Please read what I wrote. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It has always been my belief that the article talk page is the first place for any dispute to go. If it cannot be resolved there and is based on specific issues, such as RS or BLP, it should go to the related notification page, such as RSN or BLPN. User talk page notices, especially templates, are not always a good idea. In particular, when they make a false accusation, this gets in the way of discussion.

The issue with this report is that we have a reliable source for Dana's public statements, so there's no doubt whatsoever that he made them. The dispute is now being resolved on the article talk page and on BLPN, so this is the wrong venue.

What makes it particularly counterproductive is that some who are uninvolved in this dispute but hold prior grudges are taking this as an opportunity to pile on. That happens a lot on ANI, and it's very unfortunate. Please don't contribute to it. If you literally have nothing to add on the issue, please remain silent instead of raising unrelated issues. Thank you and goodbye. MilesMoney (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your conduct is being discussed, and this is one of the appropriate venues for that to take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

My conduct isn't the issue, the content is. By ignoring this ANI, I've already been able to fix Dana's Gary's article to our mutual agreement. This ANI is useless or worse than useless. MilesMoney (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For another example of how this ANI is worse than useless, it's been used in an attempt to shut down the BLPN report intended to clear up the issue of whether thinkprogress.org is reliable for quoting Dana's public statements. MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, in slightly less than five months your talk page has seen a 3RR warning, two for AGF, 2 for AN3, six ANI notifications, one article ban per AEGS, two BLP warnings, four for disruptive editing, seven for edit warring, one for removal of maintenance templates, eight NPA notices and at least another six of various types revolving round disruption & talk page issues. They came from about 15 different people and they are only the tip of the iceberg - there are far more comments about your style on individual article talk pages/central forums etc. I know that you are doing a fair amount of stuff in contentious areas but so am I and, believe me, if I had that sort of record from ca. 2500 contributions then I'd be taking a pretty close look at my own behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have diffs for all this stuff, and more, obviously. I could post a table listing the warnings etc up to 7 December if anyone really wanted to see it. In fairness, I should have noted that MM has also received three barnstars, all from the same person. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, Miles. Wrong on all counts. Your conduct IS the issue.

You reverted twice, without discussion, after you were told in edit summaries that there was a BLP problem with the source.[40][41]. You made no attempt at discussion [42] until you were informed in an edit summary that we were coming to ANI [43], then you reverted yet again [44] without correcting the problems with your material. You claim to have reliable sources, so where are they? Had you produced a better source, we wouldn't be here.

The idea that you think this is "being resolved" is laughable.[45] Your sole contributions to resolving the issue is to insist that you are right and to declare that your source (Thinkprogress) is "perfectly reliable" [46]. Roccodrift (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ceasefire. A number of people are eligible for disruption blocks at this point. If you are thinking of saying something abusive, don't. Parties are expected to be on best behavior for ANI discussions.

I also full protected the article for three days.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to respond after this comment, but, frankly, GWH, I disagree that anyone other than MM is being disruptive. This report does not exist in a vacuum, and the catalog of MM's misbehavior is quite lengthy, perhaps more suitable for an RfC/U than a report here, although I came very close to blocking MM based on his latest disruption, both in article space and here. The only thing that stopped me was I don't like to make potentially controversial blocks when I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Roccodrift's above was entering (or starting) mutual abusive conflict. While I don't disagree on root cause, the potential for either side to cross the line is evident to me, so I generalized. I encourage other admins to review for deeper action; I am trying to tamp down the disruption and that is easiest without taking sides. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I could have expounded those diffs with a more dispassionate tone. Roccodrift (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:, this is the third post involving you in the past week. Please try to discuss issues with other users, rather than reverting and insulting them as is described above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, my most recent visit here was to report Rocco for some terrible behavior that, unlike his 3RR violation, fell short of block-worthy. Quite likely, the reason he filed this report here instead of simply going to BLPN is to retaliate. But you knew that already, right? MilesMoney (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Once upon a time, there was an article that accurately quoted Dana's public statement about Islam.
• Rocco removed that section, claiming there was an obvious BLP violation.
• It wasn't obvious to me, so I checked the source and found that it backed up the deleted material. I put it back, explaining that the source is reliable.
• Rocco removed it again, claiming there was "potentially defamatory content".
• This didn't seem true, since nobody has ever doubted that Dana made this statement and Dana's not denying it, either. The truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation. Suggesting that he take it to BLPN/RSN, I restored it.
• Apparently, the idea of taking this issue to a talk page of some sort appealed to Rocco, but he ignored the suggestion of an appropriate venue and instead threatened to take it to ANI while erasing the cited material again.
• Around this time, I took a moment to get back to the open window I had on the talk page to finally submit my new section. I then restored the deleted material one last time, commenting "(yes, please turn yourself in at WP:ANI)", which was an allusion to the fact that Rocco's own behavior was bad, in that he was edit-warring to remove cited material while refusing to discuss it on the talk page or a relevant notification page.
• Rocco removed it again. For those counting, he violated WP:3RR, while I did not. Of course, he can claim a BLP exception, but it's not legitimate because there is absolutely no question about the correctness of the quote.

This is probably why Georgewilliamherbert said that more than one editor could be blocked over this report. MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article's history it's quite clear that Roccodrift breached the WP:3RR while completely ignoring WP:BRD. If Rocco had an issue with the source AN/I is most definitely not the place to air them, WP:RSN is. That said, Rocco has accepted that the information can be reliably sourced so other than a warning as per WP:BOOMERANG I'd say this should be the end of this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is erroneous. I have not accepted that the information can be reliably sourced. Quite the opposite, I have stated that I searched for a source, and none could be found [47]. To reiterate, the reason we are here is not a content dispute; the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has already been article-banned for previous BLP violations.[48] Perhaps we should consider a topic ban regarding all WP:BLP? To honest, I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia and I'd even support a site ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How very bloodthirsty and extreme of you, but did you notice that the material I restored is directly supported by a reliable source? Or that I'm banned from a single article that is not itself a BLP article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A BLP issue can arise in practically any article involving humans, not just ones about living people. I've always though that this edit probably was a fair reflection of your approach to Wikipedia, although you did make it at a particularly frustrating time for you. I think that you perhaps oftensee your participation as an exercise in how far you can go. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and yet there is no legitimate BLP issue on Dana. Rocco has yet to even explain his objection to the reliable source. Does he have one? With Gary, Rocco was mistaken and has retracted his objection.MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You cited an non-reliable source for contentious material regarding a living person. Even worse, you edit-warred to include to include the BLP violation.[49][50][51] What part of that do you not understand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Much like Rocco, you seem unable to support your claim that the source is unreliable. But if it is, then WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss it. As for edit-warring, Rocco clearly violated WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Why is it that you do not hold him to the same standards? MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before. You cannot use non-reliable sources such as an advocacy organization as third-party sources for contentious material about living people. Why are you still doing this? Clearly, the previous BLP sanction wasn't enough. As for Rocco, removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you do me the courtesy of quoting the part of WP:BLP or WP:RS which says that an advocacy organization is not a reliable source here? MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources lists which sources are reliable. But in any case, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It is your job to explain why a source is reliable, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to answer this question but you haven't. There is nothing in either WP:BLP or WP:RSN which supports your claim. I think you need to retract it now, along with your attempt to kill me. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been significant discussions of advocacy at RSN as aquick check at the archives would show. [52]The general discussion is that publications of advocacy orgs are not RS or are reliable only for their own opinions. That is they are (if used at all) treated like op-ed opinion pieces. It is up to the editor who adds the information to show that it is RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What you linked to is selective case law, not policy. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who said this should be decided at RSN? Yes, that was you: [53] Roccodrift (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and there's a WP:BLPN report just waiting to be decided. However, policy does not say what you AQFK wants it to say, and the decision is a matter of discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins note No opinion on the topic. Per WP:INVOLVED, "advice about community norms...do not make an administrator 'involved'", I am addressing a matter of policy only. The policy that AQFK is referring to is WP:IRS: "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution."--v/r - TP 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions...

...were authorized by arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions.

Both accounts seem to meet the definition (at least of late) of WP:SPA on Tea Party issues, albeit in equal and opposite directions.

Any reason *not* to give both the discretionary sanctions warnings / notifications to both Roccodrift and MilesMoney?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either are SPAs, and I wouldn't think SPAing would play into discretionary sanctioning. The issue is, I submit, is more with POV and editor inaction problems. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is an objection (assuming that DS warnings are all you plan to do here)

1. . The article Dana Rohrabacher is not ostensibly related to the Tea Party topic.
2. . Neither account meets the criteria for SPA.
3. . The behavioral issues and issues concerning core content policies (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) will remain unaddressed and are likely to continue in other topic areas.

I understand your reluctance to issue blocks and I think your restraint is commendable, but your proposal amounts to simply kicking the can down the road. Roccodrift (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a Tea Party issue, and it's not even a BLP issue (since there's been no argument made for why the source might be unreliable). The root cause is that Rocco went on a spree of whitewashing this morning, and I reacted to it. That's where it started, and that's what's unresolved to this very moment. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Rohrbacher has been supported by Tea Party groups and spoken at their functions, but does not fit the traditional Tea Party mold (and was a congressman long before the phrase Tea Party had any modern political meaning). Question for UNINVOLVED ADMINS AND EDITORS - is that connection too tenuous to apply the Arbitration case discretionary sanctions, "broadly construed" as they were written? I agree this is not core to the Tea Party, but it seems related, and the editor behavior here is exactly the type of tedentious conflict this was intended for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I see a connection to the Tea Party. It seems tenuous to me. I don't see it as Tea Party article unless all Republican articles are now Tea Party articles. That having been said, this editor seems to have real issues with BLP policy and Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content

Given that this editor has already been sanctioned for BLP violations in the past,[54] and the fact they they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[55][56][57] I propose that MilesMoney be topic-banned from all WP:BLP content, broadly construed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this differ from being banned from Wikipedia? MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, actually.--MONGO 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so it's not a coincidence that each and every person voting to kill me is someone who's tried before to get me indeffed. This is a sham. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could address this, first. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I asked him to quote from WP:BLP or WP:RS to support a rule he apparently invented. He was unable to. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support due to demonstrated lack of comprehension of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and others. Roccodrift (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There was an issue raised on your talk page by someone else that seems relevant. Specifically, could you please confirm whether you are a sockpuppet of User:Belchfire or someone else? MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is extreme and punitive, especially given that I did not violate BLP with Dana or Gary. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per multiple tendentious edits and BLP violations. And looking at this thread, it's clear that he just doesn't get it. Something like this is necessary to prevent further disruptive editing. This edit is a clear example - it's re-adding information that had been challenged. And the edit doesn't even reflect the source - there is nothing there about "generating controversy". The fact that MilesMoney continued to re-revert here makes this a clear case of edit warring. He rightly started a talk page discussion, but then didn't wait for that discussion to be resolved. StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per StAnselm. I just want to point out that I was not even aware of this ANI, but MilesMoney made a nasty comment on my talk page last night and he made a bogus SPI claim against me. So I want to thank MilesMoney for making me aware of this highly appropriate process against him. He constantly engages in BLP violations and he badgers those who even dare to disagree with anything that he does.--NK (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Modified at listing of alternatives (from Support) – noting, of course, that MM and I have had less than a harmonious relationship. I do not think MM really wants to participate in a collaborative fashion. Even as this discussion is underway, MM presents confrontational talk page comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977, MilesMoney has recently told you on your talk page that he would oppose your Admin candidacy for which you are trying to develop support. [58] Under the circumstances, in order for you to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, may I suggest that you recuse yourself from this matter in which a site ban has been mooted for Miles. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I will reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is clearly a problem with MM's behavior and I've advocated sanctions against him before, but this particular sanction is preposterously overbroad and clearly overkill in this particular case, not to mention no sanctions are proposed against the other party who was also guilty of at least editwarring. Is MM hotheaded and contentious and even obnoxious? Yes. But in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article and initiated discussions on the talk page and BLPN. Is the source insufficient for a BLP? Perhaps, but it isn't so obviously unreasonable that it merits sanctions, it means it is a matter of discussion in the very forums he was discussing the issue in. Was he edit warring? Sure, and we already have procedures in place to deal with that behavior. The article is currently locked so there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being. If MM is to become a reasonable editor here, we must not only discourage negative behavior but encourage positive behavior, and this proposed sanction will do little for either. If MM does not continue to engage in discussion in an appropriate manner regarding such articles, I would not be opposed to revisiting the issue of a similar, but more narrowly targeted sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You say there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being, but what about the BLP violations on all the other articles that this editor has made in the last few hours? [59][60] ? StAnselm (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No danger at all. With the first article, I reverted exactly once. With the second, I reverted, then was asked to add a source, so I did. No edit war there. You seem to have undermined your own claims. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria editors of that category have decided on to distinguish between 'far right' and 'ordinary right', but this does not appear to be a prima facie case of a BLP violation but a matter for talk page discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do have sources referring to them as far right, such as http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/latest-news/1220-tommy-robinson-set-to-announce-a-new-far-right-organisation-with-geller-and-spence. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that source is anything approaching a reliable source for a BLP, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue regarding your editing, and it is best if you stay away from BLPs. StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The SPLC and ADL both say they run a hate group. I don't think that acknowledging them as right-wing is exactly a stretch. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And even this is demonstrating your lack of understanding of BLP policy. To make your own jump from "right" to "far right" is completely unacceptable. The reason I am supporting this topic ban is that you don't seem able to appreciate that. StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Try again: The source I gave says far right. MilesMoney (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this source? The fact that you are even posting it here is indicative of BLP-incompetence. StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the source appears to be a poor one, but it appears to be an accurate one as The Guardian concurs. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel. "in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article". If you are referring to the islam edit on Dana Rohrabacher, I will beg to disagree, as WP:BLPN seems to do. The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. Iselilja (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on WP:BLPN, we seem to have come to a consensus for a slightly modified phrasing. If only this issue had gone to BLPN as I first suggested, this circus could have been avoided. MilesMoney (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Having seen MilesMoney in action for several months now, I'd noticed a far better style of communication recently. The aggressive actions of Rocco seem to have prompted a reversion to Miles terse and contentious manner of expression, and here we are. Nevertheless, nothing in this thread warrants the broad sanction proposed here and at most these incidents might justify a 48 hour block for both MilesMoney and Roccodrift. However, as Gamaliel has said, with the article now protected, why not just close this thread and give a warning to both warriors. I suspect that some of Miles' claque of detractors will be disappointed, but what the hell? SPECIFICO talk 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about edit-warring; it's about BLP violations. Here we have a situation with an editor who repeatedly violates BLP. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This isn't about BLP violations, as Rocco accepted my source for Gary Bauer and nobody has yet explained what specific rule opposes my source for Dana. I asked you repeatedly and you keep ducking the question. Why? MilesMoney (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not what might be called true. It's been asserted, but it's now clear that the claim you made is not in either WP:BLP or WP:RS, and is instead your own interpretation of how these issues have been handled in the past. In other words, it's only an opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Of course, it's been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. This is the very definition of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • What's the TLA for repeating a refuted argument and refusing to notice that it's refuted? Is it IDHT? I ask because you're very guilty of this. MilesMoney (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• <ec>Oppose for now If you are going to propose an editing restriction, you need to be extremely clear about what the person has done wrong, complete with diffs. Which exact edits are you claiming are so clearly bad that this restriction is needed? Could you provide a handful of diffs and explain why those diffs are so troubling? And yes, I did read most of the above discussion and chased down some of the diffs. None seemed beyond the pale, but I could have missed quite a bit as I'm not hugely familiar with the topcs/people involved. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Links given by "A Quest For Knowledge" are all to the same incident. And that incident is troubling. First of all the source is a highly-biased one. Secondly, reading the transcript I think one could say he was criticizing radical Islam rather than Islam on the whole (a rather large difference). I'd like to hear MilesMoney acknowledge they were wrong to add the material due to sourcing problems and doubly wrong to edit war over it. I'm not in favor of topic banning people over one thing (and yes, other things were listed above, but none I found overly troubling among those I looked at), but if he can't understand and acknowledge the problem he can't be editing BLPs. Mainstream reliable sources are needed for claims like this. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  I freely admit that I should not have edit-warred against him, regardless of the merits of the version I supported. Instead, I should have done what I did with Gary Bauer, which was to find a source that could not be criticized. With the Dana issue, I suggested early on that it should be resolved at BLPN, and it looks like it now is. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  Do you understand A) that the source wasn't one we should be adding a controversial claim with and B) that in the original document he cites "radical Islam" rather than Islam in that quote? Hobit (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agreed on BLPN that the "radical" must be mentioned, in order to quote fairly. As for the source, there is a consensus that it's ok to use a reliable but partisan secondary source so long as we also directly include the primary. I'm likewise ok with that. Ultimately, I'm willing to go along with BLPN on this matter. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Extreme punishment, spearheaded by users who have a vendetta against Miles. People can rightly chide Miles for his past remarks to other users (though he has dramatically improved in this regard). But his substantive contributions to articles have generally been rooted in arguable interpretations of policy. Even if you think he is engaged in TE (which I don't), the burden of proof for such a draconian measure is massive, and is not met by OP (who doesn't even provide diffs). Steeletrap (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Steeletrap. Where are the diffs? We don't ban people without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, these last two editors claiming there are no diffs haven't read the original report. Roccodrift (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Here are the diffs. Here's where they were previously banned[61] and here's where they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[62][63][64] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I lean against this solution, but this editor's actions at this ANI show either distressing lack of competence, lack of understanding of RS, and/or a bad case of IDONTHEARYOU. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, per Gamaliel. This seems to be a case of retaliation, failure to AGF, and escalation=disruption, especially when a more collaborative approach could have solved the whole problem very peacefully. According to Roccodrift: "the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)" The edit in question was the same (ergo identical) content, with the citation in quotes. By failing to AGF, Roccodrift was essentially saying that MilesMoney was fabricating the quote. An AGF and collaborative approach would have stated: "Per BRD, let's discuss while you find a better source, preferably the original." That should have settled the matter. I haven't examined the diffs, but BRD would usually be sufficient to force the discussion to the talk page while the question of the reliability of the source could be discussed. Since ThinkProgress was being used as a secondary source of an actual quote, not just their opinion, its use would usually be justified if it was accompanied with the primary source. Whatever the case, this demand is total overkill.
  Roccodrift, try to AGF next time and not escalate this to a battlefield by bringing it here, when the talk page should have sufficed. That's disruptive and wasting all our time. You should to be on trial here for disruptive misuse of this noticeboard. Let's call it even and hope you both learn a lesson.
  MilesMoney, it's really not a good idea to delete comments on your own talk page (until you archive it later, after the dust has settled), or to stop discussion there, unless you clearly leave a message (undeleted) that the discussion is to be continued on the article's talk page. Deletion of comments is really an uncollaborative slap in the face and doesn't create goodwill. (In fact, the worse the comments, the more grounds to keep them visible... ) We should try to get along with adversaries, not offend them even more. I hope that helps to defuse things in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I concede that deleting comments from my talk page is usually a bad idea. That's why I recently switched to archiving. The last comment I deleted was from Rocco, a few days ago, and there were a couple of reasons why I did it. First, he has been asked not to post on my talk page. Second, as I explained in my pre-deletion response, his template was illegitimate. If he wants to discuss articles with me, he can use the article talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, although I'm not sure I would necessarily support a site ban at this point. There really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, but WP:IDHT is an understatement when it comes to Miles' behavior.

Actually, on second thought, support a site ban. I just realized that Miles was topic-banned for this very same thing barely a month ago, and now s/he's back to his same old routine, so it's clear that s/he just doesn't get it and that s/he is not here for the good of Wikipedia. (Maybe his/her theories would work better on his/her own wiki or something.)

Side note: @Steeletrap, I don't really see this proposal as being spearheaded by users with a vendetta against Miles; in fact, the person who proposed this is A Quest For Knowledge, and s/he appears to be an uninvolved party. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A few quick things:

1) "Miles" is a typically male name, so you should use male pronouns.

2) AQFK is not involved in this particular incident, but they've bumped heads with me before and are nowhere near neutral. I wouldn't use the word "vendetta", if only because of WP:AGF, but they're on the short list of editors who can be counted on reliably to support any attempt to get me blocked, banned or otherwise harmed.

3) If there were an actual BLP issue, it could have been resolved on the article talk page, BLPN or RSN. It was brought here because ANI is where you make a report that others can pile onto and turn into a lynching.

4) Did you notice that you endorsed a site ban when "only" a BLP ban was requested. Think about what that means. MilesMoney (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you opened the can of worms yourself about a possible site ban. And after all this, you still don't seem to think that you did anything wrong (btw, I didn't assume you were male because your userpage doesn't state your gender). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I simply pointed out that such a punitive, overbroad topic ban would be tantamount to a site ban. You're the one who cheered that one. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support, based on a wider concern for MilesMoney’s behavior at Wikipedia.

