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

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[1] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He has been warned about this various times,[11][12][13][14] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter ^Isotalo 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.

Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably an inappropriate statement, but a quote from elsewhere and about a different person. Still, I would advise Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That kind of blasé comment does not alleviate any concerns, you know.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not be so much concerned about this particular statement to bring the matter to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

These examples are merely to show that Niemti refuses to take feminists like Sarkeesian seriously. This is about campaigning for months to skew the article to fit his own personal preferences, and for choking the talkpage in the process. Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the comment were isolated it would not be a matter for ANI. However, it's part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I still do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer ^talkcontribs 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)I've decided to remove my !vote per the comments responding to this and other comments; I thus have no opinion on this issue.Satellizer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Wikipedia these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter ^Isotalo 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It's really simple. Hot Rod Magazine might be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of cars, however it is not a reliable source for the theory of relativity...even if the theory of relativity is applied to cars. Similarly, game journalists might be reliable sources for games, however they are not reliable sources for cultural studies/women's studies/etc...even if those things are applied to games--which is what's going on in this instance. So no, a reliable source for one topic isn't a reliable source for another topic. As mentioned above, failing to get this point (WP:RS) is one of the problems. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Wikipedia; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Echoing DaveFuchs and NE Ent, as I see it there's already consensus that Niemti should not be editing video game articles at all. bridies (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I came from my weekend and I see what. You "should not be editing video game articles at all", too, but also maybe first decide if this is a video game article or not (allegedly it sin't). The article is also using Kotaku, which is a very unprofessional video game tabloid blog (as noted by the acclaimed game director Hideki Kamiya[15]). And you know what's "disruptive"? Not allowing a discussion on talk page, replying with "fucking deal" and such, doing things like this thread. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, amd also I just though about it, and this single-event article should be merged into something like "Women and video gaming controversies" (or some better name, it was quick). Which would also cover the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, the game writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on (who all have no articles on Wikipedia, despite being widely reported, too, including in the mainstream press, and often in the very same articles as Sarkeesian - just google them and you'll see). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a fine example of the incoherent, attitude riddled rantings you tend to muddle discussions with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, also not. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to midirect attention away from your disruptive behavior and towards abstract content issues. That's not going to fly.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Niemti shows no sign of relenting either here or at Sarkeesian's talkpage. He's even calling WP:VG/RS "a joke".[16] And then there's the deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies. Topic ban now, please. Peter ^Isotalo 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has been going on for just a few days. As an uninvolved admin, in my view it would be premature to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's time to move forward with this proposal yet, but Niemti's recent spate of commentary contains more of the same problematic behavior and suggests he has no intention of changing.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because treating Kotaku (a source of such fine "journalism" as this or that) an unconditionally reliable source surely must be a joke. Anyway, I'm done hopelessly trying to initiate a proper (with arguments and counter-arguments, instead of abuse and bullying that I'm getting from you) discussion on the changes with the article (the article that I've previously edited more than anyone else). See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and (of course) I never made a "deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies", and with this bizarrily absurd comment you've just got a taste of what's going on at this talk page. Now I'm unwatching it, like I just unwatched this article, after being central in building it up. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD right after a unanimously opposed RM. We can add WP:FORUMSHOPPING to the list of disruptive behaviors.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough about Kotaku. If you don't like that there's a consensus that it's reliable, start a discussion at WP:VG to change it. The issue at hand here is the edits you're trying to make to this article, and how you handle yourself on the talk page. Neither of those things have anything to do with Kotaku's status of reliability, so it's irrelevant to discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support narrow topic ban -- it's way past the question of right/wrong or POV. Niemti is being moderately rude (which is hardly unusual) and has shown that he is unable to discuss politely and constructively about, at the very least, this specific topic. This isn't "improving Wikipedia" in the slightest, and that should be everyone's main goal. There's no reason to allow this to further devolve into something even worse and there's plenty of other articles that can be improved. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban The problem is evident, even on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - My conclusion after having read the various points put forth by editors here and at the RM is that a topic ban is appropriate in this situation. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per DreamGuy. And frankly I find the comments by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ("get over it" and "get a on with your life!") and even those by Cúchullain (in the way he describes Niemti's comments - which appear to be civil and reasonable - as "he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants") to be way more uncivil and sanction worthy than anything Niemti has said or done.Volunteer Marek 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I highly suggest you take a look at the related RfC and see that RedPen and Cúchullain's comments, while not necessarily excusable, are small potatoes to the majority of Niemti's reported behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't accept that any of my comments, or Red's for that matter, have been uncivil, though I'll gladly tone it down in the future if it takes some edge off the discussion. It also bears reiteration that no one else in the discussion has made unfounded or inappropriate comments about the subject, gone off on tangents irrelevant to actual article improvements, refused to hear it when consensus is against them, or engaged in forum shopping when they don't get their way. That's the issue here; it's not one problem, it's a pattern of behavior.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't believe calling someone's responses "incoherent rants" is uncivil, especially in Niemti's case, where he almost seems to do it on purpose, or uncontrollably. In calmer past situations, I've kindly asked him to slow down and address issues one by one or with more concise responses, because I couldn't understand what he was trying to say, and he simply wouldn't. He's been told he's hard to understand when he responds like this, and he does it anyways, and yet isn't above complaining when no one sides with him. It's not an attack on him, it's merely an observation on how he handles himself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. I reviewed the diffs as well, and I see a lot of hair pulling over Niemti's responses, some of it uncivil, but nothing worthy of Niemti being TB'ed. Perhaps some new eyes whose owners blood pressure is 120/80 might be helpful at the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo the sentiments of ThomasO1989 and suggest that you take a look at the related RfC about his reported behavioral patterns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I count at least thirteen users, including myself, who have tried to debate Niemti regarding Sarkeesian, a few with a bit more intensity than roughness than necessary, but most of them have engaged with him in a civilized manner. If you want to see a particularly frustrating example of how Niemti has operated, take a look at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2#Dubious. Fifteen posts in 24 hours just in an attempt to hammer home his own views about what "university-level women's studies courses" means. And that's just one of the early ones from back in November. Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this is the situation when someone (Niemti) actually does a lot for the project, but he is stubborn, strongly opinionated at article talk pages, and he tells exactly what he thinks. However, the info he actually places in articles is good and comply with NPOV. What I did in such cases is allowing the editor (Niemti) to take a lead with creating the content, and discussing only as much as necessary. He suggests merging at article talk page? That's fine. Simply tell "no" and explain why. No need for a long discussion. He proposes and AfD? That's fine. Just vote "keep" and explain why. Hence my "oppose" above. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Niemti is clearly driven by a personal disagreement with the basic tenets of gender studies and critical feminist analysis. And all because someone had the nerve to aim it at his favorite form of popular culture, video games. He's certainly not alone in this, and while he's not the kind of person who is sending death threats and anonymous misogynist abuse, his rants has an openly anti-feminist edge that equates analysis of gender roles with extremism and a host of other prejudices about academic media studies. In other words, you're suggesting that he be allowed to engage in activities that don't have anything to do with article improvement. Why exactly should we humor him, or anyone else, in that respect? Peter ^Isotalo 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It was precisely my point that most of his mainspace edits are actually improvement of content (they have everything to do with article improvement), as evident from his successful participation in creation of good articles and his edits in another subject area where I collaborated with him a few years ago. As about rants at article talk pages (if any), it always takes two or more to tango. Tell and justify your opinion one time if this is something like RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
      • We're discussing a topic ban relating to the Sarkeesian article. Niemti's participation there has been extremely negative with little or no improvement. And the RfC suggests there's been disharmonious dealings in the GA process concerning video game articles. So no matter how many good edits there are elsewhere, they don't simply cancel out the looong sting of bad ones relating to feminist media criticism. I'm not sure what you feel you want justified, btw. Can you be more precise? Peter ^Isotalo 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the quality of Niemti's article work, or any other content matter, isn't at issue here. The problem is his behavior at the talk page, which has been consistently disruptive on multiple fronts.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. It is my understanding that Niemti voluntarily will not edit article about AS and its talk page [17]. I also assume that he will not edit anything about AS on other pages. I hope this thread can be closed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • His voluntary withdrawal can be revoked whenever he wants, a community topic ban can't. If he'd volunteered to do that at the start it would be different, but effectively cancelling consensus already established for a community topic ban with something voluntary he can choose to cancel at any time (and thus forcing the ban consensus to start again from scratch) seems a little too much like gaming the system. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 01:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought consensus is not determined by head count, but by the quality of argument. So, I am not sure if we have consensus. No, I do not think anyone can revoke their promise. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I am, of course, making my own evaluation of consensus in my comment above, based on the quality of the arguments presented. Whoever eventually closes the thread will make their own evaluation. My point, however, was that it's easy for someone looking at consensus for a ban to make a last minute act of apparent concession to try to mitigate the inevitable outcome. Offering to cooperate at the eleventh hour can easily be seen as a 'save your own hide' kind of thing, and doesn't mean the community automatically accepts that the ban is no longer necessary. Some people may not have faith that he'll be able to abide by it, particularly given his history. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits› 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is pretty common that people on the verge of being banned/topic banned to suddenly volunteer to stop, but as Null said, it's not reason to stop this process, as he can chose to change his mind at any point, where it's not the case with a topic ban. I think it's especially important not to stop this discussion based on past comments Niemti has said. On the talk page, he has alluded to the fact that he may wait until things die down and go at it again, and that he believes since he edits the article more than anyone else in the discussion, his opinion counts for more. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to take Niemti at his word, considering his lack of regard for other editors' input over the last two months. However, the bottom line is that he shouldn't touch anything related to Sarkeesian on Wikipedia, voluntarily or otherwise.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am also not inclined to take Niemti's word for it, given his history of rejecting other editors' input over the past two months per Cuchullain. Per Sergecross, Niemti alluded to the fact that he might go at it again when things die down. The bottom line is that the editor should not touch the Sarkeesian article or anything related to her on Wikipedia, voluntarily or not. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

By telling this, you guys basically reject his good will offer. If you tell to Neimti that he has absolutely no obligation to keep his word, may be he indeed has no such obligation. I am now confused. My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more persuasive if Niemti said explicitly that he would avoid editing or commenting on the subject in the future. The linked comment says no such thing.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not telling that coming forward and criticizing himself in this environment is exactly like Struggle session (or "Comrade's court" in Russia), but in certain ethnic/national cultures this is something man would never do. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole BLP thing is terribly overblown. What Niemti actually suggested was to merge or delete the article. That certainly would not hurt the person. Banning a long term well-intended contributor because of this is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The "BLP thing" is certainly an issue, and one of Niemti's making. Taken together, his disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of behavior that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia (and of course that's on top of all his other disruptive behaviors).Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I did not read whole discussion (tl;dr, sorry), but in the most "incriminating" diff above Noemti simply explains why he thinks the person is not notable (hence the suggested merging of page). Yes, he uses available sources to explain his position. Some of them may not be reliable, but this is always happens in articles about people of marginal notability. As about his tone, this is a matter of personal taste. It is pretty common that people are excited during such discussions. Bringing everyone here is not an option. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't regard that as the "most incriminating" diff, it's just particularly illustrative of the various disruptive behaviors in which he's engaged. Honestly, his tone is the least of it - it's far more serious that he's making unsourced negative comments on a BLP, using the talk page as a FORUM, ignoring the input of others, and engaging in forum shopping to get his way.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Some"? None of the sources are reliable. The topic is gender studies, not video game reviewing. Period. The opinions of the gaming community at large is not our concern anymore than John/Jane Doe's kitchen conversations about... whatever. The only major difference between these two is that the gaming community is good at loudly proclaiming its disapproval in online forums. That does not make those loud claims relevant or reliable to Wikipedia as sources. Why is this so hard to accept? Why does a dozen or more users have to spend week after week saying the same thing to the same argumentative person?

Peter ^Isotalo 07:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the subject is not gender study, but biography. Niemti makes an argument that person is not notable. I personally disagree with his argument, but it is very common that people stray away in such discussions or make an argument unsupported by RS. Bringing them here is counterproductive if the person acts in a good faith and contributes a lot to the project, as in this case. This is because our goal is to maximize participation, editor retention and ultimately creation of content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic of any "criticism" should be the same as the work that is being criticised. As such, trying to introduce any sort of criticism in this article involves gender studies. Thus, in relation to what constitutes a reliable source, as Peter correctly states above, the topic is gender studies and not video game reviewing. DonQuixote (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stongly oppose topic ban: As an uninvolved editor, I think it is premature IMHO to go directly to an indef topic ban (without even suggesting 3-month ban), which smacks of forever silencing an opponent in a wp:POV_dispute. Meanwhile, the use of non-wp:RS sources, as mentioned above, indicates that all sides of the dispute should request mediation to use sourced text, or perhaps merge the article for lack of sources which sustain a separate page. Also, should disregard "Support" !votes from involved editors, as this seems an atttempt to force the outcome of a "fair fight" by censuring opponents. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If Niemti was an outspoken creationist who engaged in destructive campaigns for months in an article about evolution, would you also describe a call for a topic ban as "forever silencing an opponent"? Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, content issues aren't up for discussion here. This proposal is about Niemti's behavior on the talk page, examples of which are highlighted above.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it should be made clear that making positive contributions is never an excuse for disruptive behavior, especially on the talk page of Anita Sarkeesian; the examples of which are shown above are all there, clear as crystal. As explicitly stated by Cuchullain, Niemti's disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of disruptive behavior, which is not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. And unfortunately, his disruption is part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, although, I have no problem with making the topic ban time limited. The fact that after all of this discussion, including Niemti's own participation in, that Niemti now thinks that AfD is the right treatment shows that he is only here to POV push. The civility of the comments is wholly irrelevant; WP:CIVIL is only one of our pillars, and WP:NPOV is another. Niemti has argued tendentiously to include comments from a source that clearly does not meet WP:RS and certainly doesn't meet the higher level of scrutiny required by WP:BLP. Now, because he's not getting his way, he thinks he'll take to it to AfD, despite the fact that such a nomination would be WP:SNOW kept. Civil POV pushing is, in fact, one of our biggest problems on Wikipedia. Here we have a crystal clear example of it happening, and thus we should take the opportunity to stop it, now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What AfD are you talking about? Niemti said he would rather not edit this article at all [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban. Let's not mess around with BLPs, especially one like this that has already been vandalised to the extent that the vandalism hit the news. WP:BLPBAN exists for a reason. Andreas JN466 09:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this page has been vandalized at one point, just as many other wikipedia articles, but why do you want to hold Niemti responsible? It was not him who vandalized this page. To the conrary, he contributed a lot and positively in this BLP article (I mean the article itself, while the talk page discussion was indeed heated and sometimes strayed away from improvement the article). Once again, he only suggested merging sometime ago, which has been hotly debated. This is not vandalism, not a BLP violation, and certainly does not hurt the person. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What I am holding him responsible for is waffling on on a BLP talk page about how the subject should have "ignored" the appalling harassment she suffered, including here, or done things like "counterattack literally with her vagina". Get a grip. Andreas JN466 19:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

He was comparing and contrasting how other people responded to very similar experiences to how Sarkeesian reacted when discussing whether there should be an article about her. Another woman who was attacked in a very similar fashion did "counter-attack with her vagina" in a manner of speaking and others do ignore this type of vitriol as it is rather typical.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In a manner of highly inept and inappropriate speaking, perhaps. [19] Saying here on Wikipedia that a woman who has been harassed, including here on Wikipedia, could have ignored it or "counter-attacked literally using her vagina" instead of raising a "huge moral panic" is certainly considerably more inept and inappropriate than Wikipedia should tolerate. Andreas JN466 19:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can repeat this until you are blue in the face, but it won't change a thing. His statements, in context, are far less serious than how they are being portrayed out of context. For the context, I ask people to simply google "Jennifer Hepler vagina" to understand that comment. At best you can fault him for using "literally" as an emphatic.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is difficult for me to judge since I came from another language and culture. I saw one of these shows on US TV performed by a women, so I have to assume such language is permissible in US culture. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, you do not tell a woman who has suffered sexually motivated cyber harassment that she could have "ignored it", or "counterattacked using her vagina", not unless you are socially completely inept or worse. The West is stil on the same planet as the East, you know. Harassment is considered a problem in both places. [20] Perhaps Wikipedia is an exception. Andreas JN466 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Andreas, I understand where your frustrations are coming from. This article is a sensitive BLP that has been the target of harassment last May. And as I have stated, positive contributions is never an excuse for disruptive behavior on the talk page, which has been clearly pointed out by Cuchullain. Trying to introduce any sort of criticism in this article involves gender studies. As such, in relation to what constitutes a reliable source, the topic is gender studies and not video game reviewing. Unfortunately, the quality of Niemti's work or any other content matter, is not at issue here. The problem is with his seriously disruptive behavior at the talk page, where Niemti has making unsourced negative comments on a BLP, using the talk page as a FORUM, ignoring the input of others, and engaging in forum shopping to get his way while he is currently the subject of an RFC. He was also adding comments from a source, Destructoid, that clearly does not meet WP:RS and certainly doesn't meet the higher level of scrutiny required by the BLP policy. On top of that, his sources have all sorts of issues in regards to WP:RS, WP:VG/RS, and WP:NPOV and they should not be used. No thanks, we don't want this type of disruptive behavior here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. On top of that he has made three times more edits to her talk page than anybody else [21] ... way to go. Andreas JN466 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Give me a break. Nothing he said is over the line. He was disputing the notability of Sarkeesian as a biographical subject. Her reaction to harassment does appear to be the main source of her notability and that arising due to her video series so his is a reasonable position to take. Suggesting that it should not be a bio, but an article on her experience or video series is rather reasonable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support making this a strong shot above the bow. This is a sensitive BLP, there seems to be a lot of jealousy between the editor and the subject, the criticism on the talk page comes close to rising to the level of inappropriate discourse. Slowly back away from the cliff, my friend... Carrite (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've created an arbitrary break as this section is being too long and the above discussion has been lasting for over a week as I post here. While I still support the topic ban, I have posted a request at WP:ANRFC for an uninvolved administrator to assess and close this discussion. Furthermore, while almost all of the recent Sarkeesian discussions have been archived at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2, I suggest that everyone should take a deep breath, relax, and wait for the closing admin. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cantaloupe2, assuming bad faith, Wikistalking, misinterpreting policies

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)

Introduction to the issue

User:Cantaloupe2 has recently decided to Wikistalk me and remove a large amount of content that I have added based on misinterpretation of policies and fringe theories on policies that he conceived himself. After disagreeing with me on my talk page, the user decided to head off to iPad (4th generation) and remove a large amount of content that I have added and claim that it violates policies by cherry picking bits of information and rewording perfectly fine sentence to suit his "writing style". 1 User is currently misinterpreting the WP:CLAIM policy and removing every single instance of the word even though the policy clearly states that care should be taken, not remove upon first sight. Similarly, he cherrypicked information on the iPhone 5 article and claims that I'm misinterpreting the matter or that what I've written wasn't in the source when it undoubtedly is. Latest example of this is in this edit 1. This matter has been occurring for four months now and frankly I'm sick of this user altering or removing everything I insert into articles when there isn't a problem with it. More example of this user's disruptive behaviour includes not assuming good faith, an example of which includes the user claiming that I've vandalised an article when I clearly removed copyedited content by accident.

• Talk:iPhone 5#stock prices - User believes a claim isn't represented in the reference when it is.
• User claims I vandalised when I clearly made a good faith mistake
• Talk:IPhone 5/Archive 1#Bias in wording Claims I'm deliberately playing a cat and mouse game by replacing the word ass with arse, neither are offensive in my opinion but Cantaloupe begs to differ.
• User is now claiming that I'm deliberately adding bias information when I'm trying to portray the information as neutral as I can. See my talk page for more details on that.
• Uncountable number of times when he removed content based on his misinterpretation of policy
• Claims what I wrote is interpretative when it clearly isn't while citing irrelevant policies based on his misinterpretation. 1
• Repeated asserts that I or the editor who cited references did so with the intention of boosting traffic to their site. See [22] Believes editors deliberately introduced links to promote their website even though the links were considered relibale - Search for the term "traffic" Again accuses editors who cited a certain source that is considered reliable of having a commercial interest when none was proven
• I understand this verges on assuming bad faith but I'm almost certain that the Cantaloupe2 is attempting to sabotage my GA nominations. The user made extremely controversial edits right after a reviewer committed him/herself to assessing the article and after showing no signs of further contributing to the article for several weeks. Edits that this user made after a reviewer committed themselves include removing large amounts of information that was unsuccessfully discussed before the issue became stale as Cantaloupe decided not to respond to the latest comments/replies. Article was stable for weeks before Cantaloupe returnedAgain article was stable for about a week and a half before Cantaloupe returned to make more controversial edits that affected the stability of the article, many of the issues that were raised by him then, could have been put forth weeks or even months ago yet Cantaloupe brought it up at the last minute.

Honestly, I don't want to discuss matters with this user on talk pages as it will take weeks or even months to finalise as evident on the iPhone 5 article. User also seems to have a battleground mentality, once he is unable to support his claims any further, he will move on to using other tactics to get the content removed, clearly indicating he wants to win an argument for the sake of it. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#iFitit YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been voiced by another editor that he/she felt you were unwilling to allow your version to get changed. I think that YumaNuma has a territorial mentality on articles as if they're his articles, in particular iPad and iPhone products. Here is the concern.

Overlapping article contributio as "Wikistalking" is a poor accusation.

this edit is WP:UNCIVIL, because

“ take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere ”

is personal attack.

Typically this user competes against my edit until a third editor comes along and specifically acknowledge agreement with my edit.

He continues to exhibit edit warring tendencies.

• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Revert 3

my first revert

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said many times in the past, I have the right to defend content that I have added, and in most cases the most stable version should be retain as per the BRD; You boldly remove content, I revert and provide a reason, you're expected to discuss it before making further changes. Actually, to this date, no one has fully agreed with your changes on the iPhone 5 article, generally we were able to reach an agreement by coming to a compromise. Also it appears that I'm not the only one who has an issue with you removing content that's supported by valid sources, you have been to ANI five times in the past and brought to RSN a countless number of times for your interpretation of policies and controversial ideas of what constitutes a reliable source. It's interesting how you cited a sockpuppet as evidence for my alleged edit warring behaviour, using his old account, that user had a lengthy debate with me on the iPad (3rd generation) article, hence it's obvious that he has some remaining bias against me. A detail account of what happened can be found in his sockpuppetry investigation. 1 Despite this ongoing ANI case, the Cantaloupe is now attempting to use the 3RR to his advantage by once again reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (In regards to Cantaloupe's revision to his comment)It must be a huge coincidence that 15 minutes after you commented on my talk page, you made huge edits to an article that was listed on my user page - assuming that you spent time reading the article, the timing is perfect, hence my accusation is appropriate. Furthermore this user has been accused of WikiStalking other editors, an example of which includes User:M0rphzone who came to my talk looking for assistance after Cantaloupe2 Wikistalked him across several articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut your snark with addressing me "the Cantaloupe". "fully agree" is also known as "unanimous" and it is not a requisite, because we work by consensus. WP:BRD you cite is only an ESSAY. Interesting you keep track of how many times I go to noticeboards. Perhaps you're the one following me around huh? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, address your snark with cutting the cantaloupe. The debate could turn into a melon-drama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY. (Whoops, WP:ATA is only an essay too...) Just because it's "only an ESSAY" (and please don't shout like that, it doesn't help your case) is irrelevant when it's well-established process. Also, "fully agree" =/= "unanimous". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They agreed to a compromise, not with your actual edit. (Sorry for the confusion but by fully agreed, I meant that no editor has agreed with the alterations in your first bold edit and a compromised had to be reach) BRD is a widely accepted essay nonetheless, pointlessly claiming that an article that I have cited is an essay is not going to help your case, as you're clearly WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM with your most recent edits on the iPad 4 article. Furthermore your accusation is actually quite laughable, have you even read WP:HOUND? you should have because you've been accused of it a few time. To make things clear for you, knowing the past history of an editor does not constitute hounding, nor does monitoring the contributions of an editor without intervening. Sorry for referring to you as "The Cantaloupe", naturally I associate that word with a fruit not person - and no that was not a snarky comment, I seriously meant it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2 is becoming a problem across a number of unrelated articles, and all those other editors involved are finding much the same problems. Can those looking at this issue from outside please take a look broadly (the edit history is pretty narrow), not just at this one case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley's observation above. I have been a victim of Cantaloupe2 for about a month now where he has been WP:Hounding me in the well defined sense. I will be supplying diffs to demonstrate this later, when I have the time. Complaints to him have not resulted in any change of his WP:WikiLawyering battleground behaviour. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous complaint is this where I attempted to point out that after having his edits disputed Cantaloupe2 apears to pursue temper tantrum behaviour and attempts to flood articles with flags and edits to provoke the disagreeing editor, making the articles look amateurish and unreadable. here is an example in his edit history after locking horns with two different Candadian editors disagreeing with his edits. He has been told repeatedly by many editors that he is not WP:COMPETENT in many of the subjects he edits and inserts nonsense. Here is another article where he hounds another editor each edit. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not leave out assumption of bad faith accusation of "genocide" in the ANI title which another editor had to edit. You also inappropriately accused me of canvassing and directed me to not inform another user that he was being discussed and you labeled him "hostile user", which is highly contentious and such disparaging reference constitutes personal attack. And at this point, you're leaving notes on others talk pages which contradicts your own contention. What about your public repository of various contentions against various editors on your wiki talk page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Sheldon Brown, please explain why you're providing a 2006 diff. Following around interrelated articles by see alsos/external links is not even remotely relevant to WP:HOUND. It is correct that I do follow things around by topic. Your contention that I am following around by the editor is unsubstantiated. Topical following is perfectly legitimate.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the 2006 diff is just a mistake. Perhaps he meant this, this, or this. Just guessing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound melodramatic but as indicated above, Cantaloupe has intimidated many users through his irrelevant use and misinterpretation of policies. Also as above, he has hounded numerous editors and has been brought to ANI time and time again for it. As evident in his latest behaviour, he has clearly not learnt his lesson and continues to persist in conducting his poor behaviour. All he probably has learnt is how to get around the policies and how to intimidate other by citing policies that are not relevant to his case. I've lost count of how many times Cantaloupe used WP:NPA or WP:INCIVIL to get his point across instead of arguing the pertinent issue. Personally I resisted reporting him as I thought he would actually learn from his lessons and "act more moderate", however that clearly isn't the case. Cantaloupe wikistalking me was the last straw. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is used in reference to support your contention that I'm "misinterpreting policies" ? is it your interpretation or an establish community consensus? Please link the latter. If it's the former, its merely differences in opinion and the accusation of misinterpretation is a cheap jab. In the "ass" "arse" game, you striking out the English variant and replacing with British variant can be construed as disruptive inflammatory editing and you're encouraging combative editing with uncivil, hostile personally directed edit comment saying my edits are delusional.

Fact: You and I edited the article iPhone 5. I have also edited an article or two on iPads, which are all devices from Apple running iOS, topical relations. You contend that I'm following you. From the way you responded during GA process for iPhone 5, it comes across to me as these are YOUR articles that YOU own. Saying that I happen to edit in two similar topic articles is stalking is contentious presumption of hounding. Please demonstrate your accusation that I'm following you by your edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More recently you're removing every instance of the word "claim" even though the policy clearly says that the word should be used with care, not remove it upon first sight, this applies to other MoS guidelines as well. You removed content that isn't verify by scientific analysis and since that strategy has failed to assist you in removing content, you moved onto removing or tagging content that is anecdotal even though it's supported by reliable references and no policy states that anecdotal claims must be removed, it needs to be analysis on a case by case basis. According to RSN, and the iPhone 5 talk page, others disagreed with your opinions on what is considered a reliable source and stated that common sense is required when interpreting and analysing sources. To date, you have failed to explain or provide me with a reason why "cover their asses" is considered offensive to you, despite this I have apologised. I also requested an apology from you for devaluing my comment by saying I'm "spurting off", however I have yet to receive one. In regards to ownership of articles, I welcome contributions and copyedits as many have done before but when content is removed, I have the right to challenge it, I fail to see why you can't understand and distinguish that from ownership. You have had long track history of Wikistalking, so the benefit of the doubt cannot be applied here, you edited an article on my userpage that you have never edited before 15 minutes after posting a hostile comment on my talk page. If I didn't file an ANI complaint, you could have easily stalked me across several other articles. The only reason why you didn't wikistalk me earlier was because I solely focused on editing the iPhone 5 article and debating matters with you in Oct, Nov and the first half of Dec. What you were doing is clearly considered retribution and thus considered hounding. I have never seen you edit any iPad article apart from the iPad (4th generation) yesterday, I've also thoroughly checked the history of every iPad article and unless you were editing as a sock, you have never contributed to those article; lying is not looked upon favourably here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing some iOS related articles, and I branched out to iPad. I am not lying. You're making a false statement of fact that I'm lying and that is libelous. I'm certain that no personal attack does not allow you to make libelous claim. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, stop Wikilawyering, it is not impressing anyone and certainly does not help your case. Secondly, I've again spent time checking all 5 iPad articles and your name did not appear once apart from the ipad 4 article, which you edited yesterday - as mentioned; I've also taken the liberty of checking the articles' talk pages and unsurprisingly, your name didn't appear once. If anyone wants to confirm or verify my claims, please feel free to analyse iPad, iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation). YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your allegation of "Wikistalking" is your opinion. Editing two articles and your perception of "15 minutes later is too soon" is all your interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

Cantaloupe2 has been editing articles related to iOS jailbreaking since early November, and those articles include discussion of iPads - perhaps that's part of what "editing some iOS related articles" was referring to? (The context is that Cantaloupe2 and I have had disagreements related to those articles and my COI on them, but my intent here is just to point out that editing as extra information.) Dreamyshade (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why he edited an article that happened to be on my userpage 15 minutes after posting a hostile reply to a message that was intended to inform him of my intentions. It was undoubtedly an act of retribution for what he believed I was trying to do. He acted in the exact same manner that he did on the iPhone 5 article and removed content, an act which he knew I would disagree with. Given his past history of Wikistalking, I intervened as quickly as possible before he moved onto other articles that I have contributed to. There are many articles related to iOS, 360 articles to be precise, along with dozens of concepts that have articles and have been discussed by you two on the iOS jailbreaking article, so why that article and why now? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it wasn't. Your word against mine. You contend that "It was undoubtedly an act of retribution", that in itself appears to be an act of assumption of bad faith and direct attack on me. You do not have exclusive rights to Apple mobile devices page and what I see as your unwillingness to deviate from your version was also demonstrated by another editor who offered their opinion that you're the cause of causing iPhone 5 page to get locked. Skimming through an article and changing wording to improve article to be more neutral is a good faith edit. You saying that I'm misinterpreting policy in protest is an assumption of bad faith, the very same thing you're accusing me of. I should also note that your exclamation that you will revert absent reply, then following through with it after six minutes appears to be jumping the gun and unreasonable expectation of promptness. This concern was addressed on your page.[23]. I'll take a topic ban on Apple iPad, iPod and iPhone hardware devices on condition that YuMaNuMa agree to the same ban for himself as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right? Your latest replies are another indication of your battleground mentality, instead of defending yourself, you decide to attack me by once again Wikilawyering and repeatedly using WP:NPA and other nonsense to form the basis of your argument. "My word against yours" - given your history as a Wikistalker and tendency to assume bad faith, I can't see how anything that you've said can hold up as evidence. And yes, unfortunately I am assuming bad faith at the moment but when the evidence piles up in this manner and several users that I have never come in contact with adds their input on how your behaviour has affected them, it surely does raise a question or two. And yet again, I repeat myself, I like every other contributor on Wikipedia have the right to defend content that I've added, numerous editors have copyedited the iPhone 5 article and I have had no issues with their edits but when you decide to make controversial edits that I disagree with, it is obvious that I'd want to discuss it first and possibly reach a consensus or compromise before they're settled upon, much like how other editors frequently revert your edits and request that you discuss it on the talk page first, hence my reverts. Also, by another editor are you referring to the sock or the editors that were referring to our disagreement, in which you refused to further discuss the issue before making more controversial edits and where I intentionally reverted three of your edit separately instead of using twinkle to restore it, so I can provide you with a reason why I disagreed, in an attempt to compel you to continue discussing it instead of inciting an edit war. I don't see how anyone would agree to a topic ban proposed by you when you've become such a disruption to the entire community as evident by the seemingly endless number of people coming forward with their concerns regarding your edits. By the way, I disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes the assumption of bad faith, stating that you're misinterpreting policy isn't assuming bad faith, I'm not saying you're deliberately doing it, perhaps you lack WP:COMPETENCE as others have suggested but whatever the reason is, I have provided evidence for your misinterpretation of policy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time another editor has complained about Cantaloupe. I personally recommended another editor seek an interaction ban based on Cantaloupe's abrasive editing style and such. Unfortunately, it seems he has not improved in his relationship skills here. (Take that with a grain of salt, though, as I'm obviously involved, at least in a historical sense.) --Nouniquenames 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the public relations editor CorporateM, let's not forget that conflict revolved around his WP:COI andthe contents decision did not consistently result in consensus resolving in his favor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that a few editors that disagreed with you all had WP:COI problems according to you. Others, such as myself get labelled anonymous IP editor in a provokative tone during content disputes. Here is one you couldn't better so you made a suggestion that accused him of having a sockpuppet. Strange that three of the editors (User:Wtshymanski, User:Puhlaa, User:174.118.142.187) you clash with are all Canadian and you attempt to post insults like "Canaduh", and to rid articles of anything relating to American or Canadian content. This is well documented in several articles where you have removed "America-centric" (your phraseology) examples with your "bias" claims. Edit histories do not go away and your attitude begins to show via a pattern of edits in a very obvious manner. You were advised several times not to do this, in the past, by various editors. Those are clear examples of an abusive POV application of WP policies applied only to win content disputes. Now you have enough editors repeating the same complaint and yet your response is Oh yeah! Look what you have done!. You assume no blame or responsibity for any of these, or past, complaints and observations. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I notified another editor that was directly discussed in ANI discussion you started, however it seems like you're looking for anyone and everyone who might disagree with me and notifying them even though they're not directly discussed. This sounds to me that you're hoping that they'll comment in favor of your position which I think is WP:CANVAS to sway consensus. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to notify any other editors that interacted with you, as I have. I picked major contributors (easy find) to a few of the articles you edited. Perhaps you can find some to support your denials of any responsibilty in these conflicts. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't solicit for your approval. I feel that you're votestacking by going out of the way to find someone who are likely to disagree with me even if they're not directly discussed or if they haven't raised the issues themselves in order to sway consensus and my issue with you here is that I feel that you're trying to interfere with consensus building by lobbying. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 Proposal

Okay, it appears that we have several editors in a variety of subject areas that have similar complaints about User:Cantaloupe2. What do we propose be done? This is my first time participating in a discussion here, the guidelines above don't seem to explain how to keep things moving forward, it appears that no administrator is going to magically appear to make everything better, and in other discussions on this page, a concrete proposal with consensus behind it, appears to be a way to make progress. What would we like to see done? Block, ban, topic ban, article ban, interaction ban? I'm not sure myself. Since so many editors, pages, and topics are involved, I don't see how any of the limited bans will help. Blocks are specifically not supposed to be punitive, but some sign that current behavior is not acceptable seems to be necessary. Perhaps these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps we can request that a block be imposed in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." With that in mind, and subject to the caveats that I don't know what I'm doing, let me propose that User:Cantaloupe2 be blocked for 24 hours. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A different option could be for involved parties and admins to come up with a concise list of relevant policies and well-accepted essays such as Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Systemic bias, compare Cantaloupe2's interpretations to the interpretations of editors who have been frustrated by Cantaloupe2's edits, and try to figure out which of our interpretations are outside consensus and should be consciously amended in order to maintain peace. (As noted above, I'm an involved party.) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, but half the reason we are here at all is that we've all gone round and round with User:Cantaloupe2 recently with no resolution in site. What you are proposing sounds like a lot more of the same with very slim prospects for results. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a list of specific statements supported by admins could be stronger than what individual editors have said (especially individual editors already involved in disputes). Also, is there such a thing as a temporary block from mainspace editing? If people think that the problem here is bold editing without consensus, temporarily limiting Cantaloupe2 to talk page discussions might be a way to encourage more of a focus on consensus-building. This is advice from my own experience: I have to stick to the talk pages on articles where I have a COI, which really encourages proposing well-supported changes and prevents edit warring. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 is a big policy and rule guy. How about a self-imposed edit ban for a period of 7 days and make him observe his own beliefs? Let's see if he gets the message or sloughs it off as us just being a bunch of pricks, like every other complaint result. The stress break may be just the thing he needs...not like WP can get anybody wound up (sarc) but after repeated arguments with other editors everywhere he goes, lately, it may clear his head a bit or with his newly found distractions he may not come back for a while. It seems the admins have had their claws trimmed recently and are all trying to retain every editor they can without the new rules being real clear and established, shyness seems to be prevalent. If he was an IP he would have been indeffed on the first complaint at his hint of a request. The guy can be good at what he does but he seems to think the whole thing is a joke when people attempt to help him, maybe a little obscurely, but still complaining to him about his obsessive edit attitude. He should be encouraged, but not completely gone. A shot across the bow? This one time. The record will stand as a future warning to collaborate on a little more personal level. Maybe this kicking will result in a much better editor? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that explains that. No wonder this place seems like just an empty echo chamber. So now it appears that there will be no resolution, we might as well all just home, and the most tenacious editors get to do whatever they want. What a total friggin' waste of time. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting from your exhibition of unwilling to focus on contents through lashing out emotionally rather than reasoning brings up a question to your ability to competently, and impartially edit articles. Looking at your reversion patterns, it seems to me that you have a possessive mentality on certain articles. Unnecessary emotionally driven comments like "Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?" You were unable to address the issue through reasoning, so you said that "it happened" even though sources didn't disclose everything and attribute that my edit is "delusional". [News site don't disclose everything but it occurred and they have proven, take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere) diff]. I feel that if you're letting your emotions derail into personal attack and impair your ability to handle content disputes, that's a matter of competency as suggested by that essay. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again with the unfounded accusations. You still haven't shown where I deleted your "SPS tag from some Michigan bike shop's employee commentary" from over a week ago. Please, please, please, just show us once where I have demonstrated "a possessive mentality on certain articles." Even easier, show us where I wrote "Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?" or "it happened" or called your edit "delusional". I can see that you do know how to provide a link to show the difference between revisions. Would you please provide a link for these? As for willingness to focus on content, I've wasted weeks already trying that tactic. What's the use when you are free to make accusation after accusation and never back them up or retract them? You think I've made a personal attack? Please provide a quotation of my words and the diff to show that I wrote them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What experience has taught me is that there is no point reasoning with you, you're unwilling to forfeit your stubborn ideals unless other editors intervene, I've always maintain the statement, "give me a proper reason why you want to do something instead of mindlessly quoting policies that don't support your point either because you're misinterpreting them or they're irrelevant." You can see that at the start of our dispute I primarily communicated via the talk page with you and refrained from reverting your edits that were at least supported with a reason of some sort, I informed you that your edits were considered controversial, however I received no reply while you continued to remove content and make more controversial edits on the iPhone 5 article and others - this led me to revert a few of your edits that I felt were inappropriate. Diff of me informing Cantaloupe of how I felt about his edit If a reliable source has confirmed a matter but didn't provide the details behind their findings or feel uncomfortable about disclosing the detail of their sources due to legal issues, it's inappropriate for you to remove information on the basis of the source not telling you the full story. It's assumed that information from reliable sources are accurate unless another reliable source disputes the veracity or accuracy of the information. I believe I've said this to you several times in the past. That's beside the point here, the actual issue is whether you are able to edit without accusing other of bad faith, wikistalking due to a disagreement with other editors about a certain point on one article and misinterpreting policies. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this case to ArbCom if necessary. Cantaloupe has been to ANI, DRN, ANEW on numerous occasions due to his conduct, however all these cases have achieved absolutely nothing, hence a case regarding his conduct meets ArbCom requirements from what I can see. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This situation involves a lot of edit history, so I think we need to be somewhat patient while waiting for help. It might be constructive to provide more specifics (described as neutrally as possible) - additional links to problematic diffs, specific talk page discussions that went poorly, earlier noticeboard efforts, etc. If this discussion is closed without resolution, there's also WP:RFC/USER, which sounds like it might be a useful next step (before the last resort of arbitration). Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The only reason this discussion will close without resolution is that no one who is able to take action is willing to take action. We've got six unrelated editors (YuMaNuMa, 174.118.142.187, Andy Dingley, Nouniquenames, and AndrewDressel) all saying approximately the same thing, that User:Cantaloupe2 is impossible to work with and repeatedly misunderstands or misinterprets guidelines. We're all in agreement, the only thing that connects us is repeated negative interaction with User:Cantaloupe2, and the only reason we're posting here is that the actions available to use have proven ineffective. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, of the editors who've responded here, there are three who have enough trustworthy/helpful editing background to have reviewer and roll-back rights, so this is not like some incident brought up by whining IPs.

From what I can tell, Cantaloupe2 has been involved in at least 4 ANI incidents: [24], [25], [26], [27]. From past encounters with Cantaloupe2, he does not seem to an editor who edits with a purpose of reaching consensus and community agreement. In his interactions with other editors, he routinely stalks the contributions of any involved editors and brings up any form interaction or comment that seems to discredit and intimidate the editor he disagrees with, in order to bull his way through what he thinks are edits based on consensus. I consider Cantaloupe2's editing to be detrimental, unconstructive, disruptive to the Wikpedia project, and harmful to the principles and well-being of the community. Therefore, I propose that he be topic-banned from the articles where he has a tendency to disregard consensus and edit disruptively, or that he be blocked from editing Wikipedia until he decides that he wants to follow the consensus-building and constructive-focused policies of Wikipedia without trying to edit war. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just a coincidence? weeks later... sudden reversion. It was stable for weeks, and you reverted specifically my edit. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a response to my comment? "This is just a coincidence?" Are you asking yourself that? "It was stable for weeks". "Unreviewed for several weeks" is not the same as "stable for several weeks". "You reverted specifically my edit." You say you removed OR in your edit, but you also removed other content that you failed to mention. The paragraph had a cited sentence that I reverted and replaced with a better and working ref.

In any case, my current edits have nothing to do with this ANI, and this edit you brought up is one of many edits I'm making to improve articles. The way you're bringing up un-related edits like this shows how you're stalking contributions to attempt to find something to shift the blame/attention to other editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I could be included in AndrewDressel's list of editors too. I'm trying to be neutral in this discussion to avoid undermining my efforts to work constructively with Cantaloupe2, but I've had difficulty as well. This Editor Interaction Analyzer tool could be useful to anyone trying to review this discussion; it can generate lists of articles edited by both Cantaloupe2 and each complaining editor. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I completely forgot about the editor interaction tool - not to pursue old matters but as I said, Cantaloupe has never edited any iPad article other than the iPad 4 article 3 days ago or so. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of taking it elsewhere

No admin action is appropriate here. Recommend this thread be closed and the participants drop it, or take it elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of assuming bad faith, antagonising other editors by accusing them of having a conflict of interest when none can be proven, misinterpreting policies and wikistalking/hounding is considered appropriate for Wikipedia? As indicated by the number of editors that have participated in the discussion without me notifying them in any way whatsoever (apart from M0rphzone), this is not an isolated incident. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if ArbCom uses the same attitude. Quite the editor retention programme. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with all three of you. No admin action is appropriate at this point, and yet what an awful way this is to run a community. A truly bad-faith editor who knows how to troll from within explicit policy can run riot around here. As has been so frequently demonstrated in the past, admins will also side with the rule-following troll, not the affected editor(s).

