Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Repeated personal attacks and reverting of edits without addressing in Talk to gain consensus

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

---

Coretheapple has made repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses throughout Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, while making changes to Fort Lee lane closure scandal that are in contradiction to previous Talk discussions.

It was agreed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality & Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion that details of Zimmer allegations would be included in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities, and other organizations.

It was just addressed again in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether details of Zimmer allegations should be added. I reminded everyone that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article. Coretheapple made no further comments about a statement for inclusion in the Fort Lee article that reached consensus between JackGavin and myself with no reference to Zimmer and a link to the "Governorship of Chris Christie" section.

Instead, Coretheapple went into the Fort Lee article and started adding detail about Zimmer allegations.

I opened up Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid to address content based on Coretheapple's addition of details about Zimmer allegations.

Coretheapple responded with the same points they made in a variety of Talk discussions that did not accept those arguments. I addressed each and every point that Coretheapple made about adding more content about Zimmer allegations and explained why they were not needed and that it contradicted consensus reached in past Talk discussions. Coretheapple began to make personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses.

Coretheapple's latest personal attacks and denigrating comments against me in their Talk discussions included their entries of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments.

I repeatedly requested Coretheapple in that Talk discussion and my recent History edit comments, (i.e. [1] and [2] ) to address their arguments in Talk about content additions for details about Zimmer allegations. Instead, Coertheapple either ignored my Talk requests and History edit comments or made more personal attacks on the Talk discussion page, and then continued to add details about Zimmer allegations (see [3] and [4] ).

Instead of complying with my requests to address content, Coretheapple has continued with personal attacks on the Fort Lee Talk discussions and History edit comments in the Fort Lee article.

As clearly shown in Additional details for Zimmer allegations, Coretheapple is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus, as they did not reach any consensus and ignored and contradicted consensus reached in past discussions in complaints, Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, and content issues about Zimmer allegations that I previously cited above.

I have tried to work with Coretheapple in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus based on Coretheapple's bold additions for additional Zimmer details.

Based on evidence of Coretheapple's unacceptable and disruptive edits in contradiction to consensus reached at past Talk discussions and their objectionable personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses or edits, I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I have found Wondering55 to be one of the most difficult people when it comes to a) working with others and b) taking advice. Astronomically difficult. As an admin, I've just had shake my head and say "WTF" quietly to myself many times DP 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, rather than address the facts that I present for this particular case, DP has mis-characterized my past efforts and clearly good faith efforts for this particular case, and continues to make negative assumptions about me in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When a Wikipedia administrator has to refer to another person's good faith efforts, as demonstrated in this specific case, as "WTF", rather than address the specific facts and actions by another editor with clear evidence of personal attacks against me and my comments that appears to violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines that I presented, there is something seriously wrong. Wondering55 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh, you're right ... something is seriously wrong. Remember, when you file at ANI, your own behaviour will come under the microscope as well DP 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I welcome review of my behavior for this particular instance and these particular facts. To try and confuse the issues with a debate on other past issues would be disingenuous and very time consuming. So far, I have not seen any constructive, neutral points of view about the facts of this particular situation. Wondering55 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on my Talk comment of "Let's be reasonable" and my subsequent editing to give Corethapple practically all of their requested revisions with only one brief mention of Zimmer's name, Coretheapple goes in and adds more details about the allegations and puts back Zimmer comments about the investigation into her allegations, none of which were agreed to in the Talk.

Coretheapple's changes below were removed since they were not made in accordance with WP:BRD, as clearly shown in the Talk discussion. Coretheapple was requested to go back to Talk to address these issues based on [5].

[6]; [7]; [8]

Coretheapple ignored this request and put back details below into the article.

[9]; [10]

When those changes were reverted by me with another request to go Talk, Coretheapple simply reverted the changes and claimed that their revert details "are explained on the talk page" without indicating that the explanations, which were contrary to all past Talk discussions in several Talk topics, were not accepted on the Talk page.

[11]

In essence, Coretheapple reverted previously agreed to modifications three times within a day's time without addressing or gaining any consensus, as requested in my History edit comments and Talk. This does not even include Coretheapple's other previous edits regarding the addition of details about Zimmer allegations that were not in accordance with past Talk discussions with other editors and Additional details for Zimmer allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just from an uninvolved editor's perspective, not many people will want read through all this text and weigh the merits of your complaint. Can you boil it down to two paragraphs and 3 diffs that best illustrate the point you are making? I'm only saying this because I assume you want editors to respond to your posting here and you're demanding a lot of attention from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In Additional details about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, Coretheapple's repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses culminated in their final inaccurate and denigrating insults of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of Talk edit comments, as shown below.

[12]](April 12 13:34 - 14:09)

Those comments were made in response to my previous Talk discussion where I indicated "Let's be reasonable" on April 9 that was followed by my April 12 response below, which included "In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer."

[13] April 12 4:01)

Other examples:

[14] (My April 9 15:36 response to previous personal attack about my comments as "insane" and "blah/blah reply")

[15] (My April 9 16:54 response to previous personal attack of my comments as "blah/blah fix")

I had repeatedly stated in that Talk that further details, which were removed, about Zimmer belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per consensus in past Talk discussions:

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality { See [16] (February 16 00:08) }

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart { Starting at line 514 in [17] (April 7 15:28 to 17:06) } Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections.

Coretheapple continued to make changes to the article in contradiction to those Talk discussions.

Coretheapple's changes for adding more Zimmer details were reverted in accordance with Bold Revert and Discuss with a request to address their proposal in Talk to see if they could gain any consensus for adding details. Instead, Coretheapple simply reverted these changes on three separate occasions within a days time between April 11 & 12 (if needed, see my previous response at 20:53, 12 April 2014 for diff examples) and put back all of the Zimmer details without any further Talk discussion.

I responded in Talk that Coretheapple's actions were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus and that Coretheapple's final retort contained so many personal attacks against me and my comments. They violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The changes made by Coretheapple for adding details about Zimmer allegations in contradiction to past Talk discussion and no consensus for including them based on the latest Talk should be revised.

I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues rather than any personal attacks or denigrating comments like Coretheapple has made. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Asked to "boil it down to 2 paragraphs and 3 diff's" and we get a wall-o-text. Helpful indeed, and indicative of behaviour so far DP 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More denigrating comments and personal attacks by DP rather than focusing on the facts. DP continues to question my good faith efforts and behavior in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. For some reason, DP has a very biased view of me. That is not right, particular by a Wikipedia administrator.

It should be clearly seen that my updated presentation makes it much easier to focus on the facts. DP's unnecessary claims of wall-o-text is clearly contradicted by that guideline that addresses "overly long unformatted statements". My clearly outlined and focused presentation with very short paragraphs is in accordance with the guideline's recommendation to "distill one's thoughts into bite size pieces."

As per the very constructive request, the first 2 paragraphs clearly highlighted the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that clearly support my position. That is all the administrators need to focus on regarding my request to block Coretheapple based on their personal attacks.

As requested, I provided the diff's for 3 long past Talk discussions, so that administrators could quickly see past consensus that contradicted Coretheapple's proposal to add details about Zimmer's allegations into Fort Lee lane closure scandal rather than include those details in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple was previously requested to comply with this consensus in one of these referenced Talk discussions, without any objections by Coretheapple.

I also referenced 3 Fort Lee article diffs to show how Coretheapple repeatedly added details about Zimmer allegations without discussing or gaining consensus in Talk in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus.

The facts are clear and my updated presentation focuses on the key information with very clear diffs that should make it much easier for a constructive and fair review by Wikipedia administrators.

While not as blatant, Coretheapple is continuing to make condescending remarks about my behavior and editing, rather than neutral constructive comments. Wondering55 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above Mt. Everest of text concerns approx. 15 words in the article, and my efforts to lure this editor into a discussion of the merits have been met by the kind of tactics that we see here. Wondering55 is especially emotive on this because he was blocked for edit warring based on a complaint I brought a few days ago, during the course of which his access to his own talk page was blocked. I am almost literally out the door for a few days and cannot respond further, but I am sure that Wondering55 will have plenty more to say on the "consensus" that did not exist and the terrible "personal attacks" to which I have subjected him, most recently concerning some comments concerning overuse of the word "indicate" in the article which didn't involve him at all and were not directed to him or any editor. I am not the first editor who has had this kind of encounter with Wondering55, and I am sure that I won't be the last. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, rather than focus on the facts of this particular situation, Coretheapple continues with their inaccurate denigrating comments of "Mt. Everest of text", my supposed "tactics", which incorrectly implies bad faith on my part, and "especially emotive", and brings up totally unrelated incidents to this particular situation, which stands on its own merits. The diffs for the 3 past Talk discussions that I provided clearly show the "consensus" of editors that Coretheapple has repeatedly ignored. Coretheapple's personal attacks are very clear in the first diff that I provided in my updated presentation (06:38, 13 April 2014). I am not even sure why Coretheapple even raised the issue of the overuse of the word "indicated" in the article since I never thought or indicated anywhere in this Talk or the Fort Lee article Talk that Coretheapple's comments were personally directed at me. I have not brought up any other past questionable behavior by Coretheapple since I wanted to focus on the clear facts of this situation where Coretheapple has made personal attacks and inaccurate/inappropriate denigrating comments against me and my editing.

There have been close to 200 editors in the Fort Lee article. Coretheapple has been the only editor to continually ask for additional details about Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief for Hoboken that is separate from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. All other editors agreed that those details, with a link to that other article, belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation, along with many other scandals that have been publicized as people have looked into other aspects of the Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Coretheapple had added around 55 words (fifty-five) about Zimmer and her allegations in the article in their past edits in contradiction to consensus and Talk discussions. Coretheapple's final edit has added 41 words to the article. All other editors were satisfied with no additional words about Zimmer and her allegations beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation. Wondering55 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking that the WMF server and bandwidth bill doesn't need this user? Guy (Help!) 7:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • No, Guy, I'm another. Of course the most precious commodity the user is squandering isn't server space but the attention and energy of other volunteers. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

My updated request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 has 440 words, not including links to the diffs or Talk pages. It is in line with requests below that were answered without discussions about their length.

Disruption and malicious editing – 502 words

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others – 490 words

Disruption and malicious editing – 401 words

User:Ohconfucius – 781 words

First 2 paragraphs, which only have 160 words, highlighted personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that support my position. That is not time consuming in order to focus on my request to block Coretheapple based on their attacks and comments.

Remainder of request addresses Coretheapple's violations of BRD, Edit warring, and Consensus that led to these attacks and denigrating comments, instead of focusing on content, as I requested. I suggested that Coretheapple's edits, which added between 41 to 55 words to the Fort Lee scandal article should be undone since there was no consensus and their revisions contradicted agreements and consensus in 3 past Talk discussions in which there were to be no words about these allegations, beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a review based on the facts that I have presented in my request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 that is within the length of other requests that were addressed. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin, I took a look not only at the section of the Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal indicated, but at a random selection of other edits on the article page, & exchanges on the talk page. I could find no explicitly stated "consensus" there. My opinion, however, is that Wondering55 does respond to comments by others with impenetrable slabs of text. Stating an obvious fact is not a personal attack; truth is always a defense against libel. I also would like to point out Coretheapple's last response to Wondering55 included the passage: "If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time." I interpret these sentences to mean Coretheapple is about to stop editing the article entirely. Seeing how that user made only 3 edits after that, I think I'm right about that.

And even if Coretheapple was rude, then gave up editing the article? What more does Wondering55 want done? I'm thinking the best solution here instead might focus on Wondering55. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple has not given up on editing the article.

I want to know if Coretheapple can be blocked for personal attacks and denigrating comments (like those quoted and shown in the diffs below) that are simply opinions, and not facts, in the one cited Fort Lee discussion. I continually asked Coretheapple to focus on content without this derogatory language, and yet Coretheapple persisted. Coretheapple even edited one of their saved responses, which already had derogatory language, just to add more derogatory language. If Coretheapple cannot be blocked, will this type of language and behavior be allowed, or are there other alternatives to prevent or address this situation? Wikipedia and professional environments frown on denigrating opinions among colleagues.

• "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" in their Talk History edit comments when responding to me.

• [18]] (April 12 diff with multiple revisions by Corethepaple with the most significant derogatory comments)

• [19] (My April 9 15:36 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

• [20] (My April 9 16:54 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

This situation occurred while I addressed content and suggested that a significant portion of Coretheapple's revisions could be included. I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple. When Coretheapple could not gain consensus for their entire proposal, Coretheapple started with their derogatory comments and repeatedly added details (with up to 55 extra words in various revisions, and ending up with 41 extra words in final revision) about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken issues to the Fort Lee article rather than just refer readers to Hoboken relief funds investigation, in contradiction to past agreements among editors (as shown below) for the Fort Lee article.

• Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality (February 16 diff)

• Starting at line 514 in Legal representation chart (April 7 diff) Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections. Wondering55 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Mudslinging galore! Too many Wall-o-Text accusations and Attacks... Lets tone this down please. Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the links that he provides, I come away with the conclusion that A) Wondering55 does not understand how article forks work; B) He does not understand the meaning of consensus, C) He does not understand personal attacks, and D) He just doesn't get that "wall of text" is both accurate and apt in describing his tactics. I know Coretheapple from other articles, not this one, and have always found him to be civil, and he shows no evidence of being anything but in this instance. I agree with other editors that the issue here is Wondering55 and his aggressive, attacking, generally clueless and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I simply pointed out denigrating comments made by Coretheapple based on the facts. There are no personal attacks by me. Coretheapple's personal attacks in the referenced talk discussion and in their response above are covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Consensus and agreements were clear in the cited Talk diffs above. Previous editors, except for Coretheapple who was told by more than one editor, knew that it was agreed that details about Zimmer allegations would be shown in Hoboken relief funds investigation.

Coretheapple was unable to get anyone to support their proposal to add details about Zimmer allegations into the Fort Lee article, so there was no consensus for their proposal. Yet, Corethapple went ahead and added these details in contradiction to Bold Revert and Discuss.

There is no evidence or facts in the cited Fort Lee discussion that I had the claimed wall-o-text based on Wikiepedia's wall-o-text.

There is no evidence or facts to support that there was any "agressive, attacking, or generally clueless WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior", which are clearly denigrating comments without any substance.

When I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple, it clearly contradicts those baseless charges.

Clearly, some people do not understand what it means to be civil, when shown comments about me and my responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply"

Whether Coretheapple was civil in any other Talk discussions, has absolutely no bearing on the presented facts for the cited Fort Lee talk discussion where they were not civil. Wondering55 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not happy with the responses you have received here, and have commenced a discussion on the same issues at the Teahouse. You were warned not to forum-shop, which you deny doing. You were also advised to "take to heart the excellent advice that a wide range of experienced editors have offered you in recent days," to which you responded in the negative. Would you like to continue the discussion here, or would you like to pursue it there, or is it your intent to discuss your grievances simultaneously in this forum and at the Teahouse? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Figureofnine, you are being very kind to Wondering55. A less kind person -- like me -- would at this point make the following points: (1) speaking as an Admin, I'm not going to penalize Coretheapple for anything he posted so far in this case; (2) speaking as a third party, I seriously doubt any other Admin is about to penalize Coretheapple; & (3) speaking as both, if anyone is to be penalized here, I expect it will most likely be Wondering55. I strongly advise Wondering55 to accept the fact that not only he/she will not be getting any satisfaction here, but that he/she has dug himself into a very deep hole & should stop digging -- if nothing else. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm struck by the absence of understanding. He just hasn't a clue. If you go to the archive of his talk page, where he appears to deposit old and new posts that don't make him look very good, he lectures an administrator who blocked him a week or so ago. [21] "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So far I have seen too many clues from too many editors that seem to be engaged in unsubstantiated opinions and very misleading and complete distortions of my actions. They have not focused on my original request based on the facts, which I have presented that contradict their claims, and the issues of whether repeated denigrating comments made by another editor violate Wikipedia guidelines for civility, etiquette, and no personal attacks. Rather than address those facts and the very guidelines that tell users not to engage in that type of behavior, all of this is being ignored and additional inaccurate claims and denigrating comments are being made that contradict and ignore the facts.

I do not have the time to waste to respond to these further inaccurate claims and denigrating comments.

I seriously doubt if any editor on this topic was faced with repeated comments about them and their responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" (none of which are accurate based on the facts), as Coretheapple responded to me, that they would say that is acceptable language and behavior and do nothing about it.

I have been very civil in my editing and Talk discussions where I address content issues, including any contradictions with the facts from reliable sources, and not personalities. If needed, I point out actions and responses by editors that do not seem to comport with acceptable behavior and general etiquette, all of which are further supported by various Wikipedia guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced Wikipedian who has used Template: Welcomeg -- & related templates -- take a look at the edits Wondering55 has made to them in the last few days? I may be prejudiced here, but I doubt that his/her edits have improved the text in that template. -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I use {{Welcomeg}} all the time - and their edits turned it into a utterly useless piece of garbage, so I have reverted to an older version...and added it to my watchlist  the panda  ₯’ 09:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

add...which means I have had to undo some of their other major cockups related to welcome templates. I'll WP:AGF that they were trying to help, but those types of changes to core templates need far more that being WP:BOLD - they have evolved over years of reasoning  the panda  ₯’ 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to revert {{Welcomeg}} a bit deeper ([22]). - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I consider myself an experienced Wikipedian, & I wouldn't have dared to have made some of the changes the OP made without getting a second opinion first. ::sigh:: So what is the proper method to handle a problem of competence while acknowledging that the individual is acting in good faith? -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note:

• Wondering55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daily.drink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enforcer5151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daily.drink and Enforcer5151 are two new users (or are they?) whose userpages were redirected to their talk pages ([23] and [24]) by Wondering55, followed by requests on their talk pages ([25] and [26]) for comments about Wondering55's proposed and dismissed version of template {{welcomeg}}. Can someone have a look at this and comment whether this is appropriate? - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs.

All of these content issues about the updated version of the Welcomeg template could easily have been raised during the 6 weeks of updates that I addressed in a Talk discussion on that page where there was absolutely no consensus or additional feedback to not allow these updates to be incorporated. I was entitled to be "bold" in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and assume there were no objections or second opinions about my proposed updates.

All of this outrage could have easily been prevented if all of these new responders had simply addressed their concerns in that Talk discussion for a greeting template that they should be watching.

I certainly would not have made any past updates for the greeting template if these content issues had been previously raised, or would consider making any future updates without further discussion, feedback, and consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines. I am a responsible Wikipedia user that knows how Wikipedia works and treats other users and their content updates, no matter how outrageous, with respect and a civil discourse.

Others using words and phrases like "utterly useless piece of garbage", " major cockups", and "ugh" are not conducive to a civil discourse about content and appear to contradict the facts of the content, Talk discussions, and Wikipedia guidelines about civil discourse.

Recent editors continue to spend an awful lot of time focusing on my actions, which were made in good faith for legitimate improvements, as if they were a nefarious means at worst or botched good faith efforts at best, rather than focus on the content issues. They then try to link unrelated past behavior to the specific content issues that I address. If every user, who had made a past faux pas, was called up on their past mistakes every time they wanted to address a new content issue, that would have a very chilling effect on needed legitimate Talk discussions.

Please stop making inaccurate allegations about my competence since they are not warranted. All of this negativity is very, very concerning to me and should be concerning to responsible Wikipedia administrators.

Focus on NPOV content issues without derisive and foul language, rather than unwarranted comments about my personal actions and there will be a vast improvement to the discourse and needed actions for Wikipeida article improvements. Hope to see all of you on Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where this discussion rightfully belongs. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This Talk discussion should be closed out by an administrator since it is no longer focusing on the original request I made about responses I was receiving to content issues about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's showing that they community might just have to review all of your edits on this project. You seem to have a history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold when consensus is clearly against you, bizarre arguments, a wholly ineffective understanding of WP:CIVIL so that you twist it to try to be in your favour (which, by the way, has become a personal attack through making false statements). Our ability to assume good faith is now wholly stretched by a review of the mere surface of your edits. You've done a great job proving my very first statement in this thread to be true  the panda  ₯’ 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs": I don't think this is a discussion about the template. This is a discussion about user conduct. I haven't read the remainder of your reply per obvious wp:TL;DR, and probably building on the misconception in that first statement anyway. - DVdm (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda continues to make completely false and inaccurate statements. The facts clearly show that I have no history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold by going against consensus, no bizarre arguments (there is that avoidable denigrating comment again), no twisting of facts in my favor, and no personal attacks through false statements. I was involved with a misunderstanding about content issues that I repeatedly tried to work out with editors and made a mistake in unnecessarily reverting them. I have a very good understanding of what it means to act or not act with civility, and not make any false statements or twist anything.

None of these accusations should ever have been raised since they are completely inaccurate. This is beginning to look like a twisted way and an inappropriate excuse to investigate me and further harass me rather than simply focus on content issues. The conduct of those making inaccurate and derisive statements certainly leaves a lot to be desired. I am not asking for an investigation of their behavior or comments by others about how they have behaved.

The facts can be twisted any way needed to make a completely inaccurate analysis. Rather than addressing the original request for this Talk discussion, editors are now using this Talk discussion as an excuse to simply pile on unnecessary and inaccurate derisive comments about me in a very intimidating manner.

I am satisfied that viewpoints from all needed parties to my original request about the Talk discussion in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal have been adequately expressed.

It is time to move on to other issues. All of the new issues about what I have done regarding Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template should be addressed in that Talk page, unless editors have ulterior motives.

Differences of opinions about content issues and the updates that I made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines can best be addressed on that page. Wondering55 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In regards to DVdm's previous comment, my previous response was not obvious wp:TL;DR since I was able to very slowly read my response, which is broken up into clear, concise, and well-organized short statements, in 75 seconds. DVdm would do well to heed the advice from that guideline: "it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing". All of my subsequent statements, which support my original first statement based on the facts, from my response were conveniently ignored and not addressed by DVdm. Editors are not following Wikipedia guidelines and are shopping for additional forums to vent their unsubstantiated anger against me.

I continue to offer my good faith efforts to work with them, even if we have differences of opinion on how to achieve results. So far, I have not seen any reciprocal offers. Let's move on. I have listened carefully to try and understand some underlying concerns contained in the editor's responses. I will do my best to try and work and with them if they give me a fair chance. Wondering55 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You would do well to read the box on top of wp:TL;DR. It is not a guideline. Not even close. It is a handy, concise, and humorous way to tell someone that they are making too much noise . - DVdm (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I second that, and if Wondering55 is thinking of expanding his reading list, I can also recommend Wikipedia:ANI Advice, particularly points #1 and #2.
Eventually, Wondering, people will get bored enough with watching you repeatedly post mountains of rambling, irrelevant text about how everyone else is the problem and you are not, to do something about it, and curb your disruption. Your style is not new, it's boring, old, and predictable, and the patience of people who are here to do something productive is limited.
In short - we've all seen this sort of crap before. Stop it, or have it stopped for you. I hope that's not a "denigrating comment" or "personal attack" or "failing to assume your good faith", but who would notice in your deluge of such nonsense?
Stop it. Grow up. Edit in accordance with community norms, or stop editing. We're mostly bored with you now. Begoon ^talk 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dangerous Panda makes a good point above re personal attacks through making false statements. Wondering55 has been trashing me throughout this discussion, as he has previously (look at the links he presents), and he shows absolutely zero sign of letting up or understanding that what he does is wrong. I have never attacked him personally, but he has attacked me repeatedly. In fact, nobody has attacked him personally. People comment on his contributions, which indeed have been "wall of text" rantings, for that is what does, that is how he contributes, that is how he disrupts talk pages. He responds by attacking the messenger. I really question whether this editor "does not understand" WP:NPA as someone suggested above; more likely he just willfully violates it.

This editor seems to have a problem comprehending things. We all make mistakes. I just made a biggie in an article on a play; I added original research in the synopsis which threatened to derail it becoming a DYK. That was pointed out. Fine. No problem. I fixed it. Over. Has Wondering55, with all the things he gets wrong, even once admitted that he has actually done something wrong? Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to ANI, but I wonder; could Wondering55 look at the discussion above, about Dicklyon and Duxwing? It seems to have quite a few parallels, and maybe a demonstration of what he's doing could convince him to stop. Origamite^{Please talk here} 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not happening. You have to remember that he initiated this because he felt that he was the wronged party. It was made clear to him at the outset that his behavior was abominable. He responded with wall-o-text rants and forum-shopped to the Teahouse[27], where he was advised not to forum shop, which he denied. After a few days of being told in increasingly vociferous terms that he was flirting with a block, he finally got the message and stopped posting, stomping off with a parting shot that actually he was a victim of forum shopping [28] and that everyone else was to blame[29]. Has this experience put a crimp in his style? Nope. He screwed up a Welcome template and fought like the devil when two admins changed it back, finally stomping off.[30] When he was blocked for 3RR a week or so ago, same response[31]. Now I see he's revert-warring at Fort Lee lane closure scandal again. He reverted all the edits I made a couple of days ago that attempted to clean up the mangled prose in this article, which is a b--ch to read. He is just impervious. With an editor like this you either spend all your time squabbling with his wall-o-text rants or going to drama boards (if he doesn't cry "victim" and take you there himself) or you just give up. Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand; I have read this. Thank you for linking to the pertinent diffs. I'm just trying to get a feel for how nasty the cases on ANI are. (Very.) Also, the unblock requests qualify, in my opinion for a WP:Massive wall of text. Origamite^{Please talk here} 00:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This put me in mind of that discussion, too. Both have something of the elegant inevitability of Greek tragedy about them. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The tragedy is the time that has to be diverted from more productive tasks, whether in dealing with wall-o-text rants or having to carry out edits like this to clean up the messes they create. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Greek tragedy as much as complaining about something minor that WP:BOOMERANGs and hits the complainer right in the face. Origamite^{Please talk here} 12:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, his activity here has certainly put a microscope on him -- which, with telescope-scale posts, is all the more tedious. But will it come back to bite him in some substantial way? You can't ban someone for being insanely verbose and generally lacking in self-awareness, can you? Of course, it seems likely there will be further bans for other types of disruptive behaviour. Wondering, if you read this, you may feel it's just one more person piling but I really feel the best thing that anyone could do for you at present is point out the following -- there's a certain type of personality that feels they can win any argument on which they have a stance they truly believe in, if need be by sheer tenacity alone. Nobody likes that guy. Not even variants of that guy like the other, nearly identical, versions. In it's most productive form, argumentation is actually as collaborative an effort as any other type of human interaction. But you aren't trying to participate in that given and take, to adhere to an utilize those subtle points of reason, psychology, and collegial respect to win over your opposition or at least elegantly counter them in a way that is beneficial to your ends. Instead you are trying to hammer your opponent into submission with unending, but rapidly repeating, arguments. Not only is this unlikely to generate consensus (in the sense of finding a way to move the situation forward), it's likely to complicate many future interactions. And we're not talking garden variety bombastic wikilawyering; volunteers at ANI more or less have to be contributors with a high tolerance for repetitive and long-winded diatribes in those who petition or are the focus of requests here, but I think I can get the full support of near everyone who has had to slog through your responses when I say it's not a wall of text, it's The Great Wall of Text. It's a gold standard. Now retire a champ in that vein and try to look at debate on Wikipedia in a new way. Snow (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He just wears down people, and look, it's an effective strategy and he shows absolutely no evidence of abandoning it. Were it not for his blundering into ANI and the resulting scrutiny, Template:Welcomeg would have been permanently screwed up, as his lengthy rants had worn down the editors on that page. Even after the intervention of two administrators, it still took extreme effort to deal with his talk page rants and fix the damage he caused. Fort Lee lane closure scandal is now his current theater of operations and requires more eyes. It is a highly trafficked article and it is abysmally written, and the way things are now it is going to stay that way. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

He is pushing the envelope, & I think a plausible argument could be made to ban him simply to protect the Wiki -- especially if he moves outside of one or at most a few related articles. Despite acting in good faith, his acts are driving contributors away. But it will take an Admin who is willing to see the matter thru & risk the consequences: too many Admins have gotten burned handling people like him, & those willing to take a matter like this -- & who are smart enough to be successful at it -- on have never been numerous, & are even more uncommon now. So IMHO he's immune to any serious limitations if we're willing to sacrifice that article to keep him from "contributing" elsewhere. -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Right now I'd be happy if more eyes could be deployed on Fort Lee lane closure scandal. He has worn out everyone except me, and I'm getting there. I believe it is a deliberate strategy. He argues/edit wars about literally anything, and when there is nothing to argue about he makes stuff up and argues about it. Most recently he is trying to enforce a nonexistent standard on use of the "ref name" field in citation templates as used in that particular article.[32] It has to be a rigid format that Wondering55 has designed, upon which he expounds on the talk page. Yes, it drives editors from the article. Yes, it is frustrating. Yes, it is a time suck. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's quiet enough here at the moment, so I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I can certainly sympathize with your frustration, believe me. It may sound cliche, but in this case I really do recommend using the approach of the Aikido master in this case; use simple, direct arguments to deflect the central flaws, as you see them, in his text, let his own energy wear him out. Remember, it takes him time to write these; more than it takes most to read them. And he repeats himself rather a lot, afterall. Let him exert his energy if his arguments aren't getting traction with anybody. He can only drown out so much text from other contributors before a substantial portion of those other editors, even those new on the scene, just mentally mute him, after-all. Snow (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, when he's in full-scale revert mode, it's hard to avoid dealing with him on the talk page. Sort of necessary. But you're right. The main objective now is to get more editors on the page. Preferably some stout lads and lassies with a relish for tackling ungainly articles and improving the writing. We really need that. I've nominated it for GA status, which I know is but a distant dream at the moment, but hopefully will bring a fresh perspective at some point. Hey, I'm trying. Coretheapple (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I can see what he's doing to you there is grinding you into submission. I can see the revert warring is unlikely to stop until you give up. Without 1,000 editors like you Wikipedia will lose. So Wikipedia will lose. This is its achilles heel. Always it will lose to disruption like this. I don't have a solution - I could try to help with this one and I'd fail. We argue a lot about what the problem is. It's this. Plain and simple. A zillion bytes and nothing done. Rinse and repeat. We look the other way. If you want to disrupt, carry on, just make it too tricky for us to care. Post paragraphs. Post pages. Scare us away. Sorry. I wish I could help. It's just broken. Begoon ^talk 16:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. I had hoped to get more editors on board to serve as a counterweight, to calm him down and get him to stop clogging the talk page, but that hasn't happened so maybe the solution is more drastic. I find it hard to believe that there is no solution. He does violate policy. His latest mission was to enforce a rigid date format on ref names that are not even visible to the reader! WP:REFNAME was pointed out to him by two editors. Still, the ranting and raving went on. Look, it's not for me to say what to do about this editor. But I do want to note that this is not some backwater but a significant article on a major political controversy (Chris Christie and the GW Bridge traffic jams). He came here, he wasted everyone's time. So now he just goes back to the article where he was misbehaving and the status quo there continues? I find it hard to believe that is the only possible outcome, though I agree it is the most likely. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the lane closures. I live in Australia. I've just seen this sort of crap before from people, and it's doing your article no favours. The guy either edits according to norms (which he obviously isn't), or stops editing. We need to enforce that or the encyclopedia suffers. That's all. The, second to none, biggest problem with wikipedia, is that we're all so scared of actually having an opinion we let warriors like this beat us by default in case we say boo. It's pathetic. It needs to change. I've just noticed a lack of editors here prepared to get onboard with that sentiment. That needs to change too. Sooner rather than later. Begoon ^talk 17:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big content discussion here, obviously, but one of the problems with this article is that it is too long. It just goes on and on. It's a big political controversy in the U.S. but still, it's not written in summary style. Even in the best of circumstances it's hard to get editors to agree to cuts and trims. But when you have an editor who reverts and reverts, usually making things worse, and is willing to argue about literally nothing, the process of improving an article just grinds to a halt. One of the most productive editors on that article just up and left recently. Wondering55 was on his case before I even got there, going back and forth, banning him from his talk page, attacking him, and now he's done. He just gave up. We can't have that. New editors find the talk page spewing so intimidating that it makes them reluctant to contribute, as one new editor pointed out the other day. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Block/ban discussion concerning User:Wondering55

So Guy, Bishonen, Ilywrch, DangerousPanda, and anyone else who appreciates the pain...other than identifying the most obvious tendentious wall of a problem, can we come to some proposal on what to do about it? Personally, I don't like the idea of letting more damage being caused by this user; I'd prefer skipping straight to the most nuclear option available because this sort of tendentious editing is such a time-wasting exercise for existing contributors, and more dangerously, it has the effect of chasing away the limited resources we have too permanently. But, if there's not going to be agreement on that, can we at least agree on a topic ban or a block of some relatively significant duration? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In case there is any doubt about my position, I also agree with the proposal for an indefinite block and think it would be effective; being in the form of a de facto ban, it would be like a ban anyway. I suppose I should also note that I have yet to find a situation where the net outcome for the project has been positive by delaying sanctions in the never-ending wait for a user with these sorts of issues to reach the required level of improvement. Rehabilitation on the English wiki hasn't been successful for this type of issue, and has in fact caused further cuts (read: burn-out) to the resources available here. The community has had more than enough experience with earlier good faith attempts at fixing this type of issue which has repeatedly proved ineffective, and it is simply at the point where it cannot afford to keep making the same mistake. If it is felt by a small minority feel that it is possible for the user to be rehabilitated or that there are some encouraging signs, time can be spent (if not wasted) on that exercise elsewhere and would form reasons in favour of or against a future request for review. But ultimately, there is no need for a risk of further loss or damage being caused here in the meantime. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from articles to do with transport - because he's obviously non-neutral on this.

but

Propose community ban from everything - because this guy is not here to help. It's clear. Begoon ^talk 17:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Block per WP:STFUALREADY, as you say. The unbelievably disproportionate amount of verbiage for a trivial matter on a "scandal" that itself frankly is unbelievably trivial, is a titanic waste of time and effort. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I favour an indefinite block. It's not necessary by any means to assume that the user has bad intentions, but whatever their motives, it has become apparent that they use up our most precious resources (=the time and enthusiasm of our volunteers) without giving any corresponding benefits to the encyclopedia. Let's do it, because it has taken too long. (And just in case the block/ban conundrum should surface here: I'll support whichever gets consensus, but there's really no need to formalize and log a "ban". An indefblock which no admin will undo is a de facto ban.) Bishonen | talk 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Yikes. It took me some time to dig through all the text in the section above but now I'd say that an indef block is in order. As per Bish I don't think we need a formal ban here. De728631 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to favor WP:ROPE because he really seemed to take Wondering by surprise that he was not supported here and his own edits didn't pass muster because, if you look at the Fort Lee talk page, it's devolved into a tug-of-war of a few users. He was so caught up with the fate of this one article (and who was "right" and who was "wrong") that he didn't see the big picture of how his own behavior was disruptive. I'm hoping that this is an editor who can get a clue, reflect on what other editors are telling him and moderate his behavior.