• The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading based on my reading of sources and indicated at WP:BLPN; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. MilesMoney still alleges he had the right to include this edit despite BLP worries without waiting for talk page consensus. This is in line with the problematic thinking I have also previously [seen] (Temporary removal of BLP material) by MM.
• Regarding the general Roccodrift/MilesMoney conflict, I can’t help but feel that those two editors to a certain degree deserve each other. I am most familiar with MilesMoney, and I think the underlying problem with that user is the utter contempt they have for other Wikipedians and for Wikipedia as a whole. This is clearly laid out in their so-called post-mortem note of 28 October 2013, in which we are informed that

• They came to Wikipedia having heard that Wikipedia now mostly consisted of “crazed and inbreds”, so they wanted to see with his own eyes
• What they found was that Wikipedia is “a hostile environment controlled by incompetents and sociopaths”
• Furthermore “There is a War on Vandalism here that's as artificial and endless as the War on Drugs or War on Terrorism, and which has likewise become a way to channel paranoia and bigotry”
• And further ”Wikipedia is not merely as corrupt as a banana republic, it is a failed state akin to Somalia. It is not in decline; it has fallen.”
• They conclude “Try as I might, I can only muster up pity and disgust for the otakus trapped in this web”

• At their time at Wikipedia, they have practically only involved themselves in contentious articles and debates. Less than 20% of their edits are to articles (of which several are reverts/controversial edits; he has been at 4RR at least twice, 1,2); the rest is mostly discussion at various talk pages, ANI etc. The first article, they heavily invested themselves in, Ayn Rand, came under discretionary sanctions; they then dedicated themselves more to the Ludvig von der Mises institute, resulting in them being topic banned from the article.
• There is also other kind of erratic behavior, for instance when MilesMoney was investigated as a possible sockuppet of Still Standing, they responded by filing frivolous SPIs against Srich and Orlady.3
• The combination of hyperbole language (as demonstrated above), contempt for other users and strong preferences for conflict stuff including sensitive BLPs, makes MilesMoney a very problematic user to have at Wikipedia. Even their userpage cries of a massive battleground mentality.
• I am surprised that MilesMoney hasn’t already been sitebanned based on a NotHere and Massive Battleground mentality. The “post mortem” note seems to indicate that they are quite surprised as well "that's 104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate"
• Iselilja (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, it's impossible to libel someone by quoting their public statements, so that's a red herring. Likewise, we all know that the sock accusations are false, so bringing them up now is just an attempt to smear me. Anyhow, you've repeatedly supported getting rid of me, so this is to be expected. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Iselilja for doing that interesting summary. He hasn't annoyed me as much as some other editors because he's so obviously got a crash and burn psychology that's almost amusing. I wasn't aware of the frivolous SPIs and that, on top of everything else, really is problematic. It's obvious a good RfC/U is needed to just lay out all these behaviors. I'll keep my eyes open, but see reply on my question on canvassing below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose A 1RR restriction or sanction that is he is reverted he needs to gain consensus before he can revert the same content again would be fairer. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly per Gamaliel --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• oppose sorry, but this looks like a case of revenge against MM by editors who don't want to deal with him. He already has shown signs of improvement in discussion versus in the past. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support It appears that MM needs a temporary cooling off period, not a prolonged ban. BLP concerns are very important. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. I think MilesMoney should be indeffed now...it's pretty obvious were dealing with prior banned editor anyway.--MONGO 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me for my own behavior, that's unfortunate but allowed. Lying about me is not; I've been cleared of all sock accusations. MilesMoney (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.--MONGO 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• oppose at lest on the basis of the Rohrabacher dispute. A quick look at the Wash. Post profile on him shows he has a tendency to make quotable and outrage-generating statements. As far as the Islam quote is concerned, there's no real basis for disputing that he said it, and he has something of a record of similar comments. The response to the insertion has not been anything remotely resembling consensus-building; instead, it quickly turned into a campaign to chuck MM out of access to the article. MM needs to work more collaboratively himself, but his opponents look to me to taking an WP:OWNERSHIP approach to the articles in question; the questioning of the reliability of the quote is patently not in good faith. I have more issues with MM's application of categories, but I must also say that some of the categories in question invite abuse. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Should have happened long ago and his ban on Libertarian articles should not have been limited to LVM only. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, sanction is too far-reaching for the evidence given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support When he isn't putting negative and biased and sometimes inaccurate content with poor sourcing into BLP articles, he's supporting keeping in equally bad content from other biased editors. Topic ban on libertarianism also would be warranted. (See WP:RSN discussions where he's defended blog entries and other poor sourcing, after talk page discussions did not convince him and others of that poor sourcing: Gene Callahn blog; Callahan again; Matt Bruenig.) And I would not fight a site ban. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Several postes in the above discussion sugest that biased or advocavy sources should not be used, and that MM should be sanctioned for inserting them. Please note that [[WP:RS}} says (in part): "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Also this is too broad a santion on too little evidence, in my view. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was no BLP violation. FYI, here is my proposal for the article: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[65] Newsmax is a WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly suspect that the right wing editors participating in this ownership witchhunt wouldn't object to using Newsmax, even though it is on a par with Fox News as a right wing partisan source, yet they have objected to using ThinkProgress. Both are partisan sources, and if backed up with the primary source, would be appropriate. A polite BRD request for the primary source could have prevented all this waste of time. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: is the issue specifically BLPs or political BLPs/articles? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "Broadly construed," specially used this way, ir more damaging than problem-solving. I'd recommend a more narrower sanction that actually touches the issue from the inside, not from the outside. I recognize that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but this is not the way. Maybe another proposal? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Hahc21: What would you suggest? A 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Whether general 1RR or some other sanction for Miles would be helpful or not, I don't think proposing it here will be of much value. The better venue would be WP:RFC/U, where editors could bring forth evidence and proposals in a calm and orderly way, not the quick-reaction approach of ANI. The urgency to do something now now now isn't clear enough to gain consensus here, nor is this a productive venue for slow deliberation and weighing of numerous options. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• @A Quest For Knowledge: RL0919's proposal is good. I think that opening an RfC/U and working this issue there is way better than doing it at ANI. If the problem still persists, and the RfC/U solves nothing, well, we still have Arbitration as our last resort. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree about this being the wrong venue, but not entirely the subject, although some type of warning would be appropriate.
  Considering the growing appropriateness of a "snowball clause" closure in favor of MilesMoney, possibly an indef for Roccodrift (see the current SPI), and warnings for AQFK (for raising this disruptive farce in an inappropriate venue) and right wing editors like Arzel (who pretty much owns Koch brother/Tea Party related articles to the degree that many dare not edit them), I think we need to reconsider this whole matter in light of these findings. MilesMoney does indeed have issues, but they are not as serious as pictured above, and can be dealt with without using noticeboards. The accusers have far greater issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have stricken the part about AQFK, as he only started this proposal, not the whole mess. My apologies. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• RL0919's proposed 1RR restriction is a better idea than a BLP topic ban, for a number of reasons. For one thing, it leaves no room at all for misinterpretation or game-playing. Roccodrift (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I'm not the one who proposed that; I referred to it in response to someone else's proposal. I proposed taking the concerns about his editing to WP:RFC/U for a more comprehensive and less time-pressured discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And I assume it's OK to notify everyone who participated in this one or the last one? I've generally been unclear on that issue for future reference. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The general rule at WP:CANVASS is that it is OK to notify editors who participated in previous discussions, as long as the notification itself is appropriate (neutrally worded, etc.) and you notify fairly (notify everyone who participated in, say, the last two ANIs, not just those who supported a specific position). --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gamaliel. The contentious material about a politician making certain statements was poorly supported by a reference to Think Progress, but there was no question whether the politician actually said these things; he is clearly seen on C-SPAN 3 (US Government TV) making these statements. MilesMoney likes to revert, bully and argue but this case is not the one which will prove he must be sanctioned. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. So we have one or two uninvolved editors who support a ban, and then we have about 10 editors who support a ban and who are all involved in fighting MilesMoney on various political articles. I don't think that this is the way that the process is supposed to work. I suggest that the closing admin disregard the !votes of the editors who are currently involved in an editing dispute with MilesMoney. — goethean 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Good faith content disputes and interpretations of gray areas of policies should never result in editors being banned from such a large class of articles. We should remember that reasonable editors can disagree on how policies are applied, especially WP:BLP. In this case, the direct quotes by Rohrabacher were easily verifiable. The categories kerfuffle has bad actors on both sides of the dispute and in no way justifies a BLP ban. - MrX 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support This discussion was introduced poorly. ThinkProgress is a reliable source and the fact that it is partisan does not detract from that. Furthermore, it backs up its story with reliable primary stories. However, MilesMoney misrepresents that source by saying the subject " generated controversy."[66] The source merely repeats by he said and does not report the effect his words had.[67] This is part of a wider problem, a persistent insertion of negative information in articles about right-wing U.S. politicians, regardless of the notice they have received in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The original allegation is that ThinkProgress was not a reliable source for the quote so I was committing a BLP violation, or even defamation (somehow). You seem to be disagreeing strongly with that and instead arguing something much milder; that we shouldn't have said it "generated controversy". We can discuss this, of course, but it seems to me that you're effectively admitting that Rocco did not have any excuse for edit-warring, much less violating 3RR. Yet you seem to be endorsing a broad, permanent ban on the basis of a minor disagreement over the precise balance between positive and negative material, which is something reasonable people can differ on. So, all in all, I'm kind of confused by the contrast between your moderate view of the issue and your support for draconian measures. Am I misunderstanding? MilesMoney (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• MrX, The Four Deuces and other editors who have defended the reliability of Thinkprogress might want to look in on the discussion currently ongoing at BLPN [68], where it has emerged that Thinkprogress did, in fact, misrepresent Rohrabacher's remarks. Roccodrift (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please look, because what Rocco said is unambiguously false. TP had the quote in context. The editor who wrote that section of the article did not include enough of that context, so we all agreed to add it back, particularly with the inclusion of the modifier "radical" in front of "Islam". It concerns me that Rocco is making a statement that is so obviously false and so easily disproved. Perhaps he expects everyone to take him at his word without checking. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles is right; I stand corrected. Without allowing anything new about the reliability of TP, in this instance it was actually a previous editor who misrepresented the quote. That said, it should be noted that Miles reverted the content back into the article (more than once) after it was challenged, without verifying its integrity. Thus, there was in fact a BLP problem, and Miles owns it by adoption. Oh, and by the way... obviously I expected everybody to take me at my word without checking, which is why I provided a link. (Sheesh.) OK, back to your usually scheduled drama. Roccodrift (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:I believe that you are a bit confused. The BLP/N discussion states that this was "a very clear BLP violation. I don't think anyone who's commented here about Rohrabacher believes it's okay to distort what he says. The best way to avoid this sort of thing is to avoid partisan or unreliable sources like Think Progress, Redstate, Daily Kos, Instapundit, et cetera"[69] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your summary of BLPN is not correct. One editor did think that omitting the "radical" was a BLP violation, but that was the same editor who incorrectly claimed that partisan sources are automatically unreliable (directly contradicting WP:RS), so I think we should accept that as an exaggeration. There was no consensus in support of this view, and we didn't dote on it because it didn't matter.

I never objected to including "radical" and that was never the issue when Rocco edit-warred to keep the whole quote out: he claimed that any use of TP as a secondary source was an obvious (to him alone) BLP violation. Rocco, like that other editor on BLPN, was wrong about policy. Keep in mind that, while it's probably true that Dana meant radical Islam, not Islam in general, that's not obvious because he was inconsistent about using that adjective. We're adding the adjective because we want to be particularly careful not to misquote him. MilesMoney (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I think you should stop now. You have made your WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney:Aside from yourself, in the BPL/N discussion, I count 4 editors who say that it was a BLP violation[70][71][72][73] and zero who say it wasn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, you are making false statements. Please stop. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: Which part is false? I provided diffs so anyone can easily verify everything for themselves.[74][75][76][77] So which part is false? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

These diffs do not say what you would like them to.

• MONGO's shows him saying, "Beware of any editor that argues in favor of adding minor but highly negative information to any BLP no matter how well sourced it is." It's unclear how you translated that into an accusation of BLP violation.
• TFD's shows him disagreeing with the need for "radical" and instead concerned about "controversy", but he doesn't say there's a BLP violation.
• AYW, as mentioned above, actually did claim that it was a BLP violation to omit "radical", but this argument never came up during Rocco's edit war (remember: he argued that TP was unreliable) and TFD disagrees with it.
• Rocco probably thinks there's a BLP violation, but what he said was confused. First, he falsely accuses QG of admitting that there was a BLP violation. Then, he retracts his original complaint about TP as a source and agrees with AYW that it's ok so long as we mention "radical".

So that's one, maybe two, out of the four claimed. In contrast, as far as I can tell, TFD, QG, Mangoe, and MONGO (no relation) all commented on the BLPN without claiming there was a BLP violation, as did I. In other words, 2 out of 7 claim it's a BLP violation. I'm going to have to say that this does not represent a consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ThinkProgress accurately reported what the congressman said. His statement is reported by them in full and supported by a C-span tape. It could be of course that he did not mean what he said and was not referring to the religion of Islam, but to radical Islam, which btw is not a religion. If there had been a "controversy" about his remarks then of course we would be able provide various views on what he meant.

The problem is not with the source but with the edit. It claims that the statement has raised controversy when in fact it has been ignored. And until it raises controversy, it does not belong in the article.

TFD (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not that it ever came up until now, but I'd be fine removing "raised controversy" and keeping it purely as an accurate quote showing his views on (radical) Islam. MilesMoney (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's simply not true that this hasn't come up until now. Look, it's great that you're willing to discuss these things, but it would have saved all of us a lot of trouble if we could have had this discussion on the article talk page. I appreciate that you started the thread there, but your edit warring put a dampener on the conversation. StAnselm (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see that complaint on either the article talk page or BLPN. Regardless, I have no problem removing the "controversy" stuff. Now onto the meat:

While I didn't violate 3RR like Rocco did, I freely admit that I should not have allowed him to bait me into edit-warring back. In my defense, I also brought the issue up on the talk page and on BLPN (twice!), while suggesting RSN as another possible venue. I did not want it to come here and should never have been taken here.

There have been two concrete complaints brought up since the page was frozen (the other being "radical") and I was fine with both of them. Rocco's original complaint about the source being unreliable because it's partisan has been rejected and he's backed off on it, especially after the suggestion of the compromise of including the primary source.

The fact that this has been escalated into yet another attempt to (effectively or explicitly) site-ban me says more about the social dynamics of ANI that it does about a simple dispute that, if not for this escalation, would have been resolved on BLPN hours ago. The fact that you support this makes me wonder why you're out for blood. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, honestly this is a ridiculous proposal. If anything, Roccodrift should be sanctioned for breaching WP:3RR. Gaba ^(talk) 00:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I'm following these comments, it looks like editors are supporting or opposing the BLP ban. But there are alternatives that are getting lost in the thread. So my dirty dozen listing of suggestions includes:

1. Give MilesMoney a job at the WikiPedia foundation, corner office next to Jimbo's.
2. Elect MilesMoney as an administrator or other high level guardian.
3. Bestow Barnstar(s).
4. Bestow WikiLove.
5. Do nothing/drop the whole matter.
6. Take to WP:RFC/U.
7. Issue an official admin notice or admonition.
8. Issue an official admin warning or reprimand. Y
9. Block for a certain period of time, say 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month, or 104 days.
10. Issue a topic ban(s), say, for any biography, or BLP, or topic area, or particular articles.
11. Block indef.
12. Block indef and release MilesMoney's IP address, email address, home address, etc.
13. Block indef, release data, and post the whole story in various WikiProject newsletters, DYKs, and as part of WP's fundraising campaign.

Of course those at the top and bottom of the list are included for humor, but those in the middle have viability. I'm marking my favorite with {{aye}} Y. – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 - For what is it that you wish to admonish @MilesMoney:? Do you also wish to admonish any of the other editors whose behavior has been discussed here? If you are changing your view, from the one you earlier expressed above, please strike the previous statement now revised. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have a problem with MM's editing/style generally. I see no point to a topic ban with respect to BLP articles in particular, and based on the recent issues with the BLPs, I wouldn't support such a ban, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Note I find it ironic that during the discussion about being banned from BLP articles Miles would return one of the more inflammatory BLP rants I have seen in some time (read the last paragraph). I suppose he could be forgiven for obviously not even reading what he added back into the article, but that he would do that is quite distressing. Arzel (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the material MM added. Upon reading I posted the following on Talk:Fox News Channel#Removal of criticism: "Actually, the material added is appalling. I looked at just one citation – Sylvester Brown, Jr.'s blog – full of SPS & BLP problems." MM's edit summary, in adding the improper material, said "bold edit to encourage discussion". Sorry, MM, it purely a WP:POINTy edit. In fact, one of the worst I've seen. I'm moving my {{aye}} as a result. – S. Rich (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just chatting with AdjWilley about the value of sticking to 1RR, and this demonstrates it. I reverted precisely once on the Fox article. As a result, I got to hear three mutually incompatible theories for why the criticism must never be restored. When I reverted Scott Rasmussen precisely once, it led to the rescue of an entire section, although it's still a work in progress. BRD works!

I'm kind of wondering why the two of you are dredging this up, though. Are you looking for some basis upon which to demand a site ban? Or are you trying to do something productive? If it's the latter, I would suggest that you might want to try the talk pages of these two articles. MilesMoney (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I brought it up because it is PAINFULLY clear that you did not read what you put back into the article. I suggest you go back and look at the article in your version. You will see that there are two controversy sections, where 75% of the material is exactly the same. If you would have looked at it you would have seen your error immediately. The fact that you did not simply shows you were out to make a WP:POINT and continue your habit of WP:TE. Why so many would defend a clear trouble maker like you...I have no idea. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

:I just thought of something...is this entire thread just a continuation of this thread? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is exactly the kind of content dispute that should not spill over into ANI, especially when brought here by involved users. Also, Fox News Channel is not a BLP. - MrX 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere. Calling Bill O'Reilly a Whitesupremacist qualifies as a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be a BLP violation if anyone had actually called O'Reilly a white supremacist or if the claim were unattributed. What was actually written is "The Anti-Defamation League has named Bill O'Reilly as one of the "parrotters" of white supremacist and domestic terrorist viewpoints, and of helping to bring these hateful ideologies into the mainstream white American culture." The ADL has been deemed a reliable source, at least for their views. According to experienced users like Collect "Websites of known organizations can certainly be used as cites for official positions and opinions of the organizations.". Affirmed by Jayjg who adds "The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism, and has been one for almost a hundred years,...". While I vehemently disagree with the edit on the basis of quality and WP:DUE weight, I don't see it as an "inflammatory BLP rant[s]". - MrX 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with dragging content disputes here is that they tend to be distorted into false accusations, such as the one that Arzel just made. Knowingly making false accusations on ANI is serious business. I'm not going to ask for a block right now, but I'm taking note of the incident. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a note of your WP:TE and I will simply note that you stated that you made the edits to make a [[[WP:POINT]]. Stop using WP to be disruptive and you won't find yourself in these situations. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it's time to close this report as WP:SNOW against sanctions. Otherwise, editors will simply drag their unrelated disputes here or otherwise pile on. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As it is not "snowing", and there appears to be considerable material for you to glean about your behavioural problems here, I rather think asking for a section about yourself to be "closed" may indicate a touch of Hubris. I would commend to carefully consider the criticisms lest they be repeated on more noticeboards in the future. WRT the ADL position, a lot depends on whether it is the opinion of an individual, or of the organisation per se, and should be carefully described as an opinion in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I proposed a "snowball clause" closure in favor of MilesMoney some time ago. Since we agree that this is the wrong venue, and that the discussions here are degenerating and unconstructive, we really should close this. There's nothing more to do here. This just creates more heat than light.