However, those are the rules. Within them, the next step would seem to be WP:RFC/U. This is toothless, but a demanded prerequisite by any of the later steps, such as ArbCom, who might be able to enforce something. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading the currently listed RfC/U cases, I believe this dispute is well suited for that board. Hopefully there, we can come to some sort of arrangement or agreement. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that AN/I just isn't well-suited for handling this kind of complicated multi-editor conduct situation; I agree on RFC/U as the appropriate way to escalate. Looking at the guidelines, the first step should be for somebody to start a userspace draft - anyone want to volunteer? Dreamyshade (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the instructions on that page, the request can be created in collaboration with other editors who have had issues with the same editor. I suggest we do that and supply a wide variety of diffs/discussion logs, as many of our issues seem to be similar or even identical. We do need to keep in mind that Cantaloupe must cooperate with us in order to find a solution to our issues, if he refuses to and continues to accuse others of irrelevant misdeeds then RfC/U won't work and we would end up wasting our time - as the page says, decisions are not binding. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an RFC/U would at least help put these concerns into a structured format and get outside perspectives, which seems worthwhile. To try to prevent this discussion from losing momentum, I've started a draft here: User:Dreamyshade/RFCU. It's just the standard boilerplate at the moment, and everyone is welcome to contribute to it. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably best to collapse this subsection, I don't know how Tom Harrison would feel about that, so if we do collapse it we should leave his comment out of the box. If possible I would prefer to have these two discussion occur in tandem, however that seems unlikely as RfC/Us do take a while and this thread obviously can't be placed here during that period to accommodate us. In regards to the draft, I believe you would be able to portray the case in the best light as it appears you don't hold or display any bias against Cantaloupe2 - you're obviously not required to, but I am just suggesting. I don't intend to speak for the editors involved as a whole but if you need any diffs or evidence, or want us to add something to the request, I'm sure we would be willing to provide it if you contact us via our talk pages. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems OK to me to leave this discussion open while working on the RfC/U draft - writing the draft is likely to take at least a few days, and it's possible that the proposal won't be accepted. I think it's important for you and other editors paste in plenty of diffs and any other material that you feel is relevant, to make sure that the things you consider important are represented, and after that I can try to write a neutral summary. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• In view of Cantaloupe2's recent and continued denial of responsibilty and arrogance in this matter recommend A one week (7 day) ban for User:Cantaloupe2 to send him a signal to take the advice here seriously, and a WikiBreak to reconsider his approach to interaction behaviour with fellow editors in the future. He has received some good input and concerns from many editors that needs to be considered in his future approach and yet just points fingers at others. He appears to be mocking the system in a continued gaming fashion. This seems to be the common complaint. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What appears to be IP editor's reactionary revert in retaliation. User waited 17 days to express their contention and just happen to "coincide" as this discussion is going. diff. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You and I have been editing electrical power related articles, but somehow, you sudden express interest by strange coincidence in editing an article on tire, which I just so happen to contribute on. If the complainant's claim was to be handled as Wikistalk, it should be applied here as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to inform you that claiming someone who has no visible history of wikistalking and made edits that don't even conflict with your recent edits to an article verges on assuming bad faith. The only reason I suggested that you were doing the aforementioned was because you had a history wikistalking and edited an article I've contributed to for the past several months, minutes after posting hostile and provocative remarks on my talk page. Now here's the real kicker, 174.118.142.187 edited the tire article before you did, if anything you were wikistalking him. Speaking of boomerangs. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note that my signed comment had been tampered with and had added egregious tags within my signed comments under my sig and I consider this a form of forgery. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, what's your perspective on this whole situation? Do you think the general pattern of these complaints (incivility, hounding, assuming bad faith, edit warring, gaming the system, etc.) is unfounded? How do you think this should be resolved? Does the RfC/U idea sound reasonable to you? Dreamyshade (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at this [User_talk:M0rphzone#ANI_case M0rphzone's comment on their own page]. This is an indication that someone whom I have disagreed with in the past, but not involved was solicited and it is my opinion that attempts at vote-stacking is made. I might very well call [User_talk:174.118.142.187 this] list maintenance a form of WP:HOUND. It is of my opinion that an attempt of consensus swaying is in progress. I have no further comment I would like to provide at this very moment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U will not work from what I can see. Again, Cantaloupe accuses other editors of vote-stacking and hounding when he well knows that editors who have been mentioned in cases must be notified via their talk pages or other form of communication. It is common for users who are involved in formal dispute cases such as this to thoroughly check and examine another editor's contributions for any signs of patterns. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, my thinking is that the discussion here seems to be about your general editing pattern, which means that even if the complaints haven't been presented in perfect ways or by perfect editors, it could still be worth trying to evaluate the patterns and make some efforts at resolution. Otherwise we'll probably end up in these discussions again, and I figure all of us would prefer to be spending this energy on improving articles. :) WP:Disruptive has a note about "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions".

YuMaNuMa, RfC/U seems to be a necessary step before escalating complaints further, so it could be helpful even if the attempt doesn't generate consensus. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone inform me whether inviting other editors to RfC/U constitutes canvassing? My aim is settle issues regarding Cantaloupe once and for all and the best way to do this is to invite others to share their opinions about his editing style and perhaps shed some light on why so many editors are discontent. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

my comment getting forged by 174.118.142.187

Adding egregious comments within my signed comment which has my signature attached to it. Citation is not expected in signed comments and this addition falsely present I did it, so it is forgery. diff Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He shouldn't have done that, but that's not "forgery". See WP:REFACTOR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

The long-running problems at our article on the Aspartame controversy have arisen again, with two anti-Aspartame editors apparently tag-teaming on the talk page in an effort to force changes to the article against policy and consensus. After a thread was started by User:Arydberg which (falsely) claimed that an article in the Mail On Sunday stated that Aspartame caused birth defects, User: Immortale stepped in to repeat the claims - multiple times, in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out that (a) the Mail on Sunday wasn't a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, (b) the paper referred to was a single (and very equivocal) primary source, and therefore not admissible per WP:MEDRS, and (c) that the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming. As the thread shows [28], Immortale in particular has persisted with the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:Tendentious editing tactics ad nauseam, including an attempt (after WP:MEDRS had repeatedly been referred to) to cite Fox News as a "fair and balanced source" for material to support the claims: [29] On this basis alone, I think that there might be grounds for calling for a topic ban on Immortale, if not a block per WP:COMPETENCE, given an evident inability to comprehend policy (or sources), or possibly an inability to comprehend that it applies to everyone. However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors, alleging that "a small but dedicated group of hostile editors refuse to report the controversy because of their original belief that it was a hoax", and alleging that editors are involved in spreading 'propaganda' on behalf of Aspartame manufacturers. This comment seems clear evidence to me that Immortale is incapable of complying with talk page guidelines, and is using the talk page as a soapbox. On this basis, I suggest that User:Immortale should be topic banned from any any subject matter (including talk pages) relating to artificial sweeteners, since they are clearly incapable of complying with the Wikipedia policies they have repeatedly been made aware of, and are instead intent on abusing Wikipedia as a platform for their own ends. I note that this is not the first time that Immortale's behaviour relating to this matter has been drawn to the attention of this noticeboard, and that Immortale has been both blocked [30] and topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (for four months, in February 2011) regarding the matter, and frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite tired of having to prove I am not some kind of paid operative of the international aspartame conspiracy. [31]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge them to prove they aren't a member of said conspiracy running a deep false flag operation. Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know this person but it is impossible to prove we are not connected. My opinion he is just one of dozens that have tried to change this article perhaps because they (like me) know people who's health has been destroyed by aspartame. All we ask is a chance to be heard. I will try not to repeat myself but it is hard when outright lies are accepted as truth. An example of this is the statement that "I'd like to point out that "artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks"is not the same thing as aspartame" when aspartame is used in 90 percent of canned soda. , Arydberg (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. I didn't say Grumpy Andy is this and that. I said it was a real controversy and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame. We are to report the mainstream media, so why would Fox News not be a valid source when it's clearly a large news channel. I dislike Fox News, but it's not about me, but about the neutrality of the whole article. The controversy is taken serious in the mainstream media and the scientific community. Otherwise, why keep pumping millions and millions of dollars and Euros in ongoing research if it was such a clear-cut case as it is stated in the current article. Shouldn't be an article called Controversy, be about the controversy? Why is it so hard to reach consensus about this? Immortale (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame" is a personal attack. You are accusing editors of being corporate shills, as you have many other times. Please stop it. Shall I say this again? I have no connection to anyone who makes aspartame. I am tired of having to defend myself against such crap. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but it's your free choice to feel attacked. No one asked you to defend yourself because no one attacked you, Dbrodneck. If I have to list of what the editors are called who try to present a negative fact about Aspartame, then we are here for a while. I've had to deal with real accusations and personal attacks of tag-teaming, of having multiple accounts, and so on. I was cleared every time but it's not the right way of editing an article together. So I have been away for some time because no matter what rights I had given, a persistent group of pro-editors, hide behind their consensus and doesn't let anything "anti" in their way. By the way, some of the statements about me above are plain false. Immortale (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which statements are "plain false"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are two editors who have been topic banned and blocked in the past and I would suggest an indefinite topic ban. It is disruptive to accuse other editors of conflict of interest on talk pages and to argue against Wikipedia policies and guidelines there. TFD (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False statements about me (and I won't mention the false allegations of tag teaming and me not following wikipedia guidelines): "the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming." Where did I claim this? "However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors" I never made personal attacks. You did and do. "a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue" (ignoring your Freudian typo here)I always followed policy and always took my edits to Talk Page. You seem to project your frustration of Arydberg onto me, since your complaint is mostly about me, even though I only made 6 edits on the article and Talk page in the last 4 months. Not exactly "repeatedly", is it? And once again, the hostility I point out to you, is completely valid when you write in large bold letters AndyTheGrump "How many fucking times" in the Talk Page. There are many more examples of your hostility. So my suggestion is, to topic ban you for a couple of months, until you've cooled down. Immortale (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

People are quite capable of reading the talk page discussion for themselves, and forming their own opinion - and when two 'contributors' are seemingly intent on adding the same material based on an entirely false section heading ('birth defects') nitpicking about which one used which exact words is entirely beside the point. And no, calling for editors who refuse to comply with policy to be blocked isn't a 'personal attack' - it would be impossible to block anyone if it was. As for topic bans for me, since mine isn't a single-purpose account, unlike yours [32] , it wouldn't be of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am not one of the members of the corporate shill group, who are these members who have a COI, and why has this not been pursued? You know, it is possible that you Immortale are simply wrong. It may be because you have a disruptive case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited and therefore I cannot spend my time to fight for every edit or to bring people to boards. I did this in the beginning, several years ago, and I ALWAYS got my right from neutral editors, until someone reverted everything bluntly again. That's why I stopped editing but this is about the current case, and you have no case. Unfortunately the article is so biased now, that people who want to know more about the controversy, go to other sites. You can see this in various forums and the mainstream media. I've edited other articles, so stop with that accusation. This is about me making 6 edits in 4 months and getting this ridiculous hostile reception. Immortale (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Outsider view

I don't edit this article, so I evaluated the difference in citation shown in this diff. Having read the cited work, I do not see that the synthesis implied by Immortale is significant. The report does list three specific flaws, and it is reasonable for us to simply state that they were found rather than spell them out. We are not constrained to simply relating slight rewordings of the conclusion section of the report. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

One disturbing comment is "All we ask is a chance to be heard." That betrays a lack of understanding of what wikipedia is supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS was written to cover exactly that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone read the links they mention? At WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS it states: "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals". Well, guess what, the controversy surrounding aspartame has been in mainstream journals. From the New York Times, to The Guardian, to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Still, the assumed consensus among some hardcore editors is that it's all a hoax, and everyone is a kook who doesn't believe this. Immortale (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban (Immortale and Arydberg)

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

---

• Propose indefinite topic bans on both Immortale and Arydberg from all material related to aspartame and artificial sweeteners, as both are WP:SPAs that have been previously topic banned due to disruptive behavior, with return to said behavior. It is time for that disruption to stop. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree As I explained above. TFD (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as described, both editors are indeed SPAs here to push a barrow and not develop encyclopedia articles. They've already been given second and third chances, it's now time to make the disruption stop. Zad68 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Their disruption must stop, and neither editor seems to understand our policies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No to an indefinite ban, but yes to a six month topic ban to show they can edit collaboratively elsewhere. (While indefinite could turn out to be six months, in practice, it is almost always infinite.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Both have been banned before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)f

Indefinite topic bans can usually be overturned after a period of constructive editing elsewhere. A six month ban on the other hand probably means that we end up dealing with the issue again in 6 months. TFD (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Split (involved editor): Support reinstating topic ban for Arydberg, indefinitely. Weak support regarding Immortale—an indefinite topic ban may be an excessive remedy. I don't see anything indicating collusion as opposed to activity-prompted involvement. That said, Arydberg is an unabashed advocate who has not shown any improvement after two topic bans. As this discussion proceeds, feelers about rescinding the past bans are being extended, separately from this discussion. During the last ban a post framed the issue as good vs. evil. This is a case of an editor with POV so polarized, that collaborative editing seems unlikely. An indefinite topic ban would seem in line. A clear statement should be provided, indicating that an indefinite ban can be lifted following a cogent expression of planned NPOV encyclopedic editing, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. On the other hand, an indefinite ban may be overkill for Immortale (then again, it may not). There has been an ongoing problem of accusations of conspiracy. While protesting innocence regarding sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, Immortale has been free with such accusations (see: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy, during which an edit warring block was followed by a evasion-by-IP sockpuppetry block). This prompted a single topic ban which has long expired. Immortale "gets it" in the sense of being able to recognize Wikipedia policies, but the imperative to edit which prompted the block evasion and perception of WP:CONSPIRACY (essay to which I have contributed) are problematic. These two editors should be assessed independently.Novangelis (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support We're on the third or forth iteration of Ayrdberg playing the role of WP:TRUTH teller. He is clearly here for the singular reason of pushing an agenda and when policy is explained to him he simply stops responding and then goes on to ignore it. After a year nothing has changed. I have no substantial opinion on Immortal as I haven't dealt with him personally but he doesn't look promising either. Sædon^talk 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the aspartame controversy is not a true controversy, anyone editing to change the page on the basis of either a news story or a primary source either doesn't understand the relevant policies, or doesn't care. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"the aspartame controversy is not a true controversy" Could you give me the qualifications what makes a controversy a controversy? I'm really curious because even the mainstream media called and still calls it a controversy. Immortale (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a controversy only in the same sense that 9/11-was-an-inside-job, climate-change-is-a-hoax, and Einstein-was-wrong-about-the-theory-of-relativity are controversies, in that the people who know what they're talking about -- actual scientists and researchers -- overwhelmingly have the same/similar results, so any "controversy" is more imaginary than true.

I say this for the benefit of others reading this, since you obviously already know this but hope know no one notices. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support for both until such time that they demonstrate some awareness of WP:DUE. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban

User:Brocach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is making war around Gaelic Athletic Association-related articles. He is ignoring discussion, just to push his own POV. There is no effective support for his moves but he just invents excuses. By now he seems so frustrated, that he started vandalising articles. On the 19th, he was blocked from editing to stop him from edit warring over several article. In that same war User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was involved and blocked. They were involved in one of the most silly edits wars I have ever seen: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong. Both appealed the ban, both saw their appeal denied. Unfortunately, Brocach did not learn anything from his block and quickly resumed his disruptive edits and went on with, among others, a clear declaration of war.

An overview from the relevant edits after the block:

Insults

• [33], [34]

Move without agreement or consensus

• [35], [36], [37],

Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories

• [38],

Other disruptive edits

• [39], [40], [41] (later used to claim that people did not live in North Tipperary, while it was de facto there from 1838), [42], [43],

This drama is already going on for a year now. With pages moved back and forth, edit wars and a very nasty atmosphere.

I certainly acknowledge that a block is counter-productive but to restore peace, I request a long term topic ban for Brocach for all articles related to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Banner talk 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]and [54]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to Brocachs habit to remove everything from his talkpage that he doesn't like, I present here the proof that I have informed him. The Banner talk 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of accusations there so it will take some time to respond.

I have never vandalised any article on Wikipedia. Anyone who looks at my edit history will find a long record of reverting vandalism. Some examples: [55], [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=533547170], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] and on and on.

I am not ignoring discussion. In relation to the GAA articles, most of the edits that User:The Banner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) objects to are actually reverts of previous controversial edits, generally made by User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without discussion, and generally moving articles about the GAA away from the common name of the topic - typically, renaming football competitions by inserting "GAA" within the competition name. Generally when I have moved things back to their common name, I have opened a thread on the talk page.

The POV I am "pushing" is Wikipedia policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing particularly controversial about that.

It is absolutely not the case that there is no support for my reverts of controversial moves. In the most recent discussion of this, here, you will see clear majority support for the reverts. That in itself should be enough to establish that the topic ban belongs with the editor who made the original controversial moves without discussion, and then busted a gut trying to undo all the reverts, namely Laurel Lodged.

Turning to the Tipperary question: for those unfamiliar with the sports, Gaelic football, hurling etc. are organised in Ireland on a traditional 32-county basis, not in line with newer administrative counties such as North Tipperary. Top-level inter-county players play for Tipperary, and the category for them has long been "Tipperary hurlers", just as it is for "Dublin hurlers", "Galway hurlers" and so on. Because only the GAA organises hurling, no-one had ever thought it necessary to change a category name until - guess who - Laurel Lodged, without any discussion, renamed that one category "Tipperary GAA hurlers" and moved many articles to that page. This now sits as a completely anomalous category: every other county lists hurlers in the long-established form, "Carlow hurlers" and so on.

Next, Laurel Lodged, as ever without any discussion, started moving individual Tipperary sportspeople from the long-established and well-populated category Sportspeople from County Tipperary into two new categories of his own creation, namely Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Sportspeople from South Tipperary. Again, of course, without discussion; and again creating an anomaly, in that none of the other Irish sportspeople by county categories use the new local government counties; they all use the traditional 32 counties.

The behaviour of Laurel Lodged in changing literally hundreds of GAA articles and refusing to engage in discussion frustrated me greatly; as my history shows, I have made a significant contribution to GAA coverage here. I regret that on one occasion I re-reverted a Laurel Lodged move repeatedly, following which we were both briefly banned.

I have not "resumed disruptive edits" nor "declared war" - follow the link provided by The Banner and you will find me quite properly taking the issue of Tipperary changes to the relevant talk page, and as it happens, securing support while Laurel Lodged did not.

Next, as for "insults": the first link provided is to me stating the incontrovertible fact that Laurel Lodged keeps changing pages without discussion, and it will be seen that I did not use any abusive language; the second link provided is to me rebuking what I refer to as the "disgusting behaviour" of another editor who, on the talk page of an unrelated (non-GAA) topic, referred to me as "arsehole" and, in another edit, "a stupid cunt". Now there's an insult; but I was not the person who made it, nor would any reasonable person think that referring to that as "disgusting behaviour" was an insult.

My accuser then links to supposed "Moves without agreement or consensus". But all three links were on the basis of consensus that anyone can check at the reference already given.

My next offence is "Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories", a plural accusation with but a single link, and this turns out to be, yet again, a matter of reverting changes made without discussion of consensus by, need I say, Laurel Lodged. The usual pattern applies in that I am the first one to take the issue to the talk page, and Laurel Lodged refuses to engage there.

As for the "Other disruptive edits", the first two again were reverts that were discussed and supported here, unlike the original moves which had not been discussed. The next is, far from being a "disruptive edit", a perfectly normal edit to an article dealing with local government history in County Tipperary. Looking at it now I see a little typo, which I have fixed; perhaps that what was thought "disruptive" but anyone checking the history will see that it was a simple mistake with no harm intended or done, and heaven help us if every case of clumsy typing is construed as vandalism. The next is, again, a normal and innocent edit to the template for Derry GAA clubs, ensuring that text appeared in black rather than red as per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR. Any problem with that? My last "disruption" was to add a factually accurate, and sourced, improvement to wording around the ISO code for "Ulster" - an obscure enough topic, but interesting for some, and worth getting right, which it now is. In short: these accusations of disruption are completely spurious.

I therefore insist that no case has been made for topic-banning me, least of all on a theme, the GAA, where I have made a substantial and worthwhile contribution. However, because of Laurel Lodged's long history of moving GAA articles without seeking consensus, reverting moves back, and refusing to engage on the relevant talk pages, I would be hugely relieved if he were topic-banned from the GAA, at least for a few months. I'm proposing that here, and notifying him on his talk page. Heading above amended accordingly. Brocach (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no connection whatever with Finnegas and if The Banner has some problem with him/her, this is not the place to discuss it. Brocach (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the usual modus operandi of mr. Brocach: I am the good guy, I am the victim, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and you guys are all wrong, had been wrong all the times and will be wrong forever more. The Banner talk 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You've said your piece; I would prefer that your proposal, and mine, be decided on the facts. Anyone who wants to know my "usual modus operandi" can look at my thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. Please keep the revised heading above as this section contains a counter-proposal. Brocach (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, please don't change the title as it breaks links to this discussion. File your own request when you want to bring Laurel Lodged to AN/I, don't hijack my filing. The Banner talk 14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to break links to this discussion, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to respond to a ban proposal by showing that another user is the real problem and should be topic-banned. For me to repeat all of that in a separate posting would be a waste of everyone's time, particularly when Laurel Lodged is aware of this discussion (since you notified him of it within four minutes of proposing that I be banned). I have therefore placed a subheading for my counter-proposal immediately below your heading, and have verified that links still work. Brocach (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now you only made a mess of my filing, making it appear that I filed the request. Do you mind the sub-header to below this edits and file your counter-request there? Although they are related, it would be confusing to have two requests in one thread as people will have difficulties responding to the right request. The Banner talk 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to cause any confusion and don't think I've done so. I think that the difference in heading level will make that clear. But for the benefit of anyone who has been interested enough to read down this far, can I make it 100% clear that The Banner wants to ban me, and I want to topic-ban Laurel Lodged? Brocach (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did file a request for a topic ban, but that will not say that I will pursue it for the full 100%. I believe in Good Faith, so I still hope that you are willing to change your behaviour regarding the GAA voluntarily. The Banner talk 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Really excellent news there. Of course I intend to continue, as I always have, operating in good faith. Can I ask you to review the points you made against me above, and my replies; delete any exchanges above that relate to points that have been answered to your satisfaction, and set out which (if any) grounds you still believe justify a topic ban? If there are none, I would ask you to withdraw this request, so that I can reframe my ban request for Laurel Lodge and pursue it without involving you. Brocach (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It means as much: show me (and prove of a reasonable time) that you really stop with this nonsense, revert all your actions yourself and start behaving like an adult. If not, sorry. Your combative behaviour has disrupted Wikipedia long enough. The Banner talk 10:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighter's souls, but made their bodies carrion feats for the dogs and birds and the will of Zeus was moving towards its end."

What is the cause of all the warring? Rage. The final straw for Brocach was when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the area of (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers.

I took the rather unusal step of saying in my block appeal that "Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland". Only a few hours of the unblock had expired that my hopes that the block would have a sobering effect on Brocach were in vain. Reluctantly, I must now request that my suggestion be actioned. I am prepared to go into voluntary exile if the same temporary sentance will be passed on Brocach (and his inept sidekick Finnegas) so that a holy peace may descend upon the GAA articles and categories.

