Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835

Ihardlythinkso blanking articles in order to make a point

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

---

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

Ihardlythinkso has been blanking and disrupting articles he has contributed to in order to make a point. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

A number of editors have discussed this issue with him, but he hasn't stopped. I brought it up on his talk page, here, and got quite a response back. His posts to other users, such as Quale, have recently been way over the NPA line.

• "shut your fucking stupid baselessly condemning mouth."
• "fuck off, Quale"
• "(I don't ever expect apology from that SOB.)"

His response to me was, frankly, even worse.

I think a block for disruption and personal attacks is, unfortunately, warranted in order to prevent this sort of editing from continuing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this [9] show he is trying to WP:OWN the article (or at least his contributions), but my guess it is spite more than anything. He can be blunt, but he isn't dumb and he knows he can't just remove his contributions to the articles. The third pillar makes that abundantly clear, as does the CC-BY-SA license he released the contribs under. He and I have bumped heads a few times, so I'm not inclined to get involved with dishing out sanctions myself, but an explanation from him is certainly due. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Blanking articles" is what vandals do, and I am no vandal. I have three (3) orthochess articles to my name, and any blanking was in error and corrected by me already. I did remove content contributions made by me in those three. On Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening, I removed my copyedits. (I have my own reasons, they have nothing to do with "proving a point", or "creating disruption", so you have no basis to assign those as intention as you have -- that's false, and springs from bad-faith. What readers of this ANI don't know and can't empathize with, is the way I've been treated by editors like yourself, User:MaxBrowne, User:ChessplayerLev (but that was a long time ago, but he never apologized for the bogus ANI and falsifications made then and attempt to get me blocked or banned, as you are doing), all supported indirectly by defacto project lead User:Quale, who has only disparaging accuses and false blames for me, and compliments to those who would attack and attempt to smear. (It's not very pleasant. There is only so much unfair treatment and bullying incivilities a person can take. That limit was pushed over me recently.) I won't be editing orthochess articles any more, as a result, I won't be able to return to project articles I've touched, to touch them again after having improved my editing skills. (Articles I've copyedited when I began here freak me out, how embarassingly poor my writing editing skills were then, and I've drawn the conclusion my skills will probably continue to increase over time, to the point where edits I think I'm pround of today will make me cringe in embarrassment again in future when I see them. I don't want those edits hanging around as permanent monuments to my mediocre skill as editor at that time. I can't return to ProjChess due to chronic maltreatment and prejudice by Quale to disparage me, and compliment those who would attack me. All of that is true for anyone doing the research. But ANIs are burning stakes, aren't they. (No time for digging the truth. Hang'em high!) I believe this ANI is nothing but the OP's assertion of continued conflict-dominance clashes with me at article Antichess and article Checkmate, and if true, a means to harass and misuse process. (Why does he care? No reason other than that. Oneupmanship. Need to assert superiority over another editor he's been in dispute with.)

The issue here is whether an editor has the right or not to remove their own copyedits from an article. If it can be done without disturbing other editors' contributions, then why should it be denied? Edit reverts are the same thing: an editor has changed their mind on leaving her/his edit in the article. So I have changed my mind on Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening. I have my reasons, they have been partially explained -- enough to know accusations of valdalism are wholly untrue and bad-faith by an editor who I've had content clashes with. p.s. In each case of clashes with the OP, I've withdrawn from said Talks to avoid drama with him. He's too aggressive and unstoppable IMO, and objective discussion isn't in the cards with him -- only forcing his way, and "winning". I've avoided him therefore, now he comes to my Talk to unfairly accuse, and open this ANI as further contesting with me for whatever motive. I suspect the motive has nothing to do with the health of the encyclopedia, but rather interpersonal conflict he revels in. I'd like someone to tell him to leave me be. I've loved Wikipedia and contributing to orthodox chess articles. But the hostility, false blames, attempts to smear and defame, have made the "collaborative editing environment" a joke of inhospitable abusiveness in my perspective. (Just symptomatic of the wider rampant incivilities and lies told and smears conducted against editors generally -- a civility problem WP has no answer for, but has become the encrusted cultural fact here long before I signed up as editor. I simply don't want to be a part of it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Dennis Brown's speculation of "ownership" is not correct. I wanted to remove my copyedits, and the example where User:MaxBrowne was excused for doing this at Chess.com by another editor, that he had the right to do so, was basis for me to believe or offer, that I have a right to undo my edits if I want. Nothing more. I have no desire to break any rule.

Myself, I am not the slightest bit convinced of the sincerity of your argument. But putting that aside and responding to your question, there is no rule against reverting your copyedits. However, once you make an edit here, you release your contributions to CC-BY-SA and have no right to deny the restoration of those very same edits. Others clearly feel the content is beneficial to the article. You have no right to remove it without building a consensus for removal. Resolute 01:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My take on this is that Ihardlythinkso is always sincere. I'm not saying that he is always right. Cardamon (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that answer. To clarify, I didn't assert at any time I had right to deny restoration. (I didn't know.) I asked an editor to not restore, that I preferred no restoration (and explained why). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At least twice you told editors to not revert a revert, with one of them telling the editor to go read policy and the other telling the editor they were in violation of policy. [10] and [11] So you were asserting that readding the material was against policy. GB fan 01:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's misleading. I was telling that editor that his revert of my revert was out-of-order. (The edit-warring template itself says to not revert a second time, "even if you believe you are right".) That discussion issue was over BRD versus BRRD, and whether his or my revert was the "B". So that is entirely a different issue than if I do or don't have right to deny (ultimate) restoration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. When Kkj11210 (talk · contribs), a mature and polite editor, tried to discuss the blanking of the chess articles, IHTS immediately launched into a bullying ad hominem based on KJ's youth. I am also fed up with having my name constantly brought up in the process of attacking other editors over incidents that had nothing to do with me. I honestly have tried to have as little as possible to do with this editor lately, but his recent editing has been extremely disruptive. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesspool stuff, MaxBrowne. (As long as you feel free coming to the ANI cesspool to accuse of narcissism and disingenuousness, according to your need to falsely accuse and smear, do I in turn get to tell you that your behavior is that of an unethical cheat? Underhanded sleaziness? Do you want to throw more insults and buy the house some popcorn? This is your element, isn't it? Cesspool. Mud. Happy as a pig in mud you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take a break. After a day or two think about whether you want to continue editing here, and imagine how much more pleasant it would be if you and other editors could be nice to each other. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's taking a break whether he wanted to or not, as the above came after my having warned him not to continue with personal attacks; accordingly I've blocked Ihardlythinkso for 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about what happened in discussions concerning the Chess articles in the past, but I can only give my views regarding what I've observed in the last few days. From my take on the issue, it looks like user Ihardlythinkso believes that he has been subject to personal attacks in the past and that a number of editors are against his good-faith efforts to improve Chess-related articles. In response, he has been removing his early (and apparently bad-quality) additions while believing that such removals are beneficial to the articles. I didn't accuse him of WP:OWN since I was being WP:CIVIL, but I do believe that he was acting without awareness of WP:OWN. After the expiration of the block, I think that a discussion attempting to put behind past events, as well as a good dose of WP:AGF, will be adequate to resolve the conflict. KJ ^{click here} 05:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso has been editing for far too long and been embroiled in enough disputes to plead ignorance of WP:OWN or do edits like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

His responses on his talk page to my trying to explain why he was blocked are disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who's conduct I think is "disturbing" is yours, Bushranger. (Turning good-faith Qs of you, instead of according to your responsibilities re WP:ADMINACCT, into some kind of lecturing, shaming, baiting fest.) You obfuscated in every conceivable way and for as long as you could, to dodge answering two simple and clear Qs. (Until I had no choice but to give up.) Now you attempt to take credit for something not due you. I call that dishonest. You really take the cake. But somehow I think you don't care. (Is that because you're admin and see yourself invulnerable? My third Q also went unanswered: What are your recall parameters?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your questions regarding the block were answered immediately; whether you overlooked them accidentally or otherwise is something I cannot help. What you call "lecturing, shaming, baiting" was an attempt to point out how your conduct is unacceptable for a Wikipedia contributor; again, if you refuse to listen I cannot help that. As for recall parameters, they involve something that you have proven incapable of extending: good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. (If my Q about the block was answered immediately, then why didn't you say so when I continued to ask the same Q several times, and complain to you that I'd not received any answer from you? Your RfA Opposes pointed out sarcasm and/or a pattern of your giving "silent responses", in the form of a complaint in that RfA about your behavior. I see now you haven't lifted even a little finger to make any corrective changes in that behavior, based just on what you've said above. Not good.) You have no right to lecture me, attempt to shame, condescend me at my Talk, when I was merely trying to get understanding of your POV for the block. You think you have the right to soapbox and lecture me regarding civil behavior? Boo to that. If we had a forum to discuss, and a moderator to keep our discussion reasonable, I can perhaps name at least a half dozen personal attacks and personal slights you made at my Talk. You have no right to do that to a good-faith editor trying to get basic info from you about the block you executed. That's bullying behavior, and abusive as well. I think you are not fit to be an admin.) About IDHT, sorry but my view is a competing one. It's you that consistently displayed IDHT, not me. And about your good-faith criticisms, just like the block you made, how can I appeal or address, when I don't even know what the hell it is you're talking about and your issues of concern have never been presented to me in any comprehensible or digestible way? In any event, though I'd love to discuss that with you, that will be impossible, because I'd require as mentioned a space to do it in, plus a moderator to regulate your manipulative and obfuscating communications. Another reason it won't happen too, is that the topic that caused the ANI was Mann jess's efforts to warn me from reverting my edits from articles, and when I didn't heed his warning, he immediately opened this ANI for purpose to stop said reverts. Now in manipulative fashion you seem to be re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI to some never-defined "bad-faith" issue of your concern. Sorry but I was having no luck even getting a square answer from you about the specific reason you blocked me, let alone all of the abuse you have decided amongst yourself that I must suffer from your mouth. Does not compute. Another reason no discussion of your issues will be conducted, not only because of the lack of feature here to provide a space for said discussion, and a moderator to keep orderly, but I'm finding it personally soiling to have any contact or interfaces with you whatever. That said, I wish you would get the fuck off my back and stop your irrational baits. I've already told you I think you're a disgrace as an admin; you aren't changing my opinion by your further lectures and condescensions. What do you hope to gain here? (Get me riled so I say something off-the-cuff whereby you have another crack at blocking me? For a longer duration?) Pathetic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you got a specific answer after you asked what the specific PA you had been blocked for was, where I said "you posted this over an hour after you were warned", with "this" being linked to your specific post that caused the block; and it was made within an hour after you requested an explanation. I find it honestly perplexing that you're accusing me of "re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI" when my comment regarding good faith was in direct answer to your question. I have answered your questions clearly and concisely, only not answering them promptly when the questions were accompanied by (yet another set of) personal attacks against other editors. However, your conduct in response, both on your talk page and here, has been a sea of invective and personal attacks, including but not limited to comparing me to Mexican immigrant traffickers. From your pattern of commentary it's clear that you immediately assumed bad faith on my part, and decided to remain in that position regardless of any attempted explanation, instead deciding that any attempts at speaking plainly and clearly about the issue must be abuse, and progressively escalating invective in response to each attempt to explain the situation - and its consequences for you. Accordingly, I regret to say I can provide no further assistiance in trying to help you to remain a productive member of the Wikipedia community, which is what I have been trying to do all along, and instead will leave you with the same advice I gave another editor below on this page: when you find yourself in a hole, continuing to dig can only have one result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, I put in good-faith effort to learn the specifics of my block with you, and it was impossible to get any answers from you (you wouldn't give them, only lectures, condesensions, insults, attacks). At that point I gave up trying to communicate with you on the normal reasonable basis I give to everyone equally out of respect, until an editor shows me by their behavior and responses that I can on longer do that in good-faith. (In other words, you lost good-faith from me back at my Talk. I'm no longer entertaining anything you write to my attention with the usual good-faith care I give any and all editors. You lost that respect a long time ago, and I told you specifically the same thing on my Talk a long time ago. Now you are parading a paragraph to my attention, as though I care, and as though a communication link of question/response exists between us in good-faith, which it doesn't, and hasn't for some time. I've wasted enough time trying in good-faith with you. You didn't even give me the courtesy to understand the specifics of my block, before appeal time expired. That should have been priority with you, after blocking someone. Now you give excuses that you were busy or something, but that is BS Bushranger -- you are admin, and if you make a block, you should address the blockee if he is asking to understand for what exactly, when she/he asks. So I'm not buying your "I was busy". That is completely inexcusable given the power of block and role as admin at WP:ADMINACCT. The possibility of one-to-one communication with you broke down totally at my Talk as mentioned, and any pretense to others on this board that a conversation is still going on, or can go on between us over specifics of the block, or related Q/A, is just not the case. I've told you numerous times already that I wouldn't entertain any interface with you again, unless there's a moderator to control discussion, and a place to conduct said discussion. And you accuse me of IDHT???? I'm not interested in anything you have to say or accuse, without a moderator and a discussion room, Bushranger. I've found your argument & discussion style to be exceedingly manipulative and obfuscating, and I won't attempt to deal with that again, on my own. Now I've told you that perhaps more than a few times. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Busy or something"? "I was busy"? That proves that either you absolutely did not read my comment or are deliberately ignoring it, as I made no such statements and implied no such thing. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• So, while "classic narcissist / Diva behaviour" is just calling a spade a spade (as claimed on IHTS's talk page), "Cesspool stuff." is a personal attack warranting a block? Is this one of those Wikipedia April Fools' Day things? NE Ent 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Cesspool stuff" was not a personal attack. However calling somebody "an unethical cheat" who is engaging in "underhanded sleaziness" is, and when the person making those statements has previously been warned that any further personal attacks will result in a block, they get blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not directly call MaxBrowne those names. I was being rhetorical. He personally attacked me with "classic narcissist", which is pretty vicious and lewd and no editor should have to endure such an attack as that, and I came back to him with, essentially an argument: is that what he wants to do here? call names? does he want a name-calling fest? like me calling him [those names]? is that what he wants? I was clearly trying to shame him for opening up name-calling, since it isn't logical, it isn't appropriate, it isn't helpful, in descends to the lowest-common denominator. So just like Basalisk did on my Talk, you pick up on that and use it as an excuse to block based on a civility infraction. His attack was clear, mine reply was not a direct attack, it was rhetorical, I could have said "do I get to call you Frankenstein's butt now?" or any other thing, it didn't really matter. I did not want to PA him, he clearly wanted (and did) PA me. (That said, why didn't you warn him? If you had warned him, perhaps I wouldn't have needed to throw out the rhetorical stuff to try an deter him. But you didn't warn him. You warned me. And I did not see your warning, I was unaware of it because I was busy responding to the ANI, and not going to my Talk.) The fact that you excused MaxBrowne from the PA "classic narcissist" by telling me on omy Talk that it wasn't a PA because he was just calling a "spade a spade", is the same as you making the same PA against me, Mr. Administrator, and that is not only unbecoming but I think is de-sysop worthy, since you should and do know better than that. But you likely won't be de-sysop'd for that, since admins seldom lose their tools and you know that. So you take pot shots at me by reinforcing the "classic narcissism" PA, because you can get away with it. That's just plain abuse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on NE Ent, don't employ tunnel vision over this. There are plenty of diffs provided in this discussion of personal attacks from IHTS, from both before and after the warning, and frankly it's not the first time this guy has sailed close to a WP:NPA block [12] Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk, ever since I criticized the editor who was your nominator at your successful RfA, you have gone out of your way to insert yourself in my wiki-life, and try and trick and trap me into a block. (For example, it is a fact that an admin called me a "mother-fucking asshole" in an Email, and upon knowing that, you went to my Talk and asked for the Email to be revealed at my Talk, knowing full well had I done that, it would have been an outing and an immediate sanction imposed on me.) I can diff several other of your posts where you bogusly threatened me at my Talk, and other editors came to my defense and chased you away. But you're still out to block me, or see me blocked. I call that carrying a long-term grudge, and is unbecoming of admin. You should self-evaluate better, Basalisk. You won't drop your stick. But tell you what, I'm willing to give you something and make you go away. I'm willing to commit [Eric could do this himself if he wanted, he doesn't want, I don't blame him] to never using a curse word at anyone ever again. [E.g. "fucker".] Just like Eric, when I've used curse words, they are by choice, not because I'm a lunatic madman not in control of my mouth. The challenge will be, how to get my meaning across as effectively, when curse words are short and succinct, whereas telling someone the same thing in more tea cerimony style is less impacting and "artful". But if it would make you happy, I'll promise to never use another curse word on the WP. Will that make you happy? [And BTW, I don't know why the WP software doesn't already screen for curse words, and replace them with "****" etc., like dating sites do!?!? Simple!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I don't know anything about dating sites, but I imagine the wiki software doesn't bowdlerise profanities so that they can be included in articles for encyclopaedic purposes. Generally speaking the whole system is designed assuming that the people using it will act like adults. Diff away if it pleases you, though characterising a threat as "bogus" strikes me as a category error. I'm not trying to get you blocked IHTS. That's what you say of everyone who disagrees with you; they're all a bunch of fuckers trying to get you blocked. Just take a break from this and take it on the chin. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I have some software background, and a table of article names could be exempted in the software to accomodate exceptions, that is all design-requirements stuff easily done. Adults swear Basalisk, more than children, so you got that reversed. Providing diffs isn't my entertainment or desire, Basalisk, telling you I can do that is a signal to you that you shouldn't challenge me on what I asserted, because I can back up what I say. (Your threat was entirely bogus and I can prove it.) I do not say about everyone that they are trying to get me blocked, that's a category overgeneralization, in fact I think I've said that of extremely few editors in reality. (But I know throwing BS overgeneralizations around at the ANI is consistent with the cesspool arguments and mud slung that is the cultural norm here, so you're fitting in real good with that. To me I'd be ashamed, but you and many others just love it. It's so tacky.) I don't know what you're advising me to do ("take a break", "take it on the chin"), Basalisk, I really don't. It was not my idea to open this ANI which Mann jess opened to stop reversions of edits at articles I've edited, turns out he's wrong about it, it was permissable to undo copyedits I've made to articles. I have no idea what you mean, and I don't seek your councel either, you just turned down a good-faith offer to get to leave me alone, I don't know how to make you leave me alone, quit calling me a child, I think you are the immature one, Basalisk. What will make you go away? Did you want to discuss Kevin Gorman here? This dialogue and cesspool tangents are abusive shit, and if you revel in it, you revel in shit. And I just can't fucking respect people who do that, you know. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, Ihardlythinkso as was explained to you above you can not remove content from WP just because you added it, specially claiming things like "I created this article so should have a right to delete it (User:MaxBrowne once deleted Chess.com, and he as granted permission to do so, since he was author of that article", "Undid revision 601789037 by Kkj11210 (talk) a high school student reverts me??", "I am author, I withdraw this article". Incidentally on March 29th you breached WP:3RR on at least three articles (Veniamin Sozin, Fischer–Spassky (1992 match), Paris Defence) and should count yourself lucky you didn't get a long block for that alone. Your lack of civility only adds insult to injury and you should consider stopping while you are ahead. Just drop it, calm down and resume your editing in a few days with a cooler head. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Those initial reverts were mistaken and repaired, and those initial editsums were written hastily in span of only a few minutes during a windown of time that was indeed emotionally depressing to me. I have already explained this. I have a cooler head now, but some things remain the same, and this venue isn't really appropriate to discuss it. It's my understanding going forward that it is resolved that an editor may remove their edits from an article if they want. (Not OWN, and not barring restoration by another editor feeling differently about the value of the edits to the quality of the article. [That said, I'd like to point out that User:Mann jesse's restorations were not based on anything related to article quality, he has no interest or investment in said articles, he as only restored to counter reversion by an editor he feels in completition with based on previous content disputes where he also tried to force his way with edit-warring and IDHT discussions and I objected. So he forced his dominance where he can. This is interpersonal conflict in action, and nothing about article quality. He has no investment or care about said articles, he has only tracked my actions because of a need to prove dominance. Or claim I am a vandal. I am not a vandal, I've reverted my own edits, not other editors'. I explained I have complex reasons for doing so, and none of them are what has been accused.) You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility, and that there are perhaps 1000s of ways to be uncivil than using "bad words", and those forms of incivility are tremendoudly worse in my book than any bad words could be, since they enter unethical areas that bad words simply don't have access to. I don't think this is a forum to discuss individual diffs of incivility and their context with other diffs, and evaluation of what civility really is, and the limits of policy to define and capture it, and the inequitable enforcement by whim from administrators that results. What is the further purpose of this ANI, and Gaba, I respect what you are saying, but what practically do you want from me, or is this ANI just to chastise endlessly over a dead event that lasted only a few mintues? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility" - this frequently repeated claim by IHTS is patently untrue. Here a polite request to discuss an edit is met with "give me a fucking break" and accusations of "wikilawyering" and "edit warring". And of course this edit summary is the very definition of an ad hominem. Not an "accusation", but a completely accurate description. Want more diffs? No, didn't think so. But they're there for anyone who cares to look. There are *many* examples of IHTS initiating incivility in his editing history, most recently against Resolute (talk · contribs) who attempted to offer constructive criticism and was met with a torrent of abuse. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those were an emotional few minutes for me, I felt the editor was edit-warring, and that provoked me to some degree, but you're right overall, the incivilities were mine there, and they weren't justified. But that editor and I were able to discuss just fine, after those emotional minutes of mine. I'm not a perfect robot, and never claimed to be, but it is true that there are extremely few unproviked incivilities from me in my three or so year history. This incident was an extremely complex emotionally challenging time for me, and you found one of extremely few instances. To attempt to take that and generalize or characterize me as misrepresenting myself, is a dirty underhanded trick, MaxBrowne. And you are also the editor how came here and called me "classic narcissist" unprovoked. In our past history you have proven to me that your behavior is one of the most despicabe I've ever experienced from an editor, and you know tha we are enemies because of that history. So you come here as a foe to throw mud and mischaracterize and join a lynch party. Your "torrent of abuse" hyperbole is just that. I tend to think exaggeration and distortion are forms of lies and dishonesty, but apparently you don't. You seem to have gotten away with your "classic narcisst" personal attack without a block, but instead baiting me into a response where an administraor unaccountably decided to block me and not you. Has this emboldened you perhaps, MaxBrowne? And aren't you lucky that readers to this ANI probably have no interest to discover your abusive demeaning bad-faith incivilities chronically made against me in WT:CHESS threads. But I know you'll attempt to throw more mud here, because that's your ilk. But your behaviors seem to be supported there, and here, and that speaks to the abusive environments here, not to anything I've done. You seem to revel in this abusive environment, I don't. As long as the WP is as hostile and uncivil as it is, you'll continue to do well here. And you're happy with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unprovoked? For once and for all, Stop dragging my name into it when you are fighting with other editors. Don't want me involved? Then don't talk about me.

It's good that you acknowledge that your attack on that particular editor was unjustified, but your claim that it was an isolated incident is untrue. Here you tell a new editor to "grow a brain". Your removal of the material was justified, but your uncivil edit summary was not. Here an IP's admittedly poor edit is reverted with the edit summary "dumbass". Please just drop the self-serving claim that you don't initiate incivilities, because you do, and frequently. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you're right again, that editsum was bad form. (Was it to an IP for an edit that could be construed as valdalism? Possibly. But one should give benefit of the doubt, and I failed in that case.) But no otherwise, if you assess unprovoked incivilities by me as "frequent" -- that's just not true. The incivilities thrown at me by you, have been frequent. The godawful threads on WT:CHESS where you chronically and baselessly attack me without end for bad-faith, and your essentially trying to turn a convention discussion into a personal attack page on me, shows your own level of civility, MaxBrowne. So what exactly is your logic here? That I have incidents of unprovoked incivility, so I should be indef-blocked? Where does that put you then? Will you self-indef block for calling me, unprovoked, "classic narcissist"? Or is it that you don't see yourself as initiating incivilities? If the latter, that is complete self-denial. Your editing history shows that you don't have any real care about civility, insulting respected chess editor User:Toccata quarta, for example. And all the unreasonable and out-of-line defaming attacks you've made against me. At least I try to do the right thing on Wikipedia, I'm not perfect. But you exploit the loose environment here, are heavily more uncivil than I have been re unprovoked attacks, such as the personal attack thread at WT:CHESS and your unprovoked "classic narcissist". Do you think you are applying your civility standards equally to yourself?! You once even challenged me that I was not qualified to tell anyone they were being uncivil, if there was any speck of incivility in my record. (How logical is that?!) But now you are accusing of the same, when your own record has plenty of it, and even in this thread. Am I supposed to find some logic or reasonability in your arguments, MaxBrowne?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Want me to find more examples of unprovoked rudeness on your part? Because I can. "Classic narcissist behaviour" was my interpretation of your actions, based on a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) your hypersensitivity to criticism (2) your extreme hostility and argumentativeness over the most petty disputes (3) your flattery towards those who affirm or defend you (4) your absolute inability to see yourself as others see you. I've come across this sort of behaviour frequently on the net and I can recognise it when I see it. Do you not even see the contradiction in an edit summary like "fuck off uncivil asshole"?? Do you think WP:NPA and WP:CIV somehow applies to everyone except you? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you levy that PA again, MaxBrowne. And rub it in for good effect. (Do I have to tell any readers here how abusive?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. If someone were to accuse me of having sex with sheep, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since I know I have no zoophilic tendencies whatsoever. It's so far from the truth that it's laughable. This is the effect that the majority of your insults have on me. On the other hand, if someone were to call me a loser who spends way too much time on the computer, that would carry a lot more sting, because it's much closer to the truth. If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. If I'm totally wrong about this, maybe you could do something to correct that mis-impression? Believe me, I would love to be proved wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason we haven't indefinitely blocked Ihardlythinkso yet? Since 2012, all I've seen him do is jump into one raging dispute after the next and exhibit a level of IDIDNTHEARTHAT which a deaf person would find difficult to replicate. He seems to believe that NPA doesn't apply to him, as demonstrated above, and gets all up in arms if anyone dares to question anything he does. The headaches Ihardlythinkso has caused are way out of proportion to any good contributions he makes, and have wasted a tremendous number of man-hours from people who have to intervene and deal with the abuse he hurls at anyone and everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Northern, I'm having hard time even imagining or conceiving that any paragraph could compete with your above paragraph, for being right-out-of-the-playbook for the infamous mob and pitch-fork generation for the equally infamous lynching that this board is noted for. (I mean, your paragraph is so iconic, it seems like a copy/paste right out of such a playbook. Cookie-cutter parody even.) The thing is, I don't think that occurs to you, because you are so like a pig in mud here, and that is the accepted cultural norm of this venue. (So, you have no embarrassment whatever for participating as you do, since you know your mud flinging, and torch-waving, will be accepted by other editors who over time have somehow come to accept and call normal this cesspool environment that is a magnet for peanut gallery abuse and drive-by incivilities [and digs, and lies, and smears, and BS]. Because anything goes here. And you have no shame for that. [Wow! I don't know what else to say. It seems right out of a comic book to me, but it is the reality, for so-called adults, "some of whom are partially educated" {George Carlin}, at Wikipedia!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That, right there, is probably the best example of someone failing to get the point that you'll ever see. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't done, Mr. Basalisk. And your reference to a "point", is BS. (It's a call for a lynching, plain and clear. With shot-gun unsupported condescensions thrown in to dress it up. Can you summarize the "point" you're seeing to be there, Basalisk? Let's see your summary sentence of said "point". It is criticism and condesension. Mud slinging without a venue to back up what one says. So a free-for all digs and insults and accuses session. Pure cesspool stuff. And I'm supposed to methodically address said editor's concerns? In this venue? When he only wants my head on a pike? You like the tenor here to be one of free-for-all abusiveness, and if I don't receive the abuse like I'm "supposed to", then you have more attacks, re "IDHT". Not buying it, Basalisk. I think your thinking is confused and purpose-driven. You want no reasonable result, or you wound't have rejected the personal offer I made to you earlier. (You're complaining, I thought, about swearing. I offered to stop swearing in any situation on the WP, if you would only leave me alone and stop harassing, ever since you introduced your self when I criticized your RfA nominator. You ignored that proposal. So how is it that you think you don't have unclean hands and unclean intentions here, Basalisk? (BTW, you give me a headache. Are you happy about that? Serve your purpose? Joy joy joy?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For a long time, I've known you to be an enemy toward me Northern, because I pinched your nerve for calling me a "12-year-old" in a bogus ANI that you closed, where I conducted myself as professionally as I could endeavor dealing with all the mud-throwing there. Because I went to your Talk and civilly objected to your comment "12-year-old", your response was to re-open the ANI on that basis, and you encouraged any admin to come in and block me. (That shows complete and emotionally-driven revenge, Northern, and how would that in any way possible be behavior consistent with WP:ADMINACCT or becoming of admin. Instead it shows to me complete abuse of your power as admin, and a disregard for "behavior at a higher standeard" as though that is a joke. You also kidded and joked and ridiculed me then, at your Talk, with your buddy and notoriously abusive admin Toddst1. Total unbecoming of admins. But you feel you have free license to do, because your admin badge is for life, and admins are seldom dysysopped here, and editors are under the abusive thumbs of admins like you, and you revel in that arrangement. I've not the first to claim the environment with admins of your ilk is corrupted and uncorrectabe, because said admins bar change through protecting their statuses, but surely "admin for life" is a corrupt concept to begin with, and fosters the kind of abuse of power you show so unembarrassingly. You're impressive Northern, as a model case of revenge-driven grudge-driven admin, doing what you can to fulfill those grudges, when opportunity arises. And many opportunities can arise, because any editor can open an ANI thread at any time on any basis, and then the doors open to this free-for-all mud throwing and torch-waving to service said grudges. A wonderfully civilized environment. You're part of what makes that environment tick. And you're proud of that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect it might have something to do with the 23,000 / 68% mainspace edits. The goal is to produce an encyclopedia, right?

I'm the first to admit it would be great if we actually had civility policy rather than a civility meme. Somewhere up there I'm accused of tunnel vision -- to the contrary I'm going to assert I have forest vision, and I just don't understand how someone can legitimately draw a line in the sand here and say that one editor's 8 meter "narcissistic diva" tree is okay but another's 9 meter "cesspool / rhetoric question" tree is block worthy -- even assuming we all agree as to measure the height of the tree. NE Ent 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See again the part about continuing personal attacks following being warned that further personal attacks will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, it's not enough to make an ordered list of words and draw a line between the ones that are just-barely-OK and the ones that are just-barely-unacceptable. The context matters. Two people might use the same phrase, but in one case have a reasonable basis for it and in the other case be lashing out without any real justification. You have to ask yourself: Does this person have a good reason for using this phrase? Do other reasonable users agree? Are they speaking with some specificity or as part of a broad pattern of personalizing disputes? In this case I think the answers to these questions are clear and focusing only on language itself (apart from context) misses most of the picture. --Amble (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people just don't get along and it's best for them to simply stay away from each other. In case someone decides that's the case here and proposes an interaction ban between IHTS and Quale, MaxBrowne, Bushranger, Basalisk and The Blade of the Northern Lights, I want to make sure that we check various talk pages and add Malleus, Drmies, Eric Corbett, Sjakkalle, Dennis Brown and, of course, me. That covers the people baiting/attacking/wiki-copping/whatever against IHTS according to IHTS on my talk page. I'm certain there are more hiding out there on various user talk pages/article talk pages/ANI/etc. At some point I have to wonder how many people we can reasonably expect to simply steer clear of one individual before we decide a civility block is in order. A glance at IHTS's talk page seems to show that a 24 hour block for personal attacks generated more personal attacks, with only the slightest bits of light peeking through. Personally, it seems to me that the ratio of light to heat in this case has been appallingly low for far too long. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why he should be blocked. If he repeatedly blanked pages, repeatedly Uses Vulgar language, and when he gets blocked, gives more Personal threats, he is obviously WP:NOTHERE. I feel we should just block or ban him, as he goes and tries to attack with WP:THROW. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 01:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any particular course of action with respect to this editor. It should be obvious that we're not friends, but I still think WP:NOTHERE is unfair. I think WP:NOTNOTHERE applies here, specifically the section which reads: "Difficulty in good faith, with conduct norms - A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. While these can lead to warnings, blocks or even bans in some cases, failure to adapt to a norm is not, by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively." MaxBrowne (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While WP:NOTHERE may not be applicable, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:IDHT are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea that I'm some sworn enemy of Ihardlythinkso is a fantasy which exists only in his head. For the last year and 3 months I've barely been involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia, and on those rare occasions I've deviated from my article work I haven't really encountered him at all (except once when he started flinging mud at me in front of ArbCom, which doesn't especially trouble me). The articles I've worked on have also given me a fresh perspective on a lot of things, not the least of which is the definition of "abuse" (on a personal level I find it upsetting when people bandy it about so freely, for reasons that should be fairly obvious). I have paid some attention to what's happening around here, though, and I completely stand by every word I said above. If the list of people Ihardlythinkso doesn't get along with is the size of the one SummerPhD provides above, and Ihardlythinkso is the common denominator in all of them, it's a sign that the problem may be fairly one-sided; in addition to agreeing with The Bushranger that CIVIL and NPA seem applicable, see WP:All socks for a good summary of Ihardlythinkso's attitude. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So (per WP:All socks) being on the receiving end of a wiki lynch mob is like being denied credit by multiple agencies? Good analogy! Equifax loses 18.6 million lawsuit NE Ent 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you understand my point; if you can't get along with everyone else, there comes a point where you have to consider that you're the problem. I had to do this myself in real life, as indeed the way my brain functions (or doesn't, as the case may be) is the source of a lot of aggravation for people who interact with me. Over the years I've worked extremely hard at adjusting my communication style, and while I'm far from perfect you'd barely recognize my social skills given what they once were. I could have patently refused to accept that I'm ever the problem, but if I did that I would have likely been arrested for breach of peace many years ago (I get rather riled up over certain sporting events, it's been an enormous struggle to get that under control). Same basic issue here; if Ihardlythinkso rejects all responsibility for the problems above, as he has been before, the problems which are documented here are only going to get worse and create a massive timesink. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Block

• Support blocking, per the discussion above. And I'll third the notion that I don't appreciate my name being dragged up all over WP in disputes I have no part in. I've been referenced something like 15 times by IHTS in the last week, along with insults and accusations of bad faith. I've intentionally stayed away from his page and this thread to let others comment, and yet I'm still getting attacked. My very first involvement with IHTS was met with a stream of personal attacks which have never ended. This was followed by intentional obstruction, edit warring, and all manner of other issues, which completely prevented any hope of collaboration. IHTS is the first editor for whom I ever asked for an interaction ban in years of editing. I'm having trouble finding any editor with whom he's able to work pleasantly; none so far have commented. If he's unable to work with anyone, then he doesn't belong on a collaborative project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport, reluctantly. As IHTS has now gone from egreious personal attacks to creating from whole cloth statements that were not made or implied, I have to conclude that either they are not interested in editing collaborately or collegially, or are incapable of doing so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (enthusiastically). He's already been blocked, didn't seem to help. Maybe we should try something else. NE Ent 11:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NE, I trust you since you are a reasonable man and not a former enemy drawn to this ANI looking for blood. What do you like to see different from me. Please be specific. I guarantee you'll get it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first thing should probably be to stop expecting Wikipedia to be rational, fair, coherent, consistent, or anything like that. Secondly, if you find contributing to Wikipedia isn't enjoyable, I'd log off until such time (if ever) you find that it might be. Beyond that, it would depend on what specific goals you have moving forward. NE Ent 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - During his block, he continued to make personal attacks (which he will tell you were justified/weren't personal attacks/were just payback/aren't as bad as the attacks he's endured/etc.). What would you suggest? Perhaps an interaction ban with an extensive and growing list of editors? "Something else" is not a suggestion. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I've had no contact in any time recent, or need to contact, and no wish to contact, any of the complaining editors in this ANI. The only contact there's been between me and the complaining editors at this ANI in any time recent, stems from this ANI itself. And 100% of the responses I've given to the complaining editors in this ANI have been turned around and used against me by them, as "fresh" complaint. That is a trick and a trap, since the ANI itself is being used as bait for responses, and no responses were possible, that wouldn't be turned around. That is because all the complaining editors here are former enemies, holding grudges. I wish for no enemies, and no enemy relationships, that is why I have avoided contact with all these editors when the interactions turned sour. But it is a reality that enemies exist, and they are drawn to an ANI to try to find reason to harm, generating it in the ANI itself, since past contacts with them had been dried up and dead. This is a trick and a trap. There is also plenty of WP:STICK present which is the basis of it all. I don't carry any stick, and I don't taunt or bait anyone intentionally, ever. I have just wanted to be left alone by these editors. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you just want to be left alone, why did you drag my name into a dispute that I was not involved in on your talk page? Keep in mind that I'm not the first person you've done this to. Northern Antarctica (₵) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. How many more second chances is he going to get? He has been reported to ANI for incivility on several occasions. He has a chronic, long term problem complying with the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies, and despite repeated warnings has shown no willingness whatsoever to address this issue. Rather, he has amplified his personal attacks recently, notably on this very thread, because he knows he can do this with no real consequences. What is the point of having a civility policy if people can continuously violate it over several years without so much as a reprimand? My patience with this editor is exhausted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support He is very uncivil. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Undecided/Mild Oppose Good contributor, especially towards WT:CHESS. If he prefers to concentrate on Shogi, Xianqqi and Chess Variants in future then that's fine too. He's given at least a small amount of leeway in admitting that maybe, just maybe, he may not have handled things perfectly. But if nothing else comes out of this rather sordid process, I hope he will at least stop dredging up old conflicts every time he has a disagreement with another editor. It's really not nice to drag someone else's name into a conflict that they had nothing to do with. Please stop it! If nothing else comes out of this process, please at least take this on board! Seriously! As for past incidents between Toccata and me, we've long since moved on. So should you, IHTS. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC) *Edit:Reluctant Support: While the chess WikiProject needs more active participants, IHTS is a net negative for the project due to (1) numerous personal attacks (2) tendency to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation (3) holding on to personal grudges and constantly resurrecting them, even in unrelated discussions (4) utter unwillingness to address any of these issues. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the part about dragging non-participant names into a discussion, but this section is about IHTS, not SummerPhd. NE Ent 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• We have already noted that IHTS has been known to drag non-participant names into a discussion. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I feel IHTS is trying to make a last ditch effort to save himself from the tightening trap. To much incivility is to much incivility. Maybe we could only have him be able to edit chess related articles as a "Compromise" Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of keeping the rhetoric at a reasonable level, let's avoid using terms like "noose" here. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK then, does this phrase look better(Noose to trap)? Thanks for the heads up. 00:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I've got to say that although I'm highly critical of Ihardlythinkso I'm not really thrilled with some of the inflammatory choice of words on both sides; just as a reminder, this is what a lynching and a noose really look like, a discussion at ANI is neither of these things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the block caused Ihardlythinkso to vent, the venting continued after the block ended, and some of the things being used as a reason for a second block are the result of this venting. It's bad form to block for venting. @IHTS, please try to calm down. Cardamon (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - IHTS has a long history of venting, was blocked for venting and vented some more. Yes, it would be a bad idea to block for a venting event. It is, however, very disruptive when there's virtually no end to the venting and the venting consists of a steady stream of personal attacks aimed at anyone who dares to mention the personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Cardamon. I also don't see enough "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy" to justify an indef here. Is there evidence of, say, socking? That might change my mind. I still believe in the concept of "escalating blocks" unless it's perfectly obvious that an indef is warranted, and that an indef here in neither necessary nor in line with that. Topic bans can be issued if they are truly needed. Doc talk 03:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cardamon, Doc, HiaB, et al.; and mindful of The Blade's observations about inflammatory word choices on both sides. John 8:7 comes, surprisingly, to my godless mind. Writegeist (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here rises to the level of another block. The first one strikes me as having been a borderline call. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The big problem that led to this ANI thread was, obviously, the blanking. You can call that a diva-ish move, if you like; it certainly was disruptive but it's been handled. More useful than a block (which would deprive us of Ihardlythinkso's article contributions, that a few editors have pointed out are useful) is a restriction, a kind of ad-hoc restriction, like "no venting outside of your own talk page". Or, if an admin thinks some vent veers into NPA territory (and I would include "dragging" others into disputes, as examples of something or just to tirritate), a block (but not an indefinite).

  I am very mindful of what Ihardlythinkso did on Summer's talk page for the longest time, and I was on the verge, more than once, of blocking for it; the only reasons I didn't was that a. I may be a bit of a coward and b. I wasn't looking forward to having to defend myself from claims of being involved, in these endless rants. Let's keep Ihardlythinkso on a leash, if you will, and let's keep talking. They are not unreasonable, even if they seem to get pretty close to it sometimes. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So kind of like WP:ROPE as in its his last chance? Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 21:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If IHTS has been "swearing up and down that they understand and won't do again whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block", I missed it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support The user has demonstrated the same exact behavior for two years. That is enough observation to understand that this behavior will not stop. Removing the problem (the user in this case) is the only reasonable solution; otherwise, there will continue to be more ANI threads like this in the future. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  From your user page: "I've also been [...] falsely reported for supposedly violating guidelines on many occasions." Clearly you've demonstrated WP:IDHT for too long with too many users. Clearly your behavior will not stop and the only reasonable solution is to remove you from the Wikipedia. Otherwise there will continue to be more reports like the ones you've received in the future. (Oh! Nice to meet you too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  From User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior: "Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." MaxBrowne (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  "Sometimes"?! (I put work in all my edits. What an insult.) Thank you for that philosophy. (I suppose by quoting it, it exempts you from being among those who are "troublesome". Even though you levy "narcissist" PA/insult more than once in this thread.) I have never threatened any editor in my wiki-history, and never will. Now, if you will kindly never post to my attention again, it would be good. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  Just quoting the article, not necessarily saying that every single one of his points applies to you. As I explained "narcissist" is just my personal impression. Please prove me wrong. Likewise about the "don't post to my attention" thing; that includes posts like this. Would be good if we could just stay out of each other's way. Shut up about me and I'll shut up about you, deal? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  That post to Drmies wasn't about you. (It was about competing approaches when responding to a sock -- antagonizing vs. unantagonizing.) It's not the first time you've unnecessarily personalized my good-faith posts or contributions to article or project Talks, imagining and accusing without basis of bad-faith or that you're being persecuted [13]. You're hugely uncivil in my book, the opposite of open-minded collegiate discussion that is WP pillar. So please just leave me be. (I don't have to prove anything to you, and I don't make "deals" with an editor such as you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  Interaction ban request Since this editor refuses to do so voluntarily, I formally request an interaction ban. That means no posting on each other's talk page, no replying to each other's edits on talk pages, no undoing each others edits, no linking to each other's diffs and no mentioning each other directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. Failure to comply will be considered harassment.MaxBrowne (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  I see no reason why you should be formally sanctioned. If you tell IHTS to leave you alone, he should leave you alone. Northern Antarctica (T • ₵) 14:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  Such measures are preventative rather than punitive. Actually an interaction ban with *all* the people who have complained about his constant dropping their names into unrelated disputes would be appropriate. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  Clearly it's not about me rather his own recognition of lack of self-discipline to control comments [14] (plus more imagination re self-persecution). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  "Repeatedly brings up "grievances" from the past. Doesn't let go of grudges. Nothing is too old to bring up repeatedly.".MaxBrowne (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Edit One thing you'll never see me doing - I will never use someone's apology or admission as a weapon against them. That's just low. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  If you're referring to your apology/admission at [15], the audience for said apology was other members of WP:CHESS, not me. You're clearly explaining (and excusing) your abusive posts against me. (If it wasn't excusing, then where was apology to me?) Simple arithmetic. More BS. More mud. (Are you done yet?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  Just stay the hell away from me already. Don't talk to me, don't reply to me, don't link to my diffs, don't refer to me directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. Ever. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  Oh good! (The end.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC) p.s. I really don't carry grudges, MaxBrowne, per your prev accuse. But I don't trust you, and, we have no communication relationship, sans a "room" (dedicated subpage), and a moderator, to hash things out. (Perhaps they could be, and you and I would get along "fine"; however, there is no such WP venue currently [sad], and based on your best attempts to destroy me here [pretty pathetic really], why s/ I trust you [outside of said arrangement to reach a cordial relationship]?) You've expended a good amount of crass activity here, that is a pity and a waste. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a strange thread at this point. It's almost like a quasi-site ban discussion that does not have the consensus needed to enact a ban, and therefore should be closed per WP:SNOW. An attempt to seek consensus for an indefinite block, proposed over a week ago? It's still not there. The bot is about to archive this. There's apparently no consensus to block this editor for a even a few hours, let alone indefinitely at this time, and it should be appropriately shut down. Doc talk 02:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Reclose please

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

---

Please reclose this, removing any judgement [16] (proposed earlier [17]). Judgement was explicitly prevented, has virtually no scrutiny option, and in such a closure should be immmaterial. -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reclosed, but in the original state. DePiep should not have modified the closing summary of another editor. Judgment or not: If a discussion is closed it should be left untouched (including the summary), and any new comments and/or additions require the start of a new thread like this. The unilateral removal of Armbrust's comment by DePiep was not warranted. If you're unsatisfied with the outcome or the wording of the closure, please use the Wikipedia:Move review instead. De728631 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Useless reply. I don't need or ask for a "you should/not" paternalistic remark, nor is it to the point. As said, I already asked there. And the edit you refer to was reverted earlier, and so is moot. You could also advise me not to stuff beans up my nose. So instead of responding to this post that is due for ANI, you divert and pick up at a point way off in the timeline. I find it tiresome that admins here so easily reflex to skipping the OP and zoom in on spelling errors, thereby showing not to have read the OP. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I did read the OP and the relevant discussion but obviously I don't agree with your reasoning. I've already explained that closing comments are up to the closer – and I didn't see anything wrong in Armbrust's comments. And what you may view as a paternalistic telling-off was not directed to you in the first place (otherwise I would have written "you should not..."). It was rather an explanation for other readers of this board who did not take the time to scroll through some three pages of edit history. De728631 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What you respond to my OP here was not in your earlier answer at all. And this is my point: why did you let yourself be diverted? As far as this second answer is related to my OP, you are in a circular reasoning (which is exactly what I tried to break out of, what is about a point long ago in the timeline, which has been covered see my diffs, to what other admins said the opposite, to which to closing admin did not respond at all, etc. etc.). The question now has moved to why there was no reply to the OP in the first place. And I have no means to get attention back to the topic I set up. But alas, I won't start a discussion on ANI. Admins here don't read the actual question at all, then see if they can take the heat away from a friend-admin, then look if they can't block any non-admin editor, then start writing a reply that is not related to the question, and in the end there is no way that a poster can get back to the topic again. In short, in no time the replies have no connection with the topic. There is nothing "obvious" in your answer. -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Osvala Canvassing support at AfD.