Let the closing admin decide what type of warning or reprimand to give MilesMoney and Roccodrift, as they both need it. In Roccodrift's case, it may be a last warning before the boot at the indef door hits them if the Belchfire SPI goes against them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Going to ArbCom. While this is going on, MilesMoney has recently in Wikipedipa's voice accused almost all public figures at Fox News of racism, anti-Semitism and hate speech; writing among other things: "While the ADL focuses on B 's hate speech, nearly every Fox News commentator has been recorded forwarding these and other racially inflammatory ideologies, including but not limited to: M, A, B, H, M, I, G, S, I, F, P, C, G, and B." This is out of control and I am going to file an ArbCom case specifically against MilesMoney (not Austrian Economy) which will take a few days, and maybe longer since it's Christmas. Iselilja (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There is an entire article in Wikipedia's voice on Fox News Channel controversies. The main article can have a WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It does. MM's edit bizarrely replicated most of the section that was already there, and added a long rant-like section at the end accusing Fox of racism. To be fair, I see no reference to accusations of anti-Semitism, only to comments by some Jewish figures calling for tolerance. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru Can you give me one or more sentences where Fox journalists are referred to as promoting racism or similar in Wikipedia's voice? Give the whole sentences, so I can evalutate them. (Barlow: Struck the anti-Semitism). Iselilja (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja, ArbCom is total overkill. It would be disruptive to bypass other processes, like the article's talk page, where things are being dealt with. MM seems to have simply restored content which had just been deleted. A dumb move to not notice that most of it was a duplication? Indeed, but we don't take people to ArbCom for that. Even if there was a clear BLP issue (maybe), we still don't do it for that. We deal directly at the talk page, not even at noticeboards. The content just needs tweaking, since accusations against Fox for racism and racebaiting are nothing new, especially with Megyn Kelly's recent claim that Jesus was a white man. Keep in mind some of the wealthy backers of Fox are members and/or sympathizers of the John Birch Society and Ku Klux Klan, so such accusations shouldn't surprise you. Calm down og drik lidt varm glogg. Det er fandens koldt derude! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on User:Iselilja’s talk page [Later note: before this section was reopened], RfC/User would be more appropriate. But just a reminder, perhaps editors don’t realize that MilesMoney was banned from this [following} article after this WP:ANI: WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute. It was also a matter of broad charges of racism, etc. in an institutional article that negatively tarnished individuals. Of course, he wasn’t the only person engaging in the behavior he was banned for, but the admin saw it as a compromise with so many people asking for much more major bans. Obviously he does rub more people the wrong way which is what gets him in trouble. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Iselilja, I could not find the specific information in the controversy article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Its not clear to me that thats a BLP. If anything, we should make clearer what constitutes a BLP on the policy page Pass a Method talk 21:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy is clear -- any claim in any article or on any page referring to a living person is subject to the policy WP:BLP. I.e. any such claim must require strong sourcing if it is contentious at all. Calling a person a "racist" is, in fact, contentious. In all spaces, and including all talk pages etc. as well. If the sentence refers to a living person, it must abide by that policy. From what has been written above, it is abundantly clear that the policy applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

A thirteenth alternative course of action for this situation has been added above. Editors are welcome to add their Y ({{aye}}) to the choice they think is best as a means of totalizing surveying the views. – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 - This is not a vote. Please. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is not. Most editors on this page know this full well. And the closer of this thread will certainly be aware of this guideline. I do not want to suggest that the decision be made by counting noses. (So I've modified my statement.) Rather, I think we have more alternatives available than that one suggested in the subsection heading. So the listing is a means of laying them out. It remains to be seen who casts their !vote. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see your correction, Srich. Would you now also answer the question I asked when you originally posted that list: What action would you take with respect to any of the other editors whose behavior has been discussed here in this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 10:17 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I'll reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gamaliel. Far too punitive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• The biggest problem is the tendency to revert edits removing material on BLP grounds, rather than seeking consensus first. This is contrary to the BLP policy: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." If MilesMoney were to undertake not do to that in future, it would go a long way to addressing the concerns, and I ask him whether he would be prepared to give such an undertaking. Neljack (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent analysis and proposal. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be a content battle on one front disguised as a personal battle on many fronts disguised as an AN/I on one front. As there will clearly be no consensus in support of such a draconian ban, I would suggest that AQFN withdraw the suggestion and find a new path forward. Frizzmaz (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a what? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • A content battle about the relative merit or lack of same of the Austrian School that has turned into a nasty, bitter, personal bun fight, which has then turned into this AN/I notice. There are people on both sides who would do themselves an enormous favor by voluntarily stepping away from the topic for a month or so, rather than using every opportunity to ratchet up the WP:DRAMA. Frizzmaz (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I see where you're coming from, but IMO, if anyone shouldn't be involved, it should be MilesMoney (and to a lesser extent, Roccodrift). Everyone on both sides aren't trying to cause drama with respect to the subject; I, for instance, not only have no connection to any of the subjects in question, but I never even heard of any of them before this thread. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it started out nasty and personal with new editors soapboxing about what a bunch of frauds certain Austrian economists and libertarians were and statingcurrent Wiki editors who disliked their edits were like cultish followers. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing they engage in tendentious editing of an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. MilesMoney joined the crew in a couple months on. It's these behaviors that have angered editors, not so much that it has become personal. They keep yelling it is personal to muddy the waters of what remains primarily a content dispute. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not interested in getting entangled in the WP:DRAMA, other than to note that it this point it is ridiculously out of proportion, and driven by those who should know better. Frizzmaz (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Jeppiz

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

---

I've been meaning to do this earlier, but I got caught up in other things. This user has engaged in POV pushing on Ashkenazi Jews. When I tried to rectify this (see this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&diff=586222880&oldid=586221924), he accused me of disruptive editing and POV pushing. The problem here is threefold. One, the passage "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the genetic study cited. So either he's being lazy, or he's deliberately manipulating the source. His immediate and aggressive reaction to my reverting him would indicate the latter. Two, he padded the study out with links to news articles and journals which report on the same study, which is superfluous and arguably a violation of WP:UNDUE. And the fact that there was only one actual genetic study cited in that passage makes the claim "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" even more erroneous. Instead of discussing this rationally, he became accusatory and is now trying to have me topic banned. I am hopeful that this dispute may be resolved peacefully.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Speedy close. This discussion is already taking place here; we don't need two discussions about the same thing (but frankly, both of you need to take a time out). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, this topic is an obvious revenge. I came to WP:ANI [78] to point out that Evildoer187, a repeatedly blocked and topic banned user, is causing disruptions everywhere he goes. This is the revenge.
• Second, what he calls "POV-pushing" is attempt to reflect both sides in a thorny issue, the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Some scientists say the Levantine, others Europe. To reflect this, I wrote " Scientific studies differ on their origins, with some DNA tests suggesting an origin in the Israelite tribes of the Middle East, Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin." Several scientific sources were provided for both claims. How on earth is this "POV pushing"? Several other users agreed with my edit on the talk page.
• Third, Evildoer187's response was to delete the second half, leaving only the reference to the Levantine. Who is POV pushing?
• Fourth, Evildoer187 claims my sentence "Some DNA tests suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are mainly of European origin" is not supported by the sources. I quote from Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world and one of the sources I used "A detailed look at thousands of genomes finds that Ashkenazim ultimately came not from the Middle East, but from Western Europe."
• Five, my "padding out" is normal Wikipedia practice. Using secondary sources is welcomed at Wikipedia. Sources I used included Nature, Science, BBC News and NBC News, all of which satisfy WP:RS.
• Sixth, and the only correct aspect. Yes, I do think Evildoer187 should be topic banned. He is a highly disruptive user who is here for the WP:TRUTH. His edit history is revealing. I am almost glad he started this retaliatory thread with all the unfounded accusations just to get back at me. This shows exactly what kind of user he is. So yes, I repeat my call that Evildoer187 should be topic banned from all articles related to Judaism and the Jewish people. His whole history on Wikipedia shows that he cannot edit these topics without causing a great deal of disruption and conflicts.Jeppiz (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

CensoredScribe

Could I have some more eyes on CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? I am worried about competence, but would like some third opinions on whether he's an actual problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just going by what's on the user talk page, I see a track record of running into issues with WP:MEDRS, but it doesn't look like it's been an issue lately. I also see a number of notices from BracketBot and DPL bot recently. Finally, briefly skimming CensoredScribe's contribs, I see a lot of recent activity, some of it arguable (e.g., WP:NOTNEWS issues: [79], [80], [81]), but I don't think it's anything obviously bad. Without diffs or a better hint of what you're seeing, GWH, it's a bit hard to evaluate this more. I think it might be too soon for ANI. Also, CensoredScribe has now been notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor is inexperienced but enthusiastic. The balance of these two things is a net positive, though there are opportunities for improvement. I see MEDRS as a problem to which editors like him are the solution, rather than the other way around. This is something to address by talk page discussion, not ANI. To be clear, I think that the encyclopedia is much better off when it references exciting, important new developments in science rather than leaves them out, even if occasionally (as with the second diff above) they should be a little more cautiously worded. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've had this editor on my radar for a few months now and they're a bit of an odd duck...maybe more than a bit.  (I don't mean WP:DUCK but duck). Their meandering blog-like edits to their User page make for interesting reading indeed... the edits are usually made in response to some article edit of theirs that got reverted. Their article edits are bizarre to say the least, just browse through them. Sources are often cited but are only sometimes WP:RS sources and the content added almost never meets WP:DUEWEIGHT, they're often some weird bit of trivia needing a revert per WP:NOTNEWS. I can't say that on the whole this editor is a net-positive although I can't say this editor is outright disruptive either. What does Wikipedia do with an editor like this? Zad68 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good feedback. Will use normal talk-with-editor process, that's generally more preferable to admin actions anyways. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Add this to the head-scratching column: [82]; I reverted and gave a warning for vandalism. JNW (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Smauritius disruption.

We are currently having issues with a single editor at Shraddha Kapoor. Issues have been ongoing for quite some time, they include sockpuppetry [[83]] which was used to pass this article to Good Article Status, and overall WP:OWN issues. Several Editors have attempted to discuss this at length on the article talkpage and the editors talkpage but we are having problems with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviors. Examples of this is [[84]]. Also edits like [[85]] saying an article with 10 categories has no categories makes me think we are dealing with an editor who just doesn't get it. I have notified the other editors, I've also asked for pending changes protections so the article changes propsed myst be reviewed by a reviewer to at least try and make this a decent article, at this point maybe a block should be issued but at the very least we could use more editors to watchlist this page. I am notifying the others involved. The sourcing needs to be checked source by source as well because some of the claims being made are not in the sources at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've declined the protection request because I don't intend to apply pending changes level 2 against the community consensus unless a local consensus here believes it's necessary. However, since it's one user, protection isn't ideal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • On a side note would you mind pointing me to that consensus? I would like to review it so I am not wasting time in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries, this RfC and this RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Smauritius for 3 days for edit warring and disruptive editing. But given the disruption to the article (including through CU proven sockpuppetry) I'd be in favour of an article ban from Shraddha Kapoor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally think a topic ban may be unnec at this point..maybe just give him WP:ROPE see how they respond. It may not be needed if they get the point..if not then I would support it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that they take the time during this block to re-evaluate their position and come back with a new appreciation for collaboration. A ban might be jumping the gun. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let's see how they react after the block gets expired. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I dropped by the article and reverted and warned Smauritius over some rather pointless but disruptive edits. I'm inclined to think that WP:COMPETENCE might apply rather than anything else. That does not mean that all is lost, and serious proactive mentoring may do the trick. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• This may or may not be related to the topic, but I find it unusual that the article was delisted as a good article less than a day after promotion. Does it have to do with this users disruption? Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius The good article status was awarded by this users sockpuppet [[86]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thx. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From the sock farm that brought you List of Jewish American fraudsters I present

List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. And, perhaps for a precedent, List of American fraudsters of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For both of these new ones we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent but I'm probably going to delete at least the Jewish descent one shortly as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD as well as a creation by a blocked editor after lunch. Some of the background is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters and the earlier ANI discussion[87]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, someone beat me to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.1.214.45 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is getting funny. Should those be revdel'd or something? Ansh666 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked and posts revdeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuous legal threats and promotion by User talk:Bigsundayowner

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

---

SPA to make legal threats and insert promotion on Big Sunday. Left a threat at my talk. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that personal attack from your talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just reported the user to WP:UAA but per edit, they should be indef'd asap. Blackmane (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I just blocked. Considering the promotional edits, the organizational username, and the past warnings for legal threats, I saw no reason to stop short of an indef. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

Nickst keep depopulating Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain and Category:International winter sports competitions hosted in Spain outside of process and doesn't stop it, even after it was pointed out to him that it's inappropriate. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Clear renaming per C2C, from "hosted in Spain" (wrong) to "hosted by Spain" (right). All such categories use "hosted by X" format, see ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:International association football competitions in Europe by host and subcategories for example. Armbrust stopped the trivial renaming without any reasonable arguments, I don't understand why. NickSt (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The requirement for speedy rename is that the category is listed at WP:CFDS and remains there unopposed for 48 hours. You already listed them there and were opposed, meaning they can't be speedily renamed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Armbrust wrote, There is no clear convention for the use of "by" insteady of "in". But there is a clear convention because only two (!) from thousands categories in Wikipedia's sports cattree use "hosted in X" format now. All others use "hosted by X" format. No reasonable arguments why only this two categories must be different from anothers. Per WP:BOLD I can do the trivial renaming by myself to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Because Ambrust using this "arguments" ("no clear convention", 2=1000, "outside of process") can prevent any categories renaming. NickSt (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not exactly what I wrote, at end of it you missed "at Category:Sports festivals in Spain." Also that only prevents the category from being speedily renamed, and you should listed it at full discussion instead of moving the category out of process (repeatedly). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Not way. C2C is applicable here. Why does Armbrust only decide that "no clear convention" and "outside of process"? And trivial renamings opposed by Armbrust stay after many months at WP:CFD without any results (1, 2). It will be two votes in CFD, I am for, Armbrust always against (without reasonable arguments) (3), and what to do? NickSt (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Content dispute, should go on talk page, not drama noticeboards. And Armbrust, you've passed 3RR already. Dark Sun (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • @NickSt Speedy renaming is for uncontroversial cases, and anybody can oppose them. It doesn't matter, who was it. Your recent attempt to conventionalise ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Sports competitions by sport was opposed by two editors, but you will renamed it nonetheless if it's removed from the page right? Also they remained on that page, because you or anybody else has moved them to full CFD.
            • @Dark Sun It's not a content dispute. It's a procedural matter, which NickSt doesn't want to follow. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
              • They are opposed for golf tournaments mainly. No reasons why ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Floorball Championships cannot be renamed to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Floorball competitions per C2C are shown. It is a pity, but wrong categories remain due to some unargumented opposed opinion. Interesting moment now, I can create a new sporttree category easy, but I cannot rename that category without Armbrust "oppose" or CfD two month waiting. NickSt (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                • No, they are opposed generally, because they would not follow the common terms in these sports. Also, that they are wrong is just your opinion. If you want to renamed them, than you need to initiate a full discussion at CFD, which is that way. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                  • ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Floorball Championships is not common terms in floorball also, but it is need wait two months to rename it (trivially!) to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Floorball competitions. Why are you in oppose to all sports category moves always? NickSt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                    • That's not true, I don't oppose all sports category moves. Only if I think they shouldn't be made. (In this case for example I only opposed speedy renaming of the categories.) Waiting "two months to rename it" isn't a problem, because there is no deadline. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                      • The deadline is now but you stopped the usefull renamings. No rule that I cannot rename the small category (trivially) without CfD. Show any reasonable arguments against renaming instead of opposing per "outside of process" only. NickSt (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
                        • "Usefull" isn't one of the speedy renaming criteria. The CFDS page clearly says: "Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD", and you failed to do that in the last 30 days. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
            • Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• One question to administrators. Can the usual user rename the categories (non-controversial) without CfD discussion? I don't see the direct rule about it. If somebody create category with mistake/wrong name, is it normal to put articles into another category and speedy delete the first one per {{db-catempty}}? Or any category moving must be discussed with Armbrust? NickSt (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • No for which question? Show link to rule about it please. NickSt (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
      • For "Can the usual user rename the categories (non-controversial) without CfD discussion?". It is not supported in the software. You know very well where the instructions are for moving content so that does not need to be pointed out to you. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @Vegaswikian:. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if someone could undo these out of process moves. Or should I do it? @Vegaswikian: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you would be considered involved at this point. Do you have a list? That way someone else can resolve it. Or for a more final decision, it can go to a full CfD for a fuller discussion if that would be the better way to deal with it and get closure. If it is the issue of 'of v in' in those two categories, I'd recommend the full CfD route. Note that I have not looked at the categories in question. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Vegaswikian: I don't see, how WP:INVOLVED is relevant in undoing an out-of-process category renaming. IMO these need to go to full CFD, and therefore the categories should be repopulated before that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs being obnoxious at Wikipedia Reference

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

---

Can someone "talk to" User:Baseball Bugs about his nearly constant, rude and pointless spamming of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? He is totally out of line. If you check his contributions you will see that spamming the Reference Desk is all he does on Wikipedia. Why don't you just block him? This does not seem like a productive use of editor time. I cannot leave a message on his talk page since his talk page is write-protected. It's time action is taken sirs. RayBans77 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You should supply diffs of a user's contributions (see Help:Diff on how to do this), because there are many complaints, and administrators do not have time to go through all of a user's contributions to find evidence which they cannot know a priori is even there. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs has an unprotected talk page; there's a link on his regular talk page. I have notified him of this thread. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Bowdlerizing college basketball article and endless reversions

User:Eodcarl has been editing out any mention of the former name of Mizzou Arena several times since Dec. 2011, all the while claiming without substantiation that "The arena has only had one name," that "Paige Sports Arena" is "imaginary" and that what I was doing was "vandalism."

Thoroughly intent on the deeply seated idea that was correct, he first reverted my edits to Mizzou Arena, then redirected Paige Sports Arena to itself (twice) and found himself on the losing end of an argument with User:Ramaksoud2000 and User:Benboy00 in which he accused me/us of harassment against the university. Which I attend... Yeah.

I have cited my sources and, when reverted, lined out in detailed reasoning, why his editing harmful. My commentary fell on his deaf ears as he deleted my comments and continued to vainly insist that the name never existed, at one point showing that he had no idea all along, what the word "formerly" meant. His convictions are so deeply held that nothing will get through to him. We have gone to the trouble of citing our sources. Shouldn't he? I have wasted far too much time researching this, only to be reverted with a mouseclick and some reiterated falsities. Help. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Eodcarl has a strong case of WP:IDHT, which is disruptive editing, and at one point even said "No, I am not going to address the source." Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Both refuse to address the fact Mizzou Arena opened as Mizzou Arena. The proposed name that was never applied, Paige Arena, is continued to be applied as vandalism in the article. The funding issue could be addressed in the article, but "formally known as Paige Arena" is false. Eodcarl (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Either you have a good reason to ignore this source, or you don't know what "Vandalism" means. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was funny when I checked out the article last month that the proposed name was never mentioned in the article when it was there in the past. Eodcarl, suggest you check out Gillette Stadium, which also has the history of a never-used name for a sports venue (that case, CMGI), and boy, would Minute Maid Park's article look awkward without the mention of the one season it was named for a notorious former energy company. We mention the entire history of a venue, gagged name or not, and we don't sugarcoat, especially for the donors of a third of that arena's cost, and in the meantime you're way above WP:3RR; restoring MQ's last edit with the expectation that sourced information is notable. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now added four new sources regarding the naming to the article, and any further reversions should merit some kind of 3RR sanction. Nate • (chatter) 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This diff is particularly worrisome. @Eodcarl (talk · contribs) if you take disputes on Wikipedia this personally, you may wish to simply avoid them altogether. We are all just trying to make Wikipedia better. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks and recruitment by single purpose static IP User:54.242.221.254

After User:Baseball Bugs perfectly reasonably asked a user for the source of a comment he quoted on the Entertainment Ref Desk, this single-purpose account appeared, attacking Bugs on the ref desk,[88] and attempting to recruit users not involved in the discussion against Bugs.[89], [90]. Please take appropriate action against 54.242.221.254. I cannot tell, but it may be possible this and the earlier ANI filed today against Bugs may be related. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Blocked. Poor Bugs--someone send him a box of chocolates and a fifth of bourbon, please. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Curious, the IP locates to amazon.com corporate office. Any possibility this is a proxy? The attacks on bugs seem very similar to the recent ones against me with the banned user wickwack suspected. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The IP looks to be part of the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud to me, not Amazon's head office. So it's likely a proxy of sorts (not necessarily an open proxy or a normal proxy). Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should the proxy be blocked? Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Immediate block for possibly compromised account needed

• Behemoth (talk · contribs)

See recent contributions (17 December 2013). Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Bizarre. Doc talk 09:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indef on that possibility, any admin can unblock on your own good judgement without prior consultation with me if we get a good explanation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request block

NOTE: Sorry, I posted this at the Administrators' noticeboard by mistake. This is a copy of what I posted there.. I would like to request a block for user User:US1939. He or she is creating tons of one sentence stubs about moths and butterflies (articles I all expanded). He or she seems to think he owns the articles and keeps reverting changes I made. He is linking to disambiguation pages, as well as replacing specific stub types with a generic stub type. He is not responding to any comments made on his talk page and has now started edit-warring. Furthermore, I suspect he is using sock-puppets, since similar articles are being made by other users who appeared around the same time as US1939. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think User:I'm Shmacked is a sock-puppet account. This user is creating articles which are exactly the same in structure and both accounts are new. Furthermore, this user is also not responding to any comments on his talk page. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't this belong at WP:SPI? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah sorry, this is the wrong page then? I'm an experienced wikipedia editor, but never requested admin intervention before, so please forgive me.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't figure out the SPI interface, just list the suspect accounts in a message on my talk page. I'll look into this tomorrow if no one else has. Going to bed right now. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with blocking US1939 to get him to respond and participate in discussion; this probably could have gone to WP:ANEW. Not as sure about I'm Shmacked. The use of {{butterfly-stub}} on every article he creates rather than a more specific stub template (identical to US1939) is curious at least. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as well as the sentence: [author] used the scientific name in [year of description]. This particular sentence has not been used on any other moth or butterfly stub and there are now a number of users who introduced this sentence all within a week or so. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Other sock-puppet users are probably User:‎Laylatul-Qadr, User:Kindergarden's mirror, User:Not enough213 and User:You are Xtupid too. Although the created articles are technically sufficient for addition to wikipedia, I would really like someone to halt this person. These articles are useless stubs only containing info that is already found on country check lists. I like to keep track of new articles and expand all butterfly and moth articles right away, but I cannot keep up with the sheer number of articles created within a few seconds. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