I'd just ask that if you do go the way of an indefinite block, please allow the option to review the block after a period of time. Right now, I think the problem is primarily that this editor is way too invested in the articles and pages he edits and he just needs to take a step back. He's already doing that by disengaging from this AN/I conversation which he asked earlier to be closed, before it turned into a dogpile. He could have chosen to continue arguing in this thread but he backed off and I think that's an encouraging sign. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It was not just one article, and having experienced him in full force before and after a block for edit warring, and before and after what happened here, I would strongly disagree that any behavior change is even remotely in the offing. It's been mentioned above, but you may not have noticed this lengthy discussion on the talk page of the Welcome template. Look at 10:24, 18 April 2014 onwards. This was a knock-down, drag-out fight that he had with two administrators who he had just squabbled with right here, in this very discussion, and after he was told he faced a block. Also take a look at what transpired after he was blocked for edit warring. The post at the bottom, the one that says "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review," was posted on the talk page of the administrator who blocked him from his own talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz, WP:ROPE is no good here. First, one would need to believe that enough rope to encircle the earth at its equator on 3 foot posts had not already been issued and abused. That's not the case - look at the history from the links above. Second, one would need to agree that a change is likely to occur. It's not. The only change the user has ever made is to the venue, not the behaviour. Absent something, anything, credible from them to indicate even a glimmer of understanding the problems they cause, and some hope they might stop doing so, I really can't see any alternative to just preventing them from continuing. I'm not advocating we should ignore any such sea-change - I'm just saying it would need to actually happen, and any sign of that is utterly absent. Begoon ^talk 03:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• If Wondering55 can explain, concisely, in his own words, what he has done wrong and how he will proceed from here, I would support Liz's proposition to give him another chance. Using the advice and constructive feedback from his talk page archive, I was able to write a satisfactory but somewhat verbose example in 39 words. Otherwise, I'd say indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of bonus should they be able to avoid the use of the word "denigrating" in that explanation...? Seriously, though, at one point I contemplated counting up the repeats of the same old material, "arguments" and phrases just here in this same discussion, over and over and over and, did I say?, over again. I thought if I posted the totals they might have some impact. Then I scrolled through it all again and changed my mind, deciding it would be silly to spend the rest of my life on a job I could never finish, particularly given the astonishing lack of self-awareness of the editor I would wish to be chastened by the end result. 39 words sounds a good target. Begoon ^talk 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

OK, I have gone through this again, looked at the recent contributions from Wondering55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and based on the fact that the accusations of bad faith have continued undaunted by this discussion, I have blocked the account. The above comment from Begoon sums it up perfectly, and when Wondering55 manages this then I give open permission for unblocking without prior consultation with me (see the note at the top of my talk page). Guy (Help!) 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Skookum1 again

I despise getting into this sort of thing (and in fact, I believe this is the first time I've ever actually filed an ANI report that wasn't a ban request for a sockpuppeteer, but...), but the behavior of Skookum1 (talk · contribs) has not moderated since the last ANI, in fact if anything, it's become worse. His previous assumptions of entitlement on the basis of being an expert on subjects are continuing, and he is flat-out telling other editors to "[keep] your nose out of categories you know nothing about the subject matter thereof", and he continues to assume any opposition to him is an attack on him personally. However what spurred this report is that he and BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) have been...engaged in discussion...at this CfD (where the above behavior is ongoing), and my attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters was met with this response. This is wholly unacceptable behavior for any Wikipedian, and I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, since it's obvious Skookum1 has decided that I am the enemy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply "The Witchunt Part II" huh? What is needed is not a ban to get me out of Wikipedia, but as noted/"hinted" by RadioKAOS what is really needed here is an interaction ban against BHG and now you for harassment and obstructionist behaviour. The CfD was launched moments after I created the category and is without guidelines to back it, or anything but IDONTLIKEIT and is entirely AGF in tone; BHG demands evidence and examples, I provide them, she says they're " 95%...irrelevant" and presumes to tell me to "cool down" and calls my detailed explanations "diatribes". "Walls of text" I'm avoiding by bulleting and paragraphing but failing that complaint, she engages in denial and obfuscation and more "bring me a shrubbery" gambits despite lots of shrubbery already being provided.
  • • The CfD has consumed three (two? - seems like longer) days of what would otherwise be productive time for this contributing editor; as with the regional district hyphen-endash RMs and last year's native endonyms RM, which were similarly stonewalled by demands for irrelevant picayune information, what underlies the categories being challenged is both consensus and very findable citations; but you can put reality in front of someone, they will still go IWANTMORE as BHG is doing; failing that the tactic being mounted here is to get me banned. Given that BHG has targeted whole hierarchies of categories she doesn't even understand where or what they are about is a case in point of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about not being useful in such discussions; and who have no business nominating them unless they'er clearly against guidelines; which these categories are not, as the 'oppose' votes have pointed out.
    • Calling for a ban against me is draconian and destructive. I wanted to stay away from procedural discussions after the painful round of insults and NPAs and pat-judgments that typified the "burn him, burn him!" "votes" in the last ANI, which was closed "no consensus for a ban or block", but in the wake of which (maybe within minutes, I haven't looked at the date/timestamps) I was blocked by BHG anyway, and then she went and conducted hostile closures on RMs where she ignored consensus, view stats, googles, guidelines and the prevailing and emergent consensus which closed/moves 90%+ of similar RMs.
    • And though I went at trying to work on articles and get away from the witchhunt mentality that prevails in this oh-so-negative "discussion board", I created some river articles arising from creating Tsetsaut and created a category for the many rivers in the region in question and was immediately faced by a CfD from an admin who had blocked me without consensus. The CfD should be tossed out on those grounds alone, never mind that she has yet to provide a valid argument for deleting/merging the categories she's assailing, and has expanded her challenge to my work by going after whole hierarchies of categories which, in various phases and on various talkpages, do have consensus as necessary.
    • This is a nuisance ANI, just like the CfD is a nuisance CfD, and though you claim you're not my enemy, your WP:DUCK action here says otherwise. "A subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will not advise nor submit to arbitrary measures" (Junius) comes to mind. Arbitrary and high-handed abuse from a certain cadre of admins is now far too common in Wikipedia, and is entirely destructive and anti-contributing-editor in tone/intent time and again; this deleted/censored comment of the now-banned Kumioto is one of many of this kind.
    • Actions like yours here and your obstructive presence on a CfD you yourself say you don't care about the outcome of are what is disruptive and anti-Wikipedian....not somebody who stands up to pointless criticism and denials of evidence/example; making me the target instead of addressing the evidence provided is your hallmark; as is deluging discussions with personal-related criticism instead of actually useful, thoughtful comments on the issues and the topic.
    • And yes, if someone knows nothing about geography of a certain region, or about the category system on such topics, then it is not their business to intrude and create more procedure just to stonewall and make specious demands which are then ignored or derided.......I'm having computer problems probably from the 100 degree plus heat here in Ko Samui (sleep mode happening repeatedly without being asked) so won't be able to respond to the inevitable dogpile of condemnations and hypocrisy like surfaced last time around.
    • the previous anti-consensus block by the person who launched the CfD calls into question her motives; her anti-AGF behaviour about citations and explanations provided is just sheer obstinacy and is disruptive and tendentious. I was contemplating an ANI or RfA or RfC or some other measure to discipline her, but I dislike procedure, as most contributing editors do, and want to write articles, not be hauled in front of kangaroo courts where attacking contributing editors is a past-time. The CfD is a waste of time and groundless and purely personal in motivation, and amounts to wiki-stalking by someone who has already taken actions in defiance of a 'no consensus' closure that said not to; how ironic she would claim that long-standing region titles should need "consensus"....they have it; but like evidence that 95% of which I'm sure she didn't read, "consensus" is really not what she wants, other than to use the CfD to overturn it. But why?. "Because it's Skookum1 who started that category so let's pretend there's something wrong with it"......and now, hell, let's just go after every category and title he's ever written huh?
    • Banning me would be a dangerous loss for Wikipedia, but you seem insistent on it for purely personal reasons and here as on the CfD and in previous discussions you indulge in WP:BAITing and what amounts to purely destructive behaviour. I just want to write and improve articles, but my time is being taken up defending myself against baiting and groundless anti-AGF criticism and harassment. Maybe one day "ordinary" (contributing) Wikipedians will be free from the tyranny of the vocal minority who infest discussion boards, be it here or on RMs or CfDs or in guideline discussions; but as long as public crucifixions and stonings of people who do constructive work continue, that day is a long ways off yet.
    • What is needed here, again, is not a ban to rid Wikipedia of me, but an interaction ban against those who have persistently harassed me and who refuse to read or acknowledge evidence and who have no logic or guideline citations to speak of; just IDONTLIKEIT and that's it. I have a great deal yet to contribute to Wikipedia, but the last few months have seen procedural attacks that are totally counterproductive and timewasting......so rather than goading me so you can condemn me, why don't you just stay out of my way and not jump on every discussion you see me in?? Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let's can the drama. Shut this thread. Give the guy some space. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• speedy close ani is just fuel on the fire. Close this, close the cfd, and leave him alone for a while. I can't see anything else working.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Carrite and Obiwan for your sanity. Days of article-writing time have been consumed by the demands made in the CfD, and this ANI is just more harassment of someone who is acknowledged as a highly productive and prolific editor who "knows his shit". I submit again as I did above that an interaction ban is maybe needed; but less formal would be WP:DISENGAGE on BHG's and Bushranger's part; the RMs that were harmed by their biases against me should also all be revisited because of the prevailing and mounting consensus that would have seen them passed/moved. The COI passage on closures says nothing directly about personal vendettas, but that's all that CfD really is, and what this ANI is.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not "engage" you. I offered a caution and calming advice, in the hopes of avoiding your getting blocked, and I got a blistering tirade of personal attacks for my trouble. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "calming advice"??? you're either flattering yourself or just not clued in; you engaged me repeatedly before, always condemning and criticizing while claiming you are "giving advice", but your actions cluttered a CfD to the point where even when I produced citations from TITLE you accused me of continuing to BLUDGEON; the bludgeoning is yours, you painting yourself as innocent and even friendly is just..... there are a host of adjectives available...... given your track record with me saying you did not "engage" me by chiming in with a "support" and very AGF vote on a very AGF and pointless CfD puts the lie to the saintliness you are painting yourself as here.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• What is being requested here? I don't get the point of this thread. Is a block being requested, or a ban? No? This needs to be at something like RfC/U and not here. Doc talk 07:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd aver that a plain ol' RfC be held on BHG's launch of the CfD and her bad closes on sundry RMs, and her unilateral unsanctioned block of last week. I'm trying to be be a productive editor but finding my time tied up, and my presence here threatened, every time I turn around. The CfD, despite disclaimers that it's not anti-AGF, is very much so and in the context of recent events and words is highly COI in origin. The "Squamish matter" and the against-consensus/precedents closures of Haida people, Bella Bella, British Columbia and others need to be all redone because of the personal bias against me but the closer and their context within the recent ANI discussion/period. As Obiwan and Carrite have observed, I just want to be let alone so I can focus on article writing instead of having horseshoes thrown at me by people who have really nothing constructive to offer; I tried to "stay out of the way", but found myself stalked and pounced on and a whole host of categories challenged by someone who's never even heard of them before. As I said in the last ANI, I'm not the problem here; bad attitudes are, and the prevailing negativity of kibbitzers who nitpick on titles and topics without even knowing what they're about.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Raking me over the coals in an RfC/U would just be more procedure and no doubt an even more hostile and prejudicial environment than ANI is. And to what end? To alienate yet another long-time contributing editor and either drive or ban him from Wikipedia forever? The amount I could have gotten done in the last few weeks/months is obviously considerable; instead I have been regularly attacked and vilified and finally subjected to a public stoning and then a peremptory, unsanctioned-by-ANI ban by the person who now is asking non sequiturs and ignoring evidence provided as asked, and sticking her tongue in her cheek pretending innocence while castigating my information as irrelevant and wikilawyering in extremis. I was accused in the ANI of being a "time sink", but I'm not the time sink; procedure of the sake of the sport of it IS. How much of my last year or two has been taken up by time-consuming procedure of all kinds? Way too much. How many articles could I have improved and created in the meantime?? Subjecting me to an RfC/U to please those who have nothing better to do than criticize others is just gonna be more of the same....Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What is being requested here is that somebody give Skookum1 a plain-English warning that personal attacks like the one linked in the OP are simply not on, since it would be improper for me to do so both on account of being involved overall (and the target of said attack) and since it would be taken as just more proof of being persecuted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Damn right it is; you're the one doing the persecuting while claiming to be "not my enemy".....WP:DUCK says it all. You had nothing constructive to add at the CfD and here you are being destructive and calling for draconian measures to silence me forever. Give me a break, pal, I'm trying to get work done and loathe being hauled before mindless, picayune procedure that has no real productive value at all. Are you improving Wikipedia today? How? By launching an ANI against someone who just wants to be left alone so he can get some work done? Wow, very constructive....the CfD should be and I hope does get tossed out, and this ANI should be shut down for being the vendetta and witch hunt that it so clearly is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "Are you improving Wikipedia today"? Well let's see, I wrote an article from scratch and spent four hours building a table in another article. It was indeed a productive day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Evasion and misdirection is staple fare it seems; you calling for a ban on me for my getting impatient with obstinance and obfuscation in t he CfD is definitely draconian......as is coming to this ANI at all, considering the threats of "escalating blocks" that were not consensus-agreed-to, but done anyway; Drop the hammer and go write some articles if that's really what else you do.... Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • And this little edit comment of yours sums up the cynicism and hostility underlying you bringing me before "the court" today; and imputes that I need "fixing", which is just more NPA and AGF while you wrap yourself in saint's robes. Go fix yourself, pal, I'm not the problem around here, people like you ARE.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Bushranger: "...you're right, this is pointless. Somebody feel free to close this, so that nothing can be done and eventually he'll will be blocked, banned, or "driven away", because nobody cared to try to fix things while they might be fixable)"
              • I am not calling for a ban, or even for a block, here. The purpose of this ANI was to ask for a warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed most of the Cfd -- well, actually I skimmed the last part because it just went on and on.... Skookum1's unwillingness to stay on topic and repeatedly personalize the discussion there is inappropriate. Comment on content, not contributors I find myself surprised this is coming from a 50K mainspace 9 year editor -- it's not a viable long term approach to collaborating on Wikipedia. NE Ent 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick visit to my talkpage this morning shows just how badly Skookum personalizes things. The short version is this: Skookum made an edit to this page earlier - they must have got an edit-conflict, but clicked "save" anyway. It erased someone else's post, so I reverted with an appropriate edit-summary. Skookum then happily dropped by my talkpage to make accusations, and even when they restored their post, the edit-summary accused my of something nefarious. Gigantic time sink.  the panda  ₯’ 10:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's some bug in the software -- that type of edit, where an addition to one section removes content from another -- happens here sporadically. It's worse when there are lots of threads present. NE Ent 11:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Whether it was caused by a bug or by user error, the point is that DangerousPanda acted quite properly and non-judgmentally, but still got flamed instead of thanked. That's the sort of behaviour which keeps on bringing Skookum1 to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, there was there a lack of WP:TPG in the statement they must have got an edit-conflict (no, they most likely did not). In addition, the summary given [33]] is only partially true -- while restoring edits accidentally removed by Skookum1 Panda did, in fact, remove Skookum's. See [34] for how to correct an ANI bug removal. We have enough "dirt" on Skookum without piling on nonsense. (It's this type of crap which leads credence, warranted or not, to the fiction that admins are a self-protecting cabal.) NE Ent 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BHG

On the narrow issue of this CFD, the situation is simply that after I had blocked Skookum1, I noticed that on his return he was posting complaints about me in various locations on my watchlist (e.g. [35]). So I looked at his contributions to see where else this was going, and saw a newly-created Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which didn't fit into any other category of rivers. I looked for similar categorisation schemes, didn't see any, and nominated for discussion at CFD with the rationale: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. Topics can be categorised in many different ways, and CFD regularly discusses whether new types of category schemes are appropriate. Skookum1's response was ballistic. Non-neutral notifications to no-less than 5 WikiProjects .([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]) and to User:Obiwankenobi[41].

As Obi pointed out, this scheme could create thousands of more categories so before pursuing it further I'd get broader consensus at the geography page.

Unfortunately, the CFD page is filled with long rants from Skookum1. His reply to the Bushranger was merely one of many diatribes on that page alone.

Skookum1 is clearly a very enthusiastic editor, keen to expand coverage of the topics which interest him. But he has great difficulty with collaboration, and with consensus-forming processes. Instead of Bold, revert, discuss, the Skookum1 version seems to be bold, revert, diatribe. In more discussions than I can count, editors who disagree with him have been denounced at length, often to the detriment of the discussion; countless editors have been accused by him of personal vendettas, and of failing to respect his expertise. I first encountered Skookum1 when I closed a CFD which had been open for over a month. Not hard to see why was unclosed: Skookum1's comments were far too long to read in any reasonable length of time.

I subsequently encountered a lot more of his battleground conduct while closing some of the RM backlog; one of those discussions was what prompted me to block him, because although the thread was a bit stale, the disruption was still ongoing elsewhere. Skookum1 alleges that I have been making "hostile closures on RMs" and that I "ignored consensus". If he genuinely believes that, then rather than repeating attacks on me in countless pages, why not just take the closures to Move review? If he's right, the closures will be overturned.

The personal attack which prompted this thread was in response to a warning from The Bushranger, who is merely one of a long series of editors to plead with Skookum1 to calm down. Others include:

A warning here seems justified, but I doubt it would change anything. Skookum1 appears to have pre-emptively dismissed it as persecution, and to have categorised User:The Bushranger as one of his legion of persecutors.

It seems to me that the question is how can Skookum1 be helped to work collaboratively? Sometimes our contributions to Wikipedia are challenged, and discussing those disagreements civilly and concisely (see WP:TPYES) is fundamental to editing Wikipedia works. Sometimes the result is decisions we like, and sometimes we disagree with the result, but that's how it works here.

Skookum1 hasn't cracked how to work within that framework. Would a mentor help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He also hasn't figured out how to put across his point without using reams of words, which make many of his comments virtually unreadable. BMK (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think using a lot of words on a talk page is a problem. It's an annoyance for some, and it no doubt reduces the effectiveness of arguments of principles being made, but some people use more words than others. It's a minor party foul if it is a party foul at all. I also appreciate that there is a lot of venom and antivenin being spilled all over the place. Everyone involved needs to just let it go, forgive, forget, and move along. l've strongly advised Skookum not to answer here and I hope he doesn't. I similarly hope that this thread is shut down expeditiously — it has done nothing but fan the embers. Skookum is a productive content contributor; just let him go without whacking him in the head every five minutes. Differences in deletion discussions happen and sometimes they get needlessly heated. Everybody needs to breath deeply, to step back, to do something else for a while. Wikipedia is a big place and there is plenty to be done without launching into rounds 6, 7, and 8 of a fight that inevitably ends up with a productive contributor's head on a pike. I've seen this pattern too many times and it sickens me. Just let it go, everyone. Carrite (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem, Carrite, is that while everyone else forgave, forgot, and moved along, Skookum1 did not, and that is the reason this thread was opened. Being a "productive content contributor" does not excuse unprovoked and vehement personal attacks, it does not permit tossing around accusation of bad faith, and it does not allow someone to tell people to "get their nose out" of areas that person edits in. We can address the fact that Skookum1 has done all of these things (repeatedly, over and over) now, and hopefully retain him as a contributor, or we can close this and just come back to it in a week, month, or year, with another even stronger outburst of drama and the likely loss of the contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem here. One that involves more than User: BrownHairedGirl and User:Skookum1. The problem is the clash between those who want to contribute content to Wikipedia and those who try to stop them. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ottawa, I've seen you make allusions to this before, and I think you're wrong. bHG has created ~3300 articles (or more?) and probably thousands of categories. What evidence do you have that she, or anyone else, is either 'not' contributing content to Wikipedia, or trying to stop those who are? Don't paint this as a clash of civilizations or of contributors vs others - simply no evidence that it is as simple as that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the typical tired refrain of people who think Wikipedia would be better off as an experiment in anarchy. They tend to think that the creation of some content should become an impervious shield that protects them from the consequences of behavioural issues. Resolute 23:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's especially droll, as I checked out @BrownHairedGirl:'s contribution history - she has many more edits, and a higher percentage of those edits in mainspace, than @Ottawahitech: and Skookum1 put together! Her overall percentage of mainspace edits is 67% (~248,000 edits to mainspace), whereas Ottawa has 22,000 edits in mainspace (in other words, 10x FEWER content-creating edits), and Skookum has 48,561 mainspace edits. The other editor who started this thread, The Bushranger, has 54,723 mainspace edits, again more than either Ottawa or Skookum. I'm not trying to denigrate the contributions of Skookum1 and Ottawahitech, and I myself have many fewer edits than all these folks, but the claim that this is about content creators vs something else is ridiculous, and I think Ottawa should withdraw that comment and apologize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

A withdrawal by User:Ottawahitech would be welcome. Ottawa appears a bit confused about what their beef is, because further down this page complains that I "try to do too much".

One minute, Ottawa complains that I am a non-content-creator picking on content creators. The next that as a content-creator I am shouldn't be an admin.

I hope that Ottawa will recall that one of the definitions of a personal attack is accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and that policy is that such comments are "never acceptable". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

One Month Block Proposal

Once again we are hear and once again I notice borderline and outright personal attacks in difs and in the ANI comments. This obviously needs to stop, and the only way to do so is to force the individual to step away. Being cautioned has done nothing, and closing the previous thread before enough people weighed in for the week block last time prevented any action forth coming. Since then the problem has expanded, but I AGF that there is hope for the editor. That is the only reason an indef is not proposed. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a nice, round number. One month in "the hole". For... prevention of imminent damage, to protect the encyclopedia. Oppose. Doc talk 10:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - "to protect the encyclopedia" - the imputation that I am damaging the encyclopedia by expanding content and improving its categorization is just yet more AGF and misrepresentation; the call for a one-month block is draconian; it's like you're all wanting to up the ante without EVER discussing the issues and evidence in the CfD. It's persecuting contributing editors that's damaging wikipedia, all in the name of protecting the encyclopedia but really protecting the prerogatives and apparently immunity from review or questions about their motives, abilities and prejudices. I'm not the only one to observe the ongoing conflict between "wiki-idealists" and "wiki-bureaucrats", and I'm sure finding out what that's all about the hard way. What's going on here is a black mark in the history of Wikipedia...one among many, it seems....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose having created 350+ articles and 980+ images means I'm not a content contributor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Whether or not a block is the solution, there is a problem. Skooum1's conduct repeatedly disrupts consensus-forming discussions.

Skookum1's response to a discussion where he doesn't like the proposal, or where the debate isn't going his way, is to flood it with rants about all the rest of the ways in which he perceives himself to have been wronged, about the alleged ulterior motives of anyone who disagrees with him, about their intruding into topic areas which he feels are his preserve, etc. In the CFD which started this ANI discussion, Skookum1 has already posted 39,333 characters (2/3 of the thread), most of it unrelated to the CFD. His on-topic points are mixed in with the diatribes, so anyone trying to follow the substantive discussion can't easily skip over the outpourings of his frustration.

This sort of disruption has been seen in countless other discussions. See for example this RM, and this CFD, where the substantive discussion was drowned out in extraordinarily verbose outpourings of rage. All of this runs counter to WP:TPG, and impedes consensus-formation.

Skookum1 has repeatedly been pointed to appropriate ways of addressing his grievances. Don't like a CFD closure? Take it to DRV. Don't like an RM closure? Take it to WP:MR. But instead of using the established channels to review these issues, he rants about them in other discussions, so nothing ever gets resolved.

I suggested above that mentorship might help. What's your preferred solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

why should I not raise the issue of your motives in those closes, or in starting the CfD, which you still have not provided any tangible rationale per guidelines or conventions; that I supplied examples and direct citation evidence only to have you pronounce all of that as "irrelevant" and then make further demands, is obstructionism pure and simple.

• You stylize my posts as "diatribe(s)" and worse plus other similar/usual NPAs and AGFs you have fielded at me both in the CfD and in the RMs and stonewalled, claiming evidence was still needed - when lots was provided. You ignore the points made by the "oppose" votes, you mumble about consensus and evidence despite the evidence already being there; and re the regions categories you have hinted should also be deleted, you have ignored consensus that lay behind their development and yet now you want a consensus on geography categories and a centralized discussion. To what end? The guidelines and policies already exist, you just refuse to acknowledge them. In that context, why should I not point out the AGF content of the CfD's launch, and your COI with me, personally.
• You have expanded the CfD to several categories and counting, yet when I fielded bulk RMs "procedural" objections were raised....and most of those RMs done individually, other than yours and DavidLeighEllis' were closed contrary to mounting consensus and also, as in the CfD, by ignoring votes and also view stats;
• you made false claims that SOURCES says that only GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar should be used for googles; in fact it says no such thing. TITLE/AT was invoked on the RMs that went in "my" favour (i.e. according to the integrity of the title per policy and also per actual sources) and waved at COMMONNAME as if it somehow bypassed PRECISION and CONCISENESS.
• your resistance to actually debate the evidence provided but instead lecture me on particulars that you demand (they were already provided, I'm convinced you didn't actually read what I posted, as you have before elsewhere) is proof of your AGF in this matter, as is the targeting of a category I created minutes after I created it in the wake of your unilateral and peremptory block, during which you "went after" some of the remaining RMs and gave them "negative closures"....... this is politics, and "in politics, optics is everything. You claiming neutrality and "UNINVOLVED" is laughable.
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack.....
• Move Review is not about issues, it is all about wikiquette; pointless for me to go there, the negative accusations/judgments fielded by you and others here will only resurface there while the issues and guidelines go undebated; an RfC as noted by CBW elsewhere is only about single guidelines as they apply to single articles; so that's not the place to go either as in all cases various policies and guidelines, not just one, apply; RfM maybe, but to me the RfC/U being mumbled about here is just more victimization while the issues remain undebated.
• in the case of the CfD you wave at a convention about political geographic units that, as noted by an "oppose" vote (and also in my points about the different systems of political geography/regionalization within BC), are ORIGINALRESEARCH on the one hand and RECENTISM on the other. There is no policy or guideline supporting your nomination and its expansion; there is only IDONTLIKE IT and your very evident "get Skookum1" attitude and tone of "debate".
• your failure to address evidence and your ignorance of the complete texts of the guidelines you presume to cite, and then rant about my supposed lack of coherence, is just "more of the same" and recognizable in style as similar to the stonewalling and POV forking going on at NCL and NCET; denial, misrepresentation, condescension, pontification, pretending something someone says doesn't make sense or is relevant, and ongoing demeaning comments about my writing (and my personality) you refuse to (or are unable) to read or logically process.
• I agree with those who say I should stay away from this bearpit and proceed with my work, which I have been doing; but to see the ongoing condemnation and what seems like provocation requires me to clarify the full context of this situation, and point out why your frustrating behaviour does call into question your motives and your very evident AGF towards me. I have contemplated an RfA on you, or an RfC/U, because of your behaviour overall, and your refusal to acknowledge policy or evidence while you continue to drum up hostility towards me. But I dislike process, obviously, and just wanted to be left alone to work on articles; then you came at me with a CfD without any substance behind it whatsoever.
• No doubt you will pronounce this as a rant to avoid having to answer to your behaviour and your violations of titling policy and more. Ranting about me, and provoking me with non sequitur questions and your refusal to acknowledge relevant citations and examples as relevant, point to you being unfit to even comment about "proper discussion" and also the shallow context of your CfD, which as I have said there is vexatious and disruptive. As with Bushranger, I'm not the problem here....I'm a contributing editor finding myself interfered with by people who, to me, have been harassing and demonizing me. When that gets pronounced a "persecution complex", it's just more AGF and NPA and amateur psychiatry masquerading as "proper behaviour".
• for knowing the material and the sources, and for being the one who built the mountain and geography categories, I have been wrongly accused of OWN. What I see instead is people who try to OWN Wikipedia, even referring to their opinions with the royal "we", and generally behaving so as to not encourage contributing editors or give them credit where credit is due, but to control them and, if they don't submit to hectoring and lecturing and AGF comments, propose to get rid of them. All because you have a problem with not being willing or able to understand more text than your impatience or inability can tolerate. And you make a personal issue of it, and have closed CfDs and RMs on the basis of those prejudices towards me. That is "not according to the spirit of the guidelines, and violates the every wikiquette you wrap yourself in while violating it with nearly every post you make in response to me.Skookum1 (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1, you have a long set of complaints about a number of editors, of whom I am one. You make serious allegations against many of them, alleging all sorts of misconduct. The curious thing is that in most cases, it seems to be only you who complains of persecution by them. As I noted above, several uninvolved editors have suggested that you step back and consider why it is that you alone find all these alleged miscreants on your case, and consider what you can do differently to change the situation. So far, I don't see any sign of you doing that.
  You have a few choices in how you can deal with this.
  One option is to continue to post about all your grievances in every forum available to you: ANI, user talk pages, Jimbo's talk, XFDs, RMs, your own talk. That takes up a lot of your time, and maybe it is satisfying to you to air your grievances, but it doesn't change anything. So you remain frustrated, and you also frustrate other editors who want to discuss only the matter in hand. When they complain, you then add them to the list of editors out to get you.
  Another option is for you to use established processes to review decisions which you don't like. WP:MR exists to review whether move requests were closed correctly, and WP:DELREV has the same role for CFD. If you list closures at those reviews, you can explain exactly why you consider the closes to be flawed, and you concerns will be assessed by uninvolved editors. Those reviews are not (as you wrongly claim) about wikiquette; they are about whether the discussion was closed correctly. However, you have apparently written off the review process without even trying it.
  You could open an RFC/U about any editor (including an admin) whose conduct you find problematic. There you will plenty of other editors ready to review your concerns. But instead you denounce process and say that you "just wanted to be left alone to work on articles".
  Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Editors discuss content and processes, review and critique each others contributions, and use established processes to resolve issues where they can't agree. Why do you expect to contribute to a collaborative environment and be "left alone"? Solitary writing is a fine thing, but it's not how wp works.
  Wikipedia is not a battleground. To avoid it turning into a battleground, there are a wide range of dispute resolution processes. You choose to neither use those processes, nor to let go and move on from the things which you feel have been unfair. Instead you bring every conflict with you wherever you go, such as denouncing RM closes in a CFD discussion. (That neither helps the CFD make a good decision, nor changes the RM outcome, nor reduces stress on you). That's your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Pompously suggesting I need a mentor is patronizing in the extreme; yet when I suggested you need remedial reading so you have the ability to read longer passages of text, you pronounced it a personal attack..... And this, right here, summarises the problem with Skookum1's behavior in a nutshell: the suggestion that an editor consider mentoring to better work within Wikipedia's process being considered equivilant to suggesting an editor is mentally deficient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Apart from the personal attack, Skookum's comment also displays a rejection of good faith. Despite repeated complaints about the disproportionate time and effort required to read extreme verbosity and off-topic digressions, Skookum1 assumes that the complaint is bad-faith misrepresentation of a lack of ability. The guideline WP:TPYES is very clear: "Be concise". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You summarize the situation well, BHG. I think this is a problem of collaboration. Unless an editor has a topic ban, there is nothing preventing any editor from working on any article or project, whether they are an expert or newbie. We don't get to choose who edits which articles, who comments on an AfD or CfD discussion, who votes on an RfA. Every editor, no matter how productive or how long they've been editing, has to deal with this lack of control. Ideally, out of diverse opinions and approaches come stronger articles and better decisions. When things are not ideal, well, like you said, there is always dispute resolution. Liz 22:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc: This isn't for a punishment. Every time this problem appears on the board not only does Skookums not curb their behavior they continue it on the board discussing the inappropriate attacks. I would suggest indef off the bat but I do believe that people can be reformed (otherwise I would have to give up entirely on the human race) and I am hoping that a month restrictions would make the user realize "Oh hell, they are serious." Then maybe we would see some actual improvement in behavior. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Solution

This is about Wikipedia Categories?? Not WP:BLP nor POV nor RS nor article content? Between this and the Amanda_Filipacchi#Wikipedia_op-ed categorization fiasco, I wonder whether they're worth the aggravation. (I'm reminded of an Emo Phillips comedy routine about schisms: text here, 1:17 youtube video.)

Obviously Skookum1 cannot continue the not concise personalized comments long term. See WP:First Law. Given that they're a 9 year, 50K / 60% mainspace editor [42], "solutions" (such as blocks) that are as likely as not to lead to their departure from the project are not actual solutions.

On the other, BHG stalking his edits post-block isn't ideal. While technically not against the rulz -- WP:INVOLVED is wikilawyerishly admin action after editorial engagement -- it violates the spirit of strict separation between an individual's admin and editorial roles. Call it WP:DEVLOVNI -- backwards involved. It's important to the gestalt of pedia that authority been seen as impersonal.

So how about a two parter:

• BHG will ignore Skookum1's category activities. (Given 852 admins and 121,930 users, surely it can fall upon someone else to Cfd categories if they're not quite right?)
• Skookum1 agrees to keep their Wikipedia: space posts less than 2000 characters and stop the personalization of disputes. NE Ent 16:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I appreciate the problem-solving spirit of your suggestion, but I'm not so sure it works.

First, the constraint on Skookum1 doesn't achieve much, because even one post of 2000 characters is grossly excessive in most discussions, and Skookum1 could easily evade even that generous limit by simply making multiple posts, as he often does. I'm not sure how to define a limit, because sometimes posting relevant evidence requires length. This is where I think that a mentor could help him to craft more concise and focused replies.

Your suggestion that he stop the personalization of disputes is a valuable one, and would certainly help. However, he also needs to be constrained to discussing the narrow issue in hand, rather than using each discussion to air his wider grievances.