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

---

I nominated Abu Sayed Ansari Shaheb for deletion. The article's creator then canvassed several users 1, 2, 3. I then warned Osvala for canvassing yet they continued here and then specifically asked for a vote in the articles favour here. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

the attempts at canvasing are meeting with their appropriate responses. No action here is needed. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Highermafs canvassing for AfD

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

---

I nominated Abdur Rahman Madani under Afd and they have canvassed several editors; 1, 2, 3, 4 and a bot 5. There appears to be a connection between this editor and Osvala who have canvassed in a similar way, which i will take up at SPI. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)‎

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

Request for eyes on The Ultimate Warrior

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

---

Just a heads-up asking for some admin eyes monitoring The Ultimate Warrior, as multiple reliable sources are now reporting his death; between his notoriety and his already having been somewhat in the news again (due to his induction into the WWE Hall of Fame on Saturday), we're already starting to get puerile vandalism and people inserting sensationalist speculative "causes" of his death. A semi-protection request is already up, but until there's action, it might be good to have some more eyes on it. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Notoriety? What was he notorious for? A quick glance at the article doesn't suggest any notoriety, though I admit I have not read it all in detail. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it would make it into Wikipedia or pass BLP considerations but Warrior was known for a few quirks. He would often cut high energy promo's that would descend into barely coherent pseudo-philosophical rants peppered with words he made up, like 'destrucity'. How much of this was, as they say, key-fabe is debatable since he marketed himself as a conservative political speaker, self published a comic (also a barely coherent rant fest) and otherwise acted like an oddball even when he was arguably out of character. Wether that counts as 'noteriety' anywhere outside of wrestling circles isn't really for me to say. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Racist comments in talk page of Purley, London

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

---

I've come accross some racist comments in Talk:Purley, London posted from an IP user (they've been there since Dec-10) which don't add anything to the article, but I don't know if it is classed as vandalism. I can't work out what the Wikipedia policy is on this situation, so I've come here for help. Can I remove the comments? Seaweed (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Seaweed: I originally read "Dec-10" as meaning the 10th of December 2014, but I now see you mean December 2010. I regard it as vandalism, but whether it is vandalism or not, it is use of a talk page as a forum about the subject of the article, not about editing the article, and both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines indicate that such content may be removed. I have removed it. My advice is to be BOLD and remove irrelevant and offensive content, even if you are not sure of a policy or guideline that justifies doing so. If anyone wishes to question what you did, then they can do so, but even if they do, and your edit gets reverted, no harm has been done by removing it for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already been removed. I would have removed it on sight, TBH. Unless there's some liberals around here claiming IP editors make valid contributions... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help. I don't normally get involved in this sort of thing in Wikipedia, so I was unsure what to do. It's very rare to see that type of comment in Wikipedia and I was quite suprised to see that it had lasted over 3 years untouched, so I thought there might some reason.Seaweed (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not a liberal. IP editors can and do make valuable contributions. That talk page comment for the Purley article is pretty far from a valuable contribution. -- Atama頭 23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Daniell family

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

---

An editor asked at The Teahouse about an article Daniell family that appears to be an ugly little hoax. Can some kind administrator take quick action to clean up this little mess? Thanking you in advance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(The above was posted while I was writing this) See Daniell family. A post on the help desk [18] led me to look into this, and I have to agree with the suggestion made there - this looks like a clear hoax. Google seems to find nothing to indicate that this is "one of the most powerful families, if not the most powerful family, in the history of the United States". The book that this is cited to, The Daniell inheritance appears not to exist. The article in the NYT seems not to exist either. A search for 'Chase Manhattan Daniell' finds nothing to confirm their supposed "control" of the bank. Thomas Daniell and his brother William Daniell certainly existed - but appear to have no connection with the United States. As the help page post noted, the article was created by contributors who have edited nothing else. I was tempted to tag this for speedy deletion as a hoax, but thought that in might be best to raise the matter here instead, as it isn't 'unambiguously' a hoax in itself - rather it is the lack of clear evidence to the contrary, in circumstances where one would expect to find it, that leads to this conclusion. Anyway, it needs looking into, and dealing with appropriately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To create an illusion of plausibiltiy, the creator of the hoax takes articles about the Rockefeller family and renames them to refer to the imaginary "Daniell family". Here is an example: Rockefeller Family Tries to Keep A Vast Fortune From Dissipating which is cited with "Daniell" substituted for "Rockefeller". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've nuked it. Graham87 06:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've restored the first edit, at it was a plausible redirect. Graham87 06:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked all the editors involved and reverted their edits where necessary: Sdfghjkgh (talk · contribs), WatcherofPages (talk · contribs), UltimateEditt (talk · contribs), Wikiknowss (talk · contribs), and Cataphile (talk · contribs). Graham87 07:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Graham87. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Virus/vandalism

OP blocked as a sock of Altimgamr. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I suppose I have a factory-installed super-malicious system that automatically removes a bunch of Wikipedia articles' reference URLs for my edits. However, that doesn't mean I removed them. I'm using this proxy server called hungersurf.com. My operating system is Windows 7.1, and the browser I'm using is Google Chrome (with Incognito). Ferrari S.p.A (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr. Bahooka (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Now that I'm logged out, you can see this IP address I'm using (yes, the one that's assigned to hungersurf.com). You should block it permanently or for a very long time so that you don't see my edits causing many reference URLs to be automatically removed the next time I edit an article. 209.251.58.174 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please see WP:RFC/U for further dispute resolution process that may be useful. This board isn't going to be able to resolve this issue. This board is not suited for lengthy discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Despite by blocked for 48 hours for unspecified reasons ([19]) by User:Fayenatic london, User:Skookum1 continues to make personal attacks. The last month and a half has seen an incredible wave of personal attacks, many against myself. Other more experienced editors advised me not to do anything since it would be a waste to time, so I sat back and observed the Skookum1's attacks continue unabated. Finally I started issuing warnings on his talk page (March 20th, March 21st, March 21st, and March 31st, in hopes of grabbing the attention of an administrator, but so far in vain. People have commented that Skookum1 makes valuable contributions; however, the other editors and I also make valuable contributions to Wikipedia for years now and have done so without violating basic Wikipedia Pillars.

For a sampling of personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" also constitutes a personal attack):

• Against myself: "she's NOT a good editor, she's behaving in a rogue manner, I'll take it up elsewhere, I guess I was just pointing out to you that somebody's sleeping dog didn't really want to stay lying down...." diff
• Against myself: "You don't get how half-informed you are about the FOO people problem ... Your logic throughout all of this has been half-informed ... It's ironic to me that you, as someone on an indigenous high horse often enough, as with how you came at me over the Nevada categories, would in this case wind up pandering to the name-changes brought on by colonialist attitudes/chauvnism towards native nomenclatures..... diff
• Against myself: "Well, if I didn't have to hear the same obstinate, half-informed ideas brought over time and again ... All the things she's bringing forward right now I told her about already, she dismissed them, told me what I thought didn't matter, and that she's entitled to her opinion. What she's really saying is she's determined to underscore her ignorance and has no intentions of learning about the subject matter she's screwing with" diff
• Against myself: "you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories ... start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about." diff
• Against myself: "pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??" diff
• Against myself (accusation w/o proof): "... considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards ... to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do.... Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process." diff

...these go on and on, and I can provide more diffs if need, but to move on to more recent attacks:

• Against User:Maunus and myself: "He was at the time of most if not all, hence the overwrite power he had, which maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour." diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami and myself: "Your attitude has been hostile and contrarian, and you yourself attacked me subtextually during that little game you played with the Shoshone categories, your position there also being against guidelines for category use and harmonizing names with category titles. Kwami's out of line, and this ain't the first time (his little game with the K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke." diff and diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" diff
• Against JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." diff
• Against JorisvS: "Please contain your prejudices ... The subtext of bigotry towards native peoples and their names in all such RMs is both tiresome and disturbing ..." diff
• Against JorisvS: "You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." diff

If anyone wants more examples, I can furnish more.

Skookum1 has frequently accused me of attacking him, but when asked to find concrete proof, could not (User talk:Skookum1#March 2014). The conversation where he incorrectly believes I accused him of racism is located at User talk:Skookum1/Archive 18#Categories on redirects and User talk:Skookum1/Archive 19#December 2013. He accused me of calling his edits to Nevada tribes' categories as "vandalism"; however, I never did. The edit summaries of the edits in question can be found: here and here; they involved removing reservation cats from redirects.

Skookum1 has many conspiracy theories against me, which, frankly, I find disturbing. In truth, I try to avoid him as much as possible in my editing, this AN/I being a major exception. In real life, I work with numerous Native artists from British Columbia, but don't bother writing about them on Wikipedia in the attempt to avoid Skookum1.

This recent barrage of personal attacks has created a toxic environment that does not serve any of us well. Ignoring the problem hasn't helped, and issuing warnings on Skookum1's talk page hasn't achieved anything. These personal attacks need to stop. If there *is* a policy that allows a user to attack anyone they want without any recourse, I would like to hear it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Comment I've had many run-ins with Skookum, though I haven't always been polite either. If I disagree with him on a matter of procedure (for example, when Skookum dislikes the names of articles that follow our naming guidelines, I think it's best to discuss changing the guidelines, rather than making scores of move requests and arguing each of them independently as an exception to the guidelines), then he accuses me of racism, perversion, conspiracy, or other acts of bad faith. I've had good experiences with him too, where he's been reasonable and helpful, but only when (a) I agreed with him, or (b) I was seeking his advice and had no opinion of my own. Skookum has made valuable edits, but not IMO valuable enough to overlook his socially inappropriate behaviour. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• My reasons for blocking are set out on my talk page rather than Skookum1's, User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Skookum1. I have tried to coach this editor, but have not succeeded. Although I chose not to take further enforcement action in his case, I have been warning him (see his talk page) that action is bound to come if he does not change his behaviour, but sadly this has not changed. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • My encounter with Skookum1 was at this recent CfD. I went into it neutral but speaking quite frankly I came away from it with the impression he's here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• This ANI and the threats of it I view as part of an ongoing harassment of attack and obstructionism by Usyvdi on partisan and personal grounds and constitutes an abuse of power; Bushranger made me as a person the target of discussion in that CfD, rather than address the issues or even read my statements, despite support from other editors who were in agreement with me on that issue. Usyvdi has partisan motivations here and is abusing her power as an admin on behalf of that agenda, and has issued NPA warnings one-sidedly while ignoring those made against me by herself, Kwami, JorisV, Maunus and others, and also tolerating an obvious campaign of oppositionism in various RMs and other discussions. Her own condescensions and derisions toward me are a matter of record and constitute harassment on behalf a particular agenda and some kind of personal resentment that seem to have begun quite a while ago; this is all highly unCIVIL and AGF and her own NPAs against me put her assault on me in a highly hypocritical context. Others respect me, and actually are capable of reading my posts instead of complaining that don't have time or ability to read so-called "walls of text"; many patronizing comments by her and her colleagues at NCL are staple fare in various RMs, and her refusal to discuss her inconsistency on various matters pertaining to guidelines and other matters. This is a nuisance an ANI and I believe it is her conduct, not mine, that should be on the table and her adminship reviewed - and revoked.

She denies saying things to me which I know she said and must be hidden in page histories somewhere, which I will take the time to dig out because of this ANI; she has also deleted my attempt to broach an important issue where she is in conflict with her own actions, and added the extremely NPA edit comment "Get a life!". she has refused discussion and met important questions with silence. The one-sided nature of her conflated NPA accounts completely belies the ongoing derision and opposition and insults of herself and others who are defenders of the extremely flawed guideline WP:NCL.

This is all a waste of time and just more harassment, and I believe part of a joint campaign to drive me by that particular faction to drive me from Wikipedia or have me blocked so as to muzzle my critiques of their actions and faulty guidelines and questionable behaviour. It is completely one-sided and highly partisan in nature and highly immature overall; playing wiki-cop when she herself is no one to talk is, quite frankly, a bore. I have been doing useful work while putting up with harassment, evasion, derision and more; this ANI is just more procedural obstructionism and hostility towards my editing activities and is highly questionable in the extreme. This ANI should be about her, and her erstwhile allies against me, not about me. I have work to do and that life to lead that she told me to go get; Wikipedia is becoming more and more about procedure and protocol that honest work on articles and seems increasingly smaller and smaller pool full of narrower and narrower minds invested with more and more power....and pompous behaviour. Yes, I am voluble but I am articulate and respected by many editors despite all the derision and denunciation.

This ANI is a nuisance ANI and partisan harassment and IMO nothing more; conflations of critiques of actions and guidelines are being misportrayed as NPA when much more explicit and vicious personality attacks and sundry derisions go unaddresszed, and are a tiresome bore at countless RMs and also that CfD that Bushranger interloped on by attacking me for my writing style without addressing content and support votes; that CfD and its predecessor and t he RMs preceding it all need revisiting, perhaps mediation or Arbcom or wherever, and NCL needs an RfC to address its many inadequacies. The use of adminship on behalf of a partisan alliance hostile towards me is highly questionable and should be being reviewed by all the adminship, not just the claque of those who recite TLDR as it it were a guideline and not an excuse to not listen or address important issues and incorrect claims which cannot be put in terse form.

The presumptuous behaviour and comments towards me by her and other admins who presume to speak for "the community" or as "we", as JorisV has done and others allied to Uysvdi is also a matter of record, as are incantations of guidelines without reference to the wider context of the rest of guidelines; the use of "fanatic" is an apt discussion of the WP:DUCK behaviour of those concerned, and was conflated into NPA by hypersensitivity and an obvious laager mentality by those who maintain that NCL has primacy over all other guidelines. Yet despite even more virulent NPAs against me, I am the one being attacked and now officially harassed....I will post a link or two later to longer replies and comments about the decay in commonsense and civility at Wikipedia in recent times, including a reply to her on her pre-ANI warning to me last night, which I withheld for review until today.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator. I ignored your personal attacks for weeks; however, they did not abate, so I gave giving you warnings for your personal attacks (which I would have no cause to do, if you would simply stop creating personal attacks). An AN/i is not a personal attack; having a different opinion is not a personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • how bizarre but also typical of you, in all your conflations of my points about issues and guidelines and ongoing conduct and often rank dishonesty into alleged NPA status. "having a different opinion is not a personal attack" is completely contrary to how you have been treating my "different opinions" (which are 90% of the time or more directly about citable facts, other precedents and various guidelines other than the one being tub-thumped repetitively and out of context; I present facts, you claim they are only opinion while continuing to defend ORIGINALRESEARCH in NCL and also in NCET, and you deride my presentation of this with open derision and uncivil commentary on a regular basis, though not as harshly as the many AGFs and NPAs from your NCL colleagues which you also turn a blind eye to.

I am glad you are not an admin; I have seen your overwrite redirects and other things which led me to believe that; your pompousness and back-handed attitude towards my attempts to discuss guidelines and such matters as the "FOO people" problem and category redirects has been noxious and insulting. Your ANI is as hypocritical as much of your other conduct and words; this is a waste of time and is just more obstructionism and and a way to keep from answering to issues and RMs and to seek official muzzling of me to keep me from critiquing the NCL agenda and your own inconsistent positions on many matters. I will find that lengthy derision you launched at me re the category redirects which you deny making, as it was competely an NPA, being insulting and also somewhat racist towards me as a non-indigenous person.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1 is passionate about what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. While Skookum1 could have picked less inflammatory words I can understand his frustration when faced with a group of editors who don't understand what the guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages)) say, here and here and here. Faced with that sort of remark and the belief by this group of editors that "one size fits all" ("Foo people: and "Foo language") even when this leads to article titles that violates Wikipedia:No original research it is no wonder that he tends to get frustrated. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a single monolithic group of editors. Over years now, I've dealt with the exact same situation, have been equally frustrated, but read and am familiar with the current iteration of both conventions, discuss the issues on the talk pages of those conventions, and don't resort to personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Given there's established consensus to violate WP:NOR in the name of WP:MOS when it comes to article titles in certain other parts of the encyclopedia, that ship sailed long ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Me, too

In this diff today, Skookum1 attributes all kinds of unspecified bad intent to me and others. This is uncalled for. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez, yet more conflation and distortion claiming to be NPA when really it is evasion of the gist of your opposition, which is obstructionist and not about guidelines or real-world usage, but only a defence of your claim that the title in question is ambiguous, which it is NOT and you ignore both guidelines and cites/stats produced by entrenching the belief that it IS ambiguous, despite being no different from Coquitlam, Nanaimo and other town items that share a name with now-archaic usages;WP:CSG#Places is very clear about such issues but you muddy the waters despite proof that the District of Saanich is the primary usage in the course of justifying ignoring guidelines that I am acting under the mandate of, and with consensus from other WPCANADA editors.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1, forgive me for being extremely blunt here, but there's a saying that's relevant to your situation here. Extremely relevant, even. "When you're in a hole, stop digging." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your repeated attacks on my writing style buried the very relevant points I raised and the support votes coming from informed and conscientious editors who understand what I'm talking about and don't hassle me for my writing style as if it were a crime; BHG's closure in making me the target of the negative and off-guideline closure are of the same kind as your own targeting of me in your Fayenatic's close of last year of the previous CfD. and rather than heed him, you ignored the Mightyquill's comments about focusing on what I have to say not on me, which is totally contrary to the way any discussion is supposed to be decided on; on guidelines and facts, not targeting the proponent as a reason to deny the very needed CfD to correct the very bad and vague resulting stasis at a very questionable title. Others see my points and agree; the closure of the Squamish town RM was similarly skewed by procedural bafflegab and the endless TLDR mantra by those who cannot manage to read extended argument or even the guidelines, and by a host of opposition votes from people voting against the proposal in well-established and persistent patterns of knee-jerk opposition to anything I do or say.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned there, I came into that discussion neutral; my opinon of your editing style and discussion style was fully shaped by nobody other than yourself. Perhaps you need to consider, just for a moment, that if people are "opposed to anything I do or say", then perhaps maybe, just maybe, the problem is not them, but you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Wow I'm not sure if Skookum1 could have proved the OP's point any better. Might have been better to plead the Fifth, however, based on the above alone, I forsee a break in Skookum1's editing patterns in the near future ES&L 10:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean the huge amount of valuable work I've been putting in despite endless harassment from a certain faction who want to see me gone because I'm in their way? Summary censure of a valuable contributor and very encyclopedically-conscious editor because of the insecurities towards my lengthy writingz and detailed commentary and wide-ranging interests and knowledge, or silencing my ability to respond to putdowns and insults accordingly? Is Wiki-bureacracy putting itself ahead of content so readily that someone who's created a huge mass of articles is so easily shut out by someone's attacks against me reaching such fever pitch and endless hypocritical accusations against me by those stonewalling and degrading me on a regular basis? Really? Is that what Wikipedia is about? The iron hand of so-called wikiquette and blatant hypocrisy about same, rather than honestly and fully addressing issues of content and TITLE??Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks provides the definition of "personal attacks," which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh, so Kwami calling my bringing up guidelines that he doesn't like "ridiculous" and "idiotic" and more is fine and dandy huh? And there were claims about NPA about me that had to do with nothing more than showing how he (and others) were in violation of guidelines or had ignored consensus (just as you had done in re-creating Category:Squamish). I'm busy in real life; your own groundless accusations and many putdowns of me are many, I'll get to them yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You have also successfully showcased why there is WP:DIVA (Specifically the part stating "... long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, long of course being subjective). Seriously just in the ANI responding to your behavior you have tossed out at least half a dozen dispersions. The requirements to edit also include being able to work in a colaborative environment; content isn't created in a vacuum. Creating a hostile editing environment is not the way to go. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should use that term "Diva" it applies very much to Uysvdi as links here later will show; but here's a good one where she reverts a needed change to NCET saying "no consensus", meaning that she and Kwami don't want it, even though it's come up over and over and over again in the RMs that the "NCL Pack" (I was reading WP:List of cabals last night have been so bitterly and repetitively opposing on spurious grounds; claiming that the NCL-advocated "FOO people" is "preferred" has been clearly shown to be in violation of TITLE, as is also the claim that it is "unambiguous".....those have to come out, along with the ORIGINALRESEARCH claim that such in a "language-people pair" both are primary topics so both' must be disambiguated; the consensus has taken place, just not in the little backyard where she and Kwami are stonewalling/ignoring the discussion of NCET that will never be a consensus, given her silence at questions she doesn 't want to answer, and Kwami's rank insults and negative commentary. "Subjective" is hardly what others familiar with my work would call it; guidelines, sources, informed local knowledge and more, are being met by everything from ad hominem attacks and snipes, irrelevant red herrings, mis-citations of guidelines or just not answering to the major guidelines; I'll compile links to these later; I'm busy in real life today, but between "DIVA" and "subjective" you have nailed on the head not me, but the activities thrown up and thrown at me in opposition by those railing against my attempts to put right what they have put wrong, including that little reversion of Uysvdi's at NCET, which she does not WP:OWN. Many others have pointed out those flaws in NCET, the consensus is there, and the flaws are so many in NCL that IMO it should be trashed and started over from scratch from objective reality, not the agenda of a club of linguists.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to AN/I, Skookum1, the little that I've learned is that, regardless of your contributions thus far, editors that are seen as disrupting the project are sanctioned. I've seen editors who were productive for years and years, then some straw breaks the camel's back, they go off, making accusations and can't be talked down off the ledge and they end up being blocked. Editors here are asking you to come down from the ledge. Enough of the conspiracy theories, claims of being ganged up are rarely met with empathy because these are never one-sided disputes.

Also, no one, I mean, no one, wants to read a wall of text. If you want people to read your argument, please be concise, direct and on topic.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The editors who are disrupting the project are those who are persistently blocking changes mandated to titles by major guidelines; and Kwami's attempt to shut down RMs because he claims he wants a centralized discussion; one that he did not hold when he went across thousands of articles without discussion, applying a guideline that he wrote himself; among the casualties were important indigenous titles in my own part of the world, which it took five bitterly fought RMs and no end of personal abuse and baiting from, to correct. "Disruptive" like "subjective" and "diva" are way more apt for his behaviour and that of the other NCLers who persist in trying to block name changes with subjective arguments, specious commentary, and re-incantations of NCL with no discussion of anything else - except attackign Canadian English. Uysvdi has mostly stayed out of these RMs; the whole campaign of oppositionism has been noted and criticized by others.... I'm used to the ironies of being accused of what others are doing, but calling ME "disruptive" when all this is going on...well, that's what Kwami said about my launching of individual RMs on the titles he wantonly changed to suit himself after the bulk RMs I launched to address only 120 of them were closed. I have to get busy with my day; the track record of this campaign to bully and oppose me is very long, and I'm not the only one who has observed that there's one hell of a lot of knee-jerk opposition and relentless nitpicking going on to delay the needed reversions; I was going to file a multiple ANI on this group of editors (whicvh is not a conspiracy because it's public and also demonstrable fact) but Uysvdi beat me to it. I'm not the one being disruptive, I'm the one being victimized by those who are being disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, you're doing yourself no favours here. Walls of text + inflammatory language in response to concerns raised at AN/I are extremely unlikely to result in a situation that continues with your unimpeded ability to edit. Walk away from the computer, have a cup of tea or whatever you prefer, and practice some mindfulness before you continue to engage here. I urge you to do this for your own good, and for your ability to keep editing without problems. — Daniel 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 exhibits some classic diva behavior, and his inevitable return from the last "throw my arms up in the air" wikibreak that lead me to this conclusion is reinforced - and problems continue. I do not understand the persecution complex, and I probably don't need to. Skookum1 needs to toe the line like we all have to. Doc talk 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The tacit message I've received from Wikipedia in the last month and a half is that Skookum1 gets to shower me with personal attacks, including accusations with no proof of my attacking him, and he will face absolutely no recourse—despite personal attacks bringing a major breach of the pillars of the institution. I've been plugging along since July 29, 2007, editing and creating new articles. But despite a solid track record of six and a half years of editing, apparently I just have to lump it and endure attacks such as the following?

• "IMO you are a coward and a hypocrite... like a blind bull in a china shop. ... So go ahead, feel powerful, delete me from your little self-contained world; and throw me another taunt; you attacked and degraded me over your precious nevada categories, then waded into a BC category as if by deliberate malice. Knowingly provocative. I think you're happy with the mess you've created. Since I've pointed out that you're a hypocrite and acting from cowardice too, I might as well add that your behaviour is clearly passive-aggressive ... I also think you're a racist." diff
• "impugning me as a racist and a white-guy-who-should-butt-out-of-native-topic areas, as Uysvidi has done" ... "Childish behaviour masked as righteous snottiness; I'm not the self-righteous one here, you are, and Uysvidi." diff.

There's all this discussion about how to attract and retain new editors, female editors, native editors, etc. Why would *anyone* want to work anonymously and for free just to endure treatment like this??? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uyvsdi, I'm not sure you've read the comments we've made towards Skookum if you honestly somehow read that we tacitly approve of their pathetic, childish, and inappropriate behaviour at all. The message that they should have got was this: "you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message DP 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WHOA ""you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message" = if that's a statement against me or for me, I'm not sure, but given that the prevailing winds here are "shut up and let us pass judgment on you" I'm gathering it may be the former. "The condemned is not allowed to speak in his own defence".......very Kafka-esque. The "pathetic, childish and inappropriate behaviour" is in the nasty and/or wheedling comments and obstructionism I'm responding to in all cases. "Any further comments [from the accused] will lead to a block"?? So it's ok to vilify me, but not OK for me to put any of it in context? If so, then per my just-now comments in response to Uyvsdi's continued hounding of me below will see me blocked by the time I wake up (it's 1:51 am where I am) - and the discussion she's quoting from will go quiet and the issues and guidelines I have brought to the front burner will be left gather dust in archive-space. Upshot: nothing done except tossing out of Wikipedia a highly productive contributor with a great amount of knowledge and dedication, as many others have observed, despite my prolix manner, I've done one hell of a lot of work in many areas.

Why toss me out? Because I dared defend myself against unfair criticism, and dared to dispute guidelines that are flawed by pointing out how they are in violation of major guidelines? Is that how wikipedia works? I'm not the one trying to waste time by delaying or obstructing RMs, I'm trying to correct things that were recklessly done in the name of those inadequate guidelines (one in particular, whose advocates are the real problem here); it was Uysvdi's own actions at Category:Squamish et al who precipitated my taking things to proper procedure to get the matter properely addressed. Instead of y'all continuing to justify your intent to ban me here, why don't you actually have a look at the points raised in the RMs and in the NCET discussion and take part in it, instead of aiding a very partisan opponent in her campaign to prevent me from continuing to try and raise the issues of those guidelines. If you do vote to block me, you are being played ..... and the guidelines will go uncorrected and will continue to be abused by those who perpetuate their misapplication and inadequacies, and Kwami will go have a beer and a laugh.

Other editors have observed to me privately that ANI and the like are habituated by people who like to exert power, who like to say no, who like to pick people apart unfairly...... who relish their roles as jury, judge and executioner......prove me, and them, wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was in part responding to a message on my talk page that nothing would happen and that I was wasting people's time. Here's posts from yesterday/today:

• (directed at User:Kwamikagami): Edit summary: "pfft, you're hardly the one to talk about 'workign with other people'", talk: "why do you continue to pretend that any further discussion is needed when you have resisted, stonewalled, and derided any attempt to discuss anything and indulged in endless and repeated derisions and insults?" diff and "The further point, constantly rejected by "global English chauvinists..."
• (also directed at User:Kwamikagami): "Your own attitudes towards native people in last year's RMs "we don't have to care waht they think" are both un-wikipedian and against guidelines. It's also worth noting that a lot of the native endonyms are plurals, in fact I'd be hard pressed to think of one that isn't. Your attempt to shut me out of a discussion you yourself invited me to is all too typical of your behaviour and bad attitude and is yet another AGF on your part. Will you ever address actual issues instead of wheedle and wiklawyer by habit of being obstructionist and endlessly seeking to defray discussion rather than actually listen to it???? It is you who are "disruptive" and it is you who deserve the nasty epithets you wielded at me, here and elsewhere." diff
• (still directed at User:Kwamikagami): ""Or do you mean stop taking part in pointing out issues and precedents you persistently ignore by attacking and sniping at me?? Points, since I know you have difficulty, like so many here, with reading blocks of sustained argument and topic points..." and "Let me bold the critical phrase for you, since you have comprehension problems it seems..." and " I'm talking straightforward references to guidelines, you are making accusations and distortions and now "shut up and go away" subtexts "will you stop now?" Why don't YOU stop refusing to recognize widespread consensus that is based on, as CBW has observed more than once, guidelines that you just want to ignore or nitpick by whatever means; when confronted by them you attack me...." and " "Why don't you stop now?" indeed. YOU are the stonewaller - and "white man speak with forked tongue" also." diff.

The last line, wth??! We're in the 21st century. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You really don't have any sense of irony at all do you??? That comment was because Kwami is, as always, twisting what people say to claim it means something else- something you have done to me yourself re the "people" issue I raised in a guideline and you came back as if I were talking about TWODABS, which it was clear I was not. I'm a white man, and I don't engage in such dishonest behaviour as we so persistently see from Kwami, who you are bizarrely defending here as though he were a victim and not a persistently disruptive and obstructionist quibbler (there's other words I can use, but...). Why don't you address the guidelines and consensus points I raised there instead of coming here and giving my responses to Kwami instead of also the b.s. he was dishing out so as to avoid discussing those same guidelines and issues that you won't condescend to admit to, though dozens of RMs, as Cuchulainn has observed and I quoted there, have already spoken loud and clear. You don't want a discussion, and you don't want a "consensus" with someone about guidelines and precedent-setting RMs, you want to silence that discussion by blocking the person who brought all those guidelines and issues up and has had success in getting others to listen, though you won't even answer me, but you do want to talk ABOUT me, out of context, so as to have me banned. So those discussions will go nowhere, and you can claim that "consensus" is on your side. To achieve that consensus you have come here to enlist a firing squad......Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're avoiding me, but you're obviously still bent on hounding me, and continue to be "just fine" with Kwami's ongoing snipes and tendentiousness at that guideline "discussion" where CBW and I are trying to talk about guideline issues and changes that need addressing in the wake of, as observed by Cuchulian, "consensus has spoken" across a whole slew of RMs mandating that changes that I tried to make and you claimed "no consensus" when reverting........your silence on questions concerning the terms "preferred" and "unambiguous" speaks to your lack of unwillingness to enter discussions about actual guidelines that you and those who concocted NCL and now seek to stonewall NCET from the changes mandated across dozens of RMs...my retorts to Kwami are all correct, and your unwillingness to address his ongoing taunts and the insults he copy-pasted across those RMs is proof to me of your one-sidedness and your intent to continue to harangue about me while it's me who's bringing forward the issues that the consensus you say does not exist has clearly already mandated.

Your hypocrisy on the "FOO people" issue in re-creating Category:Squamish against consensus on a category title you knew very well, if you had indeed read the CfDs as you claim to have, was contentious and controversial in the extreme, and happened only a few weeks after Montanabw suggested we stay out of each other's way, me out of Nevada and the Southwest, you out of areas you know I'm active in i.e. BC native categories, the system for which I am, yes, one of the principal architects. You waded into a controversy on a subject/title that you know very little about and on the basis that "FOO people" was ambiguous - your word precisely, and ratehr than address that you rudely deleted my attempt to raise it with you, just as you had refused to listen to reasons why Category:Skwxwu7mesh was valid per TITLE/CONSISTENCY/PRECISION and yes, it is very ironic that you would seek to retrench a "colonialist" name instead of going with CONSISTENCY to return it to the native form that was created by an indigenous artist and activist of some note.

That you also unhatched a PRIMARYTOPIC dispute over the town/district of Squamish is not incidental; precedents on "town-people" pairs continue to be resolved in favour of the town; you waded into somewhere you had no knowledge of, and refused when I did try to broach it with you, as recreator of the "new" (previously deleted by consensus) category

Using me as an excuse to not create native artist bios is, quite frankly, pathetic. Create them, I rarely work on artist bios of any kind......no doubt you will point to this as another so-called "personal attack" when you tolerate Kwami's direct insults and stonewalling right and left is just proof to me of your partisanism and not giving the full context of why I was responding as I did to Kwami - and JorisV, who also has been extremely tendetious and oppositional and also refusing to address guidelines.

CBW is right, I'm passionate about what I believe is best for wikipedia and that I'm very frustrated with the stonewalling and derision coming from the NCL camp and speak my mind about the obstinacy and pissy - tendentious - responses I get, which often contain overt or soft-pedalled personal attacks and condescensions of all kind. Kwami has tried to shut down the discussions that, with some exceptions due to PRIMARYTOPIC reasons, now have established consensus, as observed by Cuchulainn, for the amendments to NCET and NCL that you refuse to address (through your silence) and which Kwami is turning, time and again, to attacks on me, including twisting what Cuchalainn had said to pretend it agreed with him which it did not in the course of, once again, to stonewall addressing the issues that not just me, but CBW, has raised.

There is much more background behind Usyvdi's selections against me above, including the recent ones from NCET (where she does not post the material I was responding to), that point to an overall pattern of obstinate and hostile BAITing that is very much along the lines of Kwami's failed attempts to block last year's RMs. Among these were my attempts to raise the issue of indigenous endonyms at IPNA, only to be pushed aside with "we've got more important things to do" without even telling me about NCET or, if that was before NCET came into existence, the relevant section at NCP it was transferred from or the discussions going on about it on the NCP talkpage.

No doubt my 'failure' to shut up as instructed above is going to be yet another stroke held against me; but if I can't defend myself against a one-sided witchhunt when others who do much worse, and persistently continue to obstruct and oppose and also insult and deride me......ack.... if that's the case, then Wikipedia consensus is more of a kangaroo court than rational discussion, and issues are being ignored while the bearer of the person who is bringing them forward, wanting them addressed when they have not been, and you refuse yourself to deal with them (Uyvsdi) never mind condescend to discuss them;

I have produced view stats, googlesearches, guideline citations, and been responded to with silence/inaction on your part and continued WP:BAITing me by Kwami, and now seeing you cherrypick my responses to him as more evidence of why you want me banned from Wikipedia, raises again my original point that this is a highly partisan and one-sided ANI and is really harassment, and nothing else. Well, it's not nothing else if you do succeed in having me thrown out like Kauffner has been....interestingly it was his tendentiousness that created the Squamish imbroglion in the first place, what with his very hasty speedy CfD and TfD to "Squamish" right after the initial RM there were ill-informed claims were made to justify changing a title that had stood for six years

as with other native endonym RMs/ closures and guidelines raised in them have demonstrated, "Skwxwu7mesh" did address all of the bits of TITLE that NCET and NCL, which you refuse to allow proper reforms to - reverting saying "no consensus" but refusing to discuss anything towards that consensus discussions where, other than having to respond to Kwami's ongiong nastinenss, I'm being very "rational" and specific about guidelines and precedents.

If my need to voice my defenses here, or against Kwami and his wikilawyering and tendentiousness at NCET and elsewhere, is used as a reason to call me a "diva" and throw TLDR at me as if it were a criminal offence, with capital punishment awaiting me if I dare to speak again, or to respond to you, then it underscores my point that wikiquette, and not content, is the primary governing module of the Wikipedia "backroom".....making an editor the issue instead of the content is boilerplate for discussion pages.

The Squamish issue that you waded into either without knowing what you were doing, or as deliberate BAITing is not dead; it will come back if not by me by others; it was in fact, your observation in doing what you did there that prompted me to address address moving via RM back all the NCL-instigated "people" additions on indigenous articles, and also those RMs for Canadian unique placenames-take-no-dabs per WP:CSG#Places that led to the growth of WP:CANLIST considerably this last two weeks, including the Squamish-parallels Lillooet, Chemainus, Sechelt and Tsawwassen, among others (Comox looks at this point as though it will close in favour of the town), and where PRIMARYTOPIC has not been shown to be the people, who themselves self-identify differently from the towns and regions which are the modern primary topic of those names.

Squamish is no different, the problem there is that any attempt to talk reason there is drowned out by ongoing attacks against me....including from those other people whose personal attacks you show no interest in replicating, only singling out my responses in the course of your attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. So that, it seems, silence will fall on discussions to reform NCET and NCL and that you and Kwami can claim that "consensus" means that those guidelines will stay the way they are.

If your intent here was simply to provoke me to more necessarily longish responses to your one-sided complaints against me, you have won. If defending myself against ongoing obstructionism and insults means that my voice has gotten sharp, it is a measure of frustration with the lack of comprehension or respect that this is all about. I know my subject material very well (which you do not, as you displayed re Squamish), and because of all the RMs required to fix what you will not, I'm getting to know guidelines pretty damned well too. Disruptive behaviour and tendentious, obstructionist conduct in discussions by your cohorts go unaddressed and uncommented upon by you, yet you make a point of continuing to defend them as if they were victims and do nothing about them and single my responses to them out. Your attempt to turn a point of mine into something else re "people" vs TWODABS somewhere seems typical; you didn't even apologize for that; changing the meaning of what someone has said I've seen lots of before, it may have been a lack of comprehension of what I had said, but given the overall pattern of picayune wikilawyering and ostructionism I am seeing and continue to see', it's me that's being victimized here, as elsewhere.

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by correcting out-of-date titles and addressing guideline issues that, frankly, the "old consensus" at IPNA did long ago until it was ignored by some who knew better; you only got here in 2009, long after Luigizanasi and Phaedriel and the others who established the conventions re titles and category names retired or went inactive. And now rather than fess up to the realities of those guidelines, you refuse to discuss them and are trying to silence their main proponent, who has been getting NCL-instigated titles corrected right and left. It is you who are not willing to properly discuss issues, not me. Instead of discuss these issues, you continue in your campaign to have me blocked and continue to be one-sided about what I say in response to ongoing obstructionism and attacking me instead of discussing the issues I raise, without ever addressing what it was that got said that I was responding to. That is tendentious, clearly hostile, and disruptive in the extreme; rather than talk to me and try to seek ground, you continue to talk about me, relentlessly, and continue to remain silent on the atrocious behaviour of Kwami and the more soft-pedalled but persistent derision from JorisV and others; it appears not only white men speak with forked tongue. Oh, is that a personal attack? I don't think it is, I think it's totally fair given your one-sidedness in this matter, your hypocrisy on "FOO people" re Squamish and re "preferred" and "unambiguous" at NCET, and the way you are indulging in your right to speak here, knowing that the TLDR mindset already heard here means that if I do speak to defend myself, that will damn me further. In other words, and per my "kangaroo court" comment above, the accused does not have a right to speak, and anything they have done will be held against them........conflated out of all context and irrelevant to the content issues those comments came from.

I've done a mammoth amount of work here, despite the campaign to systematically obstruct and, it seems, BAIT me, and during the course of this ANI, which I've been trying to ignore as t he partisan witchhunt I still maintain it to be. That you are spending more time attacking me here than actually addressing the consensus that has emerged (due to my assiduousness in pursuing these issues, item by item, guideline by guidline) speaks worlds about the contrast between "wiki-idealists" like myself and "wiki-bureaucrats" that I have seen comments on in various places.