He has gone around numerous article writing the same whiney thing on the talk page. This essentially bemoans the injustice of the decision that went against him at WP:CFD. By the time that I saw this entry Colm Bonnar whining, I was getting a mite tetchy in my responses. And so to Noel Lane where Brocach's rationale was "a player for GAA county of Tipperary". This is not in dispute, but it's beside the point. What is most definitely in dispute is that he is not "from County Tipperary", which no longer exists as a unit of local government, but from North Tipperary. The two entities are different. Brocach likes to pretend that the two are essentially identical. He refuses to listen to all arguments to the contrary. This explains why I peppered a lot of my reversions with the epitheth WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In Patrick Maher, the difference between the two entities was again explained in my reversion rationale: "As a county hurer he is listed with Tipp GAA. Geographically, he is from NT. A horse of a different colour". Further examples are Aidan Butler and Sportspeople from County Tipperary.

I will copy the text from my appeal for the second major point of contention. I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. See Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers, where the rationale provided was "Tony Reddin is from Galway. So not all members of Tipp GAA are automatically from County Tipp. A club is not a person". See also Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, where the rationale provided was "a CLUB IS NOT A PERSON". Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From everything that I have said above, you will understand that I profoundly disagree with Laurel Lodged about how people who play on Tipperary GAA teams should be listed (by the county that they play or played for, Tipperary, or by the current local government district that they were born in, or would have been born in had it existed when they were born). No point going into all the details of that issue again. This discussion is not about whether this or that category should be used; but the changes made by Laurel Lodged at Tipperary categories have put it out of sync with every other county in Ireland, and he has made scores if not hundreds of other changes, all undiscussed, that moved articles and categories (dealing with Gaelic games away from their former and proper locations.

What this is about, is (1) whether a user (Laurel Lodged) should be free to move dozens of long-settled articles and refuse to engage on the respective talk pages when that turns out to be controversial; (2) whether that user should be topic-banned for a while until he learns to respect the views of other editors; (3) whether an editor (me) who moves articles back to their original and long-established names, after controversial moves that weren't discussed, should be regarded as a vandal and banned.

Check out (if you have some hours to spare) every instance where a Gaelic Athletic Association sporting competition has been renamed. I believe that in every instance, you will find that any moves away from the original title that were made without discussion were made by one single obsessive editor, Laurel Lodged, for reasons that cannot easily be aligned to the interests of readers or the notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. In most instances, I moved the article back to its settled title, only to be reverted again without discussion. In most such cases, I opened a discussion topic on the talk page, and Laurel Lodged did not engage. Here are a few examples, and you will see the pattern: [61], [62], [63], [64]... I could go on and on. As noted above, I canvassed views on this wholesale moving and the most recent discussion is here, where you will see that my reverts had consensus on their side.

If you want Wikipedia to be the preserve of those who have a really strong point of view about what things should be called (but aren't, in real life), and for which they really need to control Wikipedia as a platform to impose their view on the stupid masses, please vote to ban me. If you want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, give people who care about accurate coverage of the GAA a break, and send Laurel Lodged off to annoy someone else for a few months. Whatever way you vote, the Leinster Senior Football Championship will continue, in real life, to be the Leinster Senior Football Championship, rather that whatever User:Laurel Lodged wants to call it today. Brocach (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would remind everyone in this thread of WP:TLDR. If you want to attract the attention of other editors, walls of text are unlikly to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• When I see the words "POV-pushing" and "topic ban" in a section heading I expect the proposer to have a particularly strong case. When I see something like "Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong" I think the proposer is most unlikely to have a strong case. And sure enough, that is the case here. I think the most intelligent sentence in the proposal is "What on earth are you fighting over?" This is a content dispute, essentially between three editors: the proposer agrees with Laurel Lodged and disagrees with Brocach. It should be dealt with on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have been observing this dispute from a distance, and agree with the previous contributor (Scolaire). There is more heat than light being generated by these interminable arguments. However, there are two main protagonists putting their cases forward, and I don't think that Brocach should be the only person facing censure. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having read The Banner's response to my suggestion on his talk page, I have to wonder if WP:BOOMERANG doesn't come into play here? Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have disappointed you by not being convinced that there is a solution possible by mediation. More drama, more words typed, but I see no evidence from Brocach and your side that a compromise is possible. Sorry. The Banner talk 14:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a side. I don't edit-war. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute that has spiralled out of control over a long period of time. How long has this been going on? A year? More> It revolves around a tiny point - the definition and use of the term "county" in Ireland. I suggest that a ban is put on any more moves, renames, relinks and discussions, and that the matter is discussed at WikiProject Ireland until consensus is reached. That's actually the best and correct place for this. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A year? July 2011 was when we apparently resolved the problem of counties! At that point it had been going on non-stop since at least June 2010. --Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with most of what has been written in the last few postings. And I would again remind you all that it was I who I took the rather unusal step of suggesting that I topic ban myself. This must surely be a record for ANI. As it is obvious that even a 48 ban cannot produce the required level of contrition or even meditation in Brocach, nothing other solution will give us all the breathing space - free of vandalism - that we all need. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While I strongly commend LL's volunteering for a topic ban, well deserved and hopefully long-lasting, I'm not taking the same line. The innuendo above that I was involved in "vandalism" needs to be fleshed out here and now. If one instance of vandalism by me is shown, in relation to GAA topics or anything else, I still won't volunteer for a ban but I will accept one. Brocach (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At your service: [65], [66] and [67]. Deliberately damaging an article by removing a correct link and replace is by a redirect is in my opinion vandalism. (issue: "Drom, County Tipperary" redirects to "Drom, North Tipperary") It can be a mistake ONCE, but not multiple times and certainly not when deliberately removing the mention of North Tipperary at all. The Banner talk 16:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Even if it was a mistake – which is only your opinion – it is not vandalism. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. That a good faith edit is "in your opinion vandalism" doesn't make it vandalism. Scolaire (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a more general topic-ban for a month at least just to encourage Brocach to engage more and stop consistently reverting and pushing when they are in the wrong. Take for example their recent 48-hour block for breaking 3RR. This and this from BrownHairedGirl shows Brocach's poor attitude when it comes to editing and discussion quite well. Obviously these are not the only instances, but I'd cite this one as the main one.

Blocks and topic-bans are meant to deter editors from bad behaviour, not to punish them. As such I back a topic-ban of at least a month from editing articles in regards to GAA and Londonderry topics seeing as this is where his attitude is at it's worse. Whilst they are incredibly stubborn and unwilling to budge from their opinion, disregarding compromises, I'd suggest that if blocked from editing, they should still be allowed to partake in discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If the "main" evidence against me is from September 2012 and October 2012, in relation to matters long since settled, we must hope and pray that Mabuska has never, ever made any mistake that might be resurrected by someone to argue for a topic ban. Note that in the instances selected, the editor who disagreed with me did not, then or thereafter, propose a topic ban. Brocach (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys Finnegas here, It appears that The Banner has a problem with my edits " And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]and [90]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)" Well the Banner was welcome to discuss the whole Sportspeople from Tippp Vs Tipp N or Tipp South at Talk:Patrick Maher (hurler) if he so desired. I maintain that the use of administrative counties for Sporspeole from county ? should never replace the 32 counties In addition I would like to declare contary to The Banner I am not User brocach or anyone elses sidekick. It just so happens that I agree with him on this issue.Finnegas (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Your reply here comes remarkably quick after Broacach advise to have your say here on your [User_talk:Finnegas#Similar_Requested_Move|talkpage]. About 9 minutes later... The Banner talk 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like 23 hours to me! Scolaire (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I question your powers of observation Banner!. There was a full day between Broacach's advice and me acting upon it. [68]Anyway what do you expect me to do? Remain silent will you and Laurel Lodged demonise me. Not a notion.Finnegas (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC) BTW love the fact you did not reply to the part about you ignoring the part about you failing to engage in discussion on a talk page.

No what do you do? Banner take a cheap shot at me. You could be described as Laurel Lodged lapdog Finnegas (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Just to make it clear I am will not consent to a topic ban. I did nothing wrong.

I think the above has shown that Finnegas is (a) a creature of Brocach, (b) has nothing to contribute to our understanding other than "because I say so", (c) engages in insulting behaviour. Given that he has continued the destructive path of Brocach on GAA related articles and is dangerously close to a 3RR situation with Banner, all of this leads me to conclude that GAA peace will be impossible until he too joins Brocach & I in our topic ban. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to (c)If I am guilty of "insulting behaviour" then so are you Laurel Lodged. You continue to describe me as Brocach's sidekick which I find quite insulting. I repeat I am nobodys sidekick.I am not engaging in an editwar with The Banner.

Reply to (b)I attempted to engage in a debate on Talk: Patrick Maher (hurler). (a)Does not merit a responseFinnegas (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked at the mess created by Laurel Lodged at the GAA in Cork article where the nonsense on differences between administrative and traditional counties was fudged into the opening paragraph. This type of nonsense has to stop immediately. I certainly Support the topic ban for Laurel Lodged until this type of editing comes to an immediate halt and the damage reversed. I dread the thoughts of what has been done in other articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the diff posted by HighKing proves the opposite of what he was saying. It proves that the bits which he deleted showed that there is a difference between the two entities. The only reason to delete those bits is to create a fudge. It is HK's tendentious editing that was the problem there. Perhaps he too should be topic banned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

Note: This discussion is still going on below the archived content. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Does this comment amount to a legal threat against WP? --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely it is. The IP must either retract it or face a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Indisputably. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. NLT does not affect the ability of editors to report crimes (or supposed crimes, don't think he'd actually get that far). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"I will get this site shut down in the US"... Seems like a threat to me, and it seems like he's thinking about legal things.. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you looked on the actual ORIGINAL post I NEVER said that said what you said in quotes. I NEVER said that "I will get this site shut down in the US," so you're not acting in good faith. Also, I removed that part of the post so your argument is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the link above "this comment". You most certainly did saythat. And you admitted that you 'removed' it, which wouldn't be possible if you never put it up to begin with. Don't lie, you'll dig your hole deeper (if you are digging one) gwickwire^talk_edits 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote, cut-and-pasted:

Unless there is proof showing that the pictures there are of people over the age of 18, I will making a visit to my local law enforcement office and the local FBI building to inquire about an investigation that will get this site shut down in the US.

Gwickwire's paraphrase was correct and, sorry Elen, that is indeed a direct legal threat intended to creating a chilling effect on other editors' work. An NLT block is needed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They weren't paraphrasing, they were quoting and I never typed what he quoted therefor it is they are attributing something to me that was NEVER typed by me. They should have indicated that they were paraphrasing. Besides, I deleted that part of the comment as was asked of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, you either said it or you didn't but the diff never lies and in this case you said it. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will making a visit to my local law enforcement office and the local FBI building to inquire about an investigation that will get this site shut down in the US certainly is a legal threat. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's doesn't worth that way. They quoted me as saying something I didn't. Look at the quote, I never said what he quoted me as saying. I never said, "I will get this site shut down in the US." What is up there is what I said and I freely admit to saying that. On top of that, I took it down as was asked by me (and I apologize for reacting that way) if you look at the talk page and I admit that I should have never taken it to this level, but this is a legitimate concern and one that needs to be addressed in order to keep people from getting in trouble for looking at pictures of people who might very possibly be minors pleasuring themselves on an open website.

• It is not a legal threat, which is according to WP:NLT is a threat to employ litigation. Reporting what one believes to be a criminal offense is not a legal threat. Do you really believe that it is appropriate to try and discourage a person from reporting a crime? Or to take action against him because he reports an offense? That's not the moral thing to do, nor the ethical thing to do. If he believes it is an offense, let him report it. The appropriate law enforcement agency will investigate it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:No legal threats

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. NLT is not about specific wording, it's about an attempt to intimidate via quasi-legalistic language, which is exactly what the IP was doing. He's now redacted the legal threat, so that's that (for now). But you need to understand what NLT is actually about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bugs. There is really no difference in chilling effect between "I am going to sue you" and "I am going to get criminal action brought against you." Nor is this a question about someone's ability to report a crime. If the IP really thinks that there's criminality on that article, then he or she can certainly go to the authorities to report it. What they cannot do is threaten to go to the authorities in order to get something done here. There is a neutral, non-threatening way to point out potential criminal liability, and a threatening, NLT way to do it, and this was decidedly the latter. In my opinion, the closing of this thread and dismissal of the complaint was a mistake in judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. There is a clear threat here to take a legal action. People are, of course, allowed to contact the cops if they see a crime. What they may not do is to us the threat of contacting the cops to intimidate others. This is a clear letter-and-spirit violation of NLT if I ever saw one. --Jayron32 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I gave the user a pseudo final warning, saying I'd re-report him here if he continued what he was doing. He's still at it by the way, except now he's using ad-hominems of sorts and other methods to produce a chilling effect to get us to do what he wants. I also directed him to Commons (sorry all there), as that's where the images are hosted, where he may have more luck. If an administrator can please take some sort of action to prevent this chilling effect from going further, it'd be appreciated. Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I have been discussing the issue WITHOUT using a legal threat at all. I have not been using ad-hominems at all. I would like to see some sort of proof of that considering that I can't see it. This is nothing but a complete lie. I have also been responding to a personal and ad hominem attack that Baseball Bugs has put upon me which he refuses to retract although he, as his history has shown, is not slow to report any and everyone who he thinks violates Wikipedia policy in order silence them.

proof. Which has been provided multiple times before and always gets a "I didn't say that" response from you, when the diff shows that you said it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though the IP claims to not have said it, they did partially redact the threat themselves shortly after it was brought up at ANI. If they had been more upfront and admitted to the threat, this issue could have been resolved without the escalation drama. Although, due to their cleanup of the threat wording, I question the block reason. Granted, they were approaching a block for trolling (if not already exceeded it), but I suspect a NLT block may not be supportable given the attempt at redaction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly a legal threat; I've blocked (only for a week, given the nature of IPs, but poke me if he reappears after that and acts in a recidivistic manner) Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: a head's up that in this reply to the block, the user's statement "Thank God for dynamic IP addresses" suggests the page needs to be monitored for block evasion now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:NLT: "Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures."

Based on the definition of "litigation", the user did not breach the letter of NLT, but he certainly violated its spirit. Perhaps NLT should be amended to include criminal prosecution. As far as I know, there isn't any policy regarding criminal lawsuits, and I believe that WP policies are set up in such a way so as to prohibit actions by users that would violate United States or Florida law (though I'm not sure about that), but these things do come up every so often. Would anybody be interested in an RFC on NLT to include criminal lawsuits in the definition of legal threats and explain how concerns of criminal violations should be reported and addressed? —Rutebega (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that our point is getting through. I posted the following in a discussion with an admin who dropped by to comment on NLT at my page, and it holds true here.

"I have to disagree from several standpoints. First, it is not morally or ethically correct to discourage someone from reporting what he believes to be a criminal offense to law enforcement authorities. Second, it may very well be a criminal violation in and of itself to discourage someone from reporting an offense. Third, it would be terrible press for the project to have that splattered over the news that Wikipedia wanted to prevent the reporting of a possible crime, especially in this case, where the crime allegedly involves minors and sexual matters. Finally, taking it in context, nowhere in the policy does it speak about criminal actions, it speaks of litigation. It is a question of balance. Which is more important, the editing of articles, or crime? That is not to say that I agreed with the way he went about it, but I don't think that we should, nor do I think the WP:NLT policy requires, us to take action to prevent someone from reporting what they believe to be a crime to authorities. As a hypothetical, what if a female editor is raped by a male editor at Wikimania or another WP sponsored event. Are we saying that she can't pursue criminal charges because it inhibits editing? That's not morally nor ethically sound."

As a further note, it speaks of litigation and civil lawsuits, but not once mentions criminal actions. Like I noted above, I don't think that the individual went about this the right way, but speaking from twenty years of personal experience in the field, in any of my cases, anything that could be construed as obstruction got a very close look. I just don't think that it is good for the project to use that policy in criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the difference is not in reporting Wikipedia to criminal authorities, it is in using the threat of doing so as a means to get his way. No one has said he can't walk into his local FBI office and ask to have someone investigated. What people have said here is that he can't threaten to do so on Wikipedia as a means to force others to his will. --Jayron32 04:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we are trying to do, as far as getting his conduct back to civility. All I'm saying is if I were contacted on a criminal investigation and presented with the facts that we have here, one of the things that I would have done when I was an officer is look at whether any obstruction occurred, or tampering with either a complaining witness or evidence. Second, this type of thing tends to attract press coverage if the cops are incensed about it. Either one of those things is not good for the project.

I could have missed it, but I didn't see anyone tell him that if he thought there was a crime, to report it to the authorities, but don't discuss it here. What I saw was what appeared to be an attempt to shut him down and get a retraction from him by threatening to block him. There are better ways to do this on criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(I'm no longer talking about the specific case above anymore, sorry) My thought was that we should include criminal matters in NLT, but to categorize it slightly differently than threats of civil litigation. Obviously, telling another user that you're going to call the cops on them is unacceptable, but I feel that NLT should emphasize that legal concerns of a criminal nature should not be discussed on talk pages, but reported to AN/I perhaps, or in an email to WMF or whatever consensus deems appropriate, and if the issue cannot be resolved internally, then the user should not be discouraged from reporting the issue to law enforcement agencies, but should understand that their account will be blocked until the matter is resolved for the same reason NLT currently cites.

Anyway, this isn't really the place for such discussion; my comment was only intended to gauge interest in an RFC on the topic. It seems like there's a potential for discussion, but to verify, does anybody else think it would be a good idea? —Rutebega (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is an important discussion to have. Can we move the lower part of this discussion regarding the general notions of NLT and chilling effects and threats to notify the cops and things like that to the NLT talk page perhaps? This is probably something that needs to be resolved and clarified, lest we run down this road again... --Jayron32 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have wanted to write up an essay over Chilling Effects (like this kindof was) at Wikipedia, or a proposal to add it, but haven't had time. I'll see what I can write up. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe what needs to be emphasized is the approach. The right way to say it is, "I'm concerned that this might put Wikipedia in trouble with legal or civil law." The wrong way to say it is, "I'm gonna call da cops / I'm gonna sue ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and disruptive editing by User:BigBabyChips

BigBabyChips (talk · contribs)

This has gone one long enough. I am normally careful not to cross venues, but this is one of those times it needs to be crossed. A related discussion about NPOV exists here[69], but this isn't about the NPOV issue, it's about User:BigBabyChips conduct and multi-article edit-warring.

1) His edit-warring over several articles. Examples are [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. He has been warned about the 3RR by me here: [75],[76], [77], [78]. He was also warned by another editor here [79], another one here [80], [81] and an editor at NPOVN also told him [82]. Yet he continues to remove the same info over and over.

2) BigBaby was told not to post on my talk page unless required by policy (like mandatory notification of this thread) [83]. He posted there twice after warning: [84], [85].

3) Big Baby has disrupted several articles, all over the same info and has refused to engage in meaningful DR attempts. He simply yells a lot, misapplies policies (namely BLP and NPOV) and has a lot of WP:IDHT going on.

In short, the editor isn't willing to engage in the process and is being very disruptive to several articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editor was notified of this discussion [86]. And before this gets thrown out as a red herring, I did say "Many Juggalos are simply young people with horrible taste in music and ridiculous tastes in fashion [87] on a talk page." This has been used as "evidence" of my "bigotry". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since this report was posted, the editor has reverted the same material again on at least 3 articles: [88], [89] and [90]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Look at the definition of bigotry. It applies here. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a warning when you edit this page saying to report serious threats of violence, etc. I think that may apply to repeatedly adding a music fanbase as an alliance of a criminal gang. You should be very lucky that I have not used that email to report you for categorizing a music fanbase as a criminal gang, which places Juggalos, which you are clearly prejeduiced against, in danger from actual gangs. The fact that directly stating that Juggalos are a "gang" violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV has been told to you REPEATEDLY, but you do not listen. You have attacked me because you want to continue pushing your views. I have not edit warred or edited disruptively, I have corrected very obviously wrong information which violates Wikipedia's rules. For you to continue insisting that the music fanbase of Insane Clown Posse is a gang because you don't care for their music is disruptive. For you to repeatedly add a music fanbase as a "gang alliance" violates BLP and NPOV rules. This is very clearly a NPOV issue, and you are clearly acting out of bigotry against Juggalos rather than any sense of neutrality. You are clearly NOT acting in WP:Good faith here by repeatedly categorizing a music fanbase as a gang because you do not like their music. Please stop wasting administrators' time with your bigotry. BigBabyChips (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out here that, as I made clear at WP:NPOVN, [91] the sources supposedly being cited for 'the Juggalos being a gang' appear not to do so - instead they say that individuals/agencies have described some Juggalos as being in a gang, or behaving in a gang-like manner. Regardless of the behavioural issues concerning BigBabyChips, it seems that there may be a wider problem concerning an apparent misrepresentation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is no "regardless of his behavior" here. This is solely abut his behavior, not the sources. That discussio n is happening elsewhere. Your diversion doesn't excuse his edit warri ng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You cited reversion of material as one of the problems - I am merely pointing out that the material shouldn't have been there in the first place - and it takes two to edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is a content issue Andy, one you've started addressing at NPOVN. At least 5 other editors have restored the info. You have rendered a singular opinion that it doesn't belong because it's a primary source (a position in dispute) and now act like it's a fact. Regardless of how right he thinks he is, 3RR still applies. This thread is about his behavior. As for "it takes two....", actually, it takes more than that here. No less than different 6 editors have reverted him. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend him or why you feel the need to go render the same opinion in 3 different threads (yet never at the actual article talk pages), but please don't divert this one. ANI isn't intended for content disputes and you know that. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wasn't Wikipedia founded by a rugged individualist? Large groups of people have supported wrong things. If you took the time to chill out and look at things from outside of your bias you might be less hostile to me. Yes, Juggalos are fans of a music group you happen to hate and think is garbage. But they're also human beings, not abstract figures, so there is a significant issue here. "Juggalo" is a word that would not exist if not for a music group. It was not invented by a criminal organization. Insane Clown Posse doesn't exist to commit crimes, it exists to make rap albums. And it's evident that any crime committed by an ICP fan is not directly connected to the rap group, who are merely clown-painted capitalists/musicians that own a record label. BigBabyChips (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Less hostile towards you? Considering some of the shit you've said to me, for you to even try that tactic is absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say BigBabyChips is right. He's removing references to Juggalos as gangs. Yes, there was a reference, but it wasn't reliable.... it's linked to publicintelligence.net, per it's own about page it's contributor-based, like Wikipedia. Therefore it fails WP:V. It's hosting a PDF but there's no way to verify the pdf as being authentic. Juggalos are living people, so calling them a gang without a reliable reference fails BLP and V.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're missing several point here. First of all, the source is reliable. You are acting like the site Publicintelligence is the source. Theyy're not. The NGIC is. Publicintelligence merely hosted the pages. I can cite that same exact report, comletely offline and it would pass RS with no problem at all. Sources don't have to be available online. Second, BLP is not an issue for this. Individuals aren't being named and trying to say that any organization is a BLP because people are in it is a misapplication of the policy. Further, even the source specifies that not every single person in the group is a gang member. Multiple reliable sources have made the claim. Has anyone produced a reliable source to say otherwise? No. Has anyone excluded a reliable source that said otherwise? No. Third, his edit warring is not excused by whether or not you think he's right. He's disrupted multiple articles, reverted at least 6 different editors who feel the sourced info is adequate and being presented neutrally. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, every time living people are being talked about BLP applies, so yeah, BLP applies. Second, the link in question goes to publicintelligence.net. PublicIntelligence.net is not reliable. You said you had a verifiable reference, great, go ahead and post it. (without one, it really is a BLP issue ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Where to start (Niteshift asked me to look into this one). Many of BigBabyChips's edits are problematic (e.g., an ANI notice is not vandalism--calling it that is a kind of personal attack, really). That they are edit warring is plain to see: Summer PhD warned them (very nicely) on 23 January 00:58, and subsequent messages/warnings are consistently being blanked, but they didn't stop reverting; they continued on Crisps and on Aryan Brotherhood on 25 January. Now, they haven't broken the bright line of 3R, as far as I can tell (nor has Niteshift, BTW, unless I'm mistaken), and their reverts seem all to have been undone by now, but two things should be clear: edit warring does not require a breach of 3R (and I don't see how the BLP policy applies here, pace KoshVorlon's comment and BigBabyChips's claim), and it's been multiple editors who have reverted BigBabyChips. Without having to dive into the NPOV or RS discussion (though I'm going to have a look), I can say with confidence that they fully deserve to be blocked for edit warring if they make just one more of those reverts again. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh, BigBabyChips, don't post on Niteshift's talk page again. Niteshift, if you want to tell someone to stay away from your talk page, an edit summary is not the place to do it, and "troll dropping" is not the best term to use though, strictly speaking, it comments on content, not on the editor. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There's a video on YouTube of Ted Nugent in concert telling his audience that then-senators (2002 or so) Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be "fed" his guns or something to that matter. Now, I'm sure that the FBI has some kind of file on Nugent. And I'm sure that some of Nugent's fans have committed some kind of violent activity. But, do I consider Ted Nugent fans to be a gang? No, and if there are any violent attacks by Ted Nugent fans, it should be safe to say that those acts of violence are not directly caused by Ted Nugent's music. So why, then, does an Insane Clown Posse fan qualify as a gang member? ICP have never called for assassination or murder of any public officials. I removed messages from my own talk page because I have a right to. Niteshift also has a right to remove messages from his talk page. BUT directly telling people not to post on their talk page shows a lack of good faith. I haven't told anyone not to post on my talk page. I welcome all comments with open arms. But I don't have any reason to keep any messages on my talk page. But, still, the point stands here that when you're addressing real, living people, and you call them a gang even though most of these fans are not criminals and the criminals are not criminals because of their music fandom, there is a neutrality issue. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no, I have never edited the article potato chip. BigBabyChips (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• And I've never dressed like a clown to go out in public, and I can't imagine why people would want to do that. Niteshift, and every other user, has every right to tell editors not to post on their talk page. It's not a lack of good faith, it's a sign of irritation. I am not sure that the FBI has a file on the ICP, and it's irrelevant here. They keep data on the Juggalos in as much as they, or some of them, are gang members, I suppose. It doesn't matter, and if you don't see how it doesn't matter, I don't think I could explain it any better. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A gross breach of WP:BLP at the 'Derby sex gang' article.