As to me, I certainly wasn't "stalking" Skookum1; I was looking at his contribs to see the extent of his complaints about me. Since he chosen not to use any of the formal dispute-resolution or review processes (or to ping me when mentioning me), it is the only way to find out where I am the subject of complaint.

Along the way I spotted an odd-looking category, so I examined it. I can see why it is possible to read that CFD nomination as some sort of personal thing, but I just ask editors to look at the grounds for the nomination. This category of rivers was not parented in any other category of rivers, and did not appear to fit into any wider categorisation scheme; the geohpysical regional basis of it is at best diffusely documented.

I would be happy in principle to make a clearer separation between my admin role and my long-standing interest in categories, and thereby ignore Skookum1's category edits in future. If my good faith attempt to open a discussion about a category is seen as blurring lines, then it evidently had an unintended bad effect. I don't share NE Ent's optimism about categories being generally well-scrutinised, but am happy to leave that aside.

My reservation about this is not for me, but that I think it sets an unfortunate precedent. So far as I can see, any editor who has challenged Skookum1's edits or proposals gets accused at length of bad faith. In a long series of RMs, editors who expressed views different to Skookum1's were denounced ferociously; where his opponents agreed with each other, they were labelled as cabals.

I fear that this is setting off on a path where Skookum1 seeks restraints on other editors rather than learning to work collaboratively and follow WP:TPG. That's just pushing the problem down the road, and impeding the normal scrutiny which editors apply to each others work. Skkoum1's repeated demand to "leave me alone" just isn't viable in a collaborative environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• @NE Ent: I'm not going to bother commenting more here today, it's the usual one sided rants and (as with Neotarf below) cherrypicked examples, all with AGF as their theme, but I would like to point out I just ran a word count on BHG's post immediately above - 450 words=2,623 characters - while her very editorialized and misrepresentative "hostile close" at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move 2 is 537 words=3,249 characters - longer than some CfD/RM posts she pronounced TLDR as an excuse not to read them (when it was pointed out she shouldn't be using TLDR on discussion boards, she went and dug out a "behavioural guideline"). And what is going on at the CFD is not "normal scrutiny", it is groundless and not normal, but as noted COI/AGF in origin and targeted; disavowals of that are made, but the refusal to acknowledge evidence provided (or in the inability to read/digest it) is what it is. The claim by Neotarf below that my problem is with "every person" [I interact with] is just more typical conflation and misrepresentation and attack-mode "IDONTLIKESKOOKUM1", and the rants here and in other threads about numbers of characters per post overloading wikipedia's servers are ironic; it's fruitless and venal and often mean discussions here and elsewhere that are taking up far more space.....and I know from the BCGNIS template dispute long ago that Jimbo and the MWF told the code-writers to write as if t hey had unlimited space.....so what's the big deal about actual text, or is code more important than words and meanings. You want shorter posts from me? Well, if people weren't stonewalling and tossing NPA/AGF grenades in my path, that would help a lot. I also of course support an interaction ban, and feel it should Bushranger as his own behaviour is demonstrably hostile and his own use of "walls of text" while complaining about mine in the Squamish CfD where he used TLDR as a BLUDGEON, while citing BLUDGEON, is every bit as hypocritical and AGF and destructive and became the focus of BHG's invocation of TLDR to reject that CfD (even though TLDR is not to be used in discussions (it's about articles) without condescending to examine the evidence provided, or acknowledge support votes either.Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, that's classic straw man stuff. I have never cited TLDR against any of your posts. I have repeatedly pointed you towards the behavioural guideline WP:TPYES, which says "be concise". Have you even read WP:TPYES? The problem is not server overload; the problem is editor overload, when discussions are filled with off-topic rambles.

You dispute some closes; time to put up or shut up. If you dispute them, open a move review or deletion review. If you choose not to use the established routes to review them, stop whining about them.

As to the evidence you provided at CFD, I question the significance of some of it. That's a normal part of a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not support any interaction ban, as one is not necessary. What is necessary is that Skookum1 accept that his behavior has not been within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, instead of continuing to insist it's everyone else's fault, agree to stop trying to accuse others of the behavior he engages in, accept that people disagreeing with him is not attacking him, and agree to engage other editors in a civil and constructive manner even when they disagree with him. I would like to poit out that I have not provided "walls of text" as claimed by Skookum1, nor have I been "demonstratably hostile": I request that Skookum1 provide diffs to support these claims or cease making them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it puzzling, to say the least, how someone who has never interacted with this user can have "attack-mode DONTLIKESKOOKUM1" secret motivations. Whatever. If all of these diffs that other editors have provided are "cherry-picking", then where are the threads that show this user being able to focus on the topic and engage in constructive collaboration? Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil? A more philosophical question--how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar? I consider that highly unlikely. Are we looking at some recent problem--maybe the editor is getting burned out? Maybe it's time to voluntarily step back and take a breather. Skookum. Dude. You're in Ko Samui, and you're wasting your time arguing on Wikipedia? Go to the beach. —Neotarf (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do, every day....it's 50 yards from my porch. And as for being burned out, what's burning me out is the endless attacks on my personality and writing; I'm not burned out for real Wikipedia work, only finding my time eaten up by defending myself from persistent AGF/NPA attacks and this ongoing witchhunt. This hyperbole is AGF in the extreme - "Are there any editors at all that Skookum does not consider eeeevil?", and also is a false imputation, as can be seen by those who have shown support for me and the areas which I am working without being treated as I have been here, and in the obstructionist behaviour and hostile closures of RMs and CfDs. This line "how does a user with this communication style edit for so long and stay under the radar" is just "more of the same". This user has contributed huge amounts to titles/articles and also to discussions of all kinds, including weather NPA/AGF accusations on various titles and topics; your pretense that I have "stayed under the radar" i.e. escaped official harrassment is equally specious and also confrontational and is "incitement" of yet more. I'd rather work on real material than have to defend myself against campaigns to get rid of me; I'm not alone in that sentiment, as a glance at various other witchhunts and rants about "walls of text" (while committing same) elsewhere on this board and in its archives. Why don't you go write some articles (since you can't go the beach) and drop the axe-grinding and pitchfork-wielding as you are doing here? I'm not the one being disruptive, but my work is being disrupted and obstructed ("tendentious editing") on a regular basis, including here.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So where are your diffs, your uncherry-picked examples of where you are focusing on the topic, and assuming good faith of other editors, rather than making unsupported accusations? —Neotarf (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To User:NE Ent, this AN/I was not initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl; it was initiated by User:The Bushranger. I initiated the previous AN/I of Skookum1. While problems have arisen from categories, they also include personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. These collective actions create a toxic environment and disrupt dialogue, which have rendered consensus-building discussions all but impossible, e.g. 1, 2, [43], [44], etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

@NE Ent: As Uyvsdi points out, I raised this - not because of verbosity (indeed, in the current CfD there was marked improvement from the concerns that had arisen for me in the previous one that's relevant), but because of the personal attacks, particularly the blistering ones unleashed when a caution that a trip down NPA Road was being taken was delivered. Regardless of categories, the personal attacks, inability to accept dissenting viewpoints, and assumptions of bad faith to the point of reading attacks that aren't even there into statements (i.e. the repeated vehement insistience that I raised this ANI to get him banned) are the problem here. 150K of discussion on a single topic can be productive - but it has to be made in a productive fashion, and that is where the problem is here. Neither of us want to lose a productive contributor: quite the opposite. But a productive contributor must be willing to contribute collegially, or at the very least to be willing to accept dissenting viewpoints and remain calm and even enjoyable to discuss content with, even when opposite sides of the issue, as long as the bear doesn't get poked; Skookum1 has shown little sign of being willing to do so, no bear-poking required. All that's needed here is for a simple, good-faith statement that an attempt will be made to keep discussions, regardless of length, on the content and not the contributor or the contributor's motive in the discussion, and the drama will be over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific request Bushranger made was I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, (about the personal stuff), and I think this proposal includes that. While not discounting the points made above (by BHG and Uyvsdi), they're moot unless agree Skookum buys into or is willing to at least discuss the proposal, so I'd prefer to wait for their response before I comment further. NE Ent 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal does not address the overwhelming bulk of the problems, so is not a solution. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Which is? (i.e What is "the bulk of the problems")? NE Ent 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

To recap, they are "personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy." -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It is not just one or two people, or just admins, it is anyone who comes in contact with this user. For example see the personal attacks on this thread. People who volunteer their time for the project should not have to be subjected to verbal abuse. They will either leave or complain. If you try to solve the problem by merely getting rid of any editors who object to personal attacks, you're gonna be dealing with this problem for a looooong time. —Neotarf (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack from Skookum1

Please look at this edit by Skooukm1, at 0700 UTC today. It's his most recent contribution to the discussion, and it is a mixture of personal attack and misrepresentation, which distorts any debate. Responding to this sort of thing is time-consuming and verbose.

It was made in response to my original nomination, which said in full: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything. All the 6 pages currently in the category are already in other categories of river-by-political-geography. That nominator's rationale has not been amended or added to.

Skookum's reply is: That's an outright falsehood/distortion but all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region; only the Whiting, Unuk, Craig and Lava Fork (4 articles) have Alaskan political geographic divisions on them, none have Canadian political geographic units on them; the Keta is in Alaska but was newly-created and has not yet had Alaskan p.g. units added; your argument is even more irrelevant as there are no British Columbian equivalents for same (the Alaskan boroughs are regional municipalities; there are no municipalities in this region of BC, other than tiny Stewart at the southern end.

The 6 pages then in the category were Craig River, Iskut River, Keta River, Lava Fork, Ununk River, Whiting River. (In each case I have linked to the version at the time of nomination).

Unpicking Skookum1's comment:

1. "an outright falsehood/distortion"
   Very harsh words, but possibly justifiable if true. However, they are demonstrably false.
2. "all too typical of your lack of knowledge of this region"
   A personal attack, particularly when I had explicitly asked for clarification of anything I had missed.
3. "only the Whiting, Unuk, Craig and Lava Fork (4 articles) have Alaskan political geographic divisions on them, none have Canadian political geographic units on them".
   This is demonstrably untrue: Craig River, Iskut River, Ununk River, Whiting River were all in Category:Rivers of British Columbia. Lava Fork was in Category:Creeks of British Columbia. Keta River was in Category:Rivers of Alaska. I had referred to "river-by-political-geography". BC is a province of Canada; it is a Canadian political geographic unit, so all 5 rivers in BC did have Canadian political geographic units.
4. "your argument is even more irrelevant as there are no British Columbian equivalents for same (the Alaskan boroughs are regional municipalities".
   I made no reference to boroughs or municipalities. How can an argument be made irrelevant on the basis of points neither asserted nor alluded to?

Now we have at the top of the CFD debate, a personal attack based on a false representation of the nominator's rationale, and an assumption of bad faith. How much more of this is to be tolerated? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just stop following Skookum, please. Bushranger and BHG have problems with Skookum, and the reverse, and all of them know it. Then stop following Skookum's categorization work and stop opening CFDs and stop opening ANIs and new sections of ANI. Leave it to other editors and time to have perfection in categories worked out. There is no benefit to wikipedia from the provocation going on. --doncram 11:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

So the response to personal attacks should be allow the attacker to drive other editors away from topics where the attacker chooses to work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I read above, skookum was doing new, independent work, and it is the followers sparking contention, i.e. being "attackers" in a general usage sense (probably not in the wikipedia jargon of "personal attack"; in wikipedia we too much allow deeply incivil attacking to go on and then castigate those who react to provocation, saying they are using personal attacks). From what I read above, it was not skookum entering an area where others were working already and opening contention. --doncram 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a definition of "attack" which doesn't fit with any policy I know of. It also misrepresents the nature of the CFD, which was explicitly framed as a question about whether an apparently new form of categorisation was appropriate.

If Doncram's view was accepted, most CFD discussions wouldn't happen, because they relate to categories identified by editors who approach them as a piece of categorisation rather than as a particular topic where they routinely work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To BHG, I don't know about "most" CFDs, but I do know that many AFDs and probably CFDs are in fact attacking in nature. It depends upon apparent motive and perceptions between editors. If there was indeed some past history of conflict, it seems reasonable that Skookum could perceive this CFD to be an attack. It was not a neutral discussion, it was a proposal to delete categories Skookum was setting up. It rambled on with more accusations (of "disrupting" Wikipedia somehow by Skookum separately creating more categories, of Skookum supposedly violating wp:Canvas, and more) that seems like badgering. It was as if Skookum could not dare set up some reasonable-sounding categories without advance permission from one editor. If one editor wants to question an initiative that an experienced editor is proceeding with, do it mildly, literally ask a question at a Talk page or something, and consider whether it couldn't be raised in an RFC eventually, months or years later. It seems confrontational and unnecessary to immediately open a proposal to delete work in progress, and yes that is a kind of attack. And even without me knowing about past history, all the other charges in the CFD plus the opening of this ANI seem to confirm that it was personal, in truth, or at least that it was very reasonable for Skookum to perceive it to be personal.

Speaking not especially about this incident, but about others, Wikipedia would be a lot better if we had a proper process to stop followers who have become perceived by a target to be bullying, from continuing to follow and poke. I do not understand how some editors who know they are being perceived as hurtful and bullying, nonetheless choose to continue with the following and bullying-appearing activities. Avoid the perception of bullying. If you know you are hurting someone, be humane and stop. Let it go, let someone not perceived to be a bully in the situation raise a question some other way later, if indeed anything ever needs to be discussed. Again, I really do not know the parties and the history in this case, so I am not speaking about parties in this case so much. But, it is obvious to me that contending against quite reasonable-seeming categories with only lame "reasons" or with attacks on other fronts like claims of personal attacks or whatever, is really really not helpful for building wikipedia or for making Wikipedia a nice place. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doncram: I have always understood WP:BRD to be quite fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Any edit is open to challenge, and it is then discussed. That's a crucial part of the whole collaborative process by which content is scrutinised

There are broadly two ways of discussing an issue. The first is one-to-one discussion; the second is at a centralised location, such as XFD, which exists for discussing various types of content.

There are multiple advantages to having those discussions in a centralised venue. It gets wider input to the discussion, and it ensures that the discussion is archived in a place where it will be easy to find in future.

With categories, there are great advantages to having those discussions sooner rather than later. If the categorisation scheme stays, those building it know that they are on the right track. If the consensus is that it's not a good idea, then everyone avoids a lot of wasted work.

Categories are different to articles. Articles largely stand or fall on their own merits, but categories are often part of a much wider system. Geographical categories work as intersections between consistent sets, where we have a broadly consistent set of topics intersecting with a broadly consistent geographical framework (Category:Roads in New York and Category:History of New York parallels Category:Roads in Yorkshire and Category:History of Yorkshire). Introducing a new geographical framework creates a set of categories which don't fit in that structure. Far from being "lame" (as you put it), it seems to me to be much better to have a centralised discussion at an early stage about the viability of the proposed new geographical framework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BHG for responding. But you didn't start a centralised, neutral discussion in a leisurely RFC or conversationally at a WikiProject talk page. You started a CFD which called for relatively immediate deletion of the categories that Skookum had set up, which is simply not friendly or neutral. You called for stopping Skookum from continuing (you labelled other Skookum edits creating categories to be "disruptive", while I really do not see how they could be viewed as disruptive), and seemed to be seeking to criminalize Skookum's actions on various not-central-to-the-content/category "issue" that could be discussed. And you were forcing immediate discussion, when it was not convenient for Skookum. Perhaps some discussion, saying you think the larger implications oughta be considered sometime, could have led to productive discussion. And the target could be asked and have opportunity to explain his intentions, whether they were limited to covering just the rivers of British Columbia for example, and then would he agree that the time would be ripe to call for a larger discussion, rather than interrupting and freezing the productive edits immediately, as if there was some huge crisis (not the case, no downside present for Wikipedia readers). And, it was you in particular who was pushing, and while I am not familiar with the background, I gathered that you and Skookum had previous confrontations. IMHO the wikipedia policy should be that an administrator/editor who previously played a policing/attacking/monitoring role that came to be perceived as harassing should be discouraged/disqualified from doing that again...there could be a random assignment of another administrator or just leave it to chance for anyone else to pick up a new issue, but whoever was involved previously and is perceived as being bullying should not be the one. Some one else oughta be appointed, if there is actual real damage to readers going on. (Again please forgive me that I am not completely clear on whether a characterization of past interaction like that applies here with you and Skookum.) One reason for such a rule is that a previously involved policeperson has an obvious apparent-to-the-target conflict of interest or bias, that the previous enforcer-type may be more likely to want to prove the target is a criminal, to justify their past action. And whatever a perceived bully says is quite reasonably taken differently by the target than the same words from a perceived-to-be uninvolved other editor. This is not to suggest that any violator of Wikipedia policies should be allowed to disqualify whoever they want, merely by falsely claiming bullying. There need to be some standards. However I perceived the discussion above and at the CFD to indicate that there was evidence suggestive of appearance of bullying. (Standards of evidence oughta be defined somewhere...I have some ideas).

Also, and this is a huge point that I have thought a lot about, you reference wp:BRD guideline. From past experience, i STRONGLY believe that BRD guideline ought to be clarified to express whose edit is the Bold vs. whose is the Revert, when one editor is creating a bunch of stuff, believing it to benign, and another editor follows. I strongly believe it works best if the creating editor is understood by default to be creating, not boldly doing anything. And a following editor is doing the Bold step, if they interrupt and delete. So the creating editor is given some deference, and may Revert, and go on (and it should all be discussed at a suitable Talk page of course, to exchange views and so on). It should NOT be understood that any following editor gets the right to call their edit deleting to be the Revert and claim power to call any reversion by the creating editor to be edit warring, past BRD. It simply is horrible policy, to empower anyone/everyone to interrupt and have precedence over a productive creating editor, who really probably does have a good rationale of what they are doing. Later, eventually, in an established article, the BRD process would work normally. BRD is written about bringing change productively to established articles, it is not written properly to apply to new works. Wikipedia is not well served by overly empowering following critics; Wikipedia is well served by empowering creators with some respect, some deference, some "ownership" in a good way, for a time (definitely not forever, but the creator should be given some space and some power for some amount of time).

So, BHG, i don't know where you were going with mention of BRD, whether you wanted to claim Skookum was in violation of that, but my sentiment would be that a) Skookum was creating editor and has right to call a following edit to be a Bold, unexpected change that Skookum can fairly Revert, and then, yes, b) Skookum should indeed participate in discussion eventually, but there should be no rush and the discussion should be in a neutral venue and not with ultimatums of imminent deletion and other negativity. --doncram 23:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doncram: You are entitled to your view of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD as "horrible policy". If you want to rewrite or delete WP:BRD, then seek a consensus to do so, and let me know how you get on. But in the meantime, please don't berate me for working within long-established policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. I did not attack. I made a !vote in the CfD, speaking civilly, and that only got a questioning response - it was when I cautioned Skookum1 that he was over the personal-attack line in his 'discussions' with BHG that I got blistered. If I'm "following" him it's because he continued attacking me at the CfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To Bushranger, you may well have not meant an attack, but by Skookum's reaction that editor did seem to perceive it that way, and it was adding on to other I-am-guessing-to-be-reasonable belief by Skookum that there was unjustified attacking type stuff going on. So, back off, say it is not important to you, let the editor proceed. My humble opinion. We don't have enough consideration for avoiding the appearance of bullying, and we don't generally have enough appreciation for a target's opinion. Frankly, if someone says they are being bullied and it is not incredibly absurd to think they really mean that, and they are not doing it for some crazy commercial selfish advantage (not the case here), then don't dispute that, let the target say that. It should not be a crime (a personal attack) for someone to say the truth that they feel they are being treated unfairly, that others are seeming to bully. If they perceive it, it is real. --doncram 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"say it is not important to you": This is, unfortunatly, exactly what I did, before anything else - and I got attacked for it. Saying that he believe he's being treated unfarily is not a personal attack; saying that other editors are mentally deficient, and making up accusations out of whole cloth, are (claiming, multiple times, that I started this ANI to get him banned, and also his statement that I "posted lengthy diatribes against me" - it should be noted that whenever Skookum1 has been asked to provide diffs for his claims there is no response). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, so the $100,000 question is this: Skookum apparently is here to build the encyclopedia. However, part of that "building" process is the community-nature, and the relationships involved. How do we convince Skookum that content-building AND playing nicely with others is the only way forward? What will it take? A topic ban? A short block? Other restrictions? Their response to anything is to immediately personalize-and-attack, and that's not acceptable behaviour the panda ₯’ 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's the $100,000 question on, like, every ANI thread. "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??" --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly believe it needs to be something that will make the person take stock. I suggested a one month block above per this mindset, though no one else seems to be weighing in other than doc that cast allusions to me doing it as some sort of punishment. I am a pessimest so I don't think one month will change skookums attitude but I am someone that gives the benefit of doubt. Hell if Skookums could just make attempts at not attacking others and actually working with the community I will happily withdraw the suggestion. However, as far as I can tell and see, I believe that skookums will reject that out of hand because the editor still sees their behavior as acceptable and not an issue. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Skookum1 for 12 hours for the personal attack noted above, and am considering closing the CFD under IAR, with a recommendation to revisit it in a month if the filing parties still feel it's necessary. The categories won't hurt anyone if they stay for a month, and Skookum1 has made coherent and well founded arguments in their defense (amongst the other stuff) on the CFD proposal.

If anyone are on good terms with Skookum1 and think they'll listen to you, please engage with them and try to get them to back off from personalizing things once the block expires. I and others have said so here and on their talk page but to no good effect so far. I desperately desire not to drive Skookum1 away entirely, but the sniping has to stop. Please assist in social pressure to reform their behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from what I see, Skookum wouldn't listen to a free pair of top-of-the-line Beats headphones the panda ₯’ 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: I would not oppose an early closure of the CFD, so long as it is done in some form which doesn't prejudice the possibility of reopening it a later date. There is some good discussion in there (on all sides), but there are also too much other stuff to make it easy for other editors to follow, so an early closure may be a suitable step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have closed the CFD as an administrative No Consensus / IAR close, with a recommendation that it not be refiled for a month to allow for the discussion to cool down. This explicitly does not prevent a refiling a month from now (or sooner, if you ignore my advisory waiting period, which has no policy-based authority other than please for the love of god let it calm down first ...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Big mistake! Skookum1 will simply continue to create more categories requiring more cleanup if consensus is to not have them. Are you going to cleanup the mess? If you want to do that, you have to block Skookum1 from creating categories for the same time period. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

Brrrrr, it's snowing here. Forget I said anything... —Carrite

Perhaps the solution would be mutual interaction bans between Bushranger and Skookum on the one hand; and Brown Haired Girl and Skookum on the other. Skookum needs to be more nice and these two need to leave him alone so that he can work without feeling stalked. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose - It's quite clear that Bushranger and BHG aren't the problem, and Skookum is, so unless you plan on instituting an IBAN on every editor Skookum gets into conflict with in the future, this is not the solution. The solution is for Skookum to alter his uncollegial and uncollaborative behavior, and fast, before a block or ban comes his way. BMK (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose- Obviously the actions of Skookum are the problem here, not the reactions to the actions. If those editors who really want this to end without some kind of sanction of Skookum, they should try to make sure he stops this kind of behavior before uninvolved watchers of this unnecessary drama start weighing in. Dave Dial (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose I sympathize with Brown Haired Girl et al and am in fact monitoring this board because of another editor whose tactics are remarkably similar to Skookum's (so much so that he dropped a message of encouragement on that other editor's talk page). Such editors can have a toxic effect that counteracts whatever other good they do. I don't care if they have 100 or 100,000 edits. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose as proposed subject. I respect Carrite as an editor but I'm dissapointed in him for implying that I'm "following" or "stalking" him. No such thing has taken place. I saw a CfD, I !voted in the CfD, and then (seeing the quality of discourse in the rest of the discussion) I posted a caution that 'You don't want to do that, Dave'. And got absolutely blistered with personal attacks in return. (Diffs in OP.) As I said above, an interaction ban is not what is needed here: Skookum1 agreeing to be WP:CIVIL is. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose as proposed subject. So far as I can see, Skookum1's list of perceived "enemies" includes at least The Bushranger, BrownHairedGirl, Uyvsdi, and Kwamikagami. Plenty of others have been the subject of his personal attacks, but those seem to be the ones who he is most vociferously denouncing at the moment. AFAICS, none of these 4 editors has accumulated other "enemies" in the same way. Which is more likely: that these each of these 4 editors have jointly or separately decided to persecute Skookum1? Or that one editor (Skookum1) has a persistent problem interacting with editors who disagree with him? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Are you kidding? Don't stop the bad behaviour, but topic-ban people who have attempted to address it? I started to say that Brown Haired Girl's been entirely reasonable in her dealings with Skookum (I haven't been following Bushranger), but I take that back: She's been unreasonably tolerant of him. The only reason I haven't complained about his atrocious behaviour is that it's so ludicrous I can no longer take it seriously. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose this is not the answer. The editor at fault should be banned but unfortunately the more edits you have here, the lesser the chance of you being held accountable for your appalling behaviour. In my mind this drives away more good editors than any other issue facing the project Flat Out let's discuss it 23:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose as a dangerous and counterproductive solution designed to close this particular ANI thread but which fails to address the larger problem. Skookum has a long history of interacting very poorly with anyone who disagrees with him. Throwing up interaction bans against two editors acting in good faith because Skookum threw a hissyfit will only result in his throwing similar invective at anyone who challenges him in the expectation that similar interaction bans would be entered. Resolute 23:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Request

As the admin who blocked Skookum1, I would like to request ANI's assistance in reducing tensions here.

Skookum1 feels, rightly or wrongly, that the ANI episode and criticism elsewhere was a form of ganging up on them. This has clearly been driving their behavior.

I believe that everyone is now aware that a wide contingent of editors feel that there's a significant problem here. The above threads show a consensus on that point, but not unanimous by any means. I would like to note for the record that the message is understood and received by uninvolved admin (hopefully, admins).

I also believe that Skookum1 is widely felt, including by some of the commenters in the emerging consensus, to be a valuable content creator and editor.

I would like to request that we attempt to simply de-escalate from here. No good outcome is served by further poking. I would like to archive the sections above later this evening.

Skookum1 clearly felt that the threads above were contributing to the ganging up, and said so above and on their talk page and on the CFD. Ideally they can just walk away from the discussions and leave it be.

I would also like to see if anyone with experience mentoring would be willing to engage with Skookum1 and see if they can assist in cooperative tension reductions.

If there is significant objection to archiving I won't do so, but hope everyone will take a deep breath and let that be the outcome.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"This has clearly been driving their behavior." Skookum1's nonstop personal attacks against any user with an opposing opinion dates back months prior to any AN/I. BrownHairedGirl and The Bushranger just happen to be the most recent recipients of Skookum1's unsubstantiated accusations of harassment and attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

endorse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't oppose a closure, but I will point out the behavior started well before any of the claimed 'ganging up' - it was a result of it. If it's felt it's best to kick the can down the road, though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's better to kick the can down the road. Plenty of uninvolved admins are out there that can archive this. Procedure should be taken into account here. There are appeals in RL courts that succeed because procedure was not properly followed. "Conflict of interest" comes to mind. Doc talk 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - You two have each blocked the user and want to close the case. Let unbiased, uninvolved admins do it for you instead. Doc talk 03:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

What would help to reduce tensions is if Skookum would stop with the personal attacks and walls of text. He has now been blocked for 4 days, and then for 12 hours ("de"-escalating blocks??), but even now is busy filling his talk page with--you guessed it--personal attacks and walls of text. On his talk page he refers to this as "in flow", or "managing multiple thoughts", or "in stream of consciousness mode". What to do. A mentor might help, if the user could find someone he trusts, but he would have to be the one to initiate this. He could also take a voluntary break--this can be a stressful time of year with the Songkran holidays, and with many expats in the region moving to cooler or drier climates. A couple of weeks exploring the qualities of Singha or Tiger with a closed browser might do wonders, and allow him to eventually return to tranquil editing. Again, he would have to be the one to agree to this. Might dispute resolution help, after a cooling off period? If nothing is done, or if the problem is merely postponed, the user will be lost to the project, and may even take some good editors down with him. —Neotarf (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I just don't understand how this user could have been allowed to operate here for so long, with so many edits and so relatively few blocks (though they are increasing quickly), if he's such an extreme civility case with the "nonstop personal attacks". How can this be? How much have we really been slacking over these attacks until now?! Shame on all of us for letting it get this far, really. Doc talk 07:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, British Columbia geography is rarely an area of high conflict. Skookum is a better editor when he's left to edit on his own. His past conflicts (usually over politics) have often been short bursts without quite this level of ranting, and he's often taken a break before going too far. In this case, Skookum took the CFD extremely personally and that magnified what usually just simmers under the surface. And the dumb thing is, he needn't have reacted the way he did. The CfD itself was leaning on the keep side of no consensus. Resolute 13:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm all in favour of de-escalation, but this bullshit idea that the above thread is somehow "bullying" or "ganging up on" has to be nipped in the bud. The intent of ANI is to provide a forum (from Latin meaning "gathering place". In complex cases, multiple involved and uninvolved users discuss the situation to come up with a method of resolution. Hundreds of editors have this page watched, and ALL are permitted to comment based on their findings. As is often the case of extremely problematic users, the quantity of discussion is huge. As is often the case when the editor complained about plays WP:IDHT, the rhetoric gets ratcheted up a few notches. That is what Skookum needs to learn and understand - a broad swath of the community finds him to be pesky. The sheer quantity (or "gang") should tell Skookum just how many people he's pissed off. Look, if someone runs for town council election, and they get 1 vote, and 10,000 votes against them ... those 10,000 didn't "gang up" on them! Those 10,000 are independent voices - just like in ANI the panda ₯’ 08:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not defending Skookum1's "peskiness" for other users. It is what it is. I only care about his right to due process. The odds are stacked against him: and it interests me like F. Lee. Meh. Doc talk 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Doc9871: One of the persistent problems is Skookum1's own repeated refusal to follow due process. He disputes some RM and CFD closures I made. That's fine; any editor is entitled to disagree with a close, so we have move review and deletion review. Both review types are solely about whether the closure reflected due process.
  But Skookum1 refuses to use those review processes, and instead sounds off in multiple forums about the alleged unfairness of the closures (a lot of his posts here relate to them). What's with the concern about due process when Skookum1 refuses to use it? Where does that leave closers' rights to due process? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer that except that he is in a decidedly different "process", with the blocks and all the negative attention. He is being labelled as a wiki-criminal, and the process I was referring to is the "wiki-criminal defense process". Tough gig! Doc talk 14:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Doc9871: Pursuing that "criminal" analogy, suppose X feels that the courts have treated them unfairly. In this particular system, they have an absolute right to appeal, without any cost, and with no need to seek leave to appeal. All they need to do is to ask the appeal court to review the earlier judgments. No need to prepare a brief, or attend the hearing (tho they ae free to do both if they want to).

Instead of taking that route, they enter other courts, disrupting proceedings by shouting about how they have been the victim of an awful injustice. In each case, they are told that they could appeal, and they still refuse. Eventually, some of the other courts start saying "this is contempt of court", and begin contempt-of-court proceedings to discuss sanctions available.

That's the sort of cycle we are in here. For "appeals court", we have move review and delrev. For "other courts" we have ongoing XFDs and RMs. For "contempt-of-court proceedings" we have ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. BHG, this is not at all a fair legal process, and you are absolutely wrong to imply that justice is free for a targeted person being criminalized in Wikipedia. The target is criminalized, dragged down, in an ANI proceeding, or in CFD or AFD, where the target does not enjoy participating and it is hugely demanding and cost-imposing. While it may be enjoyable, or is at least less repugnant, for the accuser(s). It is effectively way too easy, too free of cost, for the follower/critic/accuser(s) to open multiple "trials", imposing costs on a target in Wikipedia. In the U.S. legal system there are counters: a plaintiff has to pay fees, and incur legal costs that they may never recover, and they risk getting deemed by a judge to be frivolous/nuisance. In many civil and other courts a judge can rule the frivolous plaintiff to have wasted the defendant's time and the court's time, and to fine the plaintiff, even requiring the plaintiff to pay all the defendant's legal fees plus a further fine. It is absurd to suggest that this ANI court is free, or that DRV or other appeals courts are free for the target. --doncram 00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC) (p.s. BHG i replied above to your last posts above.)

ANI is an arduous process for anyone involved (and so ArbCom many times more so), but DRV and MR are lightweight for the petitioner. All they need to do is to write an opening statement, and let it roll. The person being held to account is the closer, not the petitioner (who can do more if they choose, but many don't).

In this case it would be a lot less work for Skookum1 to open move reviews than to continue writing at length about the alleged injustices in multiple forums. Not only would it provide an answer one way or another to some of his grievances, it would also allow other discussions to focus on the issue in hand, reducing stress on everyone including Skookum1.

The practice of breaking down problems and trying to fix them one at a time is a crucial tool for solving all sorts of problems. Not doing that is what leads to the patterns of conflict which come to ANI.

I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.

Similar processes are familiar to people writing in many other contexts. As a student, my writing was dissected twice a week in tutorials, by fellow-students briefed on how to find holes in my work. As a policy analyst, my colleagues and I performed destructive testing on every piece of writing any of us produced; we canned a significant chunk of each others work, and sent. As a journalist, every piece of work was dissected in an editorial conference, where justifying is existence and content was part of the job.

I think that one of the very big problems Wikipedia faces is that this sort of scrutiny is an essential part of quality control, but many enthusiastic editors lack experience of working in this way. We don't do enough to convey how important it is, or to assist editors in learning the techniques required. When I first started editing, every edit page used to warn editors with words something like "your contribution may be edited without mercy". Those words may have been a bit harsh, but it's a pity we no longer have something in a similar vein to remind contributors that we are not here as bloggers. We are collaboratively developing the world's most widely-read encyclopedia, and editors should expect that any contribution may be challenged, debated, modified, or even removed. Editors who just want to be "left alone" are in the wrong place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You say: “I think it is a fundamental mistake to view XFD as in any way "criminalising". Much better to regard them as a form of interactive peer review.” However your actions do not support your words above since you seem to have tendency to pursue editors whom you disagree with at CFD to other areas of Wikipedia.

Here are a couple of examples:

• User_talk:Ottawahitech#Category:CNBC_women
• Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_20#What_sort_of_edits_are_acceptable_on_Scotiabank

XOttawahitech (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Nice try, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG.

My post about CNBC women was a warning[45] to you about your WP:IDHT problem, which was taking you into the tendentious editing territory. If you want to pursue this, I can set out the full history ... but for now, note that I reminded you afterwards[46] that the category was deleted, and that there was a consistent consensus against such categories.