I've tried to talk common sense and guidelines and facts and been treated with derision and insults, and by yourself the back of the hand when I try to raise issues with you; long before the NV categories thing it seems, you've had it in for me......and now, seeing my success in putting NCL on the hotseat where it belongs, overturning its false premises in RM after RM after RM, this ANI was launched against me, while you continue to refuse to discuss issues or guidelines, and Kwami continues to insult and wheedle endlessly and tries to turn my words against me, per his usual inimitable....and you take notes and come running here to report back my responses to him. I'm the one talking guidelines and better content; all you are trying to do is muzzle me so those guideline and content issues will remain unadressed....and maybe so you can go start writing those BC native-artist articles you blame me for you not starting bios on. Hmpf. Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I must say, in Skookum's defense, that he does make a large number of valuable edits, and WP is on the whole better off for his presence. But it's no longer possible to have an intelligent, or civil, conversation with him: Any disagreement is proof of "perversion". There's one article (Comox people) where the last time he was on the talk page he had agreed with me, that we should use the assimilated English spelling Comox, but now he's changed his mind, and thinks that we should use the "native" spelling, K'omoks (though this isn't the native Comox name, but the name one of their neighbors uses for them!). Since he's changed his mind, without so much as a mention of that fact on the talk page, all the people he used to agree with are now racist, recalcitrant, obstructionist, etc., as if somehow all our opinions should stay in sync, without any discussion, even when we change them, and any divergence of opinion is willful disruption. You can't reason with an attitude like that. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Apparently you can't reason with someone who just doesn't know about the topic at hand, as you have just demonstrated, and who cherry picks former opinions, now changed because unlike you I actually go do some research on the topics rather than just guideline-toss without knowing anything like you do.....
  • 1) if you knew about this people and their current state, their name is adopted, as is their modern language, which is Lik'wala, the language of the Laich-kwil-tach or Lekwiltok; Island Comox as a language is dead, and these people have adopted the language of their neighbours, and the name given to them in that language; I used to think the name was a derivation of the Chinook Jargon word for dog kamuks, referring to the dog breed once raised for wool in Contact and pre-Contact times (now extinct)
  • 3) but it turns out that the name is in fact Lik'wala ("Southern Kwakiutl") and not of "Comox" origin at all (their original name in their now-dead language was Sahtloot). Which is why it is unsuitable and incorrect for the Sliammon/Tla A'min, Homalco and Klahoose (the "Mainland Comox"), who obviously have not adopted Lik'wala unlike their Island counteparts.
  • 4) K'omoks IS the native name used by this people, who explain this all on their webpage, which by your comments it appears you disdain to have read. I'm the one with local, modern expertise and aware of the complexities of the native cultural/political revival, you are the one relying on "facts" and terminologies from old books.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some sanction needed. AFAICR, I first encountered Skookum1 when I was trying to help clear the CFD backlog, and spotted a CFD which had been open for weeks. When I looked at the page, it was obvious why it was open: the extraordinary verbosity of the nominator Skookum1 had produced a discussion which no sane admin would even try to read, unless they had a masochistic desire for a prolonged headache.
  My closure (as consensus to keep, on account of the nom having tried to bludgeon everyone else out of the debate) was challenged on my talk by Skookum1, who was again verbose and rambling. I responded that I had nothing to add to the close, but that deletion review was open; and then I closed the discussion. Skookum1 stil posted again anyway, and I promptly reverted that post.
  What we see in this discussion is more of the same extraordinary verbosity, blaming everybody else for the conflicts which surround Skookum1's editing. I agree with User:The Bushranger's comment that Skookum1 appears to be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Whatever the merits of his case, his style of communication prevents consensus formation. It's not just the number of words, but the failure to structure them with sub-heads or bullet points, and the rambling mixtures of substantive points with complaints about other editors.
  Unless Skookum1 radically changes his approach, I don't see how can work collaboratively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • BHG, this last few days I've been making a point of bulleting comments or at least separating them into paragraphs as on last night's responses here; I did so also on the Squamish CfD re TITLE's and NCET's various points relating to that discussion and still got hammered and BLUDGEONed for the "walls of text" complaint.
    • 1) I have bulleted on RMs this last week, and also on the NCET guideline discussion; where instead of addressing those points, Kwami turned Cuchulains closing comment on Talk:Lillooet#Requested move on its head, claiming it agrees with him which it does not, and continuing to resist discussion by slagging me instead; distorting and misrpresenting things I've said just as he has done again immediately above.Skookum1 (talk)
    • 2) Your own bad call on the Squamish issue I will make no direct comment on here; the PRIMARYTOPIC research has been done on that title and will be addressed again in the light of a couple of dozen related and now closed/moved RMs, where I was not made the target of the decision, and what I had to say listened to, and the irrelevancy of the "oppose" votes refuted by other participants. Skookum1 (talk)

• • • 3) IMO people who don't know about a subject area who wish to dispute PRIMARYTOPICs on things and places they have no real acquaintance with should neither comment/vote nor close unless they are prepared to learn about the topic and address the issues raised. The "I don't have time to read that" cant that I'm hearing is a sorry excuse for proper discussion of encylopedia contents....I have local expertise as many have observed; this is regularly derided or, as too often the case, passed over without being read by people who, if pressed for time or a lack of effort to learn about the subject, should not be voting or closing. The mess this has created I spent a lot of time and energy trying to correct, and with a few holdouts the consensus emerging underscores all I've been saying in each and every RM and CfD.....Skookum1 (talk)

• • • 4) I've changed my style of posting, but am still being BAITed into the necessary responses against ongoing deflection and the very evident campaign to exclude me from Wikipedia altogether, as per example of Uysvdi's quoting of me last night without including the pejorative and misleading/distorted comments I was responding to. Despite Kwami's disclaimer above that he doesn't want to see me banned from Wikipedia I have good reason to doubt that as being any more honest than his persistent dishonesty and misrepresantations for a very long time now; He hasn't changed his ways, in fact he's being even more reactionary and hostile than ever, and Usyvdi continues to look for things I've said while ignoring the things said that prompted them....one-sidedness on display in extremis.....and I've just wasted another hour of my life on people who are trying to railroad me.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some sanction needed Skookum does make some positive contributions but these sorts of comments are entirely unacceptable [20]. Neither can I say I found accusations against me of wikilawyering terrible positive[21][22]. If Skookum can turn down the snarkiness of his comments, and maybe make his comments more brief, than I believe he would be a positive contributor. However, the negativeness of his comments is currently obstructive.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your obstructive behaviour on various RMs, including ones now closed against your opinion, comes off as snarky itself.....and yes, you are wikilawyering, that's not an accusation that's by the definitions given on WP:Wikilawyering, using guidelines out of context and not in the spirit in which they were written. The FIFTHPILLAR "there are no rules" is violated every time someone tries to turn a single guideline point into "policy" and use it as an iron-fast rule to obstruct a needed and rightful change/reversion as you persistently are doing there, and have done in other RMs as well.Skookum1 (talk)

• • the guidelines that allowed Sta7mes in the first place, which you are so hotly resisting return to the original title (as called for by guidelines when there is an intractable dispute) which were consensus-driven by many editors of that time, including that page's/title's author, you persist in denying, calling Canadian dab standards "irrelevant" and continuing to tub-thump on the use of /7/ in that title; which is specious and you still do not continue to address the other primary example of a non-English character in a title in teh same region, in fact just down the road - the colon in Sto:lo. I'm the one talking guidelines as a whole, you're the one zeroing in on only one aspect of the title and IMO misinterpreting and abusing that guideline despite the ambibuities and dab problem of the current title.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

New personal attacks on Jimbo's page

Skookum1 is now posting even more inappropriate remarks on Jimbo's page. [23][24] —Neotarf (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have precedent, with Giano. Except that Giano's content is better and his commentary less obnoxious. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Giano and I don't know Skookum, but Giano has never gone out of his way to WP:BITE me. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Skookum1

This discussion has now gone on for more than 8 days and 10,000 words. Skookum1 doesn't seem to be able to participate without massive disruptions across multiple forums. Blocks have been tried and they didn't work. The attacks continue, even as the spotlight is trained on him and even more editors continue to express their concerns. Skookum1 can't stop. I propose a site ban. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban. When personal attacks are pointed out and the individual decides to ignore the problem and cast further aspersions there is no way to work with it. I believe they will be a continuing disruption and further time sink if nothing is done. I do believe an indef block should be applied. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an indef block compares to a site ban. Can one of you say why one makes more sense than the other? In the mean time, Skookum1 keeps up the denial and attacks here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And you continue your disruptive and tendentious opposition there and elsewhere, on topics you really know nothing about. The denials are from people such as yourself who ignore guideline citations, e.g. you calling me "tilting at guidelines" when it's a guideline you asked for, and now seek to evade addressing. This is all too typical with what's going on, including the fielding of two-word alleged PRIMARTOPICS as if valid, when the are not. That others support my proposals and also cite guidelines (that you and others ignore or seek to bypass/talk around) and also are capable of reading my writing without treating it as a criminal offence, is also well-established as fact; that RMs have been opposed by certain individuals without any basis in guidelines or actual reality apparently because it was me who proposed them hasn't stopped 95% of them from being decided in "my" favour. The accusational and adversarial environment caused by such knee-jerk opposition is the real problem herr, not me.Skookum1 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

My comments have been about the requested moves, not about you; the words you quote are not mine; I have not proposed any primarytopics. Face reality, please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had no PRIMARYTOPICs to propose, then why were you claiming the obvious (to a Canadian, and others who actually read googlestats and view stats) PRIMARYTOPIC was not viable? Why are you obstructing those RMs? So that "no consensus/not moved" would be the result?Skookum1 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Responsive to Dicklyon's question, see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks. A user who is banned is not technically prevented from editing (but any edits can be deleted on sight). A user who is banned and continues to edit anyway generally ends up indef blocked. These typically go hand in hand. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Also if the user stops commenting on contributers instead of the material the indef is easily removed. The editor is constructive for the most part, just not cordial. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If those contributors have done "bad things" in the course of misapproprating titles as they have been doing, it's perfectly valid to criticize them and call them on their actions, and also on their obstructiveness/disruptiveness. I'm the one whose personality is under attack here, on the basis of (alleged) personality alone. Your comment is just more one-sided tub-thumping.Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Neotarf's proposal "The attacks continue, even as the spotlight is trained on him and even more editors continue to express their concerns." And the evasions of guidelines and attempts to block RMs continue, the disruptive behaviour is coming from the mob of oppositioinists who opposed just to oppose, without substance. And more and more editors also voice to me their support in the face of the atmosphere of witchhunt that is going down and the ongoing and persistently disruptive campaign against needed and valid RMs is the real "time sink" that this has taken. Harassing me officially in order to stop me from posting such RMs is the real agenda here.Skookum1 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are certainly issues with Skookum1's inability to avoid major drama when dealing with those he disagrees with, but leaping to a site ban from no current block whatsoever is the "cart before the horse". He can be blocked if he cannot drop the diva persecution stance, but no site ban is needed at this time. Blaming everyone else for your conflicts is all well and good, but hardly realistic. Doc talk 05:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc9871. During the past 2.5 years, he appears to have been blocked only once, and that was for only 48 hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  There's also a disturbing loophole in WP:3RRNO when it comes to even thinking about banning someone with as many prolific positive contributions as this user. It says under #3: "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." The first part of the instruction surely seems to indicate that any user who has subsequently become banned can have all of their edits reverted by anyone at anytime, regardless of whether those edits were good or not. That's around 82,000 edits since 2005 that would suddenly be eligible for deletion were he to be community banned, 60% of them in article space. Community bans are for the worst of the worst. The extreme measure of a community ban should be carefully considered. Doc talk 09:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - I would generally oppose a ban proposal that is put forward by one side of the dispute. Banning someone for verbosity is entirely inappropriate. Getting Skookum off their pedestal is one thing, but unleashing a wrecking ball to knock him off is overkill. Blackmane (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This AN/I was initiated due to nonstop personal attacks (all well documented above), which have continued throughout the process despite repeated warnings from a range of individuals, not verbosity. There has to be a compromise between doing nothing (current situation) and a site ban. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Your conflations of criticisms of actions and words in violation of guidelines as alleged "NPA" has been biased all along; you always don't include the personal attacks and obstructionism I encountered in each case; said personal attacks being something you very evidently tolerate on a very partisan basis; and my comments in return were well-deserved, including your very rude "Get a life!" edit comment when deleting my attempt to broach you double standard on the "FOO people" issue, i.e. your aggressive and untoward re-creation of the Category:Squamish and your attempt to coopt the main category Category:Squamish people to conform to your point that "FOO people" is for "people who are FOO".

I continue to work on articles and also on the RMs of the same kind I have been regularly opposed, whether by Kwami or others, with Kwami tossing out regular NPAs and somewhere Maunus stating the very AGF "we can't take Skookum1's word for it", even though it was concerning a topic area in which I am one of the main contributors and wiki-experts. You want "compromise"? Why don't you back off and stop with the DEADHORSE routine? You continue to rant against me, and look for contributions/discussion comments you can come running back with here to rail at me yet again. I have supporters on Jimbo's talkpage, about the "he has no right to speak here" cant that is a feature of this ANI, and also other support in the face of "the trolls" has also been voiced, and "Wikipedia needs you", also;

My rights to criticize the unfairness of this process, and your own hypocrisy and partisanship, and the "lynch mob" mentality seen in the relentless personal criticism here, when I've been arguing guidelines and consensus which you yourself refuse to discuss. Banning me is an extreme measure; the compromise is to WP:DISENGAGE which I have been trying to do, other than replying here to yet-another-conflation and one-sided cherrypicking and talking of my UserContributions..........I'm the one trying to be CIVIL and being met by hostility over and over and over again (including copy-pastes of derisive comments in the course of "oppose" votes)

Suppressing free speech? Is that what you are wanting to do? That I can't speak my mind in face of overt hostility and one-sided and out-of-context links to my responses to ongoing NPA and AGF, including from you, seems to be what you want; that I should humble myself and tone down my discussion of guidelines that have been violated, and actions taken to disrupt their proper implementation (including NPA and AGF comments in the RMs, right and left)..... that any criticism of bad actions, and dishonest ones as was sometimes the case, is automatically branded "NPA" without any action taken in regard to the NPAs made against ME - and what you want is to censor me, to shut me up?? To stop me from fielding RMs and trying to discuss guidelines that are much in need of review; I'm not the one who is being "disruptive" and "tendentious" by comparison, not by a long shot.

"Some action must be taken" could start with your own acknowledgement of the highly productive results of the RMs I have filed, and incorporating them into your wiki-view or "right action". I have been harassed by the people my responses above you have cited, and persistently by yourself, here and elsewhere. There is no reason to ban me, I'm out in the trenches doing constructive work despite the "time sink" of endless procedures which have been dragged out needlessly based on spurious and unsubtantiated and anti-guideline PRIMARYTOPIC disputes, and defending myself here. You have resisted working with me, insulted me in the course of that resistance, and now are positing my responses to people who have regularly insulted and badgered/obstructed me as if I were the only guilty party. It's not me who's the DIVA here, in my estimation. Skookum1 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "we can't take Skookum1's word for it" — no one takes anyone's word for anything here. Cited sources are necessary for articles, and diffs are required here. I've furnished over a dozen diffs of your personal attacks, and others, including yourself, have provided more examples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I can't remember just now where Maunus said that, but it was on a BC topic or BC indigenous topic of some kind....that is a direct AGF statement, and totally out of line since I've been here since 2005 and my known expertise in topics in my region is well established (as others will attest, and my editing record will demonstrate amply). That may have been in reference to the "old consensus", which if not for this ongoing harassment I would have drafted up by now on the IPNA talkpage or a sandbox thereof, and in which I took part, including in the establishment of indigenous categories in BC and elsewhere, and in title-format discussions; why would I have reason to make such a thing up? You are being every bit as AGF as that comment; why should you be believed? It's time for you to WP:DISENGAGE, Uyvsdi, and go start those native-artist biographies you blame me for you not starting; more AGF.Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Uyvsdi, going between one extreme to another is not beneficial. It is generally acknowledged that Skookum1 does good work but does have issues in a few areas. Drawing a line in the sand benefits nobody. Seriously, Skookum1, please dial back on the verbosity of your posts. Personally, I make a point of reading as much, if not everything, of what an editor writes as I can, but even that tendency gets exhausted eventually. Blackmane (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've had firsthand experience with Skookum1's combative editing and sense of ownership over some topics. While it is disheartening to see that he hasn't change much in 3+ years, a site ban is way too drastic of a measure for a editor who does make (overall) worthwhile contributions to the project. Does Skookum1 need to dial it back some and, perhaps, accept some mentoring and help towards dealing with editors of differing viewpoints in a more diplomatic fashion? Of course. But lets try to go the rehabilitation route more earnestly before unleashing the ban hammer. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose site bans outside of arbitration in principle. Surely there must be other ways to resolve the situation. It's not like we have an abundance of otherwise productive editors to start banning them because no one seems to be able/willing to resolve one or a couple of individual disputes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2014; 18:23 (UTC)
  • In the Okanagan Valley wine region case, there was a POV/COI SPA editor (oh was that you, Agne?) who was trying to rewrite North American geography so that wine region bumpf about itself would seem correct (claiming that the Sonoran Desert reached the Okanagan Valley rather than stopping at the Colorado River like it does in the real world. I've had way too much experiences with SPAs, be they a Sinixt activist who was edit-warring to remove all mention of the Ktunaxa on topics re their disputed/shared territory, political hacks seeking to have me thrown out for getting in the way of their POV/SOAP actions on political bios, or Haida supporters attempting to "OWN" Haida content; in the case of the Okanagan Valley it was not me trying to OWN BC Geography, but insisting it be described correctly, not using wine-industry press releases in travel magazines (as Agne did) as if there were valid RS on geography. Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

sigh I have no interest in rehashing 3 yr old disputes (especially with an editor who seems to not know what WP:POV, WP:COI or WP:SPA means). I still oppose a site ban for Skookum1 but I would hope (perhaps naively) that the chorus of editors who have raised red flags about his behaviors would give him reason to pause and reassess his behavior. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There's also a chorus of editors who support me and find the TLDR ranting and one-sided persecution of alleged/conflated NPAs in the context of the NPAs and AGF behaviour towards me abhorrent; and per your attempts to rewrite BC geography according to wine industry bumpf, and your claims on that debate that you were not COI, amounted to WP:DUCK and were very, very POV vs what is actually in geography texts; Osoyoos' spurious claim to be the "northern tip of the Sonoran Desert" was hogwash, but you warred over this extensively.Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that he writes a lot in discussions and others find it hard to read is not a good reason to site ban anybody. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, just a reminder, this AN/I has nothing to do with verbosity and was initiated due to nonstop personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Well, gee, then why was TLDR and "walls of text" brought up so much? the "nonstop personal attacks" were coming from your friends who you portray as victims here; I am only responding to them, and as CambridgeBayWeather has pointed out, mounting frustration at the obtuse and oppositional "arguments" thrown to try to block RMs is where my responses are coming from. "Nonstop personal attacks" - there is a difference between calling someone "idiotic", "ridiculous" and "no one would accuse you of being rational" (all Kwami, here portrayed as victim) and criticizing someone's ideas, behaviour and their failure to address guidelines. Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ridiculous proposal. Straight out of Lord of the Flies. Absolutely nothing wrong with this productive editor, other than the objections of some to his verbosity, which last I knew was not a lynchable offense... Carrite (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is far too harsh a sanction at this point in time, but I hope Skookum can take this criticism to heart and get serious about commenting on content (and arguments) rather than contributors. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much like a witch hunt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One Week Escalating Block Proposal, Not a Cool Down Block

• Support. I am proposing this as I believe in escalating blocks and a little time a way may do some good. The amount of time based on inputs can of course be modified. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As a side note I didn't make the comment at any time that this was a cooldown block. I figured due to block history and peoples opinions at the above site ban commentary that escalating blocks would be the most widely accepted option. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Judging by what I am seeing here, User:Skookum1 has indeed made constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. However, as of recently something may have happened - he is reportedly becoming more hostile to other editors, launching personal attacks like fireworks in the sky. A lot of things can happen to one's personality - a concussion, mental illness, disease, surgery, stress, etc. Normally I am opposed to cool-down blocks as they usually have the opposite effect, but it seems like we have no other option. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • re "reportedly", I found this quote from Mark Twain today which is very, very apt - this is politics after all:
    • <wikiquote>"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."</wikiquote>

• We don't do punitive or "cool-down" blocks here, nor do we arbitrarily pick a block length out of a hat to appease those who really want him site banned. If he levies a personal attack that any admin (and many are watching, obviously) sees justification for a block, he or she will apply one. Doc talk 01:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Man, do you people ever turn things on their head,and seem to not own any mirrors to take a look at yourselves with; NPAs and AGF behaviour and obstructive (=tendential, disruptive) actions against/towards me is what prompted my responses that you are now saying are "like fireworks in teh sky". And this an outright personality attack - "A lot of things can happen to one's personality - a concussion, mental illness, disease, surgery, stress, etc." Supposition and imputation and very very very AGF. That comment is out of order and constitutes extreme AGF and NPA. Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That comment is out of order and constitutes extreme AGF and NPA. I'm the one fielding legitimate RMs and being treated with AGF and NPA in return...now especially here.Skookum1 (talk)

• Comment re one-week block A "one week block" or "escalating blocks" is punishing me on behalf of those inflicting NPA and AGF at ME. And your word "reportedly" in "reportedly becoming more hostile to other editors" is taking someone's word for it without even looking at the context; believing the bully is easy to do. "It seems like we have no other option" - oh yes, you do, you can shut this farce of a persecution down and tell Uyvsdi to debate issues raised, not continue to harass me while painting the aggressive and hostile editors as victims. This whole ANI is a victimization and extremely one-sided and biased; your "reportedly" indicates that you believe that I have been "escalating"..... do you just make this stuff up, or do you just believe what you're told by somebody who clearly is grinding an axe who doesn't herself do "proper discussion" and in fact refuses to? The option you have is to WP:DISENGAGE and let me get on with my wiki-work without any further harassment.Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

See this is why I think you need a step back. Instead of Ad hom attacks you could have been concise supplying diffs and kept your cool. Instead you continue to insist that everyone else is the problem and you are doing nothing wrong. You can be a great contributer but you also must be a great collaberator which requires more civility. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also lack of difs are a big problem in most of your posts. I counted every single dif you posted and only three were not direct links to articles. If you want people to have evidence you need to present evidence. When someone's behavior is called into question it isn't the responsibility of third parties to go digging through various articles and talk pages to try and locate any of the information you expounded upon. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment re abuse of TLDR I've been reading TLDR and its talkpage btw....very, very interesting about the ways it can be used and especially the way it is abused. It's not supposed to be used in regard to talkpage discussions in particular; and it is not policy. Oh, if you want some more criticism that can be claimed/conflated as NPAs, you'll find me on that talkpage now, also. There's some choice bits from several editors about it being unCIVIL but I won't quote them here; they're "TLDR"Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  WP:TLDR is an essay. However, WP:TPYES is an editing guideline, which says "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood". Adding 135,252 characters to a single discussion is the opposite of "concise". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support 1 week cool-down block The litany of cites and testimony from a wide range of editors shows a long term pattern of aggressive and combative behavior. This doesn't erase all the quality work that Skookum1 has contributed to the encyclopedia but it does, sadly, detract from those contributions. As far as I can tell, looking at Skookum1 history, he has never really been seriously called out for his uncivil and combative behavior--at least not on the scale of this AN/I thread. Therefore, it is far too hasty to jump straight to a site ban but an escalating block and a one-week cool down seems very appropriate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a waste of time for everyone. It is still continuing on Jimbo's page as well. [25] What does it take to shut it down. —Neotarf (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Geez, that was two days ago. What does it take to shut it down? Stop harrassing me and whining about valid criticisms of this process, and of its instigator....WP:DISENGAGE as I have pointed out is the valid course of action; and Uyvsdi can go write those articles on native artists from BC she claims I am the reason preventing her from doing so.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "Whining"? "Harrassing"? This type of discourse is unacceptable. This user continues to make remarks that are uncivil and unsupportable. And April 10 is not "two days" after April 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotarf (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 April 2014
      • I'm on the other side of the Int'l Dateline; I realize posts are in UTC not local time, the time difference was much larger than 24 hours. The way things are around here, time passes differently for sure, especially when there's exhaustive updates to deal with, and not just here.Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
        • So those were all just isolated examples? And that's why this thread has gone on for so long, and with so many people weighing in? Most people who volunteer their time here only have a limited time every day to post something. That they are using up their limited Wikipedia time to comment on you, on a daily basis, instead of whatever it is they usually do, should say something. —Neotarf (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Skookum may ramble, and he is certainly being his own worst enemy at these venues, but I'd hardly call much of what is being offered up here as personal attacks. Some people need to grow a thicker skin to collaborate in what is not always a happy-dandy environment (and no, that is not a personal attack :P). Conversely, editors need to remind themselves that they should try to keep a happy-dandy environment and not go on tirades over how your good intentions have been wronged. There's only so many times you can say "But they did this and this and this to me" before it becomes whining. That said, as someone who has been stonewalled severely over a premise that I was knowledgeable in (crown copyright, which has since gone on to result in the URAA being disavowed on Commons), repeatedly, and seemingly without end over a two year period, I can sympathize. A block won't solve anything, it'll just increase the mounting frustration. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block (but not ban): Skookum1 has, in this discussion, utterly refused to listen to any of the concerns that anybody has about him, and instead continues to insist that it's everybody else's fault and that he is being persecuted. His behavior in this thread alone, above and beyond his commentary elsewhere, is an indicator that he is unable or unwilling to contribute to the encyclopedia in a collegial manner. This isn't something that a fixed-length block will fix: this is why "indefinite is not infinite", and a block until he is willing or able to contribute in a cooperative manner is what is needed here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Kwami and Uysvdi and JorisV are the ones not acting in a "cooperative manner"..... I've been fielding RMs, not moving things arbitrarily without discussion; that they obstruct RMs needed to correct their moves is very disruptive and tendentious. They are the ones not acting "collegially". My comments to BHG about using TLDR as a policy which it is not in discussions applies to you as well; that you would make TLDR a focus of discussion comments is against what TLDR itself says and is abuse of that essay. A lot of you here really need to fully read the essays and guidelines and have a really long look in the mirror.Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Please provide diffs of TLDR being used as a policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support, with escalation as needed. This discussion started because of personal attacks, but the TLDR walls of text have become an issue too, and they have been repeated here at ANI. AFAICS, the underlying problem is a serious one, illustrated in several posts by Skookum1, but I'll just take one as an example, from elsewhere on this page: Skookum1 tells us that "I'm the one with local, modern expertise and aware of the complexities of the native cultural/political revival, you are the one relying on "facts" and terminologies from old books".
  This is a direct rejection of WP:V, and it's the source of Skookum1's genuine frustration. I assume in good faith that Skookum1 is genuinely expert in these topics, and I also assume in good faith that he is right to say that the book sources are outdated. The fact remains, though, that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR are at the core of Wikipedia's content policy. Wikipedia is a tertiary publication, which means that we rely on reliable secondary sources. That means that if the reliable secondary sources don't exist, we can't have an article (because it would be original research) ... and it also means that if the scholarly sources are way out-of-date and don't reflect what's happening on the ground, then the Wikipedia article will reflect that bias and outdatedness. That's just the way it is in an encyclopedia.
  Unfortunately, Skookum1 doesn't want to accept that limitation of Wikipedia, and gets frustrated when editors demand sources, complaining above that editors say "we can't take Skookum1's word for it", even though it was concerning a topic area in which I am one of the main contributors and wiki-experts. Unless and until Skooum1 can accept that Wikipedia takes the word of reliable sources rather than editors, he will continue to get frustrated ... and that frustration will lead to more personal attacks and more TLDR screeds.
  I hate seeing any committed editor ending up in a conflict like this, but Skookum1 needs time out to reflect on whether he wants to work within the core policies of Wikipedia, or continue to push his version of WP:THETRUTH. I do hope that he continues to edit Wikipedia, but if he persists in opposing core content policies, he will will end up in more conflicts, which are unlikely to end well. Please, Skookum1, take the 1-week break as a chance to reflect on this ... because otherwise the conclusion will be that you are not here to build an an encyclopedia, and are instead on a mission to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain, as an Irish person living in Ireland, what business you had closing RMs on PRIMARYTOPIC issues you are not qualified to comment on or judge, and where you ignored the evidence and counted a specious "oppose" vote in quantitatively counting votes vs qualitative examination of what they were saying and whether they were valid or not? I wouldn't presume to weigh in on PRIMARYTOPIC for Irish topics. That you used TLDR as a reason to negatively close one of the Squamish RMs or CfDs or whichever it was as if it were a policy was misprocedure (you should really read TLDR, especially the bits about how it is abused by applying it to discussions rather than articles); I'm not the one violating how Wikipedia is supposed to work, you are.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, a closing admin's task is to weigh the consensus of the editors who participated in a discussion, by assessing the balance of views and how well they are founded in policy. If the closing admin has any expertise in the topic, they should leave it at the door, because applying it to the closure amounts to a WP:SUPERVOTE.

You have made it quite clear that you didn't like my close of that CFD. You are entitled to open a move review if you so wish, but I suggest that you find a better reason for review than "admin failed to make a WP:SUPERVOTE".

Won't be just that one; your non-move closures of Haida people, Bella Bella, Fort Fraser, British Columbia were all with disregard to many precedents of exactly the same kind and disregarding evidence presented about valid PRIMARYTOPIC proofs - not spurious "I think "XX" is valid also", which they weren't, as others with "support" votes also attested. And where in WP:SUPERVOTE does it say anything about "leave [expertise] at the door"? I see no such passage; it is absurd that someone who does have expertise in a a topic area should disregard it while those who have no expertise at all are free to "vote" and close as they please. You are suggesting that ignorance of a topic is superior to expertise in it. As for that CfD, there is coming a triple RM on Squamish, British Columbia, Squamish (dab page at present) and Squamish people to revisit those titles in the wake of the successful RMs of the very same kind as at Lillooet and associated pages, and other "town-native people" pairings, which are common in BC (Bella Bella being one of those, which, again, was wrongly closed despite ample evidence and support votes forming a consensus you decided wasn't one....wrongly).Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You should also read WP:TPYES, which tells editors to "be concise", because "long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood". That guideline is particularly relevant to an XFD where you wrote more words than are usually found in a Masters Degree thesis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And just noting that your post was of the same length as you screamed/condemned "TLDR" for in the course of closing a discussion by targeting me as the reason for the negative close; not reading what I had to say was just ignorant and, as noted, as someone in Ireland with no knowledge of British Columbia or the indigenous topics concerned, you were out of line.Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• IDHT and (particularly) NOTHERE are very subjective reasons to block someone. There's a lot of "wiggle room", if you will, and it's wide open to interpretation. When it's not abundantly clear to everyone that an editor is so disruptive that they must be blocked, other options exist. Weighing this user's contributions against his block log[26], I do not think that he is close to the level of disruption warranting an indef. Certainly no one has to "like" him and want to be his best buddy; this isn't a social networking site. Carefully considering the "mitigating factors" of an editor when seeking an indefinite block is, IMHO, very important. A one week block would be a punitive "time-out" block at this point. How about a RfC/U? Doc talk 04:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Why not an RfC on the mass of obstructive and groundless "oppose" votes and dissembling of discussions as on the NCET talkpage?Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how an RFC/U would bring out much that hasn't already been revealed. In general, RFCU is a good idea, but in this case Skookum1 has already explained the underlying problem, and a RFC/U is likely to only increase the pressure he feels under as a result of it. That pressure has been vocally expressed by Skooukm1 in this thread. So in this case, I think that an RFCU would makes it less likely that Skookum1 will stay here as a productive and collaborative editor, and more likely that continued outbursts and walls of text will lead to emergency admin action. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"walls of text" like TLDR, is only an essay not a policy. I've tried to collaborate but have been treated as uninformed and not welcome, instead I have been harassed, insulted, and now am having a necktie party held in my "honour". Your abuse of TLDR and calling my explanations/rebuttals "outbursts" is entirely specious and partisan.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

TLDR is an essay and editors are never blocked for TLDR, however they are blocked for TLDR to the point of disruption. Skookum1, the more you post, the more you make out that you are your own worst enemy and the saddest thing is that you just don't see it. Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just back the hell off and leave him alone. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Carrite, there's a few people here that "get it" and understand the difficulties I'm having with obstinacy and repetitive, anti-guideline persecution like what is going on here. There are enough people alienated from Wikipedia by the in-group attack-mode here in ANI and as seen in too many RMs and CfDs. I'm trying to do constructive work and am being attacked by those who are not doing constructive work, but only wish to complain about someone who points out their own faults and faulty decisions/misquotations of guidelines. The "time sink" that has resulted is not of my doing.Skookum1 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "I'm trying to do constructive work and am being attacked by those who are not doing constructive work" - An interesting comment that shows a distinct lack of checking what work the people being attacked by Skookum1 are doing. Such as making and expanding articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support – but longer would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Personal attacks are entirely unacceptable in a collaborative setting. Even when it's pointed out to this user that what they are writing could be construed as uncivil they remain unrepentant[27]. It's this sort of behaviour that scares away new users or others from participating.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Theoretically, we don't do cool-down blocks. But I think Skookum needs to cool himself down. He does himself no favors by lashing out at other editors or by posting walls of text where a few sentences would do. What might be prudent in this case is an editing restriction similar to the one imposed on Born2cycle last year, allowing uninvolved admins to ban him from particular discussions. He would be wise to keep his comments concise and not targeted at specific editors. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a cool down block. It is an escalating block. I have no idea why someone mentioned cool down as it has been brought up that the past block log contains only a 48 hour block. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. But I fear everyone will just be back here when the block expires, since the user doesn't seem to get it. I find this user's public meltdown painful to watch. Is there no one who can explain it to them privately? —Neotarf (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I would consider a counter proposal to block them all, including Neotarf, for a week. I find this pettiness tedious to the extreme. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, so you don't have any problem with abusing editors? Have you ever thought of becoming an admin? Or better yet, go over to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, explain how personal attacks are so useful, and get the policy changed. —Neotarf (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks are not useful at all, which is why you should be lecturing Kwami about that far more than me. Conflating criticism of actions and bad ideas are not "personal attacks" is not about vicious, personal attacks like the many directed at me by him and others, including whomever it was above who suggested I have mental problems.Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
      • So it's all these other editors who are causing you to post personal attacks against me? Can you show the diffs for that? —Neotarf (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If someone provides the difs I would be willing to consider it. Skookums so far is the only one I have difs on (since they decided providing 3 non article difs were more than sufficient) and without difs I go off of behavior at this ANI. While I will agree some baiting has occured I haven't seen anything egregious enough here to warrant blocking any other user. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Cool down blocks are not done. While Skookum1 may not always use the best phrasing, I think of other editors that have been brought here time after time because the were uncivil and made personal attacks yet were allowed to continue editing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a cool down block. It is an escalating block. I have no idea why someone mentioned cool down as it has been brought up that the past block log contains only a 48 hour block. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for a block or ban. Please try dispute resolution instead, such as WP:RFC/U. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

"Lewchew"

This person's edits are "interesting": a set of meaningless edits to his own talk page, followed by a busy (and unargued and unexplained) renaming of "Ryukyu" (a common spelling) to "Lewchew" (a historic and now merely quaint spelling). Reversing this lot will involve deletions and thus administrator tools. I'd do it (or a lot of it) myself except that it's already an hour past my bedtime and I'm sleepy. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to note that a user with the same name is indefinitely blocked at ja:WP. (And now, good night.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can revert page moves like his, which I've done. Someone should indefblock him for being a single purpose account probably intended to push some sort of nationalist movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You're wider awake than I am. I blocked him for a mere 12 hours, enough to let others consider the matter. Anyone is entirely welcome to make the block indefinite, as far as I'm concerned. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism at High King of Ireland

Having twice attempted to remove everything, sources and all, that contradict or cast doubt on the traditional account of high kings of Ireland (falsely claiming it was "unsubstantiated and unreferenced") diff1, diff2, an anonymous IP (86.188.201.211) is now concentrating on removing one line from the lead, that the high kings never ruled a unitary state, claiming this is contradicted later in the article (which it isn't). I can't revert him/her again without violating 3RR, but this is obviously unconstructive editing. Is there anything that can be done? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Try starting a conversation on the article talk page, let other editors weigh in so it stops being a Me vs. You edit war. Establish a consensus among editors. It usually helps to bring more parties in on disputes like this. Just be sure not to canvass. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If something is vandalism, you can revert without having to worry about 3RR violations. However, this is not clearly vandalism. Vandalism has to be willfully unconstructive editing. It's clear from the IP's edit summaries that this isn't an example of vandalism, but rather it's an example of a disagreement. When an editor states that they are removing material that they feel is unsubstantiated, you need to argue that it is substantiated, and why, not to call their efforts "vandalism" because you disagree with them. Liz is correct that you need to discuss this matter. Oh, and just FYI, you have already violated 3RR (you reverted 4 times in less than 6 hours) and so is the IP. So technically I could block both of you, but I won't, not as long as you stop edit-warring and try to take this to discussion where it belongs. That article talk page hasn't been touched in years. -- Atama頭 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I reverted his attempt to fillet the article of all scholarly scepticism twice, and then reverted his removal of one sentence twice. The first two reveal his agenda, and make me not prepared to engage or accommodate him. Again, after attempting to use Wikipedia procedure to ask for help dealing with a disruptive editor and being accused of disruption myself, I am left wondering why I bother. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nicknack009: Wrong? In what way? You have stated that you made 4 reverts (2 + 2). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong in the sense that I have not made the same revert three times. I have made two different reverts twice each. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You've made more than 3 reverts, doesn't matter if they're the same reverts or not for WP:3RR violation. Canterbury Tail talk 13:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail is absolutely correct. You have a misunderstanding of our 3 revert rule. Any time you perform more than three reverts in a 24 hour period at an article, you're in violation. They can be reverts of different material, or even reverts of different editors. As long as they are reverts, performing more than 3 is considered to be an extremely excessive edit war, and typically results in a short block. But really, whether or not you violate 3RR is somewhat moot, you shouldn't be edit-warring at all, and you can be blocked for any number of reverts that demonstrate that you would rather undo others' edits rather than discuss a dispute. I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:BRD, it really does work a lot better than reverting someone over and over in the hopes that they give up. -- Atama頭 16:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I acknowledge I have misunderstood the 3 revert rule. I was under the impression it referred to reverting the same thing three times, but I've now read the policy and I see I was wrong. My anonmous opponent is continuing his campaign of tendentious edits, however, and has inserted imaginary scholarly disputes, which he has "supported" with a cite to the bare text of a primary source, The Annals of Ulster. I have opened a discussion on the talk page, but I cannot see any other conclusion to the discussion that would serve the purpose of the encyclopedia other than another revert. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion here looks productive. You stated there that you left a message for the IP (which was a notification of this thread here at ANI, which was proper and is a requirement for this board) but I suggest you also leave a message asking them to participate at the talk page discussion for the article. Whether or not they actually choose to participate in the discussion, if the IP continues to engage in their previous behavior you'll have established that you are willing to try to discuss changes, and they are not. At that point an administrator would probably block the IP to get the point across that discussion needs to happen. That's how to can protect yourself in a dispute like this, by at least trying to start a discussion. For now, though, it looks like you've received support from a couple of other editors (one of whom has reverted the IP's additions). -- Atama頭 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would we even consider a block for Nicknack? 3RR violations are not problematic when they're done to fight vandalism. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Because as I explained before, this is very obviously not vandalism. Vandals don't remove content with the explanation that they dispute the validity of sourcing, or add material while attempting to cite it with a source. That's an example of a content dispute. The IP's unwillingness to communicate is definitely misbehavior that is blockable if it continues along with additional reverts, but it's not vandalism. -- Atama頭 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say, rather, that's he's a clever vandal, using the appearance of following the form to cover entirely destructive behaviour, claiming in his edit summaries to be removing "unreferenced" material when he's actually removing referenced material, and adding a cite for an edit he must know is not backed up by that cite. But thank you, Nyttend backup. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You could be right. I've said above that I have concerns about the IP, and suggested that if the IP continues to behave in this manner without responding to overtures for discussion that they should be blocked until they either stop repeating the edits or join discussion. But the exception in 3RR for vandalism is only for obvious vandalism (and the word "obvious" is bolded to emphasize its importance in the edit-warring policy). A "clever" vandal who damages an article under the cover of a content dispute is thus not someone you can revert with impunity, because it's difficult (I'd say impossible) to distinguish between someone having that degree of subtlety with their vandalism, and someone who is sincere in their edits but mistaken. -- Atama頭 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained Page Protection for a crazy amount of time and for the wrong reasons..

Recently editor User:DecepticonsFTW put in a request for page protection of Transformers: Age of Extinction citing "persistent vandalism". A quick look at the page history does not reveal any obvious vandalism, but instead a history of said user reverting so called "Unsourced content" removing the plot summary of the article saying that it is not sourced. When in fact, when looked at further, although not directly sourced within the section itself, the information is sourced in other part of the articles. An attempt to open up the matter for discussion with other editors here was met with silence, despite an invite issued during a revert in line with BRD policy. I was therefore rather surprised that a request for page protection was put in, without any attempt by the requesting editor to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I can only assume therefore it is the editors inexperience and lack of knowledge of processes and policies that caused them to jump straight to the request for page protection rather than discuss on the talk page. I was even more surprised that the page was then protected for 3 months by User:Ged UK, which to me is like shooting an ant with a cannon by protecting the page for a majority of lead up to the release of the film. If said users could clarify their decision for the request and the reason for the protection and an impartial admin could review it that would be great. :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 15:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It would also appear that the editor who requested the page protection was in fact warned of edit warring on the same article. MisterShiney ✉ 17:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing, insertion of an inappropriate label

This might seem like a content dispute, but it's not. I've come here to report Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), who inserted his personal POV label into Aram Khachaturian lead, by calling the pronunciation taken from a university published book (specifically, a pronunciation guide) "bastardized" and saying in the edit summary: "at least label it for what it is". This is clearly a personal viewpoint, which has no place in the lead. He instead added the pronunciation suggested by an online dictionary (Dictionary.com, which is not a WP:RS). He claims "A dictionary is better that a bastardized pronunciation". This user seems to be obsessed with the word "bastardized". He also changed the header of the section I opened on the talk page from "Pronunciation" to "Bastardized pronunciations".[28] One would expect that an admin and a long time editor wouldn't make such unreasonable edits. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an MOS and RS dispute. Երևանցի doesn't understand how we indicate pronunciations here on WP. We give the English pronunciation, and where appropriate the native pronunciation, not (in this case) faux-Armenian. We already have the Armenian. What he's doing is like claiming that "Paris" is pronounced "puh-ree" in English, when that is just bastardized French. I'm sure I can find a published source for that too, but it's hardly encyclopedic.

BTW, I found the page because Երևանցի's edit generated an error-tracking category, and came to clean it up like I did the other dozen pages in that list. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not the right arena to continue our dispute. You've added an inappropriate label to an article intro which is unacceptable. Please respond to that instead. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what the correct pronunciation is; and it may be that there should be two pronunciations, one more authentically Armenian and the other more typically used in English-speaking contexts. But I am sure that Kwamikagami, an extremely knowledgeable linguist, can come up with a more encyclopedic and suitable-for-articlespace wording than "bastardized." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Bastardized" is actually an appropriate and well-used term in this type of situation, but yeah, there's probably better ones DP 09:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It is OK to add the word "bastardized" (which is kwami's personal opinion) to the article intro? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's basically an error tag. It shouldn't be in the article, just as any error tag shouldn't be in the article, and we can remove it when we correct the bastardized pronunciation.

BTW, the pronunciation is not "authenically Armenian". We have that in a footnote. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Source falsification

Kwami continues his irrational behavior. This time he changed the pronunciation in Etchmiadzin Cathedral with no edit summary whatsoever. The Grolier source[29] has "{ech-mee-uh-dzeen′}", while he changed it to "ech-mee-əd-zeen". Just because he thinks that's the correct pronunciation doesn't mean it is. Once again. No edit summary. I believe this behavior needs to be stopped. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and violation of WP:BLP by NarSakSasLee

User seems to be obsessed with the word 'sh*t', he started calling Koenraad Elst a fascist and his book a pile of sh*t.[30] Other user brought this issue to BLP noticeboard,[31] still he would continue insulting the Koenraad elst, by calling him 'nutcase' and 'fascist',[32] after receiving warning,[33] he started to insult me,[34] continues to commit similar offense by referring to things that never happened, just for pushing his POV.[35]. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Those comments are serious violations--specifically this BLP violation and this NPA violation. User had been warned, user should have known the score. Esp. the BLP violation(s) is unacceptable anywhere in Wikipedia space. Will block. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Those AfDs on the books by Koenraad Elst, that's something else. See section below. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding

Petrarchan47 has been canvassing Wikipedia with COI accusations aimed at me for over a month now, along with personal attacks, and has helped create a toxic atmosphere in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, BP, and Corexit articles and talk pages. My patience has been expended and it needs to be sorted out. P47 is convinced that I work for a stakeholder in the ongoing Clean Water Act litigation and tells people (while canvassing for assistance against me) that I'm here to sway a US Federal court case through Wikipedia. I find that just bizarre, but I also believe that she is admitting to her purpose in being here...WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX, as she did the other night when she found a question of mine at the RS Noticeboard. In spite of her having been warned about her COI accusations by many others previously, even to the point of having her name come up here at ANI at least twice before, she recently had the gall to post her accusations against me on the user talk page of an Admin that others have previously gone to with that problem.