Amongst all the other problems with the recently-created Derby sex gang article, it had remained unnoticed util an hour or so ago that amongst those described as 'convicted' was an individual entirely unconnected with the case. This individual had been included right form the start, which has made a redaction of almost the entire edit history necessary. The person responsible, user:AnkhMorpork, has attempted to post an apology of sorts to ANI while asking for a revdel [92] (this has been deleted as 'wrong venue' for the revdel) but given the severity of the error, I consider a mere apology inadequate. Not only was this a gross breach of WP:BLP policy, it could possibly even have legal repercussions, given the source that AnkhMorpork seems to have got it from. This user seems to have a habit of writing sensationalist material, often based on a poor reading of often-questionable sources, frequently apparently aimed at placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light. Given this latest fiasco, and its potential ramifications, I have to ask whether it is in Wikipedia's interests to let this editor contribute to such articles at all? I think not...

(A reminder: DO NOT under any circumstances name the individual concerned, and DO NOT provide links to sources which would allow the name to be inferred - we must not compound the problem by drawing more attention to the individual) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've popped it onto pending changes given that it's history has been one gigantic BLP violation. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I erroneously included a name when creating the table of perpetrators in the Derby sex gang. As soon as I became aware of my unfortunate error, I removed the name and requested revision deletion. I must have gotten confused with a recent case of child grooming that I was reading about and was simultaneously working on, in which this individual's name was mentioned.

I obviously understand the BLP ramifications of such a mistake and will certainly be more careful in the future.

• "often-questionable sources" - I ensured that I only used reliable sources when creating the Derby sex gang. The sources used in the article are: the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Times. This accusation is unfounded.
• "placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light." - I am mindful of the sensitive nature of this article and before I created it, I asked an experienced editor, Malik Shabazz for advice on whether I had described the analysis section in a "balanced and accurate manner". He replied that "the section represents fairly what the sources say" upon which I created the article.

I have tried my best to represent what the sources have stated in a fair and neutral manner. Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to.

• Upon discovering my erroneous inclusion, Andy opened a new section on the talk page emblazoning the name of the individual in big font, which subsequently had to be redacted; this despite him being aware of the BLP implications. Another editor commented on this inconsistent approach. If an editor more experienced than myself of BLP considerations, and who is aware of an imminent problem, can similarly cock-up, perhaps you might appreciate that my error could similarly have been unintentional.Ankh.Morpork 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that there have been no convictions regarding this other case of alleged child grooming either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to. For some reason I doubt that. I cant see another reason for edits like this. nableezy - 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that AnkhMorpork, in his very first edit to this shambles of an article, thought it prudent to specify the group as "Asian men" (my italics) tells you everything you need to know about this editor, and what he wanted to achieve with the article. Not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. GiantSnowman 20:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And it tells you exactly the same about The Telegraph who reported: Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims, upon which I based my edit. Two other editors on the talk page agreed with this inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep - on the right-side of the political spectrum. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And we're not supposed to mention the ethnicity at all, even when it's mentioned in reliable sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'the ethnicity'. Not all the offenders were from the same background - though It took a comment from me on the talk page to point out that a 'non-Asian' offender had been omitted (and even then, the individual's name seems to have been spelled wrongly, thogh by whom it is hard to tell, given that the article history has been redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger - we shouldn't give the ethnicity WP:UNDUE weight, as AnkhMorpork loves to do. GiantSnowman 09:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Ankh's last point in his first reply above (added after I had replied, contrary to talk page guidelines), When I started the new section on the name, I was of course entirely unaware of where it came from, and of the possible repercussions. Initially I wondered if another source had named the man as one of those convicted, and the source had merely been omitted. It would clearly have been impossible to ask where it came from at that point without actually naming the individual. As soon as I was aware of the precise situation, I of course moved to have it redacted. It seems that AnkhMorpork is trying to distract us from the significant event here - a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing this side show which has nothing to do with matter above Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry AndyTheGrump - I have been watching matters unfold and I now feel obliged to ask "you" to account for the following. On 20 Jan you raised the issue of three named persons being included in a table - you felt that they should not be included as the history and sources did not warrant inclusion. Given that you had to asses the content of the table and the people included - how is it possible that you missed the inclusion of a name not connected to the case in anyway? Which sources were you using to recognise three people correctly and yet fail to see a person who should not be included at all? Please explain the error(s)! I was shocked when I discovered it - as I was working though all page content and history and was aware of your participation and focus on the very place where the BLP violation was found Three days later. You had been making so much pointed comment about BLP I was Stunned that a Violation of such magnitude was there. How did you miss it? I am concerned about the amount of smoke that is suddenly being blown. Also access to history and diffs is not an issue as the matter, time references are clear and recorded on the talk page! 3 Gross violation of WP:BLP policy Under the circumstances I find this language by you "a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence." to be inappropriate and disingenuous. Kindly stop smoking up the Joint! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) What the fuck! This thread is getting complex enough without having to put up with such nonsense. No I didn't check and copy-edit the entire article (though I wish I had). Neither did you. Neither apparently did anyone else. Are you trying to purposely derail this thread, or just waffling on for your own personal satisfaction? Anyway, if you accuse me of drug-taking again I reserve my right to whatever recourse I see fit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Andy- It's not derailing it's simple - How did you miss the BLP Violation on the 20th whilst citing three BLP violations in the same table? I did spot the issue whilst reading Auditing and verifying every cited source - I'm like that I check everything and look at the BIG Picture. Again you seem to be blowing smoke to divert away from multiple fails .... especially you own. I note you have not answered the Direct Questions but made inferences about me, that I take as Ad Hominum so stop it. It's a well known but very poor Blocking & Derailing tactic . It does not make you look good. Again I advise you to moderate your language and tone as well as stopping the Smoke. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) How did I miss it? I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page shoyuld make clear. And as for blowing smoke, given that you have already accused me of drug taking, I'll make as many ad hominem attacks on you as I feel like, as long as you continue to try to derail this thread with your deranged ramblings and accusations of drug-taking. I suggest you cease spamming this thread with nonsense before an admin steps in and makes you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I see that you have yet again stated I have accused you of taking Drugs. can I have a reference to show me and any other readers when and how this has been done? I'm fascinated by your claims and wonder why you are making them? Do you have a valid reason for making such false claims? You evidently ave no problem in making yourself look bad, so there is no point in advising to stop blowing any more smoke or moderate your tone. You evidently have no interest in reality or how you look to others. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) You wrote "Kindly stop smoking up the Joint!" above. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is how I read it. Now, will an admin kindly advise this troll to stop disrupting ANI with vacuous bollocks, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Right here, don't be disingenous. You put that capital J there for a reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The editor has a long history of writing lurid, sensationalist tabloid articles on crimes that happen to have been committed by Arab or Muslims. The editor's MO in these articles is always to highlight the most lurid, sensational aspects and too keep ethnicity and religion front and centre. While I have no reason to doubt that this particular incident was an honest mistake, it was a mistake that occurred in the process of activity, that in my view, is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) As the person who spotted the BLP issue, raised it with AndyTheGrump I have been looking at all factors in and around the "fail", rechecking and re-auditing matters. I would like to add the following points for consideration by all parties. : I became aware of the page and content issues due to an Rfc. It was clear from the outset that personal views and dogma were being allowed to over-ride Wiki content policies and requirements. It has evidently been a long standing issue. It was because of that lack of clarity - and the sense of "Own" that was being shown by a group and a that an uneasy obscurity was being maintained ..... I started to audit all page content. As I audited It became harder and harder to accept that the sources cited supported the assertions made, and there was a growing indication of WP:SYNTH. I was even becoming concerned as to how basic layout, sectioning and positioning of links appeared to promote a certain set of perceptions rather than neutrality. Then much to my amazement and shock, the BLP Violation jumped up and ended all progress. I can't understand the claims of orogin for the Violation - especially as it's being indicated that the name came form a different case, in a different city in a different year. The linkage of name to specific criminal activity makes the explanation highly implausible. Wrong name from wrong case linked to right criminal activity? However - I am also disappointed that the error was found in a table that has been subject to hot debate and alteration of content - especially names that should not be included. How was it possible to claim that two names should not be included without checking all the included names for accuracy? That also requires explanation and needs to be factored in to the bigger picture. The question of table content was raised and acted upon on 20 Jan See here, and yet the error was missed even then. It had to wait another 3 days for me to have to audit everything to spot a Glaring Issue that should have been recognised days ago before if basic goof editorial practice had been followed by anyone. I'm disappointed in ""all"" concerned as there had been multiple opportunities for multiple editors to spot the issue and act - so it's a multi-person, multi-factor fail on multiple sides .... and not just one person. I do feel that needs to be made clear so that all parties can learn. I fear that passions have exceeded reason for all concerned and that has not been good for anyone or wiki! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I am quite sure it would have come to light sooner without the diversionary tactics, off-topic waffle, and general obstructionism evident on the article talk page - including what appears to quite possibly be an attempt to hold an RfC on whether to ignore WP:BLP policy, and cite sources for something they don't say - see Talk:Derby sex gang#RFC on WP:BLP policy. However, I think we need to stay on topic here - and the topic is that AnkhMorpork, through what at best can only be described as gross negligence, falsely described a person entirely unconnected with the case as a convicted sex criminal. I can think of no legitimate reason to allow someone so utterly incompetent to continue to edit such articles - and so far, none has been given. Contributors have to be held accountable for their contributions - otherwise, the entire concept of a user-generated encyclopaedia breaks down. If this was a genuine mistake, it was a mistake made by someone clearly lacking the elementary skills needed to edit. This error (if it can be described as such) was present in the first draft. AnkhMorpork had plenty of time to check it, but failed to do so. It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Again More Smoke being blown - so Direct Question - why is it that on 20th Jan you are berating people over BLP Violations which could only be assessed by you referencing on sources - and yet at the same time you missed that a person with no link to the whole Derby Sex Abuse case was listed as convicted of offences they had no connection to? It's pretty basic in Good editorial practice when dealing with contested content and sources - You Check - everything! Why Didn't you? Say you were busy - the dog needed to be walked - but don't try and cover it up by pointing fingers at others. You do see how it starts to look bad that you are saying of others It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute and yet you are not willing to account for your own equally significant failures. At least the other person said My Fault I'm Sorry what do we do to fix it. You are acting in a way that appears exploitative. You represent yourself as an authority in BLP, but you are not setting an example to be followed. Again I advise that you stop blowing smoke and moderate your tone and language about others. It's making you look bad. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) See my response above. Then fuck off and troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And the both of you take a trout and chillaxe before blocks for policy violations (you know, WP:CIVIL) start getting tossed around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah - WP:CIVIL, which says you mustn't be rude to each other - keep the self-evidently libellous material back for non-contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Which applies to everyone as a policy (and, as it happens, one of the Five Pillars), same as WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) What? "Libel anyone else if you like but don't be rude to each other" is one of the five pillars? I never knew that ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the bold move to collapse the above argument. It's an oft said thing about ANI's that all it takes is one comment from another editor and a whole new can of worms is unleashed without the original issue being dealt with first. If anyone thinks that this action was inappropriate, I have no issue with being reverted. If anyone wants to revert and open up a new thread, also please feel free. It is my hope that one thing at a time gets dealt with rather than one ANI descending into a chaotic mishmash of X number of threads causing all manner of headaches. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of 'Cyber harassment' etc

Sadly, I am going to have to refer to User:Media-hound-_thethird's behaviour once more. I have just discovered that this contributor has posted at AnkhMorpork's talk page, accusing me of "failing to honestly report matters", of "exploitation of Wiki Systems and protocols to pursue agendas in mendacious ways", of "Cyber harassment" - specifically mentioning the UK " Protection from harassment act 1997", of "Using ANI as a cover to carry about patterns that are harrasment" and of "Lynchings to cover up other people's fails".[93][94] Frankly, I am bewildered by this. A few hours ago Media-hound was posting on my talk page to bring the improper name problem to my attention, to ask about issues with Wikipedia search etc. It seems that it was only after I made it clear that I wasn't interested in what looked to be a speculative conspiracy theory [95] [96][97][98] that Media-hound suddenly decided that it was me, rather than AnkhMorpork, who was supposedly responsible for this mess, and that it was me that had to answer for it all. I really can't see any rational reason for this whatsoever, and am genuinely baffled at Media-hound's sudden change of tack. In any case, regardless of what brought it about, I have to ask that at minimum, Media-hound be told in no uncertain terms that such postings are unacceptable, and that false and malicious accusations of breaches of UK law (Media-hound is aware that I am a UK resident, incidentally) are in particular likely to result in sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound is obviously running an obstructionist line to derail this report, and it is disheartening to see The Bushranger falling for it—naughty words get a threat of a block, while there is zero comment on the substance per not my department. I'm not sure what can be done about "good faith" incompetence because the community is gaining too many editors who fail to understand or care about WP:NOTNEWS, and who believe it is productive to insert gossip into articles that rank #1 in Google. Media-hound's accusations of dishonesty and "Cyber Harrasment" against Andy at User talk:AnkhMorpork#ANI notification are beyond absurd, and I have no idea if it is incompetence or another attempt to derail the report by provoking an outburst. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound's comments there look to add up to a legal threat, far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see I need to ask some more direct questions:

1. Since when has it nor been permitted in Wiki for an editor upon assessment of content to change their op8inions and views of either content or another editor?
2. Why do you persist in attacking others and diverting from from your own failures of 20 Jan 2013?
3. Why are you Wiki Lawyering and not doing as advised in Wiki such as:

Wikipedia:NPLT#Perceived_legal_threats

"Handling: users should seek to clarify the user's intention (if unclear), explain this policy, and ask if they are willing to withdraw the threat. This helps to ensure that a mere misunderstanding or ignorance of our policies is not involved. Even if comments may not be per se legal threats, they may still fall under the scope of other policies related to disruption or incivility."

It is clear that you are determined to divert attention from yourself by any means - and that you are embarked upon copnduct that I do define as Bullying and Cyber Harassment. You are therefore asked yet again and advised to moderate your tone and language.

The pattern of constructing false allegations and the repeated use of misdirection is a well document pattern of bullying designed to fatigue and burden those targeted with excessive work to disprove each falsity. Please do pursue your persecutions by any means - but you have tried to defend your fails by 1) Trivialisation and now 2) Counter attack . You have been advised that your conduct was not looking good - and now I am obliged to make it clear why - WP:UNCIVIL is too mild.

Again - Kindly stop your misconduct and refrain from behaviour which is Bullying and Harassing. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive; I, as an uninvolved editor, have asked you on your talk page to retract your statement, as it could easily be interpreted as a legal threat. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention of responding to the abject nonsense above, beyond repeating what I have already said regarding my 'failures of Jan 20th' and expanding it to make clear what occurred - that " I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page [should] make clear". [99] To expand further, I saw that a table included individuals in an article on a 'sex gang' that were stated to have been convicted on non-sexually-related crimes. Considering this a violation of WP:BLP policy, I deleted them from the table, see [[100]] Did I check the other entries? No. Should I have done? With hindsight, one can argue 'yes', given that an individual was named who was neither charged nor convicted of anything, and appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with the events leading to the convictions. That is hindsight however. I do not, as a normal procedure, check an entire article against sources before correcting errors and/or breaches of policy, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect contributors to do so as a matter of course. The simple fact here is that contributors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their own edits. This is a core principle of the way Wikipedia works - there are no separate 'fact checkers', 'copy editors' or other such functionaries. I assumed, (wrongly, obviously) that AnkhMorpork was working from the sources he cited, and that the sole problem with the list was inclusion of individuals who were convicted of crimes, but not of sexually-related ones - and who therefore shouldn't be described by Wikipedia as part of a 'sex gang'. So why is Media-hound holding me personally responsible for AnkhMorpork's gross error? I have no idea, beyond suspecting that Media-hound took umbrage at my refusal to consider his wild conspiracy theories seriously. I didn't check the entire article against sources, but neither did anyone else, until fortunately Media-hound discovered the name problem, and raised it at my talk page. So can I be held in any way responsible? Of course not - I did nothing that I shouldn't, and was under no more obligation to check the article than I am to check any other Wikipedia article - i.e. none whatsoever, as a volunteer. If Media-hound is suggesting that there is some kind of obligation to check the entire content of each and every article against sources before making changes, or before commenting on talk pages, I can only state that this isn't the way Wikipedia works, and that Wikipedia couldn't possibly work that way. The sole person responsible for the error was AnkhMorpork, and I consider Media-hound's attempts to somehow shift the blame to me to be as obnoxious as they are ridiculous, and beneath contempt. If contributors who act to deal with serious WP:BLP violations and the like are to be faced with such random and nonsensical attacks from contributors in future, my advice, sadly, would be to stay the hell out of such issues, and let some other poor sucker deal with the problems. I attempted to deal with problems in good faith, and in return have been confronted with wild (if not entirely deranged) attacks from someone who was only hours before drawing them to my attention, and asking for advice. On this basis, I have already indicated that I think AnkhMorpork should be facing sanctions for what was a grievous error, and I have no hesitation whatsoever in suggesting, given that Media-hound has repeated his ridiculous and nonsensical attempts to hold me responsible for AnkhMorpork's failings, that Media-hound be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia on the grounds set out WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE - a clueless troublemaker, if ever there was one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you have been very informative, Andy, thank you, and thank you indeed for raising the matter in the first place. Please take a deep breath and take the thread off your watchlist now. You're letting yourself be played like a musical instrument. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

Summing up

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

---

Well, having reviewed the diffs posted here and the article history, I must say that I get an unpleasant vibe. AnkhMorpork, your editing has been tendentious, at times, in my opinion and, for that, I'm inclined to issue a rather long block, unless you accept an indefinite ban from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed. Media-hound-_thethird, from where I'm standing, you've been trying to derail this thread and that's disruptive. If you persist, you'll find yourself blocked. This is your only warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to change Islamic people to Muslims. Because I dont really know what an Islamic person is. nableezy - 19:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Change made. I admit I thought the terms were synonymous... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I will at this point make it clear that I do not consider a withdrawal of legal threats by Media-hound to be sufficient grounds to withhold sanctions against him, given his behaviour. At this point though, I will take Bishonen's advice above, and make no further comments - with the proviso that, if I do not see the issue resolved in what I see as an appropriate manner, I reserve the right to raise the Media-hound issue with the WMF, as the right to raise gross WP:BLP violations here and elsewhere without being confronted with accusations of 'bullying' and with legal threats goes to the core of how Wikipedia operates, and needs to be defended, strongly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If Media-hound does not persevere, then there is no reason to block him: that would be punitive. Then again, if you feel strongly about it, you can, of course, raise the issue with the WMF. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media Hound's primary mode of interaction is to derail legitimate discussion with abuse and accusations that are both nonsense and nonsensical. That user's bullying at Talk:Rape_culture has driven away at least one legitimate contributor.

AFAIK, Any content dispute MH is involved in follows the same pattern; Tens of thousands of characters of abuse until the other parties give up, then MH changes the article to their preferred form, per WP:SILENCE.