As to WP:CANWP, I posted there because another editor started a new thread on my talk page, where they asked me as an admin to comment on a dispute. I replied on my talk about the policy issues, and as promised there I posted to WP:CANTALK explicitly noting that I had been asked to comment[47]. The issue in that case was that you were abusing a talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, to push your POV. I asked you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page[48]. You refused[49].

That's a series of boomerangs you have launched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: First I would like to thank you for letting me me know my feedback is important to you. I would also like to state that, even if it appears otherwise to you, I don’t believe that you are acting in bad faith, at least not intentionally. I think you are overworked, like most active admins on Wikipedia, and you just don’t have the time to check things out carefully before rushing to impose solutions.

You try to do too much, continuing to create hundreds of categories, while at the same time participating in discussion about deleting categories created by others (COI?), and branching out to other areas of adminship that involve blocking and “telling” off other editors. I don’t believe you take enough time to truly investigate situations before taking sides in disputes, but , at least in my book, that does not make you as bad as a few admins/established editors here who taunt, harass and stalk other editors on purpose strictly out of malice. I do hope you become cognizant the fact that your actions as an admin are highly visible, and as such contribute to the persecution of editors who happen to get caught in your path.

This is not the time and place to respond to accusations against me personally, but I would like to state that as far as WP:BOOMERANG ( a Wikipedia essay about editors who report others to Wikipedia notice boards) that in all my years at Wikipedia I have never reported anyone. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Stop being silly. The boomerang is that you piggybacked on this thread to make complaints about me, and simply highlighted your own misuse of a discussion forum for soapboxing, and your own habit of repeatedly creating categories of a type which you know there is a consensus to delete. Rather than retracting that, you try to shift the ground to a general slur. Not nice.

Indeed, my actions as an admin are highly visible. One of the consequences is that is some editors try to do what you have been doing, i.e. looking for some muck to throw. Enjoy that sport if you like, but you'd do better at if you took more time to figure out what you are actually launching. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't report anyone just tried to derail another discussion with your soapbox...same thing! Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 16:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...why, exactly, are we using inflammatory and loaded words like "crimilizing" and comparing this to a criminal trial? The facts here are simple. Skookum1 has a well-established pattern of vehemently attacking editors who disagree with his positions, making clear and unambiguous personal attacks (calling them bigoted, stating they are mentally deficient, and etc. etc.). He also utterly refuses to accept that his behavior is unacceptable. This is not bullying, it is enforcing policy, and unless we want to send the message (yet again) that if you're a "content contributor" than even the Five Pillars don't apply to you, we need to do somthing about it, even if it's a sternly-worded last and final warning (which was, in fact, the original point of this ANI filing). And we absolutley need to avoid sending the message that an editor can get out of being sanctioned for flaunting policy by claiming that they're being "bullied". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Learning how AN/Is operate has been vaguely educational, but this is clearly going nowhere. While nonbinding, perhaps the suggestion of an RfC/U makes more sense, especially if a only warning or mentorship is being proposed. No editor thus far has been able to get through to Skookum1 that uncivil behavior is not acceptable. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

@Uyvsdi: This may be going nowhere. But whatever the decision (or non-decision) here, I strongly urge that those who have been opposing sanctions against Skookum1 to see if there is some way in which they can assist him to find a new way of working so that he can experience debates more positively. Call it mentorship, or helping hand, or a quiet word behind the scenes, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger has zero credibility regarding what does or doesn't constitutue unambiguous personal attacks ([...] stating they are mentally deficient [...]). And BrownHairedGirl, Skookum1's desire to "be left alone" isn't a rejection of the concept of fundamental WP content discussion with editor peers as you suggest, but obviously having his time & attention as voluntary expert contributor being sucked down a black hole through miserable, manufactured, demoralizing, demonizing complaints from editors miffed by him at some point then getting payback in cesspool let's-set-him-up-for-an-indef-block threads like this one. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Spookem1`s defense that he is being harassed is not going to stop him from being blocked, in my view. He should be blocked for his repeated, after-warning, Personal attacks. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying so, but given your self-described status as a "Advanced stealth fighter in operation Wikipedia Enduring Freedom," you're not the guy I'm gonna be marching behind on this matter. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite It`s OK, I have no friends on wiki, I'm always giving points that no one agrees with. I'm used to being alone and respectfully told that I am not agreed with. Continuing on then: This user has been warned/blocked numerous times, he has been givin his chance and has not taken it (he is still committing Personal attacks), showing some sort of possible WP:NOTHERE intent, I recommend blocking. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If Skookum has valid grievances against other users, why has it not been brought to the proper forums, with diffs? This has been pointed out over and over. Without diffs, these are, at best, merely wild accusations, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks. —Neotarf (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, when Skookum1 is asked to provide diffs to back up accusations he is making, that particular thread of conversation abruptly stops. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are the diffs

@The Bushranger: You say above that User:Skookum1 has not provided diffs, but neither have you.

It appears that even though you are the one who started this this whole ani-thread you feel you are above providing support for your accusations. This is a mystery since your complaint is taking an enormous toll on the community, and to me at least, is looking more and more like a Witch-hunt than anything else. Your very short opening remarks talk vaguely about another ANI (which?) and alludes to behavior by Skookum1 which is not supported by one single diff. It seems that the whole basis for your complaint is that Skookum has rejected your “attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters”.

As an uninvolved editor it seems to me that you feel that Skookum1 should automatically defer to you. Since I have not had any(?) dealings with you I do not understand why you expect other editors to automatically defer to your suggestions.

Respectfully, XOttawahitech (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the diffs he provided in his opening statement?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As Obiwankenobi says, please re-read the opening statement for diffs. And if anybody wants specific further diffs from the thoroughly PA-laden CFD, all they have to do is ask and they shall receive, although it would only be a slight exaggeration to say there would be fewer diffs from that that did not have PAs. The previous ANI is here (and as it happens, also here from 2007, demonstrating that this is not a new problem and has only gotten worse). The accusation that I "expect other editors to automatically defer to [my] suggestions" is wholly unfounded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

An attempt at a summary

Let me try again. (1) Everyone agrees that Skookum needs to start being nice fast or he is going to be out the door for disruptive behavior. (2) Everyone agrees that Skookum is a productive, expert content-writer who is here to build an encyclopedia. (3) Some people think Skookum feels persecuted, particularly in deletion discussions, and lashes out — a correctable situation; others think this behavior is a fundamental personality trait and that collaborative work is impossible for him. (4) Some people think this is already a lost cause; others think there needs to be some sort of active mentoring process to turn this downward spiral around. (5) While all agree that it is enormously annoying that this situation continues to continue, most people think that further blocking or banning sanctions are not justified at this time. Fair enough summary? Carrite (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional note: I've been in touch with Skookum off wiki. He strikes me as rational, and no, the emails are not 20,000 words each. I'll volunteer as "behind the scenes advisor" if such is desired. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My question is: How long will we keep giving him more leash?! We should at least give him a final warning, because he has been given way more chances then he should get. It seems he can get away with no block or maybe a couple hour long block at best. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We're not dealing with a child that is going to be impressed by "final warnings." He'll either figure out how to disagree with people without throwing cinderblocks or he won't. Obviously he doesn't have infinite time to start doing this... Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookums is not required to be nice. Hell be abbrassive all day, the line is only crossed when talking about other individuals either obliquely or directly. If the attacks on other contributers stop, it would be a huge step forward. That is the primary problem, though getting the individual to actually collaborate is also high on the list. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. WP:CIVIL is a policy, and a long-standing one. Civility involves a lot more than simply refraining from attacks. NPA would be a good start, but that alone isn't enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes but I have no known exampled of civility ever being something that gets someone banned since it is subjective. I have seen more than a few people at ANI for civility and those always putter out. I would like Skookums to be more civil but if we work on one thing at a time we might see improvements. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have tried reading Skookum's material. It's utterly exhausting. It's nothing but petty accusations against other editors. It goes on and on...and on some more. I don't what the solution is, but somebody's gotta make it stop. This situation has gotten completely out of hand. Two from one (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that many of the participants here want to see User:Skookum1 punished for “crimes” he allegedly committed on Wikipedia. I have to admit I am not familiar with every last detail of this saga (is anyone?), but I urge you all to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains in The Signpost to get a better grasp of what Skookum1 has done, is doing, and is trying to do on Wikipedia. I believe most people would find this an easy educational read. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  Ottawa, that's a bit of a red herring. I haven't seen anyone in this huge discussion deny that Skookum1 has made a significant contribution to content. The problem is that many others make significant contributions too, and since we don't work alone, editors need to interact civilly and discuss issues productively. Skookum1's aggressive personalisation of disagreement drives away other editors.
  User:Spike Wilbury summarised it succinctly above: "Guy is a good contributor. Guy can't do civil discourse. What do??". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  The use of loaded words does not help the discussion here. While it's absolutely true that Skookum1's content contributions are stellar, it's also true that he refuses to follow WP:CIVIL - not just a policy, but one of the Five Pillars - and makes increasingly vehement personal attacks against other editors when they disagree with him, to the point of attempting to drive them away from areas that he edits, that are both unfounded and that he will not or cannot substantiate. This is the problem, and this is what has to change, as civility is not optional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  How obnoxious. From my direct experience with you, you're one of the least civil editors around, User:The Bushranger, you make your own personal attacks and accuse others constantly of WP:NPA. Your own behavior as admin is tendentious BATTLEGROUND while lecturing others about collegiality and pillars. You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent". You should get off your civility soapbox since you're no model. (And please stop wikilinking WP:CIVIL as though we are all idiots and need your gradeschooling.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  IHTS, please stop making unsubstantiated personal attacks, please stop entirely making up things other editors did not say in order to attack them, and please also read WP:HOUNDING. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Unlike you, I don't write things I'm not able to back up. There are 1000 ways to be uncivil short of using foul language, and you're the master of many of them. (Example: four "please"s in your above paragraph, each prefacing false and hypocritical accusation.) The fact is if there are valid gripes about Skookum1 collegiality and/or editing behavior, RfC/U is →thataway. (As admin you should know that. But it is so much more expedient when you want an indef block to appeal for a "warning" here at the lynch-mob-board, huh!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  RFC/U is indeed thataway (and points for copying my writing style, another indication of your following my contributions for the purpose of attacking), but as this was (regardless of what you choose to believe) intended as a simple request for one uninvolved admin to issue a warning for one set of personal attacks before it snowballed out of control (mostly due to Skookum1's actions), it was not needed, and indeed I deliberately chose to avoid initiating an RFC/U out of respect for Skookum1 as I knew he would feel attacked if I did so. As for "writing things...not able to back up": "You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent"." Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to contained no crystal-balling and no mentioning of or reference to 'intent' [50]. From the last discussion, "Now you give excuses that you were busy or something...I'm not buying your "I was busy"". Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to did not even imply being "busy" as any reason for the delay in responding to you there [51]. Both of these are examples of your entirely making things up out of whole cloth in order to attack me: I do not know if there are more, because I am not following your pages or contribution history. Now as you cannot back up your accusations of "uncivil...false and hypocritical" behavior on my part, instead only making manufactured accusations and vague waves without diffs, I request, again, that you stop hounding my contributions in order to make unsubstantiated personal attacks upon me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some back-channel mentoring is an excellent idea. One possible way of managing the problem is a one comment limit on deletion discussions for a while. Would that help, do you think? Guy (Help!) 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Probably not. He would just make the one comment (even if about 2000 bytes) on multiple message boards as in [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] instead of just at Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[57] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [58], reverts user Galassi [59], reverts Galassi again [60], reverts Izak [61], reverts Soman [62], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [63], reverts Galassi [64], reverts me [65]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[66] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[67] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[68] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[69] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[70]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's revision history, it looks at though the difficult POV-pusher is Smeat75 (though he/she is not alone).

This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[71] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!

After Galassi reinserted it, Iryna Harpy reverted it again, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Galassi (talk): Rv Not only are the refs contentious, but have turned the lead into a non-lead WP:POV travesty. See talk page."

Maybe Smeat75 should be given a topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I see a tendency by a tag-team of Direktor and Producer to insinuate that Communism is a Jewish invention. Both of them refuse to seek consensus, and cherrypick quotes to push a POV, disregarding the errors in citations which would normally disqualify these citations as RS.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Galassi disagrees? Well, Galassi, seeing as how you're the resident edit-warring proxy for Smeat75, with virtually no involvement on the talkpage, pardon me if I don't collapse out of shock.

Galassi's involvement on the article cann be summed up entirely as "revert Director whenever you see him editing". -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Toddy1 above - that was cited to a RS that said Karl Marx was a baptized Lutheran and I am far from the only one saying that on the talk page. I kept saying that sentence about Marx should not be in the lead because it was not discussed in the article, against WP:LEAD. Anyway that doesn't matter as Pharos did a lot of work and expanded the Marx information to a neutral and accurate version which I would certainly not have quarreled with, moved it out of the lead and into the body of the article and Director reverted every word, that is why I am here.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75, you have conveniently omitted the fact that you'd blanked other RS and overwritten it with as simplistic statement regarding Marx's Lutheran baptism, plus added that he was a 'classic antisemite' based on a single source all compressed into a single sentence. The source for the 'antisemite' allegation was WP:CHERRY based on this Professor of law's credibility having been established within the scope of the area of law, whereas the RS you selected was essentially a personal opinion piece by him which has been widely criticised.

I am in agreement with Toddy1's evaluation. You seem incapable of being able to approach the subject matter in a rational manner, and have demonstrated no interest in even attempting to. You persist in pointing your finger at anyone who doesn't agree with you as being part of a conspiracy of some sort or another, even where there has been no working relationship between contributors prior the recent outbreak of disparate interest groups/POV pushers. I am of the serious opinion that you should be topic banned. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 has no regard whatsoever for discussion or consensus, he just thinks those who revert his content blanking should be banned from annoying him. I mean, if he posts enough sections on ANI demanding his opponents be removed from his presence, someone's bound to sanction them, right? I imagine after this, it'll be the turn of Pluto2012, Iryna Harpy, Producer, and all the rest who are opposed to his (frankly nonsensical) edits. Really though, this is basically Smeat75 "dealing" with his inability to push his edits into the article. Neither discussion nor edit-warring helped, how about another "Ban Director!" section? -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[72]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit that was removed was introduced without consensus, amid active opposition on the talkpage. The posting editor didn't seem to read the discussion and/or didn't care that elaborating on that topic is opposed on grounds of being miles outside the scope.

I'm sure Pharos was merely doing what he thought was best for resolving the matter, i.e. "resolve the issue by elaborating on it in enough detail". Unfortunately, elaborating on the issue in detail takes us outside the scope. The best thing to do is to leave it out. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note for an admin- I got an edit conflict which I tried to fix and think I inadvertently removed a couple of other comments. I don't know how to try to fix that without possibly messing things up more, can someone look into that. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(Restore EC removed comment) I do not see a consensus for the changes noted by Smeat75. I suggest an RFC be opened, and Smeat75 consider WP:DEADLINE. JoeSperrazza (talk) 2:56 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Further comment: This edit summary [73] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to state that the irony of Smeat75's ANI title is too much to keep a straight face over. Given the recent ANI-turned-fiasco over this same article where he declared, "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me..., his/her purported interest in 'improving' the article smacks of disingenuousness. My involvement in the article has been limited to keeping an eye out for POV pushes, and I believe I've clearly stated my position more than once as to Smeat75's interest as a WP:COI desire to redact the article into oblivion[74]. The nature of changes to the lead alone were pure POV turning the article into a parody of an encyclopaedic entry per my responses on the talk page [75].

JoeSperrazza, while I can appreciate that you are a neutral editor, I think you may see my concern with envisaging a reasonable, rational RfC if you take a look at the very, very recent ANI, and at the article's corresponding talk page. An RfC can only be viable where those seeking consensus are genuinely interested in developing a good and informative article are the mainstay of such an RfC. Holding an RfC at this point in time will only encourage yet more protracted, convoluted and plain disruptive tracts of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by interest groups antithetical to the existence of the article intent on wearing down good faith contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on that. Smeat consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [76] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I promote extremist "memes" and push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". [77][78] He criticizes others for their wording of sourced information yet his only alternative to throw it straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". [79] Smeat clearly lacks the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and continues to try to associate other users with malicious statements or views in an effort to portray them as anti-semites and get his way. He even employs legal rhetoric and claims that he's stopping users from pushing "libel". [80] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In this edit Smeat75 changed two posts by DIREKTOR, and deleted one by JoeSperrazza and one by Toddy1. He said at 19:48, 19 April 2014 that this was due to an edit conflict. I do not see how that can be true. DIREKTOR you may wish to restore your posts to what they were before Smeat75 changed them.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it was due to me trying to fix something that had happened due to an edit conflict and if I had been trying to do something malicious I don't think I would come back to the page and leave a note to say I accidentally removed some comments, can someone look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought of looking at the diff, and changing things back?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I did look at it and decided that I did not trust myself not to mess things up even more if I tried to change it back, which is why I left a note asking an admin to look into it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Smeat75. If you look at the article's history page, it's hard not to see the systematic censorship by Director. One example is the section titled "Critical reception and conspiracy theories" discussing analysts of antisemitic conspiracy theories related to the concept of 'Jews and Communism'. Director unjustifiably deleted links and] information from that section, most specifically Template:Antisemitism which he deleted multiple times here, here, and here, claiming the article has to be "part of a series on antisemitism" in order to be included, which every experienced editor (an he's one) knows is wrong, and I have even explained that the article is clearly related to the subject and it's exactly the right place for its use. Yambaram (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Director just continues repeatedly reverting others' contributions (not by me, I have had more than I can stand at that article for a while) with edit summaries such as "opposed to this" - reverts sourced material by Soman - [81] by Soman again - [82] and again [83] - reverts Pharos [84] and pays no attention to any discussion on the talk page (not from me there either in the last few days).Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, reverts another user today [85] with an edit summary "Rv. This recent addition ... is opposed." - translation, Director does not approve of it. "Discuss your edit on talk please." - there would not be any point in doing that, if Director answered at all, he would only say it was not going to be allowed. Why is he permitted to control the content of the article in this way?Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat I'm sympathetic to some of your concerns regarding this article. However, this seems to be a content dispute. Also it appears to me that the very existence of this article bothers you. I understand that too, but apparently that has also been dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any admin action helping the conditions over there, although if the edit warring continues I would consider locking the article so they can either discuss it or do nothing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that, as in a lot of situations, the article simply needs more eyes focused on it. I have to say that I was surprised the article exists, and after reading it I am even more surprised. It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. But I just simply am not seeing a user conduct issue here, as far as I can see. Perhaps I've missed it. No, to me there is a deeper problem, which is that one has an article at all of this kind. I thought the top illustration was especially repugnant. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just tagged the article for neutrality, as I feel that is the principal problem with the article. Let's see what happens now. I have never edited this article before, so I don't know what the dynamics are. I do know that there is a clear neutrality issue that has not been very clearly articulated. If there are indeed user conduct issues, perhaps they will now emerge. If not, they won't.Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

While I will not plead ignorance to why there are contributors who are overly sensitised to the the subject matter of the topic, Coretheapple, I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists... ... It is the kind of article that brings Wikipedia into disrepute." (sic) There is certainly no lack of research to suggest that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only arguments against its existence I've found (including attempts to delete it over the years) are based on perception of communism as being evil, plus censorship based on such articles touching on ticklish topics.

Examining different groups, including the identification of high profile names and brilliant minds behind communism as political/economic/philosophical theory, as being people of Jewish descent (who are still the principal thinkers with whom contemporary, active political parties who have never broken their ties) is less spurious than a ponderous number of Wikipedia articles. If there is any semblance of 'disrepute' in question, I would suggest that it is English Wikipedia's predominant bent towards 'Capitalism → (Representative) Democracy → Not corrupt → Great human rights record → Good vs Communism → Totalitarianism → Corruption → Bad human rights record → Evil' that stands accused of being irrational. Following this line of perception leads to equally badly thought out and emotive reactions as seeing this article as being about 'commies' of Jewish descent → anti-Semitism. What brings Wikipedia into disrepute is knee-jerk reaction self-censorship. Working of the assumption that the article in question is, according to preconceived misinformation and misconceptions about political theory, ipso facto anti-Semitic doesn't even aspire to have anything to do with rational thinking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by referring to "attempts to delete it over the years." The article was created 27 February 2014, which was two months ago. The rationale for deletion is not that we are sensitive to offending the Jews, but that no reliable sources write about the subject, which is required to meet notablity guidelines. Anti-semites of course write about the subject in fringe literature, that has been mention in reliable sources. and accordingly we have an article Jewish Bolshevism that describes that particular conspiracy theory. Incidentally, anti-semites also connect Jews with capitalism, particularly money-lending and liberalism, so your association does not work. Wikipedia did manage to delete "Jews and money." TFD (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I've only just noticed this response you've left for me. Firstly, you'll have to forgive my typo. It should have read as 'over the year'. Secondly, I would suggest that you read my comment with care. Using a leap of faith argument, you seem to have twisted my appraisal of the English speaking Western world's predominantly anti-communist conceptions drummed into us from the moment we comprehend media coverage of politics (and heavily reflected in numerous articles on the subject of politics, economics, interpretations of world events here on Wikipedia by which media sources are deemed reliable on the reliable sources list) into a spurious attempt to tar me with the anti-Semite brush. Your 'incidentally' remark is the association with my point that doesn't work. I sincerely hope that isn't what you were implying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are trying to express by stating, "I was surprised the article exists.." Sure, here's what I'm trying to express: I'm surprised the article exists. It is grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's developments - There is a statement in the lead "The philosopher Karl Marx, regarded as the "father of Communism", was Jewish by ancestry, hailing from prominent and historic rabbinic families on both sides." Exactly a week ago user Pharos expanded the main text with more information on his background and a book he wrote about Jews. Director took it out, you can see the squabble we had about it on the talk page. That is the exact reason I opened this discussion at AN/I. Today Pharos reinstated it with an edit summary " re-add Marx subsection opposed by exactly one person - now with strong reference linking On the Jewish Question to Communism" [86], DIRECTOR reverted it with an edit summary "Rolled back non-consensus addition" [87], I put it back with an edit summary "Discuss on talk page!" [88], he immediately took it out again with an edit summary "I did discuss and do discuss. Until there is consensus for this addition I will revert it without fail."[89]. By "consensus" he means "when he approves", which will be never. As Pharos said in the first edit summary, exactly one person, (Director), opposed it a week ago and the same person vetoes it now. It makes me want to edit war and attack the page, yes, it does, it makes me very angry, I have to try to restrain myself, I just do not know how people can read what is going on over at that article and do nothing about it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat75 that there are user conduct issues. I said otherwise above but after experiencing the talk page for a couple of days I've changed my mind. But let's be realistic: these user conduct issues are not going to be addressed. The fundamental problem with this article is content. There was an AfD in which a majority of editors favored deletion, which indicates, if nothing else does, that this article has a serious existential issue. Coretheapple (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

How can an article have existential issues, Coretheapple?

The outcome of the AfD, as you would well know, is dependent on policy and guideline based arguments, not the number of votes based on objections of an emotive, POV nature. Those who would like to see the article developed in an genuinely encyclopaedic manner are not those who are ensuring that the content is a travesty. Take, for example, Smeat75's recent 'contribution'[90] where, out of the blue, he introduced that Marx was a classic anti-Semite as a neutral(!!!???) version for the lead. If you understand it to be "... grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace." in its current form, I suggest that you go over the history with care and acquaint yourself with which contributors are responsible for it turning into a 'disgrace' before jumping in and tarnishing the reputation of contributors who were not responsible for the aberration that's emerged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Even a casual reader can see that this article has massive POV issues. Smeat75 is a bit overemotional but he is working very hard to fix its enormous and I think self-evident problems. You seem to view the problems as assets and the efforts to correct them as problems.Coretheapple (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Iryna Harpy - That was an exact quote from Alan Dershowitz, an expert on anti-Semitism. I wouldn't say it was "out of the blue". I should not have put "neutral" in the edit summary, I admit. It was during an edit war that has started up again over that sentence on Marx that Director bans being expanded upon. Coretheapple restored the information added by Pharos since my last post here, Director took it out, I just put it back, no doubt he will remove it again. That change you are referring to from me lasted about two minutes and almost nothing I have put in or taken out of that article has been allowed to remain so you cannot blame me for turning the article into a "disgrace".Smeat75 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is almost as much of a shambles as the article. A perfect example is that Smeat75 was just accused of canvassing in this very discussion! Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence of canvassing here by that editor or anyone. Clearly the article requires outside attention and lots of it, no matter how that might discomfit the editors that have been dominating discussions there and enforcing their will on the text. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to ask an admin about that. Was opening this AN/I really canvassing? Would informing WP Projects about the article be canvassing? Also I have just been accused of making personal attacks - [91]. There are two editors with very similar user names DIREKTOR and PRODUCER and they back each other up often in edits and on the talk page. If you refer to them in the same sentence they will accuse you of implying they are the same person and threaten you with being reported so when I refer to them together I make it clear that I accept they are two totally different editors and then I am told that I am making personal attacks and being sarcastic.[92][93]--Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was asking a rhetorical question when I said "Perhaps someone can examine this discussion and find evidence..." No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. You may want to keep a private record, off wiki, of the various conduct issues that have taken place on that page that amount to WP:OWN, such as false accusations of "personal attacks" for raising content issues and the "formal warnings" that I see emanating from one of the regulars there. One of these days you might need to quote those diffs. Hopefully this article will be put out of its misery long before then.-- Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover

NOTE to participating and closing admins: The final two days of the Jewish Passover holiday are from Sunday night April 20th, 2014 to Tuesday night April 22nd, 2014, that will make it very difficult for Jewish and Judaic editors to participate properly in this discussion during this time. The post-Passover days are also a traditionally very harried time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:J. Johnson

JJ has engaged in the sort of behavior at Earthquake prediction that is described at WP:LISTEN. Looking at the past year of that article's revision history, it looks like JJ has exerted ownership over the article by reverting any edits by editors other than himself, and engaging in filibustering and wikilawyering on the talk page (by which I mean lengthy citations of policy which evade the issue at hand.) In this way he has driven away other editors and thwarted any attempt at collaborative editing. He received a warning on March 22 about edit warring[94], and the article is presently protected from editing.

I initiated a discussion at the talk page about what I felt was the use of non-neutral language which gave the article an editorializing tone[95], and followed that up with a request for comment on a particular formulation that I thought was representative of the problem.[96] The response to the RfC was that 6 editors supported one formulation, and JJ supported the other. JJ's reaction is indicative of the problem I wish to raise here. He simply dismissed arguments offered by the other editors, and asserted that other editors merely "dislike" his version.[97] He also characterized the opinions of other editors as "whining,"[98][99][100], and the RfC process as a "lynching."[101] He states ironically, "Why don't we just revert the entire article back to the piece of crap it was before I rewrote it?" [102] Finally, in response to a message I left on his talk page, he says, "You and the others may be thinking you have a solid basis, but as I keep showing: you don't."[103]

Hopefully, these examples are sufficient to illustrate the problem. I would like to see some sort of intervention. I don't know what you normally do in a case like this. Maybe a topic ban would be appropriate. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

An almost identical situation with J. Johnson is occurring at 2014 Oso mudslide and at the article talk page. Filibustering, refusal to actually discuss, berating, finger-wagging, insults in edit summaries, personal attacks, and wholesale reversions of blocks of new or copyedited content he doesn't like. He's issued ultimatums and threatened that if they weren't met, he would revert everything again. Not long ago, at the mudslide article, he actually and seriously suggested we all join him in supporting a topic ban of a brand new editor. I hesitated to mention ownership issues with him in case I was just reading him wrong. Now with the above complaint from Joe, I see I'm not alone in my assessment. It's been going on at the mudslide article for a couple of weeks, now (along with the other troubling behaviors I mentioned). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi comes with "unclean hands", his misrepresentations being more reflective of his own behavior at 2014 Oso mudslide. If they are to admitted into consideration here then they really should be examined closely, as they are, basically, untrue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ) and Winkelvi, your arguments are likely to carry more weight if you provide diffs to support them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not here to pile on JJ, I'm here to support Joe Bodacious in his concerns by saying "It's happening with him elsewhere within Wikipedia, too". I provided a couple of diffs in my comments yesterday, so if an administrator or anyone else in interested in getting a general idea of what I'm referring to, they can. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, if such arguments are to be allowed into the discussion. Joe limited his charges to Earthquake prediction, where the dissension is (I believe) in good-faith all around, and also quite enough to handle as it is. Winkelvi is opportunistically opening a battleground where his own behavior is dubious, and even if I should solidly demonstrate this its relevance to EP is slight. To simultaneously try to expand the discussion while also demanding an immediate response is unreasonable. He says he is not here to pile on me, but it is not apparent what other connection he has here.

I will respond to Winkelvi's charges if some admin requests, but I do suggest looking at his history and comments at 2014 Oso mudslide before opening that can of worms. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:Earthquake prediction, an RFC has been open for 8 days. J. Johnson is arguing his case, but so far nobody agrees with him, and the preferred option is a development of the one he opposes.

There is nothing wrong with being in a minority. Sometimes it's helpful for an opposing view to be expressed, and if done civilly and constructively it's all part of the process of improving content. However, those discussions are most productive if they are focused, civil, and assume good faith. Sadly, many of J. Johnson's comments are combative in tone, and almost battleground.

I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe Bodacious and BrownHairedGirl that it would be useful for an admin to take a look at Talk:Earthquake, specifically the RfC and the section below. User seems to be spoiling for a fight. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  Sorry BrownHairedGirl, hadn't realised you are an admin! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not "spoiling for a fight". In regards of the RfC mentioned I have been trying to get a discussion going that gets beyond mere "like/dislike", particularly with an IP editor that won't engage in discussion. However, I should like to take a day or two to consider these charges before responding. And I would appreciate if you would allow me to comment prior to judging me. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That's just my own personal opinion of what you've written on the talk page. I could be wrong (I often am!). As we all know, it's hard to judge intent online. But that's the impression that I'm getting from the tone of your writing (for what it's worth). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• In spite of his denial, JJ has been spoiling for a fight at the earthquake prediction article as well as the mudslide article. Now he is asking for a couple of days to respond to "these charges". By that time, three days will have passed since the report was filed and it will be labeled as "stale", with nothing done (if something might have been done). Because of JJs penchant for wikilawyering (as noted by Joe Bodacious as well as myself in this report) and what I've assessed at the Oso mudslide article talk page to be [intent to game the system] ("How about setting that aside until ... Perhaps tomorrow? ... and then we could revert to (say) Gorthian's last edit."), I have to object to waiting any longer for JJ to comment. He was here long enough to acknowledge this AN/I report, why not just comment and be done with it rather than dragging it out for 2-3 days more? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Like waiting overnight would be the end of the world? Like I should do like you and fire from the hip without any time for thought or consideration? Exactly who here is spoiling for a fight? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Joe Bodacious accuses me of 1) WP:OWNing the EP article (by "reverting any edits by editors other than himself"), and 2) filibustering and WP:Wikilawyering ("lengthy citations of policy which evade the issue at hand"), thereby "thwart[ing] any attempt at collaborative editing". For good measure he also throws in a charge of 3) edit-warring. All of this is characterized generally as WP:Disruptive editing, and particularly Failure or refusal to "get the point". The particular issue is one raised at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Request for comment.

Joe's charges are not entirely accurate, and a few points need to be clarified. E.g., the edit warring involves the questionable edits of an anonymous IP editor who will not discuss his edits; the protection was applied at my request, and the warning was the standard one given to all editors in such cases. Also, Joe's statement that I "simply dismissed arguments offered by the other editors" is misleading, because (see the RfC) no arguments were offered by the other editors; their comments were entirely "like/dislike".

Leaving such matters aside, I believe "Failure to get the point" is indeed an issue here. But which way does it run? I believe Joe's view is (more or less) that I "don't get" that six editors oppose me, and therefore I must accept the majoritarian position. However, I think Joe doesn't get that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that discussion is supposed to be based on "clear, solid arguments". And that is my complaint here: that (regarding the RfC, and aside from Joe and myself) there has been no (as in zip, zilch, non-existent) discussion, and that (more broadly) Joe and the anonymous IP want a pass on having to engage in any irksome discussion. Please advise me if I am wrong here, but I don't believe it is "wikilawyering", or a misinterpretation of any policy, to require discusssion, or that discussion be based on more than "like".

I credit Joe for sometimes engaging in discussion. But sometimes he does not, and sometimes not to the point. When my repeated questions (presumably the basis of his charge of filibustering?) are ignored (what I deem to be stonewalling, which, curiously, points to the same place as filibustering) I allow I occasionally get snippy. I regret that this is taken as combative (is it?). But he does seem to have a low threshold for irony and such. And I hope Joe will understand that my "tone" results largely from frustration that neither he nor the others will explain their real objections, which impedes finding a satisfactory resolution.

BrownHairedGirl hopes that I will "accept the outcome of the RfC". Please note that I am not opposed to a revision (only to the existing text), and have offered do so myself. The contention has been in determining what needs to be changed (or getting anyone to explain why they dislike the original text), which makes finding a satisfactory alternative rather hit or miss.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to be unable to hear the explanations is indicative of the problem. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps because you fail to clearly enunciate? I note that you seem unable to hear me. I have tried to present not just my views and arguments, but also my understanding of yours. Is there any particular point where my understanding is defective? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is defective at precisely the point where you say "there has been no (as in zip, zilch, non-existent) discussion." Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

JJ, users on the article talk page seem to me to be discussing the tone of that particular sentence in the article. The relevant policy advice is WP:TONE and the relevant text is Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. WP:ASSERT and WP:LABEL are also relevant, as is WP:NPOV.

Ca2james has now provided a really clear (I think) explanation on the talk page - I'd urge you to read it and try not to dismiss it as WP:LIKE: option B to be unsuitable for an encyclopaedia for several reasons: * the phrase "to deceptively claim" is an unusual word ordering and so difficult to parse. * "chicanery" is a judgmental, loaded word that could be considered contentious and is better avoided. * "predictions" is enclosed in WP:SCAREQUOTES which are to be avoided. * "constant drumbeat of earthquakes" is very poetic but it is not plain english * Option B is not WP:NPOV because it contains the above elements to be avoided; for this reason and because it also contains the unencyclopedic language and structure noted above, it is not a good choice for an encyclopaedia..