US1939 blocked 24 hours. Hopefully that'll loosen his lips. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, he just created two new accounts: User:Inept red square and User:Meat eater Ants and created another 100 or so useless stubs that I need to cleanup. I suspect this is not going to end anytime soon. Would an IP block be possible? This is really de-motiving me from working on Wikipedia. I like to create articles in an orderly fashion. I can handle one or two badly structured stubs a day, but this is too much. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hang tight - I'm working through some CU results now.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Nice to see all the helpful people over here! Makes me wanna report vandals more often.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Several are now blocked. Notable exceptions are User:Laylatul-Qadr, User:Meat eater Ants and User:Inept red square, who are probably candidates for blocks based on behavior even if the CU didn't turn evidence (particularly Laylatul-Qadr, whose current userpage is identical to an older version of I'm Shmacked's). Guessing we'd theoretically call User:Stern review the sockmaster given it's the oldest account, though it could also be compromised. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for any further editing which looks suspicious and report it here. Thanks again for the swift resolution! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I reacted too soon. There is yet another sock puppet: User:Emails back to college. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ruiger, are these articles always accurate? I'm just wondering what kind of cleanup is or isn't necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there essentially is no information in them, except the name of the species and who described it. Since he is basing his articles on a check-list of species without any further inquiry, I would say at least 1/3 is listed under the wrong name (i.e. the species is no longer deemed valid and is now a synonym or the species has been moved to another genus). Other problems are: he is not putting the articles in the right category, he is not using the right stub-category, he is very sloppy and makes a lot of errors: i.e. some articles have the wrong authority listed, the ref is often wrong (refers to a source which is about a completely different species), etc. I other words: There is almost no info and the info that IS there is often wrong. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

To eleborate on that: please see Scoparia crepuscula (I fixed it now). The title and article do not match (species name crepuscula vs. ejuncida), the authority is wrong, the family is wrong, there are two wrong cats, the link is wrong, there is no reference and the link to the genus linked to a disam. page (someone else fixed that). In other words: there are about 10 errors in a one sentence stub. Most of the articles he creates are like that. If he would at least respond and take on board advice I could live with it, but he stubbornly keeps creating tons of articles in this same fashion. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Harold Camping BLP problem

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

---

Various redlinks claim he has died, based on highly dubious sourcing, and no mainstream sourcing at all. I reverted everything since Nov 23. Page may require protection, but I would like to hear some opinions here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears he's dead, Jim.[91]. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of kake.com, and the alleged "press release" from his radio station has the wrong URL prefix, so it may well be a hoax. If he were really dead, I would think CNN and others would be all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

KAKE, channel 10, is an ABC-affiliated television station based in Wichita, Kansas. There are CBS news reports of the guy suffering a stroke yesterday as well. I've added {{findsources}} to the talk page for more info. Toddst1 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

They could have been fooled by that alleged press release. When I googled [Harold Camping] I got all of three "sources", all of them presumably based on that "press release". If it's true, the mainstream media will pick up on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He's dead, Jim.[92]. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Again sourced to http://hosted-p0.vresp.com/1030185/5988170fbb/. Why wouldn't that have the family radio URL prefix? And why does the actual family radio page have nothing about it and talks about him in the present tense? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

When I stripped away the suffixes to that link, all that remained was a few Japanese characters which translate to "Today". How likely is it that the family radio operation would use something obscure like that instead of posting it on their own website? http://www.familyradio.com/ ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep an eye on [93] - that's a Google News search. If it's real, we'll likely get a decent, high-quality source soon enough. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

vresp.com is the common domain for Vertical Response, an email marketing/list management company. This is where the client outbound emails come from. It looks like someone got an email from Family Radio and used the "View this on the web link". I would consider it a primary source. 129.9.104.10 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that it's legitimate, but it's curious that no mainstream media have picked up on this. After the hoopla in 2011, you'd think they'd be covering this if it were true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There's edit-warring going on on that page. For the sake of the BLP rule, someone needs to lock down the page to the version of Nov 23 until or if such time as mainstream media have confirmed it. There was a similar rumor a couple of years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been done. The page has been fully protected for 2 days by ItsZippy. However, his death has recently been confirmed by ABC News, which seems like a reliable source to me. So it appears that the mainstream media have picked up on this, Baseball Bugs. [94] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's confirmed now. Have at it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Particularly nasty vandalism to Evolution

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

---

Not quite sure where the vandalism's coming from - I can only presume it's an unprotected template of some sort. Warning: NSFW Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

When I went to the cell membrane article, I noticed something really disgusting ad that somehow I can't get rid of. The message has mentions users like Reaper Eternal, and another user named Meepsheep, whoever that is, in which I founded that suspicious. I just refreshed the page, and it disappeared. Is it weird that someone hacked in to the Wikimedia system to make that disgusting ad? Blurred Lines 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a vandalised template, which just shows we need to protect templates on high-vandalism articles more carefully. Same issue I raised just above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism was fixed, but I'd like to know which template was vandalized. Anybody want to give us a clue? Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No template was inserted, or removed in the cell membrane article, as of it was last edited in November. Blurred Lines 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Library link about (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --CIreland (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we please lock that down? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. Can we please list File:Frau beim pinkeln.jpg so that it can't be used on any page of Wikipedia. (How do we do that; I know it's possible but can't remember the page.) Commons doesn't help us by keeping such a large collection of pornography. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have added it to the WP:BADIMAGE list. Zad68 14:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I will say one thing: This image has little obvious value, but we need to be careful railing too much about "porn" - One man's porn is another "Thank god, I needed naked images of people of all sorts of body types to practice drawing." I can't help but remember the last great "porn" purge included artworks by notable artists, and become a bit nervous when people start complaining about porn on Commons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tip: If looking for vandalism done via a template, the left site tools menu has a link to "related changes". That will immediately surface the recent template edits that contain the vandalism. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• I highly suggest that a checkuser should keep a longer eye on Meepsheeper, just in case it does more "s". Blurred Lines 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Plain list}} was also hit - Secret fixed it and blocked the editor. As Plain list was a redirect if anyone is locking down templates check the redirects too. Side note - you wouldn't believe the amount of traffic it's generated at OTRS today. NtheP (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• A picture of a woman urinating (which is not exactly porn) isn't appropriate, at all, for this website. Why hasn't the picture been removed yet? Shouldn't many of the WP:BADIMAGEs be removed from public view? Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What's "inappropriate" about it? It's not in the Evolution article any more. (Serious question.) It's a very natural act that everybody does several times a day. That HAS TO be encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Sure, everyone has to pee several times daily, but it's sadly turned into a fetish for some, especially men ages 13 and up who like to see the bodily functions of young women. Pictures of genitals and bodily function is not something that people want to see when visiting Wikipedia; they would go to a pornographic site for that. And you must remember that little kids use this site as well. I know, WP:NOTCENSORED still applies, but there is a place where WIkipedia has to draw the line. Curse words like "shit" and "fuck"? They're allowed on Wikipedia. But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not, for many moral and ethical reasons, and because Wikipedia would be faced with lawsuits from parents everywhere.

On a side note, the article on evolution is supposed to give a brief summary of evolution, not a NSFW free-for-all. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not... I was just wondering: are there any other varieties of genitalia? EEng (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, there are some communities on Reddit that tout this and other fetishes. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To be brief: the historical consensus on that is against you, Epicgenius, and this ain't the place to change it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: The historical consensus on what? I am extremely confused. Is it about Eric Corbett, or the ANI discussions, or about the NOTCENSORED thing? Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea that pictures of genitalia should not be allowed. not sure how Eric Corbett even entered into consideration... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Me neither, so let's drop the idea of Eric Corbett. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] With all respect, if we try to get rid of nudity, we're going to have to get rid of a good chunk of iconic artworks.

Wikipedia can sometimes be foolish on this subject, like when Wikipedia 1.0 - the CD release for Wikipedia that was popular for a while? - grabbed articles from WikiProject Pornography (or something like that) for their release. God knows who that CD release was intended for. Not schools. But it's certainly memorable when you work in an arts Wikiproject and realise you're being heavily trimmed back to fit in things like that. However, Wikipedia is never going to become genitalia-free, and probably shouldn't. Not while "nude painting" is a major genre of art. What we should definitely do, though, is weed out the least educational, unused things. Indeed, I'd suggest adult, non-sexualised nudity might be something we arguably need more of - such categories tend to get trimmed down to the "pretty people", which is not necessarily particularly useful for educational purposes such as teaching drawing, where a variety of poses and bodyshapes would be helpful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but these iconic artworks, with nudity, aren't necessarily porn per se. Lady Gaga has had some pictures of her uploaded to Wikipedia that are partially nude, as do some other famous people. However, pictures that solely serve the purpose of giving someone sexual satisfaction is not appropriate. I am not advocating the removal of nudity, I am just trying to say that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a porn site—it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it bother you that many Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive and obscene, but we include them here too? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Could not disagree more about images of female and male genitalia as does Wikipedia its self. This is not some religious website... we are here to facilitate knowledge not to conform to religious views on subjects. Better we explain and show how a penises works and how to keep it clean over just telling kids nothing and just chopping some skin off because we are not willing to talk about the problem. Ignorance does not help anyone. -- Moxy (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Another template was vandalised today in a similar fashion. See [95]. The vandalism revisions were Rev deleted. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 02:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to recap:

• But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not... As previously mentioned, inquiring minds want to know what varieties of genitalia there are other than male and female.
• Is it about Eric Corbett Does everything have to be about Eric Corbett?
• Sure, everyone has to pee several times daily Might want to see a urologist if that's becoming a problem.
• Lady Gaga has had some pictures of her uploaded I don't know what part of Lady Gaga's anatomy is referred to by the phrase "her uploaded", and I don't want to know. So that editors who have already lost their appetite for breakfast might regain it in time for lunch, please have mercy and end this thread.

EEng (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If we can get back on topic here, this kind of template vandalism has happened at least 4 times in the past few days (most recently affecting the article Adolf Hitler, and I'm not sure what template was vandalised). As far as we know, the perpetrator is Meepsheep's sockpuppets. Is there any action we can take to prevent further large scale vandalisms such as the ones noted above? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is really childish, so let's just delete the image and prevent its creation. Epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, the solution isn't to delete the image, whatever it is. Having a picture of Charlie Brown inserted is disruptive as well. The answer is to protect these templates, plain and simple. Now, let's move on, and with thanks to the oversighters and template protectors. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Chinese version of the Jane Fonda article

I just noticed, via WP:LIVINGDEAD, that the Chinese (zh) version of the Jane Fonda article has been vandalised. Could someone who understands Chinese please revert the edits. --Racklever (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia. We don't have authority over the Chinese wikipedia. It might to be profitable to complain at zh:Wikipedia:管理员通告板/其他 (WP:AN's analog there), but not here. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Chinese so I can't use that page.--Racklever (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It turned out to be easy enough to just revert [96], assuming they have something like WP:BOLD over there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Racklever (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Camille Paglia page may be hacked

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I visited the Camille Paglia page and was greeted by a picture of a woman peeing. It appeared to be more of a banner ad than anything that belonged on the page. Readin (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

MiszaBot

I'm starting to get worried. All three of Misza13's bots hasn't edited here since October 2nd. Is there like a error going on that needs to be fixed, or Misza13 decided to not run the bots anymore? Blurred Lines 15:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of User talk:Misza13, as well as Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#MiszaBot III and #MiszaBots down. To summarize what's said in the three: they aren't really working anymore, and I don't think Misza13 has the time to operate the bots. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

‎Lowercase sigmabot III and others are doing the work. At least in many cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But not in a lot of cases. Is there a fix for that? Epicgenius (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats and repeated blanking at Talk:Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School

Someone claiming to be a director of the school has since yesterday been blanking content referenced by reliable sources at Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School, replacing it with promos for the school, referenced only by official school documents. Diffs: [97], [98], [99]. Now in this edit at the talk page, she has threatened to call in the lawyers, accusing me and two other editors of libel, and asking someone to phone her to sort it out. I have no involvement with the school, and only got involved when I noticed her deletions breaking references in Category:Pages with broken reference names. I have mostly kept her additions, but have re-added the referenced content she deleted, merging the two together for now. I haven't warned her yet about Wikipedia policy on legal threats, as I'm not quite sure how to proceed with that. Ruby Murray 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed for legal threats. Their post could be removed as far as I'm concerned.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the post with her legal threat and contact details. Ruby Murray 21:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Good block. That's a straight-up legal threat. As to WP:DOLT concerns, it's like a bad joke. I'm not even sure PA charter schools can sue for libel (IANAL). Anyway, I really doubt this person is authorized to make legal threats on behalf of the school. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Swdandap malfeasance

Swdandap (talk · contribs) is a longstanding detriment to Wikipedia. Editor has a long-term pattern of malfeasance including copyvio, sockpuppetry harmful promotional editing and spamming. Recommend strongest sanctions.

Copyvio

User has been plentifully notified of copyvio content on en.wiki and Commons starting in 2011 [100] and continuing for over a year ([101][102][103] etc.)

Promotional editing

Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Paid_advocacy for lengthy discussion and evidence of paid advocacy. Paid advocacy on non-notable topics like Corner Travel Index and Bahamas Habitat harms Wikipedia by drawing time and attention away from legitimate topics.

Sockpuppetry

Deep connections to paid advocacy noted above, implemented (sometimes) through sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry.

Apptivo sockpuppetry

• Swdandap: Final draft in Swdandap's sandbox, 10 May 2012: [104]
• Ariesdrink12: Article Apptivo created ex nihilo 8 September 2012 [105]
• Swdandap: Links added to Comparison of time tracking software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages 11 May 2012 [106][107][108]

Bahamas Habitat sockpuppetry

• Skywagon5 Article Bahamas Habitat created (since deleted) c. November 2011

Off-wiki evidence provided in prior ANI linking Skywagon5 to Swdandap either as an employee/contractor or as the same individual.

Corner Travel Index sockpuppetry

• Swdandap: Final draft in sandbox 23 November 2011 [109]; pasted whole into Matsonian's sandbox 23 November 2011 [110]
• Matsonian created article Corner Travel Index deleted 9 July 2012 (with admin comment "spam...paid editor"); complained about deletion 11 Jan 2012 [111]

Spamming

Extensive spamming including [112][113][114][115][116][117][118]

Failure to work with community

Warnings noted above received no response, in fact this editor has not posted to his own talk page with over five years of comments from other editors. Has not participated in AfDs of his own creations, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Children's Fund of Canada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTB Himachal. User did not contribute to his 2012 ANI case either.

Submitted — Brianhe (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support blocking as Not here. If a 2008 account is still adding spam links in 2012 and making promo edits that other editors are constantly having to monitor then it is disruptive.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support block no excuse for this sort of thing going on this long, especially with the added problem of refusal to discuss & communicate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not have anything to say against the allegations, however, I would like to present a request to not block my account since I would like to use it for genuine Wiki edits (I believe in the project) and would refrain from any other form of editing on Wiki. I hope my request is considered.

Submitted - Swdandap —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Since the 'allegations' are partially about your refusal to discuss issues with your editing, I think you really should say something about them. The Wikipedia community is largely built on consensus and discussion, it's a vital part of contributing here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear why you blanked the page on another corporate profile in your sandbox, hours after this case was opened. — Brianhe (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

From looking at this filing, I see two complaints that are potentially actionable, one is that you believe this editor to be Disruptive, and the other being a complaint of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. To emphasize what I see, I'm going to break down this filing. First is the Copyvio complaint. Everything there is well over a year old, if they aren't making any new copyvio's then I don't see the problem. Next Meatpuppetry/Sockpuppetry, It seems you've got some evidence, however I believe WP: SPI is better suited to analyze that information. Regarding Spamming, WP: EL has guidelines regarding external links, and I'm not seeing anything blatantly outside them. and finally his failure to work with the community, you link to two AFD's which I'm assuming were his articles which were coincidentally both kept, and one ANI filing. If I had an article go up for AFD, and it was already going keep I wouldn't comment on it. And ANI participation isn't mandatory, and I would say that generally it's a good idea to not participate in an ANI about you unless you have to. I don't really think there is enough in this ANI filing for something sanctionable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory

• Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.15.39.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Brian Josephson (this guy) has recently been editing Water memory, a topic in which he is professionally involved (he is one of main proponents of the topic). The article is under discretionary sanctions (Pseudoscience and Homeopathy.) Both he and an ip have been attempting to remove sourced content from the article describing the scientific view of the topic, or to dilute the scientific view. The ip's behavior and focus is strangely similar to Brian's, possibly one of Brian's students. Brian has been informed of WP:COI (most recently here). He has continued making edits to the article, and has displayed a battleground attitute on the talk page. His talk page edits have become tendentious.

Warnings

• TenOfAllTrades: Brian Josephson's remarks in this thread are headed way across the line of personal attacks., "you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions"
• Jojalozzo: Your unilateral actions in the article are disruptive and counter to policy
• Brangifer: You are mentioned a number of times in this article, and are intimately and personally involved with the subject, ergo you have a VERY strong COI., "I suggest you follow policy and not attack other editors."
• Me: Consensus distinctly opposed these sorts of changes before these constant IDHT repetitions drove off every other editor but me... Bring new sources, or go to RSN, or drop the stick."

Battleground and not AGF

Dilution of scientific consensus

Extended list of diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Brian suggests adding sentence contradicting the scientific consensus and sourced to himself. "According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound." Brian changes "not consistent with accepted scientific laws" to " not consistent with the law of mass action" to imply there is limited incompatibility. Our sources say it is not consistent with "the laws of physics and molecular biology" and "conventional scientific understanding". The change was already opposed on the talk page, but he made the change anyway, saying "no objections made". IP suggests "It is claimed by some sources evasively that the concept of water memory is inconsistent with the law of mass action among other (unspecified) eastablished scientific laws." changes article, nearly identical changes had already been opposed on talk. Brian claims that the sentence was unsourced and should be removed outright. It was amply sourced to Nature and Time. He made similar claim earlier backed by original research. Ip responds by adding cn tag despite two clear sources and opposition on talk. Brian adds synthesized material about magnets to contradict scientific findings on the topic. Brian deletes scientific source outright based on his own OR that "persistent correlations in water structure" is different than water memory. The paper he deleted is titled "Ultrafast memory loss...of liquid H2O" and is quite obviously about "water memory". Ip removes it again, and again, and again.

Example of tendentious editing

• Brian recommends distinctly unreliable content. Arthur Rubin responds "There is no possibility that could be considered a reliable source, or even a pointer to reliable sources". Brian writes that he wasn't suggesting using it as a source (despite suggesting it be included in the article). I explain the problem. Brian says any source he produces would be rejected anyway, so he refuses to produce any. IP says opposition to including this content shows lack of competence and is tendentious. Both continue to argue the point. Most of the talk page follows similar patterns as this.

Brian seems to be having similar issues on other fringe and pseudoscientific topics, (for example, Cold fusion, also under discretionary sanctions), but I'm not as familiar with those topics. It's clear browsing the talk pages of those articles that the same pattern of behavior has been going on for some time.

I'd like to suggest a topic ban on a minimum of Water Memory for Brian and the ip. I believe if a topic ban is imposed for a few months, it may encourage Brian to read up on our policies and work more collaboratively within the realm of his COI. If a topic ban is considered premature by the community, then I'd like to request that Brian and the IP be warned for tendentious editing and that we get a few more eyes on the article. If the community feels my proposal is too limited, a topic ban on pseudoscience, fringe theories, or homeopathy may be more appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

All relevant users pinged. Formally notifying them now. Done.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This complaint indicates that Brian is attempting "to dilute the scientific view". This is entirely consistent with homeopathic principles, diluting the criticism strengthens it and the article remembers what it was like when criticism was present and thus remains or even becomes more NPOV. I just hope he shakes the article correctly after each dilution. </sarcasm> EdChem (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. Well, the article history does remember, so content can be recovered. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, very few of these diffs are from the actual article. Almost all of them are from talk pages. So that dilutes the attack on Josephson considerably.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I must second Mann Jess's concerns. I was hoping that our warnings would work, but I'm not surprised they haven't. We have a case of lacking competence regarding the purpose of Wikipedia, and massive IDHT.

Specific article bans may be a good first step, followed by a topic ban from pseudoscience/fringe articles if that doesn't work. The COI sanctions must be enforced very firmly in this case. We also need semi-protections to keep IPs from editing.