It was discussed here, to no resolution. 75.69.10.209 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. Far from retracting his baseless attacks on me, Media-found is continuing to repeat them. [101][102] [103]Given this relentless behaviour, I have to ask what it will take before action is taken? Anyway, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, you have now lost yet another editor - I can't see why the hell I should have to put up with this shit just because I took action over a gross BLP violation. Find some other mug, and enjoy your swim in the ever-shrinking editor-pool, as you contemplate your navels, whine incessantly about trivia, and let article-space turn into a POV-ridden cesspit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And still the remorseless shit continues: [104] And note that Media-hound is attacking admins as well now - welcome to the club... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck - if I'm going to be treated like shit, I might as well behave like it - Meet AndyTheGrumpyVandal (and yes, I know you'll block me, but as every vandal knows, half the fun is getting round the blocks - and I know a trick or two. Catch me if you can... ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the editor has since retracted this comment. m.o.p 12:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked MediaHound, following the above-quoted diff [105], which came after a clear warning by Bishonen as well as the warning by Salvio above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Too fucking little, too fucking late... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This clearly WP:POINT [106] edit is not appropriate at all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover his AN/I notification of random people is clearly disruptive--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked AndyTheGrump for 24 hours for his disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Salvio

1. I made a BLP error and and immediately attempted to rectify it, and this apparent "crass negligence" formed the basis of the complainant's case. I have accepted the need for greater caution on my part.
2. At all points, I have adhered to what the sources have expressly stated and have attempted to present their content in an accurate manner. I solicited advice from an experienced admin before creating this article who confirmed the fairness of my editing. If you think this article evidences "tendentious editing", please clarify why you think that's the case.
3. I have only employed quality sources, contrary to the complainant's assertions, which is readily apparent upon a brief inspection of the article.
4. I initiated an RFC when Andy disagreed with my rendering of the sources, and the majority view is that my position is more accurate than the complainant's.

I have attempted to edit a sensitive subject in a fair manner, and have made use of the talk page, expert advice, and dispute resolution to ensure compliance with wikipedia policy. I have had no previous blocks or topic bans, and think that such proposals are draconian for a BLP lapse that I regret. Ankh.Morpork 20:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your editing is tendentious because it is primarily centered on providing negative information about a specific group. In doing so you have been shown to make errors of judgment frequently such a the BLP issue, the addition of dubious see also elements that clearly serve no purpose other than to try to link negative stories to every article having to do with Islam or muslims. There is a precedent for placing sanctions in such a case, even when there is no evidence for explicit bad faith, but simply a long standing pattern of bad judgment that slants a series of articles away from NPOV. This happened when User:Noleander was topic banned from editing articles related to Judaism because whether wilfully or not his editing moved wikipedias coverage of Jewish related topics away from NPOV and in a largely negative direction, like you he also committed a serial of judgment errors, probably in good faith. Sometimes whether or not bad faith is present it is necessary to keep editors who have demonstrated difficulties editing neutrally in a topic area from doing harm to wikipedias coverage. I do believe this is one of those cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Salvio suggested it above - should AnkhMorpork be subject to an indefinite topic ban - "from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed"? GiantSnowman 20:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think a topic ban fair for a single mistake. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's not for a single mistake. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom; long history of tendentious editing in this area. GiantSnowman 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not a single mistake but the latest in a long series of civil POV pushing that has adversely affected wikipedia's neutrality. I point to the precedent of a similar case in which it was found that "Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site." and that "No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims". And finally: "An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group." And finally: "Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately."I think these four findings by the ArbCom in the Noleander case apply equally here. It is possible to be a goodfaith contributor and still unconsciously edit in a biased way that negatively affects the encyclopedia, and we need a way to stop this. Topic bans are excellent for that purpose, and in the Noleander case it proved extremely effective as he remains a productive, responsible and beneficial editor to this day working mainly in other topic areas. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Classic WP:TEDIOUS with as Salvio says an unpleasant vibe. GiantSnowman, could you please specify that we are (as I assume is the idea) opining about an indefinite topic ban here, as indeed in the Noleander case that Maunus mentions. Not a few months. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

• Indeed - I am proposing an indefinite topic ban. Indefinite, however, does not necessarily mean forever. GiantSnowman 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unjustified. Article seems reasonably edited bar that BLP blip. Juddhoward (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously - and I think that Maunus sums up the broader problems with AnkhMorpork well. The quote from the Noleander case regarding "scrupulous sourcing" is particularly cogent, not just in this obvious case, but elsewhere in AnkhMorpork's editing history, which is littered with cherry-picked quotes from questionable sources, clearly chosen for spin rather than for encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly necessary given the ongoing pattern of behaviour. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User:Maunus.--В и к и T 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support obviously. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Tendentious and careless, a dangerous combination where people's reputations are concerned. Per GregJackP, below, with the proviso that, if his editing in other areas is without problems, he can request the community lift the ban after a suitable time period (not less than six months). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Added proviso 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—it is true that AnkhMorpork violated a number of policies, and as someone pointed out here, has focused perhaps too much on edits about a single religion. However, there are two things that are missing from the conversation that I feel that have been absent in many similar cases on Wikipedia, for the detriment of the project. One: while editors are quick to point out problematic editing patterns by AnkhMorpork, no one has pointed to a similar pattern of engagement by serious uninvolved editors. That is, as far as I can tell, no one warned AnkhMorpork just how problematic some of his editing might have been (no, it's not obvious), and when someone did warn him (as in the recent BLP case), AnkhMorpork apologized and even initiated a request to have his revision deleted. So it seems like a clear case of not assuming good faith and wanting to ban an editor because it's the easiest thing to do. And two: AnkhMorpork clearly has an interest in the subject matter, and has contributed a lot to it, including writing new quality articles. So whatever the problems, how would banning him permanently from the area where he makes his best contributions be productive? People want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, but let's not get carried away and look at what would benefit Wikipedia instead of what would be easy. I suggest that AnkhMorpork take a voluntary break from editing on this subject matter and focus his energies on other topics, but without an imposed ban so that he can also make small edits and vandalism reverts to articles he surely follows/watches. At this time I suggest that he familiarizes himself more with Wikipedia policies, and that other more senior editors help him if he makes a mistake. This is clearly a good-faith editor, so the negative discourse in this discussion is surprising. IMO it's an editor we want to keep on Wikipedia, and not alienate by imposing harsh sanctions—because a permanent topic ban might not seem that harsh, but forever is a very long time. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that "indefinite" does not mean forever, but just untill there is a consensus to abolish the ban. Also perhaps it is pertinent to supply links to previous ANI cases to show that this is not a standalone issue and indeed AnkhMorpork has been warnedbefore, including a previous topic ban discussion here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Prying yet another tendentious warrior out of the I-P topic area is never a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Long term pattern of editing in this area is not consistent with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This user's contribution to Wikipedia has consisted almost entirely of tendentious pov pushing ever since he arrived here. I see it mostly in the I/P area but looking now at his vigorous promotion of the British-Asians-are-all-evil-rapists slur by "objectively" compiling every negative incident from the UK press just makes me sick. Yaseen Ege, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Rotherham sex grooming case, Derby sex gang and more of the same is on the way. Please put a stop to it. Zero^talk 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article was reviewed by an experienced admin who approved it. This is an attempt by political opponents to win a content dispute by banning their adversary. They think it's all over (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Please take note of the single-purpose accounts, e.g. They think it's all over (talk · contribs) & Juddhoward (talk · contribs), beginning to infest this discussion. This is what invariably happens, as "friends" show up to support those who share a point-of-view on the topic at hand. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But no doubt it is fine for those who have a different POV to vote for a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I have no POV when it comes to Israel-Palestine, I hate you all rather equally..."you" as in pov-pushers, not as in Israelis and Palestinians personally. That's the difference between you and I, is that I can and have argued strenuously in defense of a person or subject even when personally I may be deeply opposed to their politics. For example, I am a strident proponent of same-sex marriage, yet I put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that Rick Santorum and Campaign for "santorum" neologism remained neutral and objective. I also fought what IMO a rather Herculean battle to get Marcus Bachmann's article deleted, as it was only created as a platform for pro-gay activism. I was also, again IMO, the primary antagonist in last year's should-we-censor-images-of-Muhammad debate, Arbcom, and RfC, which ultimately answered that question with a resounding and forceful "no" to censorship. Any examples like that you can point to DS? Or does your mile-long block log speak for itself in terms of why you are an editor in this project, and what your track record is thus far? Tarc (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Truer words have not been written on this :) They think it's all over (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Eh? Not to embarass you, Tarc, but it looks as if TTIAO is already an established editor, first editing July 10th. Juddhoward is fairly new, but still predates this discussion, first editing on December 30th. Calling other people SPA's without at least glancing at their edit history is NOT assuming good faith. I could see your point here, but im just not buying it if you accuse wildly. Also, I hardly think that two votes (from two independent people) is "infesting" the discussion. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The closer should note that They think it's all over (talk · contribs) began editing 6 months ago, has 200-odd edits, mostly in the Muslim/Jew area, and was spouting Wiki-jargon and quoting policy like a pro straight out of the blocks. [107][108][109] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed in the slightest actually, as I did look first. In 6 months, "TTIAO" has edited almost exclusively in this topic area. Length of time does not make this person's editing any less singular, I'm afraid. I have no doubt it is simply a formerly-blocked user. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Be that as it may, it is not in good faith to assume that someone is a sockpuppet because they have oppose your arguments and a habit of editing volatile articles. Everyone has an equal opinion on Wikipedia. If you have no respect for other's comments, why should we have any respect for yours? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Everybody's opinion is valued on the merits of their argument, and to some extent on their reputation for good judgment. The opinion of an unknown editor, with 200 edits over six months, with all the behaviours of a long-term editor with 20,000 edits will be weighed accordingly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, if you wan't to go down the WP: ABF road, then you can go right ahead. They are you admin rights after all, don't let me stop you. My WikiVampire]-slaying blade needs sharpening, and i'm in no shape to resist the dreaded WP: BITE. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And AGF dos not mean behaving like a blind fool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely over the top. No previous blocks and editor acknowledges his fault. Opportunidaddy (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with a proviso that if his editing in other areas is without problems, he can request the community lift the ban after a suitable time period (not less than six months). GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Although only in the basis of one incident, his constant infringing on the topic has completely justified a topic ban. This could have easily become a legal issue. We don't want another Tron fiasco. However, I agree with GregJack. If he shows he can edit at non-inflammatory levels, then the topic ban should be lifted (of course, after a considerable amount of time). Perhaps he would like to join me at WP: MINING? Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support something but an indef topic-ban appears to be asking too much too soon relative to established community consensus and precedent, as far as I can tell. I read through the ANI histories and User Talk page of both Ankh and Noleander, and also the Noleander case. Noleander was the focus of five separate ANI threads (by my count). The final ANI thread lasted four days with !voting falling about in the same proportions seen here so far, but was not closed with a sanction. Instead, it went over to ARBCOM for 20 days before resulting in a 12-month topic ban for Noleander with the possibility of being lifted after that. The fundamentals of the argument against Noleander were that s/he was engaging in creating articles about individual Jews, using poor sourcing, and (particularly) misusing the sources to depict Jews unfavorably. The ARBMCOM ruling that specified the topic-ban gave two examples, 1) undue weight on negative views of Jews, and 2) misused sources were misued in a way to present negative views of Jews.

  In the case of Ankh, I can see some but not all of these characteristics. To start with, I could find only one other ANI case, which was closed with a recommendation that an WP:RFCU be filed, which did not happen. Noleander was the focus of much more scrutiny at ANI over a much longer period of time than Ankh has been so far. And the fundamentals are different: the quality of the sourcing is different, and convincing evidence was brought showing Noleander's misuse of sources in a way that completely turned around their meaning, and that's not even a main complaint here about Ankh's editing.

  To be clear, I personally am disturbed by the kinds of articles Ankh has created so far--they are not on topics I'd care to find in an encyclopedia, and they appear to be carefully crafted to show particular groups of individuals who are identified as Muslims or who have (I don't know how better to say this) Muslim-sounding names in the worst possible light. Some sort of intervention should happen here - whether it's an RFC/U, a warning, mentoring, or even a topic-ban of some length, but when Ankh's history is lined up with that of Noleander, who after a significantly greater amount of attention received a 12-month topic ban, an indef topic-ban here from "Islam and all Muslims" seems out of bounds. Zad68 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all the ban is too wide if there some problem it only in Sex gang articles second of all like was noted in the thread he only reports what the sources say.The complaint of User:GiantSnowman that it was right wing source.Maybe I missed something but I thought we can use the sources from all political spectrum as long as they meets WP:RS and not only [110]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. AnkhMorpork has been blatantly trying to paint articles about Islam and Muslims in as negative a light as possible. There are plenty of examples already given, but this seems like a particularly egregious example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. There is a lengthy history of POV editing here; it's about time a topic ban was enacted. Yes, he "acknowledges his fault" in this instance, but if he doesn't do anything to change his pattern of behaviour (and he hasn't so far) then it's just window-dressing. It's time to enforce a change of behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• (e/c)Support topic ban. Persuaded over the line for a topic ban per Boing! and the milder but still sensorious presentation by Zad: "they appear to be carefully crafted to show particular groups of individuals who are identified as Muslims or who have (I don't know how better to say this) Muslim-sounding names in the worst possible light" Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support; the recent strife at the Derby article seems to be part of a broader pattern of very worrisome civil pov-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Over the top. Zad makes a few good points, Shrike, too, it seems. Further, if reliable sources paint a group negatively, we should anticipate that articles here will (and perhaps should) do likewise. I suggest the supporters stop trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and let it go at this point. --Nouniquenames 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- this is not the editor to make the sort of judgments required. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User: Fideliosr

This user has a history of personal attacks against me. He basically started abusing me on Twitter and moved to Wikipedia after he discovered my profile. The user was warned many times not to engage in personal attacks, he was even issued a warning by an admin here which clearly stated he would be blocked the next time he abused me. Upon receiving this warning, Fideliosr left Wiki for a few days and now has returned and is at it again. This is what he wrote on a talk page where I requested the validity of a source to be talked about. Instead of contributing to the discussion, he engaged in a personal attack. This is what he wrote: "...why do you have to spend all your life adding negative awards to films of certain actors and positive one to some others?...Sincerely, Fideliosr (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)". He has called me a troll and biased editor many times before and this is the last straw. He does not contribute to Wikipedia but only targets me. This is getting out of hand and now he should be blocked. Ashermadan (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User has not been notified of the discussion on ANI yet. Notified here. m.o.p 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't mean any offense to Ashermadan and my tone implies so; I'm just questioning the blatant agenda-based editing. Most "old" editors who know him will know what I mean here. Besides that, I haven't been on Twitter at all. Secondly, Ashermadan is not at all a very civil editor himself but that would be totally irrelevant here. Keeping everything aside, I offer a humble, unconditional apology If I've voilated any Wikipedia policy. Regards, Fideliosr (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just take the matter up with other authorities. Thank you. Ashermadan (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia

• User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia

Jokestress/Andrea James has repeatedly acted inappropriately at the talk page of the Hebephilia article. Often, she's either attacking User:James Cantor/James Cantor or making demands. James Cantor is someone that she should generally have no contact with while on Wikipedia, by the way. Check their user pages, Wikipedia biography articles, and the Hebephilia talk page for why that is. In this section, not only did she demand that editors start doing what she wants done with the article, but also suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic. When editors understandably did not take kindly to her comments, naming some offenses she has committed off Wikipedia, she decided to respond with more venom and tamper with others' talk page comments. Jokestress claims that she is validated in tampering with the talk page comments like this,[111][112][113][114][115][116] disregarding what WP:TALK states about tampering with others' comments, because they are what she considers to be WP:BLP violations. As seen in those diff-links, I reverted her three times; she reverted me three times as well. We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations. And if they are WP:BLP violations, I do not believe that she is allowed to tamper with the comments in that way. There are other methods that can be taken.

I will be alerting her to this discussion on my talk page, where she has already commented about the perceived WP:BLP issue. And I'll alert the others (those involved) at their talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring of the comments is the most disturbing thing I see here. Why does she need to avoid James Cantor? Is there an interaction ban? Other then that I see two editors on the opposite end of the spectrum. WP:TROUT for refactoring the comments and a grow up to all partied involved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also WP:CIVIL issues to worry about, even though, these days, I have seen people (administrators and non-administrators) not take WP:CIVILITY seriously. She constantly creates a bad environment on the talk page (the Hebephilia talk page and other talk pages) because, with the exception of messing with others' comments, she is consistently doing what I noted above. She takes any chance she can to make a disparaging remark about Cantor, such as stating that he is a WP:Single purpose account (even though others disagree that he is and there's nothing necessarily bad about being a single-purpose account) or what Cantor has mentioned are WP:BLP violations. This is one of the things that makes the talk page environment toxic because, for example, Cantor is sometimes left having to defend himself in ways that sometimes result in bitter banter between the two or because others decide to defend him and/or tell her to stick to focusing on improving the article and not on Cantor. I don't know if these two have an official interaction ban, but like I stated to her on the Hebephilia talk page: "As some of us here know, you were a part of a well-publicized campaign against J. Michael Bailey, who Cantor has supported. And you hate Cantor almost as much. Now you are at an article repeatedly attacking a diagnosis proposal made by Ray Blanchard, Cantor et al.; when these individuals are involved, it's never simply about being neutral with you; it's rather about you having, as Legitimus has stated, an axe to grind against these people. You do this at almost all such articles involving views expressed by Bailey, Cantor or other researchers you don't like. You constantly hound Cantor around Wikipedia, and that is not at all about 'fair and accurate' matters. You act like Cantor is always pushing his POV and that you are never pushing yours, which is the opposite of what many others at this site have seen. For years on Wikipedia, you and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like you have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The "offences committed off wikipedia" are documented in this 60 page article. Probably a good place to get an idea starts with the words "In May 2006, knowing of my increasing curiosity in the matter". For me they are more than a little concerning. I would be quite concerned if Jokestress/James knew my real-life identity; comments like this, suggesting (though perhaps I'm being paranoid) that she is trying to ferret out my real-life identity, do not help the matter, nor do comments like this, where anonymous user names are used as an accusation of an undisclosed COI. Again, perhaps I'm being paranoid, but there seems to be genuine reason for concern that the noticeboard could benefit from knowing about.

The disputes between Jokestress and James Cantor do spill across a lot of pages and Cantor has voluntarily agreed not to edit many of them, but the two will often get pulled into unproductive baiting of each other which is disruptive to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So what are you exactly asking for in this situation? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments. Your initial statement above shows that you don't see any validity in her messing with others' comments like that simply because of her perception that they are WP:BLP violations. I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary i find that refactoring others comment is very much an issue, is it a tarring and feathering worthy offense not unless they have a history of ignoring warnings regarding it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the contrary": I didn't state or imply that you don't find refactoring others' comments very much an issue. In fact, I stated the opposite. And giving the user a warning about it, which I am obviously asking of someone with Wikipedia administrative powers to do if what she did is not permitted by WP:BLP, is not "tarring and feathering." And tampering with others' comments is not something that takes "hav[ing] a history of ignoring warnings regarding it" before being given a warning about it. If you are not an administrator, which it doesn't appear that you are, I'd rather an administrator weigh in on that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Trout and close'. Jokes tress gets a trout for the refactoring (it's not a BLP issue). FWIW Jokestress did not demand others identify their public personas, but suggested they might want too. Nothing wrong with that. Her other comments are mostly about how the minority scientific view is being given undue weight in the article. She might want to ask for more eyes from WP:MEDRS if that's a concern.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jokestress needs a warning, not a trout, and not just about refactoring others' comments (which is made even clearer by my initial post in the Proposed Interaction Ban section below). I did not state that she demanded that anyone identify their real-life identities. And if the majority scientific view is that hebephilia is not a mental disorder, that is not given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in the article at all. It's given overwhelming weight, which is why a request has been made to cut some of that weight down.[117][118] As for bringing WP:MED, not WP:MEDRS (which is the guideline for reliable medical sources), into this, they have made it very clear that they generally are not interested in working on/weighing in on psychological/psychiatric topics. And Jokestress has made her lack of respect for WP:MED very clear, stating that she would rather not take things there because they (including me) see things through a medical POV. Jokestress is admittedly very anti-medicalization of any sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than the refactoring, I don't see any wrongdoing, even from the section below you mentioned. It would help if you presented diffs, as tl;dr sections won't help your case.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see anything wrong other than the refractoring, then I have nothing more to state to you about this except the following: I have obviously provided diff-links on certain parts. And there's no need to provide diff-links when the links I do provide suffice. As for "too long; didn't read," that is only a problem for certain editors; most who frequent this noticeboard deal with lengthy discussions just fine (not that this discussion is actually that lengthy yet), and such lengthy discussions often do help cases.