Other explanations have been provided by Aircorn (more appropriate for an encyclopaedia), Homunq (it's obvious that the various !votes are expressing policy-relevant opinions on WP:NPOV rather than just irrelevant WP:LIKEs), GRuban (Because it conveys the same information in less space, with simpler language. "constant drumbeat" and "chicanery" are unnecessarily poetic. We're an encyclopedia. Hyperbole and metaphor should be beyond us.), Robert McClenon ("Constant drumbeat" is so an extravagant statement, and is unencyclopedic. While "chicanery" is precise, in referring to dishonesty, "dishonesty" is a more common use of language (if sourced properly).) and 166.147.88.42 (I think he means "B is unnecessarily poetic.").

I think that your initial expectation that editors would lynch alternative B means that you're seeing a lynching where none is intended. Your refusal to WP:LISTEN to editors explanations of their objections does not mean that editors have no objections other than WP:LIKE, or that their objections can reasonably be dismissed as hand-waving, bellyaching, feeble, whining or without a factual basis (in my opinion).

Editors are here to work together as colleagues, not to defend their 'own' text; this isn't meant to be the adversarial system. A couple of essays that might be relevant are WP:BLUD (others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior) and WP:REPEAT. Peace, Out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Subject of RFC

The RFC in question was originated by J. Johnson. It asks which of the following two statements is preferred: A. Because earthquakes represent a significant hazard, there is significant motivation to predict their occurrence. Unfortunately, there have also been many exaggerated claims of success.

B. With such a constant drumbeat of earthquakes various kinds of chicanery can be used to deceptively claim "predictions" that appear more successful than is truly the case.

Statement B was the original, and is the language preferred by J. Johnson. A revision of A has also been proposed. No one except J. Johnson has expressed support for statement B. However, he insists that there is a failure to discuss, and that the arguments against version B are merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving On

I see two ways to resolve this content dispute. The first is an administrative SNOW close of the RFC to establish consensus on the language to be used, and to hash out any other content issues on the talk page. The second is to topic-ban J. Johnson from the article for disruptive editing. My choice is, on the principle of minimum sanctions, to go with the snow closure of the RFC and give J. Johnson a chance to accept consensus. Has there been other earlier ownership behavior that would warrant a topic-ban at this time rather than giving him the second chance? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

By my rough count, JJ has made 30 reverts on this article during the past 12 months. The article has been protected twice during this period due to edit warring. Typically, JJ's edit summaries say that the reverted edits are "undiscussed," and from what I have observed (including in this ANI discussion,) if JJ disagrees with another editor's comment, then that comment does not count as "discussion." He often reverts multiple edits at one stroke, which is frustrating for the editors who have worked to justify each individual edit. It is clear that he considers himself the sole arbiter of what should be included in this article. He also, IMO, has run afoul of WP:SOAP; he considers anyone who poses the possibility of earthquake prediction to be a charlatan, and he wishes to write the article in such a way as to polemically discredit and ridicule proponents of earthquake prediction, which is why in the RfC he is not content to simply say that "There have been many exaggerated claims of success." Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Having reviewed the history, I agree that his edits show serious ownership problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Strong support snowball close - consensus is very clear. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe finally touches on the underlying pov of many editors here: that I have polemically discredited and ridiculed proponents of earthquake prediction. Which is a good topic for discussion. However, that is not what the Rfc was about. The explicit issue of the Rfc ("which formulation ...") has been decided, it has even been implemented, there is no opposition. Continued discussion of that point has no purpose except as a springboard into other topics, but some editors find that useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Should J. Johnson be topic-banned from Earthquake prediction for ownership and tendentious editing?

• Support on reviewing the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per minimum sanctions / 2nd chance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I now Support a topic ban as JJ has already gone back to personal insults ('vocabulary impaired'), so in my view he's just blown that 2nd chance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. I disavow any ownership, am resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly have no desire to do any reversions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per J. Johnsons comment above. Lets see what happens from here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Aircorn, please note my comments below to see how things have already evolved. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The first diff you present is problematic and is not the first time ip editors have been unfairly targeted. I don't see a problem with J. Johnson contributing to the talk page though and it doesn't go against what they said above. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is my understanding that topic bans are to extend to the talk page of the article(s) one is being banned from. Further, topic bans are preventative. Obviously, from JJ's latest insults and jibes and pokes at the article talk page, nothing has changed thus nothing is being prevented. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per J. Johnson's latest comments at the article talk page (all made after he indicated here he would be staying away from the article). See the following diffs: [104], [105], [106]. Because of these comments, it doesn't seem to me that he's "...resigned to whatever happens to the article" at all but it does seem he is interested in causing further disruption. I wasn't going to comment on this any further, but when I saw the talk page comments made by JJ after essentially promising he would stay away, comment seemed necessary and appropriate. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I find JJ's response (on talk) to my recent edits to be reasonable comment. Let's see how it goes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Only part of my point is his less-than-stellar comments and tone. "Why do you care? You didn't contribute anything." is unnecessarily rude but fits a pattern in JJs past interactions and lack of good faith in articles and on talk pages. "As the subsequent comments were all off topic I have split them off into their own section. This thread is presumably dead for lack of interest from anyone, now including the originator." is also fitting a pattern of incivility as well as what seems to me an attempt to negatively engage through poking. The other point I made is that in order to avoid a topic ban (remember, he said a topic ban wasn't necessary) he indicated he was no longer interested in contributing to the article. That would include commenting at the talk page, would it not? Right after saying a topic ban wasn't necessary because he was going to leave the article alone, he went right to the article talk page with uncivil and disruptive comments. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say I was going to "stay away". I disavowed "ownership" and indicated I would not do any reversions; Winkelvi has misrepresented my comments. Winkelvi also accuses me of wide-spread lack of good faith (thus violating WP:AGF himself), his comments amount to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, his animus arising out of various disputes on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide (which involve other editors as well as me). He has no prior presence or interest in EP, and appears to be here only to attack me. As I said before, if his comments are to be considered here then a closer look should be taken of his allegations and their context at the Oso article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please extend a little bit more good faith to ips. This does not make you look good and you are on thin enough ice already when it comes to this topic. AIRcorn (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I now agree with you, per JJ's latest contribution to Talk:Earthquake prediction civility is clearly still an issue. I've revised my !vote above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User MONGO, article Chad_Kellogg

I proposed a 1 sentence 1 source addition to this article [107], at [108]...please scroll down to the bottom section titled Proposed Controversy Section. My proposed addition is--

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[109]

User Mongo and apparently 1 other administrator have not permitted my addition, & will not discuss it, & will not wait for the opinions of others.

In that section[110], user Mongo responds "Everestrecords is apparently a single purpose account" This is obviously dishonest[111], he also states "Everestrecords wants to spit on the grave of this person...it's negative and petty and doesn't improve the article anyway." Untrue. The climber is controversial, Outside Magazine did major article recently on a negative issue (steroid use of Everest climbers), and the climber was reported in the article.

In the reason for user Mongo's most recent edit, he states [112] "walk away now or face an indefinite block". In a past edit [113] he sates "youre not able to see the light". In his earlier comment on 16:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [[114] he states "there is no reason for you to defame him with such a trivial issue", "Kellogg used one pill one time as a preventative not as an aid..so what!", "He's dead now...what's your point? You seem hell bent on only having the part about his use of the drug and fail to mention why he did...you misrepresent the full story".

I consider his comments about me to be personally attacking, attempts to intimidate, and attempts to provoke, and to show his intense bias. Also, is comments about the article are biased. The article is about a serious controversy, and the climber is named and reported on and quoted as having taken the steroid in the article. I'd be happy to add more text to my proposed addition to explain things as Mongo recommends, but I thought my 1 sentence addition was more appropriate due to being more brief.

The article as it is seems unbalanced. I twice added a POV template [115], user Mongo removed them within minutes, I believe the templates are supposed to remain until there is full consensus on the problem.

The article is mostly about his speed-climbing, claimed records, etc., and the Outside Magazine article did a paragraph on his Everest speed climbing. Again [[116]] 40th paragraph from the top.

If you could advise me on how to proceed with this matter I'd appreciate it

Everestrecords (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure....let's chat about where you called me a sociopath, a vandal, a monster on my talk page and where you have been blocked twice in the last 10 days for edit warring with numerous others on that article. No you just don't get it and I can't see any reason why we don't just block you indefinitely for disruption, among other things.--MONGO 17:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This does indeed appear to be a single-purpose account, focusing on Kellogg's alleged use of the drug, and using sources such as http://fraudmountaineer.wordpress.com that seem equally focused on this topic. This account has also been blocked for edit-warring, has described disputes as vandalism [117], [118] and made extravagant personal attacks on MONGO when confronted [119] and claiming those who dispute their edits are " fan-stalkers of Kellogg." Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• If any of these personal attacks are repeated Everestrecords should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• and I'd recommend an immediate topic ban from the Kellogg article. Wordpress as a source for a BLP? Seriously? the panda ₯’ 18:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  I stumbled into Everertrecords and his editing as they were trying to undermine information on the Mount McKinley article, particularly in regards to Chad Kellogg, a recently deceased mountain climber. BLP is less enforceable on the deceased but as far as recently deceased, it's probably better to err on the side of caution. The material that Everestrecords wishes to add is negative and not really very important..all it is is that Kellogg admitted before he died that on one attempt to speed climb Mount Everest, he took a supplement, one pill just one time, and stated he did so as a preventative not as an aide. Everestrecords is hell bent on only adding the part about the pill use, without expanding on what the climber actually said. This appears, even in the bio of a deceased person, to be nothing more than a smear....in an article about a recently deceased person it's just a deliberate insult. Whatever pill use the climber admitted to, it is inconsequential anyway since the one time he admitted to using the pill, it did not result in a successful effort.--MONGO 18:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the first time Everestrecords has been here. I'd strongly suggest he listen to what everyone else is telling him, before the WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• So to sum up... BLP violations (recently-deceased people fall under BLP), single-purpose account, edit-warring, and personal attacks (pretty vicious ones too, this one is inexcusable). I'm not seeing how Wikipedia benefits from Everestrecords having editing privileges. -- Atama頭 17:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• All of the comments above are about what happened 1+ weeks ago. Apologies, and it will not happen again.
• I'm not using the wordpress reference any longer, and will no longer use any self-published references, including I won't use Collin Wallace's distinguished Everest history website, because it's self-published.
• My account is not single-purpose. List of my contributions [120]

Everestrecords (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of fixing up the indenting.Blackmane (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution requested here [121]

Everestrecords (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Question. Could you let me know what is wrong with the addition I did to the article 1.5 weeks ago? This is it. This is what led to all of the days of 25+ paragraphs of debate. 1 sentence, 1 source (Outside Magazine.

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[122]

The edit waring, etc, began after the above addition was deleted and not permitted and no discussion permitted by user Mongo. Sorry again about the edit waring. I'm wondering now about the simple 1 sentence 1 source additon and why it wasn't permitted and not discussed by user Mongo and no one else including when I did help-me requests.

Everestrecords (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every edit you've made this month has been focused on denigrating Kellogg, except for a foray into attacks on Tina Sjögren such as this: [123]. If you think that kind of edit is acceptable, and if you're willing to attack other editors in the manner that you have when confronted, I don't think you should be editing. You certainly have no business editing biographies, living or dead. You have not come to this noticeboard with clean hands, and you've been skating around the personal attacks with statements like "the edit-warring, etc." Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How is the 1 sentence 1 source article a denigration on Kellogg?

Outside Magazine revealed Kellogg used the "powerful steroid dexamethasone" for an Everest speedclimb attempt.[124]

I also asked about this in my previous comment, and 3-4 times last week. The article is national media, my statement is just factual, I was open to rewording it, etc.

Why is the above statement a deingration/attack? Ive seen dozens of wikipedia articles with 99% positive about someone and then a Controveersy section.

Why were my edits "attacks" on Tina Sjogren? I simply used the article as a source. But anwyay I will not use the source again, so have nothing to add to the article on her. Nor anywhere else.

I'll also not do any edits of any articles unless they're accepted in the Talk page. Best for new users unfamiliar with wikipedia to do this. I should haev used the 3rd party help first, and Dispute Resolution, and so on. Apologies again.

I couuld check back in a few weeks, and try again at the Talk page about my OUtside Magazine proposal. Maybe this is best? i'LL not do any edits/additons to articles again. Will leave that up to the people that work here or who are established here. I didn't understand this before.

Everestrecords (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be using Wikipedia to settle scores: the Sjögren edit is unambiguous defamation that has no place in an encyclopedia. The fact that you don't understand that is of great concern. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what benefit is served to the article on Chad Kellogg or to Wikipedia by adding this incident that is so petty it would never stand in any BLP. To be very very blunt...the addition of this edit to that bio is in such poor taste...and doesn't even tell us what the man actually admitted to. He said before he died that he took one pill one time to prevent injury not to aide his effort to speed climb Mount Everest. Its such a minor issue that even the one reference that mentions it, that was in a magazine and published before he died, waits for 40 paragraphs before it mentions it...it's a non issue since no records were broken by this "drug abuse". Everestrecords tunnel vision on this is ridiculous...he's made nary one useful edit anywhere to the encyclopedia...he is exactly the kind of editor that makes real editors want to quit in disgust. Now he's also forum shipping at the dispute resolution noticeboard to POV push this bull.--MONGO 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Everestrecords was also busy pushing negative information at a different BLP last November..between that argument and the one that commenced over this issue a couple weeks back Everestrecords made no edits with that account for over four months.--MONGO 03:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another example of Everestrecord's apparent motivations can still be seen at ...Talk:Tina Sjögren.--MONGO 03:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This diff is the one in question: I've removed that comment per WP:BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on the unsatisfactory responses by Everestrecords above and on their recent editing history I've left a strongly worded warning on their talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion, I replied at my Talk page, accepting the good advice of the other editor. And replied to you. Btw, I addressed what you say above about the Sjogren article in my comment above. I've addressed it many times. Concerns me that you can't get that. I said i realize the source and content are not acceptable for the article oN Sjogren. Above, and before also. Good luck.

The other points below I also addressed. Many many times. Yet no one has addressed anything i've stated. The recent person at my Talk page finally did in a 2 sentence comment.

You say 'based on the unsatisifactory responses by Eversetrecords". I started this Admin Noticeboard thread. I provided simple questions. I apologized, and focused my question on 1 thing. You didn't address it. The person at my Talk page did. I replied there. He/she gave good advice. good luck again. Everestrecords (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Best of luck. Thank you malerooster [125][126] Wise. You should be a senior administrator. Aappreciation comment[127]

Everestrecords (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused about the whole thing but it appears consensus is that MONGO is getting a "barnstar?" I am happy to post it if the type of barnstar is identified. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Threats being issued by a user

Princessruby has issued a threat against me, saying they will "be compelled to play around with the pages that u made...i.e like rafe fernandez, theresa donovan n etc. So, this is my last warning to you." I issued Ruby numerous warnings because a page of creation she's been editing has copyrighted, or suspected copyright material as a copy and paste move from the source I provide]]. And the template states only an ADMIN can remove the template once they have been looked over. Obviously, this user does not understand Wiki policies on such things. This user has continued to add fancruft edits to several articles about soap characters, and edits that defy the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystalball. The template clearly states: "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent", something which Ruby is not. And to continually remove the template and re-write the section, according to the template is against the rules, as far as I am assuming. And them issuing a threat like they have is simply NOT acceptable at all. To say they're going to vandalise pages that I have worked on providing original material, and writing original thesis' of story lines, etc. is unacceptable. And I hope the Admins of this website are able to look into this user's actions and see how problematic they potentially are. I understand this user's edits are in good faith, but going against policies is just unacceptable. And I have not been the only one to issue warnings to this user, and they continue to ignore them. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Ben Rogers (Days of Our Lives) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for reference.--v/r - TP 18:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the article and the page you say it's ripped from and frankly I just don't see the copyright violation. It isn't even close paraphrasing. I think you owe Princessruby an apology. On the converse, threatening to disrupt the project to settle a score is not appropriate either. Princessruby owes the rest of us an apology.--v/r - TP 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: The original edits of the storyline sections clearly have Copy/Paste moves from Soaps.com, I was simply following the template, which clearly states only an Admin can remove it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to speak with this user about her edits with other pages, that continue to fail Wiki standards, and instead of discussing back, she keeps reverting them and asking to not disrupt "her" work; user is clearly unable to work amicably within Wikipedia as a neutral editor, and their user page clearly states to not get on her "bad side". That is not the type of editor I believe Wikipedia wishes to house. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Alex250P meatpuppetry attempts

Hello there. Recently there have been a rise in new discussions forming around articles in the scope of WP:EE. These were made in regards to challenging consensus made on a small amount of changes to infobox styles. Here is a talk page discussion started by User:Alex250P regarding the removal of birth and death dates from fictional character articles. In this post they reference a forum thread on the entertainment website Digital Spy. I only noticed this yesterday wondering where these new interested users came from. I tracked the thread down and here it is. In this thread a disgruntled User:Alex250p states:

"I've tried to start a debate on Wikipedia about it but if I'm honest I'm unsure. It's so annoying, I used to think they were great pieces of information - but it seems difficult to pass any sort of change with the control that few users have on them articles. If a few of us all messaged the individual, maybe something could happen about it?"

When other posters question how difficult this would be, User:Alex250p reassures "No there isn't really an admin or anything, if everybody has wikipedia profiles and we form some sort of debate on his talk page it could move somewhere?"

Another individual "Mattyboii1995" admits to holding a Wikipedia account and states: "Exactly, it just seemed pointless to have an argument with 1 loser who stays on Wikipedia all day, every day checking that the pages are just how he wants them. His name is 'AnenomeProjectors' if that's who you're thinking of." They are referring to administrator User:AnemoneProjectors. They also go on to offer PM's to other posters to target and change consensus. It could be possible that Alex250p also operates that account and more on Wikipedia itself.Rain the 1 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I find these accusations rather unjust. I can assure you I operate only the one account, and will be prepared to submit IP addresses/passwords, whatever it takes to prove this. Also, I never began the thread on Digital Spy, however I did feel that in order to create a serious talk then more people were need with actual Wiki profiles. Wikipedia is read by everybody, therefore if somebody feels strongly enough to create a thread on it, why not have their say on here? It's a perfectly democratic suggestion. I have not named any administrators in particular and would not go accusing people by name, this "Mattyboii1995" is not me, or a clone account of me and as I've said, will be willing to prove this. I've contributed to articles on Wikipedia for a number of years now, and recently I do feel that the community has changed in terms of discussing changes, and that it has become the word of a few rather than the majority. Is it so wrong to want a say? Alex250P (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alex250P: Please note that our canvassing policy prohibits what you did. You violated 3 of the 4 versions of canvassing. Campaigning by not neutrally asking people to participate, clearly you're asking them to have a particular action taken. Vote-stacking by asking people in an area that you know will support your point of view. Stealth canvassing by making these actions off of Wikipedia. I believe that you've done this in ignorance of policy, but know that if you do this sort of thing again, you can and will be blocked. Consensus is one of the basic foundations of Wikipedia, and attempts to circumvent consensus as you've done are strictly forbidden. -- Atama頭 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, with all due respect, I have to disagree. I have no vested interest in this; I just came along and happened to read it, and was disturbed by your belief that Wikipedia has the right to govern a user's off-wiki freedom of speech. What your interpretation of WP:CANVASS is doing is restricting a user's off-wiki behavior to what Wikipedia finds acceptable. I find that chilling, and completely inappropriate; a user account on Wikipedia does not compel an editor to reliquish his/her right to discuss Wikipedia freely and openly in other venues, and that includes "rallying the troops" if need be. My understanding of the canvassing policy is that it governs on-wiki behavior, and does not explicitly address off-wiki activity. Consequently, I would argue that Alex250p has violated no policy. On the other hand, if the consequences of that discussion come on-wiki, that's another story. --Drmargi (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, Drmargi. It's our guideline. Read it, don't make assumptions.

"Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages."

That's a direct quote from the guideline. As I said before, there are 4 different kinds of prohibited canvassing defined by our guideline. The fourth kind, "stealth canvassing", is entirely concerned with an editor's off-wiki activities. Let's put it this way... What an editor does off-wiki makes no difference unless and until it affects Wikipedia. When you recruit people to come to Wikipedia to bolster your POV, that is affecting Wikipedia and circumventing consensus, and is disruptive in the process. That's why our guideline prohibits such practices. -- Atama頭 03:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"Rallying the troops" off-wiki also has another name: meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If this is seriously how insular Wikipedia has become, then I frankly give up trying to edit. Alex250P (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alex250P: Wikipedia didn't "become" this way. The guideline has been like this for years. The discussion that led to the guideline change can be seen here begun in June 2007. A stable version of the guideline (where people were no longer edit-warring about whether or not "stealth canvassing" should be included) is seen as early as August 2007, and it has been part of the guideline since. By the time you began editing Wikipedia (under this account, at least) the guideline had been in place for more than half a year. So the only thing that has changed about Wikipedia is your understanding of the project's guidelines. Don't assume because you were ignorant of our guidelines that they are new, they predate your own participation here and are the guidelines you've been subject to all along. -- Atama頭 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not referring explicitly to the guidelines, I'm talking about the fact that I'm being accused of having multiple accounts. Nobody has suggested a way in which I can prove that I don't. Innocent until proven guilty? Alex250P (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, It means that if you do not make a argument against it, then you will likely be blocked, I think we should open a SPI over this and end this thread. If we don't, Its ok too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Attack Dog (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not being accused of having multiple accounts. You are being accused of WP:CANVASSING offsite for the purpose of having other people sign up to support a position you hold - which is meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex250P, you don't have to prove anything. You've already admitted violating the canvassing guidelines, and you did so in such a way that I agree with Bushranger, it is close to if not actual meatpuppetry. (Meatpuppetry is asking someone else to do something on your behalf, I'm not 100% sure it applies here since you didn't tell anyone exactly what to do, but it's pretty close.) In any event, you violated our canvassing guideline and you've been warned not to do it again. So don't. You weren't aware of it before, but you are now, so consider this a warning that if you do it again you'll be blocked. Otherwise I don't know that there is anything else that requires this board's attention. (Happy Attack Dog, I don't think an SPI is necessary, if this is sockpuppetry then Alex250P went through the bizarre and unnecessary step of having sockpuppets not just here but on another site, I think that's a big stretch.) -- Atama頭 19:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ownership and harrasment

User:Dontreader has MAJOR ownership issues regarding the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article and uses harrasment and attacks to try control the content of that page, attacks that still continue [128]. Unfortunately an administrator has assited Mr Treader in these efforts.
"I refuse to let Duff get away with trying to edit the article". "You have already wiped out many well-crafted sentences and paragraphs that took me a long time to compose." consult with the main contributors to this page before changing the format of the references section."
Mr Treader had a single purpose account dedicated to editing this page. When someone dared suggest the twins were not notable and suggested that the page should be deleted Mr Treader (along with another editor [129]) launched a vile attack on another party who dared to fix up the nomination [130]. Whilse Mr Treader did post this it was clearly a hollow apology "she made a big mistake during that process" (NO she did not).
After leaving time to let those two cool down I later came back to the page and was greeted by a campaign of slander. Mr Treader went around to third parties and rubbished me with a serious of personal attacks. "guys like Duffbeerforme are out there without a leash" "He is suffering badly now, in this life, but he will suffer much greater torment in the afterlife" "Anyway, I have strong reasons to believe that Duffbeerforme and the anonymous user who first changed the style of the references section are the same person, and Duffbeerforme was very hostile, " I think it's a shame that there are very rude people out there, such as Duffbeerforme, who constantly roam Wikipedia behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Never courteous or constructive, or suggesting other ways to do things better; just highly destructive, making Wikipedia a war zone.", "I'm tired of my edits being systematically reverted by duffbeerforme" Individually most are not much but add them together along with running around to all those different places it becomes something. Admin User:Bgwhite's reaction was to tell me it's wrong to ask someone not to make personal attacks, to pretend that attacks were not attack, to state that Mr Treader owns the article and to tell me to reward Mr Treader for making attacks User talk:Dontreader#NPA. I objected to the idea of rewarding him so Bgwhite decided to ban me User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 18#Re Dontreader.
Places where Mr Treaders issues have been discussed with him by others. User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 028#What am I supposed to do with this User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 028#Hostile_activity_on_a_page_that_I_contribute_to. User talk:Dontreader#Final warning. User talk:Dontreader#Second NPA warning User talk:Dontreader#On being an effective editor. User talk:Dontreader#Please take it easy. User talk:Lukeno94/Archive 3#Camille and Kennerly Kitt page being considered for deletion. Talk:Camille and Kennerly Kitt#Time to move on.
An understanding was created where neither Mr Treader or myself would make changes, we'd make changes and a mediator would make changes. (note; not Mr Treader would tell Bgwhite what he wanted and Bgwhite would do it for him). Bgwhite broke that understanding at the behest of Mr Treader while demanding I stick to it.
Mr Treader belittling and attacks continue (User talk:Bgwhite#Lesser) and it looks like they have driven away the mediator who has shown incredible patience. Other recent diatribes, User talk:Dontreader#Roar (song), User talk:Dontreader#Lesser Cartographies, what have you done?, User talk:Lesser Cartographies/Archive 1#Harp Twins.
Bgwhite has continually, in complete opposition of the policy of WP:AGF, characterised my actions in a negative light. He has after insisting on discussion chosen to ignore what has been decided and impose his own version. He continually asserting Mr Treader's ownership. He continues to turn a blind eye to Mr Treader's continuing attacks. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the AfD, it's pretty clear that there were a fair number of SPIs focused on this article were involved and those SPIs feel like promotional accounts. It's also clear that the AfD's result would have been keep in any case. Basic theme: though notable, there does appear to be a concerted effort to promote these twins and Dontreader, though contributing somewhat more broadly, looks to be a part of that. The article could probably use some editing to reduce its promotional nature. I didn't look at the disputes themselves, just the AfD and article. Hobit (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sign... Long story short, Duff hates Treader and Treader hates Duff. There is no love lost between them. I and Lesser stepped in and asked that neither side edit anymore. Any proposed edits be done by Lesser or me. Lesser took the point. Treader has kept to that and Duff has not, which resulted in me reverting Duff several times and his "love" towards me, including his non-AGF. All told, Lesser has made the vast majority of edits since the agreement. I've done two edits and two reverts during this mess.
• Treader does have some serious ownership issues and lack of good faith. However, he has not edited the article since the agreement nor had any ownership issues on other articles that I'm aware of. His temper has been directed towards Duff and Lesser. It did get so bad that I asked Lesser to recluse himself and walk away, which he did. I've asked Treader to submit any changes to me now. He hasn't edited since.
• There's nothing that needs to be addressed at ANI. Just Treader and Duff's hatred toward each other, Duff's unwillingness to move on, Treader's personal issues with this one article and both of their problems with AGF. Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So you think it's ok for Mr Treader to continuously attack people?
  • Simple question that goes back near the beginning. Why is it wrong to ask someone not to make personal attacks? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Duff, the issue of personal attacks against me has been solved: I'm no longer mediating, so there's no reason for Don and I to interact further. You and Don continue to have the good sense to leave each other alone, and both of you have refrained from editing the article. That's about the best solution we can hope for. If Bgw starts allowing fancruft edits—and I have no reason to think that he will—then ping me and we'll all head over to WP:DRN. If Don goes nonlinear the first time Bgw declines one of his suggestions, then Bgw can ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation and warn or block as needed. For right now, though, we've still got a stable article and Don has stopped barking at me. Just hang out and we'll see where we go from here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Bgwhite, please take note of yet another mistake made by Lesser Cartographies. He wrote above, "I'm no longer mediating, so there's no reason for Don and I to interact further." But then he added, "If Bgw starts allowing fancruft edits (...) then ping me and we'll all head over to WP:DRN." Why can't Duff go to DRN by himself? Is Duff a newbie??? If Lesser sees no reason for him and myself to interact further, and he has implied that I have attacked him, then why would he want to potentially see me again at DRN (and possibly expose himself to further "attacks") if Duff becomes unhappy with an edit you make? Duff can go there by himself if necessary. Besides, Lesser took a shot at you, implying that you (an administrator) might break the rules and let me get away with fancruft edits. A very cheap trick to give everyone the impression that you are biased in my favor, and to dissuade you from accepting ANYTHING I might propose for the article. And he's still plotting to eventually get me banned from Wikipedia by provoking me at DRN at some point. Lesser JUST DOES NOT LEARN. I can outmaneuver him and expose him even when I'm utterly sleep deprived. I'm glad all of this will be archived. If I make life difficult for Lesser again, it will be his fault entirely, but if Lesser is wise he will rectify and state that he won't participate in a hypothetical DRN scenario, to avoid further contact with me. Duff would not need his help (actually, Duffbeerforme, I'd feel very insulted if I were you). Sorry, Bgwhite, but I really think that my AGF issues are completely justified when it comes to Duff and Lesser. Dontreader (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hobit, could you please clarify the meaning of SPIs? If you are talking about sock puppetry then that would be a serious accusation. Also, there has never been a concerted effort to promote the Harp Twins on Wikipedia. I have never sent a private message to (or received one from) any of the contributors to the article. I did receive a private message from Lesser Cartographies, and I replied; we exchanged a few messages over a span of a few days, but it was within the context of his mediation role. I have no idea who the other contributors are, but they are obviously fans of the Kitt twins, as I am, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as the rules are followed. I believe there's a big difference between some editors contributing to an article about musicians they are fans of, and a concerted effort to promote them. Besides, the traffic to the Harp Twins article page is completely insignificant compared with the traffic to their social media sites where they heavily promote themselves.
• Regarding duffbeerforme, during the AfD discussion, he campaigned vigorously for the deletion of the article; then he showed up several months later on the article. This is what happened:

1. An IP address user (who had never contributed to the article before that day) made substantial changes, here, completely changing the referencing style. I saw no problem with the referencing style that we all had been using, and no one else had ever indicated that it should be modified, so I reverted that edit.

2. Duffbeerforme, who had never contributed to the article, changed everything that I had reverted, here. Is there even ONE administrator here that can remember ONE user that campaigned at length for the deletion of an article, and then at some point began to edit that article in an uncivil way? And if I have not proven that DuffBeerforme was uncivil, please read point 3.

3. I reverted his edit, and in my edit description I told him to make his case on the talk page, which is the appropriate and civil thing to do. Well, you can find his insulting response on the talk page to my very polite introduction here.

4. But Duffbeerforme was far from finished with his "contributions" to the article; he then made this edit. So, in order to try to reach a compromise, I took out the shop links, here, but then Duffbeerforme reverted that edit, here. His hostile manner could not be clearer, and that's how my war with him began.

5. Do you think he stopped there? Not even close. I went to RSN to ask if shop links were allowed in music articles to support content. Guess who answered my question? You guessed right: Duffbeerforme! Lesser Cartographies (mentioned above) scolded him for doing that, and that's approximately when he decided to become a mediator, to which Bgwhite agreed.

6. During those days, Duffbeerforme nominated two articles created by Robcamstone (the other main contributor to the Harp Twins article) for deletion. Both Lesser Cartographies and Bgwhite can confirm this information. The consequence of this attack was that Robcamstone retired permanently from Wikipedia, even demanding that his username be erased.

7. Bgwhite issued a final warning to both Duff and myself (identical messages on our talk pages, which you can read here. I have entirely complied with Bgwhite's demands, whereas Duffbeerforme has defied his authority as a Wikipedia administrator, editing the article, including an edit description which constitutes a personal attack, here.

• I think it is sufficiently clear who the real troublemaker is in this situation. Since I have spent valuable time defending myself here, I will take just a few more seconds to make one simple request: Please ban Duffbeerforme from editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article. That simple measure will solve this year-long problem (dating back to his passionate campaigning for the deletion of the article). Thanks for your time. Dontreader (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Don, it's pretty darn clear that there are a bunch of accounts which are purely focused, or nearly purely focused on this one subject. I've no evidence that they are working together or not (though I'd certainly put even money on it that some are). But you are clearly focused on this one subject (which is allowed) and others are much more so. do you have any kind of WP:COI with this subject? Hobit (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Hobit, please ping me if/when you write here again, if you don't mind. Which "bunch" of accounts are you talking about. I only see two suspicious accounts: Crowdsalesmed and Bollywooddancer7. It's possible that Crowdsalesmed (who created the page) became disillusioned with Wikipedia once the war with Duffbeerforme broke out. Robcamstone quit, all because of what Duffbeerforme was doing; however, I'm not here to defend Crowdsalesmed and Bollywooddancer7 (any other suspicious usernames, please?). I am merely a big fan of the Harp Twins. I even took a total of four planes and ten buses just to see them perform and meet them in person. Also, when I discovered that they had a Wikipedia page, I soon decided that a picture should be added. I NEVER imagined that it would take me over a hundred hours to get that done. After that, well, understandably I was going to defend the article from deletion with all my strength at the AfD discussion, which I did. What makes no sense is the effort that Duffbeerforme put into trying to get it deleted (and later he went back to the article to cause more trouble). The pain involved with uploading the picture (legally) did radicalize me when it comes to that article, I must admit, and then Duff's actions only made things worse. There is no conflict of interest. It would be wonderful if Camille and Kennerly sent me a nice check for all the crap I've been through here defending their article from Duff, and all the craziness that he has caused (I can't edit the article directly as part of an agreement, for example), but as I said, they care about their social media sites, not Wikipedia (I mentioned earlier that the traffic to their page is minimal). Anyway, I've agreed with Bgwhite to focus on other pages for several months. Please read my previous entry carefully again. I do want you to please consider banning Duffbeerforme from editing the Harp Twins page. He has made life miserable for many people on Wikipedia (examine his contributions if you have the time), and I suppose he will continue to do so, but all I can ask is for you or another administrator to please ban him specifically from editing the Harp Twins page since I'm already here at ANI. Thanks for your time. Dontreader (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Mr DonTreader, I did argue for the articles deletion. That does not disqualify me from editing the page as you seem to want with your repeated demands for my banning.

1. That was a good edit. The referencing style was fairly useless and needed to be changed. It does not matter that they had not edited the page before.

2. That was a good edit. The referencing style was fairly useless and needed to be changed. There was nothing uncivil about it. As you were told, [131] "I see no hostility at all in improving references; on the contrary, it was a good thing to do, and there is nothing impolite about being WP:BOLD and doing it."

3. Your "introduction" was not polite. Demanding others consult you is not polite. Wikipedia is not here for you to make pretty shrines.