Some diffs: [36] [37] [38]

Similar attacks on others: [39]

COI attack on Jimbo's page: [40]

Another editor's commentary on her behavior on Jimbo's page: [41]

She rants about "shills" which she finds everywhere: [42]

Her being warned by another editor: [43]

ANI 1 (mentioned later) [44]

ANI 2 (Petrarchan comes in later) [45]

Geogene (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

More bad behavior: canvasses COI accusations over at an Admin's talk page, intent to influence courts: [46]

Refuses to read thread, disrupts RS Noticeboard with soapboxing/advocacy: [47]

Geogene (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where in any of this are you accused of being "a stakeholder in the ongoing Clean Water Act litigation" and that you're "here to sway a US Federal court case through Wikipedia." Not seeing it. What I do see is a content dispute in which you have been accused (with some justification, I believe) of pushing a POV. And frankly I don't see even that point being pursued very aggressively. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think she means that I work for BP. That's what she repeatedly insinuates, and has been since about February. Of course, she's very vague in her insinuations, because she knows what she is doing is against the rules. Incidentally, here's an instance where she deletes my cited content, calls it "undoing whitewashing". [48] Geogene (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I should emphasize that I don't work for BP. Or any PR firm. Or oil company. Nor was I involved in the spill or its aftermath in way. But somehow she thinks I'm here to change the outcome of a trial. Want to see examples of what POV-pushing really looks like, Core? Geogene (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, not really, though there isn't a force on earth to stop you if you want to go on about this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Here's a diff that shows P47 "tilting" the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station the article over two days: [49]. This is what the article looked like before P47 became involved with it: [50]. Compare to what it looks like now. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I will certainly examine that with care. It looks to me at first blush that she expanded the article with sourced content but I am no expert. Meanwhile, I'd suggest discussing it with her on the talk page of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

She uses sourced content, and I use sourced content. I accuse her of POV pushing, you accuse me of POV pushing. Some of the sources she uses are extremely questionable, but your remark that "she added sourced content" is not germane to this discussion. The point is that she POV-tilts articles. Geogene (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I read the article and examined those additions, and I think that they were good additions that added important information concerning the plant. They seem perfectly neutral. They seem to have improved the article in a material sense. Now, if you feel otherwise, if you feel that there these are not good edits, then perhaps the place for you to express those concerns is in that specific article. But do keep in mind that if you follow an editor around from article to article, it can be considered harassment. Just so you know. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They may have been good additions but they certainly weren't neutral additions, all of them were related to the plant's shady safety record. Just as all her edits in all the DWH articles are all edits that make the spill look as bad as possible. It's POV pushing. Why I followed an editor to that article (and it isn't the one you think it is) I will explain, if someone that isn't directly involved in this were to ask. "Can be" and "will be" are not the same anyway. I know that you "can" and "will" accuse me of just about anything around here regardless of my actual conduct. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If a plant has a bad safety record, and reliable sources discuss it, then telling the reader about it is neutral. If a spill has harmful effects, and reliable sources discuss them, then telling the reader about it is neutral. I don't see the problem. Binksternet (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It does have a bad safety record, and the readership should be told about it. I'm not sure it should consume the article. But I might be wrong on that. Geogene (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By "consume the article" I assume you mean that the article would have an overbalance of negative information. Certainly that is a concern, the concern addressed by the WP:BALANCE guideline which says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." If negative or positive information is more prominent in the literature, then that sort of information should be more prominent in the Wikipedia article. Striking the proper balance is the job of involved editors on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you and Core both have contested this as POV pushing, means I'm probably wrong about it. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a I left out the plagiarism. You'll find examples of that here: [51] Geogene (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• A favorite study of hers is an analysis of synergistic toxicity of Corexit and oil. She has been trolling me ever since I started pointing out that the toxicity explicitly relates to plankton, making toxins in the oil more available to small organisms by splitting it up into droplets. Here she accuses me of "throwing off the message with overly technical lingo". Then she quotes the same paper a second time in the sentence that immediately follows, but introduces it as something else, so she can make one critical paper into two. That isn't POV pushing? [52]

• Here she accuses me of "pre-trial sugar coating". She thinks I'm trying to manipulate the courts with my Wikipedia edits, and is apparently worried about it. [53]

• Here she removes my cited addition (from the NIOSH, a US government agency). She says in edit comment: "stored Health effects section; please seek consensus first; this is currently in being battled in the courts". Some of it she did put back in later, once she saw it was about workers possibly exposed to ozone she decided it was acceptable. [54]

• After I established that the study mentioned above was about plankton, she decided to delete my version from DWH Oil Spill completely. Her edit comment is "remove whitewashing". She copy/pasted her version of it that never mentions the toxicity is for plankton, only the the "52 times more toxic" and "made the oil spill worse" variants. [55]

• Invokes conspiracy theories at the Talk:Corexit page, says that government science agencies aren't to be trusted. "We're not here to tell the USG/BP/EPA/NOAA side of the story as if it's RS. We give the entire story, but independent sources are preferred, and if the one questioing this study was hired by BP, that information should be given to the reader, who would want to know. There are also sources which say the government agencies worked in collusion with BP to hide some truth about this spill. Therefore, these sources should be taken with a grain of sand." (Emphasis mine.) [56] Geogene (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Me, "the SPA", and my evil plan to use overly technical terminology to confuse the Wikipedia community into believing my bullshit: [57].

Is it okay if I mention I'm frustrated by this being ignored? Is WP:CONSPIRACY just fine these days? Do I need to go to Arbcom? After all, that is where an admin said this will probably end. Geogene (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This really is a mindboggler. Petra's editing history is littered with bad faith accusations at multiple users over an extended period of time. I don't believe a single one has been proven to have a basis (correct me if I'm wrong here). I don't really know why it's allowed to continue. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she's ever gone to COIN with it. I'm sorry to say I'd probably know about it by now if she had. That doesn't count the one editor that she (and some others) pushed to the point of taking himself there to be investigated, last August. That was in parallel with a trip to ANI linked to above. A comment she left on Jimbo's page may offer some illumination: Wikipedia is being taken over, and good editors are leaving because of it. So while you're looking at whether a certain PR firm is operating under the radar, I'm telling you this kind of activity can be seen by edits and talk page entries, by patterns of behaviour observed from ground level. We must be able to speak of the problem based on symptoms alone, untethered by a requirement to prove COI. We must have an easy way for someone like me to blow a whistle on ridiculously obvious BS such as with Monsanto articles, and to receive help, not to be asked to do this all alone, with little more than "good luck with your noticeboards". Thank you for hearing me out.[58] I read that as 'normal procedures are too burdensome to use'. Well I think there's a lot of validity to that, we have a problem with infiltration, but McCarthyism is not a viable solution. If she did take enough people to COIN, probability favors her finding an actual shill eventually, but I don't know how many investigations it would take them to reach that point. The fact that our community can be manipulated by the powerful is damaging, but it's no better if we're at each others' throats all the time, even then trained shills could probably operate here like fish in the sea. And once you've been Accused, there's really little you can do about it but accept it or complain here. Denying it as loudly as possible on talk pages isn't really helpful ("methinks he protest too much"). I'm skeptical that taking oneself to COIN is a good idea either, because then you're validating one groups' suspicions and wasting others' time. It becomes increasingly frustrating over time, and is disruptive. Geogene (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I do recall that one editor she was clashing with on BP/DWH Oil Spill was soon banned for socking. She compared me to him the other day. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Add by edit: that is User:Rangoon11. The administrator MastCell would probably know a lot of the background on those incidents, but Rangoon11 was also accused of COI on BP by P47 and other editors questioned him on COI for pharma as well, as shown on his talk page. So to answer your question, "maybe". Geogene (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing of comments by other users

At User talk:Mama meta modal#Please do not restring my comments or change the headings of sections I create there seems to be a rough consensus that the user's edits to other people's posts, particularly at WT:MOS but also elsewhere, are not constructive. This is a pattern of behaviour that has continued for some time.

A good example is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Move_review/Log/2014_March&diff=prev&oldid=602785334 part of which I reverted in the following edit. There are many others, this and this were cited on this talk page section (which the user has since deleted rather than archived) in which I described the exact problems with those earlier two edits.

The user does not acknowledge any problem with their edits, despite three users including me asking them to stop. One of the others has now posted a Template:uw-tpv3 warning at User talk:Mama meta modal#April 2014.

But while I'm quite sure the edits in question shouldn't be encouraged or even allowed, I'm not myself clear on whether Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments even discourages them. Is there another guideline that does?

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this? Specifically, are these edits contrary to guidelines? If so, take action as you see fit of course. Perhaps a sterner warning, perhaps just wait and see. The user is relatively new. But I do suggest at least watch their talk page, and an opinion here to the effect that this behaviour is not compliant to current guidelines would be helpful.

If they are compliant, that's a lot more complicated. I think there would then be a case for strengthening the guidelines, but obviously this is not the place for that discussion. An opinion here that the behaviour is fully compliant would however help to motivate a guideline change. TIA Andrewa (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that they haven't done any more comment alterations since my warning. My biggest concerns was not the section rearrangements ( though that made looking talk pages through history harder ), or the bullet removals, but the relative indenting changes which made comments appear to reply to different comments than originally intended. PaleAqua (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But I thought they had stopped once before too, and it was just a pause.

And the three examples I gave above are all from a long-standing and polarised discussion regarding bird article titles in which they have become involved. They can't be altogether blamed if they are influenced by the confrontational attitudes they see there. It's not the best classroom! Disclosure: And we are both now also involved in that discussion of course.

My reason for coming here is to get another opinion on whether their behavior is technically disruptive, or in any other way contrary to guidelines. The discussion on their talk page so far has all been about the consequences of their actions, rather than on any policy or guideline they have violated. Andrewa (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive, obviously, from the comments on this editor's talk page. I think Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments covers it. This, for example, changes the indentation to alter which message the comments are in reply to, and does so incorrectly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately disruptive editor

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

---

User:Cronkurleigh (talk) (contribs) is a relatively new editor who recently vandalised two other users' pages, here and here and, on being warned, now claims to have done it deliberately in order to provoke the response you are now reading. I feel only able to oblige. Some past history: this user's first edit, which I think you will agree lacks a certain polish in both formatting and neutrality. I followed this with a tidy-up edit session, discussion opener and note on their user talk page. Cronkurleigh's combative replies and escalating sequence of grossly offensive rants against various editors can be seen all over Talk:Hybrid airship and Talk:American Skyship Industries. I could go on, but that should be enough to get the idea. Anyway, I feel that the recent deliberate disruption requires a deliberated response. I would be as grateful as the user professes to be, if an Admin could review this user's behaviour and determine a suitable outcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda, many thanks for your swift action, the guy was getting well into a reversion war. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Classic Car Rescue vandal

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

---

For the past year, a Canadian IP hopper has been vandalizing Classic Car Rescue, making numerous claims that Canadian co-presenter Mario Pacione is bankrupt and unlicensed. Unfortunately, page protection and SPI requests have been futile because the incidents have occurred at most once a month. Is there a way to prevent this IP hopper from just popping up and attacking this article? - Areaseven (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have protected the page for three months and will watch-list. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Deletion of File:Martin Carlos Alarcon.jpg

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

---

The file has been deleted according to the log because of Lack of licensing information. I have uploaded this file under fair use, as the person in that image is in all likelihood deceased by now. I have copied the the form for it from a "stable" fair use image, means, one that has been up for some years, and therefore regarded, at least by me, as not being disputed.

After having been informed on my talk page of some ostensible licensing issue I have written a note on the image page - inside a box with red double-border and yellowish background - that somebody please sees to it that the image is furnished with a usual licencing tag - fair use images are nothing out of the ordinary and routine matter, I would assume. I have spelt out, that I am not expert in those matters, and thus certainly would have rather expected some helping hand here, rather than a deletion.

I would suggest, the image will be restored and I shall be given assistance in establishing which licencing tag would be suitable. I personally consider the act of deletion in this case not an exercise in co-operative behaviour as one should expect it in an environment based on co-operation.

I think, my request is very reasonable. It is not so, that I m ill-willed towards Wikipedia: I have amongst created more than 300 articles across several language editions and uploaded well over 1000 images. Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter. Regards, OAlexander (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when it comes to WP:COPYRIGHT, we have to be extremely cautious due to the legal ramifications - when an image is uploaded, the licensing must be airtight. We can't have an image on the project while we "search" for the correct license. This isn't an affront to you, it's the law! DP 09:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Nevertheless, considering the huge number of fair use photography, they are very much a routine matter. I requested advice on which particular licencing tag to use, instead deletion was applied. I do not think this in any way demanding to concerned with the management of images here. I continue to see this a matter of lack of two-way co-operation and request that an amicable solution to this matter will be found. Thank you very much and regards. OAlexander (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the image had a reasonable-enough non-free content rationale, and was automatically tagged by a bot merely because the uploader had forgotten to also put a non-free "licensing" tag on, i.e. {{Non-free biog-pic}} or the like. This seems to be a mere formality that could easily have been fixed, so it could easily be restored. What I find much more problematic is not so much the image but something in the article: the article is introduced with "was", as if the person was dead, when that apparently is by no means certain (he'd be 86 now, which is by no means an unlikely age to reach). If there's so little about him that we seriously don't know what happened to him after his professional football carreer, there's really an issue whether we ought to be trying to maintain a biographical article about him in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Warning: original research; this is not fit for the article, but if someone interested in Alarcon wants to do some research for a newspaper article or the like: it seems not unlikely that he died in the US on 15 November 1988, and had social security number 571-70-6701. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Good find DP 10:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I agree it's not for the article, but it should set our minds to rest about any lingering doubt regarding NFCC/replaceability. I've restored the image, assuming TLSuda wouldn't object. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for bringing this matter to an early conclusion. I also just saw, that I failed to oblige with my obligation to advise TLSuda appropriately. I request @@TLSuda: to accept my sincere apologies for this oversight. @Future Perfect at Sunrise:: if you have some concerns relating to the the article, I am happy to respond on the article talk-page. @Fram:: thank you very much for the hint. Alarcon is of course a reasonably common Spanish name and "M. C." might be eg., "Marcelo Claudio". However, with a narrowed down time frame it makes it reasonable to do further checks. I shall keep you posted if I find something. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

"you terrorist sympathizer"

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

---

108.199.225.96 (talk · contribs) puts quotes around the word "intellectuals" in Varoujan Garabedian article (3 times already [59][60][61] The sentence which lists several prominent Armenian writers and an actor/theater director (who fall under the definition of "intellectual" = An intellectual is a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity.)

In his last edit summary, he accused me in being a "terrorist sympathizer"

Garabedian was charged with terrorism in France, but he is considered a freedom fighter by some or many Armenians, including the mentioned notables. This is a classic case of the dilemma "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter". --Երևանցի ^talk 03:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week. Calling a BLP subjects "terrorists" and then accusing other editors of being "terrorist sympathizers" is unacceptable and an example that the editor is here with an agenda. Hopefully the block will be enough to convince them to go away. -- Atama頭 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Cluebot and pp-pc1

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

---

Note here, where cluebot properly reverted a vandal, but because of pp-pc1 the page was left with this gem of a first sentence: Freedom Riders were civil rights activists who rode ponies and unicorns around the world. I don't even know where to report this, so I'm bringing it here. Shouldn't cluebot have rollback rights on pp-pc1 pages?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that just Cluebot not being able to see an issue with riding ponies and unicorns around the world rather than having its efforts foiled by protection ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don't understand these things so well, so I thought I'd ask. However, cluebot's edit did show as pending on my watchlist, which was the main issue.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits by autoconfirmed users (which ClueBot NG most certainly is) are automatically accepted under pp-pc1. The problem in this case was that this edit was still pending, and it wasn't dealt with by ClueBot NG because it was made by a different IP address from the next edit. Graham87 06:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha! That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the info.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A general rule of thumb to remember. When an edit is usually automatically accepted, but listed as pending instead, it is likely because of a pending edit preceding it. Also ClueBot NG uses the rollback function.

Something similar happened on the Michigan Wolverine's TFA also - bot edit rolled back a vandal revert as well as a vandal, thus restoring old vandalism. My brain is boggling over bot botches of drive-bys... Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

My worry is with this happening at a BLP, and having some unsourced negative material get reintroduced and ignored for a long period of time. :( -- Atama頭 19:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that happening. Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we ask the operator to have ClueBotNG revert multiple edits if appropriate? I was imagining the bot reverting an edit and then checking the one done before that, if it were performed in the last X number of minutes, and then hitting the "undo" button if that edit, too, matched what it deemed vandalism. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Incivility escalating to personal attacks and edit-warring to restore them

An ordinary content dispute on Talk:Sanctus involved Esoglou (talk · contribs) and Thanatos666 (talk · contribs) and later myself. Thanatos soon got personal and testy, and then offered a solution which turned out to be removing a source altogether, which I interpreted as WP:POINTy and disruptive. I reverted and warned him, on both his user talk page and the article talk. I was accused of Wikilawyering and not having a clue, whereupon I replied that I had no problem with the revision as it stood and I assumed naïvely that the discussion would be over. Thanatos decided to escalate with a textbook example of the vicious personal attack, which I reverted, and warned him appropriately, level 4 "final" warning, after which I found another personal attack directed at me on his user talk page, which I removed delicately, which he promptly restored with profanity added and assertion of WP:OWN of his user talk, I reverted and he restored with another OWNership statement and finished off with a third OWNership and profanity-laden extremely rude attack. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. - Embram (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now he and Lfdder (talk · contribs) are conversing about the incident in Greek; both have been notified that English must be used here on en.wiki. Elizium23 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've explained it on my talk page. — lfdder 03:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My replies to Elizium23 can be found here, here and here. Research, read and reflect on the actual content/info, the actual edits-edit-history and the actual behaviour and acts. Thanx.
In short, imo, this is a cautionary tale of - within a context of a probable total ignorance of relevant stuff, e.g. Greek, Ancient Greek, etc. - boundless arbitrary legalism, in-group, herd behaviour

(more or less actually admitted: "This topic area is frequented by Esoglou and myself, we are all experienced editors here, and so seeing that Esoglou had a concern, I decided to investigate and back him up if I found his concerns to be well-founded."

NOTE: I'm not in any way accusing Esoglou. From my point of view he/she has been very very reasonable and understanding once explained in detail),

EDIT-ON-NOTE: Strike this, I take it back: Esoglou seems to have used this as a means or an excuse to go ahead and do as he pleases despite the serious objections-arguments explained in detail by me to him and without giving any counterarguments to them at the talk page... His edits have now been dealt with accordingly... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

censoring of "bad" language, actual personal attack, and finally persecution syndrome(?) (e.g. vicious personal attack, Now he and Lfdder (talk · contribs) are conversing about the incident in Greek).
PS Let alone a case of total absence of a sense of humour... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While English is the dominant language for article space (although quotes and references may be in other languages), there isn't any "English-only" Wikipedia policy for user talk pages. If I'm wrong, please let me know what policy applies to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted WP:SPEAKENGLISH because it falls under "Talk pages used for collaboration" and appears to specifically exclude user talk pages. My bad. Elizium23 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Elizium23, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I appreciate the link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Then would you mind terribly striking out your warning? — lfdder 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No need. User talkpage discussions should also be in English, unless impossible to do so. That's how that "guideline" reads. The "warning" isn't really a warning - it's a notification/reminder to speak English. We peons need to be able follow user talkpage discussions as well - in part so that we don't re-warn, or re-advise of something already warned about ES&L 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not how the guideline reads. This is what it says right at the top of that section: "These guidelines apply specifically to discussion pages which are used for collaboration, which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages." — lfdder 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, read the "guideline" a little higher up ... you know, common sense, etc. And remember, it's a "guideline". DP 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is boring. — lfdder 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the guidelines saying English use is "preferable" which is quite a way from "must be used". Plus, it is not uncommon for me to see editors and admins talking in other languages to others who speak their primary language on their talk page. I also see American users who speak a little German have a conversation with a native German speaker or French or any number of languages. I think it's necessary to favor the English language in article and article talk page space although I do see Italian sources or Korean used in footnotes, for example. But editors are given more leeway on their talk pages and as long as it is incidental (which is was in the OP's complaint), I don't think it should pose a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have conversed with another editor in French because they were unable to understand the rules and processes in English. I always left an English translation in case someone followed up behind me and needed to understand. DP 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The use of non English sources on the English Wikipedia is only when there are no English sources of equal validity. As for speaking or writing in non English on your own talk page there are limits to that as this is a collaboration and you cannot collaborate if only a few can understand you. If you use non English on your own talk page there is some leeway but not much as this isn't a social network and the purpose of the User talk page is to discuss improvements to the project. The last non English talk page I encountered was purely promotional and may have been using non English to avoid scrutiny...which didn't actually work. I like the way DP includes a translation.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, okay, so there is a small disagreement here over how broadly the English-only rule applies. If it does apply to user talk pages, then you currently have a problem at WP:TPG because that guideline is listed under the section which explicitly excludes user talk pages. So some consensus and modification is called-for there. However, I would like to draw your attention back to the main issue at hand. The Greek thing was really a minor afterthought that I am not too concerned about, so rather than spilling ink on that here, can we focus on Thanatos' outrageous hostility and unfounded personal attacks in light of a very simple and minor content dispute? I'd appreciate some kind of action in that direction, given that he was amply warned and continued to escalate. I am quite offended and I did nothing to deserve any of that. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that the discussion has wandered off, would it be best to let the matter lie with the issuance of a public rebuke to someone who on his talk page has said of himself, in Greek, that he has "the courage of his words" and who may thereby be helped to reduce somewhat the temperature of those words?

My parenthetic remark, which I did not expect would be treated as fueling further anger, was given in Greek because meant for him alone and was in response to his citation of an (unreliable) source in Greek alone. It seems I should not have used that language there, even as a parenthesis. I apologize for doing so. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Use common sense; "policy" can't cover everything. If two users who're fluent in English choose to use Greek to converse on the English Wikipedia, and to blow off objections, it's obviously inappropriate. If it wasn't done for the purpose of shutting others out, you still need to be aware that it looks like that. Please use English instead of offering legalistic arguments about how there's no rule that says you have to. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Please apply in and provide appropriate, proper, relevant, actual context next time... The same thing, emphasised to the maximum, should be pointed out to Esoglou ;-) (see comment above, 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)):

• 1.Talk:Sanctus#The purpose of providing a Greek text:

"... (Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)... Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)...

...PS Continuing for a while and only for while, between us two in Greek (after Esoglou started it...:) ):

"(Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)"

Δεν σε πιάνω... Δες σχόλιο υπ'αριθμόν 9. Αν πάλι δε εννοείς κάτι άλλο, διευκρίνισε σε παρακαλώ...

Συνέχισε σε παρακαλώ πάντως την συζήτηση στα αγγλικά· είναι κανονισμός αλλά και χάριν ευγενείας και σεβασμού προς τους άλλους...

Στο κάτω κάτω της γραφής είμαστε στην αγγλική, όχι στην ελληνική wikipedia... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)..."

• 2.User talk:Thanatos666:

"...This is my talk page. Feel free to use e.g. google translate. Or ask some other Greek speaker to translate. After your recent behaviour I won't do you this favour...

Especially when you're again invoking and (mis-)interpreting rules (or in fact good practices) at will:..."

PS Especially when it's not me who had actually, in any instance, started conversing in Greek or who has shown an overindulgence in legalisms... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? What legalistic arguments are you talking about? What blowing off objections? I wasn't even involved in the argument. — lfdder 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This legalistic argument that the rule doesn't say you have to. The blowing-off-objections part was Thanatos: "This is my talkpage. Feel free to use google translate". Bishonen | talk 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

I disagreed on the interpretation of it -- what makes it a legalistic argument? You seem to think I'm trying to make excuses for writing in another language or something; I'm not. I didn't think much of it when I did, and, like I've said before, I appreciate that it might've not been the right time. — lfdder 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to care to discuss Thanatos' behaviour; it pales in comparison to my having spoken in Greek....naturally. Somebody hat this then? — lfdder 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so y'all know, this complaint is ongoing and active as this user continues in incivility to Esoglou on Talk:Sanctus, where I have stepped out of the room for my own safety. It would be appreciated if someone in authority reminded this experienced editor that gross incivility is not tolerated on Wikipedia from any source, whether a redlinked IP editor with five edits or someone with 7 years and 6511 edits to his name. Considering the incident which earned him a block just a few weeks ago, it is possible that this editor is going through some personal issues which may be clouding his normally clear judgement and he should be encouraged to at least voluntarily step away for a short time and consider treating others with politeness and deference, especially when editing outside of his chosen topic areas. Elizium23 (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really like how nobody gives a crap. I mean, personally, I wouldn't really do anything other than talk to them, but if admins are gonna 'take a firm stand' and hand out blocks for incivility and personal attacks and whatnot, they might as well do it consistently. Bunch of muppets. — lfdder 23:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Thanatos666 (talk · contribs) is being a gigantic ... erm ... pointy and uncivil so-and-so. He's creating a battleground environment and he clearly has no ability or desire to work within a collaborative, collegial environment. He has zero desire to read and understand core policies. However, nothing YET has reached the point of a block - and I emphasize "yet". Very shortly, the cumulative effect will lead to a block for general disruption plus a little bit of competence being required. From what I see, there's no "gross incivility" on that page, just a general level of dickishness that's unwelcome on the project as a whole. If Thanatos has not recognized how close he is to some form of action by reading this thread by now, then there would be a serious concern about their level of comprehension. As such, since it's been hashed out ... and Thanatos has clearly participated in this thread, no further "talk" with them is required DP 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to be blunt: What the fuck?!?!?
Have you actually read the actual discussion(s) etc?!?!?
To other editors: please read the actual message exchange(s), the history of edits, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanatos666 (talk • contribs)

Now you're accusing me of not reading? Really? When someone says you're creating a wP:BATTLE, it's best not to repeat the behaviour in ANI DP 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The legalese is getting ridiculous! Yes I'm accusing you of not reading; either this or the accusation would get much worse... ;-) I have gone out of my way to both a.improve the article, adding and correcting stuff of both context and form and b.explain, analyse, substantiate etc stuff to the other involved parties having started from a point of ultra politeness and having changed this stance way later, only when fully and unjustly provoked, being named, accused of or having been attributed-to, various interesting names-qualities-things. You've now for example accused me of incompetence (how is this not a personal attack?!?!?! Where exactly is your fucking "proof", let alone your real proof in the proper context????). This coming from a person, coming btw out of nowhere, who is defending, among others, an editor (Elizium23) whose most signigicant contribution to the article at hand, out of 12 in total (take a look at them; they're really of magnificent, paramount importance and level...), is probably this, an editor who apparently doesn't know Greek (ancient or Modern) or relevant stuff, yet who apparently thinks of himself/herself as really capable of judging correctly on related issues, etc., and of course of subsequently acting accordingly. You have also accused-named me as being polemic, disruptive, etc.(again without citing any actual fucking proof), when in fact I've gone out of my way, I've bended over backwards, of being polite and constructive (and humorous...), of trying to collaborate with people etc, and only changed the first, after being accused of, being called, attacked, in various ways and names... (while in fact I have again and again and again returned to being ultra-polite trying in vain to collaborate and to be constructive)
Let alone the absurd baseless accusation against me (instead of others...) of supposed unwillingness of me to read and to apply wikirules and wikipractices...
To the administrators and to other editors out there:
Please trace back the steps of the the article edits-edit-history (please also see contributions by various parties and prior state(s) of article before this dispute) and the relevant discussions, to the beginning. Then please read forwards, see going forward, what had actually been done to the article and what had actually been said in discussions.
Just for the record and among other things, these guys/gals have in effect, explicitly or implicitly, (mis-)interpreted (stretching them to the point of absurdity; in effect abusing them; and many times actually having themselves been guilty of some of them) (mis-)invoked, and (mis-)accused me accordingly of among other things:
OR, SYNTH, Verifiability in general in various forms, e.g. PROVEIT SOURCE SOCIALMEDIA, VANDALISM, OWNERSHIP, speaking-Greek, etc..
I'm no saint. But I cannot prove I'm not an elephant...
If you want to ban me, ban me. I can't take this anymore...
PS I really can't get this guy:
What the fuck is this now?!?!?!Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: AND AGAIN... Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No further talk ('talk'?) is required? Is that a 'legalistic interpretation' of some guideline or policy, perhaps? — lfdder 00:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the policy of "he's already read right here that he's in doo-doo, there's no need to smear it in his face". You suggested someone "talk" to him - there's no need, he's read all the talking ... oh wait, maybe it was your turn to be pointy and sarcastic? Well, you've read where that gets you DP 00:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh gee, I'm shaking in my little space boots. What was even said? The only one who's commented on their behaviour is Elizium. And that's not talking to them -- it's talking about them. The issue the way I see it is Thanatos is not very willing to understand. And, by blocking them, you're doing much the same; the difference is you're on the good side. It's not unreasonable to get upset with other people, but we ought to try to reach some sort of understanding. A block's rather unlikely to get us there. — lfdder 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If Thanatos had realized he was in trouble by reading this thread (and I don't see how that was possible because it was derailed from inception over a trivial issue of speaking Greek) then he would've changed his tune on Talk:Sanctus but that is not the case. Despite my decision to step out of the discussion he's continued wailing on Esoglou, who has been going it alone for three days straight now, and should be commended for having the patience of a living saint. Someone else, someone with authority and someone without an interest in this silly content dispute, needs to engage him and see if he will realize that what he's doing is wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To other editors(repeat): please see, read, the actual discussions and the relevant stuff... ;-) Thanx. Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion at Talk:Sanctus. I actually don't really see personal attacks as are defined at our policy. But I did see an editor (Thanatos) going through a melt-down. Hyperbolic speech (with capital letters, excessive punctuation, implied profanity through self-censored phrases/words) is an unnecessary escalation of the situation. I wouldn't leap into blocking based on what I've seen there (because again, there were no direct insults or other kinds of attacks) but Thanatos should definitely tone it down at least a few notches. -- Atama頭 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this diff supplied in my OP here, which read, in part, "You Sir/Madam, are a mindless bureaucratist fool... ;-)". Then this talk page post included a repetition of the insult, "He/she chose instead a mindless legalistic (interpreted at will) path, ending in plain BS... ;-)", and finally this gem which I will not repeat in polite company, was not necessarily a personal attack, but certainly grossly incivil, plus demonstrating a callous ignorance/disregard for WP:OWN policy, and hurtful, especially considering my personal heightened sensitivity to the use of profanity in my presence. Thanatos knows I am a Christian, and I have come to feel that he is deeply prejudiced and acting out on those feelings, especially considering "P.P.S. Btw, one more confirmation of the maxim that, even in, as far as the knowledge of/about religious stuff is concerned, (in comparison) atheists/agnostics rule!!!" (emphasis not mine) Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed IBAN

I propose a temporary three-month IBAN between Thanatos666 and Elizium23, and between Thanatos666 and Esoglou. This should not be difficult to implement, given that Thanatos normally treats significantly different topic areas as we do. The dispute at Talk:Sanctus has gone on long enough and needs resolution. Likewise, Thanatos' unacceptable behavior needs to cease immediately before he gets himself blocked. So I would like to suggest a temporary IBAN to accomplish these goals and send a message that we do not tolerate incivility and personal attacks on this project. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC) OK let me put it out clearly her cause here:

1. I have to repeat that readers of this should imo read the actual exchanges and the history of the whole dispute before making up their mind on anything.

2. Can't find what an IBAN is. Not fluent in this dialect of legalese or bureaucratese: Is it something like an interaction ban (or am I to be prohibited from wiring money to them??? :) )? If so, no problem , I could stop talking to them (I also would have no problem, although it has become very very tedious, to continue talking to them), but it seems weird, unacceptable, etc., to prohibit me from editing actual articles, especially for such reasons...
I have wide interests and I edit accordingly. See for example the article in question and my edits on it (and then compare to the edits of others). I see this as a trick; heads (s)he wins, tails I lose. I think I may actually have some, and only some, competence in editing stuff like Sanctus (or at least the Greek stuff thereof). Elizium23 seems to be lacking any such competence. Elizium23 would also be even more so lacking (and/or probably not interested) in many other stuff/articles I edit. So what (s)he proposes is... ;-)

3. A question and a request: Is there some kind of ban that actually prohibits people from invoking/quoting/citing wikirules for an x period of time advising them to use this time for reflection on and reading said rules carefully?
If there isn't, may I ask that someone creates and applies it?!?!? :D

Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm about 30 seconds away from making an WP:IBAN moot by blocking Thanatos666 ... any real objections? DP 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Any real arguments, factual and logical, justifying, explaining and substantiating this possible action, especially against what I've said, argued and asked??? Cause either there aren't any, you haven't written any, or I'm going blind... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions

sigh. Do stop throwing your weight around. — lfdder 10:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Do let us know when you decide to start being helpful, rather than disruptive, mmmkay? ES&L 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

trying to bait me now? Pathetic. — lfdder 11:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have wished to keep out of this discussion almost entirely, but I feel I must draw attention to this latest exchange. Esoglou (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

I can't find the right place to post my question for the staff... and I am unsure if this is the place. I am admittantly new, so please forgive. I see in the edit histories that from time to time there is a mobile edit "tag" by other people user names. If I edit from my mobile device, will everyone know that I am. I want to disable this. I don't want people to know I'm on my mobile, or whatever device I am on. I really enjoy making changes to articles, but, I am a private person. How do I disable this for when/if I edit from my mobile? Thank you, 400 Lux (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:VP/T is the right place to ask.--cyclopia^speak! 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The mobile tag only shows up when you're using the mobile version of the site; if you change back to desktop (there should be a link at the bottom of every page) and edit that way, the tag won't show up. A bit of a hassle, but if you're really concerned, that's an option. ansh666 02:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! 400 Lux (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ghost0099 recidivism

I just reverted this edit from Ghost0099 (talk · contribs). This followed a 24 hour ban he'd picked up after I reported him for the same vandalism. This is the 6th time he's made this particular edit to the page, despite reversion each time, the aforementioned ban and at least two warnings from me and another editor. See the archived ANI section for a more comprehensive list of vandalism this user has engaged in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can draw no other conclusion than that this is a vandalism-only account. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:BowToPutin

Appears to be a single purpose account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• What it is, is a sockpuppet. CU confirms the link to User:Seraborum, blocked yesterday, also found User:Membrane-biologist and a couple others. Blocked. Courcelles 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over completely unreferenced article

I ran into the List of programs broadcast by Boomerang a few days ago and I was astonished at how much original research was on the page. There was a lot of detailed scheduling information but no references. I looked out on the webs for references but I could find only sources showing current programming, not past or future. I brought in the reference I found and greatly trimmed the article, but several interested editors including FilmandTVFan28 are constantly reverting my correction, despite my telling them that there is a huge problem with WP:V and WP:NOR.

I'm at my wit's end over there. What is the next step? Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In the past Boomerang-related pages were the target of User:Simulation12, who used sockpuppets to persistently add unsourced and often incorrect programming information. Perhaps they still are; I removed the pages from my watchlist as I couldn't keep up. Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki) to see if the current edits fit the pattern. If an administrator here doesn't step in now, you should file a report at WP:SPI and/or bring this to the attention of the administrators who were involved last time. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I think you are on to something. I will chase down that angle. Binksternet (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: After comparing FilmandTVFan28 to all the Simulation12 socks, I'm convinced that FilmandTVFan28 is a different person. So we're back to square one, with an article that has very poor referencing and lots of violations of WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Persistent bullying on Homeopathy talk

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

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please try arbitration enforcement next time. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Since I began editing on wiki on the homeopathy article I've encountered personal slurrs and a general bullying from editors of a different point of view. Other editors have had similar treatment. The article is contentious, editors tending to be either pro homeopathy, or anti homeopathy. There have been some who are more neutral, although the ones who stick around tend to be polarised.

Rather than get into a debate covering a number of years of edits on the talk page, I'd like to stick to one thread - Talk:Homeopathy#The_decline_of_homeopathy_on_the_NHS - with the aim of resolving this bullying and allowing all to move on in a civil manner.

The comments below belong to JzG, and one comment to Roxy_the_dog, so it is these two editors in particular I have issues with in this complaint, though they are far from being the only ones on that talk page that have been uncivil.

Comments within this thread I consider contrary to WP:CIVIL:

No point telling Chris that, he's a homeopathy apologist. [[62]]

Chris is a homeopathist, of course, so his views are contingent on the need to protect his cherished beliefs against ugly fact. [[63]]

As to your cherished beliefs being contradicted by ugly fact, that is just reality for you. I can't help you with that. [[64]]

to understand that homeopathy is bogus requires only GCSE general science. [[65]]

rather than the cranks with their ever-shifting post-hoc rationalisations and long history of outright lies [[66]]

Here's the key point: you are a homeopathist engaging in special pleading. The data is what it is, you just don't like it. Problem's your end. [[67]]

For a homeopathasist to accuse people of "not giving it a thought" and "Misleading either by intent or naivety" is hypocrisy gone mad. So sad. [[68]]

Chris, neither science nor Wikipedia are censored for the protection of your delusional beliefs. Stick to the articles on Doncaster Rovers. [[69]]

Apart from the last remark by JZG which goes well beyond the mark IMO, the above eg's aren't extreme at all, but it is continual, wearing and other editors give up because of it. I acknowledge retaliating, but in my defence, it's merely a way of holding my space as one editor amongst a group of others, and I am fed up to the back teeth with it.

I've tried to point out that name calling, put downs etc are not conducive to us getting on positively. It seems to have no effect. Indeed only today JZG wrote:

Chris, you seem to be unable to distinguish between blunt truth and abuse - I know this is common when religious beliefs are challenged, but the beliefs of homeopathy are delusional, that is a simple fact and Wikipedia does not shy from stating the facts. Nor is it "bullying" to suggest you stick to articles where your opinions are in line with truth, as appears to be the case with Doncaster Rovers articles. Your edits there have no issues with false beliefs as far as I can tell." [[70]]

I'd like help clarifying what is and isn't acceptible to all concerned AND a process that can be easily called on without having to spell all the same/similar details out again. Maybe someone who can be called on if it ever seems to be getting out of hand in the future with these eds or others.

Thanks Cjwilky (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris (cjwilky) is a homeopathist, and we all know from long and bitter experience that their religion is in direct conflict with WP:NPOV when it comes to Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His edits to articles on Doncaster Rovers look uncontroversial, but he has yet to add any value at all to discussions about homeopathy as far as I can tell. The current discussion centres on his assertion that UK government published figures (and simple arithmetic based on them) is original research, whereas his claim that they are wrong based on no sources at all, is not. This is representative of the input of all homeopathists to that article: they want to "balance" the scientific consensus with the same fallacious nonsense they use to promote their quackery to the general public. I haven't asked for a topic ban previously because Chris mainly sticks to Doncaster Rovers and doesn't often appear at homeopathy these days.

In any case, this should be speedily closed per WP:FORUMSHOP, he's already raised it at DRN. (Was rejected at DRN, I only saw the two DRN templates on my talk page and came here first). Guy (Help!) 17:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, this isn't about the article related content of the discussion on the homeopathy talk page. It is about how you in this instance have been uncivil.

"Other homeopathists" - I'm the only homeopath editing on there. Other pro homeopathy editors come and go, partly becuse they find it difficult to understand the whole wiki process and partly because they are usually by themselves arguing with several other very experienced anti homeopathy editors AND partly because they are bullied in a low grade systematic way. Bullying on that talk page has been the norm since I first edited there. One very abusive skeptic editor was warned off editing there last year and has been absent since - you know full well about this.

Cjwilky (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How is religion relevant here? I don't see anything religious whatsoever in this discussion, as homeopathy is not a religious issue. Note that Chris came here thirteen hours after the DRN thread was closed with an explicit recommendation to come here; this is not forum shopping. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just been to DRN and seen the close, and came here to strike that comment. The DRN template was added to my talk page last night, but the orange bar did not come up for some reason until the last comment Chris added.

Homeopathy is a religion, or more accurately a belief system. It has no empirical foundation but instead depends on the authority of its cognoscenti as laid down in its sacred texts.

The situation is precisely analogous to that of creationism. It is a set of beliefs fervently held, albeit with mutually contradictory sects, but which are inconsistent with and / or refuted by all relevant science. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the article would benefit from doi:10.1111/fct.12091 Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha! I'm impressed. I am annoyed I let my subscriptionlapse now. I'll email for an offprint, I have a friend who will be able to get that for me. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No need [71] Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• We've been here many times. Whilst Guy has possibly been unnecessarily snarky in a few of those comments, it is nevertheless never a violation of CIVIL or NPA to tell editors the truth - i.e. that homeopathy is non-scientific nonsense. We have a duty to our readers not to insinuate in any way that homeopathy may be beneficial to them, other than to possibly direct them to Placebo. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Negatory, there, Black Kite. While it is acceptable to tell a fact, how you say things is as much a part of civility as anything else. The words that we choose and our intentions to attack at someone's emotions is a personal attack. You can tell someone that homeopathy is non-scientific without calling their beliefs nonsense. One is a simple fact, the other is demeaning the views of that other person and in turn demeaning that person. Just because someone has bought into homeopathy doesn't mean that we no longer treat them like human beings.--v/r - TP 18:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The "bullying" meme is the latest thing the online homeopathy community have cooked up to make themselves look like the victims in their failed attempts to press their POV in the homeopathy article. As with most arguments they advance, it is founded in no small part on projection. Chris is an active promoter of homeopathy online, and his COI is yielded up by Google without much effort.

Of course we could string them along and pretend that if they write enough special pleading they will get their WP:FRINGE beliefs asserted as fact in the article. I think that it would be cruel to do that.

Homeopathy is nonsense. Homeopaths vary between decent, well-meaning but confused people, and what Jimbo would characterise as lunatic charlatans. It is difficult to tell the difference. The Society of Homeopaths condemned members who offered ineffective homeoprophylaxis for malaria, but did nothing to discipline them and made substantially identical claims in an application to become an accredited regulator. I think it is not evil so much as the inevitable effect of a field which is wholly founded on often mutually contradictory conjectures with no actual empirical basis. If you get good enough at compartmentalising that you can defend combination hoemopathy or nosodes when you believe that classical hoemopathy is the only true method of cure, you lose all sight of what objective reality actually means.

But I digress. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm ... I quite agree that comments shouldn't be aimed at the person themselves (i.e. the "delusional" comment mentioned above), but to be honest "nonsense" is really only a colloquial way of expressing the scientific viewpoint about the subject, and indeed is the exact phrase used by the UK's Chief Scientific Officer. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• In this day and age, you can't really cite government officials as the epitome of civility. Speaking from experience in American politics rather than UK politics, but personal attacks run rampant. We're not here to be political and piss on each other.--v/r - TP 19:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Possibly, but we're really talking semantics, and when we're engaging an editor with such an obvious COI I don't think we should be mincing words. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Shrug) I'm not going to argue ad infinitum over this, no one is going to block over the word 'nonsense' or anything else above. But that doesn't mean it isn't a step away from ideal behavior.--v/r - TP 19:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• We'll have to agree to disagree. You're right, however, that no-one is ever going to be blocked for using a term that is in the lede of the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As a counter-point: Modern positivists and others who share their view of meaning usually categorize statements into one of three mutually exclusive categories: "true", "false", and "nonsense". If calling someone's beliefs nonsense is uncivil, then the vast majority of positivists would not be free to give their honest judgement on a wide variety of matters. I'm actually pretty sure that Guy's view is one akin to positivism, but correct me if I'm wrong. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting in theory, however this is not how it's being used here. Have you read the thread and context? Are there any other words, phrases, or instructions you have picked up on - like JzG telling me not to edit there any more? Is that positivism?

Cjwilky (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't read the thread, and there haven't been any such things that I've picked up on. I don't think that would be inconsistent with positivism, but it wouldn't be part of the distinctive doctrines of positivism, no. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggested Chris leave that article alone because he has a clear COI and his POV no that subject is orthogonal to NPOV. That has notihng to do with logical positivism and everything to do with the fact that we routinely topic ban POV-warriors from articles where they have a COI that is incompatible with our core goals. His edits on Doncaster Rovers seem unproblematic, he can completely avoid conflict on Wikipedia by simply not touching the homeopathy articles. This [72] is emblematic of the kind fo special pleading he engages in, which is precisely relevant to this specific dispute: he seeks to downplay the fact that homeopathy is in terminal decline within the NHS. 1/3 of trusts polled were still using homeopathy is reduced to 10 stating they had stopped funding it and 32 confirming they were still funding it - Chris' verison makes it look as if more trusts fund it than don't fund it, but that is the opposite of the truth and the opposite of what the source found. See also [73] - over 400 GPs using homeopathy! Sounds like a lot, until you realise that there are over 60,000 doctors on the GP register and over 260,000 licensed practitioners in the UK - so this is at between 0.1% and 0.7% of the practitioner community. These GPs treat 200,000 patients. That's less than 0.5% of the total UK patient population. It's all perfectly understandable, Chris has a clear vested interest in minimising the extent to which homeopathy is marginalised in the UK. That's his agenda, not ours. Wikipedia, officially, does not care. What we care about is accurately portraying is prevalence, not spinning its prevalence in a way that favours either homeopathists or those who want to see it die out. The fact is that homeopathy in the UK is liming along, albeit having suffered several body blows of late, but homeopathy on the NHS is unlikely to survive for much longer because the relentless focus on value for money has exposed its achilles heel: in any cost benefit analysis, cost is irrelevant in the absence of provable benefit. The UK's Chief Medical Officer has expressed forthright opinions on the continued provision of homeopathy on the NHS, as have both the current and outgoing chief scientific advisors. Politicians don't want the angry letters so have thrown the grenade over the wall to the PCTs, and they are much more likely to follow the CMO's advice than anyone else's. Thus, what we see in the figures Chris disputes, is precisely what you'd expect form other known facts. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I see a no clearer case of WP:BOOMERANG, and per WP:ARB/PS suggest that a topic ban from pseudomedicine-related articles is necessary for cjwilky (talk · contribs). Editors aren't bullying him, they're implementing policy. Regardless, he shouldn't feel bullied. Most people have probably been bullied at some point, and it's not nice. The easy way to prevent the "being bullied feeling" is that he should take a break from editing the article, voluntary or enforced. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Barney, I have to comment on what you say - quite frankly I am shocked that you condone bullying and suggest the bullies should be rewarded and the bullied sanctioned. You claim it isn't bullying (ie IMO you condone it) and therefore that calling names and telling an editor to go away and edit elsewhere is acceptable wiki policy - where is that stated? I wonder at what point you feel bullying does occur? I ask this because it seems I must be missing something. What I ultimately want from all this is a fairly definitive guideline for the homeopathy page so that we don't have to spend time going over this again and again.