Normally we welcome a Nobel Prize laureate as a nice addition to the team, but in this case I'm more saddened than anything else. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Cue If Brian keeps on continuing not to work with others, someone should look at the possibility of a temporary block or even a topic ban. It is very awe-inspiring that he is a renowned professor that has a Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia cares more about the conduct of its editors than about how important its editors may be. Epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. We have a Nobel Prize winning physicist, an internationally acclaimed scientist, and we are supposed to defer to regular editors who patrol WP:FRINGE? Gee, that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 1900s. It seems like there was this whackjob named Albert Einstein who had some ridiculous idea about relativity. Thank God the cabel was able to shut his nonsense down. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. We are supposed to give a single person free reign over an article because he won a Nobel Prize? We are supposed to sit back and stay quiet while he makes the article disagree with almost every paper published on the topic in respected journals? News to me! Let's go make sure Wikipedia makes note of the fact that bacteria can be identified by their radio transmissions and astrology is real, HIV is harmless. Listening to experts is great. Differing to experts is great. But asking someone to sit on their hands to satisfy a single expert is dumb. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, two other Nobel Prize winners who push wacky ideas. Yes, they made fun of Galileo, and he was right, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. The Galileo Gambit doesn't work with us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• GregJackP, you have a very good point, but there are many big IFs involved here. You're jumping in without knowing the background. We're dealing with someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia works, refuses to accept advice on how to edit when he has a huge COI, doesn't use RS, and is pushing ideas rejected by mainstream science and RS (homeopathy and water memory). IOW he's fringe POV-pusher. We've really stretched ourselves to offer him aid so he could improve content, but that is not his mission. If he would only stick to the area of his expertise many decades ago, and use RS, it might be better. No one is questioning his expertise in physics, but that's not the focus of his activities here. Otherwise we do love to have experts here, so if all was well, your comment would be spot on, but it misses the point. This has been brewing for a long time and has a context. Most other editors who have been doing what he's doing would have been blocked a long time ago. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a point of reference, that would dramatically impact our articles on telepathy, cold fusion, transcendental meditation, parapsychology, and homeopathy (among others), just based on this editor alone. Josephson believes telepathy is real. Our article should not say it is. Expanding this idea to other Nobel laureates would make wikipedia considerably racist.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It is correct that, at the time that he did the work and developed the equations and principles that bear his name (cf Josephson effect), Josephson was an internationally acclaimed scientist. The work he did was sterling, and if he wished to contribute to our articles in that area, where he has a remarkable and solid track record of skill and competence, he could be of great benefit to this project, and I would tend to give his comments in that area great weight. Unfortunately, that reputation is less useful when brought to bear – some decades later – in areas where Josephson may be a vocal commentator, but has not carried out and published high-impact, widely-recognized research—areas like psychokinesis, telepathy, cold fusion, and (here) homeopathy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm an uninvolved editor, I've never heard of water memory before, and it looks somewhat fringe to me. However, I have gone over user:Brian Josephson's edits and I really don't see much of a problem. What I do see is other editors reverting everything he attempts to insert in articles, sometimes with dubious justification. I'm also seeing a failure to assume good faith because he supports some fringe theories in science. We let everyone edit here regardless of their views unless they clearly violate policy. That means we allow people who know little about science to edit science articles. Is that really better than allowing a Nobel Prize winner who also holds some fringe views to edit? Let's not put Wikipedia in the news again for driving off a Nobel Prize winner. I am One of Many (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• The problem isn't that Professor Josephson holds fringe views. The problem is that he uses Wikipedia to promote such views. Repeatedly. In multiple articles. With little regard for policy or guidelines. Requiring Josephson to abide by the same rules as everyone else hardly constitutes 'driving him off', and handing out free passes because we are worried about hypothetical 'news' stories (written presumably by journalists unfamiliar with Josephson's track record) would hardly improve Wikipedia's credibility. Josephson has been around long enough to know how Wikipedia works - and if he isn't prepared to work to the same rules as the rest of us, he only has himself to blame for the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• When I look at the article history, I see 4 edits by user:Brian Josephson. Two moderately substantial edits reverted and two somewhat trivial edits reverted. On the talk page, I see mostly reasonable discussion (some that could be more friendly on both sides). I haven't looked back at his editing on other articles or other discussions, but I just don't see why this should be brought here. I don't see with 4 edits on water memory and with no edit warring that there are behavior issues warranting coming here? I am One of Many (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. You've got a group that has decided that they are the "experts" on what is fringe, and if you disagree, they overstate the case and run off real scientists. I haven't seen anything untoward by Josephson and plenty of attempts to work with other editors. It appears he has been patient in explaining issues and how the scientific community works, but the "cabal" doesn't agree. GregJackP Boomer! 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a real travesty if a bunch of self-appointed "experts" tried to run off real scientists... MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree with me on both issues. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

comments from BDJ himself

OK, let me, as the person concerned, comment on all this. First of all, the speculation that one of my students is the person responsible has no factual basis, period (and, for clarity, perhaps I should add that I have no idea who these editors are). I assume the person concerned is someone equally concerned about the tendentious editing on this page, and it is hardly surprising that similar things to mine are being said. I am glad to have such support (from a number of unsigned people), particularly as it shows that I am not a lone voice who has gone off the rails.

Now as regards 'removing sourced content', I and others have objected to this content (specifically: 'The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws') because nothing exists in the way of proof of fundamental inconsistency (only inconsistency with a specific scientific law), and in the absence of proof there is no basis for including such a statement. It is bad for such statements to present be in a medium of reference. On the other hand, I understand that wikipedia is happy to include incorrect statements, just as long as someone designated a reliable source has made them, and the policy is (it would seem) that such statements should stay even if challenged by someone who knows what he is talking about. Let's however take a closer look at the arguments of my chief critic MannJess. He cites two 'reliable sources' to support the statement that he insists should stay, notwithstanding adverse comment by a number of people.

First of all let me compare the two authors. Ball is an expert on water, while John Lagone (author of the Time article) is described as a science writer and editor. As far as I know, water is not his field of expertise, and presumably he was merely asked to cover, to the best of his ability, what looked like an interesting story. Clearly Ball should be considered a more reliable source, and he, choosing his words carefully, says only that the claims '[defy] conventional scientific understanding', clarifying this by citing the law of mass action -- and he does admit that this is not necessarily the full story. Ball's article definitely supports my proposal, repeatedly rejected by MannJess, that the nature of the inconsistency be clarified by citing specifically (as Ball does) the law of mass action.

What, though about the Time article? In the introduction, what Lagone says precisely is that the claim '[defies] the laws of physics'. What does he mean exactly in his use of the word 'defied'? Is he suggesting that it actually contradicts the laws of physics? Without reading the full article it is impossible to know. I made the point that the full article should be examined, and to the best of my knowledge none of my critics has taken the trouble to register with Time, and find out and inform the rest of us. Black marks for them!!

However, Lagone does cite a specific issue of Nature, so it is possible in fact to see what information he is relying on. MannJess himself suggests we should consider Nature reliable, so let's find out what Nature did say, which should give us clearer insight into where Lagone is coming from. What we find is an editorial, whose actual words involve the phrase 'observations for which there is no present physical basis', which translated means something along the lines of 'no-one has yet figured out an explanation'. This again gives us no grounds for the wording being persistently pushed by MannJess, involving talk of an inconsistency. The same applies to a similar editorial statement to be found on p.836.

I submit that the version favoured by Mann Jess is unsound and should be replaced by my preferred version which is well sourced. --Brian Josephson (talk) --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethically, not the recommended course of action. You should never be editing topics that you're involved in to begin with - owning them is even worse. You're clearly not able to view this objectively enough to be editing the article - you may be the primary proponent of some WP:FRINGE, but that most certainly does not permit you to be the primary editor ES&L 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it not be ethical, sensible, whatever, to read and study in detail what I have to say before commenting? Or do you think looking in your crystal ball, or at the guidelines, tells you all you need to judge my text fairly? Imagine you were at a job interview, and you told your potential employer you were an editor on WP, and he asked you how you judge comments, and you told him you didn't actually study what was said before responding? Do you think you would get the job? What is the point in ignoring the detail of what I have to say? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And as I've said elsewhere, I find it distinctly insulting when people such as yourself question my objectivity. May I ask what qualifications you have to judge this? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm... I suspect the question is because of the nature of the human condition, and Nobel Prize laureates are not only far from exempt, but possibly more likely to consider their status and position as making them better than others, or having more rights than others. That places objectivity as an even more distant goal to be sought. The higher one's position in life, the greater humility needed to offset the greater fall one risks. We all seek objectivity, and will never reach it. We have other editors here of extremely high position, but they do not mention or exploit their position or status....

In summary, questioning your objectivity is only to remind you of why we have a COI policy, and that your refusal to follow it is problematic. We want your expertise, but not if it means violating RS, COI, or OWNERSHIP. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

convenience break

• Having looked at this in a modicum of detail, I wonder if that is a boomerang I can hear whistling through the air? --John (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• A relevant RS/N thread: Memory of water issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• It's kind of hilarious that Time magazine is cited as a scientific source. I have removed this citation. Shii (tock) 16:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:PARITY. Water memory is a fringe topic, and as such does not require scientific sources in every case. Time is certainly a reliable source for general claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read the guideline you are linking? WP:PARITY absolutely does not apply to an article about a study published in Nature. Shii (tock) 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened a new section on talk to discuss it. The publication in Nature was discredited, and the results retracted. We already cover that in our article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is very simple. Josephson is advocating a fringe view, disruptively. A topic ban is in order. It's also entirely expected, since Josephson advocates many fringe views. More than one topic ban may be needed. We absolutely no not need true believers in homeopathy and parapsychology conducting their never-ending Gish gallops here. As a notable advocate of fringe ideas we can cite Josephson, but he is as much use here as Dana Ullman was on the homeopathy article.

Example: this edit is blatant special pleading, it has no real relevance to the article as it is not a general effect, requires specific conditions which are absent in the context of homeopathy (the article's context), and the text serves only to sow doubt where none, in fatc, exists. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Andy and Guy -- the incivility is at most borderline, but the continued effort to promote fringe topics is clear. a13ean (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not academic publishing, a problem that has arisen with many other tenacious advocates of scientific views outside the mainstream. Josephson is, unfortunately, widely cited as an example of an eminent man pursuing crank notions. He also has a worrying tendency to self-cite, though again this is normal with academics in similar situations. His talk page shows that this has been a problem ofr a long time, and is not getting better over time. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

And why is this a problem for you, Guy? Whereof do you worry? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Were I to guess, I'd have to say "because self-citation, COI, and general crankery are detrimental to Wikepedia, especially when pursued over long intervals by persistent individuals". But that would just be MY guess, and I'm not Guy.GJC 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) In addition, Brian, regardless of whether you have a "preferred version" of an article, no one owns articles on Wikipedia. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What GJC said, plus it displays the lack of self-criticism which has been evident on your talk page for some time. You are a clever man, a very clever man, but you appear to think that being very clever means that everything you say is correct, and of great value. I'm afraid that is not the case. Being very clever is no barrier to being completely wrong - look at Einstein's "my God does not play dice" for example.Guy (Help!) 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, sure, this guy (however eminent) cannot add references to his own work to articles, that's a COI right there. On the other hand, edits like this one from User:Mann jess are somewhat weird. How does racism come into it? Josephson has espoused fringe views, but that in itself does not get you a burning at the stake here. If it was up to me I would topic ban both of them. --John (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was referring to James Watson [121] a13ean (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get the point he was making. --John (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said "Expanding this idea to other Nobel laureates would make wikipedia considerably racist". There are many examples, including James Watson, Phillipp Lenard and William Shockley. I have no reason to believe Brian is racist. The point I was making, if it still isn't clear, is that giving someone free reign to change articles in opposition to our content policies just because they are a Nobel laureate would open us up to huge problems that I think we can all agree are undesirable. That is what some editors seem to (still) be suggesting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, what a strange way you have of expressing yourself. I'm not sure bringing racism into it was a good idea at all. It's "free rein", by the way. --John (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Guy on the basis that this user should maybe be topic-banned. And we are dealing with some pretty serious COI issues here as well—this Nobel Prize laureate is adding links to his own research. Epicgenius (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_160#Memory_of_water_issues, your assertion is misconceived. This was merely a suggestion as to how the article on water memory might be enhanced, and obviously I had to provide the link on that discussion page in making this suggestion. Do you have a problem with that procedure? If you believe I have added a link to my own work to an article page, please supply that information rather than making a generic accusation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have tried to contact the editor inorder let them understand our policies. Hopefully, they'll respond favorably and we'll find an amicable solution to this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• So we're going to topic ban an editor who knows what they're talking about, and has literally THE most prestigious award in Science, just because a bunch of nobodies have a bee in their bonnets about being shown to be inaccurate? Outstanding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep. There is no authority principle in science -Josephson himself loves to state that. What matters is facts: that is, the bulk of scientific evidence, which in turn becomes published sources. And despite what Josephson says, the bulk of scientific evidence and community rejects Josephson views. If he wants to push forward his views on these topics, he is welcome to publish them in peer reviewed journals and provide evidence, until shifting the scientific community view on the topics. Josephson is not the first science Nobel Prize laureate to endorse very fringe science views -check Linus Pauling and orthomolecular medicine, for example. Or Kary Mullis and AIDS denialism. --cyclopia^speak! 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No one's disputing that Josephson did some excellent physics as a graduate student and that his Nobel Prize was well-deserved (especially not me since I use SQUID on a regular basis). The question before us is if he is currently using Wikipedia to push a fringe viewpoint, and I'm afraid that in his editing here he has been unable to keep bias from his current endeavors[122] out of his editing. a13ean (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Ante Vranković

[123] - This guy is asking me to to provide an address so that he can start a lawsuit against me, because of this edit summary in which I removed a claim by one minor sports official that commented that certain soccer player's penalty by FIFA for making fascist salute is a result of "pressure" by the Croatian government. According to WP:NLT I'm supposed to report it here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That was a really intense legal threat in response to a single edit. I've blocked him indefinitely unless and until he communicates an understanding of our legal threat policy and formally retracts the threat he made. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't even be unblocked then. Calling another editor a criminal for criticizing another editor is a line we shouldn't be crossing. And the current unblock request is close to being defamatory per se with respect to Ivan Štambuk. Suggest removing said user's talk page access and redacting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove the user's email access too, while you're at it. It's not necessary to keep it so he can start spamming other editors with uncivil emails. Epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vnisanian2001 ‎

Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to make unsourced edits despite warnings dating back as far as June 2011. The user has twice been blocked for this behavior and for WP:INCIVIL comments made on talk pages, yet still the user continues to make unsourced edits such as this, without using Template:Cite web or any form of reference in the actual edit. When the edit was removed and a warning left on the user's talk page, the user left two personal attacks on my talk page ([124], [125]) before deleting them and re-linking to a URL to a user-submitted video on Youtube the user earlier posted on the talk page. This user fails to meet WP:COMPETENCE, exhibits WP:BATTLE mentality when edits are questioned, and continues to repeat the same behavior despite two prior blocks and dozens of warnings for the same patterned behavior. AldezD (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those don't really seem like attacks to me (incivility, yes; IDHT, hell yes, but...). Also, although it's true that Vnisanian2001 has been blocked several times, it's interesting that all the warnings (from this year, anyway) came from you. Maybe this is a case for WP:DRN? (I would also suggest listing him/her at WP:LTA.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference between this editor not meeting WP:COMPETENCE vs. actions falling under WP:IDHT is negligible. The user has exhibited the same pattern of behavior for several years. How long must this continue? AldezD (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of Parcheesi

The article Parcheesi has been repeatedly vandalized by user 68.196.14.175 , who always says that the game can be won simply by bringing a wheel of cheese. The most recent case is [126] . All his other edits, back to last August, are similar. All four levels of warning have been posted on the (otherwise blank) user-page, with no response but more vandalism. I have just asked for the vandal to be blocked, but the request was taken down with a statement that the complaint was not actionable. Will someone please enlighten me? J S Ayer (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I second this. Not sure why blocking the IP would be considered unactionable. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the IP is not being blocked is because blocks are used for preventative measures only. Since the most recent edits are from a month ago, it's not likely that the IP is going to vandalize the article in the next hour or so. In addition, IP addresses are often reassigned over time. If we were to block the address, it's likely that it would affect an uninvolved individual. Mike V • Talk 05:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No matter the editor if any vandalism resumes at the article don't forget that you can also make a request for page protection at WP:RFPP MarnetteD | Talk 05:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Some IP addresses are more dynamic than others; and some IPs are more or less likely to be used by other people. This IP started vandalising Parcheesi in August. This IP has never been used by any other person. In that light, I would suggest that a preventive (though not indefinite) block is unlikely to cause much collateral damage. bobrayner (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the same person has edited this from other IPs as well, so I've semi-protected the article for six months, which is a similar timescale to the length of time the vandalism has been going on for. -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection is the way to go here. If you block, then who knows if this is a proxy that might prevent others from editing Wikipedia? - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears from this discussion that the vandal knows the rules and has carefully paced his attacks to evade them. Thanks for the protection. J S Ayer (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie

Michaeltleslie (talk · contribs)'s purpose here seems to promote one "MD Rabbi Alam", starting with adding him to the Million Muslim March article (which was a damp squib). The same day Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MD Rabbi Alam was created (and rejected on October 9th) and his name added to 3 other BLPs (along with the MM march). These edits[127] added a mini-bio to List of University of Phoenix alumni. Now this was a new editor so the bad references, etc are understandable. We then get a biography added to WP:BLPN[128]. On the 5th of this month he created User:Michaeltleslie/MD Rabbi Alam and added another series of edits to Million Muslim March to promote Alam.[129] And something I've never seen before, added a link to an AfD as a source in the article Jason Kander.[130] On the 9th a 'faux article' was created at Template talk:MD Rabbi Alam (I've blanked it) and Template:MD Rabbi Alam. An editor took this to templates for discussion on the 9th, where it has been relisted although I'm not clear why and is now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 18#Template:MD Rabbi Alam. We also have on the 9th the creation of a redirect request[131] which is again a bio.