4. Wikipedia is not a directory of download links. My edit was good. You claim to have taken out the shop links. You did not. You just tried to use Wikipedia to promote the sales of their songs. Wikipedia is not a directory of download sites.

5. One of the many places you went venue shopping. Yes I did answer your question. That was a good thing. Yes I failed to fully disclose my involvement and for that I was duly trouted.

6. I nominated Jazz At the Theatre and Bonnie Langford Now (Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct). Note that they are both deleted. Nominating article that do not belong here is not an attack. See [132] "if another editor notices you're creating articles without using reliable sources, it's not WP:HARASSMENT to review that editor's contributions to determine how widespread the problem is, and then to fix the problem. That's good-faith editing."

7. [[133]] "You are too wrapped up by Duff's actions. Let it go." You did not "entirely complied with Bgwhite's demands". You kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about my actions. And that's just March and April. Remember this? " I promise I will NEVER mention that editor again, on any page, as you demanded." The very next day you mentioned me [134]. Never lasted a long time. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Mentioning Duffbeerforme became inevitable very quickly; it was foolish of me to promise never to mention him again. Anyway, I have made my case. I don't think I have anything else to add, other than the fact that it's obvious that for some unknown reason Duffbeerforme is clearly obsessed with the need to continue editing that article. It makes sense for me to want to edit the Harp Twins page because I'm a big fan of theirs, yet I will forget about it for several months and focus on improving other pages, as Bgwhite suggested; however, Duffbeerforme's irrational obsession with that article has caused massive problems, and this ordeal will continue as long as he remains able to edit that article. Therefore, again, I request that Duffbeerforme be permanently banned specifically from editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article; he has plenty of other articles to choose from to improve the encyclopedia. Dontreader (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• What happened in that one hour between promising never to mention me and you mentioning me that made it "inevitable"? Anything? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions for User:Bgwhite.

"Any proposed edits be done by Lesser or me." The understanding was that Lesser would make edits, not you. You violated that understanding then demanded I stick to it.

Let's look at your "Final warning". "Duff is provoking you, just don't take bait." Mischaracterising my actions in a negative manner and assuming bad faith. "I've asked you to stay away to de-escalate the situation.". No you ordered me not to edit Dontreaders page (WP:OWN). "Nothing says prodding more than that." Once again mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. "By doing so, you are doing purely to provoke and prod Dont." Once again mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. Why was your incivility warning so full of incivility? Why did you bring up that line about baiting when you were baiting me? "The next time blocks will happen." Like the previous time you said you'd block Dontreader if he attacked me? "If I see it again, I will block you." This is followed by another attack <9 hours later, "I am absolutely certain that he has a serious demonic affliction". Still waiting. And the attacks have gone on and on and on.

Let's have another look at NPA. "You leaving the the NPA message to begin with was wrong." How was this wrong? "First, levelling accusations without proof is also a personal attack". Why say this AFTER I provided proof? "Dontreader, don't mention Duffbeerforme again in any messages." Is Dontreader following your instructions as you claim. "I do believe you went after Robscamstone's articles to look for what could be deleted". Once again Mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. "Duffbeerforme don't work on one of Robcamstone's or Dontreader's articles." Why say that they own the article when their ownership issues are the core of the problem. Why were you trying to reward Dontreaders attacks?

Let's look at Re Dontreader. "You did specifically target other editor's articles for deletion." Once again mischaracterising my actions and assuming bad faith. Seems to be a common theme for you. "I did tell Dontreader if I see a personal attack again, I will block them." Still waiting. "Per WP:IBAN, I can ban you from interacting with Dontreader and I'm doing it." No you can't. "I've also addressed it with them and threatened blocks if they do it again" Still waiting. "Admins can impose interaction bans which also cover reverting other people's edits." No they can't. "I'd also advise you not to touch one of Robcamstone's articles for the same reason." Once again saying that someone owns an article. " If you think one of Robcamstone's articles should be slapped with a PROD or AfD, ask someone else to take a look. I have no problem if you ask me." I asked you. What happened?

This is not just as you describe above. It's also about your continued acceptance of Dontreaders repeated attacks despite your claims otherwise. And your talk of AGF while you do the opposite. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hobit and whichever other administrators are here at ANI, at this point it's absolutely clear that Duffbeerforme must be banned permanently from editing the Camille and Kennerly Kitt article. Lesser Cartographies stepped down from his position as mediator for that article, and the very next day Duffbeerforme opened a discussion here because he cannot cope with that reality; he is absolutely furious, and look at all the stuff he's been spewing out. This is beyond bizarre even by Twilight Zone standards. Did Duffbeerforme create the article? No. Was he a regular contributor to the article? No. Did he campaign with great intensity to try to get the article deleted? Yes. Had he made ANY edits to the article before the AfD discussion? No. Did he come to the article several months later, creating an edit war? Yes. Did he make the other main contributor decide to retire from Wikipedia by "coincidentally" nominating two of his articles for deletion when the war began? Yes. So just think about these extreme measures that Duffbeerforme is taking by opening a discussion here at ANI and saying all of these things just because the mediator for the Camille and Kennerly article stepped down. Why is he so mortified? This is totally irrational. There are many other articles that he can edit. And why was there a mediator in the first place??? We are talking about a highly problematic person, obviously, to put it nicely, with a perplexing obsession. I, as a fan of the Harp Twins, should be allowed to contribute to that article in peace, and of course I welcome others to contribute, and to discuss whatever differences of opinion may arise while editing it. But not Duffbeerforme; he must be banned permanently from editing that article. That is the only solution for this problem. Dontreader (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't speak on whether Duffbeerforme's edits are disruptive but it doesn't matter whether an editor had a hand in creating an article, unless they are topic-banned, any editor can edit this article. Saying you are a fan of the subject of the page doesn't give you more privileges or rights. Your (and anyone else') edits should be based on their merits, not on when an editor started working on an article or whether they are a fan or not. In fact, being a fan might mean that an editor lacks a NPOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Liz, thanks for your input. Could you please confirm that you are an administrator? You have several accounts, so I haven't checked all of them. Please read the entire thread. I am not able to edit that article because of the war caused by Duffbeerforme after he went to the article 6 months after he campaigned militantly for its deletion. You said, "any editor can edit this article." That's incorrect. I have not been able to edit that article for half a year, as part of an agreement reached with the administrator Bgwhite, which included Lesser Cartographies as a mediator. This peculiar situation is the consequence of Duffbeerforme's behavior (chiefly an irrational desire to edit that article, and in a disruptive manner), and of Lesser Cartographies' decision to try to be a referee for me (a former regular contributor to the article) and Duffbeerforme (a person who tried his best to destroy the article). Many articles about musicians are edited to some degree by fans of those musicians. Since you brought up NPOV, I will ask you if you believe an editor who tried to destroy an article and then comes back to edit it might lack a NPOV (or good faith, for that matter). Please read the entire thread, if you have a chance. This crazy situation has been going on for half a year, as I said. That's too long, and it should not continue indefinitely. The only solution is to ban Duffbeerforme from that article permanently. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Dontreader, FYI, I am not an administrator either, and secondly commentary on this page is not limited to administrators. In fact, at the very top of the page it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". Without a doubt Liz would certainly count as the latter. Thirdly, excessive hyperbole is rather melodramatic. Language such as "..because of the war..", "...campaigning militantly...", and various examples in your reply prior to Liz's, is that really necessary? Quite frankly, at this point, both you and duffbeer should cease the commentary and allow an uninvolved admin to check things out. The more that is posted, sans diffs, the less likely anything actionable will happen. Diffs were provided at the start, now stop the petty jabs at each other (and melodrama) and wait for an admin response. Blackmane (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, nah, I'm not an administrator. I just recall the dispute over this article last fall which appeared to be completely out-of-proportion to the subject (IMHO). I personally would love it if everyone who voted to delete an article or category I thought was useful was forbidden from editing it in the future but that is not how Wikipedia works. As for my usernames, I don't see how they are relevant to this discussion but I created an account some years ago, decided I wanted to just edit as an IP for a few years and then created this account last summer. Both the registered accounts and the IPs (the ones I can recall) are listed on my User Page and are acknowledged. You can browse through the contributions if you want, but I don't think you'll come across anything pertinent to this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Blackmane, thanks for pointing out my mistake concerning who can intervene at ANI. I obviously made an erroneous assumption based on the title of the noticeboard. I appreciate the rest of your advice, too, as well as the time you took to read the entire thread. I will not post further comments on the matter. Liz, I'm glad you agree with my point of view regarding editors who have voted to delete an article, although I would make an exception for administrators. A new rule could and should be made, but for now I'm asking for something much simpler, stated above. Duffbeerforme is neither an administrator nor an experienced editor, and I would love to see ONE example of someone in his category making useful contributions to an article that he/she thought should be deleted (with a delete vote). Anyway, I brought up your multiple names simply because you didn't show up as an administrator under "Liz", and I didn't want to go through the list with every name. It doesn't matter because, as Blackmane said, experienced editors such as yourself can intervene here. I apologize for not realizing that on my own. Thanks for your reply. Dontreader (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:117Avenue

User:117Avenue keeps reverting edits to 41st Canadian Parliament, Bloc Québécois and André Bellavance claiming that information that Bellevance is no longer BQ leader is not in the reference, however my reference at http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Pages/PartyOfficersExecutives.aspx clearly states that the position of BQ leader is vacant. 192.235.250.130 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue appears to be that Bellavance is an interim leader until the next elections, and perhaps as such does not meet the criteria to be listed as a leader. You seem to believe that Bellavance has also resigned as interim leader to run in the leadership elections - do you have a source for this, as I can't find one (the reference you used in the diff above does not back your statement up). Number 57 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the IP is mistaken that the parliamentary leader and the party leader are the same office. References have stated Bellavance became the interim BQ leader on 16 December 2013, no source has been provided to state that he has resigned to run for the leadership permanently. 117Avenue (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Parliament of Canada website, however, says that the position of party leader is vacant. There is no source that says Bellavance is currently (ie since declaring his candidacy for leadership) interim leader. Further, there are sources that say he was, but is no longer, interim parliamentary leader. It stands to reason that if he has resigned as interim parliamentary leader he also resigned as interim leader. 147.194.1.170 (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the official list of all BQ leaders (including "acting" leaders) on the Parliament of Canada website does not list Bellavance (see http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Party.aspx?Item=a639384e-e1a0-4169-83da-904925139b6a ). It's likely that the press reports that stated he was interim leader were inaccurate and that, in fact, he was only interim parliamentary leader. I don't see that Wikipedia is in a position to overrule the Parliament of Canada website, particularly when it *does* list interim leaders when they exist. 147.194.1.170 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

When you started adding statements that he was interim party leader from December to February, when he resigned to run for the leadership, I started reverting you because you did not have a reference. On another reading of the Huffington Post reference I see you are right, in that it does not clearly say party leader. As it turns out, Bellavance was never party leader, thanks for your help in working this out. 117Avenue (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

---

User:Swollib has vandalized DRN twice[135][136] and posted a rant about the Pope being behind a 72-hour block he received in 2005 on my talk page.[137] Somehow this is related to User:125.239.145.26.[138][139] Notifications sent. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP is currently (very unsuccessfully) disputing a block for trolling while ranting about claims that Wikipedia is controlled by Christians, funded by the pope, etc. I don't see much else needed there, other than the user perhaps losing talk page access and/or extending their block.

Swollib responded on the IP's talk page with a personal attack that I removed.[140] They seem to be pursuing "The Truth". The DRN posts seem to be trying to expose the apparent threat to "The Truth" posed by the IP. If Swollib doesn't hear the message to stop soon, they'll be blocked through the usual channels. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to respond to his madness by not attacking the crazy lunatic freak. I'm sorry for being in breach of the rules before. Swollib (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Try harder. Admins, may I suggest a revdel at User:125.239.145.26? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Swollib indeffed. We're done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

When they started making disruptive edits to user pages, I had to put a stop to them. I've revdel'd the edits and deleted the IP talk as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are Wikipedia's servers really buried underground at the Vatican? EEng (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Recurrance of disruptive Nazi-related editing by User:Hoops gza

User:Hoops gza has previously caused problems by adding individuals who do not meet the criteria for List of Nazis to that page and Category:Nazis, even going so far as to remove those criteria from the page and claim that they'd been added by a random editor (rather than by the creator of the list article, to prevent its deletion). He has also created an absurd number of redirects in non-English languages on the English WP, arguing that the rules against this didn't apply because the topic was special (the Holocaust). He's at it again. This time he's also creating obsessively-specific categories such as Category:Nazis executed by Albert Pierrepoint. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Let me get this straight. I added the Category:Nazis to people who were verifiable Nazi Party members (you can take a look at the German Wikipedia's de:Kategorie:NSDAP-Mitglied to see how this is done). Ergo, they were Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this before, at length. Are you saying that you cannot remember this discussion, that you do not understand it, or that you refuse to accept it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I can say for certain that Hoops gza was incorrect at List of Nazis, the article's creator was Dr. Blofeld, and Dr. Blofeld was the person who originally added that language. The statement that Hoops gza made in this edit summary is nonsense (easily seen by anyone checking the article history). However, that edit war ended over a month ago, so it's not really worth bringing up anymore.

I'm also not sure what's problematic about those redirects, I don't dispute that there are "rules" being broken but I can't see where they are.

The category you mentioned above is at CfD, so the fate of the category should be settled there. The guideline for creating categories is here. I'm not quite sure, however, what determines whether or not a category should exist, and therefore what would be an excessive number of frivolous and/or redundant categories. To my eye, I don't really see what's wrong with these categories, I've seen some pretty crazy category creation sprees be reported to this board but this doesn't strike me as one. To look at all of the existing categories that Hoops gza has created, see this list. -- Atama頭 21:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

His edit-warring is relevant because he's just restarted it.[141] [142] The garbage redirects demonstrate his disregard for Wikipedia rules to suit his own agenda. The frivolous/obsessive categories are merely supporting evidence of his disruptiveness. And his comment above ... is simply baffling. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And now he is asserting that the discussion never took place. [143] For someone who engages this freely in historical revision/denial to be editing articles about the Holocaust is cause for concern. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried communicating with him; he just ignores me, off in his own alternate reality. Could someone at least suggest what I might do about this problem editor? Reverting his edits is getting tiresome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

More uncommunicative reverts.[144][145] More garbage redirects.[146] Please advise me on whether I should continue to try to deal with this problem editor (and if so how), of if I should just stop wasting my time asking for help and let him do whatever the hell he wants. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kitsada69 repeatedly removing speedies and PRODBLPs from articles s/he has created

Kitsada69 (talk · contribs) has been told, repeatedly, not to remove PRODBLPs, speedy-delete nominations, and unresolved maintenance tags from articles s/he has created, and has now done it again: here. There has been no response to any comments on their user talk page - possibly they aren't reading it. A short block might draw this to their attention and persuade them to stop messing around. PamD 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, indefinitely until they respond - not so much because of the problems you mention, which I think would have warranted at least a short block, but due to the creation of 5 pages such as User talk:182.52.164.90 - none of the IPs are actually Cox Communications IPs and none are blocked. They all edited 2014 Asian Women's Club Volleyball Championship. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

He/she responded by blanking their talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over whether essay contradicts policy

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

---

This is more for experienced editors rather than administrators per se.

I wrote an essay I intend as guidance based on WP:AT and tagged it as a guidance essay with the "Guidance essay" template tag. Other users disagree with my interpretation of policy and feel the guidance is contrary to policy, and so the Guidance essay tag should not be there.

Anyway, please have a look:

• WP:Concision razor
• Wikipedia talk:Concision razor

Thanks! --B2C 16:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOESSAY states that essays that contradict policy should either be deleted, or moved into user space. What category an essay should fall under is a subjective determination of the nature of the essay, which can be resolved through discussion if people disagree.

Technically, this request shouldn't be here, it should be at WP:AN if you wanted to get the advice of administrators, or at WP:VP if you wanted the advice of editors in general. ANI should be for reporting a particular incident. -- Atama頭 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I considered WP:AN, but it says, "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.", and WP:ANI says, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors."

Since I seek discussion about an incident (dispute over placement of tag on a particular essay stemming from disagreement about whether essay contradicts policy) requiring the intervention of at least experienced editors, I thought it was more appropriate to post here.

Anyway, the problem is that there is a dispute among experienced editors about whether this particular essay contradicts policy - I believe it requires the intervention of objective/experienced editors to resolve it.

I do seek to resolve this through discussion. I'm seeking input from objective/uninvolved experienced editors on this dispute to help resolve it there. Thanks! --B2C 18:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you run into serious problems resolving this dispute, consider the advice about dispute resolution, including the use of the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm not unsympathetic, I wrote a Wikipedia space essay that twice ended up at miscellany for deletion; it survived the first discussion and only survived the second discussion with significant changes. (Changes which I conceded then were necessary, and still consider to have improved the essay.) So I understand your plight somewhat. But my essay is still around almost 5 years later (though modified by many other editors) and seems to be pretty-well accepted, so don't be too discouraged. And accept that some of your detractors may be right (in my case they were). -- Atama頭 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It was resolved in discussion. There was a misunderstanding. Thank you. --B2C 00:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Ginger Alden AfD

On this AfD for Elvis Presley's fiance Ginger Alden, a user named Juliesong has attacked nominator Lady Lotus, accusing her of doing this simply because she doesn't like Ginger. Ad Orientem pointed out WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to Julie, and they seem to have been disregarded. I also gave an analysis for how Ginger fails WP:GNG, which Julie didn't seem to fully acknowledge. Julie's rationale was that Ginger passed notability for being an actress, model, author, and Elvis' fiance. A user named Elwood48 also argued Ginger was notable for being engaged to Elvis. Since Elwood came off as a single-purpose account (only editing articles relating to Elvis and Ginger), Lady Lotus added Elwood to suspected socks in this SPI. I requested CheckUser for the accounts, and in the SPI an IP address made comments that Julie would've likely made which Julie ended up signing. Admin Ponyo performed a CheckUser which indicated the accounts are unlikely the same user, though AfD should be watched for meatpuppetry and/or further disruption. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Has an attempt to put CIVIL and AGF into the IP and Elwood? To be honest I already hear the DUCKs quacking, actually, when did the IP and Elwood first pop up? MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 00:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So far, no, MM. Elwood hasn't be uncivil, just came off as a single-purpose account. The IP I'm certain has been informed of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (and probably ended up disregarding them). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as an editor abides by WP:NPOV, WP:RS and other Wikipedia policies, there is nothing wrong with being a SPA. Some people come to Wikipedia to focus on a narrow range of articles (or even just one article). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't an editor be blocked if a user uses an IP to cause trouble such as using it to cast a second vote in an AFD? And does WP:Notability is not inherited seem correct here? MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 18:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That is true, Liz, though unfortunately it seems that oftentimes SPA's become fixated on certain points and fuss when others disagree with them. On a side note, I'm a bit concerned with the edit summaries left from Hobit and Joefromrandb in the AfD. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, MM, voting more than once in an AfD or RfA is not abiding by Wikipedia policies and it doesn't really matter whether it is done by a registered account and an associated IP account or a registered account and a sock account. And being an IP editor doesn't mean one is a SPA which is simply an account where an editor focuses their edits on one article or a group of articles on one subject.

XXSNUGGUMSXX, SPAs seem to be more prone to pushing a POV but that isn't necessarily so. Similarly, the majority of vandalism edits might be done by IPs but that doesn't mean that the majority of IP editors are committing vandalism. There can be a correlation without a causation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, best not to overgeneralize. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Roy hibbert

Hey guys someone vandelisez the Roy hibbert page. Including the height, pls fix thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B015:54F2:357B:A87B:770A:D75 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The place for such a request would be WP:RFP, not here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a perfectly acceptable place for the request. Random vandalism doesn't need to go to RFP. --Onorem (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed and the article has been semi'd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This IPv6 has got me thinking though, do we have somewhere to report non-excessive vandalism (say, twice or three times) that hasn't been reverted for a long time (say, a month)? There's millions of articles out there and they may not even all be being watched. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 18:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. WP:SOFIXIT applies: if you find vandalism, revert it. That's not always obvious to IP editors, or they may not be comfortable making changes themselves, but there's really not a venue for them to report issues like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Panel of three administrators requested for closure of Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested Move 8

Not only has the move request itself (which is No. 8 for this particular page) caused disruption but the subsequent edit warring and wheel warring over the closure was not a great deed either. Guy has now closed the move discussion again and suggested a moratorium for any new RMs at this article for one month. As a totally uninvolved admin I cannot find any consensus in this ANI discussion to leave it open. I also endorse Guy's reasoning for the final RM closure and the proposed moratorium. Any further reopening of the previous discussion at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested Move 8 will be met with a warning and ultimately a block for disruptive and pointy editing.

In other news it's trout fishing season. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

A proposal has been made at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested Move 8 to change the name of the article. The name of this article is contentious, with a previous move request resulting in a long discussion and move review. The request has already received strong responses after being posted for only one hour. To reduce any potential problems, I am requesting a panel of three entirely neutral and uninvolved administrators to close the request after the discussion has ended (in seven days). Please volunteer here should you be interested. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone seems to be having a hard time understanding the word "no". It only needs one admin to close it, the request is plainly disruptive. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has used the word 'no' yet with regards to this request. I attempted to contact you through your talk page (in a nice way) and you replied with 'Talk to the hand.' This discussion is clearly contentious, and, as such, it is only appropriate that it is closed neutrally and formally. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• I closed that discussion neutrally and formally, per common sense and IAR. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As a point of order, so did I, but the IP that started this discussion reverted the close. I think it may be time to reach for the WP:TROUT. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You did? What a Guy-thing to do. Good for you. Drmies (husband of Mrs. Drmies) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A request should not be closed whilst discussion is still ongoing and there is decent support for both sides of the argument. A neutral close means to wait for users to comment and then to analyse those arguments neutrally and without any bias. Closing a move request after two hours is simply insufficient. I have reverted your close accordingly. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• And I've rolled you back accordingly, and will not hesitate to do so again. Consider this (<--this) a warning for disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I reviewed this IP's previous contributions, and they amount to a massive pile of wheedling disruptive bullshit. I have blocked it for a week. Look at talk:Pablo Casals. Seriously, this person is just yanking our collective chain. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• That dancing around is kind of funny on the Casals talk page: "this person, who is now back home under their regular IP, confirms that that person was not this person, but the other person was". Yes, good call--thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, now Anthonyhcole, who earlier opposed this "sexist, misogynist shit", has undone the close. Anthony, I love you like a brother/sister, but this is a complete timesink; good luck with it. Surely you should know that there's more broken pieces to pick up a week from now. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I support blocking that guy. But please just let that discussion have its head. I want to know how fucked this place actually is. If you shut down the headline instances of obvious sexism like this with supervotes, are you going to follow User:Obiwankenobi around and stop him merging Category:American women writers into Categoty:American writers and all the other little cuteness he gets up to? Sorry, I'm not making myself as clear as I'd like. Mole-whacking, spot-fire-stomping isn't the solution, some kind of actual policy change is. (Don't ask me what.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I don't believe that's a reasonable basis for prolonging this discussion, and would prefer to see it left as having been closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Et tu? Sorry. I think we need to look at ourselves. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

My take is that there are, unfortunately, enough instances of naturally occurring bad behavior on the project without our unnecessarily adding to them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is naturally-occurring bad behaviour, supported by many editors in good standing who have free reign here, because there is nothing in en.Wikipedia policy about respecting the dignity of our subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I don't see how any policy we have could ever support such a title, so the only thing that would be uncovered is not "systemic sexism" in our policies, but rather the behavior of some of our colleagues--for whom we are making a nice spectacle here. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No policy opposes it. So we're left to local consensus with one side having to constantly argue IAR. See my response to NYB immediately above, and Wikipedia talk:BLP#Human dignity. (I support User:SlimVirgin's proposal - not sure if I mentioned that in the discussion.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the close, Anthony. It is clear from your comments here that your intended purpose is to foster disruptive drama. If you want to propose changes to policy, then propose changes at a village pump. Don't encourage a giant, disruptive waste of time in the name of WP:POINT. Resolute 23:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear at all, Resolute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"I want to know how fucked this place actually is" is the statement that particularly damns you in my view. Your overall tenor and tone here, at that talk page and at Jimbo's talk page makes it patently clear that you are not asking for the discussion to remain open because of a desire to honestly resolve this debate. You seem determined to encourage and foster drama in the name of "proving" the existence of sexism. In short, you are basically arguing against your own stated position simply to try and keep this going. That is disruptive behaviour and IMNSHO, not a valid excuse to keep this RM open. Resolute 23:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if I had to bet on it, I'd bet the pro "wife of" team would loose that one. But I'm not sure, and I'd have liked to know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's extremely disruptive, and very much the same behavior that caused editors to be admonished etc. in the previous Manning dispute. That said, the RM should not be closed prematurely. Arkon (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

we have, I would estimate more than 200 other articles where people are disambiguated based on their relationships with others (wife, husband, sister, mother, daughter, etc), and I've never heard a complaint. In other cases we call them murderers or rapists or other unsavory things, as if the act of killing someone DEFINED that person, but we go ahead and dab on that when necessary because our main goal is to serve the reader. Anyway, I'd suggest we let the discussion run it's course, a year ago there were a fair number of people who supported the original title, which had remained per consensus for several years, and the IP has made a compelling policy-based case. It's a unique situation, in the last move request I proposed a great many other disambiguations but few took me up on them. I also recently voted for simply Sarah Brown per iaR but everyone else wanted to hew to policy on Primarytopic. If were to follow sources, of course, wife is the most frequently used dab for her, and Sarah Jane is never used. Ever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's over, Obi. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidently not, as Obi has chosen to re-revert the closure. I suppose I'll just file actions like that away for future reference at the inevitable RFArb. Resolute 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Classic. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I request consensus here to reinstate the speedy-close of the move request and leave it that way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• strong oppose what is the matter with you people? The last move a year ago had at least 12 or maybe more editors supporting the original title by my recollection. This one has garnered 4 support votes within an hour of opening. Are you afraid consensus won't be with you? I see no reason to close a well reasoned and argued move request which was based on a very careful reading of policy, and must point out that the current title is in violation of every single titling policy except IAR. If you shut this down this is a small crew of admins ganging up and enforcing their version of consensus, which is not what the mop is for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK. I'm persuaded by the above. Support. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. I would also note that the Anon did get their three admins to close the discussion. Guy, Drmies and myself. Resolute 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I fail to understand why the discussion has been allowed to be reopened repeatedly by individuals involved in the discussion. Each admin commenting here has agreed with Drmies' original (and subsequent) close. The original IP requested a panel of three uninvolved admins to close; regardless of the merit of the request that number has been well surpassed. If I wasn't logging off in short order I would re-close it myself. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Continued reversion of the close is WP:POINTy in the extreme. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Why did you block the IP (131.111.185.66‎)who started the RM? Your stated reason is disruptive editing, but I see no diff to such, and a look at the editing history shows me no such disruption? Arkon (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Reverting the close is considered disruptive editing. I agree with the block, though perhaps JzG could have let someone else implement the block if just to avoid the appearance of WP:INVOLVED. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  I could possibly go along with that if the other people (person?) who reverted the close was similarly blocked. It would be wrong, but at least consistent. This looks very very retaliatory. Arkon (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not involved, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, participated in any of these discussions. My block of the IP is based on a pattern of disruptive behaviour going back months, with endless querulous demands for things that are not going to happen. Also I noted it here for independent review, which is best practice. I did not block the other person reverting closure because (a) they did not also start the thread and (b) they have a lot more history of actually productive collaboration, so it's not an open and shut case. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support- I don't need to see anymore to know of the systematic bias here, it's pretty plain. Besides, why make admins who have so much to do work harder just to see who is and who isn't going to support this silliness. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Drmies's close. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Let it run, as I said on the talk page there I wouldn't have done any reverting myself, but hey, let's see just how far down the rabbit hole we can go here. Bronies, Spring breakers, Nickelback fans, I'm sure there's plenty of Wikipedia's "bro" constituency that haven't had time to weigh in yet. Tarc (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hoping to catch editors on the other side of a discussion behaving badly is not a reasonable reason for prolonging that discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh I don't think they'll behave badly, as in NPA/disruptive/etc...types of things. I just think they'll make awkward "she's just his wife" votes. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Except that reality shows no such votes. I'm drowning in all the AGF over here. Arkon (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• There has to be a better way to instruct editors on some of the institutional problems here than hostility. Right? I mean, systematic bias isn't necessarily a purposeful problem. I do agree, however, that more needs to be done about systemic problems that derive from certain groups of editors who are (very)purposeful regarding certain biases. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated the closure of the move request, as declined, per the consensus here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And Obi undid it - but I've reclosed. At this point letting it run is nothing more than disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, what point is being made? That policy based arguments can be made to support the move? You guys need to let this run it's course and lay off the Right Great Wrongs (I swear there is a wikilink for that) mindset. Arkon (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You're thinking of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And the "point being made" is explicitly stated by Tarc here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell kind of rationale is that? You are seriously basing your decision on the words of a user who in a similar situation not a year ago, did exactly what he is predicting others to do now? That's ridiculous. Oh, and his predictions, have of course not come to be (pesky reality). Arkon (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Leave this open despite it having been attempted to be closed two three multiple times so if it goes through I can report to the media how awful Wikipedia is" = "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". I don't know what Tarc, or anyone else, did or didn't do not a year ago, I just know what he's saying his rationaile and intentions-if are now, and my own prediction is that the course of this RM is not likely to be constructive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose early closing. Letting the discussion run its course prevents the future objection that the option has not been given a fair hearing. bd2412 T 01:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, it did. There was already a very long RM/argument about this which resulted in the current title not very long ago. This is a case of a couple editors refusing to accept that outcome choosing to beat dead horses. Argumentum ad nauseam'. Resolute 03:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose early closing. Let the better policy based argument win. Also suggest trouting for all the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS up in here (thanks for the wikilink). Arkon (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTFORUM. It's great that people can use the Internet to discuss silly ideas, but if there is no policy to prevent this nonsense we'll have to invent one, and Wikipedia should not be used for social experiments to measure how many people will be sucked in by trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  What is the silly idea here? Move requests? Are those supporters of the move trolls? Help me out here. Arkon (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose early closing. This supervoting is outrageous. WP decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus is developed through discussion. This particular RM proposal is especially clearly written. IAR is a pillar, but applying it here is pure rationalization for WP:JDLI. You need to have good reason to invoke IAR, and you need to have consensus agreeing that IAR applies. You can't just apply it unilaterally because you think something is just plainly "wrong". Once you have it in your head that this is an example of sexism and misogyny, it's hard to see otherwise, I'm sure. But it really takes some cognitive dissonance to see it that way, and ignore the dozens of other similar examples of "wife of" and "husband of" that we have and not have an issue with that. If you're feeling strong emotions about this, you're probably missing something. We have very good policy and criteria for deciding titles. Let's follow their lead. --B2C 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think we are nearing the point where an uninvolved admin might want to start dropping warnings and blocks for those perpetuating this disruptive and POINTy RM. Resolute 05:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Please do not make personal attacks on other editors, which your assumptions (for that is, indeed, what they are - closing this mess was not related to sexism, one way or the other) regarding the motivations of those who have attempted to close this disussion are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • With comments like this, "You swooping in and whacking this mole will not address the systemic sexism. If this discussion results in a grossly sexist title, the next move is to address the underlying problem with a policy fix. "[147], the assumption that some have it in their head that the proposed title is an example of sexism is not unreasonable, nor is anything I said a personal attack. It wasn't even an attack, let alone a personal one. --B2C 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Once you have it in your head that this is an example of sexism and misogyny, it's hard to see otherwise, I'm sure. But it really takes some cognitive dissonance to see it that way is indeed a personal attack upon every admin who has attempted to close this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• This has become nothing more than a spectacle, no thanks to users from across the spectrum. Time to visit the fishmonger; there will be wet trout for a few people.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  And done. The only user who I didn't trout is the anon as he/she was already appropriately blocked for disruptive editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Enough already

I have closed it again based on (a) the fact that there is already very obviously not going to be a consensus for a move, (b) people can't even agree what it should be moved to and (c) we only just closed the previous discussion. Oh, and (d), we've had two or three uninvolved admins and a bloody arbitrator close it and people still keep wanting to throw in their two penn'orth. I suggest a moratorium on move discussions for one month, enforced by warning then block if necessary, and if that doesn't do it then after this number of discussions with people who lost re-opening the discussion every time, ArbCom clearly is the way to go. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Bundy standoff

Bundy standoff‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two editors may have breached the 1RR restrictions at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions

• Wowaconia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [148] and [149]
• Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [150] and [151]

Cwobeel (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Both editors were warned, asked to self-revert but was ignored. Drmies removed the warning messages from his talk page. Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I just added an editnotice, in case my HTML comment was not visible enough (especially to people editing sections). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I created a template for warning editors about the general sanctions and 1RR at the article, at Template:uw-bundywarning. I copied it from a similar general sanction template. It's the first template I've made so if I screwed something up let me know. I left instructions about using that link on the general sanctions subpage. -- Atama頭 23:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite interesting to see that Drmies is an admin himself/herself, edit warring and breaching 1RR at the same time. I would expect that an admin will do better than that. Cwobeel (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: It is possible that they did not know that these rules were there to begin with and simply erred in their actions by accident. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Could be, but I warned them and suggested to them tho self-revert, but they ignored that advice. In any case blocks, I understand are not punitive, and now they are both aware. Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies already acknowledged that he was aware of your warning, and that he was unaware of the restrictions (that's why we have formal warnings). He is 100% welcome to remove such notifications from his talkpage - it's implicit notice that it's been READ. Your continued harassment of Drmies, however, is problematic...he's had to revert your additions more than once. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is adding a comment and placing a warning on a user's talk page harassment? In any case, now they are aware of the restriction so we are done here. Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It can be depending on the circumstances. If you are leaving a warning for something that an editor didn't do, that could be considered a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence"). If you leave a warning that itself is abusive ("Don't revert me again or I'll find where you live" or "You are a jerk for removing that reference") then that could be harassment. Sometimes templated warnings left for established editors is considered rude (WP:DTTR) but I've never subscribed to that myself (templates are neutral ways to convey warnings or information, and I'd never take offense to an appropriate template left for me). -- Atama頭 17:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I guess I lost interest in the 3R refinement of a while ago (and 1R is completely dependent on that definition of "revert"), which, if I summarize correctly, posits a first edit (in this case, removal of material) as a revert, and thus my revert of the other editor's revert as a 1R violation. (When I play around on WP:3RN I still count to 4, since I'm not that trigger-happy.) So I guess I was unaware that the "strict" definition of 3R (and thus 1R) had actually become policy: I typically find myself on the other side, so to speak, that of the admin and not of the edit warrior, and my "old" interpretation allows for leniency. (I like leniency.) Hence my comment (somewhere, yesterday) that my opponent clearly broke 1R, reverting my edit twice. So that is, I suppose, where my error was--not in not knowing of the restriction, which I was aware of, as evidenced also by the fact that I didn't continue. Yes, someone templated me, but that didn't change my way of thinking since of course the template doesn't discuss what "R" is.

A recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring goes into the same subject matter and I find myself in sympathy with Jayron32's argument (11 March, 11:04), and note that I reverted only once--but again, that's my "old" language of what reverting means. As for the editor bugging me around, meh--they thanked me the first time I removed the irrelevant information, so that template came as a bit of a surprise, and they had some subsequent comments I didn't care for, but that's not a big deal. Mind you, I'm also not a fan of templating the regulars, for practical reasons as well--but I can only hope that this and this are more effective than templated "only warning"s. If the editor wanted to make me realize the error of my ways they should have chosen a different method, but I think their interest lies elsewhere. My apologies for having started this minor shit storm, and no doubt Bbb23, who lives and dies on 3R, will sent me a chastening email. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is probably the fifth or sixth discussion I've seen over the past month where there was confusion over what was considered a "revert" and what was not. It seems like some admins view a revert as not simply the undoing another user's edit but any consequential edit to a section previously edited by another editor. I don't think this broad understanding should be used but that is probably a subject for a future RFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't subscribe to the "removing any material is reverting" philosophy. If you're removing something that was recently introduced, sure. Our policy on edit-warring states: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You can get as loose as you want with that interepretation. Okay, technically if you remove something from an article, you're "reverting" what someone else had written (though they may have added it 8 years ago). But technically, even adding brand new text is a "revert" since you're undoing the version of the article that didn't have that text before. It's a slippery slope. And it's not backed up by policy. It also doesn't help that our edit-warring policy refers to a number of essays within the policy, including WP:RV and WP:ROWN. Are we supposed to assume that those essays have the force of policy because a policy references them? All this wishy-washiness makes the idea of reverting meaningless, and turns 3RR into "three edits per day" which is ridiculous.

I think some administrators are missing the forest for the trees, and letting procedure get in the way of common sense. The whole point of our 3RR/1RR/0RR rules is to prevent edit-wars. We want to prevent a situation where people are fighting back and forth over content. If a person removing information isn't challenged, if they're not clearly trying to undo the efforts of another editor in such a way that a conflict is going to occur, then what are you enforcing? We're supposed to be preventing disruption and fostering consensus-building, not enforcing rules because we think that's what the rules say. -- Atama頭 23:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What he said. BMK (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Atama. That's the problem I keep seeing, editors receiving blocks for violating 3R or edit-warring but the editor and the admin disagree on what counts as a "revert". Considering that admins vary in their interpretation of what constitutes a revert, some editors receiving blocks have rightly become confused and demanded specific explanations and diffs of reverts...sometimes they are provided, other times, not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sanctions were a compromise to Full page protection. Violations should not be tolerated or it weakens the ability to achieve consensus on both the topic and posting rule. Violators should be swiftly prevented from damaging the article or, more broadly, the project. please feel free to create blocks, topic or interaction bans as necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• And let God sort them out! Drmies (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy militia

The related Bundy militia article, which is at AfD, is also having issues. Major section are being removed and replaced. This probably is affecting the integrity of that AfD. Since I have edited the article, I am not the best person to review the edits and determine if any action is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock requests category backlogged

Category:Requests for unblock appears to be unusually backlogged. I have been coming across requests that have not been attended to for several days. I'd appreciate if other admins would pitch in so that each blocked user gets a careful review of his or her request. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at a couple. So that page is updated automatically? It seemed a bit slow--some Panda had already looked at one or two. And there are some complicated cases there. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The number of open cases usually hovers between 20 - 40 in various stages of response. Username blocks with spam elements can remain on the list for up to 7 days as admins wait for a response from the blocked editor with regard to their understanding of COI. This is why the appearance of a large backlog on this list can be deceptive, there may be 30 unblock requests displayed but only 5 or 6 that aren't being handled in some way or another. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days of waiting for responses to COIQ or similar, just close it as "procedural decline" - I was working on a template for that at one point the panda ₯’ 22:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

wiki-stalking/harassment by Volunteer Marek

User:Volunteer Marek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been following me around various articles and reverting my changes. I believe that he is doing this to make my experience on wikipedia intolerable. It seems evident to me that he has made it a habit of looking at my edit history for the sole purpose of reverting my edits, as he has never edited in many of these articles prior to the reverts, or after. In the following examples, he reverts me, having never edited the article before, and then maybe makes some small followup edits pertaining to the same material before disappearing.

Sergey Aksyonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff0

RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff1

Jamestown Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff2

Larry King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)diff3

This is compounded by his long history of editing warring with me and disruptive behavior in general, which I already made a note of when he recently accused me of personally attacking him[152]. While I was blocked (not for a personal attack on him), my complaints went seemingly unnoticed. Since my return from that block, he has continued with the stalking (two of my only three edits before tonight fell into that category, see: diff2 and diff3).

Moreover, he also made a completely baseless accusation of me socking[153], without a single piece of evidence, except for a vague allusion to using "unreliable sources", which I can only guess is a reference to RT, a very popular news source that in no way could in of itself suggest socking.

I don't really care if he's blocked or warned or whatever, I'm not out for blood and this isn't for revenge. I just want to be able to go back to editing wikipedia without having him breathing down my neck at every turn. LokiiT (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no fan of VM, but his reverts you list above look reasonable to me. You appear to be editing with a fairly strong WP:POV (at least in those diffs) and his edits, IMO, are getting back to a more WP:NPOV. Hobit (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• User:Hobit How is adding "self-proclaimed President" or "Putin moved to takeover Crimea" or a paragraph about a news station being propaganda in the lead NPOV? Either way, it's not about content. It's the fact that he's trolling through my edit history to make my time here miserable, and falsely accusing me of misconduct with no evidence. LokiiT (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• [154] is clear -- and unfortunately it does not reflect well on Lokiit at all. Collect (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

[155] is clear as well, and doesn't reflect well on Volunteer Marek (old user name Radeksz). It wouldn't be the first time he engaged in a stalking and personal attacking campaign against editors who disagree with his POV.B01010100 (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The preceding comment seems actionable per WP:BOOMERANG - unwarranted PA. Has a warning to B01010100 been issued? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Those diffs don't seem to indicate a problem. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they do indicate a problem, but it's more boomerang-style...but not a significant enough boomerang quite yet for action the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Jerry Pepsi uncivil, fresh off his block

See his edit summary in the recent history for User talk:Jerry Pepsi. Choor monster (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Most recent block and many previous discussions have been for edit warring and other disputes over Pepsi's particular interpretation of category usage (August 2013: article protected to stop edit war, September 2013: both editors need to discuss first), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive815#Jerry_Pepsi October 2013: discuss issue), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive226#User:Jerry_Pepsi_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_No_action.29 October 2013: both editors need to discuss issue, October 2013: page protection to stop edit warring, February 2014: 3RR- blocked for one month). I see a lot of harsh comments by Pepsi[156][157][158][159][160], and a few warnings I gave:[161][162][163]. The last of those in response to this reply to a NPA warning:[164] "warn this ya pissy little bitch". Then a block for personal attacks[165]. The new edit summary, "deleted content placed by cunts", is inexcusable and Pepsi doesn't seem to have heard the prior block's message: "remove abuse of power horseshit". I would note that "sexism accusations would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic", but I'm just a "pissy little bitch" (and might be a "cunt"). - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

But all these diffs are for events from prior to his block. The only thing after coming off the block is one use of the word "cunt". -- Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically you could call the most recent edit summary is a personal attack, however I'd let it slide for now. Understandably the editor is upset coming off a block. It was done in an edit summary on their own user talk page, not directed in such a way that they were trying to convey the insult to the individuals involved. I wouldn't even bother giving out a warning for it, if the editor wants to blow off steam in a minor way I don't see that it's such a big deal. If I was a betting man, I'd probably wager that this editor is likely to reoffend and find a larger block since they are showing resentment toward the block they received, which suggests that they consider it unjustified, and don't consider the behavior leading to the block to have been wrong, so would be likely to repeat it. But I wouldn't warn or block until that behavior does repeat. -- Atama頭 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that Pepsi, who has been blocked twice before, comes back and right away shows he is not capable of working with the Wikipedia community in any sense. It's not just his putting personal attacks in the edit summary, where they are almost "safe" from deletion, it's his unshakable belief that he got blocked because there are all these low-lifes getting in his way. Choor monster (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

But we're not thought police, if someone has a chip on their shoulder but doesn't actually reoffend then there's no need for action. We don't block people for having bad attitudes, we block them for the disruption caused by such feelings. As I said, I would bet that he'll reoffend, but until he does there's not much to do. Look at the opposite situation, what if a person was pleasant, complimentary of others, and yet causing disruption despite that? That would be worthy of a block, because it's actions that matter, not attitude. -- Atama頭 16:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

His personal attack in the edit summary is an offense. Choor monster (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Distasteful choice of word aside, I'd be more concerned about the edit warring on List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes. Was at it before the block, straight back at it again after. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Summer warned them for that, yes. Good point. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• "because it's actions that matter, not attitude."

This is not entirely true. I've only been visiting AN/I for around a year and I've seen editors blocked because of excessively racist or sexist attitudes. Of course, these attitudes have to be expressed for others to know about them so, technically, those words are "actions". While I understand not blocking an editor for a patently offensive edit summary on their user page, I don't understand why it doesn't warrant a warning. Editors get warnings over far less offensive acts every day. Heck, I saw a user get a warning for leaving two spaces after a period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility is no longer enforced, or at least only enforced when convenient (i.e. if a subjective viewpoint on content differs from that of the blocking admin). I agree with you, I don't think Jerry Pepsi is capable of editing here in an acceptable fashion. However this one edit isn't actionable on its own and the past edits are past. Have a read of WP:ROPE and wait until he does something that is. Maybe he won't, maybe he'll behave in a manner that's manageable for the good of other editors. Maybe (and I expect so) he won't. Either way, our actions have to be based on what he does from here on, not what we think he'll do, or what he did.

Unless he leaves two spaces after a period, of course. That's a hanging offence. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

By itself, the offense in question is relatively minor. But I believe it should be counted as relatively major if things play out as we're all predicting. Choor monster (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Your comments are extremely cynical. Yet I agree with them completely. We are at a point where civility isn't enforced. If I tried to use my admin role to be the civility police I'd probably get lynched. The reasons for that are something I'd rather not derail ANI with, but suffice to say that it's how Wikipedia is right now. (WP:WQA seems so quaint now.) But WP:ROPE is my thinking too. And I don't suggest ignoring the remark, but I wouldn't even offer a warning for it at this point. -- Atama頭 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I realize you are using "lynched" in a metaphorical way but I don't think you can't compare being beaten and hanged with having a few editors blow up at you on a noticeboard. It's like calling an edit war a holocaust. And, no, I'm not the civility or politically correct police it's just that online spats are awkward, infuriating and frustrating but they are not deadly. Let's not trivialize violence by comparing it to verbal disagreements. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Liz, but according to common usage in the vernacular, that horse left the barn long ago, before "literally" no longer meant "literally" even. (More seriously, while I understand the concern, "lynched/lynching" has had its meaning shifted through usage; it's now in the same category as where somebody who says "f that s" isn't meaning he intends to have congress with excretment). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to bring the ban hammer down, and quickly, on this insect. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility is not dead. The enforcement of civility is difficult, of course. (And enforcing it prompted by Lugnuts's comment would be hypocritical.) ROPE, indeed: Pepsi, whether they read this ANI thread or not, has no excuse for continuing sexist and insulting language, and I will be happy to block them the very next time they use a personal insult like they did recently. Atama, hate to disagree with you, but I will offer a warning, even if the lynch mob is at the ready. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

My deepest apologies for any insects that were offended. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How dare you Drmies! Just kidding, warn away. -- Atama頭 18:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose block of Pepsi It'd lead to a Pro-Coke bias of Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 21:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention, T--I think someone may have spiked your diet coke. Get a grip, man! Drmies (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You haven't seen the long reach of the Coke propaganda machine. They're trying to convert this entire nation into Coke-a-holics. It violated WP:NPOV to block Pepsi.--v/r - TP 23:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • What do you have against the fizzy refreshment? ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I've seen the Coke propaganda machine. You put a dime in and it plays one of the crap jingles. We should block it. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• More rapid edit warring here. Is there any point in persisting here, or is it time to just give up on WP - pop culture content at least. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether you choose to enforce WP:CIVIL or not, it's hard to ignore edit summaries like "deleted content placed by cunts", in regards to continuous pleas for improvement by various editors. It's a freaking duck. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Vaselineee

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

---

Vaselineee (talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in disruptive edits, and has received repeated warnings on his talk page. This recent edit is unacceptable. I recommend a block. Barryjjoyce (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor has a history of BLP violations, and this most recent edit is unambiguously vandalism. Looking through their contributions, I see very little that is productive, so I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. (Technically not every edit was vandalism but most of it seemed to be.) -- Atama頭 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Katcheic at 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office terrorist attack

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

---

Hello everyone. Sorry to be posting here but I'm uncertain of any other manner to resolve what I think is a potential user conduct issue, much as I'm worried this may boomerang on me. The background is that there's just been a requested move process on the article in question that closed three or four days ago and the result was a consensus of four editors ( one of whom was myself) to move the article to 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting. In the last 24 hours, user Katcheic has appeared and moved the article to its current title without discussion, despite the preexisting consensus on title in two edits. The new title appears to violate WP:TERRORIST in my eyes, though perhaps I am wrong in this. This editor has been advised by Callanecc to discuss page moves in December. The guidance isn't overly clear what to do in this situation, the best conclusion I've been able to come to is to raise the matter here. If I'm unintentionally being a jerk, I'm happy to accept whatever consequences that comes with and wholeheartedly apologize for disturbing the admins with this, regardless.

I have informed Katcheic of this discussion here Dolescum (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the article should be moved back to 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting which was the result of the 21 April discussion and then be move protected. Further moves should require a new discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the move was done and the page protected so I guess this is over, now? Or was additional action called for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The page is now protected at the title decided by the April 21 move discussion ('office shooting'). Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Trout time

The people who are determined to rename Sarah Jane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have split out the discussion of what title they might want to move it to from the many-times-closed move discussion no. 8 (because that's completely different from a move discussion obviously) and obviously that means they must revert any attempt to close the spun-out discussion because after all discussion is how consensus is achieved. Ignoring the fact that consensus is firmly against changing the article title at all right now. Seriously, I think it is time for the buggering about to stop and the blocking to start. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah, given that a good number of even those opposed to the move suggested other titles, we should definitely quash any attempt at brainstorming new or creative or better titles for that article. Its best if the only google hit for SJB is wikipedia - it will help our rankings. Consensus and discussion should be halted whenever it makes us uncomfortable or whenever it appears editors are disobeying. They must be kept in line. Actually, I take that back, i think a post-forced-move-closure discussion of alternatives by interested parties is perfectly reasonable and violates nothing but perhaps a few bruised egos. How are we expected to develop alternative names while the moratorium on moves is in place? Discussion...-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So, apart from being sarcastic, you agree that continued discussion of the move after the discussion of the move was decided to be disruptive following so shortly after the previous disruptive attempt to move it, is disruptive, and you volunteer to be blocked, am I right? Guy (Help!) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think there is nothing wrong with discussing other options for a move - its quite different from a formal move request which was and remains closed. It was explicitly suggested that we do so, in fact, pending formulation of a new move request. Since any new move request has been pushed out a month, until then i see no harm in brainstorming. Since this seems to be a topic of great interest to you why dont you join the discussion and contribute some creative alternative titles that wouldnt be considered disruptive?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it was suggested that you agree a proposed target before the next move request is filed. That does not mean "carry right on obsessing over moving this article". In fact, rather the opposite. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

do you have a good suggestion on how to arrive at an agreed upon proposed target amongst a small group of interested editors? I participated in the Chelsea manning move discussion and we spent a month collecting sources and preparing for that one (#2). Never once did anyone consider that disruptive. In fact, I think I was awarded a barnstar or two for helping lead that discussion. If it would make you more comfortable we could perhaps move the new titles brainstorming to a subpage, but I don't really see a need just yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

...hey guys, all arguing between each other does it entirely put off anyone else from any inclination to try to help out. See my essay WP:ANI Advice #16.--v/r - TP 21:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have a great suggesiton. Wait a month and then raise it on the talk page. After a month. When the month moratorium is up. Then. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Two disruptive new editors fail to get the point

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

---

Reporting disruptive behaviour of:

• Rajivgupta33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Homespun33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

on the article:

• Omar Abdullah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It all started with Homespun (H) adding this to the article way back in 25 January which was reverted by a patroller. H undid the patroller and asked why, H was told that it was unencylopaedic and promotional. This process happened four more times with different editors on 30 January, 3, 4 and 11 February.

So H finally got this content added to the article despite being warned by atleast four different editors. Since this is my usual sphere of editing, I too came across this page while patrolling and intervened, having it removed at first sight on 9 April. Now a another new account Rajivgupta (R) promptly undoes me seeking an explanation while H has also posted on the talk page. I respond to both of them on various talk pages (my talk page topic link, H's talk page, R's talk page and the Article talk page topic link).

From 9 April till today (25th), both H and R have been undoing me with a total of seven times. They both are single-purpose accounts. The pattern does not indicate any obvious socking but maybe meatpuppetry could be possible. Initially I gave explanations, then it turned to offering to help them out and finally, template warnings. They both keep telling me I have an "ego" and should wait for "consensus".

Finally, I refrained from reverting and told them both to calm down on the article talk page promising not to edit war till they respond. It did calm H but they just keep repeating about me waiting for consensus. Fed up, I gave them the final warning on 22 April and after waiting two days with no response from H, made my final revert there. Then today R reverts me and posts on my talk page that about me having an ego and whether I'm the Founder of Wikipedia.

Just like in my warning, I came straight here and posted this. I'm not sure how to proceed with those two, need help. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked both of them indefinitely as promotion-only accounts. WP:NOTHERE also comes to mind. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@De728631: It definitely does. I probably wasted time being so lenient with them. Thanks a lot and good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved eyes please on a technical discussion gone wrong

Please can uninvolved admins cast an eye over the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Propose_new_subpage_for_Discussions_awaiting_closure?

What I thought was a fairly simple technical issue to facilitate non-admin closures of CFD discussions has met with a response from Jc37 (talk · contribs) which doesn't make sense to me. I have been accused[166] of "violating our policy on consensus", and warned that if this comes to ANI I face sanctions because Jc37 has "discovered/realised a wrinkle in all of this".

I honestly can't figure out what this is all about. But please could someone else assess it, and ask Jc37 to explain what they have discovered about me which might merit sanctions? If I truly am that far out of line, then the evidence should be presented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I - I'm not sure what to say here. This looks like a GIANT miscommunication with offense taken several times where none was intended. I think Jc37 acted a bit irrational and out of character. Can we hit a reset button here on this conversation between you two and try again? That seems like the best approach. All in all though, I don't see much for an admin or ANI to do here other than say 'yeah, that's odd'.--v/r - TP 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, TP. If others reckon no action needed, that's fine by me. I just needed more eyes on it, in case anyone reckoned I needed to change tack somehow. I'll see if anyone else wants to suggest anything other than your summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking back on my interactions with Jc37, this has odd echoes of an incident I had forgotten in July last year. Jc37 was doing some odd stuff after a CFD close which was unsuccssfullly challenged by 2 other editors. I belatedly saw what was happening and discussed it with Jc37 on my talk and on JC37's talk page. When the discussion didn't produce a change of tack, I took it to AN/3RR wher Jc37 was warned for edit-warring after insisting on an RFC about a topic which was uncontroversial. I brought it to ANI, where no action was taken. The RFC on the matter showed unanimous support for the status quo ante.

There is a similar pattern here, of Jc37 taking strange unilateral actions, then demanding an RFC about something straightforward, and making all sorts of weird warnings to other editors (me alone in the current case, me and others in the previous one). Me and User:Fayenatic london involved in both episodes. So maybe not as out-of-character as TP and I had hoped :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We all have our moments of snapping. I've been guilty of it at least a half dozen to a dozen times. I just mean that my general impression of Jc37 is pretty good (as is my general impression of most people here).--v/r - TP 00:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sint Maarten

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

---

The above user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. My direct experience with him dates back to April 11, when I reverted a highly POV edit he made to Moscow, Idaho here. This morning, he made a politically charged edit to MY userpage, written in my voice, apologizing to himself for that revision here. I reverted that. Shortly afterwords, a brand new editor Jagen de Vagen (The name says quack, IMHO) made an edit to my userpage here, scolding me in English and French for picking on his friend Sint. Sint has only 119 edits since his account as created in January and only 59 of them have been to mainspace, including this gem, where he removes all the references and replaces it with POV. Asking for blocks all around per WP:DUCK and WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty egregious, in my opinion. I've blocked User:Sint Maarten for blatant POV-pushing, user page/talk page vandalism, and impersonation of other editors (i.e., John from Idegon); obviously this user is welcome to respond to those reasons, but this type of editing is patently disruptive and I see no reason to allow it to continue in the meantime. As for User:Jagen de Vagen, quack quack. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I google translated the French and he says among other things that I should "eat dudu" and he was going to "cut me with a big knife". Given that should you or I take further action? John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do I need to start an SPI report for this? It seems a checkuser run is in order due to the WP:BRO argument being foisted by both users and it seems that some documentation is in order just in case someone shows up in the middle of the night and cuts me with a big knife. John from Idegon (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now this fella needs to have his talk page access blocked. [167] John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access removed for this threat. GiantSnowman 23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access also revoked for sockpuppet User:Jagen de Vagen for the same sort of threatening comments; I won't link to the diffs here per WP:DENY, but feel free to look at the history. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Talk:Hillsborough disaster

Talk:Hillsborough disaster is being trolled in a way that is particularly offensive and potentially high-profile. An IP-hopper is raising the old canard that 96 people died because fellow supporters without tickets forced their way into the stadium. They refuse to accept WP:TALKNO or heed repeated reversions. This is happening on the day that UK national media has been headlining offensive edits to Hillsborough disaster from government computers. Please can we have temporary semi-protection? This will affect another editor who's doing good work on this page but I think s/he'll be content; we're both struggling to contain this. NebY (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs: [168], [169], [170], [171] (Commented: "This be the TALK page - MORON !") and on and on for the last 5 hours.

It should be semi'ed, just like the main page is. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to semi-protection, especially as I think the talk page has all the detail it needs about the government edits now. The trolling is being done via a 3G phone so I suspect a range block would create too much collateral damage. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I also suggest that while the page is under such huge high-profile scrutiny we tread carefully and don't make massive changes unless the community agrees to them, please discuss major structural changes on the article's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. To change the title of one section from Dramatisations and documentaries to In popular culture[172] went beyond mere insensitivity to being grossly offensive to the families of the victims and the wider community around them, who have struggled for 25 years not to be dismissed. NebY (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Not just that, but to attempt to wholesale change the article by suddenly applying WP:LEAD and in light of the current press stories would be inappropriate. Small steps. Anything else should go to the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Another change [173] but he's left the topic collapsed so I suggest we leave this one be and see what happens next. If he doesn't leave the talk page alone then further reverts and semi-protection would be the way to go. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted it before seeing this. NebY (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is a /16 network with a fair amount of traffic, so a range block isn't advisable. Semi-protecting seems a bit much at this point, although I won't labor it if another admin disagrees. I would suggest simply deleting any trolling (construed broadly) instead of hatting, and that admin be very tolerant of this. As it stands, most of the IPs are contributing in good faith so I would hate to cut them off. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The trolling has stopped for now, constructive suggestions and reasonable questions are continuing, openness is much better - I'm happy to withdraw the request and just say thanks for the help. NebY (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest not deleting the collapsed section, as it's the removal that seems to be the thing that gets the IP into revert wars (and restoring without the detailed rebuttal that's in the collapsed section). It's no ideal but I think it should stay as long as the IP doesn't try to raise the subject again. 2.25.115.116 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandal

User User:Ozhistory is continuously engaging in a edit war on Religious views of Adolf Hitler, if you're an admin., please issue a warning toward this user. TheGFish (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) A few points:

• You must notify any user you mention here by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to the user talk page. I am not sure if a ping is an acceptable alternative.
• A warning is the same whether it comes from an administrator or not. Administrators have the ability to block users, if you're looking for that.
• Ozhistory's edits are not vandalism; we should generally avoid calling edits vandalism.
• Consider your own actions as well. There doesn't seem to be much discussion on this issue on the article talk page, so you yourself may also be engaged in edit warring and consequently blocked.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Anon126. Obviously my placing citations in a bundle and requesting that this user explain his edits is not vandalism. I believe that TheGFish is probably the banned User:Greengrounds who was banned for gross incivility, vandalism, and constant edit warring (among other things). He left wikipedia promising to continue attacking myself, User:Smeat75 and others, whom he blamed for his ban. Bishonen, Penwhale, User:Salvio guiliano and John Carter were among the admins who took action last time around. These false allegations against me are probably an attempt at revenge for the part I played in alerting administrators to his original activities. He may also be responsible for this recent threat of violence on my talk page. This IP user should obviously be blocked, and if TheGFish is a sock puppet - then so should he. Please investigate if you are able. Ozhistory (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Ozhistory: I'm not saying that you are entirely free of fault. Edit warring, while not vandalism, is still disruptive. I cannot find much effort to discuss the merits of the content in an actual discussion page, and that goes for both parties.

To editors TheGFish and Ozhistory: I think someone else should examine this case, but I personally believe you two should discuss on the talk page or another dispute resolution venue. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, User:Anon126 This page and topic has a history of vandalism. The editor in question removed content without giving explanation. I reverted this edit and asked for him to explain his edits on the talk page in my edit summary AND placed a note on his talk page requesting that he explain any future edits. He responded by ignoring my request to explain his edits on the talk page, and making false edit summaries calling me a vandal!!! This is not good faith behaviour, and as I have said, it is quite likely that this editor is a sock puppet. At any rate I have formally requested that he explain his edits on the article talk page. Ozhistory (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave explanations and you Ozhistory haven't for your edits that deleted content some time ago. The additions by you is obviously against WP:NPOV, as I mentioned to you before. TheGFish (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. As your user contributions] show across a few pages you have made edits without explanation. These included removal of citations and content. You keep removing citations without explanation on the Religious views of AH page and you keep making false assertions of vandalism there - not to mention here. User:Anon126 has already explained to you that my edits are not vandalism and you should not call them vandalism. Please identify precisely which "addition" you believe is NPOV on the TALK PAGE with reference to reliable sources. If you attempt to call me a vandal again (as you continue to do in your edit summaries), I will take action for repeated personal attacks. If you continue to remove citations and add contentious content without explanation, I will continue to challenge you in order to protect the integrity of the page. Please respond to my request for discussion on the talk page. Ozhistory (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the lack of TheGFish's usage of article talkspace, in addition to the lack of reply to Ozhistory on his own talk page would lead me consider a rebounding sanction rather. Also, I am very much confused of TheGFish's actions at Religious views of Adolf Hitler anyway (undoing his own action and labeling it Neutral Point of View is weird, at the very least). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocking

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

---

Can you please block TheRedPenOfDoom from editing Suzannah Lipscomb's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lw1982 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely. What is your complaint? Can you provide a diff (example) of what you object to and what policy you believe it is violating? You need to provide some evidence to back up a request like yours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Extended discussion is at User talk:Lw1982#Reliable sources. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

HiLo48's incivility

Hello, it appears our friend HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again. His contributions for the past several days include a smattering of personal attacks directed at Christian Wikipedia users at multiple. Here is a selection of them.

• "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words" and " Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now." (Directed at two separate users in one diff) [174]
• "Silly comment. I'll try asking some random people next time I'm in India or China. 'MOST' people don't live in places like the religious parts of the USA." [175]
• "Not good Christian behaviour at all" [176]
• "Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. Pretty sure Easter's not a holiday in India, or China, or any Muslim country. That's taking a lot away from 'global'" [177] and [178]
• "The mere fact that a self-declared conservative Christian editor shut it down hasn't exactly hasn't exactly cooled things off. It's now been re-opened, but peace shouldn't be expected any time soon with that blatantly POV pushing editor still active there." [179]
• "And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post." [180]
• "But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." [181]
• "How sad is it that the discussion has now been shut down by an editor whose User page tells us very clearly is a conservative Christian?" [182]

Those are all edits within the past three days. Let's also remember that HiLo48 has a lengthy block log and was previously topic banned from WP:ITN for extreme incivility directed at American editors. There was also an RFCU on HiLo from October 2012, which includes a detailed table of past disputes where editors brought him to AN, ANI, etc. I suspect there have been more threads like those filed in the past 18 months.
In the interest of fairness, I do have a lengthy track record with HiLo, dating back to our past encounters at WP:ITN and am involved in two of the discussions I've reported HiLo for above, though none of those comments are directed at me. But enough is enough. How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it? Calidum 00:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia comes up with an unarguable definition of "incivility', this discussion is pointless. Anything based on an individual's definition, one that might differ from somebody else's, means nothing here. There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss. I expect more abuse and alleged mud from the past to be hurled again now. As a lone voice against such dirt I have no hope. This is just another attempt by our user above with the unreadable name to silence an effective critic. My thoughts on AN/I are well recorded. I probably won't post again in this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• "There are far too many points above for me to attempt to discuss."