I "shouldn't feel bullied" - according to what and whose judgement is that? Is this a theory of the stiff upper lip you are invoking? Maybe neo-stiff upper lip theory... something I don't understand. And your solution is that I should take a break and what... are you then suggesting that would give time for the bullies to contemplate and reflect and all would be well. Really? Is this how they deal with bullying in your place of work, or at the school where your children go to? Is there any process in existance in the world today that you are basing this on? If you were a school governor you would exclude the children who are being bullied? Truly shocking stuff Barney :(

Cjwilky (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cjwilky (talk · contribs) - your response just reinforces what I suspected. You're angry, annoyed, irritated, etc. We recognise that. But we also recognise that we have policies in place to avoid misleading our readers. You don't think that's misleading, but consensus disagrees with you. We're not going to change our policies because you're angry/annoyed/irritated and start screaming about bullying. This isn't about bullying and you know it. This is about WP:FRINGE. My suggestion is that you give up this fight, and this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, because you have lost the fight, and sooner or later one of these "nasty bullies" is going to hit you with WP:ARB/PS, quite evidently for the good of your own mental health. Also ping Callanecc (talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong tree you're barking up there Barney the barney barney. This is about the civility, not the content relating to the homeopathy article. For you to bring my mental health into this in the way you have is simply uncivil.

Cjwilky (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Chris, stop being disingenuous. Your own responses in that thread were every bit as ill-tempered, and that is representative of every comment you make about our coverage of hoemopathy, and indeed every comment you make to me in any other venue. We are both ill-tempered and rude, but I am supporting policy and you're not. And that's about all there is to say about it. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe let Barney speak for himself.

In our other arenas the situation is different in that here we are trying to create the product of an article, in other arenas that is not the case. Co-operation, whilst trying, is an aim and civil behaviour can only benefit this.

I need to make it clear this is not an attack on you in any way. You are one of several who persist in put downs - Roxy I have mentioned. Roxy who a neutral editor commented on recently. The problem of this I have outlined clearly elsewhere here. It's not just me that is constantly bullied. It really has to calm down :)

You are not supporting wiki civil policy.

Cjwilky (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling an editor's beliefs "delusional" is inappropriate. Guy should know better than that! Paul August ☎ 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And Maybe Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs) has enough sense to realise that basically JzG (talk · contribs) is wrong so rarely I can say that I stand by everything he says, or will say in the future. No. Right tree: Cjwilky (talk · contribs) can't change our policy, so you get annoyed by said policy, and you want people to stop implementing policy, so you try to equate implementing policy with "bullying" to try to prevent them from implementing policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Guy's delusional if he thinks it's ok ;-) DP 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that Paul August. Delusion says "A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary." In Wikipedia terms, that's a pretty accurate description of a belief in homeopathy, because we don't pander to fringe beliefs. I know its use in this conversation had probably gone a little too far, but one cannot ban the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only unacceptable if the editor's beliefs are not delusional. How else would you characterise the belief that giving none of a substance with no provable connection to the symptoms of a disease is the sole valid basis of cure, which is the central premise of homeopathy?

Muslims claim they feel bullied by our insistence on retaining pictures of their prophet. Tough. And what Chris should be feeling is unwelcome - but only on that article. I've said several times, I see no problem with his editing articles on Doncaster Rovers, where he has no COI. The problem is that he is convinced that on homeopathy, he is right and the scientific consensus is wrong, and that's a problem. We really do not need a tag team of true believers constantly agitating on how evil it is to document homeopathy accurately. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I believe in Doncaster Rovers either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Right" does not equal "appropriate". Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean it isn't a personal attack. It isn't in what you say, it's in how you say it. You can say "TParis is a guy" or you can say "TParis is a guy" implying there is something wrong with being a guy. That'd make the latter a personal attack. Perfectly true, but in some circumstances it'd be an ad hominem. For example, if used as a reason to ignore an editor's contributions to an article about feminism. It's context that matters. If you say something as a pejorative, it doesn't matter if it's technically true, or not offensive in another context. What matters is the context you've used it in. In this context, it is a personal attack. It is being used to demean another editor.--v/r - TP 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A problem here is that if we tell the truth about homeopathy, we would adversely affect the health of many patients. Count Iblis (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. If people know it's a complete scam they'll be more likely to seek real healthcare instead. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they will have more treatment options there :) . Count Iblis (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That'd be the same Daily Mail that printed this then? Obviously reliable :) Seriously though, the fact that homeopathy is no more useful than a placebo, and the placebo effect exists in some circumstances, does not mean we should afford it any credibility. Anyway, this is getting off-topic for ANI now. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum about your beliefs in homeopathy or not. I suggest you use one of the many means to discuss such issues out there, and stick now to discussing civility and what can be done about it in this instance on the homeopathy talk page, thankyou :)

Cjwilky (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I advocate treating the proponents of fringe theories as politely as possible, while informing them quite firmly and quite forcibly that Wikipedia is not an acceptable forum for promoting their bizarre fringe theories. On that fundamental, core point, there can be no compromise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As co-accused, I am happy that the WP:BOOMERANG is on it's return trajectory, and about to clonk somebody on the back of the neck. The long term tendentious attempts by CJ to move the Homeopathy article away from the mainstream view is wearing and tedious. It is no surprise that Guy makes observations on Cj's behaviour and views. He is a homeopath, and makes money from the deception of his victims. In the last 24 hours has has noted on the homeopathy talk page that "Hmmm... there is evidence that homeopathy works, ..." and yet expects expects us to not object to his continued involvement as he attempts to shore up his income potential. I only made one comment to CJ in the thread this inquiry is looking at, but I certainly endorse and agree with those other comments under discussion here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 05:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's exactly the point. I do not see why someone who makes their living from this "profession" trying to insert fringe "science" in order to skew it away from the actual scientific facts is any different from someone rewriting their own BLP or that of their company in a promotional way. The latter behavior generally merits a topic ban at the point that it becomes tendentious; I see no difference here. Black Kite (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, that would certainly apply at the outset, but we are justified in treating multiple repeated advocacy for fringe views with increasing brusqueness, because the time wasted in endless patient explanations of why they can't have their way is a drain. Chris didn't mention that he has been pushing his POV at that article for a long time, or that he is every bit as aggressive against any skeptic he encounters off-wiki, and he didn't mention his COI either. This is not the first go round this loop. He is asserting WP:CIVIL as a shield against WP:COI, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FRINGE and so on.

I personally think it's rude to keep advocating fringe nonsense when you know that your advocacy is unwelcome and unlikely to prevail, it's rude to accuse everyone else of bullying when they point out the obvious, it's rude to fail to acknowledge a COI and prior on and off-wiki disputes.

I welcome the input of believers in homeopathy who can clearly articulate specific issues that need to be addressed in the article, but that is not what Chris was doing. He seems merely to have picked up the baton from the recently topic-banned George1935. In this specific case he was rejecting published British Government figures, and simple calculations based on them, as OR based on his own opinion that there are some other factors that make them unreliable (with no reliable sources at all!). This kind of reversal of the facts is very common indeed with advocates of quackery.

World Homeopathy Awareness Week is approaching. The homeopaths co-ordinate on the internet, they have specific goals and focus, and they have long regarded the Wikipedia article as a major problem for them. There are some serious POV-warriors out there, and Chris is one of them, though not at the most aggressive end of the spectrum. We just don't need that. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that due to his aggressiveness, battleground, improper use of sourcing, non-NPOV and everything else, that User:Cjwilky be topic-banned from Homeopathy and alternative medicine, broadly-construed? DP 10:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support such a suggestion. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Prayer is also hogwash but our article doesn't say so in the lead. Hypothetically, what would happen if a believer in prayer tried to discuss changing the article at Talk:Prayer and was called "delusional"? Would we support the majority group in insulting the believer, and even call for them to be topic-banned? Or would we remind all sides to remain civil even in the face of disagreement? I am with User:TParis; there has been some regrettable behaviour here from the homeopathy sceptics. We can disagree without being uncivil. --John (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is not a good analogy. It is (obviously) completely impossible to scientifically prove that praying for something never works, regardless of your viewpoint. And, of course, praying can never have an adverse effect on its proponent. However, it is possible to prove the zero physiological benefit of homeopathy, and the fact that some homeopaths have tried to push obviously ineffective cures for such things as malaria and cancer. "Disagreement" suggests that there are two equally valid viewpoints on the subject, as opposed to one that is scientific fact and one that is dogma (and, indeed, dogma that makes its proponents such as Cjwilky money from people who believe they are getting something of worth). One could argue that the CIVIL argument works both ways; Cjwilky believes we are insulting him; but he is actually insulting our intelligence. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to say it is a good analogy. It is very difficult indeed to prove the zero physiological impact of all of homopathy. Heck, I'd not be shocked that in the fullness of time something labeled homopathy today is shown to actually work. Probably more likely than to be shown of prayer (he says as a Christian). General theme--being polite is a good thing and Guy often struggles with managing to do that when people frustrate him. It's not blockable, but it could use improvement. Hobit (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• See: Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S (2007). "Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1): CD000368. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000368.pub2. PMID 17253449. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To say I struggle to remain polite towards Chris is to assume I even try. I don't struggle to remain polite, I do, however, fail to even attempt to be polite when dealing with lunatic charlatans" who are trying to abuse Wikipedia for personal gain. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy could in theory be beneficial because of the placebo effect, and also because homeopathic remedies have no side effects due to their complete lack of active ingredients. If somebody gets a cold, it is probably better for them to take a homeopathic remedy than to nag their doctor for antibiotics which do nothing for a viral illness but contribute to the increase in antibiotic resistant pathogens. If somebody has a curable cancer or malaria, homeopathy would not be the right treatment. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• This thread is closed without action. If further action is needed, go to arbitration enforcement. This thread does present a certain appearance of inappropriate block shopping rather than a legitimate attempt to resolve a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Action taken

Just a note that despite Jehochman (talk · contribs) closing this above, uninvolved admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) has imposed discretionary sanctions on Cjwilky (talk · contribs) under WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not factually true, the action is that due to the poor process here given that it was concerning bullying, which resulted in me being banned and the bullies being condoned, I'll be leaving wiki.

Cjwilky (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Lancashire cheese COI editing and editing while logged out.

Lancashire cheese is a SPA that continues to edit Town crier despite a clear conflict of interest, doing so while logged out since being warned - with edits:

• 1
• 2

Note that this editor is editing despite a COI at Town crier, Bempton and Bridlington in order to push POV regarding a supposed world record that is unreliably sourced.

I have gone to great lengths to help and later warn the editor at Lancashire cheese,User talk:Flat Out#Help, User talk:Flat Out#Independent Sources To Assist Discussion and started discussions at article talk pages, here and here but they continue. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Destructive editing, page scope, and user edit warring on Sustainocene

NimbusWeb (talk) is edit warring at the article Sustainocene.
User background

• User created page with a highly misleading scope, alleging the article evolves mainly around artificial photosynthesis.[1]
• Article state after i edited and aligned the scope of the article with the author of the name of Sustainocene. [2]
• The user reverted not everything from my edits, the current article is already heavily reworked. I asked him kindly to propose the content he deems missing on the talk page, but the afford wasn't successful, user insists on his article version.

User edit warring
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainocene&action=history

The scope of the article
According to Brian Furnass the name is synonym for a "Post carbon world".[3] (Podcast around 5-10 at 34 minutes in) His paper http://www.anu.edu.au/emeritus/events/docs/From_Anthropocene_to_Sustainocene_text_only_150512.pdf
Furnass, in his paper presentation:

"This paper is an amateur discussion of the origins and manifestations of the Anthropocene from bio-historical and health perspectives. 
The changes in environmental conservation and human behaviour which will be required to attain 
a sustainable future for humans and countless other species are so radical and urgent, that transition to a new era, 
provisionally termed the Sustainocene, is proposed"

"Although the Anthropocene has conferred many benefits on the minority of industrialized societies in terms of 
improved health and material living standards, it has jeopardised the sustainability of our own and countless other species 
through anthropogenic global warming, loss of biodiversity, gross inequalities and depletion of non-renewable natural resources.
The transition required to meet our challenges and opportunities is theoretically possible, given the social and political will, 
to create a new era, called the Sustainocene, which will require transformation from an anthropocentric to a biosensitive society, 
re-kindling recognition of our inter-dependence with the natural world." Slide http://dea.org.au/images/general/Sustainocene_Furnass_(wth_text)_150512.ppt

Furnass draws from many ideas and principles, of a sustainable world, emphasizes global warming. He never mentions artificial photosynthesis, but renewables with emphasis on solar thermal energy. Now, the user claims that because Daniel Nocera mentioned Sustainocene in a video[6] and because of Faucne's interview remarks[6], the topic is not about sustainability but evolves heavily around artificial photosynthesis.

NimbusWeb on article talk page: "You could pay respect to people who have actually written and spoken about teh Sustainocene to understand how different 
it is from developmental sustainability and how closely aligned it is with globalised artificial photosynthesis as a food and energy source."
"Why you inserted material that was about developmental sustainability-- a completely different concept."

Article version
Artificial photosynthesis is already part of the updated article version (It includes the study paper from Faunce on his idea of nanotechnology and artificial photosynthesis [0], has 1 cite). However, besides the inclusion of this paper, the user insist on adding content which is very questionable, because:

• Adds bogus claim from interview with Faunce that artificial photosynthesis will usher in a 1 billion year long period of prosperity. [6]
• Poorly references
• Re-adds profile image from Furnass, as i understand we do this on people pages.
• It is hard to communicate with the user, see talk page [5]
• User suggests that because he created the article, he has some kind of special rights and i should respect that.[6]
• Tried to find a common ground (user talk) and on article talk page, but the user just insists on his version and content and doesn't respond to my arguments.

Conclusion
Nocera and Faunce use the proposed future epoch by Furnass, the Sustainocene to promote their own vision, a hypothetical technofix based on nanotechnology with artificial photosynthesis. The nanotechnology "Solar fuel" both promote, doesn't even exists yet. Though, Nocera works since years on a fuel-cell. However, only because both mention the Sustainocene, doesn't mean we should adjust the article scope to their views. There is 1 paper from Faunce, it is covered, together with a link to AP. That should be enough, otherwise the article will become cluttered with all kinds of technology information. Prokaryotes (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Update
Here is a (uncomplete) list of articles where the user added snippets about artificial photosynthesis in the past. Some are still present or have been part of a dispute.

• Futures studies#Science and technology for sustainability (Article content)
• Steady state economy#Policies for the transition (Article content)
• Rights of Nature#Future Developments (Article content)
• Fossil fuel#Origins section unreferenced.2C no mention of photosynthesis (Dispute)
• Conscience#Sustainocene and artificial photosynthesis.3F.3F (Dispute and still article content).
• List of people associated with renewable energy (Added Thomas Alured Faunce still content)
• Renewable energy commercialization (Has been removed)
• Renewable energy commercialization (Added Thomas Alured Faunce still content)
• Renewable energy (Still content)
• Thomas Alured Faunce (Originally an IP added Sustainocene here, later Nimbus added content, still present)
  

State of the science, see this short outline from 2012 (Royal Society of Chemistry), quote "While the potential of producing fuels from sunlight is tremendous there are significant challenges which need to be overcome in making a transition from current laboratory prototypes to commercial systems possible" http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/solar-fuels.asp

Also notice that only the edits from Nimbus claim that AP is a renewable energy source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis Prokaryotes (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Discussion
Response by NimbusWeb Prokaryotes deleted a large amount of referenced material specifically referring to artificial photosynthesis and the Sustainocene. That editor replaced it with NPOV material linking the Sustainocene to literature on sustainable development that does not refer to the Sustainocene. The deleting editor seems unwilling to compromise and as this topic directly relates cuts across the interests of large oil and coal corporations it seemed one that could raise integrity issues, at least a neutral POV would be appreciated early.NimbusWeb (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The editor above is refusing to accept there are multiple articles by Prof. Faunce discussing the Sustainocene and artifical photosynthesis. There is also a major talk by Prof. Nocera developing the Sustainocene concept in the context of artificial photosyntheisis as a distributed energy and food source. Those articles develop it as a policy concept-- a billion year vision, the link to rights of nature etc are all legitimate academic parts of developing the concept. The editor above refuses to allow this referenced material to be included. This comment: "Nocera and Faunce use the proposed future epoch by Furnass, the Sustainocene to promote their own vision, a hypothetical technofix based on nanotechnology with artificial photosynthesis. The nanotechnology "Solar fuel" both promote, doesn't even exists yet. Though, Nocera works since years on a fuel-cell." reflects the editor's on POV against AP. Those academics expressed those views in published material that was referenced and deleted. This editor alleges 'poor referencing' after deleting referenced material and adding unreferenced material.NimbusWeb (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice, NimbusWeb changed the headline of the ANI report. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Really, that is a bit tattle-tale isn't it? I was about to put up a notice myself about your editing on this page and your headline seemed very one-sided against me. Perhaps something neutral would be better?NimbusWeb (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User also added text here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis, under "Potential global impact" which reads like an advertisement.

Cite This section was created by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tuemorto only for this section. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Every sentence there is accurately referenced to published material. Criticising this in vague emotive language is further evidence of how your negative POV is conflicting with standard approaches to editingNimbusWeb (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User also added his opinion here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Nature#Future_Developments Prokaryotes (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Again what you call "adding opinion" involves referencing published material.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That might be true, but Rights of Nature, is not the right place to promote an idea. Also interviews and videos are not "Published material", also did Nocera stopped researching the prototype he presented in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis#History The technology might have potential, however the promotion in various articles based on an interview or the proposed idea from Faunce with nanotechnology are years away from any meaningful technology, let alone large scale deployment. Prokaryotes (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But can't you see the criticisms of the practicality of their vision is new research by you. As far as I understand it what Prof. Faunce and Prof. Nocera are developing is a public policy concept. If they publish material that says this should involve policy makers planning for millions of years, that globalising AP technology will take the pressure off nature and allow rights of nature and they expressly link that to the Sustainocene public policy concept then that is what the article should focus on until more material comes along discussing the concepts. What 'interviews' are you talking about? Nocera's 'video' on the Sustainocene and artificial photosynthesis was a major Harvard public lecture. It has been viewed by 67,000 people. That is 'published material'. This is exhausting. All I want to do is help get the 'Sustainocene' to 'good article' status. This means developing the concept as it is discussed in 'published material' however controversial that is. Can't you help me do that?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You need to realize that Nocera and Faunce have not a lot to do with the Sustainocene, what they do is, they offer a hyothetical technofix - nothing bad with this. And the AP article is the right place for this, without sounding like an advertisement. The article is about an proposed epoch about the "post carbon world", which runs sustainable with all kinds of technologies, therefore we can mention AP, but it is not the scope of the article to list all kinds of opinion. Both did not offered a policy concept, they talk about solar-fuels! If you revert your recent revert i will stop this ANI and will try to incorporate the stuff you deem necessary. But this only works if you are satisfied with a short mention of AP in that article, this is not the article to discuss specific technologies only to mention them. Prokaryotes (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your view that Faunce and Nocera offer a 'hypothetical technofix' and a ""post carbon world", which runs sustainable with all kinds of technologies" is your point of view. What I want to include in the article are words they have actually published developing the concepts about the Sustainocene- linking it with rights of nature, long term public policy development, globalisation of artificial photosynthesis. They talk about the governance implications of solar fuels developed from artificial photosynthetic technology. You say "but it is not the scope of the article to list all kinds of opinion." I answer that what we want to include is published material directly relevant. Remember you deleted all that material without first explaining what you were doing on the talk page or giving anyone the option of interacting with you first. That is why it is better to work back from the article as I have reconstructed it.NimbusWeb (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not my point of view when i refer to what Furnass said about his proposal and what his proposal is about. Prokaryotes (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But the Sustainocene is a concept being developed by academics. Prof. Faunce and Prof. Nocera have published materials conceptually developing the concept-linking it to long term policy, rights of nature and globalised artificial photosynthesis. For better or worse what they are publishing currently constitutes the bulk of the literature developing the Sustainocene concept. The article if it is to properly represent the field has to address that published literature. It can't be presented as a pseudo 'sustainable development' article when that is a different (more human- rather than environment-focused for example) concept. I put a lot of work into developing the article, having read the published material. I accept it can be improved; but you deleted a lot of relevant referenced material without discussing that with anyone. Couldn't you just work with the hybrid version now up to suggest points you feel need alteration?NimbusWeb (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of developing environmental sustainabilty can be found in sustainable development, but i said this before. Your continued afford to re-frame the Sustainocene makes me wonder if you should edit the article and related articles at all. Prokaryotes (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposel article ban and removal of all the content snippets NimbusWeb placed on various articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy#Policies_for_the_transition or Rights of Nature (already removed), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_studies#Science_and_technology_for_sustainability Prokaryotes (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But none of the references under sustainable development mention the 'Sustainocene'. The Sustainocene is a more complex concept. Your efforts to link it to sustainable development constitute new research. I am trying to keep the concept of the Sustainocene referenced to published material that actually describes it. Making personal attacks on me doesn't helpNimbusWeb (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You are now deleting more properly referenced articles from other articles after belittling them as 'content snippets' This is destructive editing.NimbusWeb (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And Rights of Nature has been reverted, also all the snippets appear to be copy-vios. Prokaryotes (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

They are all properly referenced material and this editors determination to remove them without adequate prior moderated discussion is evidence of intemperate bias on the part of that editor.NimbusWeb (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It was inappropriate of this editor to delete referenced material on Right of Nature until the issue was resolved here. I have reverted that deletion pending outcome of this discussionNimbusWeb (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Another user wonders about NimbusWeb edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conscience#Sustainocene_and_artificial_photosynthesis.3F.3F Prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake. How petty can you getNimbusWeb (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC) That editor at least had the decency to raise their concerns and misunderstanding (that artificial photosynthesis was about replacing nature). After that was explained ("you will see the idea is not to replace natural photosynthesis but to take the pressure off it") the edit was allowed to stand. That goes more to establish my credentials as a reasonable editor than yours. OK. I have read a lot about artificial photosynthesis and what experts are saying about it. Shouldn't that rather qualify me to add referenced material to this page and others where its relevant? Why go about persecuting editors because of expertise?NimbusWeb (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

COI issue

As the editor involved in the edit mentioned, I'll just say that NimbusWeb has misinterpreted my backing down. I removed Conscience from my watch list after that episode, with the conclusion that NimbusWeb was exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. I stand by my original concern, which was that mention of artificial photosynthesis doesn't belong on Conscience. In my opinion, that page and these others, Sustainocene and Artificial photosynthesis are being used as soapboxes. I strongly suspect that User:NimbusWeb is not just an enthusiast but one of the cited authors. The pages are, and I consider it particularly regrettable in the case of Conscience, overblown, not up to wikipedia's usual standard of accessibility to the reader. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In my interactions with NimbusWeb, he appeared to be promoting [74][75][76][77] Faunce's work and theories without regard to article content. While he backed down at the time, it appears he continues to have difficulties including Faunce's work in an appropriately balanced manner. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is because NimbusWeb is Thomas Faunce (check the authorship of this photo he uploaded) and he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox for his own research.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Is there enough evidence for a block? --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that I can make that judgement. All I am aware is that NimbusWeb has been placing whatever research he has done under the name Thomas Faunce and adding it to articles where he sees fit such as these edits, or he is personally related to the subject, such as this cricket club or this professor. He has also edited his own article under this username, and an abandoned one at Fauncet (talk · contribs) (which he used to start his own biography).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NimbusWeb has claimed he is leaving Wikipedia but he did this same thing in 2009 when he was sanctioned under his original account. In addition to sending several pages he created to AFD (including his own biography), I have opened a sockpuppet investigation to see if he has yet again abandoned one account for another to continue his posting of his research.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

2001:558:6027:38:547E:734A:4E5A:A20 and Michael Levin

The IP editor 2001:558:6027:38:547E:734A:4E5A:A20 seems to have a morbid obsession with Michael Levin, an American-born soldier in the Israeli Paratroopers who was killed during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and received much press attention in Israel and overseas. 2001:558:6027:38:547E:734A:4E5A:A20's edits, going back to December 2013, almost exclusively relate to Levin, and are all non-productive.

The articles targeted are that on Levin himself (Michael Levin (soldier)), the passage on Levin in the lone soldier article, and on one occasion the article on Levin's home town, Holland, Pennsylvania. The editor is clearly aware of what he is doing as the changes are not simply mindless nonsense but subtle, albeit puerile, insertions of clear falsehoods, crassness and disrespect, apparently with the intent of denigrating Levin's memory. Regardless of one's opinions on Levin, surely all must agree this is totally counterproductive.

2001:558:6027:38:547E:734A:4E5A:A20's edits to Michael Levin (soldier), its talk page and his own talk page:

1. 11 December 2013—adds obvious inaccuracies
2. 8 January 2014—more of the same
3. 11 January 2014—changes "running for cover" to "running away"
4. 11 January 2014—changes the name of the town where Levin was killed
5. 13 January 2014—changes "February" to "Febtober"
6. 22 January 2014—changes "creation" to "creatine"
7. 23 February 2014—changes "three" to "the" and adds a comma
8. 20 March 2014—again changes "running for cover" to "running away", removes number of Hezbollah fighters killed, changes "site" to "cite"
9. 23 March 2014—changes "890th" to "890st" and "extract" to "exact"
10. 30 March 2014—changes Levin's date of birth
11. 6 April 2014—small nonsense mispellings (February as "Febluary", room as "roon", date changed from August 1 to August 11)
12. 6 April 2014—edits user talk page message from January 2014 informing him that he has been "blocked temporarily" to say he has been "cocked temporarily"
13. 12 April 2014—on Levin's talk page, changes another user's message saying that Levin's death was "mourned" to say that Levin's death was "mocked"

Edits to Lone soldier:

1. 30 December 2013—changes surname from Levin to "Lovin" in the pipelink, but not in the actual text that appears
2. 30 December 2013—fixes the above mistake so the text says "Michael Lovin" but links to the Levin article
3. 13 January 2014—changes name of town where Levin was killed and changes name of the film about Levin from "A Hero in Heaven" to "A Zero in Heaven"
4. 1 February 2014—changes "Pennsylvania" to "Penisylvania"
5. 23 March 2014—changes "lone soldier" (referring to Levin) to "poor soldier"
6. 6 April 2014—changes "cut his visit short to rejoin his unit" to "cut his hair short to rejoin his unit"
7. 6 April 2014—changes year of Levin's birth
8. 12 April 2014—changes reference to Levin being assigned to guard to Levin being assigned to clean

Edit to Holland, Pennsylvania:

1. 8 January 2014—changes "Israeli national war hero" to "Israeli national war casualty"

The two edits not regarding Levin were vandalism to the article Dragonball Evolution: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack on 13 January 2014: 1 2.

I hope some action will be taken. Cheers. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for vandalism by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Everestrecords

Hum...Everestrecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been insistant on using a self published website in a series of possible BLP violations. Here in a bio on a recently deceased mountain climber Chad Kellogg he is using a source to offer an inaccurate assessment of the use of a performance enhancing drug, which the person that used it claimed in the source provided that he used it as a preventative, not an aid. Everestrecords instead wishes to promote the belief that the drug was used as an aid. In a further effort to add blemish, I have twice reverted his edits to the Mount McKinley article where Everestrecords was seeking to use a self published website to further promote a possibly inaccurate assessment about Kellogg, as shown here, and claims this website and associated pages are a reliable source. Earlier, on the article Tina Sjögren, Everestrecords was using the same sourcing to violate our BLP policy. I issued a ryeminder to Everestrecords which he summarily removed and after trying to remove his nonsense and my warnings he has now decided that the next plan of attack is to call me mentally ill, and kind of funny..."You're a sick person. Stalking me, obsessed with Kellogg, even removing a national magazine source that revealed his use of steroids for Everest attempt. Internet sociopath. Get help monster. Seeking you to be banned, persistent vandal sociopath. Climbing forum obsesser also. Spend hours a day on forums. Autism/Aspergers?"[78]...I heard of this Kellogg person only today. Would an admin care to have a chat with Everestrecords?--MONGO 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for personal attacks and 3RR violation. No comment either way on the content issue - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You must have been in lenient mood, Bushranger. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

I do have my moments. Either the block will result in a re-think of his conduct on both edit-warring and PA accounts, or he'll return to doing it and get hammered, if the former then all will be well, if not, well, we tried! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Evertestrecords is back at it...his block expired and he's back at the Chad Kellogg article misrepresenting sources, edit warring and accusing others of vandalism.--MONGO 16:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • I've commented about this at the Talk page about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chad_Kellogg I've tried to add only 1 edit, of 1 sentence, with a national source. MONGO has removed 4 POV related tags, before the problems were resolved. I discuss this in the Talk page. He/she is clearly personally connected to the subject of the article, as seen by his/her comments and behavior. I requested administrator-help several times in the Talk page. I accused only MONGO of vandalism. I didn't misrepresent the 1 source I used. MONGO is ignoring editing warnings. I placed one in the Talk page. Everestrecords (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hum...somebody needs to inform Everestrecords of our BLP policy which he or she is apparently unfamiliar with...possibly the part about recently deceased. As I stated above, I never heard of Kellogg until a couple days ago...Everestrecords was adding poor referencing and bias to the article in Mount McKinley which led me other infractions they have been up to.--MONGO 17:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Everestrecords has now been blocked for a week for edit-warring, by a representative of a species endemic to the continent in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow...that's a definite COI! Somebody better warn Dangerous Panda that he should have had an Antarctican do that block....--MONGO 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Implicit threat of violence?

Perhaps not very credible, but difflink here. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for WP:HERE issues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Participants in litigation edit warring

There has been an ongoing edit war between two new users at Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Polychlorinated biphenyl. One of those editors has stated that the edit warring involves participants in litigation related to these topics. I warned both users about the edit warring and have asked both to refrain from editing the articles any further and to discuss potential changes to the articles on the talk pages. I don't know if there is anything further that needs to be done at the moment, but this is a situation that could probably use a few additional pairs of admin eyes to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Both of these users are single-purpose advocacy accounts. They are not here to improve Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge, they are here to further an external agenda by using Wikipedia to promote facts or interpretations that are supportive to their cause. I recommend we topic ban or outright block both, promptly. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The sections that we added about Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Polychlorinated biphenyl is a far more thorough, comprehensive, and fair assessment of that scientific literature. All of the references cited in that section are discussed in the sections that we added. The version you reverted to is not a fair assessment. I am interested in contributing to Wikipedia to improve the repository of knowledge. All of the changes I made did just that. I will be discussing further on the talk pages. User:Kdelay13 — Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not as such, no. It asserts a point of view. As does every single edit you've made, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation of User:Carrite by Wikipedia User:Randy from Boise

While the effect was not malicious, THIS is a clear effort by User:Randy from Boise, clearly an alternate account of someone, to represent themselves as me. I use the pseudonym "Randy from Boise" at Wikipediocracy, as is well known. I request that some administrator indefinitely block this account as an abusive use of multiple accounts. Thank you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like on the Wikipediocracy site, but your activities there convey no "rights" to any branding here. If I'm somehow mistaken, please provide a clearer explanation of what you think that user is doing wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim rights to "branding" — I do want a person pretending to be "Carrite" and signing as "Randy from Boise" to be shut down at once. Read the whole thread, please. I was having a conversation with User:Drmies and a person pretended to be me, which is an abusive use of an alternate account. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• They have also been here since 2009 DP 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting and also irrelevant. That person represented themselves as me on April 6, 2014. It is an abusive sock account of someone. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're making an assumption that they know you from Wikipdiocracy (never been there myself, so I wouldn't know)... now, the fact that they have not edited in almost a year, but show up to poke their nose in another conversation is odd. Do you have any on-wiki history with that user? DP 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whose account it is. My guess would be that it belongs to someone at WPO. As I say, the effect of their edit was not malicious, but it is nevertheless someone intentionally representing themselves as me and that shouldn't be allowed. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that they registered the account seems pretty relevant. You registered "Randy from boise" on Wikipediocracy in 2012. If anything, you're impersonating them. That's relevant. Did you also have "Randy from Boise" on Wikipedia-Review? When did you register it there?--v/r - TP 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Impersonating"?!?! Look, this not-very-orginal name (source obvious) is shared by two people on two websites. Joe Job WP User:RFB registered here before WPO User:RFB (me) registered the same name there. Joe Job WP User:RFB barely has used the account at WP, obviously a "sleeper sock" account, or as I like to call them, an "argyle" (since it sits in the sock drawer for a long time unused). WPO User:RFB (me) was having a conversation with WP User:Drmies under my one and only account name, User:Carrite on WP. Joe Job WP User:RFB activated the little-used account to jump into a thread pretending they were me. This is the problem. This is an abuse of multiple accounts. Shut it down. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch. Someone had to know the future to know you would use the R.F.B. 3 years later and then they could register an account so they could impersonate you 5 years later? Evidence strongly suggests a coincidence. Not a sleeper sock.--v/r - TP 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you paying the slightest bit of attention to the actual thread in question? What is "quite a stretch" about my statement that THIS is an attempt by a Joe Job with a convenient pre-existing account in their sock drawer to make use of it by pretending to be me? It is what it is — a flagrant abuse of an alternate account. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock. You've got no evidence of that. There is nothing to say that account was meant to target you. And even if that edit was meant to pretend to be you, it's a bit funny in that case. You're blowing this way out of proportion.--v/r - TP 05:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I have directly requested that they chip in here about that specific comment DP 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of when the account was created...and an account with scant edits and occasional bon mots traded with Eric Corbett indicate that is is quite likely someone's sock...the user behind it did knowingly insert himself into a conversation with the intent to cause confusion. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this is most likely "someone else". I found the remark somewhat confusing and insinuating but stopped short of responding to it since, as Tim said, they were not part of the conversation. "WPO" is Wikipediocracy? I would assume that's a likely guess on Tim's part, but I don't know WPO or its cast of characters well enough to say much more than that. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume that "Randy from Boise" is a reference to Randy in Boise, originally from this Wired article. That likely inspired both the WPO moniker (correct me if I'm wrong, Carrite) and the account that exists here. I don't see that this is an impersonation account, since it does a pretty poor job of the impersonation; someone has to both know that you edit WPO under that name and yet somehow not know that you don't sign your posts over here with the same name. The account has been active since 2009 and from what I can tell hasn't been impersonating you. The editor's user page doesn't try to connect itself to you. So I don't see it as an impersonation account, it definitely doesn't seem to fit what is outlined at WP:IMPERSONATOR.

The account did inject itself into a conversation, acting as if it was you (through implication) but did a lousy job of impersonation; seriously, they could have just posted and copied your signature to make it more plausible, which takes much less effort that creating an account specifically to impersonate and waiting 5 years to use it. It does have a weird history and I suspect it's probably someone's sock. But to my knowledge we don't block people who are "probably a sockpuppet of someone but we don't know who". -- Atama頭 21:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify... The reason I suspect that it's a sock is because it's an account who is very familiar with other editors and yet has very little activity on Wikipedia. Not nearly enough to block it, but enough that my sockpuppet radar pings pretty loudly. -- Atama頭 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify me too: I am not thinking "impersonation" at all. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• All right, I have logged my complaint, disavowing any connection with this fraudulent misrepresentation. I am obviously not going to get anything resembling justice from AN/I, which is no surprise per Timbo's Rule 19. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about "justice", it's about facts. And the facts in this case is that while this does appear to be disruptive trolling, there is no blockable evidence that this is impersonation or a sock. As noted, the fact this account came first, before you registered the RfB name elsewhere, means that it can't possibly be an account created for the purpose of impersonating you - unless there's further things than the diff you provided, this is grounds for a warning (and probably a 4im), but not a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • We should give justice, but I don't see any reason to say that sanctions are just here. The user's made precisely two edits since 2012: [79], from May of last year, where he says something in a discussion far from your comments; and this one, where he does inject himself into a conversation, but not in a deceptive way. I assumed this was going to be something with a deceptive signature, either just using your signature or [[User:Randy from Boise|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Randy from Boise|talk]]). Justice means not condemning the innocent, so justice is being done here. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not impersonation, that's trolling -- quite successful trolling, as this silly thread indicates. After it all it was only on Drmies talk page, not someplace important. . I've removed it. NE Ent 12:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• If, as you suspect, "Randy from Boise" is someone from WPO, there's one sure thing: whoever RfB is, since they have never claimed to be the most influential person on the internet, we know they're not Kohs. (Or that's what someone told me. Never heard of either WPO or any person of that name myself.) --Shirt58 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and accusations of racism

Can someone else please drop User:Fredin323 a line to let him or her know that it's unacceptable to edit war and label other editors "racist" as he or she has done several times in edit summaries? I've tried to engage with him or her (as have others) but my efforts have been fruitless and have in fact been met with baseless accusations of "[having a] vendetta," [being a] racist," and "[being] a very unhappy person" with close ties to the subject of an article. He or she certainly has the right to disagree with others' edits and discuss those edits but the personal attacks, baseless accusations, and edit warring must stop. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is an issue for AN3 but I don't see any edit where an editor is labelled a racist. Claiming that the singling out of an ethnic group is racist is a far cry from suggesting the editor is racist. A poor choice of words at worst IMO. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I too see no place where someone has been called "racist" in an edit summary DP 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• I searched for all occurrence of the string <rac> when viewing all of his contributions, and I found just six occurrences: [80] (two occurrences), where he makes a valid point about the results of the way the article's written; [81], where he makes a similar valid point; and [82] (two occurrences), where he's talking about race without using "racist". The only other occurrence of the string <rac> on all of his contributions is on the sidebar's "Interaction" header, above "Help", "About Wikipedia", etc. No comment on the editwarring, but re racism, this is definitely not the problematic situation that I expected from the original statement. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So let met me make sure I have things straight. It's acceptable for an editor to edit war with multiple other editors, making baseless accusations that their actions are racist (because that's definitely not the same thing as accusing them of being racist!) and pursuing a vendetta, right? C'mon people, be real. I'm not asking for this editor to be banned, just warned by someone else because obviously my warnings that this behavior is unacceptable are going unheeded.

Clearly this behavior is unacceptable regardless of the particular nuance you place on it. Trying to keep an eye on many of our college and university articles to keep them clear of fluff added by alumni and staff and attacks by disgruntled students and others is a thankless task and I would really appreciate just the tiniest bit of support. ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, be real. Accusing someone of calling others racist is almost as bad as calling someone racist. Provide a single diff that supports your statements, because 3 people have been unable to find any such claims. DP 17:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're not seeing that the edit summary "it is also designated at a Af-Am serving institution and a native-american serving institution - singling out Hispanics is racist and unnecessary. this is not an article about race. deleted." is explicitly calling another editor's actions - and by extension, that editor - racist? I don't know how much clearer it could be.

I'm going to take some time off of this project. I'm incredibly disappointed and frustrated that no one can even be bothered to warn a problematic editor who is clearly edit warring and attacking other editors doing good work. ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ElKevbo, in my experience on Wikipedia, there is an enormous difference between calling an action racist and calling an editor a racist. The first action is uncivil and probably inflammatory but the second is considered a personal attack. Similarly, calling one of my edits "stupid" is different from calling me "stupid". You can make a very valid argument that there shouldn't be any difference (or that the first action is a crafty way of implying the second) but the fact is that most admins look at criticizing an edit as less severe than criticizing an editor, directly.

ElKevbo, you might be dissatisfied at the lack of repercussions from your posting at AN/I but it does put the complaint on record. More people are aware that there is a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A block request for a deliberately disruptive editor

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

---

Hello, I'm constantly being bullied and blocked by user User:Thomas.W (talk) and his errand boy, Bishonen User:Bishonen (talk). This has continued for ages and I'm anything but Thomas.W's first target [83]. My sourced edits are systematically reverted. Please, see my talk page and the articles Kvenland, King of Kvenland and Rus'_people. I tried WP:DNR and at the moment there is a discussion going on at WP:NPOVN. User:Thomas.W (talk) has been warned a dozen times but nothing helps.Finnedi (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Psst...Bishonen is a girl DP 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I haven't been warned, your repeated addition of totally unwarranted/frivolous copy-pasted user warnings on my user talk page, copied from your own talk page, doesn't count. And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you look at the now closed case at DRN and the still open case at NPOVN you will find that it's a case of a long-time POV-/fringe-pusher from Finland, currently editing as User:Finnedi, who is trying to get his/her way, in spite of a clear consensus against him/her. Desperately forum-shopping, hoping that he/she will find at least one other editor here on WP who shares his/her views.

Finnedi previously edited as, and was blocked as, 91.155.236.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (with the connection between Finnedi and the IP seen here), and RasboKaren (talk · contribs), mentioned by Finnedi above, is IMHO a WP:DUCK. So it's a case of a repeatedly blocked serial POV/Fringe-pusher calling for a block on an editor who has called his/her bluff, hoping to get his/her way here on WP with me out of the way. So may I humbly request a boomerang? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC) (Since Finnedi didn't notify any of the users named in his complaint, neither me nor Bishonen, I have done it for him...)

You have not only been warned, but you reverted the warnings.[84] Talk about POV/Fringe-pusher [85] who reverts sourced edits. You have to understand that Wikipedia is not a place where you can embellish articles Kvenland, King of Kvenland, Rus'_people with Swedish royalist utopias.Finnedi (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to revert warnings on their talk pages (see WP:TPO). NE Ent 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And repeatedly issuing unwarranted/frivolous warnings is clearly against the rules. Doing so just before frivolously reporting someone to ANI, in order to make the reported person look bad, is also plain stupid. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the only way you break the rules. What's even worse, you know nothing about the topics you edit. A long, healthy block will cool you down.Finnedi (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is to be a block here it won't be for Thomas W. Not only are they allowed to remove warnings, they're certainly allowed to remove spurious warnings given by an editor for reverting their gibberish edits (as on Rus' people). I'd strongly suggest to Finnedi that they cease their disruptive editing (including this ANI posting) or their next block will be a lot longer. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not an admin. I'm interested in the opinion of an admin here, not your opinion. My edit [86] is sourced, but Thomas.W's edits in Kvenland, King of Kvenland and Rus' people are not sourced so take a deep breath before you call the original, sourced, translation of Primary Chronicle "gibberish".Finnedi (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It was gibberish because it made no grammatical sense. And (not that it really matters, because my comment would have been valid regardless), you might want to read this section of List of Administrators. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W is in the right here, Finnedi is in the wrong. Finnedi is advised to consider why everyone is telling him he's in the wrong and that this might be because he, not them, is in the wrong, and drop the stick before the WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, that can be time late 'cause it's bot updated. Special:ListUsers gives up to the minute information. NE Ent 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

BK is one of those stealth admins who have chosen not to cat themselves in Category:Wikipedia administrators. NE Ent 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User Finnedi has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (long-term tendentious editing). Are there any objections to closing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:61.195.236.81

This IP has had a history of being disruptive at the Powerpuff Girls articles, including vandalism, changing things that are no tsupported by the sources given, and just recently blanking content without a word saying anything [87]. I gave this user another warning but is it enough given the disruptive pattern? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yep. Blocked for disruptive editing. Such unexplained blankings, without talk page discussion, that's not acceptable, and they've been warned often enough. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others

For the last several months, and on and off dating back least as far back as April 2013, editors User:Brews_ohare and User:Snowded as well as to a lesser degree and at various times users User:Bob_K31416, User:Machine_Elf_1735 and User:Pfhorrest have been involved in a series of long-running disputes accross a number of articles, including (but not limited to) Meta-ontology, Free will, Mind–body_problem, Moral_responsibility, Dilemma_of_determinism, Subject–object_problem, and most recently Enaction (philosophy). While at its core these are content disputes (primarily over the inclusion of, or the degree of emphasis on certain references put forth by User:Brews_ohare the (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) content issues have been eclipsed by a pattern of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point on the part of User:Brews_ohare. At issue (at least as I understand it) is Brews' insistence on using a melange of citations from primary sources, to advance a novel presentation without citations or references to other, secondary sources supporting this presentation. This runs afoul of Wikipedia policies of No Original Research and avoidance of Synthesis. Despite this being pointed out to him repeatedly (mostly but by no means exclusively by User:Snowded) the process has become completely mired in edits, reversions, accusations, accusations of bad faith and general battleground mentality (see the talk page discussions of any of the articles listed for ample examples). This also leads to forum shopping and canvassing with seemingly endless RFCs and petitions on policy pages (Wikipedia_talk:NOR#Explaining_rejections.3F), project pages (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy) and various users' talk pages to bring others to Brews' d way of thinking, almost always to no avail. Then the whole cycle starts again on another article.