I don't know if this editor is capable of editing Wikipedia according to our policies and guidelines, but I am proposing at least a topic ban on anything to do with M D Rabbi Alam. The warnings and advice given on his talk page seem to have been ignored. He did ask User:Cirt for advice on the 9th but then went on to create the template and the redirect request which as actually a bio. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that he didn't create User:Michaeltleslie/MD Rabbi Alam, he created Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MD Rabbi Alam which User:EricSerge userfied and speedy tagged but turned into a redirect to the userspace page (which if deleted will be a red link of course). Dougweller (talk) ( 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There also seems to be a major conflict of interest as it would appear as though they know each other see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban because it's epic fail not to. Man katal (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Revision of topic ban Probably needs to include anything to do with the Million Man March. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: My sole advice to the user was this, DIFF. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - editor cannot currently be trusted to edit in these areas. With a topic ban, he has the opportunity to show he can be a constructive editor in other areas. If he breaks it, then we need to indef. GiantSnowman 18:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

IP:152.26.68.2

I am requesting that the IP block against 152.26.68.2 be reinstated. The IP is tied to an educational establishment and has a long history of vandalism. Its last one-year long block expired this month, and the IP has continued disruptive edits and been given fair warning. The IP recently disrupted the GAN for the article Grand Theft Auto V. CR4ZE (t) 14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

...and they're gone. FYI, WP:AIV is a better venue for this in the future :). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's where I meant to go, but I was working quickly and am very tired. Thanks for the swift response. CR4ZE (t) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to get back here to tell you. That's my 2nd block of that state school network in 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't give a very very long block, if not indef, as it seems very static and vandal prone? --Mdann52talk to me! 16:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefs against IPs, especially those which may be used by many people over a period of time (whether dynamic or the result of an organizational NAT configuration), are generally discouraged. Anyway, the block here is for two years. Anyway, even if we wanted to reexamine the idea of indef schoolblocks, I don't think this would be a candidate; the vandalism only seems to have started as recently as 2011. There are school IPs out there with warnings stretching back to 2004. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

Just wanted to bring the light the constant vandalism on several films by Albert Pyun by a user at the IP address 209.133.6.7 on here. The edits and reverts can be seen here here. It is most likely the same person who has spammed Pyun for ages on other sites and on Wikipedia (in reference to his Max Havoc scandal). Any addressing of this matter would be appreciated as I don't like getting to Wikipedia every morning and being told my corrections have again been reverted. Udar55 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked the IP for one week. This kind of thing can go to WP:AIV in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

I'm not really sure how these works so pardon me (and ignore it) if Im wrong. But according to my understanding there is a violation if something is made (and especially reverted) in regards to that topic across WP right? It seems that User:Sopher99 violated this after he mentions that he is topic banned on syrian civil war articles till the 18th. It appears then that he made several related editss: User_talk:Kudzu1#Syrian_civil_war, an edit on WP about the topic (and it was a revert without explanation of a POV statement [132]), this, BUT it was self-reverted, this, and this. It seems the 2 week ban started on the 4 of Dec, btwLihaas (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99's topic ban is the result of the general sanctions to which Syrian Civil War articles are subject. Anyway, the complaint here seems to be about edits to Portal:Current events that added or edited entries related to the Syrian Civil War. Whether that fits within the "Syrian Civil War articles" limitation (even with broad construction) is better left to those more experienced in these matters. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of the expression Topic Ban would suggest it is a WP: TBAN as such, any edit related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia (other than appealing the ban) would be a violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually from looking at the background of this, what is the justification for the topic ban? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Have notified Darkwind of this thread, given he imposed the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the limits of the topic ban are pretty clear, Darkwind: "you are topic banned from all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks" - I didn't touch any page related to the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations have nothing do with the Syrian civil war even if the user being investigated has edited on Syrian civil war pages. As for Dylan Lacey, I casually gave him reasons on his talkpage as to why he should self-revert an edit he made - Dylan agreed to those reasons and casually reverted himself

None of this shows I edited on Syrian civil war pages. Sopher99 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon asking another user to remove he warned that such mention would be in violation, and then the portal revert came.Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Swedhombre

I think this edit speaks for itself. I reverted this offensive material months ago, and this user has now restored it, so now I feel I need to request assistance. Thank you. Omnedon (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user, deleted the user page and cleared the talk page. There haven't been many useful contributions from the user in the past couple of years and a couple have been plain unhelpful and problematic. I've left the user a message about requesting an unblock, we'll see what he says, if anything, and take it from there. Nick (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

¡Gracias! Omnedon (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ

This user seems to insist that Basak redirect to Basak, Mandaue, and shows WP:OWNERSHIP of the redirect by reverting any attempt to have it point to the disambiguation page. Under WP:MOSDAB, if a title is ambiguous it should be a or point to a disambiguation page, unless the primary use is an article. Needless to say, there is no indication that Basak, Mandaue, a barangay (among at least two so named) in the Philippines, with a population of 32 is not the primary use. I contend there is no primary use and JHunterJ provides no explanation for his reverts when MOSDAB was cited. I won't edit war with him/her; but someone needs to stop this behavior. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Basak. I think JhunterJ would prefer you use the WP:RM process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure he wasn't just preventing the duplication of an existing disambiguation page? Having Basak redirect to Basak (disambiguation) isn't particularly helpful either. I do agree that Basak (disambiguation) should be the primary topic, but since another editor is involved it should be done via a move request. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, JHunterJ is clearly doing the right thing, in preventing duplicate disambiguation moves. Carlossuarez46 is correct in that the disambiguation page is the primary topic (though I don't think JHunterJ necessarily disagrees). I would be happy to request the move if that solves the problem. StAnselm (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. But I do need to say that as an admin, User:Carlossuarez46 ought to know about these things. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• What are you requesting to be moved, User:StAnselm? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Basak (disambiguation) → Basak. Isn't that what you wanted? StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• That would be fine; why keep pointing it elsewhere? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:JHunterJ is absolutely correct. The article currently at Basak, Mandaue was at Basak for four years before it was moved to the latter title. The move itself was done without discussion, which is okay per WP:BRD, but that also means that there has never been a discussion to determine that the title, Basak, should point anywhere except Basak, Mandaue. Any editor is entitled to contest a unilateral change of that redirect, and that change should result in a discussion to determine consensus. Since, for common sense reasons, we do not permit duplicate disambiguation pages at the "Foo" and "Foo (disambiguation)" titles of a page, and we do not permit "Foo" titles to redirect to their own "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, a move discussion with respect to the existing Basak (disambiguation) page is the proper way to bring about the change proposed. bd2412 T 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  You can contest things as long as you are compliant with WP:MOSDAB; otherwise there's chaos. Not everything needs to be discussed. That's bureaucracy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  And neither the duplicate dab you started with nor the malplaced dab you tried next were compliant. Not everything you don't understand is bureaucracy. That's why there are Talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you all want Basak to keep pointing to the little barrio in the Philippines, because you think that that's what makes WP better as JHunterJ wants; keep it that way - this is too much drama over this redirect. Over and out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The point is not about whether anyone wants it that way, the point is that you can't resolve it by making a duplicate page, or a redirect that goes the wrong way. bd2412 T 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nichiren Shōshū

Disruptive behaviour by User:Daileyn on Nichiren Shōshū — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catflap08 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Daileyn started a DRN thread about 20 minutes after this thread was started (and about 10 minutes after he was notified). Probably better to work it out over there for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Goethean on Gun Control article

The gun control article is currently the subject of a controversial and heated discussion and RFC, which Goethean is continually disrupting. Deleting the section under discussion, removing sources, tag bombing, etc.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=44276&diff=586691031&oldid=586690527
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586689737
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586686675
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586350360 (prior to creation of RFC, but during active discussion)

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Might also be worth mentioning the rude personal attacks by this editor (goethean) on another editor's talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers are, in fact, needed for those references and the Nazi Germany section does, in fact, duplicate the scope of another article: Gun politics in Germany. That's apart from the fact that the inclusion of the Nazi Germany section in the history section is inappropriate and detracts from the article's neutrality. — goethean 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting the material while it's being discussed is clearly disruptive, regardless of what you personally think of the material. Leaving bad comments on another editors' talk page is also disruptive. ROG5728 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but User:Gaijin42 claims that my "tag bombing" the article is disruptive. In fact, I added templates which are entirely appropriate to the article --- and he reverted my change. You can't cite the entirety of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (he actually did this!). You need to supply a page number. — goethean 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that ROG5728 has appeared. ROG5728 is the editor who on 11 Apil 2013 moved the "Associations with authoritarism" subsection from "Arguments" to "History".[133] That was the original bad move that has resulted in strife and edit wars at the article ever since. Seriously: he moved a section which (NRA-style) argued for gun control's association with authoritarianism to History, and that's why we have a mini-history of the Holocaust at gun control. Maybe ROG5728 can explain to everyone why he moved a section which described arguments made by one side in a debate to the History section. Of course one could just as well ask User:Gaijin42 and User:North8000, as they are the ones who have been enforcing ROG5728's bad move since April. — goethean 12:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on the article content is well reflected in the RFC discussion. The discussion here is your attempt to WP:GAME and WP:DISRUPT the discussion by deleting the content and sources WHILE THE DISCUSSION is ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, it appears this editor (goethean) has also performed at least 3 reverts on that article in the last 24 hours. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the article in question has repeatedly been characterised as a POV-fork of our oddly-named Gun Politics article - and lacks any reliable sourcing whatsoever to justify this forking. The article is clearly maintained by contributors intent on skewing an article supposedly giving international coverage of a topic to suit the narrow agenda of factions of the U.S. gun lobby. The article concerned likewise lacks any sourcing beyond active supporters of this lobby for the assertion that 'gun control in Nazi Germany' is of any great significance to the subject - unsurprisingly, given that, contrary to propaganda dissipated by fringe pro-gun lobbyists, the Nazis actually reduced regulation of access to firearms for the majority of the population - and no credible mainstream historian appears to support the assertion that the restriction of access to firearms (or even to butchers knives for that matter) was anything other than part of the general process of removing citizenship rights, and general harassment, of the Jewish minority. The ridiculous attempt to correlate 'gun control' with 'totalitarianism' that the article propounds is unworthy of Wikipedia - as not only is it ridden with original research (of which the proponents are proposing to add still more [134]), but it utterly ingores the self-evident fact that some of the least authoritarian states in the world have also restricted access to firearms - and to a much greater extent, obviously, than Nazi Germany did (or didn't, as the evidence actually suggests). The 'article' is little more than a propaganda-piece, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. If there was to be any pretence at NPOV, this fork would be merged with our other article on the regulation of firearms, the U.S.-centric pro-gun spin would be removed, and those responsible for this abuse of Wikipedia for narrow political objectives would be sanctioned severely. I say 'if', because it is evident that this disgraceful state of affairs has been allowed to go on for as long as it has largely because of the narrow U.S.-centric bias of Wikipedia, and because those behind this dungheap of pseudohistorical spin are willing and able to rally an entire corps of 'contributors' to muddy the discussion with off-topic personal attacks, tendentious and repetitive nonsense, and a complete refusal to actually support the position of the article with credible sources. The tactic used to rally the troops on this occasion is one that I seem to recall Gaijin42 using before: posting a POV-ridden RfC which asserts as fact that which is under debate, and then notifying the mob that took part in the last farcical 'debate'. I'm sure that such tactics will prevail once more, and Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulation will remain the festering heap of shite that it currently is. Some things in Wikipedia are beyond fixing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

no credible mainstream historian appears to support the assertion that the restriction of access to firearms...was anything other than part of the general process of removing citizenship rights, and general harassment, of the Jewish minority.

...which is why we have really funny things like User:Gaijin42 citing a NYT article from Nov 9 1938 as a reference in the article. This citation is still in the article; Gaijin42 reverted, without supplying an edit summary, my attempt to remove it.[135] — goethean 21:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncontested Facts (such as a german official making a particular announcement, on a particular day in this case) do not suddenly change because the source documenting them is old. Additionally, that NYT article is cited by numerous secondary sources (The Halbrook article, but also many books on Kristallnacht). To your point above about citing the entirety of the rise and fall of the 3rd reich - I reverted your disruptive tag bomb during a discussion, but I do not believe I am the one who added that source to the article, however, it has been in the article for many months, so I could be wrong. As mentioned in the article discussion, yo umake many accusations about fringeness and sick fantasies, yet have yet to point out a single factual error in the section. You may disagree with the opinions of people in terms of the relevance of the facts (that are undisputed by all historians and sources) all you want, but their opinions are notable, and should be represented neutrally in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What do 'all historians' (or indeed any historians beyond the fringes of the U.S. gun lobby) have to say on the relevance of Nazi Germany to a general discussion regarding the regulation of firearms? How about rather than Google-mining for obscure sources to promote your agenda, you actually engage in a little wider research? If Nazi Germany is really as significant to the article subject as you wish to make out, prove it - by finding the independent sources the article so clearly lacks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Again you propose bars that do not exist. ALL POINTS OF VIEW are to be included to maintain neutrality. There are dozens and dozens of sources discussing this topic. Some neutral, some biased, some about gun control, some about the holocaust - but even if we had only the biased gun control sources, it would not change the fact that it is at minimum a notable minority viewpoint that should be represented. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. And WP:WEIGHT. And WP:OR. And then provide evidence that anyone but the same old sources you are repeatedly trotting out actually consider Nazi Germany of such significance that it merits the coverage our article gives it. Evidence from sources discussing the general subject, and not sources promoting the same propagandistic and pseudohistorical agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Uncontested Facts (such as a german official making a particular announcement, on a particular day in this case) do not suddenly change because the source documenting them is old.

If you are not a credentialed historian, then you should not be citing primary sources like old newspapers as if you were. And you should not be treating my removal of such as if it were vandalism. — goethean 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When did "old newspapers" become "primary sources"? I read the WP defs over and over -- and suggest that "old newspapers" are invariably "secondary sources." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought you knew this. It becomes a primary source, fringe, OR, not Cabal approved whenever a small group says so. Unless you are a credentialed historian/scientist/Nobel Prize winner who agrees with them, you really shouldn't participate. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Very Painful Experience - This incident by Goethean has been very painful for many of the serious and patient established editors. I have been editing for 10 years and in my entire experience nobody has ever come onto my talk page and just started dumping profanities at me like Goethean. And I edit the Global Warming pages so that should tell you something. He's disruptive in his editing approach and he is disruptive on the talk page. Specifically:

• profanity on my personal talk page.
• removing blocks of content without discussion on talk.
• adding need verification tags to peer reviewed, npov, very reputable content that is not in dispute
• unwillingness to discuss substance on the talk pages, focus on person attacks and personal disagreements.
• other points raised above by other editors

I think my fellow editors have been very patient. This is some of the worst of Wikipedia right here. This is why good editors leave. I feel bullied by this editor Goethean. Regarding the dubious contention that the article is a POV fork, a cursory search for gun control on google returns 700million hits. Gun control sections exist on the major newsmedia sites like cnn and time. In addition, broad subjects sometimes have independent articles....ie, climate change also has separate global warming, politics of global warming, global cooling and a bunch of other articles.....similarly at a minimum, gun control deserves a stand alone article page. So that claim is weak. The article is not in the best of shape right now because of disruptive editing like that seen by Goethean -Justanonymous (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A POV fork is when there are two articles on the same topic in order to display a particular point of view in one of them. Whether there are gun control articles on CNN is beside the question of whether gun control has been turned into a POV fork of the recently-renamed gun politics. I am sorry that I have made you feel bullied and I will do my best not to bully you. — goethean 00:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gun control sections exist on the major newsmedia sites like cnn and time". Yet again, Justanonymous demonstrates the fundamental problem with this article - it is driven exclusively by the narrow discourse around 'gun control' in the U.S. This article is supposed to be presenting a multinational perspective on a global issue. It singularly fails to do so. Furthermore, it also fails to even offer a balanced viewpoint of the subject from a U.S. perspective. Instead, it cherry-picks sources to project the absurd 'argumentium ad Hitlerium' perspective of a minority even within the pro-gun lobby. This is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV policy, and all the petty whining about 'being bullied' (yeah, right, as if Justanonymous wasn't engaging in the same personal attacks s/he accuses others of) should not divert our attention from this fact. Yes the debate is heated, and no, it isn't always civil - but the more fundamental issue is that Wikipedia is being abused by contributors concerned entirely with pushing a fringe agenda, rather than producing an article which accurately represented a balanced view of the subject. This is the real issue than needs addressing here. Or if not here, then perhaps at ArbCom, where the continued abuse of Wikipedia by POV-driven propagandists might at least stand a chance of being dealt with in a more fundamental way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump I would welcome arbcom. your repeated attempts to derail consensus building by wikilawyering and attempting to stop RFCs, goetheans removal of sources during a discussion of sourcing, complete ignoring of the pillar that "ALL Points of view should be represented" (" we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view") plenty for arbcom to discuss. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please illustrate with diffs where you have attempted to add any points of view other than your own into the article. Oh, thats right, you haven't, have you? No surprises there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And goethean removes another source, directly discussing laws which prevented Jews from owning guns, during the discussion about if this section is sourced or not. This type of behavior is unacceptable. [136] The cited reference : [137] which reads ) "[Discussing the Nov 11 law] This prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition [...] those now possessing weaopns and ammunition are to at once turn them over to the local police[...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has anyone noticed that Goethean actually admitted to being disruptive? [138][139] And all this while s/he is supposedly on a wikibreak (plus, s/he boldly declares that s/he is indefinitely topic-banned somewhere else; WP:IDHT, anyone?). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Erpert, those diffs do not show Goethean "admitting" any such thing. You should strike through them. It's really important not to distort or exaggerate the statements of other editors, particularly in the context of a heated discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If that was a misunderstanding, I apologize, but that was hardly a personal attack. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(plus, s/he boldly declares that s/he is indefinitely topic-banned somewhere else; WP:IDHT, anyone?)

The topic-ban from Tea Party movement-related pages could be construed to include hundreds of pages. The note atop my user page is intended to be a request for editors to contact me if they think that I have edited a page that I am not supposed to edit. It is difficult for me to understand how you think that I was bragging about a topic-ban. — goethean 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend all of Goethean's behavior here, but Gun control does appear to me to be an indefensible POV fork. A haphazard collection gun laws from various countries apparently to promote the gun lobby's point of view, with half the references coming from blogs or news media when we should be citing historians and other scholars. I believe a boomerang is in order here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Goethean should be sternly warned to be more polite when dealing with people who create NRA-driven POV forks. Those people, on the other hand, should be ashamed of themselves for subverting Wikipedia for the purpose of politically biased historical revisionism and rewarded by having their fork chopped off. I support deleting the article and salting the earth. MilesMoney (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be doing the gun lobby in general a disservice to suggest that the article accurately represents their point of view. They usually present better arguments than "Hitler took away the Jews guns so anyone who wants guns to be regulated is a Nazi" - this seems to be an extreme position even for them. This isn't mainstream 'gun lobby' propaganda, it is right-wing-conspiracy-theorist propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept your correction. If it's even further to the right than the NRA and all the way into the lunatic fringe, all the more reason to burn it with fire. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that Gaijin sought this forum. Goethean, while not much of a diplomat, has a point to make: the referencing in these articles is full of all kinds of problems, even at the basic level of using on-the-spot newspaper reports to verify broad statements about supposed policy goals, missing page numbers, basic confusion between factual verification and historical interpretation. Some throw around RS, as if RS allows us to insert POV interpretation as if it were established fact. BTW, Goethean isn't the worst of the NPA offenders--there's one on the other side who's worse, in my opinion. Anyway, I see no need for admin intervention. What this needs is the intervention of a historian, preferably a professor, to give a lesson or two on picking sources, being objective, and differentiating between statement and interpretation. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

drmies As I have mentioned before, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin. I think we are both well aware of our difference of opinion on gun and gun rights, and in the end the consensus may go against me (although I think no-consensus would be the probable outcome currently)- but surely you aren't saying it is acceptable to blank the section multiple times, and delete sources, when the discussion is the sources themselves! BTW, I certainly dont think throwing around RS allows up to insert POV as established fact - but the dozens and dozens of sources certainly does allow us to insert and attribute the POV as one of the multiple points of view on the topic. the primary sources are used to supplement the secondary sources - and those secondary sources directly reference and cite the primary sources. This is the exact purpose of WP:PRIMARY.I am very well aware that the section (and article) have major problems, but we are unable to work tactically on improving the article, because this same "it must be deleted, nobody can ever hear of this" attitude has been driven by Goethean and a few others for almost a year now. This is not WP:FRINGE NOBODY (no historians, no gun control advocates, editors here notwithstanding) disagrees about the facts. There can be no fringe on "what should we think about these uncontested facts" - everything by definition is an opinion. harcourt, slate, mother jones, straight dope, etc, all the preceding have directly addressed this topic - sure some disagree on the conclusion, but all admit the facts, and by entering the debate, surely it shows that the opposing pov is notable Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh gosh. I took a look at the article and its a festering mess of OR, SYNTH, COATRACK and everything that makes Wikipedia suck. It really needs a complete rewrite by a competent and unbiased editor, after which it will be much shorter and much better. Meantime, Gaijin42 needs to stop reverting. --John (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have had an immense amount of experience with Goethen, and about 90% has been painful, driven by Goethean. And the next runner up I've encountered in the entire Wikipeda is about 1/6th of that (about 15%). I am mentioning this only to say that what I say about behavior at this article is carefully considered and reinforced. They seem to turn everything into a nasty attack, a spun-up accusation, insult, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and that as a way to deprecate their viewpooitns, or something similar to that. A close review of the the last week or so at the talk page would go a long way towards illustrating and establishing this. They have also been trying to get their way by "aggressive editing" in areas under discussion, to put it charitably,but managing to stay under at least the bright line 3RR def of edit warring. What we have there is what would be the typical widespread situation of a contentious article due to reflecting a real-world contest...contentious but not nasty. Except that it has been turned into a painful situation largely by Goethean's behavior, and to a lesser extent by that of Andy the Grump. The behavior and atmosphere problem is what needs to get solved there. I'd suggest one of two ways to fix it:

• Give Gooethen a rest from the article and a warning to Andy or
• Place a general warning on the article that there is to be little or no: turning things into a nasty attacks, doing spun up accusations, insults, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and ad hominem deprecation of people that as a way to deprecate their viewpoints.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I had to suggest a fix for the article, it would be to (for a few weeks) turn it over to two participants there who I have immense respect for and who I've seen take the "high road" 100% of the time, exhibit expertise, and who I think are on opposite sides of this issue. Drmies and Gaijin42. And the rest of us voluntarily agree to sit back for a few weeks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• disruptive. parsing out the subtleties twix firearm and gun is ridiculous[140], such behavior may be considered obstructive or worse by some. from the cited source which was deleted by the editor, This prohibited Jews from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearmsDarkstar1st (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that 'citation' presents a perfect example of the piss-poor Google-mining WP:OR that has gone on in the article. Let's look at the citation in full: "<ref>{{cite book| url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=42nAUdDqPKKOigKsxYCACw&id=uXnZAAAAMAAJ&dq=complete+history+of+the+holocaust&q=weapons#search_anchor | title=A Complete History of the Holocaust | accessdate=2013-06-18}} page68</ref>". That's right, it is a citation to a Google search result! A Google search result which when followed tells us that the book is in the category "Juvenile Nonfiction". The search result presents a single small 'snippet', but no further context. Has whoever added the citation read the book? I think it is fair to assume not - otherwise why cite a Google search result rather than the book itself? Does the person who added the citation know what the authors views are on the relevance of gun control to the Holocaust, beyond this brief contextless snippet? I very much doubt it. Furthermore, the snippet tells us that "This [What? - The snippet doesn't show the previous sentence...] prohibited Jews from 'acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons...'". So it is 'weapon control', rather than 'gun control' anyway. The ('Juvenile') source is being cited to support something it doesn't actually directly say, based almost certainly on what is visible in a brief snippet. Such 'sourcing' would be dubious at best in support of an uncontroversial statement about an episode of The Simpsons, but in reference to the Holocaust? Truly appalling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed a "Juvenile Non-Fiction" book the other day--was it stuck back in? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I see that I raised the same point on the talk page, plus a couple of others. We just went through a similar thing in Gun Control Act of 1968, where the allegation was proposed, in our article, that the US 1968 act was based on or even copied from Nazi legislation. The "clincher" there was a statement by Neal Knox, a notable person and pro-gun activist, who had published a book with a real publisher, in which they drew the conclusion (to cut a long story short) that because a US legislator had read the German law and another had submitted the German law and a translation to the Congressional Record that therefore the US law had to be based on the Nazi law. This supposition on Knox's part (clear synthesis and guesswork, with no actual evidence provided for instance from analysis and comparison between the documents, or evidence from the person who supposedly wrote the law) was inserted in the article as a reference to support the suggestion that US legislators adopted Nazi legislation. Compare this version, "Alleged Nazi connections", to the current version, where the section now reads nothing but "Gun rights activists often associate the 1968 GCA with Nazi gun control laws, with some saying that the bill was comparable to German laws." The earlier section and its problems present the Gun control issue in miniature. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not surprised the article is full of POV. Because this ANI thread is full of the opposite political point of view pretending to be neutral. Nothing will be achieved here because nearly everyone is too emotionally charged over guns one way or the other to contribute positively to this situation.--v/r - TP 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I beg to differ, but the basic question is whether Goethean's comments (many of which address content issues, by the way and, also by the way, I suggested they tone it down--maybe too quietly) is actionable or not as personal attacks. I don't see that it is. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