Now again, I would rather administrators comment on this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

So in essence you are block hunting? You don't care what the consensus of the community is? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And how is that at all deduced from my comments above and below in this section? I'm not a newbie who is so naive to think that Jokestress would be blocked for any of this. I came to this noticeboard for administrative commentary and/or action. It is called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, after all. That does not mean that I don't want to hear from non-administrators. It means that I especially want to hear from administrators. We can talk about this section being too long to read, but it wouldn't currently appear that way to any administrator if the non-administrators hadn't kept contributing to making the section longer than it needs to be. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) If you aren't block hunting why the insistence that administrators only comment on this? help us understand how an administrator will be the key to fixing this if you aren't looking for a block and a interaction ban won't resolve it...If you notice there has been very little support for your version of events, yes there is some issues with the refactoring of the talkpage comments but other then that the consensus of established editors here thus far is that it doesn't raise the bar of disruption to the point where the person should be blocked or banned. It's also very telling that you are willing to ignore the considered viewpoints of others (who are nuetral) in resolution of said dispute either. I also would note you are only concerned with her viewpoint and not the viewpoint of Cantor or inappropriateness of comments. This points out that you may have a position/bias on what is right or wrong in her edits from a viewpoint of subject standard and not nec. interested in dispute resolution but want enforcement of a specific view by block, which is contrary to the entire base of Wikipedia which is consensus. Again i pose the question what are you looking for if not a block? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And FYI Thumperward is an Admin..just saying. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And yet again you are clouding up the talk page. I already explained myself above; I'm not about to repeat something you clearly don't understand. I'm not sure why you think that the only reason a person would seek help from administrators at an administrative noticeboard is to see an editor blocked or banned. Would you issuing a warning to Jokestress carry as much weight as a warning from an administrator or administrators? No. That's why we have these noticeboards. Administrators have the authority that you don't have, which is why editors come here. A lot of them have also been critical of non-administrators at this noticeboard and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard trying to do the job of administrators. And stating that there has "been very little support for [my] version of events," as if I've made anything up, is quite off. Administrators not having yet weighed in on this matter, other than Thumperward's criticism of the Proposed Interaction Ban section you started below because you started it too soon, with one non-administrator not seeing anything wrong with the issues that I and WLU have brought up, is not "very little support for [my] version of events." And, yes, support for the refractoring of comments being inappropriate is clear. As for not being concerned with Cantor, I have also made very clear that if Cantor has a WP:COI, Jokestress has as much of a WP:COI and that Wikipedia interaction between them is problematic. But it's not Cantor who WP:HOUNDs Jokestress all over Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Above you said "I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them." but now that's not good enough, the clouding here is coming from you and what you're actually requesting...You say one thing but you are rejecting that same solution, so what are you wanting to happen? A topic ban can be decided by consensus (and that is the preferable way to decide things) but there is no support for that at this time. Maybe if you're more clear about what you think needs done we can have a wider discussion because for an admin to arbitrarily say you're topic banned is in extremely poor taste and over-reaching in my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) What in the world? Yes, I stated that...with "I'm not sure" being keywords. And my statement definitely did not encourage you to go ahead and start a section about an interaction ban while discussion on these matters was just beginning (except for in your own mind). Thumperward is right about the matter of when interaction bans are usually proposed, which is something you should know if you visit this noticeboard frequently. As for the rest of what you just now stated, I made myself very clear as to what I am looking for on this matter. If you still don't grasp that, even though others, such as administrator Mark Arsten, do, then I don't know what else to state to you on this. People are also allowed to change their minds, or add on to what they think the solution could be. If I clouded this discussion at all, it was in response to your and another non-administrator clouding it. And, yes, I'm quite aware that administrators cannot arbitrarily state that anyone is interaction or topic banned. Again, I'm very obviously not a newbie. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Let's not forget the last half of that sentence "but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them" so in essence I think you're here in bad faith if you can't be clear with what you want. I don't think you like the suggestions of those of us that disagree and so you are selectively wanting to discount those because we aren't admin. The only difference here is that an admin can block and we can't. And you may not be a newbie but you definitely are acting like one here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I haven't forgotten anything. Your assertions are off, and other comments show that. Equating my belief that there needs to be an interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress with WP:Bad faith and making it out like it's just about what I want, even though I've made clear why there needs to be one and that there may need to be more than an interaction ban, and when others also believe that an interaction ban between these two is appropriate because it would be beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole, is absolutely ridiculous. Like I noted above, "[f]or years on Wikipedia, [Jokestress] and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like [they] have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." And I've already made clear the administrative matter, which you don't grasp for some odd reason. And I've made clear that it's you who has been acting like the newbie here, seemingly not being familiar with how core aspects of this site/noticeboard work. You talk about bad faith. But I see you having acted in bad faith because you didn't like my "15:10, 24 January 2013" comment, where I corrected you above. From that point on, you decided to divert attention away from the matter at hand and focus the attention on me, making this section "too long; didn't read" for some people in the process. Congratulations. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I guess you just speak or in this case type a version of English that doesn't mean what you typed. My mistake, perhaps you can be clear what action you really think it should take? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban

Proposed that due to incessant infighting due to COI on both sides which has lead to civility issues for both an interaction ban is enacted to both user Jokestress and Cantor for a period of six months. First break in ban is a day block and each time it is extended a week, month year, indef. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls are a useful tool for judging consensus following a detailed discussion. Starting one three hours after coming across a situation on a random walk across ANI is less so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And you meaning is? There's a suggestion that was proposed by a member above other then myself as a belief it would be a solution. I merely made a separate section for it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While an interaction ban would doubtless be a good thing, it doesn't address some of the other issues. Jokestress in her non-wiki life as Andrea James has done things that make people feel threatened (per my initial comment). Her edits to others' talk page comments are removals of statements by people pointing this out, and pointing out why they might have valid concerns about real-life consequences. I don't know if ANI is equipped to deal with something like this, which requires much patience and reading, and consideration of the overlapping roles and actions on-wiki and off. I don't know if arbitration could handle it. Jokestress has, in my opinion, a significant non-financial COI - but there is no clear-cut way to deal with it in a manner that will seem fair. I don't necessarily think "fairness" should be the over-riding ideal in this case, I think a topic ban based on human sexuality articles might be a way forward, but I doubt it would be endorsed by a critical mass of the community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was also thinking that something more than just an interaction ban needs to be done on this matter. After all, an interaction ban wouldn't restrict her from commenting or editing at articles that concern Cantor's work or the work of other researchers she doesn't like. It's the paraphilia articles, more than sexuality articles in general, that she significantly focuses on. And this is because some of the researchers she doesn't like specialize in those topics (especially Cantor). Anything to do with such researchers and transgender topics is also a concern when it comes to Jokestress's Wikipedia editing. See this section (which has subsections) at the List of paraphilias article. See the current edit history of the Attraction to transgender people article and its talk page; if that were a high-traffic article, something very visible to most Wikipedia editors, she would have gotten a WP:3RR warning or would have been blocked for breaching it. And on a related note to that time frame, see how she inappropriately started the following WP:AfD debates that concern Cantor: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynemimetophilia...and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael C. Seto. Then look at her comments at Talk:Michael C. Seto. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

However there were valid concerns about those AfDs that Jokestress was correct on, even if they weren't handled with the height of decorum. Cantor has been fairly obviously promoting his work and that of his co-workers, a COI if ever there was one. I don't know if Jokestress tries to restore balance but she has done so every time I've dealt with Cantor's work. It's time consuming and unending dealing with unwinding these knots of the fringe researchers promoting their views on Wikipedia as mainstream. Insomesia (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WLU and Flyer22 that a topic ban would better address the problem than an interaction ban. Even when I withdraw completely from a talkpage, Jokestress continues disrupting the otherwise unanimous editors. (For examples: [119], [120]).

I’ve kept on my userpage this pledge to end the persistent warring to no avail. I’ve repeated my invitation on the other pages to which she followed me (e.g., here, here), still to no avail.

Also, Jokestress’ incivility and personal attacks are repeatedly about me, even when they are not TO me, which an interaction ban would not address:

• On pedophilia: [121] “David Finkelhor is about five to ten times more influential than Cantor's colleagues regarding the definitions of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. ”
• On hebephilia: [122] “I can't take it any more…"Hebephilia" is a fictitious diagnosis, one of many created by an activist minority in the mental health field to pathologize sex and gender minorities...Unfortunately, one of the people in that activist minority, James Cantor, happens to be an editor here at Wikipedia.”
• On List of paraphilias: [123] "James Cantor, the Wikipedia SPA who does most of the editing here...Frankly, a gay guy is probably not the the most objective POV "expert" to conclude that his sexuality is "euphilic" ".
• On paraphilia: [124] “James Cantor appears nowhere in the top ten Google Scholar list when I do a search for "pedophilia". And that list is extremely biased toward the sociobiological/disease model of sex and gender minorities. ”
• On Feminine essence theory of transsexuality: [125] "User:James Cantor is a single-purpose account editing Wikipedia for two reasons: to promote his own writings and those of his sexologist friends"
• On Gynandromorphophilia: [126] “This is yet another attempt by this editor to medicalize a common form of attraction with an obscure term used by an activist minority in the mental health field, a little pocket of pathological science fixated on the concept of paraphilia…This is discussed much more commonly as a sociological phenomenon than a medical one, with the exception of a few holdouts clinging to 20th century ideologies.”
• On Michael C. Seto: [127] “Article was created by…a single-purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends.”

Jokestress is, of course, a productive editor in a wide range of articles, but the edits she makes to sexology articles and their talkpages are invariably about me and other people she keeps off-wiki attack sites about. (For examples: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-usual-suspects.html .) Indeed, her off-wiki attacks against experts she dislikes have become so notable as to have been covered in the NYTimes. (See here.)

— James Cantor (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not involved here per se, but I've closed some Afds that the involved parties have commented on and have read through some of the talk pages involved. I've been very concerned by the interactions between the two. I'd support an interaction ban at minimum, but I think Arbitration may be better suited to handle the complexity of this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think arbitration would be declined at this point as interaction and topic bans have not been attempted, so I suggest that we (the community) at least give it a go. It might be just postponing it for a couple of months, but we can hope it might work. As other have suggested above, I don't think either a topic ban or an interaction ban would work on their own but I don't see why they can't be combined. Perhaps something like:

• Jokestress is topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed.
• Jokestress and James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.

Do those more involved with this than me think this might work? I'm not certain that James Cantor needs the interaction ban as he seems better able to control himself, but one-sided bans are very often more problematical than problem solving. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with a topic ban, there hasn't been adequate formal dispute resolution for that extent yet but the interaction ban is in my opinion doable although it may be unnec as well if we can impress community consensus on Jokestress assuming we get one, a broadly construed interaction ban can be helpful if that doesn't work. I think in this case especially with the original posters reluctance of working with the community at that point we are enforcing one view by hammer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, accuse us of being reluctant to work with the community/of WP:Bad faith all because I stated that I also wanted to hear opinions from administrators at an administrative noticeboard. That's right, accuse us of being reluctant to work with the community/of WP:Bad faith all because you now have a score to settle with me. Ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, this was a prior request for arbitration: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=264958462#user:Dicklyon.2C_user:Jokestress.2C_and_user:James_Cantor_at_The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen_and_related_pages — James Cantor (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a highly relevant diff thank you for posting it. I would be more inclined to agree with a community enforced interaction and topic ban as it is noted by the Arbitrators that a previous one did work in the past and also note that several of those arbs said this is still within the reach of community discussion to resolve. I would also note and emphasize the part about community and discussion as being key to that, which is precisely what is happening here despite Flyers best efforts to subvert that process. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There have also been mediations, but I cannot locate the archive.— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And flyer if by score I'm trying to settle you mean discuss the situation posted here you are quite right, I'm trying to help settle it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No efforts on my part to subvert community discussion, no matter how many times you make such an absurd claim. You would do well to learn to focus on the matter at hand, and not on me because of your newfound and unwarranted grudge. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What grudge is that precisely? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder (sarcasm). Flyer22 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

So do I that's why I'm asking, what grudge do I have here? Maybe you could enlighten me, because as far as I know this is the only time we've interacted. I've asked very simple questions of you, you've answered one way then changed that answer saying that's not what I meant so here's your chance to do it over what do you think should happen because a warning as you also said above doesn't seem to be what you are aiming for? I only want clarification of what your aims are. I'd take an example from James Cantor he is showing relevant material and discussing the issue, which is the key to resolve it. If we (the community) don't understand whats being requested how can we help? Here's your chance to show your good faith, you can clear it up and I'll say thank you and leave it alone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Hell in a Bucket, there is a such thing as dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. I've made my comments about this matter, and how I feel that you and I got to the point of sniping at each other, clear above. You also don't recount my statements as accurately as you should if you are going to recount them. As for Cantor showing relevant material and discussing the issue; I have done that, and Cantor acknowledged that by his agreement with what I stated on issues concerning his interactions with Jokestress. I have significantly, and clearly to others here, expressed my thoughts on these issues. And I would now like to take The Bushranger's advice about stepping back for a bit and letting others weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At AN/I, "the matter at hand" is whatever comes up in the discussion. Everyone's conduct in a discussion is open to discussion - and, if necessary, sanction - and repeated insistence to 'focus on the [original] topic' only raises suspicion, rightly or wrongly, of trying to dodge or hide something. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Maintenance note: I've refactored the header to remove the links (with the original header added one line below) as links in headers are not of the good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Also, may I humbly suggest the above discussion slow down, just a little? There's lots and lots of discussion and already proposed interaction and topic bans and the person primarily under discussion, User:Jokestress, has not been online (judging by the contribution history) for the entire period of the discussion above which has already reached that point. Perhaps it might be wise to step back, drink a cuppa, and wait until the other side of the story is received? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Deeply concerned. I just read the NYT article Cantor presented and was shocked to read the following about Jokestress/James Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided.. I assume this issue has been addressed on-wiki already? Would someone please share a synopsis of the consensus?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't been. My opinion is the obvious one: that the sexology pages have been let to become Jokestress' WP:battleground for her off-wiki campaign against those same people and their colleagues (including me).— James Cantor (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those things were also made clear in my and WLU's original posts above in this section. I linked to the Hebephilia talk page discussion where others expressed that such off-Wikipedia offenses by Jokestress are why they are not comfortable revealing their true identities to her, and WLU linked to a journal source about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved, somewhat off-topic sniping.

Since you are now accusing me of distorting your comments lets look at the diffs. In this one you say you're not sure an interaction ban should be proposed here but you think there should be one [[128]] in the next you say Joketress needs a warning [[129]] and with the last one you state needs more then an interaction ban. So which is which? [[130]] I'm going to bed so you can feel free to take some time to think about what you were really trying to say and like I say if you can clarify what you meant, even if I disagree I will very happily apologize. even if you think a block is justified and that's what you want, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC) There are valid reasons that I stated that you don't "recount my statements as accurately as you should if you are going to recount them." Examples are you making it seem like I suggested to you to prematurely start an interaction ban discussion, and you stating that I changed my answer by saying something to the effect of "that's not what I meant." No, I told you already that the words "I'm not sure" were key words and that "[p]eople are also allowed to change their minds, or add on to what they think the solution could be." I suggested an interaction ban; I then stated that "I was also thinking that something more than just an interaction ban needs to be done on this matter." I didn't discard my suggestion; I added on to it. It's not one or the other. I believe that all of my suggestions would be appropriate actions. At the beginning of that same paragraph that you love to cite, I told you that I was looking "[f]or administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments." I then suggested an interaction ban. This is called "adding on to thoughts," not discarding any. Now you really need to drop your trivial focus on me; and it's clear that it's trivial, as even another poster (below) besides me has called it sniping. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) While I disagree with your explanation above and rationale that one person calling it sniping makes it trivial or that the comment was aimed at one person. I do agree it's irrelevant at this point because valid discussion has now started on this thread, which is what should have happened at the first point of discussion. Please realize that when you open a thread here that anyone is able to comment and help develop the consensus, it only becomes an administrative issue when you are specifically requesting a block(which is the point I was trying to make, very poorly), as that's the only difference in a situation like this and that there is not prohibition to anyone commenting or weighing in, whether you agree or not and you did appear IMHO to be trying to quash anything that was not agreeing with your spoken desire for admin action. I am going to drop this now because I have stated that I do agree with a topic ban and an interaction ban both broadly construed to stop the issues. I am a man of my word and while I do not agree with your rationale I apologize for my assumption of bad faith in this case. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Like I stated, others feel that valid discussion started with my and WLU's initial posts; I don't see what's invalid about them in the least. While I understand that you were initially trying to help, it moved from that point soon afterward. I mean no offense by this, but you don't have to tell me what this discussion board is for and what is allowed here, as I'm very well aware of those aspects. I disagree that bringing an issue to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "only becomes an administrative issue when you are specifically requesting a block"; that has never been the sole reason why there is a board (one of the boards) for editors to bring problems specifically to administrators. There is nothing wrong with coming to this board specifically seeking administrative opinion and/or action, whether non-administrators weigh in or not. That's what it is for. And I already expressed how administrators can help in this situation in ways that non-administrators cannot, while never requesting a block. You jumped to the block assumption. But like I stated, it makes no sense that I, a very experienced Wikipedia editor, would be seeking a block. I accept your apology, and I also apologize for acting harshly toward you. Now, yes, let's just agree to disagree and move on from this part of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And I agree that Only in death's "sniping" comment was directed at us both; I did call the matter "sniping at each other" in my "19:17, 24 January 2013" comment above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ignoring the above sniping (feel free to hat it anyone) To Cantor & Rosetta - Jokestres's off-wiki actions regarding Bailey are not really anything Wikipedia can do something about. Old news for a start, and at best they can be taken into account that she has a COI when it comes to editing the topic area (as does Cantor). Do you (James) interact with Jokestress anywhere else on wikipedia other than the Sexology topic area? Because if not, then a topic ban for both of you would be the simplest way forward for everyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: An IP suddenly popped up to complain about Jokestress at the talk page of the J. Michael Bailey article. It's suspicious that the IP showed up on this day, with all the above already going on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantor may have a COI. However Jokestress appears to have a vendetta against some BLP subjects. A topic ban for her and and an interaction ban between her and Cantor.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban for User:Jokestress from all articles and talk pages relating to sexology and paraphilias, broadly construed, and mutual interaction ban between User:James Cantor and Jokestress as proposed by User:Thryduulf above.

Among many points above not fully grasping the issues at hand the contention offered by User:Only in death that as WP cannot "do" anything about off-wiki behaviour, that such behaviour is now old news, and that the relevant issues pertain only to the interaction between Cantor and Jokestress, fails to address the potentially chilling effects of an editor with a documented history of behavior off-wiki that many would regard as intimidatory enjoining other editors to reveal their real-life identities (as detailed on the hebephilia talk page). In this instance, off-wiki behaviour, rather than being irrelevant, clearly informs the reception of such comments by the editors at whom they were directed.

For clarification, I've previously edited the Hebephilia and Talk:Hebephilia pages but departed more or less coincidentally with (but not consequent to) Jokestress's arrival at those pages. I've also had some earlier interaction with Jokestress but cannot, through the available tools, actually pinpoint where and when on-wiki [131]. That source is obviously missing something as, arising I think out of some discussion on related sexology pages and alterations to Andrea James's biography, I had agreed to add previously removed content to Andrea James's biography (a promise I didn't fulfill) and entered into limited email contact with Andrea James/Jokestress about the same. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic ban for Jokestress and interaction ban between Cantor and Jokestress are very good ideas. I think they would solve the issue nicely without need for Arbitration. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Realistically FiachraByrne, wikipedia cannot do anything off or on wiki to prevent that 'chilling effect'. Given the tactics Jokestress has been willing to use in her activism, topic-banning her wouldnt prevent those actions from happening again. It just means she wont be able to do anything at the article in question. It doesnt prevent her or anyone else from reading the talk page/edit history and deciding to take action elsewhere. I wouldnt touch any of those articles just knowing someone who feels strongly enough to take the actions linked above is watching them. Even if they cant contribute. A topic ban may at least prevent the (I am not convinced on this) attempts to solicit real-life identities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Thryduulf's suggestion. And a minor point of note - James Cantor is sometimes referred to by editors (inclding myself) as "James", making it difficult to parse some comments that refer to Jokestress as "James". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per all the comments showing (among other problematic things regarding Jokestress) the toxic environment that is created when Jokestress comments on researchers she does not like and/or edits articles concerning one or more of those researchers, and per what often happens when Cantor and Jokestress interact on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for this issue

• Maintenance note: I slightly renamed the section (having added "for this issue" on to the title) to keep us from being taken to a section far above that has the same title; this would happen when we saved edits in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please see my further comment below before commenting in this discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From an activist perspective, I would be very sympathetic to James, were it not for the "pictures of Bailey's children" part. I have my deep, deep personal concerns about some of the professionals at CAMH (and Bailey, though he works at Northwestern University) and their support of alternative theories into transgender typology which I agree with James (and, indeed, the NGLTF) are unscientific and objectifying. This is a very nasty real-life dispute that has flowed onto the wiki. That said, NPOV dictates that we must leave such activism at the door. First, James' reverts are legitimate per BLP and NPA and are oversightable. Legitimus basically accused her of a serious crime that I can see no evidence of her ever committing; even, in the case of Bailey during the The Man Who Would Be Queen controversy, the NYT and even Dreger agree with her on the facts that the pictures of Bailey's children were freely available on his website. Such an accusation would normally be grounds for a ban in itself; I propose blocking Legitimus until he retracts his accusation. First, I agree with an interaction ban, but I would also expand that to Legitimus, and topic ban all three of them from articles on sexology indefinitely. It's very clear that all three have major COIs relating to their real-life work which is causing them to push their own points of view and attack each other. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen with Jokestress's repeated removals of the text, Herostratus also wrote that she is the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that she used. It wasn't only Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic banning Cantor or both Cantor and James, as proposer. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) (Edited: 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC); see below
• Oppose for Jokestress, sorry she may have issues but she is highly competent when not provoked and I'm afraid we're only getting a part of the fully story. I would like to see her commit to toning down the problem behaviors and explaining a bit more what is going on. From what I've seen there has been some highly visible fringe campaigning going on for years and she is doing a part of the walled-garden weed-whacking. Insomesia (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress. I had no intention of ever posting in this discussion, but by making your statements about me, I have no choice. I have gone back and edited my own talk page comment to remove the untrue portion, and I encourage all other users who made similar statements to also edit there own remarks. I was neither accusing nor lying however. I genuinely thought that was what had happened because sources I read never said where the photos came from. I need to clarify two things though. First, I did not "accuse her of a serious crime." In real life (as opposed to lifetime movies) photographing people out in public in situations where there is no expectation of privacy is not illegal. Otherwise the staff of TMZ would all be behind bars. Second, how the photographs are obtained makes little different as to the heinousness of the behavior. In the jurisdiction I live in, James would have faced prison time all the same due to how our cyber-stalking laws work here. While I freely admit my statement was in error, my disgust at the behavior and anger at being so flippantly and incorrectly accused of libel with the threat of a ban prevents me from outright apologizing at this time. If this can be sorted out peacefully, I may change my mind. I have chosen to voluntarily recuse myself from the hebephilia article entirely and have removed it from my watchlist regardless. I think Jokestress should do the same or else be topic banned. Had she and I met in another topic that was less contentious, we might have gotten along.Legitimus (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Legitimus, c'omn, we need you at that article. Leaving it is exactly what she wants, which is why she tried intimidating you. Don't let her win. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