Perhaps complicating the situation is the fact that User:Brews_ohare is (or was) under an ArbCom sanction relating to a very similar pattern of behavior (see the original case and the attendant amendments and requests for enforcement) resulting in a topic ban from all physics-related articles, broadly construed. While the current disputes (to the extent that they are content dispute) does not (as far as I can tell) run afoul of the letter of Brews' topic ban as they concern different subject matters not falling under "physics, broadly construed", the similarity of the patterns of behavior on Brews' part is troubling and is evidence of someone who is WP:NOTHERE.

At the very least, some outside parties with fresh eyes to try to defuse the long-running user conduct issues would be welcome as the patience of those involved has long ago been exhauted (with the possible, notable exception of Brews' himself who seems to have absolutely nothing but time on his hands to engage in these behaviors). Beyond that, some clarification of the relevant policies WP:OR, WP:SYN would probably not go amiss as this seems to be the biggest sticking point between User:Brews_ohare and User:Snowded among others. Then, once (when as and if) these issues are resolved or at least ameliorated, perhaps (dare to dream) actual editing of the articles could resume. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Other eyes would be more than welcome. Brews has received no support and rejected attempts to help him over multiple articles (the most recent being the very patient work of Pfhorrest on the Free Will article. Having explained WP:OR and WP:Synth several times when Brews first made a failed attempt to change the definition of Philosophy (that debate with multiple editors itself deserves examination) I've run out of patience. I really wish someone could get Brews to listen and he has time and ability but will not abide by policy and is incapable of working with other editors unless they agree with him ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the behavior pattern that caused the Arbcom to ban Brews_ohare "indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed." So he picked his next-favorite topic area... Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

His choice of topics, (free will, meta-meta-physics, etc.) could also be read as a response to the ban itself and, force of nature that he is, even a direct result... I agree it's exactly the same behavior. Say what one will about it being insufferable, it is being tolerated outside of physics. I hate to say it but if the physics editors need some pointers in coping, we've got that down to a science. So I appeal to Brews, go get you some physics/free-will and us some relief.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is brought by a numbered account, a non-participant in the matters raised, and with no record of substantial contribution to articles on WP, or of engaging in any serious talk page discussion over content. Although WP:OR and WP:SYN haven been asserted on occasion in Talk- page discussions between Snowded and myself, such claims have never been supported, and all such claims have been abandoned upon challenge. The basic issue, as noted, is content, and a preference by some editors for insisting upon personal views rather than discussing sources. As Wikipedians are aware, it is pretty non-controversial to report what a source says, while getting WP editors to agree about each others' opinions is hard. However, many WP editors prefer their own judgment, and simply refuse to deal with sources. Driving discussion toward consideration of sources is like herding cats, and some WP editors find contradiction of their beliefs, even if opposition is reliably sourced, to be irritating, especially where an editor is somewhat inarticulate or is unable to locate supporting documents. Irritation leads some to avoid support of their beliefs using sources, or logic, and instead to resort to dubious means to quash an impending confrontation with reality. However, WP is written by non- experts, and appeals to personal expertise are denied, replaced by reference to reliable sources. So sourcing is a sine qua non of talk-page discussion about content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what prompted the OP to include me. I think my last interaction with either Snowded or BrewsOhare was 9 months ago in a discussion between just Snowded and me. I didn't think there was any hope for agreement so I ended the discussion.[88] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked some more and found an interaction I had with both Snowded and BrewsOhare 8 months ago.[89] In my message there of 18:35, 6 August 2013, I tried to give Snowded and BrewsOhare the following advice, "A discussion between only the two editors doesn't seem to be making progress towards agreement, and seems pointless. It may be that there are no other editors who wish to get involved. For situations like this in the future, the two editors might try to reach some general understanding about what to do when they disagree on an issue and no other editors are interested in getting involved." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is correct that this started as a content issue. But it became disruptive editing when, after having had his contributions removed or declined and the reasons explained to him, he has persisted to disregard policy and continued trying to insert original research across multiple articles. He understands the policies, he just disagrees with them, so much that he has tried to change policy to match his way of editing. Having had these rejected and explained again to him he continues to edit as if policy doesn't apply, ignoring editors that disagree with him.

Arbitrators imposed restrictions on him that might apply here but that remedy expired long ago. So I don't see any grounds for arbitration enforcement. But I also can't see how this won't end up at arbitration eventually, once other avenues for dispute resolution have been exhausted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this three and a half years ago.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration.

the 'visit to arbitration' doesn't apply as sanctions have expired/he is editing well outside the bounds of his topic ban. But otherwise I don't see anything that's changed from then to now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that WP:CANVASSING is happening here. Brew's is not a perfect contributor his posts are lengthy and that disturbs many people. I think though that the encyclopedia experiences a net loss when we run out qualified contributors. I think in this case the dispute has mainly been between snowded and brews and snowded tries damn near everytime to run to AE. I think an interaction ban would be a good idea, it seems right now snowded is the only one having problems. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, ban me too.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says the long-time career Brews booster. Pray, enlighten us how a single post to ANI is ‘canvassing’. I suppose Brews’ carpet-bombing of talk pages, policy pages etc. don’t count as canvassing, by your definition. 173.166.17.106 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket has had a problem since s/he tried to elicit Brews support for an attack on an admin who had banned them both. Since then s/he appears from time to time to support Brews behaviour. For the record (I) every editor who has engaged with Brews on philosophy articles has had problems and attempts to portray this as a personal conflict do not bear examination. Todate Brews has failed to get ANY support for his edits (II) three of those editors who have a lot of experience on philosophy articles have thanked me for monitoring, someone has to (III) I have not brought anything about Brews to ANI, I know I am too involved I do that. Worth. Opting that Brews has not responded to the concern raised here at all ----Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try User:Snowded, I've never been banned, a few blocks in 2009 and 2010 but nothing since so your entire line of reasoning is so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are forgetting this ban. I don't know if it still applies (to you and Count Iblis). As for the rest of your comment: WP:NPA.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC) It no longer applies: see WP:ARBSL#Motions #4 and #5.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I"m not forgetting that at all, a ban is something altogether different then what you are alluding to and I('m sure if you put just a little more effort you'll see where that was rescinded lol. Also please point out any personal attack made, I have not attacked anyone, I've called the viewpoint or reasoning is full of shit that is hardly a personal attack. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK you were blocked by the same admin who blocked and banned Brews., you then tried to canvas Brews in an ANI case against that Admin and I was one of the editors who pointed out the issue. Since then this type of intervention by you, with the belligerent language has been typical and distracts from the real issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Snowded I think Sandstein blocked me once and who gives a flying fuck if I cuss. I think what you are doing is deperately trying to smear any opinion against you and if your argument is that by using the word "shit" nyour logic must be weaker then I first thought. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like me, Brews is the sort of editor who is most suited to edit articles on scientific subjects where the kind of logic he is used to applies. But this will only work in those subjects that he is an expert in and knows the literature quite well. The problems started a few years ago when he ventured out of his usual domain and in the speed of light article he caused problems. That led to an ArbCom case which imposed rulings that made things worse, because he was banned from all physics articles, while the only thing he could edit well were certain physics and math articles. Then because things were worse than they were, that led to more broad topic bans and he was banned from all math articles as well.

I have said many times before, if a topic ban were imposed on Brews that would ban him from editing any articles except a few approved ones (e.g. accelleration in curvlinear coordinates, Lagrangian mechanics etc.), he would be happy and the rest of Wikipedia would be happy too. So, I see the Brews problem more as a symptom of the new Admin/ArbCom ideology that exists here since aboput 2008 clashing with certain realities here than some big unsolvable problem. It's a purely ideological problem that has caused some editors to be banned from Wikipedia just for speaking out on the stupidity of the situation, an Admin has been desysopped for reversing some block that was argued to undermine ArbCom's authority. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a thoughtful solution. Relax the topic ban to areas where he has expertise would benefit Wikipedia. Maybe a 'give up if you do not get other editors to buy in' on all other articles. I'd happily support a case being made to relax the current ban to keep him engaged in a useful way----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That applies to all of us though. We all have our own areas of experience and expertise which we can usefully contribute on. One of the key skills of WP or any collaborative enterprise is knowing where your talents lie and focussing on those to make your most useful contribution. Once you reach adulthood you don't expect others to tell you what your best areas are, you're expected to know them yourself with only occasional pushes from peers.

And editing only approved articles implies some sort of oversight, e.g. another editor approving which articles he can edit. Something like this has been suggested before but thought unworkable. Any editor involved with Brews in a way that he disagrees with inevitably ends up with their arguments ignored, their motives questioned and often their ability to edit or character attacked. Assigning an editor to tell Brews which articles he can edit would be a particularly cruel and unusual punishment for that editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It was thought to be unworkable, but knowing Brews reasonably well and some of the articles he has worked on in the past without much problems, I think that this is something we should try. E.g. Slavomir asked Brew a few years ago to work with him on dirac delta function, and they had a good collaboration. This is completely different from the fighting that we've seen in other articles. Thing is that there is already a topic ban in place, so you just change this topic ban into a flexible one. A small list of approved articles may to Brews be a lot more than a big pool of articles that he really isn't interested in. If you give me one interesting math problem , I can work on that the whole day. If you give me an entire museum of modern art, I will be bored to death. Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that the conversation is running along the lines that contributing articles to WP is best done by experts in those topics.

First, I have found WP editors to be unimpressed by expertise, and ready to argue with all comers, even regarding specialized topics like centrifugal force where they know nothing. So arguments won't be fixed this way. But second, and far more important, WP by it's very concept, it's basic nature, is to be written by non- experts.

So the real challenge for WP is to develop a culture where non- experts can do this. A key ingredient in a conversation among non- experts is to rely upon published sources. That reliance means discussion is about sources. If discussion is confined to what sources say, that goes much easier than arguing with each other to build a popular consensus. Unfortunately, many WP editors do not wish to address sources, but wish to assert their opinions, and that holds at least as much for real experts as for WP self-professed 'experts'. If the focus can be held upon sources, WP would be on its way, IMO. Brews ohare (talk)

Brews response here illustrates the problem raised by several editors here. Despite the fact that many editors have explained that it is not just about assembling sources he simply ignores them and carries on with the way he thinks Wikipedia should work. In practice Wikipedia has developed the culture where non-experts can contribute; Brews does not want to respect the rules that make that possible. When he has challenged the rules on the various Forum discussion pages his position has been consistently rejected, but he doesn't learn from that. Just yesterday we find a situation where he creates one article to use material rejected elsewhere. I opened a discussion about agreeing an appropriate name for an article but Brew's response is simply to create another one with the same rejected material and to use PROD, inappropriately, to delete the first one. He simply will not engage with the communityother than on his own terms. Talk a look at the essays on his talk page for more evidence on this. For those interested I re-directed his new article back to the first he created and have made yet another attempt to engage him in agreeing things on the talk page first. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I do think you are onto something here. Maybe a list of articles and a mentor agreed by Brews and the Community who can add to that list and help Brews learn the rules, accepting the mentor being a condition. I think you have the measure of this, would you draft something? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It might help if the vicious cycle of Brews ohare contributing, Snowded deleting, Brews ohare restoring , Snowded deleting ... is broken. From what I've seen, Snowded doesn't contribute material to article pages. Perhaps Snowded and Brews ohare could agree to a contribution, for example on the Talk:Enaction (philosophy) page, and then Snowded could make the edit that adds the contribution to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: You are such a beacon of hope; your suggestion is wise; Snowded has refused this invitation by myself to do the 'heavy lifting' to flesh out his ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, if you check out the free will article you will see that Pfhorest went through all of Brews material and proposed some limited amendments to the article. Brews then refused to accept those changes unless all of his edits were accepted. I've had similar experiences in the early days, as did you when you tried to help him and I stood back. I can find the diffs if you want. If you check it out, I leave as much of. Brew's edits as I can (so I disagree with your characterisation) but there is extensive OR and synthesis of primary sources. Every RfC todate has supported the deletions by myself, Machine Elf and others. Most recently on Enaction you will see another editor asked to engage by Brews, starts by supporting the deletions (I left a lot of the original draft). So the process you propose is fine, if Brews is prepared to compromise and work with other editors on the he talk page to agree text. Todate (as on Physics articles before) he has refused. If you look at the comment above Brews wants me to engage in primary research and I'm not doing that; I think you actual proposal is sensible butI I don't think Brews understands it.----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, you have an evocative term for what you don't want to do: "Engage in primary research". or what Jc3s5h has supported as "Source-based research [which] is the method used to write Wikipedia; without it, Wikipedia cannot exist." Here you have hit upon an excuse for never discussing sources - either they are "primary" sources that should be avoided, or they are "secondary" sources that need no comment. Add to that the vagueness of WP policy about the distinction, and you never have to do more than simply revert what you don't like without going into any detail.

I have caught on that you don't want the labor of adding to articles, and offered to do the heavy lifting if you provide an outline of what is on your mind. Why not do that? Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Brew's every editor who has engaged with you over multiple RFIs has tried to explain WP:OR to you. Your views have not received support from other editors over multiple articles, but you persist in stringing together quotes based on your personal selection of original material. Pfhorest in particular put hours into trying to explain to you how you had misinterpreted that material on Free Will, as multiple editors did before when you tried to change the definition of Philosophy. It is a simple verifiable fact that you have not been supported by any editor over multiple articles. Until you learn from that you will get no where. It is, as other people have pointed out, a more or less exact repeat of the behaviour that got you permanently banned from all articles on Physics. If you carry on I suspect sooner or later it will come back here. It would be useful if an uninvolved admin or two could review the editing history and comment. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed a recent section at Talk:Enaction (philosophy).[90] If you continue there, the suggestion I made in my last message might come to pass. Also, I noticed some productive work in another recent section there involving you, Brews ohare, and another editor.[91] Maybe it's time to give peace a chance (all I am saying). --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I initiated that, but as yet I just see the same old response from Brews. I or others try on most articles then after being rebuffed give up. Maybe he will change this time but I very much doubt it. Shifting all the disputed material onto another article rather than engage on the talk page you reference was his first response. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your remark is incorrect and inappropriate. My response to your suggestion was to ask you just what work by Leslei Paul Thiele you are referring to, as none that I looked at fitted your description, I also suggested that you might have meant to refer to Rowlands. whose discussion does fit your description. But rather than reply in thoughtful manner, here you are stirring the pot. Brews ohare (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I freely admit that I missed that response Brews. I was dealing with your creating another article with material that had been rejected by myself and TonyClarke in the coffee breaks while teaching here in New York along with responses here. Material by the way that I discovered you had restored again (with a misleading edit summary) when I got back to the hotel late last night and posted above. Keeping up with the volume of your comments can at times be difficult. I'll respond and see if we get anywhere this time. In this case I had to repost on the 7th April my original material on title and scope (posted 3rd April) as you had not engaged with the proposal other than to defend the deleted material and then post it (three times at the current count) to a new article. The deletion was supported by TonyClarke and Machine Elf during the same period. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I accept your convoluted excuse/apology for being too pressed to think about your responses. I have therefore provided a very detailed question about the relevance of Leslie Paul Thiele's Heart of Judgment to Enaction (philosophy). Perhaps you will provide some page numbers to identify the content you wish to source? I hope that does not violate your resolution to avoid 'original research'. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, with the sheer volume of material you post people are going to miss things. When you set up new articles or edit ware to reinsert material rejected by three editors it creates confusion and difficulty. You had ignored the suggestion the first time round and forced me to repeat it, while edit warring in parallel ....----Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, none of this matters. Your "suggestion the first time round" and its follow up are so vague it is impossible to act upon them. You keep promising to do more: let's see that happen. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That reminds me of a practical question. Suppose an editor comes along and makes major changes in an article that would take more time to check than other editors have the time to spend. If an editor is trying to maintain the integrity of the article, what should be done in that case, keeping in mind the premise that the editor doesn't have the time to check the changes in detail because there are so many of them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Especially when the length of talk page comments requires hours of study and are tenacious in nature. Keeping up with Brews is a full time job as he never changes no matter how many editors engage.. I've done my best to check the material and leave what I can, but Brews often edits over edits with multiple changes which means you have to open two windows and make detailed changes. His separation of references from the text means you then have to make another round of checked to get rid of ones that are no longer relevant. A responsible editor would leave references in text until the article had stabilised. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, this 'hypothetical case' of yours could be taken to refer to me, as Snowded has done. However, I don't think my changing of a subsection title and addition of the authors' source for the term classical sandwich in a WP reprise of their work quite amounts to an overwhelming set of "major changes in an article that would take more time to check than other editors have the time to spend", even though I used the list-defined references Snowded objects to. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to consider without thinking of who it refers to, without identifying with any of the hypothetical editors, and without prejudice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Bob, as an abstract issue, divorced from ANI, that consideration belongs on a policy page. Brews ohare (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This abstract question actually gets at the heart of what I find difficult about working with you, Brews. If I had unlimited time and patience there really wouldn't be any problem at all. The challenging thing for me is that you're not a clear vandal who I can just blanketly revert (thus requiring little time on my part regardless of the size of your edits), but neither are you someone I feel I can trust to make mostly constructive edits, any problems with which can and will be fixed eventually by someone else if not me. I feel like if I ignore you, you will slowly change the article for the worse (whatever article we're working on in question, this is a repeated pattern across multiple articles), and nobody else will come along and fix it; but if I am not going to ignore you, I have to engage you properly, on the content issues at hand, which quickly becomes extremely time consuming and anxiety-inducing as what seems like a never-ending black hole of intractable misunderstanding and disagreement yawns open before us.

So I find myself trying to find the quickest way to justify my objection and move on. But that never really seems to be possible. Snowded and others give much terser responses which take much less of their time but then you complain that they are not engaging you on the content dispute. If these articles had more active editors, then a large number of people would be discussing the issues and a consensus would quickly emerge that no one editor could effectively continue struggling against, but with hardly anyone engaged on these articles, it becomes a battle of attrition, who can continue arguing the longest, and frankly you're quite capable of talking your opponents to death -- an ability I used to pride myself on when I had the time to engage in it, but now that I'm on the other side of it I'm learning how troublesome it can be.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but that's the problem as I see it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: One thing we do agree upon is that there are too few editors interested in philosophy. The main parties involved have been you, me, and Snowded with occasional sideline jeering from MachineElf. With more participation at least there would be help to correct Snowded's contretemps. Brews ohare (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "jeering" Brews, you've taught me the mercy of brevity.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have made a proposal here in an attempt to engage Brews on first agreeing the subject matter and range of an article before jumping into mass edits and forcing reverts. I've also made proposals as to the manner of editing to reduce the volume of talk page material and make it easier for other editors to change the text while the article is in active development. Bob (and others) it would be really helpful if you could chip in. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is (going forward) for the second version of the article under a different title. Regarding #2 "If agreement is not reached after 1/2 iterations between two editors the discussion ceases unless other editors engage", he's just not going to do that. Better that until such time the other editor's objections survive any number of re-presentations and insubstantial alterations.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm of the opinion that Brews should focus on making the complete argument in one go as much as possible, with only one opportunity to address criticisms. This is pretty much what you have to do when you submit an article to a journal, so this is a well tested method that works in practice. In the case of editing Wikipedia, it means that you have to make sure what you edit is well thought through, as you get only two opportunities to defend them on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Count: You may be unaware that I have followed this prescription of presenting a complete argument complete with sources as a standard operating procedure. That does not necessarily avoid talk-page dispute, especially when the entire contribution is summarily dismissed with a cryptic one-line edit summary like "This material is OR". A challenge on the talk page results in "Read the policy". Further request for clarification is followed by "Reasons already given. It's not my job to teach policy". This kind of nonsense is everyday activity for hit-and-run editors used to dealing with vandalism and completely uninterested in adding information to WP. The length of the discussions is largely due to attempts to get some concrete suggestions for improvement.

There are other situations of less stupidity that lead to long talk page discussions. A recent example is Pfhorrest's discussion with me about 'moral responsibility'. Pfhorrest has taken it upon himself to educate me on the subject, and he has done so to a degree. However, that mindset that I am an ignorant non-philosopher also leads him to expound where expounding is not required, and to focus upon his views and not sourced opinion, which is more diverse than his own understanding.

So my solution to the issue of extended talk page discussion in both cases is simple: Insist upon discussion of sources, avoid vague appeals to WP policies, don't simply advance your own opinions, but instead present published opinion, and above all do not regard discussion as polemic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, I expound on areas where you seem to lack comprehension of the source material or the necessary context to understand it. You seem to ignore that expounding as unnecessary, thinking that you already understand what I am talking about, and missing that I am arguing that you misunderstand it, that your understanding is not correct. And I am not ever trying to discuss my views, but rather the correct interpretation of the "sourced opinion", which you repeatedly seem to misunderstand as somehow contradicting things I've said before when to my eye they clearly support everything I've been saying all along.

This problem about arguing over the correct interpretation of primary sources is why Snowded et al keep bringing up how it's inappropriate synthesis and original research to rely directly upon them, instead of upon secondary sources. You can show that some notable figure has written some words, but then you take those words to mean something which seems (in my educated opinion as someone who has extensively studied the subject at hand) like a clear misunderstanding of those words, and use them to cite claims in the article that they clearly (again, in my educated opinion) do not support. But since this is Wikipedia and one editor's academic credentials don't mean a thing, we're effectively just two anonymous editors arguing over what a source really means. How do we resolve that? We find a secondary source giving a notable opinion about what those primary sources really mean, and how they relate to each other.

Though I guess that could just push the problem back a step to interpretation of the secondary sources too, but at least it brings us one step further away from just arguing our opinions on the content, and thus a step closer to neutrality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that Brews gives it everything he's got, all in one go, every time. But if (for any reason) that substantially duplicates his similar presentations in other sections, new/existing articles etc., it should be enough to give a link and briefly say "Reasons already given..."—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: Your remarks are entirely consistent with mine, but from your standpoint. Education is a good thing. It should take the form of saying something like: "Read such and such about so and so. You'll find it says such and such.". It should not take the form of: "You just don't get my point of view", followed by a supposed paraphrasing of my latest response that reads conflict into what is actually agreement. Addressing sources would stop all this. As for sources, the drive here is not really about primary vs secondary sources; it is about objecting to contributions that aren't just condensed repeats of canned summaries from existing encyclopedias. The idea is that if the Stanford Encyclopedia has an article (taking philosophy as an example), then we can just copy and don't have to hunt down sources or even read them. It's not better information to do this culling of review articles, it's just less work. Unfortunately there are a great many topics that have no such Stanford Encyclopedia article, so unless we are willing to try to summarize monographs and anthologies and sometimes papers, WP is out of the game. Brews ohare (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy on disruption

OK if we look at Brew's response to Pfhorest and others above along with comments here I think there is a prima facia case that for over six months at least Brews has been a disruptive editor and more specifically refused to accept the [[|WP:LISTEN|concensus position of engaged editors]] on his use of primary sources. A simple examination of the history of his edits both on philosophy articles and on policy forum talk pages demonstrates this. When this happened before on Physics articles, after a similar period of time, Brews ended up with a permanent topic ban.

Now no one wants to sanction an editor with the time and energy to improve Wikipedia, but an editor who persistently refused to accept community consensus is disruptive. I am too involved to propose anything by way of sanction, but I would like to suggest that (i) Brews has to accept that his views on the use of primary sources are not shared by the community (ii) in consequence he should not attempt to change that policy by directly editing Philosophy articles. If he is not prepared to do that then I think it is more than time for an independent admin to review the material and determine action. That at least is my take, other people may have better ideas.

I know that Count Iblis came up with some ideas for mentoring that might have allowed Brews to edit Physics articles productively. I'd be prepared to support a request to have his sanctions on Physics revoked if something like that was put in place for all articles. What is clearly true is that if something does not change it is only a matter of time before the matter comes back here again.----Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

See this response to Snowded's ongoing efforts at a smear campaign. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think revoking the Physics topic ban is a very bad idea. I understand the philosophy department might want to push the problem back to the physics department, but that really wouldn't solve the problem. I disagree with the claim made above that Brews ohare has been a productive and valuable editor on topics such as Lagrangian mechanics. As a lurker, I observed for many years his amazingly energetic edit warring on such topics (see, for example, the endless crusades at Centrifugal force). It was always the same problem: Novel synthesis consisting of quotations of primary sources that other editors contend he simply misunderstood and misrepresented. Then huge volumes of endless argumentation on the Talk pages, never seeming to absorb any of the explanations people gave him, etc., etc. I really think the best way forward would be for Brews ohare to consider that he has a lot to say about these topics, and that although he may not realize it, his writings are a creative outlet, and he is putting forth synthesis that is novel, which may be quite valuable, but is not appropriate for Wikipedia. He should find a more suitable outlet for sharing his understandings of these subjects.VeldmanGB (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

VeldmanGB: We could (if I were permitted) discuss centrifugal force in all its technicalities. I don't (as you might imagine) agree at all with your summary of my activities there. In fact this topic was greatly improved and many examples and diagrams provided by myself, as well as improvements in the historical treatment of the subject. The subject grew to the point that it was broken up into three or four separate articles, and the mathematical treatment greatly improved because of my involvement, generalized in an article I began Mechanics of planar particle motion. I think it is easy to get caught up in the emotional rhetoric of some participants and let the enjoyment of spectacle override evaluation, and that may be what has happened here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Once more

Brews has identified the conflict of his edits with policy, by seeking to change policy so they no longer conflict: here he asks

Can such a modification to WP:OR be made so it cannot be used to justify deletion of useful material, and to avoid even the discussion of such deletion?

Of course when yet another pointy attempt to change policy so he can win a content disputes fails, it won't matter. He will return to articles editing the same way, as if the policy doesn't apply to him. It's not that he doesn't know or understand the policy, he knows it perfectly well, otherwise he would not seek to change it. He just thinks the policies on sources, like others on consensus and civility, don't apply to him.

Lather rinse repeat. It doesn't matter whether it's physics, maths or philosophy. This long term disruptive behaviour will continue until something is done to address it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blackburne: You don't seem to be able to separate policy matters from personal differences. Snowded and I have a basic disagreement here about WP:OR, and if that policy is clarified this disagreement will be settled, one way or the other.

In the meantime, your contribution to all this is not as a mediator or as a wise councilor, but as a hornet. Brews ohare (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as another hornet, I find this one messy. Yes, there's the personal problem with Brews, who likes to synthesize some fairly unusual viewpoints and bloat articles with them. On the other hand, I have some sympathy for his disagreement with the overly strict interpretation of preference for secondary sources. This is particularly a problem in medical-related articles, where the medical establishment and their wiki-editing sympathizers use this rule to make sure that nothing alternative can be represented in a better light than how the medical establishment sees it. Look at Vitamin D, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We all have policies we disagree with, or disagree with the interpretation of. My biggest bugbear is the deletion policy, where in the past I have often found myself on the wrong side of a deletion debate. I would prefer if the policy were much more strict, prescriptive and less open to interpretation. But the rules are the rules. So I find myself working within the rules trying to persuade other editors to my viewpoint. I don't try and change the rules to match my views. I don't disregard other editors views and consensus and proceed on regardless. And over time I've involved myself in fewer and fewer deletion discussions, and been less argumentative in the ones I am involved in, recognising better where the consensus is or would be against me.

Consensus is key, fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Whether it's local consensus on an article talk page or in a formal discussion, or global consensus that has gone into creating the policies, all editors should work within it, not against it. And it's that, more than any particular policy or topic, which is Brews ohare's greatest problem: repeatedly ignoring and challenging consensus, whether local or global, not accepting consensus has gone against him even long after everyone else considered the matter settled and closed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, the policy has been clarified twice at the OR notice board and by other editors on other articles. The question is when are you going to accept that? The fact that you play fast and loose with sources makes it difficult to be other than strict (I have sympathy with Dicklyon) with the rules ----Snowded ^TALK 22:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I give up -- what concrete Administrative action is being asked for here? Anyone? Bueller? 72.93.233.150 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what is needed is for an independent admin to look at the history and determine if community action is needed. Personally I think we have a clear case of Brews simply refusing to accept consensus and repeating the behaviour on philosophy articles for which he was sanctioned on physics. But I know I am too involved to make that call or make any recommendation. Fresh and independent eyes with experience of this type of thing are needed. Also this is the second time round for Brews as evidenced by this comment about his work on Physics articles. The identical behaviour has now persisted for the best part of a year over multiple Philosophy articles and we need some radical behavioural change from Brews or sanctions ----Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahtehsham100

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

---

Ahtehsham100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User keep on creating similar article about WP:BLP and other non notable stuff. Providing no any reasonable source. Articles have been tagged for speedy and proposed deletion but user didn't seem to get point. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@A.Minkowiski: I'm not sure, how I'm involved in this case. Well, this user has created one non-notable/spam article (Ridhwan khan), one hoax article, (Mushqil) and additionally vandalizing Wikipedia article Vivian Dsena, apparently to make his articles notable or wikilink his non-notable/spam articles. It should be reported at WP:AIV instead. However, I was not supposed to be notified on my talk page about this ANI. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by distruptive IP directed at users

This IP address 31.48.113.148 has made personal attacks at me and at other users. When I reverted the IP on the article Alejandro (song), he/she told me to "fuck off" AND called me a "bastard". I then gave the IP an only warning for that attack (see here), but the IP had the nerve to remove it and did another insult on me. The IP has done the same thing on User:IndianBio's talk page, calling him/her also a "bastard" and to take themselves elsewhere. User:XXSNUGGUMSXX has also warned the IP to not make personal attacks before I warned them (see here). User:STATicVapor also warned the IP again not to attack users (see here), but they removed all the warnings given. If this continues, I would suggest an interaction ban from myself and all the other aforementioned users and an indefinite block.--IPadPerson (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep a close watch after IP gets unblocked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal concern??

Not sure who to reach out to over here. I came across this User:CroArhiva, which talks of a "joint military offensive" during "between 25 and 29 July 2014" (Note- todays date is 13 April 2014, that is BEFORE the date). There may be some security concern there too (and why hes posted it here I have no idea). May want to look at it...Maybe it needs the attention of some security force (although, note, id be the last to notify the spying regime in this age but its so simple). Look at ihis infobox for the belligerents..

As I though stealthy..

Also not reported to the editors page per WP:BEANSLihaas (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess it might have been an April Fools joke based on the date in the info box, with the content from Operation Summer '95. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

new user at Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

today a new user, Bakaso appeared on the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page and for their first edit immediately tagged it with a NPOV tag, and then went to the talk page and explained that the purpose of the tag was to identify that the page was written by followers of the frankfurt school using extremist sources to cover up their agenda. After talking with them, and having a back and forth over the appropriateness of the tag, it is clear that they believe that scholars in the field are extremist and therefore the reliable sources are suspect. What they want to do is insert qualifiers which cast skepticism on the existence of the Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory, proposing that it has been made up by the reliable sources.

Bakaso is also interested in identifying Jewish scholars as Jewish, as their only other edit was on the Martin Jay page which did just that, and they have added that information to the conspiracy page as well. I am curious if this may be a former user I have not yet encountered, as their first edit was to tag the page, their second edit was to go to the page to back up the edit, and their third edit was to tag Martin Jay as Jewish, complete with a hyper-linked source which surprisingly fulfills the WP:BLP requirements of identifying the ethnicity or religion of a BLP. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

before I forget to mention, the reason I am against this is evidently because I am a communist and a neo-Marxist.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the discussion regarding the sourcing concerns to the Reliable sources noticeboard.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Trolling editor Lvivske

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

---

The editor User:Lvivske is trolling and can not be reasoned. He keeps posting bombastic messages, and disruptive editing in talk pages of articles like Donetsk People's Republic, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic, and many other places. He keeps insulting me, saying I am an idiot, a supporter of terrorists, suspect of being a single purpose account, and other insults.

In the article Donetsk People's Republic, some people keep adding links to Nazism in the "see also" page. For some reason, they think that it is right to insert random links to nazism (Adolf Hitler, Anschluss, Gleiwitz incident). I consider that vandalism. So I acted in good faith and I wanted to help Wikipedia, so I removed these links over the last few days. Since it happened often, I decided it would be better to discuss the issue in the talk page.

And when I asked in a civil way to refrain from posting these links (talk:Donetsk People's Republic#"Nazi" name calling), the user Lvivske kept saying it is fine to do this vandalism. He was clearly trolling me. I give him warnings 2 times on his talk page (and to other people who inserted that vandalism), but it seems that it fed his trolling.

His last quote is a gem:

I am insulted. --Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am Iron Man. --Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lvivske

Oh boy oh boy, this is a doozy. Today Cmoibenlepro (I'll abbreviate as CPRO for brevity here) called me a 'vandal' after he reverted me, assuming bad faith for some reason. In similar behavior, he called another user out for inserting "pro Nazi spam".

He then started harassing people, handing out 'Godwin Points' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddy1&diff=prev&oldid=603938768 1], 2). The former user was trying to help him, and when asked why he was given the "Godwin Point", CPRO called him a troll.

There was a content dispute on the 'See Also' section of the page in question, he was blanking the content. He then asked us not to discuss it at all because it 'offended him'. When asked why, he lashed out. It's all on the talk page, no real reasons were given. Suffice it to say, you can't have a talk page discussion about a Nazi incident (for whatever reason) and not type the words being discussed. What is this Voldemort?

With regard to the following statement "He keeps insulting me, saying I am an idiot, a supporter of terrorists, suspect of being a single purpose account, and other insults." The user provided no diffs or proof, and I'll just go ahead right now and say every single one of them is a lie. I never called him an idiot, ever; I never said he supported terrorism (what??); or any other direct accusations. Please provide evidence for alleged trolling, vandalism, accusations of bad faith or personal attacks, otherwise this is a form of libel.

And yes, I am Iron Man.--Львівське (говорити) 00:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not follow you. Putting a video of IronMan is hardly an argument. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

edit: "First, I do not have to justify to you why adding random links to Adolf Hitler and Anschluss is offensive." - to the admins, I never did any of this, it's all make believe. Even if I did, it's not a violation of anything. This whole piling on me is the most bizarre I've seen in a while.--Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I complained in the talk page that people were putting links about nazism (Adolf Hitler, Anschluss, Gleiwitz incident) in the "See Also" section. I deleted a couple of these in the last days. I asked that in a very polite way. This was the precise subject of the discussion (please see: talk:Donetsk People's Republic#"Nazi" name calling). The "see also" section is not a place to put random links to discredit your opponent's POV. You disputed that, and apparently you still are by looking at your comment above, and your comparison to Voldemort. I just don't see why this kind of vandalism could be accepted in a serious encyclopedia. Please stop. Are you reading yourself? This debate is very sterile. This was my final comment, and I am very tired of your trolling.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because you libel me and say I'm trolling, vandalizing, or evoking Voldemort, doesn't mean I actually am. Provide diffs and proof or rescind this baseless request.--Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that inserting random links to nazism (Hitler,Anschluss,etc) in a "See also" page is not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia? Yes or no? I am not saying that you put that link yourself, but the fact is that you are defending the right to deface an article you don't like with these kind of nazi labels. This is trolling. Please stop. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If the content is related to the article then I or any other user is free to express their opinion on the content on the talk page. Having an opinion is not "trolling". I've seen no user mention Hitler or Anchluss once so not sure what you're talking about one way or another. Saying I'm trying to "deface" an article I am the primary contributor to is also very odd of you to suggest.--Львівське (говорити) 01:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The mention of the Gleiwitz incident is still there currently. It is not gone. It's still there. Perhaps you did not see it. Fine. But then what are you talking about? I was only trying to help. You have the right to have the opinion. Your opinion is that is fine to put offensive references in the "see also" section. I do not agree with your opinion. And you did not state any arguments. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "offensive" about someone mentioning the Gleiwitz incident in the See also section as it's entirely within context. If someone, for example, put "Holocaust" or "Operation Barbarossa" in there entirely out of context, then sure, that may be offensive. Your perceived indignance is rather confusing - this remains a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page, as it has. So anyway, where are those diffs of namecalling, where are the mentions of Hitler? Did you imagine this stuff? --Львівське (говорити) 03:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is put totally out of any context in the "see also" section, yes it is rude. If someone notable (not you, I mean a notable source) did stated the similarity between this event and the Nazi Germany invasion of Poland, then you could add a section "Reactions" with the comment, and I'd agree with that. But it is not the case here. You (and other editors) decided by yourselves that there was a alleged similarity and you put a random reference. These random references are reducing the credibility of the article, this is called POV. That is why I tried in the first place to remove them. You may say that I imagined that there is a mention of the the Gleiwitz incident, but I did not, it is still there. Also I do not know what a diff is.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if this (who else would delete a comment to you?) is you but deleting talk page comments is very frowned upon behavior. --Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I am sorry. I am acting in good faith. I do not understand why you have so much hostility against me. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You opened a grievance against me full of libel and false accusations, and now you're accusing me of being the hostile one?--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I apologized, more than one times, but you continue to be angry after me. I do not understand why. I APOLOGIZED AND I APOLOGIZE AGAIN! Please stop talking to me, this is the only thing I ask you in the whole world. Every time you talk to me, I feel bullied and threatened.. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Further

Apparently Marek bringing up a possible SPI and sockpuppet connection with another disruptive user has prompted CPRO to request his account be deleted (and make a new account? who knows). He was already shown to be deleting my comments on one talk page under his IP, and now he is deleting my own comments on my own talk page, with an edit summary of "fuck you". Also, as seen below, there is significant erratic behavior (look for the giant red text). On his user page he calls me out now, saying I have "nationalistic hatred" towards him, and threw more baseless accusations of 'bullying, harassment, slander, trolling, and threats' my way.

Please take this into consideration, something's not right here. --Львівське (говорити) 21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

statement

First, I do not have to justify to you why adding random links to Adolf Hitler and Anschluss in an encyclopedia is offensive. I can not comprehend that we are still having this discussion. This is trolling (even if you are Iron Man) Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, here is your comment to me saying I am a sockpuppet

Comment It seems clear now that there is no consensus to delete the article, on the opposite there is more general consensus to keep the article (at least until further developments). The event is notable, and present in global news. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the people voting keep are pro-Russian sockpuppets, though. This is like the Crimea fake referendum all over --Львівське (говорити) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Львівське. Do you have any proof of your accusations? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't do an SPI on everyone, but take you for example: started editing for single purpose in March, your first actions were to edit war and blank info. Suspect. --Львівське (говорити) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[92]

I am trying to find your comment about "putin-lovers, terrorists supporters, sockpuppets like you", but it seems you deleted it, at least.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since the subject came up, this doesn't happen to be you Cmoibenlepro, by any chance? The style is very similar, compare [93] with [94]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also same accusations of name calling (again) vs. the same from canadianking. Also CK started editing seemingly to support an AfD CPRO started here. Though, I will say CPRO isn't nearly as inflammatory as CanadianKing. --Львівське (говорити) 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am very tired of your inflammatory comments just like that. You are chauvinistic and you are trolling me AGAIN. I apologized yesterday against the people whom I reverted their posts as sign of good gesture, and you come back TODAY to troll me again, why? Can't you just leave me alone? This is harassment. I asked you yesterday. I ask you again. I beg you. Please. Stop your personal attacks and your slander against me. Can we have a truce? I promise I won't post again on the Donetsk Republic page, Ukraine or whaterver crisis ever happen in this part of the world. Please. Just stop, please. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the SPI question, it should be noted then that CPRO has a Canadian IP address (50.100.123.207), which may make the CanadianKing connection closer. Just circumstantial though.--Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske comes from Ontario too (according to his user page). The last time I checked Ontario is in Canada too. Just circumstantial though. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Conduct by Cmoibenlepro

I am rather surprised that this matter is at ANI, because Cmoibenlepro has apologised to me at 03:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC), to Volunteer Marek at 03:45-9, 13 April 2014 (UTC) and on the article talk page at 03:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) saying that he/she was mistaken. It is really weird that he/she has not also apologised to Lvivske as well.

The problem was not because he put a link to a nazi incident (he clearly did not). The problem was that he was trolling me for pushing his POV.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro's contributions show that he/she made a first edit on 5 November 2007, and three more in March 2011, and then between 3 March and now has made 752 edits. Of those 752 edits since 3 March, 739 concern the Ukrainian crisis, and thirteen concern other topics. He/she appears to be a single-purpose account, which was created six and a half years in advance.

Yeah I knew it the Crimea Crisis would happen 6 years in advance, so I created this account in the single purpose to cause havoc. This is non-sense. Stop your personnal attacks against me. Please Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1. It is not uncommon for people to create accounts on Wikipedia in case of need on some future occasion. We have a name for such accounts: "sleeper accounts".
2. I love the way here you accuse Lvivske and myself of making personal attacks on you, without apparently noticing that your improperly posting vandalism templates on other people's user pages was uncivil.
3. Cmoibenlepro brought this to ANI. His/her own behaviour is therefore also subject to scrutiny. See Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are 2 against me for some reason. Lvivske and you. I do not understand why. I apologized for reverting your posts about the Nazi Incident that you liked. I only want to help Wikipedia. I apologized, and I apologize again. And again. And again. What could I do more? Please tell me! Please stop your hostility against me. Could you please stop talking to me? I am begging you! Please, I could not sleep because you are all against me, and I feel bullied, threatened and insulted. This is not funny at all. Please stop your personal attacks against me. This is only what I ask. I want to be in security when I post to wikipedia without being harassed. Please stop, I will never go to your talk page again, I promise. Please. COULD A MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION?Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So far you are the only one harassing others and your accusations of others harassing, threatening, and insulting you have been entirely fabricated. Please provide diffs and quotes to prove your accusations or just stop putting words in others mouths. Case in point, Toddy did not 'like a Nazi incident'. Back up your statements or stop digging this hole deeper.--Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem? Did you even tried to read what I wrote? When did I say that he likes Nazi incidents?!?!?!?! I never said he liked the Nazi incident. I think my English is not good enough. This is not what I meant and it is not what I wrote... I am crying now... I just said that he wanted to see a connection between this article and this incident, and he'd liked to put it. I never wanted to say anything more. Please stop talking to me and I will never again go to your User page or post anything on Wikipedia. PLEASE STOP HARASSING AND BULLYING ME, AS YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW Your current comments about me are driving me crazy. COULD A MODERATOR STOP THIS DISCUSSION? I thought I could maybe get help hereCmoibenlepro (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro appears to think it is normal to accuse other editors of being vandals:

• In the most recent example (the one Cmoibenlepro has apologised to two out of the three other editors involved, whilst taking other to ANI)) Volunteer Marek added a link to an analogous incident in 1939. So Cmoibenlepro accused Volunteer Marek of vandalism. When I reverted Cmoibenlepro's deletion of the link, Cmoibenlepro accused me of vandalism and deleting content. But if you look at the edits, you can see that I did not remove content.[95] Strangely enough, that was what Cmoibenlepro did.[96] After I complained about the inappropriateness of the notice he/she put on my talk page, he/she wrote that I was trolling, and that this was a form of vandalism.[97]
• 23:25, 12 April 2014 misused vandalism template on Lvivske's talk page.