On the behavior side, rather than try to ascertain whether such a severe or bright line has been crossed to merit sanctions, IMHO some milder actions to fix the nasty talk page atmosphere are merited. Even a general warning (but which lists the nastiness tools that I suggested above) not directed at any individual would be a help. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The personal attacks issue is weak, they are certainly skirting incivility, but it probably isn't an NPA. The issue is repeated vandalism and disruption of the exact section which is being discussed in an RFC. A clear case of WP:GAME and WP:DE, regardless of the ultimate strength or weakness in goethean's arguments.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you've got a POV warrior here who has already been topic banned from Tea Party articles. Since gun right's is a MAJOR Tea Party issue, I'm not sure how that's not a topic ban violation. But even assuming it isn't, this ANI thread and Goethean's comments make it clear that the Tea Party topic ban wasn't broad enough. He's clearly disruptive in more than just Tea Party and I think a broader topic ban of all political articles would be more suited to his flagerant disregard for content policies (misuse of WP:IRS to suit his POV). The article may need to be toned down for POV, but this ANI thread is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum, not center and most definitely not neutral.--v/r - TP 16:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: Nothing speaks more to Goethean's misuse of WP:IRS than this diff right here. Goethean is making a rediculous requirement for page numbers when no such requirement is supported by policy. The requirement in WP:V is that a source be verifiable, not that they are easily verifiable. Next he'll ask for the paraphraph number, sentence number, and then the exact word by book word count. It's a rediculous requirement, made up by Goethean, to fight sources he doesn't like. That's POV pushing at it's finest, my friend.--v/r - TP 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. The Tea Party article specifically says that such social issues as gun control are NOT part of the broad tea party movement and go so far as to point out two local exceptions to that rule. Gun control is mentioned only once in that article, in that line about the local exception. So no this really isn't part of Tea Party. It might be part of conservatism generally, but not the tea party. 16:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

[141] "15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs...5. Gun ownership is sacred." Please don't be silly.--v/r - TP 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tparis, there's a bunch of POV warriors here (I may well be considered one, though I resent the term). I'm not familiar with Goethean or the topic ban and its circumstances, but to say that gun control is part of a Tea Party ban because the Tea Party talks about gun control, that's a stretch, despite your one-liner above. Next thing you know you'd disallow Goethean from editing topics on US politics, the Republican Party, immigration, taxes, redistricting, K-street, Washington DC (the city), and the list can go on. And I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the content discussion (and Gaijin's "vandalism" accusations--one could charge disruption, but edit warring is a two-way street): in my opinion Goethean and Andy have a better understanding of precisely what RS and NPOV mean than their opponents. Seriously, you can't go around citing NRA officials on Nazi gun policies, or Juvenile Non-Fiction, or 1938 on-the-spot newspaper reports in an article like this, and I think you know this, politics aside. Warn Goethean, on their talk page or here, for adopting an inappropriate tone and start 3R proceedings if need be (but look at what other editors have done--it's plain to see in that article history), but this thread is too broad, and I doubt you'll find a lot of admins agreeing that Goethean needs to be sanctioned for their behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually you absolutely CAN quote NRA officials on their opinions. WP:NPOV explicitly states "ALL POINTS OF VIEW". Not "All points of view except the NRA". Not "all points of view that are popular in the liberal media". Not "All points of view that the editors here agree with". ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Period. These are recognized and notable experts in their field, and their views are repeated in multiple neutral sources (as one of the possible viewpoints). Reversion of vandalism is not edit warring. Deleting the content under discussion is vandalism. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Juvenile non-fiction can no more be thrown away for lack of context than it can be used for lack of context. Being written for adolescents doesn't change what it is. And age does not make a reliable source unreliable. If that were the case, we need to update Template:Cite to warn us in 100 years that our citations are too old. We use on-the-spot citations constantly. Don't you recall the Balloon boy hoax? The argument is only because used now because of a POV, plain and simple. And no, I wouldn't call you a POV warrior. Holding a POV and warring over it are different things. The only problem I can see is an over-dependence on pro-gun sources and especially the NRA. However, citing the NRA on Gun's Right's is no different than citing TransWatch.org or the Southern Poverty Law Center on anti-gay hate speech. They have a viewpoint and they are going to express it on their blogs and site. Either we allow that stuff or we don't. But we certainly do not pick and choose which ones we support based on our personal POV. There are objective criteria, they exist at WP:IRS and being biased is specifically not a determining factor in if a source is reliable. Read the policy yourself, there is a section specific to what I am talking about here. Goethean needs to be topic banned from anywhere he is incapable of contributing to without causing disruption. Clearly Tea Party isn't broad enough. His emotionally fueled tirades against the NRA are clear on that. That the article actually does have a POV slant doesn't absolve him of his behavior and I seriously doubt he could make the article neutral. He'd very happily just slant it the other way and be proud of himself. No, this guy is not capable of editing this article and I'd say politics in general.--v/r - TP 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And off we go again. Yet another contributor apparently unable to see beyond the narrow discourse of the U.S. gun control debate. This article is not about the NRA. It is not about the U.S. It is about the regulation of firearms throughout the world. Or it is supposed to be. The NRA is no more an authority on Nazi Germany than it is on Japan under the Shogunate. And it doesn't claim to be. The article entirely fails to demonstrate that this pseudohistorical bollocks has any credibility whatsoever beyond the right-wing fringes of U.S. politics. If this issue belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on the U.S. gun debate - and clearly identified as the fringe position it is even there. Allowing this nonsense to dominate a supposedly international article is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. The 'Nazis did it' argument simply has no credibility, and no traction, anywhere else, making it about the most blatant example of the endemic U.S.-centred bias that Wikipedia is lumbered with. This needs addressing, not the petty squabbles about who started calling who names first. That is a problem for the talk pages. This disgraceful 'article' is a far more fundamental problem, plainly visible to all those who read Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 has edit-warred in order to keep in place what is agreed to be a non-neutral version of the article, one which which uses bad sources. These sources are apparently the result of the haphazard Google-mining of book-snippets[142] in order to compile sources to support the partisan argument that gun control is associated with authoritarianism. Of course, the putative support for this argument is placed in the history section, not the argument section. He then brings the opposing party to WP:ANI in order to have him blocked. When I remove an off-topic source, he undoes my edit[143] and accuses me of committing vandalism.[144] I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate. — goethean 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So you admit to deleting sources during a discussion about if content is sourced. Im glad we could clear that up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Such removal is fair: we don't use Google snippets, since context is everything. What are you pointing at anyway--I know, you're pointing at the guns and nothing but the guns, but there's also mention of stabbing weapons and stout pieces of furniture. Essential questions like "did it matter at all" aren't answered by your snippet, so your inclusion (or edit-warring to keep it in?) to support what is seen by at least a half a dozen editors as POV editing is itself disruptive. You could have just let their edit stand and explained on the talk page precisely what was found in that book: but I have a suspicion that you don't have that book, only the snippet from Google Books. In contentious matters sourcing is everything--and citing snippets devoid of context and evaluation is not helpful. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The page is about gun control, therefore the relevant part of the content is the content discussing firearms. Yes, half a dozen think it is POV. an equal number think it is appropriate. We are in the middle of an RFC to determine consensus, and he deletes the content. This is not a BLP libel issue emergency. The content has stood for months, and he deleted it at the exact time that it was being discussed and would be most valuable for editors to evaluate. That is vandalism. Alternative history "did it matter" questions are very interesting. There is a good living to be made writing fiction about what the alternatives were. But it is absolutely uncontested that it did happen, so clearly the Nazi's thought it mattered. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my expressed concern on " nasty attack, a spun-up accusation, insult, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and that as a way to deprecate their viewpooitns, or something similar to that." I think that Goethean just did several of those in one post right here. And this is representative of what has been happening on the talk page. People can disagree without all of that painful crap. An atmosphere change is needed at the talk page. Disagreeing does not need to be painful nastiness. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

North, Goethean made a couple of jabs on the talk page, but this particular comment is to the point and in no way nasty or villanizing. He says "Gaijin has edit-warred"--that's hardly a personal accusation or anything like that; if it is, then all Goethean's opponents, who accuse them of edit-warring and worse, should be blocked on the spot. Come on: be reasonable. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Goethean's summary is correct. Gaijin42 has tendentiously violated just about every one of the core content issues of WP. This kind of editing is why WP is nowadays increasingly derided and ridiculed by scholars, journalists, and ordinary researchers. Gaijin has persisted in this behavior for months now, driving away many editors such as myself who came to work on improving the article. As a relatively new editor trying to apply core WP policy, I was appalled to have Gaijin42 call my editing (via grammar he later tried to weasel out of) of Holocaust denial. Those who haven't read it might review the entire talk thread on which Gaijin delivered that disgusting attack. Is this ANI process capable of doing the right thing? I stuck around for a while and then concluded that Gaijin simply would not allow constructive policy-based improvement to occur there, so I left. I propose a topic ban for Gaijin42, and if any editor agrees with me I suggest they begin a new bold-type sub-section in which to poll the opinions of the current group. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors attempted to redefine gun control to not include any discriminatorally written or applied laws, and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust. If the shoe fits... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Another incident of template vandalism

on Pakistan. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)7

Might need emergency temporary protection on the entire namespace. Dark Sun (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bit extreme... A Edit filter should suffix to root out the vandals. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Another Meepysheep sock. This time it was {{Native name}} that was vandalised. Only 14 minutes before it was reverted but long enough to generate 30 notifications by concerned users to OTRS. So whether it's edit filter or semi protect the entire template namespace, something needs to be done. NtheP (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also World War 2.. Meepsheep again Pfalstad (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should put up an edit filter to block the usage of that content. Then, Meepsheep should probably be banned indefinitely (not just blocked). Epicgenius (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeated policy violations

For most of this month, User:Dcelano has been violating policy at The Wiggles and its associated pages, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop from myself and from User:AngusWOOF. Here are some diffs: Removal of content without explanation or discussion [145]; addition of unsourced edits [146] [147] [148]. On Talk:The Wiggles, he's used it as a WP:FORUM, despite repeated requests to stop; see everything after December 3, from the section "Anthony's Shirts" onward. [149]. Most egregiously, Dcelano deleted part of the talk page when I warned him that if he continued, I'd see about getting him blocked. [150]. He has also engaged in the same sort of behavior on my talk page [151] and on AngusWOOF's [152] [153] [154]. There are other examples on other Wiggles pages as well. I think that a block is in order, since that seems to be the only thing that will stop him. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He has deleted stuff off my old talk page as well as bring up the same unsourced and poorly researched topics over and over for years [155] and posts the same stuff on other articles [156] -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would suggest a topic ban at the bare minimum. In addition, Dcleano has made time to use the article's talk page as a forum but he has yet to ever respond to anything on his own talk page; speaking of that, deleting things from someone else's talk page is ridiculous. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

coretheapple is disruptive editing, violating terms of service, deleting content

RE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SantaCon I have entered this information on coretheapple user talk page. User coretheapple has decided to use wikipedia as an his personal sounding board on an issue he feels strongly about-attacking new york santacon and its participants. He is threatening me after he blanked large amounts of my content on santacon wiki page, tenaciously removed my content and violated neutrality rules to make page very negative and one sided. He removed all postive entries and added all negative entries. user coretheapple is citing editorial opinions, articles and blogs as references that are not encyclopedic or neutral. That violates the neutrality and non personal opinion and non vandalism rules. User coretheapple has written santacon wikipedia page as an attack on nyc santacon, not as a description of the entire event. He has repeatedly deleted sections "charitable contributions and good works" and "other cities". He is violating mutiple policies of wikipedia and wikimedia. I request he be banned from volunteering and editing for violation of terms of service and cyberbulling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c07a:25c0:cc23:3f82:60ac:138d (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple's position, that the negative descriptions in the media are more important than self-promoting text from SantaCon itself. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) This is apparently the same IP user whose edits blanking entire sections was rolled back by User:Jorm [157]. His/her latest edit[158] I marked as good faith but really was unconstructive ("While one Santacon, NYC, has garned bad publicity and is the focus of the writer of this page,..."). Jorn tells me that he can't grant a semiprotection, though warranted, because his tools are not community granted. Also I notice that a constructive IP just edited it. If there is more blanking, I think a semi may will be warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I really don't think removing 5 paragraphs, 4 external links, 3 French hens, 2 turtle doves, and adding the following sentence is consistent with Wikipedia policy:

While the overwhelming public reaction to SantaCon is positive, a very small number of vocal not in my backyard critics that hate parties, young people and recreation involving alcohol have raised shrill voices in protest.

(with apologies to Frederic Austin and everyone in English history). One must typically have clean hands to obtain relief at ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Lnapolit pushing coyprighted info into article

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 h. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought above user was simply writing in non-neutral information to the Dean Hamilton article but after User:Discospinster pointed out it was copied from http://tayronastudios.com/dean.php, I warned them on their talk page. After which, said user placed the violating information back in twice [159] and [160]. Can we get an admin to look it over? Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Info has been re-added again since posting this [161]. Jns4eva (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate info box information

I found a series of potentially inaccurate edits today made by an anonymous editor, Special:Contributions/67.210.39.82 because that anonymous user had changed "largest city" for several counties in California which are on my watchlist. In each case, they changed the "largest town" and defined places by both largest in population and largest by area.

The only problem was for Humboldt County, California, they used an unincorporated area as the "city with largest area," left no citations to show where this information was found. For the other far northern California counties, I was unable to verify their contributions except by WP:NOR. My efforts in that regard were that I was unable to verify their contributions as accurate for five counties and so reverted those edits. Then I looked at their contributions and found they've done this to over 100 other counties all over the U.S., not just California.

After I reverted their edits, they replaced the inaccurate information back in the articles despite my notice to them on their user page.

I'm not qualified to determine if what they did is right or not. I only know for the counties which I reverted, the information added to the page was not correct. Another user left a short comment on their User talk:67.210.39.82 user talk page, as did I but so far no replies from the anonymous user. I have no idea why they're doing this all over the United States, or what their inaccurate reference book may be, but I can't fix all this and so I'm asking for help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

world war 2 has been vandalized

Something to do with templates, I can't figure it out. Pfalstad (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed now. Pfalstad (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pfalstad: Out of curiosity, did the vandalism have something to do with an image? Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

yeah a face sitting image and a message asking people to follow meepysheep. Pfalstad (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Solutions already underway--but thanks for reporting yet another instance. Pretty sure some more over-arching protection will probably be required til this sockfarm settles down. GJC 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is out of hand. An abuse filter should be put up ASAP to block the insertion of certain images. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We can already label images as "bad images" that can't be placed in certain places, as well as we can protect templates that are highly used. The problem is that there are a lot of highly used templates that aren't protected and there are too many images to label as bad images to individually find them all to label. We can't set an abuse filter to look at an image an tell if it's good or not. A more viable solution is to have only users with autoconfirmed or a similar right the ability to add images to templates. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it's fairly unusual to add an image or to change an image embedded in a template, an edit filter could be set to flag such edits by non-autoconfirmed editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin please Put up some edit filters against "Meepsheep" & "Meepysheep" etc. The help chat has had plenty of questions on whether Wikipedia was "hacked". The reality is not much better. Thanks, -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Done to Special:AbuseFilter/58. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the West Bank and the neutrality of an admin

Horologium notified me of "A quick look of your recent contributions indicates that you are wandering into an area in which active sanctions are in place. You need to be made aware of this. I will be logging this at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications because many of your edits (especially on 17 December 2013) fall under the scope of the sanctions. Horologium (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)". This was after he wrote You have repeatedly tried to change the characterization of East Jerusalem in the BLP for Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I have reverted you. Instead of discussing, you began an edit-warring to keep in your change, for which there was no consensus. If you make a change which is reverted, you are supposed to initiate a discussion, either on the article talk page, or the talk page of the user with whom you are having a dispute. You have done neither. A quick look at your user talk page indicates that you are pushing the same PoV on other pages, and have encountered pushback. Start discussing the issue and come up with a policy-compliant consensus, or you will find yourself dragged to the Administrators' Noticeboard for a discussion on your behavior. Horologium (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC).

I dispute this notice.

I had a discussion with Pluto2012 about my edits, who didn't agree and said that this view is more recent (the specific edit was this in an article about the war in 1948, when of course the issue of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was different to what it is today and have been since the occupation in 1967). Horologium, however, use other arguments (basing them on the annexation, which is irrelevant) and I still think it is the minority view that East Jerusalem is not a part of the West Bank/Palestinian territories. This is not my "POV pushing" but it is in line with the consensus, which includes the International Court of Justice's ruling in 2004, where they repeatedly refers to East Jerusalem as being "including" in the West Bank/Palestinian territories. This view is also reflected in the main article about the topic, which is the West Bank. I will cite som parts:

[...] The West Bank also contains a significant coastline along the western bank of the Dead Sea.[3] According to the International Court of Justice advisory ruling (2004), whatever agreements have been made between Israel and Palestinian authorities since 1993 do not alter the fact that these territories, including East Jerusalem, continue 'to remain occupied territories' with Israel 'the occupying power'.[4]

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has a land area of 5,640 km2 and 220 km2 water, the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea.[3] It has an estimated population of 2,676,740 (July 2013).[3] More than 80 percent, about 2,100,000,[3] are Palestinian Arabs, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank,[3] including about 192,000 in East Jerusalem,[5] in Israeli settlements. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.[6][7][8][9]

[...] Though 164 nations refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as “Occupied Palestinian Territory”,[14][15] the state of Israel insists that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” should be considered occupied territories.[16]

I also based my edits on the discussions here and here. So when I started to edit this on 17 December, which I have also done before but never had the time to correct all, I did it with this in mind. There is no "POV pushing" and I am just reflecting the consensus view.

Furthermore, I don't know which other actions Horologium means "fall under the scope of the sanctions". The vast majority of my edits are wholly uncontroversial where I just updated the links, names, correct spelling etc. My other edits are in line with the policies.

At last, I don't think Horologium is an "uninvolved administrator", as required. He was and is discussing the issue. Then after discussing it, he starts with threats (see above what he wrote 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)) and then suddenly jumps in as an administrator and a litte after, he issues a notice. I think that is remarkable. Some of his respective my last edits showing the activity are useful:

• 00:06, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+262)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles ‎ (→‎2013 notices: added User:IRISZOOM.) (current)
• 00:02, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+3,129)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: new section)
• 23:37, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,039)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: response.)
• 23:21, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+963)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: new section)
• 23:13, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586709252 by IRISZOOM (talk) You are pushing your view on several articles; it needs to stop NOW.) (current)
• 22:54, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586639823 by IRISZOOM (talk) Israel annexed E. Jerusalem; they did not annex the West Bank. E. Jerusalem is disputed.)
• 01:36, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . Pink salmon ‎ (→‎Habitat: removed piping for outdated term; Just use "Honshu".) (current)
• 22:55, 17 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586542408 by IRISZOOM (talk) East Jerusalem's status is disputed, which is why it is identified separately.)