You don't have to address every comment but you might at least try to provide an explanation of your remarks rather than claiming to be the victim here. This is your chance to offer some defense for being incivil. You might not have crossed the fuzzy line of incivility from whence no one returns but it does look like you were baiting other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree. This does not appear to be so much uncivil as an opinion of other behavior and the need for some to find fault in that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"How many times can someone mock and attack someone for their religious beliefs and still get away with it?" As many times as people mock others for other reasons... such as being gay. And seriously...I do not feel you have demonstrated that it was actually mocking.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is, in fact, uncivil behavior. The simple fact is that if HiLo48 had made the comments he made above about any other religion, this discussion would already be academic on account of his having been beaten up with big words and warned not to ever do it again, at the very least. The fact that other people mock others and get away with it is irrelevant: this is attacking another editor on the basis of their religion and casting aspersions that they are incapable of being netural because of their religion, and it needs to be dealt with accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am actually surprised by how much I disagree with you here, but go for it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have only just realise this thread existed, and I had not idea that HiLo48 had been making all these comments about me. Yes, I closed the discussion, and my closure was reverted by the person who started the discussion. I believe my closure was within the spirit of WP:BOLD, but I accept that the community wants this discussed once again, and I have contributed to the discussion with a !vote, which HiLo48 responded to with "Your opinion carries no weight at all here now". Anyway, I think HiLo48 is attacking Christians here, and these sort of attacks should be dealt with as we would deal with blatant sexism or racism. Finally, I should like to point out that the comment that HiLo48 has made on multiple pages about how I am a "self-declared conservative Christian editor" is completely false. I identify as a Christian on my user page, but nowhere do I identify as conservative. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let me be blunt here, from the above, you are clearly incorrect with:"is completely false" as you do admit to declaring you identify "as a Christian on my user page". So...Hilo's comment is not completely false, just mistaken. I have seen many people on Wikipedia confused with conservatism over such issues and it may not be the best way to deal with others but it isn't a huge leap, just a small jump, which could well be the opinion of the editor for other reasons.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I identify myself on my user page as a Christian, but not as a conservative Christian. While the inference might be understandable, for HiLo48 to explicitly state that I self-identify as such is wrong. And making false statements about other editors like that should not be tolerated. Is it "completely" wrong? It is in the sense that the statement was clearly and explicitly referring to how I self-identify. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it isn't being called a conservative Christian that bothers me, but that HiLo48 specifically referred to me self-identifying as such. In any case, this isn't really what the thread is about. The bigger problem is the assumption that I am not able to edit in a neutral manner, or - even worse - that I am not even trying to. StAnselm (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to be deciding what this is about and I am not sure you are actually correct, but let me say this much, when you make a declaration on your user page you are opening up an entire can of worms you must be prepared for. Just as I have been told that declaring my sexual preference (I am VERY gay) is something I must be prepared for. Criticism is not an attack and I really do disagree with Bushranger here. Assumptions of bias are not what I consider to need admin intervention but that all depends on the extent.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is extensive, in this case. None of my disagreements with HiLo have resulted in anything other than his imagining some fictitious bad-faith POV pushing on my part. I think it says something about his willingness to assume ulterior motives that "Christian" can mean nothing other than "conservative Christian" to him. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] I said I probably wouldn't post here again, but these selective claims by StAnselm and their supporters demand clarification. The first two, very conspicuously placed user boxes on StAnselm's User page say "This user is a Christian" and "This user is a Calvinist". That's a lot more than the above defensive claims. This user has gone out of their way to tell us that they are not simply a Christian. Perhaps my summarising that as conservative may not match StAnselm's view of themselves, but I happen to work with a lot of self declared Christians who would definitely see StAnselm's position as conservative. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

But you jumped to the conclusion that, for me, "Calvinist" means "conservative". And now that it has been pointed out to you that this is false, you should withdraw your personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jumping to conclusions is not a personal attack. If the editor made the assumption in good faith (yeah...I bet you don't assume their good faith do you?) then, if they are mistaken, that is it.....a mistake, however, as I read the Calvinist article, I could also agree that it is easy to make that mistake...if it is a mistake. Conservatism is a rather broad term, as liberalism is.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, WP:BOOMERANG, yes. But the relevant question for anyone familiar with the track record is, how long are we supposed to tolerate one editor who sees sinister crypto-Christian, crypto-conservative cabals around every corner? How many non-existent smoke-filled rooms must I be accused of hanging around before he stops making the accusations? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In the benighted part of the colonies I come from, Calvinist groups like the Presbyterians are rarely afforded even the second half of the "conservative Christian" designation. YMMV, I suppose. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to get completely off topic here, but while we're on the subject of userpages, it should be noted that HiLo's has contained the following mission statement for the past 18 months: "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative interpretation of the Bible." [183] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:BATTLE, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Calidum 04:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you are making an accusation without any demonstration of its accuracy....right?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've had the self-identification on my user page for several years now. I would have thought that declaration of sexual preferences would be a good analogy. I would regard it as totally unacceptable for anyone to assume that Maleko Mela is unable or unwilling to edit LGBT-related articles in a neutral manner. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC

If you cannot see your own bias...you may need it pointed out on occasion, which is the EXACT REASON I limit my editing on LGBT topics. Got anything else Anselm?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen nothing actionable to the point of a block as of yet, but I do think HiLo needs a good talking-to. His comments to Anselm were offensive and uncivil, and I fully agree with Bushranger's observation above. Anyway, he's been rather nice to me so far this go round, but we have crossed paths before. His problem isn't so much that he is habitually uncivil (I suspect a great deal of that is simply tongue-in-cheek), but that I've never seen him assume good faith on anyone's part, ever. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo48 needs to make fewer ad hominems and should assume more good faith on the part of the faithful. There's nothing wrong with fighting against bias (systemic or otherwise), but it can be done in a more respectful way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember any significant crossing of paths with HiLo and I'm not a Christian, so I think I can be pretty objective when I say that those comments are uncivil. They are thinly veiled jabs, mocking. HiLo, you say on your user page that NPOV is important, and I take you at your word. Then you need to realize your own bias here and perhaps pull back to a safe distance. We all have biases, and if we are wise, we realize when we have reached the limits of our own objectivity. This is the kind of stuff that will get a person topic banned if it were to continue. You need to find within yourself the ability to see through other's eyes here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not Christian either, but I am a member of several projects and help collaborate with Christian editors. What I see above is not all entirely uncivil. Some of it could be seen that way and I won't argue against that. But what I will say is that the OP was accusing the editor of attacking editors for just being Christian and that is something I don't see demonstrated. Sure, it is easy to say the remarks are uncivil, and I can see why there would be a perception of such, but I do not see this as an attack against Christians in General. Editors should not be discussing the contributor. Just comment on the contribution. So in that way, Hilo is clearly in the wrong. But I also feel the OP here has too much of a record with the editor and may well have past encounters over shadow their view. Christians editors are very much like Gay editors. They have to remember that not everyone is Christian and that being an openly declared Christian or gay editor does not mean others cannot comment on what bias they may be perceiving. To me this filing is a lot like one bias against another. I do agree that Hilo only endangers their own editing privileges when they focus on others and not the content.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be going off-tangent but I think it's a mistake to lump editors who share one characteristic in common as acting in a similar way. For one thing, most editors do not have userboxes on the User page declaring their personal identification so it is very likely that the majority of Christian, atheist or gay editors do not "mark" themselves as belonging to that particular group. So, any generalities one makes is based on encounters one has with a small subset of any particular demographic group. And, as sociology shows, there is usually more variation among members of one group than between members of different groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I follow what you are saying, just that in this case the editor has clearly decided to declare their affiliation and preference and are also very involved in editing, not just Christian articles, but other religious articles of different faiths. I trust their good faith, but that is not going to be the outcome or perception of everyone. The main reason we have these user boxes is for declaring your interests so that others can look at edits that are associated with the declaration. In the case of Hilo's comments, they don't appear to be generalizing but being a bit specific about the Christian interests of the declared editor. Sure, variations are going to occur, but here the issue seems to be that one editor feels attacked for their declaration and having it mentioned (far too many times perhaps). But the mention of one's close associations as declared are not the issue. The issue is the persistent and rude manner in which Hilo makes these comments and comes across as attacking the individual for the faith when, in fact, they may not be attacking but simply criticizing the editor over issues related to the subjects they edit. At any rate this does not appear to actually be a case where the editor is being attacked just because of their faith.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a much clearer definition of conflict of interest than it does for incivility. The former explicitly mentions religion as an area where it should be applied. For a long time I've been tying to work out why it simply isn't. The only conclusion I've come to is that it's obviously part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What part of COI applies here? Since you mention that the policy mentions religion, I'm guessing you're referring to WP:EXTERNALREL, but I'd like to be sure before I respond.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Section break (HiLo48)

(e/c) HiLo may not intend to be incivil or to hurt anyone with his comments, but intention is usually not the most important factor in such issues. The very fact that his name is well known in these parts, and usually not for the best of reasons, says that - putting the most positive blush on it - he is not aware of his own strength when it comes to a propensity for getting into hot water. It would be a sign of his good faith if he could come here and simply acknowledge that some editors have been hurt by his comments, whether or not he intended that hurt. That would be a good step. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Intent is the very issue here not just accidently hurting someone's feelings. People get hurt over very straight forward civil remarks. Seriously. I had someone yell at me and then state on their user page that they were quitting Wikipedia over a comment I made about what I perceived in a suggestion they made during a dispute on the Homosexuality article. There was no attack on them and was speaking directly about the suggestion they made about the content. They blew up and accused me of a number of things that were really off base. If we were to start issuing sanctions and warnings over the hurt feelings of others.....there would be no one left to edit the encyclopedia.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good parallel, Mark. You are talking about one user being offended by your comments and you view them as being unreasonable. It's much different when multiple editors are having the same kind of negative encounters with a single editor that revolve around the same diatribe of how lousy and biased Christianity is. If several editors are having abrasive experiences with another editor, you shouldn't fault them for being easily hurt. The difference is that your example was a solitary incident, there are not a lot of people saying they are quitting Wikipedia over your comments. That's not the case in this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, one-off incidents like that will happen. But HiLo is not part of any one-off incident; there's been a whole swag of them involving him at the receiving end of criticism. I read this page from time to time , and I don't recall ever seeing HiLo say words to the effect of "I wasn't out to hurt anyone, I was just telling it like it is. I'm sorry if I hurt people, and I'll try in future to word my remarks and make my points in a less personally hurtful way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

People in the past got upset with my swearing. (In some cases I didn't even regard what I said as swearing, but whatever.) I don't swear here now. Or at least I try not to. It's obvious that the linguistic environment in which I live and work is one that many here would find unacceptable. Swearing is simply part of normal discourse. I now put a lot of effort into trying tot use a form of language that doesn't come naturally. But this isn't about swearing. Also, several people who have brought complaints about me here are no longer with us on Wikipedia. (Boomerangs fly in unusual ways.) Their complaints were never valid. This is why I have concerns about AN/I being primarily a place where old mud can be thrown again and again and again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Goal: Always stay in the top three tiers

My concern is that the comments having a chilling effect on participation. When someone is constantly making slightly uncivil comments that appear to have a particular bias, yet they each slide under the block radar, neutrality dies a death by a thousand cuts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what makes the most sense to me. Little cuts that are constant can cause a great loss over time. Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Does not the same apply to the problem created by the fact that our articles on religious topics naturally attract a majority of editors who are adherents of those religions, some of whom cannot help applying their inevitable biases in favour of those religions? Our systemic bias means that Christianity will be the religion with the biggest problem of that kind. Neutrality died long ago on some of those articles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, that is a concern and having editors who are skeptics/other to participate in those articles can be highly beneficial to our goals of neutrality. That only works, however, if the editors are commenting about the merits and not about each other. You are a very experienced editor, but Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (shown right) comes to mind. Personally, I still refer to it regularly to remind me to stay on the merits. I haven't questioned your ability or intent, only your methods. I understand it gets frustrating at times (which might indicate it is time to edit something less contentious for a day or two), but you have to see why I'm concerned, and why it looks like bias to others. You can't correct someone's bias by being equally biased in the opposite direction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I think this hits the nail squarely on the head.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48's incivility is unacceptable. You could replace the word "Christian" with any religion or ideology and the problem would still remain. And, in any case, the criticism he presents has nothing to do with religion but with politics. I would like to see him given a final warning and told that if he does it again he will face a long block. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Define "incivility". HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Incivility is the opposite of what you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it Hilo, you cannot attempt to right the wrongs that you perceive. We are simply not here as editors for that. You should really disengage from these topics voluntarily for a while because whether you agree or not, this will only lead to either a topic ban (which sounds more and more appropriate here) or worse, a block. I think admin has been very patient with you. At some point the patience is going to wear off.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, and probably will pay less heed to the disaster area of our religious articles for a while. I'd just like to see some independent, rational responses to the attacks on me in the initial post in this thread. Let's look at the second point in that litany of alleged sins. My apparent sin began with he words "Silly comment", and it was. I won't ever apologise for that kind of post. Several of the other evils I have apparently committed fall into the same category. If other editors post rubbish, I will point it out. Sorry about that. So what will be done about the falsehoods and silly allegations that have been written about me here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is actually pretty simple. I am sure more than a few editors have taken note of the fact that an allegation was made against another editor that was never properly demonstrated. In other words, the OP made a complaint that another editor was attacking them based solely on their religious beliefs. That was too strong an accusation for this case/filing. But you can let it go now. A boomerang is also unlikely.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? False allegations were made against me. Crap posted at AN/I is part of what makes it a disaster area. The last person to bring me here is now on an indefinite block, but the fact that my name was brought here is still part of the evidence brought against me this time! And so will this be, and most of the allegations are absolute rubbish. There MUST be some consequence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're mistaking me (the OP) with St. A, but I never claimed HiLo's comments were directed myself. I merely said he was directing them at Christian editors in general (of which I am one). I even specifically said in my original statement that I've had lengthy record with HiLo, but none of the comments were directed at me.

As for my complaint, I think it's obvious every editor here agrees that HiLo's comments have crossed a line. So I'm not sure why you're saying my allegation was never properly demonstrated. Even you Mark/Maleko wrote that "Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing." Calidum 00:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) OK, I struck out the mistake, but you are clearly in the wrong in accusing another editor of attacking anyone based purely on religious faith or Christians in general and you are also wrong about EVERY editor feeing that Hilo's comments cross the line. I don't. I made it clear that in discussing the editor it opens the door for that perception, but I do doubt that simply being uncivil is a reason to complain as if anyone is being persecuted. That is seriously outrageous and you never demonstrated such. All you have are some comments that don't all cross a line of incivility.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. A majority of commenters believe that HiLo has crossed a line, as I alleged in my complaint. Why you have chosen to defend him is beyond me, but don't pretend you're not in the minority here. Calidum 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And there's some more of this crap. My concern was NEVER with Christian editors in general. It's with editors who openly proclaim their Christianity, and then, at least in my eyes, post in a way that shows more concern with promoting Christian views than creating a great, impartial encyclopaedia. Please retract the falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be closed as it is likely to spin out of control pretty soon.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When do I see consequences for falsehoods written about me? Or does such crap again stay on AN/I forever? If it does, how do you guys expect me to treat the editors responsible nicely in future? I still believe what I said was true, even if some didn't like it. What has been said about me is simply not true. (Although I expect that here.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The only spinning I see is by HiLo and Mark. The fact remains that HiLo's summaries ARE problematic, and it would be helpful if he took the advice given here to heart, as that is the easiest path to resolving the concerns. The OP isn't blocked, I have no idea where you got that idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well excuse me. I am not spinning the fact that this thread was an accusation made against an editor that was never demonstrated to be accurate. It accused Hilo of attacking Christians in general. If you feel that much has been proven than why are you waiting? You have the power to block. The only reason I even intervened here is because this is about one editor feeling others are being persecuted for their faith and this is absolutely a false charge never shown to be accurate. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "The OP isn't blocked". I don't remember that being an issue? Also, I should mention that Hilo is not one of my friends on Wikipedia and that I am actually arguing with those I do consider to be friends. In other words...I have no particular opinion for or against Hilo. my opinion is based on the OP complaining about something I do not see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Spinning as in making HiLo out to be a victim here. I respect your difference in interpretation in his comments, but I have to use my own. As I've said, the edits are problematic, interpreting them for myself. That I'm not "block-happy" and prefer calm solutions is far from a secret. They are personal in nature, they twist the knife in a way that gives the appearance of a religious bias, whether it is intentional or not. I've already said this above more than once, that he needs to stick to the merits. I was hoping for an acknowledgement of such, but disappointed when it looked like it was being spun around into him being a victim. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) So, as you can see your words and interpretations of what I am doing is insulting and offensive to me, and I know it was not your intent. No, I am not trying to make Hilo the victim, but at the same time I will not allow someone (anyone) to be accused of such a vile thing without CLEAR evidence. There is no clear evidence. I have already agreed with you above but my point in requesting the closure of this thread is that is has gained no consensus to the ORIGINAL complaint, that Hilo was attacking Christians in general. If that is how you interpret making Hilo the victim then perhaps you are reading more into my words and comments than are really there. If you are readfing my comments Dennis I am sure you would see that I agree with you that Hilo should "Stick to the merits". I used the wording that he should discuss the content and not the contributor and that by doing so it opens the door to the perception of attacks, but I really don't see this as an attack as I have seen these same discussions replacing "Christian" with "gay" and to me that seems like a double standard if it is OK to discuss gay editors in this manner but not Christians. As for making a victim, the OP seemed to be doing that not me.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't ok to discuss gay editors in the same manner, but that kind of falls indirectly under the logic of WP:WAX, so it can't be used to justify singling out any group. I was just hoping to get the point across so I don't have to propose a topic ban in the future. It wasn't about consensus as much as understanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in more than spirit as I have also suggested a topic ban may well be appropriate here, but I see these types of things happen all the time. I don't think singling out any one for their declarations as appropriate, but to me many of the comments were not singling out someone out for that alone, but for their edits. Much like another editor here did to me when I mentioned my being gay, they then singled out that mention to use against me in this argument. That didn't offend me or make me feel I was being "singled out" just for being gay...I declared it as part of the discussion. That is very much what I see happened here. It also doesn't help that the editor this centers around, StAnselm is very active in the areas they have declared as being a part of. So, yes, bias is a factor here and in many ways I agree with Hilo.......just not in the persistence. That goes beyond how I work, or what I tend to agree with as I generally disengage and find great relief in such.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had singled out a group, your comment might be valid. It's not. My criticism was of individuals. The OP has sucked you in. I do feel like the victim here now. But that's normal here at AN/I. Given tat you seem to be basing your demands of me on some content that wasn't true, it's rather difficult for me to agree to anything at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to find that Dennis doesn't get "sucked in" by things on this board. What he and other admin do (and even I tend to) is give as much rope as possible. You might not want to grab hold of that rope.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And do what? I truly have no idea what is being asked of me. It cannot be to never do all that was listed in that first post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I must now point out that, rather than help answer that question, Dennis chose to find further fault with me down below. He isn't trying to resolve this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim that you didn't single out a "group" holds no water. This edit [184] and the phrase "I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." is unnecessarily offensive to more than one person, and was directed at more than one person. I can break them all down but I shouldn't have to, this one I just picked at random. The point is, when your edits are disruptive, your motivation isn't my first concern. I only care about keeping the playing field level, keeping the articles neutral, and keeping the peace, all while using the least amount of tools. Above, I've shown you specifically how to avoid future problems, with the bonus of it making you more persuasive in discussion. Ignore it, or put it to good use, the choice is yours. If you can't understand it, I can't help, as I've explained it as much as I know how already. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Oh, I suppose that was about a group, but a very small one (obviously not all Christians), and I still believe in what I said. I am struggling to see the offence in it. But I am happy to learn about cultures different from mine, where active, even confrontational discussion of religious values is very common. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You went straight to the heart of their belief system by suggesting that "their god" would or would not do something based on the edits here at Wikipedia. That is the line that was crossed there. I don't see that as an attack, but as a very inappropriate criticism of both their beliefs and their deity. I have seen this before and many times it gets pushed to the side or just ignored but I myself have made a point about others criticizing other beliefs or those held as holy. Surely you didn't expect that to go over well.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wanted them to think about what they were doing. I don't believe it was very ethical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to review: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.".--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We WERE on Talk pages. I see little point in taking it further. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

LightandDark2000

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

---

User LightandDark2000 was recently blocked for disruptive behavior. Seems like they are yet another incarnation of FanforClarl, or HoshiNoKaabii2000, or Brightify, or whomever the true sockmaster is. Brightify (LightandDark, get it?) + HoshiNoKaabii2000 = LightandDark2000 would be one duck clue. I'm requesting some admin attention here to help revert their edits. They've done a bunch of questionable page moves, and some other complicated and disruptive edits lately. I seem to recall that Admins might have some tools handy to facilitate this process. Also, if there is a "next step" in elevating attention to this operator, I would like to encourage that--the user(s) has/have been disruptive long enough, apparently rangeblocks are not possible, CheckUsers haven't quite linked all of the related accounts, there's some question as to where these edits are originating from, and the various accused socks are starting to mesh into one another via behavioral adaptations. There is no reason why this relatively green editor would/could have a comprehensive understanding or problem with the various socks listed, affected, as far as I can tell. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, "HoshiNoKaabii" is the Romanization of the Nintendo game series featuring the character Kirby. ("Hoshi" means "star" in Japanese, "Kaabii" is "Kirby", hence "Kirby of the Stars".) In case you're trying to use names to find some commonality between these accounts. -- Atama頭 07:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama. Based on the protests at the user's talk page, I'm open to the possibility that I have misidentified a user as a sock, in which case, this should likely be closed, and/or I should take this to WP:SPI. However, I would prefer an admin or two look into this, since the user did perform a variety of questionable edits which may still need to be reverted/repaired. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Religion stats

Content dispute. No administrative action required. De728631 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, Can someone please opine on this article's talk page regarding simple stats? For the record I am defending this version because it is TEXTO what the 2 reliable sources say. Nobody apparently disputes the sources (2008 & 2012, Zogby polls.) Simple as that, but BOTH editors (who contradict each other; & with one who was blocked) oppose this version nevertheless. Am i missing something here? Thanks for your input in advance! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a case for ANI, but it looks like a perfect candidate for WP:DRN. Admin do NOT determine content, thankfully. We can enforce a consensus of editors once it is clear, or as an editor be a part of that consensus, but not both. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:TheRedPenOfDoom

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

---

Admins this is to notify that this user User:TheRedPenOfDoom is violating my edits. Firstly he reverted my edits on Street light & Parking lot where i posted my own work photos. Despite this user is completely violating rules of Wikipedia. Moreover his user page has beem deleted a number of times. Please admins do take a strict action against this user! TekkenLeiWulong (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the reason was for Red Pen's unexplained reversion here. There are plenty of images in this article, but the Mumbai motorcycle park does show something distinct from the majority of other US/European car parks. It certainly looks like a reversion more because of the editor, than about their edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't see any problem, and certainly not anything that warrants an ANI report. I understand why he might have chosen to remove them, as the quality wasn't better than the existing and arguably didn't add much to the topic. Regardless, that is a matter of editing, not a matter of policy violation nor a matter for administrators to decide. I did notice you reverted him after his deletion, I suggest you read WP:BRD and not get into an edit war. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal abuse and malicious allegations.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has taken to merging a pair of articles incorrectly such that the edit history of the source article is lost. That is not the subject of this ANI (though may become the subject of a separate ANI).

Since a discussion of the corect method of merging articles (helpfully spelt out at [[WP:MERGE) is not directly relevant to improving the article, I placed a note on Wtshymanski's talk page which I am assured is the correct thing to do [185]. (I used an incorrect link to the procedure but subsequently provided the correct one [186].) There followed a derogatory post [187], the main abuse being in the eit summary, "sniping from cover is always easier". IP address users are far from anonymous unlike his user account name which is virtually untraceable.

Wtsymanski deleted the note from his talkpage [188]. The deletion itself is not a problem - I assume that is evidence that the note has been read. What the problem is, is the further abuse and the allegation that went into the edit summary, "rv anon harassment" (my emphasis). I do not believe that such unfounded allegations are warranted when any user attempts to discuss something being done incorrectly on another user's talk page. It is clear that this user is falling far short of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY and is certainly not providing a welcoming environment to those editors who chose not to use registered accounts. AFAIAA, Wikipedia has no problem with editors not registering. 85.255.235.227 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Unless this is part of a larger pattern, I'm inclined to think this is more a content dispute than a civility issue that requires admin action. Looking at the page, the merge is a rather odd thing considering he opposed it on one page then supported on the other, then just did the merge without a lot of discussion. That, and as you point out he didn't do the attribution properly. That could be corrected even after the fact with a null edit, although that isn't ideal. As for using the term "harassment", it isn't polite but I'm not inclined to take action over it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a pattern that has gone on for years. Wtshymanski is obsessed with (usually poor) merges. If we're lucky, he might sometimes note in an edit summary that he's pasting in content from elsewhere. I don't recall him ever tagging the talk page, as convention requires. Apparently he's "to be commended" for even this little concession. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I will note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski does exist, although I am not convinced it is completely relevant here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It has to be acknowledged that in the light of recent editing history, this allegation is a one off event and does not warrant further discussion. Although Wtshymanski does have a long history of biting IP address editors, he has been keeping his head well below the parapet of late, and for that he is to be commended.

However, the manner in which he merges articles is another matter. He has been told many times by many users of the necessity of correctly tagging the talk pages of both the source and target article with the {{mergedfrom...}} and {{mergedto...}} tags in order to make the edit history of the source article(s) easily accesible. Unfortunately Wtshymanski resolutely refuses to do it. Although experienced editors may be aware of how to find the hidden edit history, they can only do so if they know it exists in the first place. The Wtshymanski trade mark edit summary of "merging; contains or contained text from <whatever>, see that page for contributions history" is grossly inadequate as that edit summary soon gets buried in the edit summaries that follow. Less experienced users may not be aware of how to view it.

I believe that the opportunity should be taken to try and persuade Wtshymanski to do the merges properly (or not at all). I note your point about tidying up the merge afterwards, but the quantity of merges carried out by this user would require someone to follow his edit trail and continually add the missing tags - far from an ideal solution and why should anyone have to? The ideal solution is for the merges to be done properly in the first place. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I like full histmerges, which (unfortunately) requires an admin to do, ie: delete the target by moving the bad article over ontop of the target, then restore the target's history and revert to which ever version you want. Then you have the history of both articles combined into one article and the new redirect has no history. If someone just asks and is willing to restore to a proper version, most admin are happy to do that. It only takes a few minutes. For us to do that, however, it requires a clear consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit comment includes the required statement of the form "See page <foo> for edit history" which is all that is needed to link the edit history of the merged page to former contributions; the former edit history is still there. Can anyone recommend a reason to keep two pages, one titled "electric machines" and the other one "electrical machines" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That is more of a discussion for the talk page, although I would agree that it does seem like a likely merge candidate. And merging is a little more complicated than you are making it out to be. You need to review WP:MERGE for the proper procedure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that the denial of making any allegation is buried in the edit summary. Accusing someone of 'harassment' when all they are doing is attempting to discuss a failure to follow procedure is a malicious and unfounded allegation. The comment about the edit history being in the edit summary is wholly inadequate as several people have agreed here. 212.183.128.63 (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, are you the same person as the IP 85.255.235.227 above and the IPs that participated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski ? People's edit history is shredded and opaque when they don't register accounts. In other words, is this part of a long running dispute between you and Wtshymanski ? Knowing the context might help in resolving the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, my IP address changes every time I log on (over which I have no control). I am the user who posted the comments signed by 85.255.235.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have no knowledge of any long running disputes. I am a somewhat occasional editor who has made a few modest contributions over several years. I have no desire to create an account because I am having enough difficulty keeping track of usernames and passwords without adding to the problem if I don't have to. 212.183.128.63 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User reverting and vandalize an article

Hello. The user Darraj14 changed twice the content of the page Australia (Modern Family) on the reviews section from "mixed" to "positive" (here is the history of the page). I reverted their edits and left them a message on their talk page about it and their answer was a new vandalism on the page with a "personal" message instead of discussing at the talk page. TeamGale 13:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@TeamGale: I don't see anything so unusual that an incident report is warranted. If the edits were true vandalism, WP:AIV would be the better place to report after a full sequence of warnings. (IMO, the only vandalism was this addition of an inline message.) If (s)he violated the three revert rule, WP:AN3 would be the place to file the report. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The user just left this message on my talk page. TeamGale 13:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor's edit history is a mix of well meaning and pure garbage edits. Not sure what to make of this. The threat to sockpuppet doesn't help him, and honestly, is a bit empty headed if you know how SPI works. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, their edits might not be a serious violation...what about the message on my talk page? The user clearly show their intentions. Not only they are using/planning to use sockpuppets by using it as a threat in case someone blocks them, they also see the editing on WP as a joke. Neither that is serious violation? For me as an editor, those kind of users are the kind that "ruins" edits other users do who want to contribute and offer to WP. TeamGale 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. And idle threat to sock by itself is meaningless. Calling editing on Wikipedia "a joke" isn't against policy. Many people feel that way. What we block them for is creating sockpuppets, and when they turn the joke into vandalism. We can't block them for their thoughts. That said, I am keeping an eye out, as plenty of their edits are vandalism, and I will block if that continues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks TeamGale 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Pownerus

• Dear Administrator. The user Pownerus has personal interests in articles as Church of God Ministry of Jesus Christ and the founder Luis Eduardo Moreno. The user continually undo the contributions that others Wikipedia's users make. Please pay attention that this user is assisted by other users with the same personal interest. --Escrituras (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Escrituras, it looks like both you and Pownerus are reverting each other on those two articles. But I don't see much discussion of your difference of opinion on the article talk pages. Typically, these are the first places editors who disagree go to discuss their differences. AN/I is the last place to come when you have a conflict, especially one over content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did leave a note on his page about a couple of reverts that he called "vandalism" when they clearly were not, but Liz is correct that the primary problem here is one of content, and admin don't settle content disputes. WP:DR has some good info about how to deal with disputes, which of course should start on the talk page of the article. WP:BRD is also worth a read, trust me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I leave information in the talk pages of both articles. The user Pownerus clear reverting articles without any reason. --Escrituras (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Escrituras, both Dennis and I have left messages on Pownerus' talk page. Let's hope they will prompt the editor to start talking about changes rather than continually revert. Let's see what happens. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Escrituras has been changing text with no reliable sources, he was banned forever from the Spanish Wikipedia, because he (they) had sockpuppuets, made spam and assured that "we are a group of people interested in objectivity and authenticity". I was just stopping this sabotage in en.wiki. --Pownerus (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Liz, the user Pownerus does not try to discuss the situation in the talk page of the articles in question. The user has personal reasons. No exposed a civilized discussion on this page (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). The user does not respects and does not pay attention to the criterion and the contributions of other users like Wikid77 who has previously reviewed one of the articles. The user Pownerus continues vandalizing articles without exposing arguments in good-faith. --Escrituras (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens on the Spanish Wikipedia isn't important, this is the English Wikipedia. We have no authority over there, only here. The rules are different for the Spanish and English Wikipedia, very different. Let me explain the basics: Don't call stuff "vandalism" (or sabotage) unless it fits the criteria at WP:VANDAL. If someone reverts you, YOU (Escrituras) take it to the talk page first, via WP:BRD. Both of you need to learn to assume good faith and let each edit stand on its own merits. If you revert someone's good edit simply because you've seen them make edits you disagreed with on the Spanish Wikipedia, you are asking to get blocked. Whatever differences you two have, you would be wise to set them aside and just edit like normal editors. If you disagree, you use the article talk page, if you can't agree there, you go to WP:DRN. The last place you both want to be is here at ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting hoaxes from Escrituras, policy about sock puppetry is the same in all Wikimedia projects. --Pownerus (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can substantiate your claim of hoaxes, making the claim is uncivil. Even if you were 100% right, your methods are disruptive. And no, socking at Spanish Wikipedia doesn't mean you get blocked here. If you have evidence he is socking here at the English Wikipedia, file it at WP:SPI or present it here. Otherwise, your claims are disruptive and uncivil. ie: present evidence or stop making claims. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Accounts Escrituras and Luminares were found guilty on sock puppetry in es.wiki, you must check their ips; Take a look to escrituras' edits, he deletes text with not even a explanation or source, i.e: He puts thatLuis Eduardo Moreno had four children instead of five. --Pownerus (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What happens there doesn't matter here. I keep saying that, but you don't seem to get that point. Only WP:Checkusers can look at IPs under certain circumstances, and I'm confident they would not be willing to do so here, per our policies. If I assume that one person does have both accounts, as long as those two accounts don't edit in the same areas, it isn't socking. There is no evidence that he is socking here that I have found. Again, either present evidence of policy violation here at the English Wikipeda, or stop making the claims. Did he have 4 or 5 children? I don't know or care, that isn't an issue for admin to decide. Take it to WP:DRN. ANI is for discussing behavior, not content. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[189] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[190]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [191] [192]. As anyone can see the source [193] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[194]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([195] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Breach of 1RR sanctions

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

---

Bundy standoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Bundy_standoff/General_Sanctions

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

• Revert #1 [196]
• Revert #2 [197]

Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Cwobeel:

Relisted at the administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. (1RR violations are as acceptable as general 3RR violations on that page.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Copy-Paste of the content without rephrasing and proper citing

I would have fixed if that is not completely copied - it needs complete rewriting or otherwise fixing the content.

SECI model of knowledge dimensions

first two paragraphs are copy and paste from Gourley (2004) http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/2291/1/Gourlay%202004%20SECI.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irina Liuberte (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed for now. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) (not an administrator) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[198] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[199] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

• 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

• 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[200]

• 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

• 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[201]

• 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[202]

• 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[203]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):

• I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.

00:46, 6 February 2014

• [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.

04:50, 6 February 2014

• [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).

21:47, 6 February 2014

Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Guilherme Styles' IPs

Despite being approached multiple times at talk pages (e.g. User talk:Guilherme Styles and User talk:187.250.55.141), Guilherme Styles (talk · contribs) is continuing to perform edits as 187.250.55.141 (talk · contribs) without using edit summaries, and refusing to engage in discussion. I believe there is a clear pattern of disrupting editing, and so am requesting permission here to start an escalating series of blocks and warnings per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Blocking and sanctions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Do You have any diffs? TitusFox^'Tribs 07:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see an example at User talk:187.250.55.141#Honorifics. You can see the warnings/concerns raised on the talk pages linked above. The fact that there are no edit summaries and no talk page edits are best shown by looking at the contributions history. DrKiernan (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Guilherme Styles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.55.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.100.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.83.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 187.250.115.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've blocked the first IP two weeks for edit warring and for never discussing their changes. This block can be lifted if he will agree to wait for consensus. In the past he must also have used the other four IPs, but they are inactive at present. Under all his identities he has made a total of two or three hundred edits to royal family articles which generally get reverted. He has his own ideas of proper style and doesn't care if others disagree. By IP-hopping he avoids those annoying warnings on his talk page. A rangeblock isn't practical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Address jumping Swedish blog spammmer

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

---

For the last few days, someone is trying to market a couple of blogs by entering fake references into articles. As you can see, the user doesn't just copy the URLs directly into the article but uses a more clever approach, also making minor improvements to the concerned articles and marking the spam links as references as if in order to sneak below the radar of those patrolling the Recent changes who would immediately identify simple link spammming.

The four url:s I've seen used for this purpose include the strings freesciencepublication, frivetenskapligpublicering, worldwithoutexcuses and ingaursakter but there could of course be more addresses that I haven't discovered.

What can be done? I have tried searching for these strings every once in a while, but could some sort of filter identify specific URLs automatically?

- Tournesol (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could request that the specific blogs be added to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. That would prevent them from adding the links to those specific blogs. Resolute 14:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The most effective way to prevent this might be to list the domains here, which can result in a Foundation-wide ban that prevents anyone from being able to list those domains. The software will literally not allow them to be added to any page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks, I've done so now. - Tournesol (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Added to the global blacklist. --Glaisher [talk] 15:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Continuous addition of weakly sourced controversial content by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

• 173.176.42.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued disruptive editing after final warning. IP had started doing this on 26 April, has added lot of controversial content to various articles in a short span of time without any sources. This got reverted by multiple editors and me, was given multiple warnings and stopped after the final one. Other than some rather uncivil responses like "Just accept the facts" and mass blanking of other content, the only improvement in the edits were citing Wikipedia itself or weakly sourcing it with the same personal analysis.

Oh, and made one sort-of death threat on this article talk page here.

Today's disruptive editing were on those same pages and some new ones. All this content is related to the Canadian government.

• Censorship of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Political abuse of psychiatry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rosalie Abella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ‎
  • Racism in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Note: Other users involved in this, I've not checked the edits here. Please take a look.)

Yesterday

• Human rights in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Decolonization of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the AIV report, I have blocked this user for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

86.82.178.199 adding "further reading"

86.82.178.199 is adding the same two books to a bunch of articles in a new "further reading" section. They may add something to some of the articles but it seems unlikely two references are relevant in such disparate articles as Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association (self-explanatory organization) and Shūsui Kōtoku (a Japanese anarchist). Could someone look into this? Helpsome (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Shane Harper 4 Life

User:Shane Harper 4 Life has been adding malicious content, harassed me, and removing/ignoring warnings given. This all started when I reverted the user for adding incoherent content ([204], [205], [206], [207]) on the Bridgit Mendler article. The user then started an edit war by restoring the incoherent content. I then gave the user two warnings: (one for edit warring, and another for harassment on my talk page. The user then removed my and prior warnings by other users. After reverting the blanking, the user removed them again and claimed that they were attacks. If this behavior continues and the warnings don't work, I would suggest that an indefinite block from editing altogether and banning from editing Bridgit Mendler-related articles and my talk page will. IPadPerson (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Zeshan Mahmood - Copyrights violation

• Zeshan Mahmood (talk · contribs)

This user is persistently creating articles with copyright violating content and doesn't seem to pay heed to any of the advises at his talk. Can an admin please have a look. -- SMS ^Talk 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• De728631 blocked him for 72 hours. Might be worth sifting through the contribs for obvious violations that haven't been picked up yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis beat me to this update, but he's right in that there's more work to do. I've already found an unattributed copy from simple.wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've already found at least one article, Jinnah and Kashmir that was deleted under A7/11 but was also infringing. This is a bit of an uphill battle. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Anon using several IPs for disruptive reverting

This user who I believe is registered as DenSportgladeSkåningen is using several IPs (90.231.59.159, 81.237.241.67 and 2.65.139.118) to revert edits without providing any explanation, argument or reason whatsoever. When I tried discussing in edit summaries I was met with a personal attack as seen here. When I tried to open a discussion with the user on the talk page of 2014 Malmö FF season I was met with silence and continuous reverts of my edits, despite the user being informed of the need for discussion. See here, here and here for examples. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)