Not it was not misused, he was trolling with me at the moment, and he still his. Just look his bullying above. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• 17:42, 12 April 2014 "They were removed by a vandal called Lvivske" in edit summary

I did not know it was him. His signature is NOT Lvivske, but some text in Russian letters that I could not read. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• 04:34-40, 18 March 2014 misused vandalism template on Dl2000's talk page. The dispute was that Cmoibenlepro wanted the dates in US format instead of European format.

The 2014 Crimean Crisis page and the other pages about this subject use MDY format, so I wanted to be consistent. I did not think there was any reason to use the British date format. When it was reverted, I did NOT continue.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• 07:03, 17 March 2014 misused vandalism template on Iryna Harpy's talk page. Though he/she retracted this a minute later.
• I retracted because I realized I was wrong, and I was thanked by that user. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• 21:41, 3 March 2014 misused vandalism template on Psubrat2000's talk page

• It was NOT a misused vandalism template. He was pushing his POV by putting text like "Russians are nazis" so I removed that blatant spam. The problem was resolved. And now the article is clean.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the vandalism templates. In the case of Psubrat2000, you not only posted a message, but the vandalism-1, vandalism-2, and the vandalism-3 templates all at once.[98] So what exactly did Psubrat2000 do that you call vandalism - he/she posted edits using reliable sources. You are only supposed to use the vandalism templates for edits that are vandalism - not to attack people with who you have a political disagreement - because that was what you did. Furthermore, you are meant to start at vandalism-1, and gradually go up the scale to vandalism-4. The idea is to warn people, and give them a chance to stop. However, just like all your other victims, Psubrat2000 was not engaged in any kind of vandalism at all!--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Close

User Lvivske is, in my opinion, for which I apologize, not meaning to insult, a nationalist, prone to ownership, and a pain in the ass. That being said he's not a troll, and calling him a troll based on one editor's dispute with him is tendentious and not worth addressing. There are no diffs above supporting any administrative action. And "I am Iron Man" was a great retort, worthy of archiving if we have some sort of metapage on best wikiretorts ever. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that he is a PITA, that why this happened. If he remained civil and courteous it would not have happen.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So all the times you improperly posted warning messages on people's talk pages accusing them of vandalism were Lvivske's fault?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything's my fault, Tod. Not a single diff to back up all the things he claims I said but it's all just me being a pain in the ass that triggered this. --Львівське (говорити) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske thanks. For the first time I agree with you. A moderator should really close this discussion please.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps as a compromise we could get both banned. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Akhil300 using Wikipedia for political promotion

Akhil300 (talk · contribs) has been trying to use Wikipedia for promoting the Aam Aadmi Party ahead of India's election. He has been edit-warring to fill Aam Aadmi Party with electioneering puffery. He also included a puffed-up version of the article in his user page and his sandbox - I nominated those for CSD:G11 but he blanked them. He has recreated the puffed-up electioneering version of the article in his sandbox again, at User:Akhil300/sandbox. He is aware of the issues, as he has had warnings and CSD notifications on his talk page, which he has blanked - I shall now nominate his sandbox for deletion again and will notify him of this report, but he is clearly not here to help us build an encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the sandbox but as a WP:BLP violation and warned them for it as well. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an obvious sock, who has created User:Aam Aadmi Party/sandbox. The sock is blocked as a promotional username. I've just nominated the sandbox per G11 but that, too, is also a BLP violation. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And gone. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks folks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• And we've got another one, Mohamedalla (talk · contribs), adding the same electioneering and BLP violations to Aam Aadmi Party. Time for some protection measures? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  And he's edit warring over it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  It's been dealt with - thanks again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Akhil300 has engaged in userpage vandalism, too. They're a partisan incapable of being a good faith contributor. I'd recommend at least a temporary block. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Shayer2 - copyright violations

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've asked user Shayer2 to stop copy/pasting content from various copyrighted sources into the article Khaleda Zia. I reverted these 2 edits as they introduced large and multiple chunks copied from Banglapedia. I warned the user about copyvios after this. User restored that content and added more lifted content in these 3 edits. I issued a final warning. User then copy/pasted this content from this site. The content is referenced, but it's still not acceptable to copypaste this much content, and the user seems to need to hear this from someone other than me. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Update: After being notified that there was an ANI discussion about them, Shayer2 added two more edits here where they again copy/paste content with some really lazy attempts (minor phrase changes) to disguise the fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

174.57.156.12

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

---

This anonymous editor is repeatedly adding bizarre italics and bolding to Thomas & Friends articles: 1 2 3 4, for a few examples. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Long term problem, last block was for 6 months, I blocked for 9. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

Hi This may not be on the serious end of attacks, but since I made a proposal for an Infobox to be added to a page, one editor has insulted my quite a lot. The user Timeshift9 has made the following comments towards me:

• Evidently there are editors who can only read results if they're in infoboxes *snigger*
• You have dyslexia causing you to only read infoboxes? Wikipedia must be a real struggle for you
• Allow me to start and finish by saying this... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want
• Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say
• Countries on wikipedia often do things their own way. Wikipedia may be global but contributors and consensus are usually majority local

He appears to resent be editing the article because it is Australian and I'm not 'local'.

Infoboxes tend to be standard for election articles so I cannot understand the hostility. Please give me advice. LordFixit (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can edit articles. Consensus still applies though. You're flogging a dead horse, there's half a dozen oppose and only you support. It ain't happening. You've already claimed WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:VOTESTACKING. And as someone else said, "Gosh, how dare three people disagree with you? It must be canvassing! I mean, obviously you can't say that, because you can look at our contributions and see that no one has discussed it outside this page, but by all means throw the implication out there anyway. Or maybe they're all meatpuppets! Yes, multiple editors of more than six years in good standing are clearly throwing it all away over an infobox on a minor electoral article. It couldn't possibly be that other people have an interest in this article and disagree with you, now, could it? Perish the thought!". Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, still following me. I've answered these claims on the other post. LordFixit (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All those who oppose have a long history of Wiki friendship. I want some imput from other editors. LordFixit (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm allowed to follow you, especially when you start raising me on ANI without notifying me on my talk page. And perhaps have a look around to see who contributes the most to oz politics articles. Could it be the same names you're claiming "have a long history of Wiki friendship"? One's even an admin. Stop creating stories please. Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I did notify you. Not immediately, but shortly after and one minute before you posted this comment. I'm talking about people who claimed they would 'turn gay' for you and who constantly post on your talk page and your user page LordFixit (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You added it on my talkpage at 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC), I replied here first at 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC). And what are you saying, that contributors can't be friendly to each other? We disagree on many things up for discussion. Because we agree, we're in cahoots or something? Give the conspiracy theories a rest please. Timeshift (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the comment I'm allowed to follow you, especially when you start raising me on ANI without notifying me on my talk page. And perhaps have a look around to see who contributes the most to oz politics articles. Could it be the same names you're claiming "have a long history of Wiki friendship"? One's even an admin. Stop creating stories please was added at 01:22, the notification was on your page at 01:21. Will you admit that or not? LordFixit (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But my first comment here in reply to your ANI was at 01:18. Before you put the ANI notice on my talk page. Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the comment in which you accused me of failing to put the notice on your page was at 01:22, I put the notice on your talk page at 01:21. You are being misleading with due respect. LordFixit (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're correct with the first sentence, but not the second. I first replied here prior to you putting the ANI notice on my talkpage. Correct? Timeshift (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The dyslexia comment was unnecessary. Timeshift, would you consider striking this? It adds nothing to the discussion and can cause offence. LordFixit, thanks for raising this but the other comments don't immediately fall within the definition of personal attack, or are, as you noted, at the lower end. If you object to another editor's longterm conduct, you might consider a request for comment. Outside these you have an ongoing content dispute which is best resolved through seeking a consensus on the article talk pages. On what has been presented, its hard to see what other action is required. Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am here because I have User:Timeshift9's talk page on watchlist. LordFixit posted a complaint about Timeshift9 at Editor Assistance too, and here is what I said there: I was the one that posted the "go gay for Timeshift" comment on his talkpage. I have not been canvassed by Timeshift9 for the discussion about the Infobox. The "go gay" comment was meant in jest, referring to the fact that Timeshift9 and I had years of animosity on WP, but eventually managed to establish a constructive working relationship. Timeshift9 and I still often find ourselves on opposite sides of content disputes, most recently here: (click). --Surturz (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

...and what do you think the reaction of the other millions of people who read Wikipedia would be about that comment? DP 09:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Vociferous indifference, I expect, since the comment was on Timeshift9's talk page between August 2013 and March 2014 without complaint.[99] Did LordFixit trawl through Timeshift9's talkpage history to find the comment? As far as I can tell the infobox dispute with LordFixit only started early April[100] --Surturz (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. The comment (and others) shows profoundly poor judgement. It also raises the question of whether you are really impartial in content disputes between Timeshift9 and other editors (excluding yourself, obviously). It also is an insult of gay people to suggest sexuality is a choice that can be changed at will. LordFixit (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are taking that comment (section heading, actually) out of context. It occurs amid a reasonably heated discussion between the two of us about the Australian election.[101] The comment was meant to lighten the mood, and certainly not intended to offend; if anyone took offense at it I apologise unreservedly. I think editors should be allowed to be reasonably genial with other editors without incurring accusations of WP:CANVASS violations. --Surturz (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation by Vanamonde93, WP:COI

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

---

• Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already on 3 revert or more, in last 24 hours. User seems to be heavily engaged with WP:COI and violating WP:BLP for months on Narendra Modi. It has been discussed(Talk:Narendra_Modi#Jaffrelot_Christof.27s_report) that the report[102] had no criticism about the department of Narendra Modi, the whole report didn't even include a word like criticize or criticism, neither any other report/news has interpreted such report to be criticism. But this user always asserts that its a criticism, and his sole backup is some old discussion[103] which is unrelated with this BLP Violation. While Vanamonde93 says "I am unclear what is meant by "report" here", it becomes even more obvious that nobody had access to this report until 2013-2014, yet they would still misrepresent it.

Then this user claims that "The statement "he has been cleared of any wrongdoing" is a blatant NPOV violation, because no court has done any such thing." Contradictory with WP:RS or things that really happened[104], [105].

I think I can bring this user to number of content dispute related pages, like I had done before,[106] but this user is not going to reply, only going to edit conflict on these pages. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

During this whole period, it is only Darkness shines, who keeps pushing POV of Vanamonde93. Although he hasn't explained even once that why he is doing so. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you are wrong, and ignoring the archived conversations you have been pointed to, such as this and this. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

None of them proves the false interpretation of his report, that has been done in both lead and sub section. First of all, none of you even had the access of his report, so how you could even view that jaffrelot's report is a criticism? It is obvious that the source has been misused all time, by vanamond93. Biggest evidence is, that you would revert my change whenever I would correct the figures from that report[107], later you would write same thing on your talk page.[108] That his report mentioned gujarat ranking at 10th out of 21 states. Until yesterday it shown 21/28[109]. If we go by 'consensus' you are ignoring a total of 3 editors, but supporting only one who has deliberately failed to explain their opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? I have had access to that paper from the get go. As did Regentspark, who posted on the archived discussion I have linked to, as did Vanamonde93, who has told you that a lot. So stop making shit up. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Even If I agree. Answer me, why that reference was tagged with 'subscription required'[110]? Why you kept misinterpreting that line, "10 out of 21 states" as "21st out of 28 Indian states"?[111] Also why you are citing it for "However, his administration has also been criticized for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state." Which purely WP:SYNTH, and made up. Instead you could have written "However, according to Jaffrelot, the some groups in rural areas of Gujarat remains marginalized, while middle class families have highly benefited during his administration." It wouldn't be WP:SYNTH, maybe irrelevant for lead, but either way it wouldn't be a misinterpretation of source, or Violation of BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I was very scrupulous to avoid violating 3RR. Second, D4iNa4 insists on completely ignoring a very lengthy TP discussion that established consensus for exactly the content that he is objecting to. Contrary to his statements, there were 7 editors involved in that conversation, including an admin. Having been through that battle once, I did not intend to go through it again, but directed D4iNa4 to that conversation. They first denied its existence, then claimed it was not about the lead, and now appears to be saying that all those users are engaged in misrepresentation. Finally, I would point out that D4iNa4 did not notify me about this conversation, it was Darkness Shines who did so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Anon repeatedly removing maintenance template

An anonymous editor is repeatedly removing a maintenance tag from beside contested material the anon added at Royal tours of Canada, doing so until today while not engaging in the associated discussion at talk; doing so now after leaving only a dismissive comment at the talk page. This appears to be a blockable offence. Could someone consider this, please? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Growth of religion article.

I and User: Delibzr are having conflicts of editing on the article Growth of religion. User: Delibzr keep changing the lead and adding texts that I believe is a original research which as not supported by any third party reliable source. I tried to explain my points on User: Delibzr's talk page and the article's talk page[112]. I am not a much experienced editor and I think User: Delibzr is not too so requesting a proper neutral edit on the article from administrators. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows that asiantribune.com, patheos.com, wwrn.org, abs.gov.au are reliable sources. If they don't favor your wishes, it is certainly not my problem. You are on a wrong noticeboard, you should be at DRN. Delibzr (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say abs.gov.au is unreliable. You are again distorting my comments here too. I said for the asiantribune.com and the blog post from patheos.com. I also tried to explain you the original research you made which is not supported by any of the asiantribune.com, patheos.com, wwrn.org or abs.gov.au. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything is multiple in amount it can be referred as "number of" if you don't know english you should take english lessons. Even if you said that about Asiantribune and patheos, it is extremely incorrect. Thanks. Delibzr (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources only mention the country Australia and Ghana so you could have mention Australia and Ghana only but why you're concluding "number of" instead? Also, please, avoid personal attacks. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot mention all countries on lead. Delibzr (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Similarly you cannot mention all religions with no significant persistent growth rate in the lead. Also, you made another unconstructive edit here[113] by removing sourced material from the article. I doubt if you really took the time to read the sources. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was already added in later sections, so why it should be added to lead? When you remove every other religion from lead? You have to keep balance on lead. Delibzr (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to read WP:Lead again. Lead summarises the most important aspects and the overall trend is that Islam is the fastest growing religion with reference from very credible sources.Benfold (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I advise you to stop using this board as dispute resolution, and stop repeating yourself. According to WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It says "aspects", but you are only using it for a sole "aspect". And "lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view;" while you are only pushing subject, not any others anywhere on whole page, forget about just lead. Delibzr (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

See discussion between these users and myself on Talk:Growth_of_religion#Growth_of_religion. Seems to be misunderstanding about general editing policies. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't even know what is WP:LEAD and you talk about policies. Laughable. Delibzr (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also read WP:CIVIL. Your account is new, but you seem to know the policies so I would expect you know you should not make personal attacks. But I do know what LEAD says. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, and if you know about lead then why you trashed sourced content with reliable sources on the page? Delibzr (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to start attacking editors who disagree with your point of view. This is not good for a collaborative work. Benfold (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. I don't see any actionable request for administrative intervention (asking for an administrator to rule in a content dispute is clearly not that). So I suggest those involved look in to some form of WP:dispute resolution.

As an aside, from experience, most of the time if I come to ANI and see a long discussion but the main participants are those already involved in the dispute, this is usually a sign that one of 3 things will happen. 1) Nothing will happen and thread will be archived often without even much comment from uninvolved parties. 2) All of those involved are going to end up blocked (not so much because of the ANI thread but because it's a symptom of a wider problem. 3) One or more of the editors are going to leave the dispute because they grow tired of the argumentation. This may seem like the best outcome but it's generally not desirable, particularly when the obvious other alternative is for the editors to learn to work together and it's likely some of the editors not leaving are part of the problem.

The point of my aside above is that if you do have a genuine issue for ANI, there's usually no reason for a continous back and forth between existing participants when few outsiders have even commented. In fact it's unsurprisingly often harmful. And this extents to most other areas where you're asking for external participation of some sort.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. With EvergreenFir's involvement, it may be that there's no more need for outside help. However if the matter still can't be resolved or EvergreenFir decides not to participate further, it would be best to look in to some form of dispute resolution unless administrative intervention (blocking, protection, topic ban etc) is really needed and hopefully it doesn't come to that. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Behavior of Boeing720 at Landskrona BoIS

This whole disagreement is very silly, but user Boeing720 has been conducting himself in a manner that has caused me to feel that I cannot contribute to the Landskrona BoIS article. My attempts to clean up the tone and grammar of the article are consistently undone by Boeing720, and now he is resorting to simply reverting my edits (repeatedly, borderline edit warring), [114][115][116] despite the objections of User:Reckless182 [117]. He has also posted a disruptive edits warning on my talk page, quite unjustly I would think. I hope that someone can convince Boeing720 to allow edits of his writing, as at the moment continuing to edit this page is pointless as it will simply be undone by Boeing720, who seems to think he has some ownership over the page. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

These matters generally have two sides to them. I have warned Boeing720 for miscalling the edits of others as vandalism. Let us see how this plays out. --John (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The background to what has happened here, is that two other users, for a rather long time now, have attempted to destroy the history part of the article. Which I find to be well referenced and containing a University level composition and other good sources. Their so called "help" have included re-writing of the material in the way that statements needs references (that preaviously was sourced) aswell as unnecessarily shorten down the prehistory of the club. What led to a merging between two clubs and which other sport clubs that played importaint part of making football popular in Landskrona. Allegations of all kinds of "WP:THIS" , "WP:THAT" like the article being POV, aswell as harassment at my talk page. Especially one of them. Their intentions are disruptive, possibly due to the fact that the history part now has become longer than most history parts of Swedish sports clubs - or possibly that I don't think that history must be boiled down to table format. I wanted to tell the history of Landskrona BoIS by the use of available sources. When I've put destroyed part of the text back, I may have done it in an unconsciously wrong way. But it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the two "helpers". I have called for help by administrators in several ways now, and I thank You for your intervention. By the way, may I ask - is putting a headline to a certain time period POV, even if waht the headline states is sourced in the following part ? Like Helsingborgs IF history part (I'm not certain of how well referenced those headlineas are, bur assume they are). Reason one of the "helpers" states that it's POV to do so. Thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that User Reckless again has made disruptive edits in the first chapter of "History" (Wich I labeled as "Prehistory" but accepted "Roots of football in Landskrona"), He has removed lot of the essence of how the club emerged. The material had university level references. Also, I have two times before attempted to reach administrators (just didn't knew how), I'va asked User:DIRECTOR (wich atleast I believed to be an administrator) and administrator Jhunterj, long time before Reckless involved You. I have asked for arbitration of some kind. I think Reckless is vandalising the article. Boeing720 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In history file he states "let's try this again now that an admin has established that the edit wasn't vandalism"- but Your comment wasn't about his edits but the wrongful way that I reverted the text. It is at the very least a Warring from his side. Last line is "Diana also had a strong youth program, and a formal leadership structure, both things that another Landskrona club, IFK Landskrona, lacked.[citation needed]". As the text was written before the "citation needed" wasn't needed. He has also removed a picture. I suupose his next step will be a flag "this article needs better sources" (or whatever it states). Can You see my problem ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons of clarification, what I have considered to be POV in the section titles have been titles such as "1924–42 Well established in Allsvenskan", "1942–54 An instable period", "1980's and early 1990's Mostly a dull period", "1994–1996 Financial disorder led to dubble relegations" and "The third millenium - a good start". I am not in any way saying that it is POV to describe the section title with a good title, I have even proposed alternative titles for Being, but he has disregarded these immediately. What Boeing doesn't seem to understand is that the POV issue in the article is not only in the section titles but all over the article. I have made numerous attempts to explain this to Boeing but he ends up always referring back to the section titles. The last edit I made after the John's conclusion is not in any way "disruptive". I simply restored Swedishpenguin version of the article which Boeing previously had called "vandalism". The accusation that me and Swedishpenguin have harrased Boeing720 is preposterous. See here and here for examples of Boeing720 ill temperament. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are a couple of examples of Boeing720's edit warring, some with inappropriate edit comments: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My intentions with this article have never been harmful. I am the co-founder of the Sweden task force at WikiProject Football and therefore I care for all articles regarding Swedish football. I noticed how the prose and section title of the article were very much biased from out of a supporter perspective. There I put a POV tag at the top of the article to warn readers since I didn't have time to fix the issue myself (I am currently writing my masters thesis). At first I didn't specify the issue further at the talk page which I should have done. In a later stage I have proposed numerous examples of POV issues in the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see that You ever had have any good intentions regarding the history section of Landskrona BoIS. Whatever task-force You may be in, what has that got to do with the article ?. If Your intentions are good, howcome you then shorten down the pre-history part to almost nothing ? And now You have also removed the IFK Landskrona photo (You have even admitted that old photos pubished in Sweden are public domain, but just stated that the "limit" is 1944 not 1967. But the photo in question is undoubtedly far older than both, which You also can see in the university level source http://www.svif.net/dokument/%2001%20Andersson.pdf. And like I stated before why make an "improvement" that includes [citation needed] , you have simply added an unsourcered claim that "Diana also had a strong youth program, and a formal leadership structure, both things that another Landskrona club, IFK Landskrona, lacked." This is not stated in the source. Reguarding the latter team, the source mainly states that they brought players to the new club.

So you make assumptions that is not included in my version. And finish with a [citation needed] - do you really call that "help" ? And since you have flagged the article with POV / Souce Improvements time after time, I find it even more strange (if your intention really is "to help"). There is also the academical question of the use of "white/blue collar" instead of common "Middle class" and "Working class", like the source states. So why change it ? Especially non-native-English speakers are very likely to not understand. But plausable also native speakers of the English language. If it was only up to minor differencies like "economical disaster" [for the club] vs "close to bankrupcy" we could have agreed. But since You not even can explain how Helsingborg IF history headlines not are POV, while any Landskrona BoIS headline is. Then it gets very hard to believe your "good" intentions. While as I have kept me to good sources, and your "help" has never been needed, not under the history section anyway. Boeing720 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove any photos on purpose, I simply restored Swedishpenguin's version of the article. He shortened down the pre-history since most of it was of no relevance to the article. You had written a lot of material concerning the history of sport in Landskrona, not history regarding the club Landskrona BoIS. Also there was some concerns of some sentences regarding social class. We really shouldn't get into a political debate in an article about football. A previous edition which you wrote also had a strong bias against the Swedish media, without any references entirely. I restored Swedishpenguin's version of the article since I fully support it, don't accuse me of anything else. As I told you once before, I would love to see the article as a featured article, but with your persistence of not letting anybody help you with POV issues and language issues then the quality of the article will remain very poor. And please, please stop bringing up Helsingborg, Yes I agree with you that the sections are POV, but we are discussing the article about Landskrona BoIS here. Just because one article is of poor quality doesn't mean another one has to as well. I have been involved in several featured article and featured list reviews so I know what it takes for an article to achieve top quality. Trust me when I say that this particular article is in very poor condition due to several POV concerns as well as pace and language concerns. The article would benefit very much from a clean-up from a more experienced such as Swedishpenguin, the problem is that you falsely accused him of vandalism when he improved the quality of the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood it once, but the only reason that I mentioned feutered articles was, as you have known for a while now, that writing history must not be reduced to "data stackin" - it can be telled (including adjectives where appropriate). As an example of this, I mentioned that excellent prose is a demand for getting an article feutered. I have never stated that I've intended to get Landskrona BoIS article feutered (among less than 0,1 % of all articles). But I still want to tell the full story of Landskrona BoIS. Another thing - I've never used phrases that includes lauging at You or Swedpenguin - but you both have. I have kept my criticism at the level of the article, not person. You have though (mis)used your superior knowledge of WP:MATTERS and how to do things, in order to make the article less useful for the readers. Boeing720 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Now (23:40 CEST) everyone can judge for themselves, which early history part of Landskrona BoIS that is the better. Boeing720 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, articles should be written in storytelling fashion, but an article at Wikipedia is also of encyclopaedic art. Therefore, as Wikipedia's second pillar so clearly states: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Landskrona BoIS is clearly not written from a neutral point of view, it is written from a supporter point of view. You do not own the article about Landskrona BoIS, so if I or any other editor would like to increase the quality of the article we should be able to do so without you accusing us of being vandals. Even if you do not strive for the article to be a featured article in the future, me and several other would certainly want to. I think, like everything else in life, that we should always strive for the best. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Boeing720 has yet again reverted the changes of me and Swedishpenguin. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Problems With Mrm7171

@Atama:@Mrm7171: I complained here about Mrm7171’s behavior toward me[118], and I’m back because the problem persists. Here’s what Atama told them after he almost banned them.

"But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"

Since then Mrm7171 has not been leaving me alone, but has been going to articles that I have been heavily editing and they have not, such as Musculoskeletal disorder and Organizational Behavior, arguing, challenging on talk pages, and undoing my edits.

MSD article. I removed I/O psychology from see also list because it is not relevant and there is no information about MSDs in the I/O article. [119] Mrm7171 restored it without explanation of why it is relevant. [120] Mrm7171 deleted another of my edits on 4/2/14, and challenged on talk page with long discussion. [121] [122] Then continued on Atama’s talk page [123] (see end of this section).

Organizational Behavior. They add discussion of I/O psychology (using a synonym of organizational psychology to the lede [124] I moved it to the history section because the sentence is about history [125] and they put it back in the lede [126]. I tried again because now there’s redundancy, [127] and they put it back in [128], and then add even more [129], then add a reference where they misquote the source [130]. They argue on the talk page, and now are accusing me of being hostile (see also my explanation of what Jex & Britt actually said). [131]. When I made my original complaint I pointed out examples of Mrm7171 relying on personal opinion, primary research, and misquoting of sources, so this is not an isolated instance of that sort of thing.

The Organizational behavior article contains a journal list [132] that I have actively edited but did not create. Here it is before I arrived [133] I worked on a similar list in the Human resource management article taking it from [134] to [135]. I last worked on the list on April 12, and the next day they are here challenging the legitimacy of the list. [136] [137] The merits of Mrm7171’s points about the lists or these other issues are not why I am here. The issue is that they agreed to leave me alone, and here they are coming to articles I am very actively editing and editing my edits, and then challenging me on the talk page, and making accusations of bias and hostility. Here they accuse me of systemic bias[138].

I believe that much of the problem arises because Mrm7171 seems to be going out of their way to promote Industrial/Organizational Psychology by putting mention into article after article, often in articles where there is little or no connection, and then getting into conflicts when other editors try to modify, move, or remove mentions. Here’s a sample [139][140][141] [142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159]Psyc12 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seriously had enough of this baseless reporting by psyc12 here on the admin noticeboard and now consider it a personal attack, rather than psyc12 trying to engage in consensus building, as we all should try and do. I resent these titles "problems with mrm7171 in an attempt to discredit me! I find this completely offensive and psyc12 using Wikipedia's resources in this way. I gather psyc12 is also a professional in the field and there are a few major articles we obviously share common interest in. For the record, I have edited a lot of articles and take time out of my own professional life as many editors do, to contribute to the project. Please see my entire edit history over the past 14 days for instance in all articles I have edited. I have made very positive contributions to Wikipedia and continue to do so. I completely stand by that. I also have not harassed psyc12 in any way. There are a number of articles they have edited, and I have no history on. Most of the articles they talk about I had an original edit history on. I am sick to death of having to defend myself here quite frankly. Psyc12 is trying to scare me away from these major articles so they can edit solely how they like. Reporting me here again, for no reason is another example of this. I therefore counter this report with my own report of being personally attacked by psyc12 posting this here on ANI and not engaging in civil, cooperative consensus building! I resent the disrespect and lack of civility by reporting me here! and resent psyc12 dragging up the past and throwing it in my face here on the public noticeboard!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I also do not add I/O psychology indiscriminately as Psyc12 states. In fact, many articles I have edited, I have not included I/O psychology in The articles I have included I/O psych are relevant and well placed and of benefit to the reader! And I should say are solely based on Wikipedia policy.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Providing some evidence to my counter claim here, I just looked at Psyc12's edit history and articles they have edited over the past 14 days. The vast majority of these articles they have worked on, I have no edit history on. Starting with occupational health psychology then Work–family conflict, work accident, social psychology, accident, turnover (employment), job analysis, stress (psychological), repetitive strain injury, Epicondylitis and others. I have stayed well clear of Psyc12 on all of these articles, contrary to their claims above. Only on major articles, as I have said earlier, like management, HRM, and organizational behaviour, where we obviously have similar professional interests, have we had any interaction. I should also note I had previous edit history on those articles, before psyc12 came along. On those articles I have interacted in a civil, courteous manner with psyc12 at all times. I have also, as promised to Atama, that I stay well clear of any occupational health psychology articles. Please see my edit history as proof of this too. I also told Atama I would not bring up psyc12's COI issues again and I have not done so. Not once.

Also please refer to the editing work I have done on many different articles in the past couple of weeks for instance, where no overlap of interests apply and I have added value to the project. Why can't psyc12 try and interact in a civil manner on the few articles there is some overlap instead of posting here as soon as I have tried to engage in much needed, civil consensus building on these few articles where edits had been needed. That is what Wikipedia is all about, I thought? I have looked recently at the legitimate postings here of serious cases of Wikipedia breached protocols, where editors are being accused of racism, open verbal abuse, even threats of violence, repeated sockpuppetry and gaming the system, tag teaming, article ownership, edit warring, vandalism, copyright violations, blatant conflicts of interest, legal threats against Wikipedia and others etc etc etc and I literally cringe when I see psyc12 so flippantly posting me here on this page, again, simply because, on a few major articles of overlap recently, I have tried to make some much needed edits that they obviously don't like. And instead of psyc12 trying to engage in civil consensus building they run straight over here instead and present a very distorted presentation of the actual circumstances.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Per my very strongly suggested good reading essay WP:ANI Advice #16, would you two quit bickering at each other? You've already bashed each other in other places. This isn't the place to continue talking to each other. Wait for someone else to intervene and ignore each other here until then. It doesn't matter which if you is right, your dispute will get no result satisfactory to you if you can't control yourself.--v/r - TP 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I thought things had settled down after a discussion on my user talk page where I'd suggested that the problem at Musculoskeletal disorder wasn't whether OHP or I/O issues where more relevant, the problem was that the article wasn't actually about the disorder itself but about how it related to the workplace and other tangents. I think that only temporarily deflected the underlying problem (at best). Clearly there are still unresolved issues. :( I'm worried about parties on both sides of this conflict, see my comment on my talk page where I worry about myopia from all three of the editors involved in these conflicts (people who are all well-intentioned but probably too focused on their specific fields and viewpoints). -- Atama頭 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a problem with editors following each other to articles. For example, a quick look at some recent editing shows that Mrm7171 first started editing Repetitive strain injury, Musculoskeletal disorder, Stress (psychological), Leadership and Management since this issue was last at AN/I, and always very shortly after Psych12 had edited the articles. It may be that they are both editing the same general areas, and it may also be that there are cases where others may have followed Mrm7171 to articles, but there is cause for some concern. Perhaps stronger sanctions on all parties will be needed. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Page with no citations

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

---

Greetings: While following picture links from Wikimedia Commons, I came across this page GeraldPinkenburg from Dutch Wikipedia. Looking at the page history here, I see that there are at least two editors who might be the subject himself, by name. The first editor who started the page was contacted by another editor with suggestions on how to improve, but the article still has no citations. It is possible that the anon. editor "80.187.97.168" is also the same user. The initial edit included a weblink to the subject's webpage, so I'd like to suggest this is probably a vanity page created by one someone with more than one account. Thank you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Dutch Wikipedia is not in the area of control here, this is only the English language Wikipedia and people here have no authority over another language version of the project. You'll need to contact people over there about it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that we don't have any authority over the German wikipedia either (which is what you linked to, not the Dutch). Also if you do want to ask the German wikipedia about this, you may want to tell them what accounts you're referring to. You only named one account here and an IP address/anonymous editing. Looking at the page history I don't see any other accounts likely associated with this person. Note that editing with an IP address is not only not editing with an account, it may not be a violation of policy either to fail to log in to edit an article you've edited before with your account if it's not done for bad reasons (but I don't know the German wikipedia's particular policy on this). Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Razvanus

The user persistently attempts to push a confused sentence at Moldovans. Attempts at dialogue end in failure. Judging by this outburst, this is a clear case of WP:BATTLEGROUND in dire need of administrative intervention. --illythr (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The user "illythr" delete my posts at article Moldovans. This is not normally does it. I don`t delete nothing of any users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvanus (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Razvanus: Oh really? What do you call [160] and [161]? Illythr and Razvanus, please take this to Talk:Moldovans. Anon126 (not an administrator) (talk - contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I already took it to their talk page. The reaction made it pretty clear that taking it anywhere else but here is pointless until an admin makes them realise that at least some Wikipedia rules need to be honored 'ere the Light of Truth may be shone in its articles. --illythr (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To editors Illythr and Razvanus: I specifically recommended the article talk page so you could get some outside input on the content. But I think an administrator should comment on this ANI thread, anyway. Anon126 (talk - contribs) (not an administrator) 22:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* I added a discussion topic to the talk page. Not holding my breath there - discussing content is not possible when there's a demonstrable lack of interest in such a discussion by the pushing party. I mean, sure, other users may revert him and eventually get him procedurally blocked for violating 3RR, but the whole point of creating this thread is to avoid the senseless revert warring by having an admin head it off. --illythr (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73

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

---

Admin user Sergecross73 with no proof using needle in haystack logic block my original account "Potatoechip" for false block evasion.

He is sketchy as well, mention spirit check but won't do it because he will get in trouble for blocking me false. Some one needs to Remove him. Potatoechipplus (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakandsig. This is yet another of a month-spanning sockpuppet. Common traits include:

1. Creating the account minutes after the latest accounts had a confirmed checkuser investigation. (See link above.)
2. Editing the same articles, (Underdog/underselling video game consoles, like Sega Saturn and Sega CD.
3. You also made sloppy additions to the opening sentences of any article, another thing Jak did.

There's nothing to see here, though if someone wants to start up the 5th investigation to fully confirm the 20 to 30th sock here, by all means, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to note after this was removed by a different editor it was readded by 198.228.195.8. I think that address should be checked out as well since that does not seem to be a coincidence.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Eugen Simion 14 - longterm edit warring, hostility, refusal to discuss issues

I lurk the Google Street View (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article often to see what the latest updates are, and Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the primary contributors to this article. He's a very diligent editor, but going by the page's edit history, there's been an ongoing problem for quite a long time where he seems to be completely unreceptive to discussion when something is the slightest bit controversial. He has demonstrated his ability to use talk pages, and has told people to start discussions during controversy, but does not seem to respond whenever others try to communicate with him.

Going back through the edit history of this article over the past year and a half, and its associated article Timeline of Google Street View (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Eugen has been in many edit wars ([162], [163], [164]), in some of which he has quietly violated 3RR in ([165], [166]). The main controversies, among others, have been a mention of partial coverage of the West Bank, which he repeatedly and vehemently reverted earlier in 2013 ([167]). It did eventually stay, but he again violated 3RR later on over keeping Template:Flag beside it on the list of countries which others (including myself) were adding for visual consistency. These have since stopped (possibly due to a discussion attempt), but edit wars over petty issues still appear to happen - most recently, a dispute over whether the announcement of a future inclusion to Google Street View was considered official or unofficial.

Eugen is uncivil towards other editors, too; he's often used personal attacks in his edit summaries ([168], [169], [170]), referred to valid edits as vandalism ([171], [172]), and has occasionally, out of the blue, threatened the contributors of good faith edits with blocks or references to their block history ([173], [174]) despite his own record which includes edit warring and sockpuppetry.

Although the more controversial incidents are rare, Eugen hasn't shown any indications of improving his behavior. Given his checkered history on Wikipedia, I would like an admin's comment on these issues. His contributions are generally good but his attitude, failure to collaborate properly, and WP:OWN vibes are not model examples of how one should be handling edits that they object to. ProtossPylon 01:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

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

---

I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples:

• DYK nomination for Tripedalia cystophora
• DYK nomination for Euglossa dilemma
• AfadsBad's talk page My name and reputation gets dragged into a discussion where the subject is something else entirely. User HalfGig was also harassed and stopped editing after this incident.
• AfadsBad's talk page again I ask for guidance on my errors but do not receive it.

The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar". Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I am not going to read all this. "Underemployed scholar?" Lol.

Anyway, Cwmhiraeth cannot accurately place information in Wikipedia, and her level of knowledge is frequently too low to communicate what is wrong to her, like why C4 and CAM photosynthesis have different names. Every article of hers has made up information, inaccurate information, random pieces of information that give undue weight to what she has added, and plagiarism. Her main sources are usually too old, and she cannot overcome the problems of the disagreements between 1963 taxomony books and advances in modern biochemistry. She does not repair articles when she can understand what is wrong, and continues adding the same errors.

Go ahead, check her articles against their sources. "Tropical Southern Ocean," "no cacti have leaves," "CAM and C4 photosynthesis are identical," the sea disaster corrected after it was off the main page.

Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, it is surprising that Wikipedia editors and admins would fight to keep 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia with made up science and taxonomies in them and want to continue adding them.

WikiCup Ahoy! And onward Essjay! Or whatever his name was, he has good company with WikiScholar Cwmhiraeth. Her articles are passed and passed to the main page based on the strength of her having written so many, she doesn't claim expertise, but Wikipedia editorial superiority over the "underemployed scholar." Expertise exhibited. Taxonomy for Dummies, anyone?

Correcting bad science is harassment? So what is making up 1300+ main page articles for probably millions of hits, replacement of accurate science in Google search results with fantasy taxonomies, and making a mockery of an encyclopedia?

And Colonel Henry demanding that intrusive liquid metasediments intruding imaginary rocks is a Good Article?

You don't need experts, just qualified ninth graders.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates WP:NPA. However frustrated you might be with a user, do not under any circumstances patronize him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of AfadsBad's critiques of DYK science content being very well founded. Mind you, AN/I probably is hardly the right venue for that discussion. (I'd suggest Wikipedia:Editor review or an WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.

As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for Desert and this is the response I got, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" The chunks of text I removed was misinformation; it is not true that all cactic don't have leaves, and no sources said that. I removed the misinformation about C4 plants being just like CAM plants, and Cwmhiraeth reverted the removal and claimed that it was true, again. And, in addition, also claimed that this information was sourced. She does not listen to corrections, and the only reason she is paying attention now is because of her claims, and now yours, about my "shitty way of bringing things up." Does any one on Wikipedia care that the content is wrong? I tried just stating that it was wrong. I was insulted and scolded as if I was an incompetent child interfering with someone's owned article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.

The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.

I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

  I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."

If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her wikihounding at the project, and the offsite harassment. Correcting an error or discussing an error is one thing...but AfadsBad's behavior, especially the counterproductive incessantly-repeated ranting and attempts to drive away editors (WP:CTDAPE), is downright bullying and abusive. I would propose some sanction also if AfadsBad keeps rehashing the same argument--it's old, it's tiresome-- she's said over five times and is older than two months (i.e. water under the bridge)--since most of her complaints have been repeated to anyone who would listen and happened last year (rehashing old shit is bad form to begin with...rehashing it as an attack is disruptive and a waste of anyone's time).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor and the commentary I saw at Cas Liber's page and User:AfadsBad as it appears today suggests a level of personal attacks that is over the top. This sort of thing is unacceptable; people can disagree over content without behaving like this. Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly no good reason nor intention from AfadsBad when User:AfadsBad directly names and shames User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know. Something must be done to stop AfadsBad from acting as so. starship.paint "YES!" 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out to Cwmhiraeth three days ago at the Editor Review that she added the following information to Desert in May 2013: "Cold deserts can be covered with snow or ice for part of the year; frozen water unavailable to plant life. They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica. The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F) ..." and that this information was false. Her response to me did not acknowledge the problem, and she has not seen fit to correct the article. (If you don't understand why the information in the desert article is so wrong, look up Godthab#Climate, Qaanaaq#Climate, Cape_Dorset#Climate, or take a look at File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png.)

So for most of the past year, the article desert has contained information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts that is completely false. Even when it has been pointed out directly to Cwmhiraeth, she has not corrected it. She also didn't correct a misleading citation I pointed out to her. I think it is fair to say that she is not very responsive to criticism, and in a collaborative project, that is a problem. Assuming AfadsBad's statement "she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct" refers to Cwmhiraeth, it is an accurate description of what I see happening.

The desert article is rated as a Good Article, and attracts around 100,000 views a month. It is one of Wikipedia's 3,000 most viewed articles. Since the false information about the winter temperature in cold deserts was added, the article has seen around a million page views. If it hadn't been for AfadsBad's criticism, this would not have come to light. Now I would like to ask everyone who commented here to think seriously about who serves Wikipedia's reading and donating public, and indeed this project's fundamental goals, better – AfadsBad or the editor who added this and other false information to Wikipedia and shows little inclination to acknowledge that there is any problem? Andreas JN466 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, the statement you make above is very misleading. In my review, you made a number of comments on the Desert article and I responded to most of them, but not to the one you mention above. This was because the information was cited in the article. It was not until several hours after you wrote the post above that you looked at the article, saw the statement was sourced and added "unreliable source" tags and I have now dealt with the issue. On my editor review page you then apologized to me and hid the discussion under an "I misunderstood" heading. Why did you not also retract your accusation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, still, there will still be consequences for off wiki harassment and NPA violations, regardless of the quality of their edits. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says a user who has been here for just about two months and has had his user page revision-deleted by an arbitrator. Good show. Andreas JN466 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas, This comment is confusing, what are you trying to get across? What should I do? Could you explain your advice? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, was there any reason for you to attack Happy Attack Dog? It seems rather suspicious that you resorted to Ad hominem. HAD's rev-dels were apparently done to suppress revealing personally-identifiable information, by the way. starship.paint "YES!" 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Much like me, Andreas is unimpressed about a child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor. — Scott • talk 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if a "child" can talk sense, why should I discount his opinion? You've made yourself look much worse with your comment and edit summary of Adults are talking. starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That was completely uncalled for, Scott. There's been enough mudslinging in this thread as it is. Let's keep it objective here and stick to what we know: Cwmhiraeth has charged AfadsBad with harassment, and there is evidence that while AfadsBad has some good points she could, to say the least, communicate them much more politely. Anger doesn't help a situation like this; let's refrain from slinging childish insults at each other and focus on the matter at hand - improving articles to reflect the truth. LazyBastardGuy 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to someone who calls himself "LazyBastardGuy", pointing out that someone is a child is a personal attack. I can't wait for the next Through the Looking-Glass style revelation that emerges from this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, a "child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor". Your use of "child" was inappropriate, and I do not care about the age of the editor in question (your use was more of a reference to immaturity than actual age). As for my username, it's a reference to me, not to you, not to anyone else. And trust me, the irony of it is not lost on me in this situation (I would have been a fool to expect no comment on it). Maybe if we could all step back from name calling and not care who is doing what, we could then look at the situation rationally and focus on the main ideas I've outlined above your post. I'm done here and if I were you I wouldn't respond to this so as to avoid the appearance of trying to WP:WIN. LazyBastardGuy 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The only way I could "win" would be if I could magically remove all the crud Cwmhiraeth has added to Wikipedia, retroactively, so that thousands of children of "Happy Attack Dog"'s age group could have been spared from being exposed to it. — Scott • talk 18:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Per your points above, LBG, that I could have communicated my points more politely. When I did, Cwmhiraeth scolded me for messing up the format when I removed one piece of bad science (so, formatting is a much more important policy than verifiability?), reverted me on a second piece of bad science I had removed, restoring it to one of en.Wikipedia's mostly highly accessed articles, and ignored everything else I said. How polite am I expected to be in the face of clear evidence that Cwmhiraeth has ownership issues with articles she writes and does not take to editors making corrections on her articles? I have been pointing out her errors for months now. She is upset and considers this harrassmnt. But she doesn't see any need to correct her errors. Pointing out errors politely failed. Pointing out errors in a straight-forward manner failed.