• 01:20, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,105)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (Not relevant here. I will take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) (current)
• 00:36, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: Spelling.)
• 00:35, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+477)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice)
• 00:13, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+341)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: New reply.)
• 00:08, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+286)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice)
• 23:58, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,057)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: Reply.) (current)
• 23:25, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: Grammar.)
• 23:25, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+372)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: My answer.)
• 23:18, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+564)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: new section)

Best regards. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph seems like a routine notification. The rest is very difficult to follow, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• The notice is a standard warning, issued not for the article on which we were edit-warring (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen), but rather for the many articles which IRISZOOM edited which are within the bounds of WP:ARBPIA. In regards to Israel/Palestine issues, I am uninvolved, as any of the many editors active in that area can attest. I have no more than a handful of edits to any of the pages covered by that arbitration (all minor or reversion of clear vandalism), and (after my extraordinarily unpleasant experience with WP:ARBMAC2) I actively stay away from all nationalism disputes. The warning I conveyed to IRISZOOM is simply to inform him that there are sanctions involved on many of the articles he edited on 17 December. There are plenty of admins who keep an eye on that area, and one of them could notice the tenor of his edits, which serve to advance a particular point of view. In any case, I would not block him, because I am clearly involved in a dispute with him on the Ros-Lehtinen BLP. Horologium (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• IRISZOOM, what do you think would be an appropriate administrative/community response? I ask merely for clarity's sake. It's not like the ARBPIA notice can be undone, so what should be done from here? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• IRISZOOM, since your updates affect several articles you could discuss the issue centrally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. On the notice, it's just a notice. Anyone editing in the WP:ARBPIA topic area should receive one of those at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I don't think the notice was warranted, as bescrived lengthy in my post above, and I think it's remarkable that an admin who have a dispute with me, including using threats, then suddenly starts issuing a notice when it got a little heated. But maybe it's just me and if so, then we can close this case.

• Furthermore, the notice is not really clear. Can I keep make edit like this, which surely can't be viewed as something other than a NPOV? In Church of the Holy Sepulchre, someone has just inserted that it lies in Israel, which it doesn't and have already been discussed in the talk page, but I am not sure I can revert that.

• Sean.hoyland, great link. I will make a post there soon. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can continue to edit in the topic area. The notice is just to make people aware of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. That edit to Beit Orot isn't controversial, or it shouldn't be. It's referred to both as a settlement and a neighborhood and it's across the green line. I've removed the misinformation from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre article. That kind misuse of Wikipedia is common in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons q

Any Commons admins around who can delete File:David Horvitz Profile.jpeg? I just blocked the uploader for not being here to improve encyclopedia. If you need background, there's some on my talk page and more in the history of David Horvitz (an article that needs some attention); let me just say that I believe this edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: Can't en.wikipedia sysops delete pages on en.wikipedia? I believe that the image is on local wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If we were ever to ask for power on Commons the shit would really hit the fan. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Diannaa tagged it as a copyright violation, and while the coloring was a bit off between the version on Wikipedia and the version on the corporate website that Diannaa pointed to, it was very clearly the same photo. (That, of course, meant that how the uploader used the image became a moot point.) If you ever need a Commons admin in the future, feel free to ping me. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Inapt action by Admin John Reaves

Hello, sometime back Admin John Reaves cleaned up certain section of page Sajin Vass Gunawardena. Accidently I reverted his changes but immediately I corrected my mistake and posted a message on his TalkPage. Subsequently I noticed that he kept on blanking large sections of the page citing not a reliable source or remove statements that make no sense and are of dubious value etc where all the sections were properly referenced. Admin’s statement that certain section is of dubious value is merely his interpretation and not as per Wikipedia guidelines.

I repeatedly left messages on his TalkPage and also on the Article Talkpage, asking him to discuss first before blanking a section and that I have reverted the changes. To my surprise, he without discussing anything, engaged in edit-war and shockingly revoked my Rollback rights????

p.s. Just today, users from two IP have been trying to do what John has done; mass blanking and I had reverted their edits.

May I request this forum to look into this. Cheers AKS —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh dear. To be kind to the OP, this should be closed ASAP. To be kind to the encyclopedia, the OP should be indeffed until acknowledging that edits like this are not appropriate and will not be repeated. Also, it is very inappropriate to spam a bunch of busy arbitrators with a request to investigate a minor disagreement. Next time, ask at WP:BLPN whether adding attack items to an article is ok providing the subject deserves it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no kindness in indeffing someone over a matter such as this. They may well be completely wrong about the validity of Reaves' actions, but if so, they deserve an explanation and a chance to learn from it. Wikipedia editorship is shrinking; this sort of bloodthirsty behavior on ANI is part of the reason why. There is no harm to treating this as a teachable moment, rather than an excuse to kick someone while they're down. In other words, back off and make yourself useful somewhere else. MilesMoney (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty. I responded to this after seeing a complaint at OTRS by doing a quick clean-up before bed. I assumed that Arunsingh16, who has over 7,000 edits since 2007, would at least be aware of BLP and NPOV and what a reliable source is. -- John Reaves 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

See also: past rollback abuse. -- John Reaves 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@John Reaves: You were right to make the edit. I think, however, that Arunsingh16 should only be let off with a warning, not a block. Please do remove his rollback privileges, because he was using it inappropriately. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Already removed. -- John Reaves 17:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

User:JzG semi-protected Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, following this discussion on the talk page. As I said in my comments I definitely don't believe that semi protection is necessary or warranted, given that there has been one sock IP in the past week and I don't think we should be preventing people from editing a talk page because of one involved admin's belief that the IP contributors are falling afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Could I please get another opinion as to whether the protection is necessary, especially a 2 week protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to instigate a conflict between two admins. When I notified JzG that the page was not semi-protected, I only meant to contradict the assertion that it was already semi-protected.

Callanecc, you said "Not until it happens",[162] but it has already happened. There have been three block evasions by one person, and two topic ban violations by another. These SPIs take considerable time, and protecting the page would provide some relief. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the intense off-site canvassing from pro-paranormal sites has had the effect of exhausting the non-canvassed editors. vzaak 08:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

By "not until it happens" I was referring to the off-wiki disruption moving onto the talk page and there being a large number of non-autoconfirmed disruptive edits to the page in a short (ie a day) period. The protection policy states that talk pages "are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism". This is definitely not "severe" and 2 weeks is a long time for a talk page to be protected. Regarding the SPIs, given the evidence presented so far and the number of admins familiar with the regular sockpuppets on the article you probably don't need to go into as much detail as you have in the past. Pointing out that an IP in that range has previously been blocked and a similar edit (plus a quick explanation) from a blocked account or IP should be enough for the regulars on that page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I semi-protected it, due to sockpuppetry by a banned user and because, in the end, it's time to start managing this idiocy down. The Sheldrake apologists have had their day in the sun, but the soapboxing has gone on far too long. The role of anons on the talk page, according to my review of it, amounts to WP:NOTFORUM, and has done for some time. I'm happy to help any that are genuinely likely to help, but the disruption currently outweighs any productive effect. Happy to let others decide otherwise if they want, but I think we really do need to start knocking this one on the head now. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

of the things that would help the talk page become a more productive space, i am not sure that semi protection is the first item on the list, although it is on the list.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• This seems like a proper application of ignoring all the rules to better the encyclopedia. -- John Reaves 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My very favorite pillar!  :-)   But that is not the justification Guy provided, he claimed the problem was anons using the talkpage as a WP:FORUM, which is what the most prolific contributor to mainspace nowadays accused a couple of anons of doing, back in November. Both of *those* anons have long since left the talkpage, methinks. But I'd like to hear more of Guy's policy-reasoning here, and in particular, if he is pulling out the big gun of WP:IAR, or is instead just using WP:FORUM as his guide. There were about 2% of the edits to the talkpage this month by anons, from what I can tell. Did those disruptive edits spark a significant portion of the other 98%? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just wondering, why isn't the article itself protected? Shouldn't it be protected as well? Additionally, shouldn't only the ban evader's IP range be blocked, so that other, productive, IP users can actually discuss the article? Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Slow moving edit war

I'm writing regarding the article Picture Perfect (Sevendust song). I changed the article into a redirect on August 4, only to have T.o.a.b revert my change. The article was then the subject of an AFD, the decision of which was to change the article to a redirect. Since then, T.o.a.b turned it back into a full article on August 24, September 20, and December 19. On my talk page on October 1, the user stated that he controls the article. I explained policy to no avail. I'm not asking for a ban, but I feel like an uninvolved editor should explain the situation, since he's obviously not listening to me at this point. Andrew³²⁷ 07:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) What you told him/her was pretty clear. S/he hasn't edited anywhere since you gave him/her the warning, so let's just see if anything happens from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. If they continue I wouldn't have an objection to a short block (and would do it myself). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged, hopefully it doesn't come to that. Andrew³²⁷ 09:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is evading his block.

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

---

User:Arthur Rubin is blocked for a week for, among other things, evading his topic ban by getting someone to edit for him. Now he's evading that block by -- you guessed it -- getting others to edit for him.

Rubin was gently warned by SimpsonDG, but responded by making transparent excuses and refusing to stop. According to him, these are just "notes as to edits I intend to make later", as if he couldn't do that off-Wikipedia, and as if his proxies weren't literally checking off items as they do his bidding.

Willful and repeated Arbcom topic ban violation is a serious offense and the weeklong block was barely a slap on the wrist, but he's making a joke out of it by engaging in proxy editing. What makes it worse is that he's an admin so he ought to know better. Editors have been indeffed for less.

I'm not asking for an indef. I do think his block duration should be restarted and extended to include his own talk page. My personal opinion is that he ought to reconsider remaining an admin, as he does not appear to have any respect for the rules he's charged to enforce, but I am not making a formal request about that at this time. MilesMoney (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No. None of the issues he flagged on his talkpage are even related to the topic ban area. This is unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. He's not evading his topic ban. He's evading his block (which he received for evading his topic ban). Please read WP:EVADE if this is not clear. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy

I believe this is meritless and I arrive at that conclusion through two entirely separate thought processes.

First, we should start with WP:AGF and proceed to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?, which explicitly approves of user talk pages containing "to-do lists", "reminders" and "planned activities". The scope of Arthur's block did not include his talk page, so he can post such things. The only way to conclude those are overt proxy recruitments is to chuck our willingness to assume good faith - a natural state of mind for someone with a grudge, I suppose, but there isn't any tangible evidence to overcome the assumption of good faith rule. In other words, the conclusion that Arthur overtly recruited proxies is an emotional conclusion, not one derived from analysis of evidence. Since his block did not turn off his right to edit his own talk page, he can include all of the material listed at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?.

Second, this complaint is predicated on a false statement. The complaining party wrote

"Rubin was gently warned...but responded by... refusing to stop."

A simple look at the verion history shows that is untrue. At the moment I am typing, Arthur had posted no additional "to do" items to his list after the gentle, and in my opionion misguided and undeserved, warning.

Conclusion: Looks to me like someone has a grudge. But they should include me in this ANI if they really want to push it, because I claimed an item from the to-do list on Athur's page and did it on my own hook. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In all candor, you should probably mention that you are one of the two proxies he is currently using to evade the ban. Also, claiming I have a grudge is itself a violation of WP:AGF, and it also happens to be false. I previously defended Rubin, but he has since burned through all the good faith.

As for the rest of your defense, it is flawed and not factual. In specific, when he was warned about evasion, he did not admit to it or agree to stop. He said "I don't see it". If he stops adding to the list after I made my ANI report, this would only be an argument for not blocking his talk page access. He would still deserve to have his block restarted from today. MilesMoney (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the proxy rules you have previously cited, proxies do not have independent reasons to make edits and/or the project is not improved as a result. I removed external link spam that was making a legal threat against Wikipedia. Gee, naughty meNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would make up your mind.

First, you say that he did stop asking others to edit for him after he was gently warned, which is an admission that he ought not have been doing so in the first place. When I showed that he, in fact, rejected the warning, you gave up on that line of argument.

Now you're saying that it's ok for you to follow his directions if you have your own reasons, which contradicts your admission that he ought to have stopped when warned. It also confuses the issue of whether you should have followed his orders with whether he should be giving orders.

You really can't have it both ways. MilesMoney (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, if you deny ever having beaten your wife/parent/child, then you are guilty of refusing to stop beating them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Logic does not work that way. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with what Arthur is doing, so long as he confines himself to posting to his own talk page for the remainder of the block. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That is very kind of you, but WP:EVADE is less kind. MilesMoney (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy you quote is just as kind as I am, actually. "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." The edits Arthur has been requesting all seem good at first glance. Let's not harm the encyclopedia just so we can stand on principle (especially when said principle is not even founded in policy). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

e/c::::I agree entirely, except for suggestion the complaining party is standing on principle. He and Arthur are fresh from content disputes and the complaining party has been unwilling to drop-the-stick. Instead, he's trying to kick the other guy (Arthur) when he's down. This complaint is a classic example WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and calls to mind WP:BOOMERANG if you ask me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? What content dispute was that? Diffs or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that we know that independent reason is irrelevant. The other proxy wrote:

Sorry about the block. If you want me to post anything to ANI on your behalf, let me know.

This violates WP:EVADE, in that they would not have "independent reasons for making such edits". Having shown their willingness to proxy, they followed through by making almost all of the changes Rubin requested. MilesMoney (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Cut the crap, Miles. Has any harm resulted from this proxy editing, or do you want Arthur punished for the sake of enforcing (your interpretation of) a policy? I can't speak for the other ~800 admins, but I'm intent on letting it slide (WP:IAR and all that). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to let it slide, then, but I will not, and there are ~799 other admins out there.

Rubin's actions are injust, and that makes them harmful. When an admin is allowed to break the rules but regular folk have to follow them, it makes the admins look like dicks. Anyhow, thank you for invoking WP:IAR, as it means you've given up claiming that he didn't break the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, you are guilty of assault and battery if I offer to beat your wife for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Logic still doesn't work that way. If I ask nobody in particular, "Who will beat my wife for me?" and you do it, I am not innocent. MilesMoney (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Someguy1221, let me ask you a question. Let's say we grant, for the sake of the argument, that what Arthur did is completely legitimate, somehow. If this is the case, why did he lie when confronted?

Look at his talk page and you'll see that he didn't respond, "Hey, I'm allowed to request proxying just so long as there's independent reason". That would have been (in my eyes) questionable, but at least direct and forthright.

No, he didn't say that. Instead, he said, "I don't see it. Are you saying it's inappropriate to take notes as to edits I intend to make later?" Instead of admitting he expected others to make these changes for him, he pretended he was going to get around to them eventually and it was just a coincidence that he's leaving them on his talk page. As if he couldn't have saved them on his own computer. He lied.

Why did he lie? Well, I'm not an expert, but I'd say it's because he had a guilty conscience. He knew that the warning was fair, so he didn't want to admit to what he was accused of. Remember, he is currently blocked because he just engaged in proxying to evade Arbcom, so the fact that evading could get him into trouble is something that must have been prominent in his thinking. If only that had stopped him from reoffending. MilesMoney (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• In general I'm one of those who believe talk pages should not be used to stir drama, and if someone is blocked, posting a helpful list of suggestions that talk page watchers might act on is just going to cause drama (witness this report). However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and each case is evaluated on its merits, and we are not bound by a misguided reading of WP:EVADE (which does not say what MM appears to think). Looking at this particular case shows that the talk page comments are unrelated to any contentious topic, and the reported case is not one that EVADE attempts to cover. Regarding the talk page: it's owner should just wait out the block and keep personal notes off-wiki, and while onlookers are welcome to act on such benign points, acknowledging them on the talk page is sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block—it would be best to skip that. The fact that MM has brought this to ANI demonstrates a win-at-all-costs approach, and that demonstrates that the other threads regarding MM are soundly based, and the project will benefit when MM is removed. Hint: we don't kick people unless such kicking assists the encyclopedia. BTW, offering to posts comments for a blocked user at ANI is standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the thread with all of the Opposes? That thread? I would love to hear you explain how your comment is anything but a threat of retaliation for reporting Rubin. Please, I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so work with me here. It would really be helpful if you would explain why he gets to WP:IAR, but I get threatened by you for pointing out when he ignores them. It would also be great if you could explain why it's WP:BATTLEFIELD for me to report him for "sort of saying FU to the system", but it's ok for Rubin to threaten to retaliate with SPI and ANI. These are tough questions, but I'm sure you have good answers, and I'm waiting for them patiently. Until then, have a great day. MilesMoney (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation of my open/honest statement of accountability (for deleting an external link spam and vague $100 million liability threat against Wikipedia). I suppose one might initially think I was "sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block", but on further reflection I would hope one would realize it is hard to tell the

• System fuckers and too stupid to know better proxies

from the

• Honest editors who take personal ownership for their acts, and believe the project was improved even if the edit was called to their attention by a blocked editor.

And that is only more difficult if such edits are made in the dark, instead of the light. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not saying FU to the system, it's saying FU to every non-admin who contributes to the system. It's also saying FU to Arbcom, but I figure they've got thick skins by now, so Rubin's actions won't hurt their feelings. MilesMoney (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's MilesMoney again! Big surprise...good thing he moved this matter to the right drama board (his words). Drama is right...--MONGO 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• MilesMoney, you need to stop. Now. We all understand you are hell-bent on having somebody blocked, but ANI is usually not very friendly to people with vindictive agendas as obvious as yours. If A.R.'s actions really are objectionable, other editors will soon start flocking in saying so independently of whether you keep jumping up and down shouting here the way you have been doing, so you could just as well stop beating the dead horse now. The same goes for your participation on A.R.'s own talkpage, which will soon cross the line into harassment. If you continue this in either venue, this will boomerang on you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not actually hell-bent on having Rubin blocked. He is already blocked. This is because he violated an Arbcom topic ban twice, once by evading through a proxy edtor. I'd just like that scandalously short block to mean something as opposed to being (in the words of his defender), an "FU to the system". Mostly, I'd really like him to stop doing things like this.

As for a vendetta, citation needed. I defended Rubin initially, and I tried to help him avoid getting blocked. He responded by threatening me. He has since threatened me twice more. If anyone is taking it personally, it's him. In contrast, I've asked only for the minimal reaction to his block evasion, which is quite fair and impersonal. Please do not violate WP:AGF by claiming I have a vendetta.

The horse isn't dead, but I'm done riding it. I'm off to the real world. When I return, I fully expect that someone will break the rules to protect Rubin's bad behavior by shutting down this report. It'll be one admin whitewashing another. Even if so, I bet Rubin won't be leaving commands for more proxy editors for the remainder of this block, so that's something. Still, it would be great to have my pessimism dealt a blow. Are you up to it? MilesMoney (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You said above you want his block reset to start now, so how is that not wanting him blocked? An admin needs to block you...first for 24 hours and then for increasingly longer durations until you stop disrupting this website.--MONGO 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, it's discourteous to ask me questions after I've announced that I'm done riding this horse. In an attempt to be courteous, I'm going to answer you while slowly backing away. I do not intend to further comment on this section, so please don't encourage me to.

I cannot be asking for Rubin to be blocked because he is already blocked. However, through the use of proxies, he has evaded this block for a few days. I am asking that (as per WP:EVADE) the days he evaded not count towards time served. The mechanism for this is to extend his current block by the number of days that he cheated it. This is equivalent to resetting the expiration timer to the original duration. None of this is the same as asking to have him blocked, which is a logical impossibility anyhow so long as he remains blocked.

Remember, a total of three editors have agreed that Rubin should not have sought proxy editors, and it now looks like Rubin will stop, regardless. If he commits to stopping, then I would be fine with him being allowed to keep editing his talk page while blocked. If not, then taking away his talk page access would be necessary to protect Wikipedia.

Now, if you have any further questions, you're welcome to visit my talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, this is silly. An editor's prime purpose for continuing talkpage access while blocked is to request unblock. However, making a "to do list" of things that they personally intend to do when unblocked is not unacceptable - as long as there is no overt requests to others (which could include using "e-mail this user", or pinging someone). Let me put forward a few examples to show why this whole thing is silly:

1. I'm currently on-leave from my senses admin tools. If I approach another admin and ask them to block someone/undelete something/protect a page, am I violating my holiday by proxy?
2. If someone keeps a list of "articles I plan to create" on their userpage, and I go and create one of them, have I done something wrong?
3. If I keep a list of "admin-y things I need to do as of January" and someone comes along and does those things, have they done something wrong? Have I?
4. If an editor makes a list of spelling corrections they intend to make once unblocked, and I go ahead and make those edits, have either of us done something wrong?

So, take this as you may ... ES&L 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

COI editing, talk page whitewashing by User:Jphearts

User:Jphearts has only ever edited Abraham_Silberschatz and its talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jphearts - subject to the proviso that I don't have deleted contribs X-ray vision. That page has a serious COI issue inasmuch as it was largely written by User:Avi28 who acts exactly as if they are the subject of the article, let us say.

User:Jphearts's latest batch of editing was to remove the BLP and COI tags from the main article without addressing them https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Silberschatz&action=historysubmit&diff=586802545&oldid=584918546 (this diff subsumes one edit by me removing honorifics from the article body per MOS), and remove my comment from the talk page mentioning the COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbraham_Silberschatz&action=historysubmit&diff=586801974&oldid=550321798 . I was advised to take this to AN/I, so, here I am. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Some admin should full-protect the page temporarily, as Jphearts is already autoconfirmed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)