Does verifiability and accuracy matter at all to the encyclopedia? Another editor, below, points out that Cwmhiraeth obviously and repeatedly and problematically makes exactly the types of errors I claim she makes. They are not discrete, occassional or difficult to catch. They are howlers. And she has over 1300 articles full of errors she will not correct. One GA requires a reassessment, a FA required extensive rewriting of its howlers while and after appearing on the main page, and yet another is being rewritten during her editor review. Is she making the corrections? A few, but mostly she is focused on writng more articles in the race to the WikiCup, and they all have the same sort of errors. I think en.Wikipedia culture and especially its WikiCup and DYK subcultures make it impossible to correct a "popular" editor, because the culture favors social relationships built by insiders over accuracy and encyclopedic content. :::::::::::En.Wikipedia has an essay about experts that diminishes and scolds experts to show the supposed superiority of Wikipedia's content delivery system over other encyclopedias, warning experts not to rely upon personal opinion, and that their information must not be OR and must be verifiable. It appears these rules apply to experts, but not Cwmhiraeth. There is no method that will get Cwmhiraeth to correct her howlers, politely pointing out errors was dismissed and scolded, while the errors were returned to en.Wikipedia or ignored. Are we writing an encyclopedia here? Not around those 1300 articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

I won’t comment on any of your interactions with other editors, but I will say this: Take a deep breath and relax; now an editor review is open and things are getting done. I hope it is to everyone’s mutual satisfaction; we’re moving forward, hopefully, to what the end result should be and should have been all along. LBG out. LazyBastardGuy 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the end result being 1300 bad articles that fail verifiability and fly in the face of policies on OR and SYN remaining on Wikipedia, uncorrected, and the next editor who notes a problem wiith the science also being told, "Hold your breath little girl, you're too tense." As if this is the only problem. A GA was promoted full of nonsense, imaginary rocks and time travel. I was told the editor had followed rules in promoting it, so it could not be delisted even though it was far worse than a hoax. A Featured Pcture was promoted that contradicts the article, pic or article is either wrong or unsourced or pure OR. I noted this at the FP selection template, but the picture was promoted anyway, because consensus on en.Wikipedia is a majority vote, and, again I find that verifiability is the lowest policy on Wikipedia. There is no method for an editor to safely remove a scientifc mistake fom Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth is not correcting the mistakes she knows about, she is creating more. That is the end result, another thousand mistake-ridden articles gracing en.Wikipedia's main page to follow the last thousand she put there. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light.

Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopia^speak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the most sensible post on this debacle so far. Andreas JN466 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet, as obvious and glaring as her errors are, they require that Wikipedia spend thousands of hours pointing out every one of them, instead of her stopping with their creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yes, but moaning won't help. As far as I can tell, you're right on the science; you just need to decide whether you care enough to do something about it here, on Wikipedia, or not. If you want her to stop creating these articles, draft an RfC/U with the appropriate evidence and make a case for a topic ban. Or simply walk away, leave Wikipedia to its devices, and contact editors of science journals. Andreas JN466 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. It is especially obvious the editor review is a waste of time, although I will post a list there. Many other editors have seen and can see the glaring errors in her articles, but Cwmhiraeth is content to create more, and the community is content to let her. Verifable, accurate science articles, that are not OR and not odd syntheses of random facts and factoids are not wanted on en.Wikipedia, and my moaning and groaning about the crud will have no impact until en.Wikipedia demands competence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Harassment ok now? Need sanctions on editor

Whatever the content problems, I can't help but wonder why this harassment hasn't been dealt with quickly per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and anything else that might apply. Off wiki harassment wise, I see on her blog User:AfadsBad has a number of posts about user Cwmhiraeth. Why not just change the section title and content to: Feel free to trash editors/admins/arbitrators offline if the policy is not enforced? The editor needs some sanctions til she admits it's bad behavior and stops it permanently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore WP:Verifiability should be added first, it's a higher pilar. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here or elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like this, this, this, this or this. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. Andreas JN466 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that. (Will check the links.) Are you talking about Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment which is linked from Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment? So we can criticize away on our personal blogs as long as we don't link to it from wikipedia or "out" others ourselves? Even ones you are forbidden to interact with on wikipedia? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Mostly conjectoral/rethorical question. Not something I would do myself, but it could get annoying and feel like harassment if others did it to me more frequently than they already done. I have seen two editors using their user names say nasty things about me on one of the Wikipedia-critical sites (one now site banned for other reasons, another who stopped editing a year or so ago). And an anonymous non-Wiki user with off wiki issues trashed me repeatedly about Wikipedia on his personal blog (someone was blocked recently for linking to one of his posts about me). So I have to have sympathy with Cwmhiraeth. Plus it's not the sort of thing we want to encourage Wikipedia wide and at the least should be considered a negative factor when looking at the whole picture, which I think the harassment policy makes pretty clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad no one will ever be blocked for creating 1300 unverifiable articles. The criticism on my blog is largely content criticism, but, I do mention the editors who create the content. I have problems with the WikiCup which appears to create an atmosphere that encourages promotion and front page dispay of articles full of made up science. Did you create bad articles, filled with unverifiable nonsense, then revert and scold the editor who removed the nonsense? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Actually we do want to encourage people to pay attention to bad science in articles, as well as editors who cause issues in multiple articles. It is not harrassment to look at, and point out an editors errors in detail when they show a pattern. The relevant quote from the harrassment policy (hounding subsection) would be Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. From the evidence at the review its becoming quite clear there are related problems on multiple articles. Well, a related problem. Perhaps next time pay attention to the whole of the policy rather than the specific bits you want to sanction someone for. The harrassment policy is designed to prevent people from being unduly harrassed. It is *not* a shield to hide behind when you come under the spotlight for your bad editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and the incessant repeating of vitriolic harangues and browbeating to anyone anywhere who would listen with few genuine efforts to correct problems. If AfadsBad worked like a little gnome to correct errors and actually contributed to the greater pool of knowledge no one would be having this conversation. Instead, she has the kindness of a rabid hyena and can't stop sounding like a broken 45. If Cwmhiraeth made errors, fine, she's working in good faith and if approached in the ideal spirit of Good Will that Wikipedia prefers (as I've experienced working with her), she would work to correct the record. However, AfadsBad doesn't have an ounce of good will in her, and in eight months of constant harassment, hasn't done much to "fix unambiguous errors" or "correct related problems". Just ranting and obsessive attacks. Thus, sanctions are not just appropriate--they are sorely overdue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Do you think Cwmhiraeth will correct all of the errors in her 1300 article contributions? When? She does not seem to be able to correct the errors in five articles in a week. Say 2 days/article, a couple of years from now, while those articles stay on Wikipedia? The Desert schtick is old? How come editors are still having to correct her errors in the article? What would really make the schtick old is if the errors had ben corrected. They haven't. It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. You should feel free to correct them yourself, if being here so I can talk about them bothers you. Better yet, she could correct them while stopping to add more. It is an encyclopedia, after all. And competence is required. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Laugh all you want. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project--one person adds, another adds more or subtracts a little, etc., until eventually it's polished. If you don't intend to contribute, then why are you here? If you only exist to sit on the sidelines and scream at the participants but never played the game yourself... well, I could find some colourful metaphors for "go home" that would not be in good faith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. WP:SOFIXIT exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

When you discover an oil spill which is the better fix a) mop up the mess day after day, or b) shut off the faucet? John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried. She reverted, scolded and told me that she owned the articles and would do as she pleased. And, Cwmhiraeth is well supported in this, in keeping her 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia, on its main page, in its FA and GA queues. SOFIXIT doesn't really allow for battling a popular incompetent editor. She wins. Even you are supporting her, Bushranger, by saying the problem is not her writing 1300 bad articles, by saying that WP:Verifiability is trumped by WP:SOFIXIT, and the real problem is my not fixing them. Lol. You don't have to be competent to write Wikipedia articles, because fixing your incompetent edits is someone else's job? 8 months telling her, and she continues to add hundreds more bad articles, and it's now my job to fix all 1300 of them? It's taking her a week to partially fix five of her articles. Why don't you go fix 650, then, when you're done, I'll begin working on the other 700. Meanwhile, she'll create more. And, Wikipedia's reputation as a source will continue to plummet. Editors will question, rightly, whether they need to have verifiable articles, whether they can just fake or make up what the source says, whether they can just mix and match a bunch of different things picked randomly, carelessly, and inaccurately from sources and call it a DYK or GA or FA. Yes, look, Cwmhiraeth does that, and look at this ANI thread, and this editor review, all these people know she does it, and she wins awards and praise for it. Everyone should just do that. And, then, if anyone questions the incompetency, tell them to go fix it! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You keep bantering around that number 1,300 like it's a real statistic...so far you've complained about maybe a dozen articles, maybe 15 at most. So while you harp on about bad science, maybe you should consider bad statistics...in the vein of knowing 500% of statistics are exaggerated, put up the facts and stop the rhetoric. If you have a list of 1,300 articles with their errors, put it up. Instead of bitching and complaining and repeating yourself over and over and over again....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Identify the specific errors succinctly (no rhetoric), fix them yourself, or go back to your day job pushing a mop at walmart and be a intolerable miserable curmudgeon on your own time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you had me working as a night clerk at WalMart, now I mop floors days, too? In spite of all this work, I can still spot those science errors, like the imaginary rock formations.

Find one of hers without errors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Can't shift the burden of proof. Put up or shut up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that another one of your rules, like the Good Article review rule? Lol. Just one. She even offered a list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

And in those 8 months have you actually done anything about the problems or just scream harrassment too? 8 months is a long time for an editor to have no improvement. It cuts both ways. Because if AfasBad has been doing this for 8 months and no one is listening, it doesnt really reflect badly on AfadsBad. It reflects badly on the people blaming the messenger. "Working in good faith" does not excuse poor writing. Well actually it probably would excuse poor writing if someone else did the clean up. But it does not excuse synthesis, bad sourcing and blatant factual errors. Nor does it excuse the people reviewing, promoting, then defending such as great work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If AfadsBad rolled up her sleeves and got into the mix, or provided an actionable list of things to correct, they would have been corrected. Instead, aggressive rants was the only m.o. Unfortunately, trolls can only be tolerated for so long and best ignored. If AfadsBad was ignored, and she was often, it was because of method, not message. I have only so much time in this transitory life to be hunting for the chance that she's provided one gem of a worthwhile actionable correction in the massive pile of dung she spewed in her tediously repetitive rants. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to let this play out without commenting, but what the hell. The issue is systemic within the DYK, GA and FA crew. Hardly any of them have expertise in the subject matter. What the editors are doing is grabbing books from libraries, and pdfs from the web and mixing and matching the content. However, they don't have knowledge as to whether the works they are referencing are reliable, up to date, or aren't works of fiction. The mix and matching process that then takes place is an effort to avoid complaints plagiarism, by the the close paraphrasing nazis, so synonyms are used, sentences swapped about, and the science that may originally have been in the sources becomes mangled. The reviewers come along and, being just as clueless as the editor, looks for phrases in the source which are similar to those in the article. The result, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe: all the right words are there they just aren't in the right order. The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. John lilburne (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and your opinion was heard on Wikipediocracy already. No one has ever accused me of plagiarism, paraphrasing, or being egregiously wrong in the articles I've written--so, apparently you're talking from your posterior, IMHO, in painting me with your broad brush. You find something to correct, I'll correct. But a critic who aggressively rants and raves and abuses in the petulant manner as we have seen directed at Cwmhiraeth and others, and someone like AfadsBad deserves to be banned--and I'm rather certain AfadsBad has been before (under other names) for the same crap.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well now it is being heard here too. Now weren't you the one that promoted garbled Geology to GA status only to have it yanked 24 hours later? Despite evidence being presented you still seemed hell bent on dismissing the nonsense science in the article. I think it is plain that you are incapable of discerning rubbish science, and resort to bluster and moaning when called on it. Others might also be inclined to think that your comments here, in particular the mean minded speculations and aspersions about AfadsBad above, are little more than sour grapes on your part. John lilburne (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I said articles that I have written, and that you bring that up (one out of a ton of GA reviews) shows you're AfadsBad's talking parrot who flew here after being canvassed at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned in this paragraph The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. The Geology GA review adequately illustrates the point that you are 'tone deaf to the science' in the articles you are supposed to be reviewing. I don't care about the articles you write but it wouldn't surprise me if you had Mermaids in the South China Seas based on some 16th map drawing, or talking horses because one of you had got hold of a copy of Gulliver's Travels. John lilburne (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, hic sunt dracones, and Wikipediocracy's talking horses have all shown up here--just like you and AfadsBad and Scott did before. Sounds like canvassing, or gangland bludgeoning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet a number of editors accused you of being egregiously wrong in the articles you promote to Good Article, with this sentence which was included in the Pedra da Galvea article when it was promoted by you, ColonelHenry, to Good Article, "The gneiss layer dates to around 600 million years ago; the granite layer is younger and dates to around 450 million years ago and is the result of lava flow.[2][6] The mountain, much like other stone outcroppings that surround the area, is the result of Meso-Neoproterozoic high grade metasedimentary rocks intruding into Neoproterozoice granitoid rocks and thin Cretaceous diabase dikes.[7]" Granite, by distinction is not a lava flow, middle age rocks that have never been liquid, by definition, cannot intrude (something that liquid rocks do) into younger rocks that don't yet exist, in particular, metamorphosed (never liquified) sediments, are very unlikely to melt, since by definition they've never been liquid, as they are metamorphic, into thin dikes that won't exist for at least another 800 million years. The amount of nonsense in these two sentences is stunning. The author, however, took blame and apologized. The promoter fought tooth and nail to keep this article, as is, a "Good Article." --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yawn...do you have anything else than continuing to banter around one bad GA review that I've done out of dozens from months ago that you've already repeated like 2000 times since then because you have nothing original or insightful to add except harping harping harping on tired bullshit? My dispute was that you liked to hijack reviews back then instead of collaborate. Imperious and aggressive at ranting and abuse, just like you are now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet you're still supporting her creating bad science on en.Wikipedia. Creating it, writing it, promoting it. It all leads to bad articles on en.Wikipedia. It's always about someone's behavior, but it's never about the lack of WP:Verifiability. Stop Cwmhiraeth from creating bad science articles, correct the 1300+ existing turds, and I'll stop harping on everything here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

WP:V isn't the crux of this issue--because if you had a list of 1,300 articles with errors, you would have put it up, if you so concerned about errors, you would have fixed them yourself. Instead you provided a wall of text with aggressive rhetoric with nothing constructive and would complain to high heaven. If you care about fixing errors, get your hands dirty. If you don't want to collaborate, go home. If you only want harass and assault others who in good faith are volunteering their time for the project, go home. Quite frankly, you're an anonymous bully hiding behind a computer screen, but unlike some of the less than palatable Wikipedians (myself included) who actually build content, you don't contribute anything but vile disruptiveness and vitriol. When you get blocked, I will raise a glass of Laphroaig to your departure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is the crux of the issue. It's a Wikipedia policy. As for collaboration, aren't you the one that freaked out and thought that you owned a Good Article review? She keeps creating hundreds, and you and she keep getting upset that the errors are pointed out. Find one of her articles without these errors. If you don't want your errors pointed out on Wikipedia, don't edit. As for being blocked, I'm already essentially blocked from correcting errors, because correcting a single bad article takes eight months. So, you have my permission to toast now! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

If this site had any kind of sane management, ColonelHenry's behavior in that disgrace of a GA review should have not only immediately disqualified him from doing it again, but also sparked an investigation into how he was able to do it in the first place. — Scott • talk 08:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for some kind of editing restriction on Cwimhraeth, and I'm all for some editing restriction on AfadsBad. As said above, they are both a mixture of good and bad: good faith but sloppy editing on one hand, useful criticism in a sea of harassment on the other. Both need to stop. What I would do, if I were running this place, is: 1)Restrict Cwimhraeth new article creation and article-space editing until a comprehensive review on her edits has finished 2)Put some accuracy warning tag on all articles Cwimhraeth has created, so that at least we can warn readers 3)Enforcing on-wiki harassment of Cwimhraeth by AfadsBad to stop: if AfadsBad wants to do useful criticism and/or fix stuff herself, all the best, but any more personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, if I were running this place, but luckly I don't. --cyclopia^speak! 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds User:Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Even if I hadn't been constantly sidetracked by BLP nonsense in 7 years in wikipedia, I can't imagine writing 300 good articles in the relative less complex areas of politics I'm interested in. And looking into possible collusion or whatever the allegation is in the Good Article process would be helpful. (I've never paid much attention to all that ranking business myself.) If those charges are exaggerated and someone is mostly ticked articles aren't written to impossibly high standards and would rather just complain about it and harass a more productive editor, that's definitely even a bigger problem. We'll see if there's an admin willing to be proactive and creative on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please have a look at the editor review. We are not talking about failure to meet "impossibly high standards" here. What we are talking about is a million readers being told, for nearly a year, that the average winter temperature in cold deserts like Greenland and Antarctica is between –2 and +4 °C, for example. And that live penguins' feet are kept at deep-freezer temperatures to prevent them getting chilled. These were absurdities. Andreas JN466 03:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Endorse the opinion that Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Just throwing out an idea, perhaps Cwimhraeth editing should (for a while) be restricted to cleaning up all the previous articles that she has previously edited (if you trust her on that). But AfadsBad's attacks on Cwimhraeth simply have got to stop. starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think we need to close this and focus on the content at the editor review. Really. Bluster on both sides that engenders more antagonism is unhelpful. No comments on this thread are going to do anything but add more heat and less light. Anyone who wants to help out please go to the editor review page and please focus on (or fix) specific articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor review will probably help Cwimhraeth, but how will the editor review affect AfadsBad? Has AfadsBad at the very least agreed to be nice and guaranteed better future behaviour, if not expressed some form of remorse? I see User:AfadsBad still mentions Cwimhraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fix the issues at GA/DYK WikiCup etc and the problems vanish. This could have all been sorted long ago with the animosity if people in those groups had taken notice of what they were being said. But they didn't. They circled the wagons, vomited out policy and process acronyms to avoid addressing the issues, and generally behaved as spoiled brats. All so that they could continue accumulating points for competitions, and add extra bragging tags on their user pages. The systemic problem is that those involved don't have a full understanding of the subject. That isn't a problem with writing an article on pop culture, you can rephrase stuff, use synonyms, mix and match bits from different sources, and it doesn't matter so much whether you are an expert or not. When the same techniques are used with the sciences the result is garbled nonsense. The process for GA/DYK in science articles needs to be overhauled, you need someone in there with a grasp of the subject, it is not enough to simply tick boxes: got a picture, passes spell check, passes grammar check, not obviously plagiarized - OK good to go. You need some one there capable of asking "does this make any sense at all, and is it accurate?" John lilburne (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Casliber. But, try to emphasize that it is not just the articles at the editor review it is all of her science articles. I checked about 50 for my blog, looking at her early ones, later ones, insects, bats, plants. Every article contains the same sloppy editing, made up descriptions, imaginary colors, falsely weighted information, inaccurate information, made up information, synthesized taxonomies that are complete OR. There are only a few articles at the editor review, and it looks like it will take days for every article to be checked. There are 1300 articles that need rewritten. Time spent doing that would be time much better spent than this discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't know whether all his articles contain serious errors, or whether even most do, but it seems clear that many of them do, and that this is based on a lack of understanding, not on typos or the like. The editor review lists some examples, I reviewed two other articles he proposed very recently for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Spicara maena, which contained rather blatant original research; the discussion at the DYK showed to me that this editor doesn't understand the science of the sources he is using, or doesn't care enough about getting it right. Such a thing happening in one or two articles isn't a real problem, people make mistakes and we are indeed a collaborative endeavour. But if the same problems continue to happen, then it is no longer logical or useful to wait for someone else to correct them, one has to try to prevent them as well, gently if possible, forcefully if necessary. I see no indication that this thread or the editor review will produce any change in his approach, but I may be proven wrong; if nothing changes though, a RfC/U is the next logical step. Fram (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please come up with actual examples, if you can Fram. Not your vague innuendoes. If you really have anything of substance, the proper place to air it is at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember the same kind of discussion last time we met, Epipelagic, with you never being satisfied with any answer and constantly shifting the goalposts, and I have no intention of starting another round of this. If you can't see the actual example in my post and only see "vague innuendo", then so be it. Fram (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Things need to be put into perspective. We are talking about 1300 articles here. You have offered one specific example. Readers can judge for themselves whether this should properly be called original research, or whether it would be more accurately described as hair splitting in an over zealous attempt to make someone wrong. As for the last time we met, there was indeed "the same kind of discussion". As was said then, and seems to still apply, "Fram specialises in attacking minor issues concerning high flyers and worrying at them like a pitbull until he can turn them into gaping wounds." --Epipelagic (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is such an ugly thread. Several pitchfork admin are slavering and gesturing in hideous ways on the sidelines. AfadsBad doesn't seem to have contributed a single article of worth him or herself, so it is not clear if he/she is even capable of such a contribution. Cwmhiraeth has contributed 1300 articles according to AfadsBad. AfadsBad has been given his/her best shot at demolishing Cwmhiraeth here, and has come up with remarkably few issues with any real substance.

You ask, AfadsBad, whether correcting bad science is harassment? Yes it certainly is, if you do it the way you are doing it. It is not altogether your fault. If Wikipedia had any will to set up a functional admin system, issues like this one would be accommodated as they arose. There will always be editors who overreach themselves in certain areas. If we had an ideal system, such editors would be intercepted and guided so they are more aware of where their limitations are. All editors have limitations outside their particular areas of expertise, and often the best articles are written by editors who are writing outside their areas of expertise. That is because such writers can be more sensitive to confusions that confront people who not experts in that area. This issue has been allowed to develop in the ghastly manner we see here because Wikipedia lacks an admin structure worthy of its content builders. Having said that, I want to commend the admins BlackKite and Cas liber who have responded in honourable ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did I ask that? I have been talking about the bad science for eight months, on and on notes ColonelHenry. But no one is correcting it. Cwmhiraeth continues to create it, meanwhile. Other editors pointed out the same problems, two years ago on Tree, a couple of times through the years on her talk pages. Did anyone listen to them? Did Cwmhiraeth? If I had not been strident, blogged, joined Wikipediocracy, no one would have listened. Even now, I suspect she will continue adding bad science. She's working on another FA. --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Another inaccurate statement from AfadsBad - "She's working on another FA." Oh, really? It's the first I knew of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked the question, at least rhetorically, here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I just reread your post that I haven't contributed a single article of worth. Then nominate them for deletion. My best contribution to Wikipedia came as the result of what I was doing here, adding citations, and it was an AFD, not an AFC. When you misspell the name of a plant family in the title of an article, leave it that way for seven years so the misspelling gets 50,000 g-hits, and see it translated to half a dozen other languages, AFDing the article here and elsewhere and correcting the links is worthwhile. But, as the articles I created aren't of worth, please delete them. But I think Fram covered you well enough. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You haven't taken your articles past the stub stage, often just one-line stubs. I shouldn't have said they have no worth. I should have said that that they are not substantial. If you risked yourself, by writing some substantial articles which could be examined as models for the impeccable standards you advocate, your attacks would carry more weight. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think John lilburne's vulgar advice at the Wikipediocracy forum, in the discussion that is has become the venue for both coordinating this assault on Cwmhiraeth and a general gloatfest by her assailants, that I should "lick his wounds or balls which ever gives him most comfort", or referring to another contributor by a sexual act is appropriate.[175]. Never understood why persons who indulge in venting their hate of Wikipedia at Wikipediocracy continue to hang around Wikipedia or continue to think their opinion matters to people who contribute to the project. You would think they would get another trollish hobby. Perhaps if Scott, lilburne, and AfadsBad were sanctioned with bans, they can spend more time griping at Wikipediocracy instead of disruptive behaviour and agitation here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm coming to that conclusion myself. These people are trolls who, as far as I can tell, have no agenda to improve any of the articles they are complaining about, they only wish to attack a good-faith editor who has worked very, very hard here. My advice to these individuals is this: Before you criticize, how about getting off your high horse and try fixing the thing yourself? Put up or shut up. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The ways to address this have been adequately expressed above. Fixing individual issues is NOT the way to proceed. You examine the cause of the problem "the non-subject experts writing science articles by applying techniques appropriate to none science articles" and you find away of fixing that. The answer to the problem I can guarantee won't be "get some other ignoramus to check it over before promoting it to GA status, or shoving it on the main page as a DYK." Fer goodness sake last year a FA article boldly stated that Richard II was king of England in 1345, and it had been that way foir three years, the copy editor says that their role is NOT to fact check. Which is crazy because how can you effectively manipulate sentences if you don't know what the facts are? The system is broke, doesn't work, and those involved in the process are circling the wagons. Now I've shown you the way to the fix what are you going to do? BTW the sandpit with the ostriches is over that a way ----->. John lilburne (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The way to address this was a reasonable discussion 8 months ago saying "this, this, this, and this need to be corrected"...instead, AfadsBad came in with the demanding ominous presence of a bat-wielding street gang. 8 months later, with her behavior of harassment, attacks, and aggression unchecked and unabating, she needs to be blocked. This is inimical to what the project is about. That you endorse this kind of aggressiveness toward a good-faith contributor is downright appalling, your attacks on anyone who disagrees with AfadsBads methods are despicable, and I hope you and your equally detestable buddy Scott can join AfadsBad's fate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I did say this, this and this need corrected. Cwmhiraeth scolded me for this1, reverted this2, and ignored this3. Tried and failed. Yet you keep saying that what I should have tried that failed is what I should have tried. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
          • No you didn't, you ranted and raved, no one likes to read that shit. People are here to contribute, not to read angry vituperative and sanctimonious jeremiads that go on and on without getting to the f&*%%ng point. WP:WALLOFTEXT applies. Further, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar--I told you that--but you were downright hydrofluoric acid about it all. I told you to play nice, that you'd get what you wanted by more pleasant congenial means, you never stopped being nasty and dictatorial about it. People like you need to take your circus of nastiness to the next town, or be run out of town on a rail.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Pointing to content problems is not "inimical to what the project is about". Turning a deaf ear to such pointers, on the other hand, is. Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch at the editor review, and acknowledges that there have been problems in her work. Perhaps it would be more conducive to a peaceful and constructive solution if bystanders here were to disengage from attempts to ratchet up tension? Andreas JN466 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
          • AfadsBad needs to go. Abusing another editor the way AfadsBad did is what I described as inimical. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Content disputes come and go and can be worked out, but aggression like AfadsBad needed to be nipped in the bud long ago. This would have all been worked out long ago if not for AfadsBad's relentlessly nasty behaviour. Seeing that Cwmhiraeth has never mistreated anyone, there is no doubt in my mind where the blame squarely belongs. Whether or not the message was correct, the method of bludgeoning another editor relentlessly is inimical to the project's state goals.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Andreas - you say "Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch" - as a uninvolved editor I have to ask why isn't AfadsBad doing the same? I've already said this before above, is there any evidence that AfadsBad's future behaviour will change, or any sign of an apology for past behaviour? starship.paint "YES!" 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issues of User:Cwmhiraeth

See the discussion in the section on Boring clam (should be the last). Her answers to the points I raised on a review of a random article of hers -mind you, one that she edited after the editor review and the start of this thread- make me worry that some of the unpleasant frustration of AfadsBad could be justified. --cyclopia^speak! 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is point AfadsBad was a while ago before being dismissed repeatedly. After all this time, s/he has been hardened to the point where they are now. I have some scientific knowledge especially in geology and climate and some of the things pointed out by AfadsBad and Andreas, albeit not so tactfully in AfadsBads current mindset, are serious enough to warrant closer look at all 1300 articles touched by the editor. I state this because that is the standard policy when a copyvio editor is found as if there are enough serious examples of issues, all edits come into question (I am not stating she is a copyvio editor!). She clearly wants to edit in good faith but I think she may fail short of the needed skill to incorporate science texts into the articles. Mentoring should help in that. 129.9.72.12 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The ends don't justify the means. You cannot in good conscience justify the pummelling a man close to death and say "I did it for his own good, he needed to learn". AfadsBad needs to be sanctioned and harshly for the means she employed. Just saying "but there are inaccuracies that need to be fixed" offers no excuse for her savagely wielding a bloodied cudgel.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Indeed. And where there are actual inaccuracies (as opposed to stylistic decisions to make an article readable for the masses, which inevitably implies a certain degree of simplification), the solution is to get off your own duff, go find appropriate reliable sources, and FIX THEM, not to whine and complain and then viciously attack a fellow human being who is acting in good faith. What a nasty pile-on this has become. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Two issues: One is a normal part of Wikipedia; anyone can edit and some are more expert than others, and some think they are more expert than others. Incompetence is a given for every editor at some point in their WP career This is not a reference to anyone's work on Wikipedia. Second, and the sanctionable issue, is that disagreement on content is not a reason for abusive and vicious behavior, or harassment. This is both an encyclopedia and a collaborative project . Destroy the collaborative environment and the encyclopedia as it has been structured will disappear. And I 'd agree with Montana. If things don't seem accurate, help fix it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
  • The collaborative environment argument swings both ways. If an editor points out errors (and a good number of such errors have been pointed out now by a number of editors in the editor review, and in part acknowledged by Cwmhiraeth) and the other editor says "Go away", that too is a failure in collaboration. And it is a failure that hampers improvement of content quality, which is the core mission of this project. Andreas JN466 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • The reference to a "bloodied cudgel" is completely unwarranted hyperbole. Andreas JN466 21:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• If it's unwarranted, then it ranks right up there with AfadsBad's yet unsupported "1,300 articles full of errors". I stand by my comment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• By "yet unsupported" you mean "hypothesis with 100% experimental confirmation to date". So entirely unlike your hyperbolic comment, then. — Scott • talk 12:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Cherry picking" works for AfadsBad as a tactic, like any one-trick pony, but it is a logical fallacy, Scott. Even you're smart enough to not to insist that cherry picking as some irrefutable "experimental confirmation."--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • It's the sort of turn of phrase your people like, as I'm sure you remember. Anyway, who said "Go away" (the quote marks are yours) when given concrete examples of things that needed fixing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bashing the messenger because of his/her manner is all very well, but should not distract us from considering the message. If it is correct that Cwmhiraeth has been creating large numbers of inaccurate articles, and is continuing to create them, that is not a problem that should be obscured by personal attacks, or dismissed by saying SOFIXIT. All credit to Cwmhiraeth for requesting an editor review, but Cyclopia's work seems to be confirming that there is a problem. I think we should be looking for some more scientifically qualified editors to join the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea, JohnCD. I don't know my way around the relevant WikiProjects very well, and would appreciate it if you could leave some neutrally worded messages at the relevant talk pages. Andreas JN466 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I don't disagree that collaboration has multiple layers of meaning. I do disagree that the core of this project is to build an encyclopedia or to improve content. If that were the case this encyclopedia would be edited and written by experts in their field, and subject to peer review . The medical articles and all that entails come to mind. This project is at its core two-fold and collaboration is one of those aspects. I personally, and this is my position, am fed up with viciousness. There is no excuse for it, or for off-WP attacks. There are two issue here and they have to be delineated. If there are concerns about an editor's work we do have to deal with it. Behaviour and harassment is something else. Our DR processes might be more effective if we did delineate issues. I always respect your views but I assume we disagree on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

I wrote a FA with Cwmhiraeth, and found her to be a careful and considerate co-editor. We all make errors, but it seems to me that this discussion is driven by someone who is NOTHERE and is more concerned with character assassination than facts. I've not noticed any major problems with edits to pages on my watchlist by this user. It would be odd if none of the 1300 (made-up data from the "expert") bad edits were on my science-orientated list. This is a witch-hunt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think that being so dedicated to the cause of accurately representing scientific fact that spending months sounding alarm bells, under continuous anti-expert pressure from entitled amateurs, about an editor continuously inserting misreadings of sources, synthesis, and plain old made-up stuff into our articles - and not throwing up one's hands and walking away in disgust - is "not being here to build an encyclopedia", your understanding of what this project is has gone haywire. — Scott • talk 12:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You will notice in this discussion that there are two groups of editors, one group that is happy with my work and another that is not. I think that is because they are judging it by different criteria. The main faults found by editors led by Cyclopia involve original research. They accuse me of including information in articles that is not in the source. I think these editors are not normally "content creators" and do not understand this page where it states : "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material". For example, in the article Boring clam the source stated "The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface." When expanding the article I wrote "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface". This was condemned as being original research and the new version in the article, provided by Cyclopia was "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white, sometimes with a hint of pink-orange, yellow or orange colour -this colouration can form a band near the top margin, especially on the interior surface." In another criticised article Millepora alcicornis, my description of the organism was "cream-coloured, yellowish or light brown with paler tips", while the source stated "Brown to light creamy yellow, with white branch tips". My version was adjudged once more to be original research. I repeatedly argued that such close adherence to the source as Cyclopia advocated was close paraphrasing but to no avail. That this editor is unfamiliar with MoS guidelines is also shown by a comment about my referencing. I put a single reference at the end of a paragraph if all the text comes from the same source. Cyclopia wrote "I also find it quite annoying that the leads of articles you write never have inline sources, this makes it very hard to understand what comes from what. Also entire paragraphs are sourced only at the end. At least every sentence or two should be supported by a source ... perhaps there's some MOS contradicting this, but if so, it is a problem."

To return to the boring clam, I started expanding the article on 9th April 2014 and was working on the description at 10:06, 10 April 2014‎. Less than five hours later, at 14:50, 10 April 2014, Cyclopia was criticising the article as if it were a finished product and not a work in progress. If you are expanding an article in mainspace, there are bound to be periods when it is unbalanced and less than perfect. I also protested about this, but in vain. I have not continued to expand the article because I was warned off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, MOS does not trump accuracy. You can't just put in false information because you want to paraphrase. Your "paraphrases", simply, do not have the same meaning of the source. They mean different things. A paraphrase is supposed to convey the same meaning with different words. You convey a different meaning. And that is not all. What about the "unattached" sessile organism, for example? What about switching sexes and sizes of a species, and, in the same article, making up completely a date? --cyclopia^speak! 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Above is WP:TLDR but if User:Cwmhiraeth has WP:Competence issues we might as well let the last person to leave Wikipedia just turn out the light. Tigerboy1966  15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been a concerted and horrifying attack conducted in a manner that is offensive to any standards of decency. No less than five Wikipediocracy participants, including a shameful pitchfork admin, lay siege to a single highly committed and hard working editor. Admins responded in typical fashion as loose cannons. There was no coordinated response. Wikipedia lacks centralised control and has no guiding principles such as a mission statement or constitution. So it just comes down to individual whim. Two admins, Black Kite and Casliber, responded well, put themselves on the line and made genuine efforts to investigate what was going on. A third admin indulged a rambling all things to all people and nothing in particular to anyone line that is his trademark. At the ungodly end of the spectrum, two pitchfork admins started gibbering at the prospect of destroying another content builder. The Wikipedia community of content builders must share in the shame. Most seemed to run for the hills during the onslaught. Cwmhiraeth was largely abandoned and hung out to dry.

I commend you Cwmhiraeth, for the courageous way you held your ground. It must have been a nightmare. I apologise and feel ashamed to have been here. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that Cwmhiraeth hasn't walked away from Wikipedia given the sustained onslaught form this nasty little gang. They can't find any other Wikipedia editor who (allegedly) makes bad edits, which seems astonishing. They also come from a position of ignorance. Not having references in the lead is an FAC guideline, but of course they wouldn't know that, no interest in high quality content. Building good content takes more than five hours, but of course they wouldn't know that, no interest in high quality content (I've spent longer than that on Yellowhammer and it's still rubbish, so you might as well sanction me too. Close paraphrasing is a copyright infringement, but better to get it almost exactly as the source says and sod the Wikipedia rules and the copyright laws. This harassment disgusts me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am no part of any "nasty little gang". If anything, I am usually extremly skeptical of Wikipediocracy and the associated editors -I and them know them well. Turns out this time they are right. FAC or MOS guidelines cannot trump accuracy. Cwmhiraeth does not "paraphrase", she changes the meaning of what she writes. She makes stuff up out of nowhere. She invents "ovals" where there is none. She figured out a sessile organism was forming "unattached" colonies -why? Because it looked more plausible this way, to her. She made up a native species where there was none. Nobody says she shouldn't paraphrase and use her own words -she absolutely has to do that. But she fails to do that. She's terrible in paraphrasing, because what she writes often does not have the same meaning of the source. All of this happens in more than 50% of the articles I managed to check. --cyclopia^speak! 12:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest an uninvolved admin close this

Discussion should revolve around reviewing article edits - all this commentary serves to do is polarise camps. Hence would be best closed and discussion diverted to the editor review page. Please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May I support Cas Liber in this. Cwmhiraeth is an exceptionally careful, sensible, patient and thorough editor, and extremely hardworking. This discussion is doing damage but achieving nothing, and should be closed at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion should inform administrators that there is a systemic issue with a prolific, good-faith editor. She is extremly hardworking, patient etc. but the fact she is constantly peppering articles with mistaken paraphrases, original research and other factual errors is extremly worrying, especially because she is completely blind to the errors she is making. This is a delicate issue, and I'd like to see experienced admins deal with that. I understand Cwmhiraeth is a nice person and a good faith, enthusiastic editor. I appreciate these qualities. I am sorry this is overwhelming her. But something has to be done -some cleanup effort needs to be put in place. There is simply too much evidence to just let this go under the carpet.--cyclopia^speak! 13:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The editor review has revealed an ongoing pattern of poor competence in assembling and relating scientific sources, which has been reflected in our output of content at what's supposed to be the highest level of quality. It can't be allowed to continue. — Scott • talk 15:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. There has to be sanctions against the abuses of the "nasty little gang". Criticism I will never fault, but this kind of aggressive wikihounding is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with by a swift punitive blow against those who think vitriol and harassment is acceptable as long as it corrects minor errors. Letting this go by without a sanction sets a bad precedent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading this now and I agree with Casliber that this has to be closed. I'd take the following actions: Indef AfadsBad for harassmet of Cwmhiraeth, strongly recommend Cwmhiraeth to scan all of her articles to solve the paraphrasing issue (which, in my eyes, is not that critical as some users here want to note, otherwise she wouldn't have taken a couple of articles to FA. Some of the admins here should do that). I'd recommend Cyclopia to be less aggressive and try to work with Cwmhiraeth to solve the issue. I am willing to, per his comment above, to join the team and tackle this matter. I think that having a pitchfork against Cwmhiraeth is extremely counterproductive and will achieve nothing. I'd also like to say to Scott that if you criticize somebody, without providing solutions, you are being disruptive. And that's my impression of your participation here. → Call me Hahc21 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hahc21 ... you need to read the issue (especially the editor review) a bit more closely before coming out with something like that; the problem is not close paraphrasing, it is misunderstanding of sources leading to articles being factually inaccurate. If someone has written a number of articles with such issues because they don't understand the science involved, what good is asking the same person to check them? And the rest of your suggestions aren't exactly helping, either. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The priority here is clearly to continue to evaluate whether Cwmhiraeth's articles contain errors—or perhaps I should say to identify what additional errors exist and how serious they are—and to fix the errors that are found. It important that this process continue and not get diverted off course for any reason. I've seen more than one of these "review and clean-up" projects start with a burst of energy and then peter out, leaving problematic and unevaluated content strewn through the encyclopedia. I'd very much like for this not to happen here.

Several years ago, Jimbo pointed out the need for quality as well as quantity in our contributions. I enjoy the spirit of the "Wikicup" and the little motivations (GAs, DYKs, etc.) that provide psychic rewards for editors who devote their free time to creating and expanding Wikipedia. But I hope everyone keeps in mind at all times that as fun as Wikicup points and the like may be, what ultimately matters is the quality of the contributions themselves. Mistakes on Wikipedia propagate all over the Internet and can pop up in dozens of unexpected ways, as I've discovered to my dismay several times. We must do everything we can not to make them, and to correct them when they are inadvertently made.

While Afadsbad's approach to this situation was obviously not optimal, I can imagine that she was at her wit's end in terms of how to address what she sincerely perceived, apparently with some justification, as a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia's science articles. While the morale of our contributors is critically important, that cannot come at the expense of leaving misinformation in the encyclopedia we are working so hard to create. See generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Principles. There are frankly too few people who review articles, especially technical articles, for factual accuracy. Pursuing a sanctions discussion involving Afadsbad would be both divisive and distracting and we should not do so. Having said that, I'd urge that Afadsbad accept that she has prevailed in drawing attention to the problem and continue her efforts to assist (e.g. on the editor review page) to help solve it, rather than publicize it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, it wasn't that AfadsBad is "at her wit's end"...she started months ago that intensively aggressive and nasty. The severity of the abuse has never let up. If there are no sanctions against AfadsBad for this, I will be severely disappointed--because it opens the door for other editors to say "but they are wrong, so I get to bludgeon them, hound them, relentlessly". How long until it drives an editor to suicide? Will that be "obviously not optimal"? --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hyperbole much? I endorse other comments to close this. I'm starting to feel suicidal reading ColonelHenry's comments....Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• So quick to dismiss bullying, yet the drastic step like suicide to end being bullied happens more often than you'd like to know. If there's one thing that WMF sweeps under the carpet, it is stats on Wikipedians who off themselves from on-wiki stress...but there are several examples.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is an error in the article Spicara maena that Cyclopia mentions above and I would be interested to see what others think about the matter. This diff shows the change in the article I was forced to make. That I fail to see that the change was necessary worries Cyclopia extremely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I never mentioned that article as far as I can see -Fram did. It worries me in general that you fail to see that many changes are necessary, yes (I do not know about that one).--cyclopia^speak! 18:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(For what I can see yes, the change is necessary)--cyclopia^speak! 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I thought you would, but I would be interested to know what others think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Uninvolved, saw one of JohnCD's notes) I'm sorry Cwmhiraeth, but yes, that change was absolutely necessary. The referenced source says that males females change into females males, and that the largest females males are larger than the largest males females. It does not say that the sex change is triggered by the males females reaching a certain size. It could be triggered by age, environment, or a bunch of other factors. I'm truly sorry for the way you've been treated, but if you can't that what Spicara maena said was not supported by the cited source, then I'm afraid we have a tremendous amount of fact-checking to do. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Thank you Adrian. Your statement "The referenced source says that males change into females, and that the largest females are larger than the largest males" is incorrect in both particulars and is the exact opposite of what is stated in both article and source. Why criticise my wording when you are even more inaccurate yourself? Your conclusion on the need to fact check all my articles is equally flawed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On this particular fact, Cwmhiraeth is correct. The source states that the Spicara maena fish is a protogynous hermaphrodite, meaning that it is born female and later changes into a male. I haven't followed the rest of this debate, but if this is supposed to be a typical example of Cwmhiraeth getting her "facts wrong", then she has indeed been very poorly treated. Reyk _YO! 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I transposed the sexes in my explanation, which was a sloppy error and particularly unfortunate in this circumstance. But my central point stands: the article said the sex change occurs when the fish reaches a certain size, but this is not supported by the source. I presume this is the reason Cyclopia found the edit necessary. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I can't find anything in the sources listed for this article that supports this particular claim. Reyk _YO! 05:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that Afadsbad`s behavior is instead of trying to help the user he was harassing, he instead went and slang mud on the internet and started Wikihounding and harassing this poor user. Even though the user had problems with editing, couldn't Afadsbad just try and let the user know of their mistake? Or could the user just direct the user to the appropriate page. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thus I will say it slowly. Can. we. please. close. this. thread. and focus. on. the. articles. I'd close it myself but could be construed as lying more on one side of the fence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As NewYorkBrad says, the priority is to review more of the articles. Following a suggestion made further up, I am about to post a neutrally-worded message on the talk pages of some relevant WikiProjects asking for uninvolved people to join in the editor review. I will add links here as soon as I have done that. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to requests on the talk pages of WikiProjects Algae, Amphibians and Reptiles, Arthropods, Fungi, Insects, Marine life, Microbiology. Any suggestions for other WikiProjects to ask? JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to try Wikiproject Wales as well. Cwm's problems were not only on science articles. Although those obviously are the most damaging. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And WP:Birds, would have done it myself, but looks like canvassing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I expect the editor review to produce some sort of a consequence or future guideline on Cwmhiraeth. Discussion on Cwmhiraeth should go there. But the point of Cwmhiraeth's editor review is not to result in some sort of a decision on AfadsBad. I hope that decision on AfadsBad will be made somewhere, and it seems here is an appropriate venue. In my opinion AfadsBad at the very least should issue an apology and guarantee better future behaviour towards other editors, and future forfeiture of that guarantee will incur serious punishment. Are we to do nothing about AfadsBad? If so, we seem to be condoning AfadsBad's methods. starship.paint "YES!" 01:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with closure if no sanctions are to be imposed on AfadsBad Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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