She genuinely makes me nervous about retaliation. She said on my talk page she tried to e-mail me twice, though I never received anything. Could be a technical issue, but I'm concerned what they might have contained or if it was some kind of ploy to get my e-mail address. I'm similarly not fond of being brow-beaten on a psych topic by a Hollywood writer with no mental health creds. I don't want to be involved if she's going to still be editing these articles. Bullies exist only so long as the system lets them get away with it.Legitimus (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You're strong enough to handle it. But I understand being tired of it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The problem is not jokestress, the problem is that the article (like others) are a battleground becasue of two parties with strong POV's, and at least one party (Cantor) with a clear COI. Because of this, several articles are in poor state because of the POV involved. If users who push back to this get topic banned, POV-pushers like flyer and cantor get their way. I have repeatedly edited edits of Cantor because they are not reflecting what the sources state, but his personal conclusions. If anything, Cantor needs a topic ban for repeated POV pushing based on his COI. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You really want to start with me right now? I don't have any POV to push on the Hebephilia article, or any Wikipedia article, except keep POVs like yours and Jokestress's out of it/them. You have as much of a POV at that article as anyone, coming out of "retirement" just to push that POV. Whereas Jokestress is very much for hebephilia not being characterized as a mental disorder, you are very much for hebephilia being characterized as a mental disorder. You have made it no secret that you pretty much see it as pedophilia. This is why you made this mention of the overlap in the lead, although I ended up tweaking it. So don't come here making false claims of POV and stirring up needless drama. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The article made it sound like it was a accepted fact that it was a separate paraphilia from pedophilia. It is not, and if you want to push the idea that it is my POV when I actually provided some recent citations for the claim, instead of a single decades old citation that did not cover what we know NOW, you just showed what the problem is. You are one of the worst POV pushers I know. And for the record, you have obviously NO clue how I see things. But in the end, it does not matter. What matters is that Blanchard and Canter have tried to get it in the DSM-V in various forms, and they were rebuffed soundly. That included a redefinition of pedophilia away from current definitions, and the article was reflecting that, and not the accepted definitions. That is what is wrong with the artiel. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It is separate from pedophilia, according to most reliable sources on the topic, and the article did not call it a paraphilia. I, however, have argued that it's only somewhat separate from pedophilia. But that it overlaps with pedophilia, an overlap that I have repeatedly acknowledged (to Cantor, you, and to others), and is also why I did not revert your "overlap" edit, does not make it pedophilia. That is your problem; you want everyone to equate hebephilia with pedophilia, which you have made no secret of (here at Wikipedia and on your personal blogs, which would sometimes coincide with your editing, and is why you are one of the worst POV-pushers I know of). Because of that, I very much doubt that you did not want it listed by name as pedophilia in the DSM-5 (which makes your bias against Cantor all the more odd), unless it's the fact that it would still be distinguished from pedophilia under Blanchard's proposal that caused you not to want it listed in the DSM-5. At the time of the aforementioned edit you made, the article was (and currently still is) reflecting that a lot people (including researchers) do not consider hebephilia to be a mental disorder or a paraphilia, meaning that it is different than pedophilia (and the article being formatted like that is largely because of Jokestress's involvement with the article). That hebephilia is different is the currently accepted definition among most experts in this field. So, yes, I (and others) obviously have a clue how you see things. And just like Jokestress, you take any chance to make a disparaging comment about a Wikipedia editor that you don't like. But this thread is not about the animosity between you and I. And so... Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be wise that you do not speculate on what my opinion is about things, as you obviously have no clue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I have no clue (sarcasm). But it is wise to keep the animosity between us out of this thread, as well as off Wikipedia as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and using sarcasm is not going to change that you indeed have no clue about what my opinion is about certain aspects. If you respond to things I write, i will respond back if I feel like it. if you do nto wantb to be called out of making things up, don't make things up. It is really simple. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I indeed do have a clue about what your opinion is about certain aspects. Stating that I don't won't change that. It's that simple, really. As noted, your stance (past and/or current) on certain aspects is on Wikipedia, so the "made up" argument is silly. And as for you responding to things I write in response to you, that goes vice versa. Yes, I know that you love getting the last word; that's old news. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can keep proclaiming that you have a clue about what my motivations are till eternity, the fact is that I know what my motivations and opinions are and you have them wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And you are obviously allowed to keep claiming/asserting that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am indeed allowed to claim that I know my own motivations. Or is there is rule against "knowing your own motivation" nowadays on wikipedia? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, someone wants the last word badly. I'll be childish like you and not let you have it. This thread will have to be shut down first. That, or warnings to us both will need to be issued by an administrator (or administrators, as in not from you). Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the incivility, but you're both acting like a pair of 5 year olds fighting over the swingset at kindergarten. How about you both shut the hell up since you're doing yourselves no favors, other than appearing to be a pair of dicks? Fish^Barking? 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No apology needed for your incivility, BarkingFish. I obviously agree. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Jokestress, per all the comments showing (among other problematic things regarding Jokestress) the toxic environment that is created when Jokestress comments on researchers she does not like and/or edits articles concerning one or more of those researchers, and per what often happens when Cantor and Jokestress interact on Wikipedia. I disagree that Cantor or Legitimus should be indefinitely banned from sexology topics. They have excellent knowledge on sexual topics, especially regarding pedophilia. Having a COI does not mean that these editors cannot and should not contribute to these articles, as long as they edit respectfully concerning those COIs. But I've never known Legitimus to have a COI, and especially not on the level of Cantor or Jokestress. He has never tried to push his personal POV on a sexual article or any article. He rarely edits, mainly showing up to revert vandalism, other unconstructive edits, or to comment on the talk page of articles (such as providing needed information). When he edits an article, his edits are always fair and balanced. Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress, as per Thryduulf (with little green rosetta, FiachraByrne, WLU, Flyer22, Hell in a Bucket, and Mark Arsten...Or does this new section indicate a whole new ball of wax?) I am also willing to support/participate in a mutual interaction ban.— James Cantor (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban for all involved without going into extreme detail as to the particulars. I think James Cantor has shown exemplary poise in this Ani and also note that Jokestress is a very valuable contributor (multi-lingual) in many areas in spite of her inclusionist nature (I am a deletionist). It's unfortunate anytime a topic/interaction ban must be made however I think it should be six months with a hope that they can all come back to their senses and edit constructively. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Arbcom or defer until Oversight review. I see a little kangaroo court has popped up before I am able to comment fully. Legitimus and Herostratus suddenly seem to understand they have crossed a serious line, and their attempts with Flyer22, WLU, and James Cantor to poison the well here and get a quick decision before I can respond is typical of their previous attempts to sanction me here via this kind of trolling. How about we close this without action, take this to Arbcom, or wait on a trial till I am able to comment? It's way too complex to be a simple up or down vote on one editor. Jokestress (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time to comment, such as when I first brought this matter here. You decided to lay low while all this was going on. I'm unaware of Herostratus, Legitimus, WLU or myself trying to bring sanctions against you before. Suggesting that you stop WP:HOUNDING Cantor, on the other hand? Yes. And as comments from outside editors show above, the concerns expressed regarding your actions on and off Wikipedia are not a matter of trolling. As for taking this to WP:ArbCom, I'd be fine with it being taken to them, especially since it doesn't seem that this thread will be successful in resolving the issues. But there is the matter of what Thryduulf stated above: "Hmm, I think arbitration would be declined at this point as interaction and topic bans have not been attempted, so I suggest that we (the community) at least give it a go. It might be just postponing it for a couple of months, but we can hope it might work. As other have suggested above, I don't think either a topic ban or an interaction ban would work on their own but I don't see why they can't be combined." Flyer22 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And deferring to Oversight review only addresses the WP:BLP concerns you've expressed regarding Legitimus and Herostratus stating that you are the photographer of the pictures of Bailey's children that you used. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Jokestress per Flyer22 and per this. Oppose topic ban for Cantor and Legitimus per Flyer22.--В и к и T 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Further comment: While I was aware Cantor worked at CAMH (which already rang alarm bells in my head) when I proposed the topic ban, I was not aware of this line in his Wikipedia biography:

He is skeptical of shemales—men who undergo procedures to look female and who live as women, but who do not seek sex reassignment surgery—who say they want to remain in a shemale state. Cantor has been quoted as saying that "[the 'shemales'] often change their stories as they come to terms with everything."

After reading that line, I immediately retched. If an editor had said that on-project, I think they'd be looking down the barrel end of a long ban. Reading into his activities more, he seems to be have been active within a concerted effort of his colleagues at CAMH to introduce their own pet theories into DSM-V (most notably, autogynephilia, a theory which Cantor seems to support due to his positive review of The Man Who Would Be Queen). If he's willing to push such a personal unscientific agenda in the medical industry, I think it's not inappropriate to discuss whether he would do the same on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Cantor has a long history of POV pushing here at wikipedia, and Flyer often seems to act as his meat puppet. Because of this, a whole series of articles is effectively owned by them, and it ios sheer impossible to get quality edits into those articles based on actual sources, or as with hebephilia, sections get so incredibly bloated that they are anything but encyclopedic. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So much for keeping the animosity between us off Wikipedia. There is no proof whatsoever that I act as Cantor's meatpuppet. Not to mention, that I don't agree with what a lot of Cantor believes (and I do mean his research). And like I stated above, the Hebephilia article being what you call "bloated" with the DSM debate is largely because of Jokestress's involvement with the article. It's not like Cantor would want all the criticism in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, the section is bloated because Cantor is pushing a specific POV with regard to this topic. This inhibits sensible encyclopedic writing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect? LOL. The talk page and its currently only archive show otherwise (that rhymes). Most of the DSM material currently in the article is criticism of the hebephilia diagnosis. And who requested that such material be in the article? Jokestress. Jeez, you'll lie about/distort anything. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR. Tread carefully. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, The Bushranger. I wasn't going to reply to you on that, but, seeing that WP:LIARLIAR is an essay page about deletion of content/articles, the only relevant thing I see there regarding this discussion is where it considers calling someone a liar to be a personal attack. But, on Wikipedia, we often state that others' claims are not true, as demonstrated in this discussion; I don't find that much different than using the words lie or liar, except that using those words are less pleasant. I much prefer the Wikipedia:Honesty page. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose topic ban for jokestress. I would support a civility remedy however, as jokestress does have an aggressive and combative approach to other editors which is damaging to the editing environment. I cannot support a topic ban on jokestress alone as there are other editors on that page with strong POV's who engage in disruptive POV pushing and singling out jokestress would be unfair on her. I tried to edit the article as I felt that it was very biased (although the article has since changed substantially) but I kept getting reverted and met with strong POV's on the talk page. In the end I backed away from the article and left it for others with better stamina to bring the article to neutrality. Jokestress is certainly not the only problem editor on there and thus should not be singled out on her own. Anyway, the way forward I feel is an admonishment and a possible civility remedy placed on jokestress. If this fails to resolve the issue, then ArbCom or a topic ban might be in order; topic bans are not first resort remedies, usually.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC) **Support topic ban for Jokestress on articles related to sexual matters including paraphilias. Also would support an interaction ban between Jokestress and James Cantor and a civility remedy for Jokestress. Initially I was opposed to a topic ban on this user (due to ignorance of the very long background) but upon reading comments more closely and doing some background digging, I see there is more to this editor than I first thought and I have grave concerns regarding the conduct and behaviour of Jokestress. I am particularly concerned about the long history of harassing type behaviour including the abuse of pictures of opponents children - editors have expressed a fear of this editor destroying them if they find out their real world identity. Their aggressive style is also desruptive. I don't see how one can expect other editors to work alongside an editor like Jokestress given the harassing behaviour she has engaged in, especially given that this editor has not reformed their ways in the past 10 years.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose topic bans or any remedies on anyone. Support sending this to ArbCom. After reading this response by Jokestress to my concerns, I am changing my vote for the 3rd and final time. I oppose any community action on any editor including jokestress. I (and I am sure others as well) am getting mislead left right and centre with half truths and lots of mudslinging. What is at the heart of this is a complicated POV battleground and to get to the bottom of it requires ArbCom I feel. Kneejerk reactions by the community risks punishing people who have the most mud sticking to them but not necessarily guilty of much. I honestly don't know for sure who is the 'main problem' on these articles - so lets just send this mess to ArbCom. :-) --MrADHD | T@1k? 16:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban for Cantor/Jokestress, topic ban for Jokestress While the actions by Jokestress are 5 years old, they are so reprehensible that it should be obvious to all that her judgment is clouded with respect to the whole "phillia" thing. And it appears these off wiki battles are still occurring onsite. Enough.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban on Jokestress and Cantor - topic ban on all paraphilias for Jokestress - Clearly this is going nowhere, suggest both Cantor and Jokestress stay the hell out of each other's way, and Jokestress stay out of the topic as a whole - their presence and edits are clearly causing strife, but let us not forget that Cantor's COI pushing doesn't exactly help matters. Fish^Barking? 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've said so above, but since new voting sections keep getting added, I'll make it more clear for the closing admin: Support an interaction ban between Jokestress and Cantor and a topic ban on paraphilias for Jokestress Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In addition to my proposal above, which I still think is worth trying, I beginning to think that something needs to happen with Kim van der Linde and possibly Flyer22. Certainly the former is not acting at all like an admin should, and I'm thinking that some sort of restriction is in order to get them to civilly discuss content rather than attack other contributors. I wouldn't object to an interaction ban between the two parties either, but I'm not sure both it and the restriction on Kim van der Linde are necessary. I don't really see Flyer22's contributions to the interactions between them being significantly more than rising to bait (which they really need to stop doing), but as above I'm not a fan of one-sided interaction bans, and in this case I'm not convinced that Flyer22 wouldn't game and bait a one-sided ban on Kim.
  If we can remove the hindering users then I strongly believe that high quality neutral articles in this area. James Cantor does have a very big COI, but that in itself is not a problem as he appears to abide by the WP:COI guidelines well. Jokestress has an equally large COI but doesn't seem to be able to play nicely with others in this topic area or respect the COI guidelines nearly as well; this is a real shame as her actions do much to discredit her views even though they seem broadly aligned with the mainstream in many respects (as I understand both her views and the mainstream).
  Finally, a think a firm reminder to all parties about civility and COI policies and guidelines needs to issued along with the understanding that further breaches [i]will[/i] (not maybe, will) lead to sanctions including blocks. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

KimvdLinde is hardly on Wikipedia these days. She's "semi-retired." So there doesn't really need to be an interaction ban between us. On or off Wikipedia, I can work with people that I dislike; she has repeatedly displayed that she cannot, often attacking me out of nowhere (just like she's done here). I don't game and bait people, by the way. Most who are familiar with my editing can attest to that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I have seen of Flyer's contributions, they seem to be within policies and guidelines and in my opinion Flyer is a competent and productive editor. I have not seen any evidence of baiting or gaming behaviour. I am not familiar with Kim at all, so I can't comment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm an involved party (sort of), I did allow myself to be goaded by Jokestress into quoting Joseph Welch and so forth (justifiably, but I still shouldn't allow myself to be goaded), and I did make an error: Jokestress (that is, Andrea James) did not take a covert photo of her opponent's elementary-school-age daughter and publish it on her website with the eyes blacked out and a caption asking whether this elementary-school-age daughter was "a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?". I shouldn't have said that because it wasn't true (I had misunderstood) and I apologize. What I meant to say way that Jokestress copied a photo from the web of her opponent's elementary-school-age daughter and published it on her website with the eyes blacked out and a caption asking whether this elementary-school-age daughter was "a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?". Obviously that is so much better and of course that changes everything.

However, inasmuch as I do have standing, if any, as an involved person to comment, I would also Support interaction topic ban on all paraphilias for Jokestress I suppose. Actually I guess I would support a topic ban on all topics and an interaction ban with everyone if that were possible. Heck if it were possible I'd support her being banned from the internet and here's a couple reasons why:

1. , she constantly and persistently goads me (and others) as some kind of unworthy mook because I "hide" my real identity (which is perfectly within policy and tradition and general pratice here). This is very annoying and depressing since I have reasonable cause to believe that if she did get hold of my real identity she'd use to to try to ruin my life and quite possibly succeed. I'm afraid of this person and that's no fun, and no way to run an encyclopedia, I don't think. If we were running a drug cartel then "instilling fear" might be a good core value, I suppose; for writing an encyclopedia, not so much.
2. , we really don't need the kind of editors who write articles like Adult sexual interest in children with text like "...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern...", as she did. No other editor can get away with this sort of stuff. Hats off to her that she can, I guess, but how helpful is this to our mission? "Hi! My name is Andrea James. I am a writer and activist..." but do we really want this kind of activist? Not in my opinion we don't. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this information Herostratus - I was not fully aware of the background. That is quite shocking and I agree that editors cannot be expected to work alongside someone like that especially given that this editor continues some of the problematic behaviours and has not apologised from what I can tell and is continuing harassing type behaviours. I have changed my vote above to support a topic ban on this user Jokestress as well as supporting other remedies against this user.--MrADHD | T@1k? 09:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I didn't say that. Richard Posner, one of America's most famous living attorneys, said that in his widely-read book Sex and Reason. This is all part of Herostratus' long-running bogus attempts to paint me as "pro-pedophilia," an outrageous accusation which should probably also be oversighted at each instance. I frequently work on topics of a controversial nature here because I find it interesting, but my article edits are always within policy. In the case of human sexuality, there are a few people who are so hairtrigger about the whole thing like Herostratus, that it's impossible just to mention the full range of scholarly opinion on a topic without being accused of this or that by Herostraus et al. I edit under my real name and work for a number of high-profile family-oriented companies off-wiki. Do you think I would do anything here like be pro-pedophilia (whatever that means)? This has turned into a giant IDONTLIKEIT referendum and has nothing to do with any recent activity. It's a rehashing of old grudges. I have done nothing in violation of policy and I am being punished because five editors want hebephilia to represent James Cantor's view, and because I do not want actionable libel about me to remain on the site. It's a no-win situation, where I somehow get punished for others' bad behavior in distorting an article. Herostratus libels me and his pals escalate the abuse then bring it up here, yet I get proposed sanctions? Now I think we should definitely all head to ArbCom. Herostratus bad-faith actions at hebephilia and just above call for some serious remedies. I can't believe he can libel me with impunity and I get painted as the villain. Jokestress (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have concerns about Cantor and 1 or two other editors on that page as well regarding their ability to write neutrally on that subject matter. In fact it was I who recruited WLU (an editor with a skill at editing neutrally in controversial articles) to the page to try and bring some sense and balance in the POV battleground. The main concern however, is not your POV or other people's POV but it is harassing type behaviour. What do you have to say about taking pictures of someone's children from a website and placing them on another website alongside sexually abusive commentary? That is not normal behaviour unless people are making stuff up?? I don't see you disagreeing with this allegation.--MrADHD | T@1k? 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is complicated, but here's what happened. In 2003, an exploitative professor named J. Michael Bailey wrote a lurid book about transsexual women. To sell it, he was doing a book tour around the US using images of transgender children as young as six without their knowledge or consent, mocking them in a lecture that provoked laughter from attendees and sexualizing them by saying he could tell their sexualities were one of two "types." Example: Psychology lecture lacks sensitivity to sexual orientation. Bailey also claimed these children could be "cured" with reparative therapy. His 19 year-old son and 17-year-old daughter were also helping to promote the book that year because it was dedicated to them, doing press, etc. To illustrate how outrageous his exploitation of trans children was, I took a quote from his book and put it next to an image of Bailey's 19-year-old son, and I asked which of two sexualized types his daughter was, using her image. As you might imagine, people went crazy, illustrating my point. And of course, no one cared that Bailey was making lurid mockery of our children, because they are trans and mocking and medicalizing trans children is completely acceptable. Once again, proving my point. Bailey was investigated by his university for a number of infractions involving informed consent and academic misconduct, and they sealed the findings right after he stepped down as department chair. You may recall Bailey is the guy who had his human sexuality class taken away after he arranged for a live fucksaw demonstration on a woman for students on campus. Example: Northwestern’s Fucksaw Sex Class Gets Axed. Ten years later, people have completely forgotten about Bailey's exploitation of trans children, exploitation of bi men (he said you are gay, straight or lying), and exploitative fucksaw class. But they remember that I am a bad person. Bailey and James Cantor have been closely connected since the earliest days of his exploitation of trans people. As noted above, Cantor has stated on record that he doubts "shemales" are telling the truth if they don't want to have genital surgery. He has also argued that "shemale" is a scientific term. Bailey works closely with a number of James Cantor's colleagues at CAMH.

Has any of this affected my edits at hebephilia? I don't think so. I just know that James Cantor and his friends at CAMH and here at Wikipedia have a long history of problematic activity toward sex and gender minorities. Because I am intimately familiar with how they operate and keep a close eye on everything they do offsite, I have tried to keep Cantor's excesses here in check, with limited success. My limited success is because of gross misrepresentations of what has really happened. I have been very above-board and have always edited under my real name, because I think that's important on these topics. These guys are just trying to shock people into thinking I am a bad editor/person. I think anyone can look at my 46,000 edits across all aspects of the project and see that I tend to be pretty even, particularly in the last 5 years or so. I often get commended for my work on controversial topics. This one has proven exceedingly difficult to edit because of how emotional everyone gets about the subject matter. I stay completely calm as wild-eyed editors libel me left and right and make numerous false accusations, but I get a kangaroo court after they bring up their own bad behavior here. Kind of amazing. Jokestress (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you were being pointy off wiki. No rule against that. FWLIW when I see anyone claim reparative thearapy works, I tend to discount most of their other beliefs. The problem here is that the off wiki activities of multiple parties have spilled over here, and it is disruptive. I am particulary concerned about the "outing" fears some editors have expressed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind and waiting till I gave (part of) my side of this.

• First and foremost, I have never outed any Wikipedian or threatened to out any Wikipedian. I do believe that it would be better for everyone editing extremely controversial topics to identify themselves in the interest of Wikipedia's transparency, especially those who have undisclosed COIs, but I can not and did not "demand" it of anyone. I believe something as controversial as a disputed diagnosis like "hebephilia" would be best served if those editing declared their COIs and better yet identified themselves. I also find it hard to edit with the constant personal attacks if I bring this up. Legitimus is a "mental health provider" of some sort who agrees strongly with Cantor for some undisclosed reason regarding hebephilia (they are a tiny minority in their field). I asked about that. Then comes the libel. I concede that some of my replies reflect my frustration, and that I should tone it down. When people start libeling me, then Flyer22 reverts the libel three times despite my telling her I am being libeled, I find it rather unpleasant to say the least.
• The NY Times guy who wrote the one-sided distortion was on a vendetta after I got him in trouble with media watchdog groups like FAIR etc in 2005 for an uncritical profile of Bailey called Gay, Straight or Lying? Bisexuality revisited. Example criticism: [132] Bailey claimed his now-disproved "science" proved that bisexual men are liars, and Ben Carey lapped it up. Two years later, Carey composed a hit piece on me and two other notable trans women (one of whom I have never met) who Bailey claims were a cabal orchestrating a vast conspiracy trying to "ruin" him. "Gay, Straight or Lying" was also the marketing term Bailey used to sell his exploitative book on transsexual women. Example: [133]. The book has long been out of print and the published took the unprecedented step of distancing themselves from the views of the book. James Cantor has been one of the book's staunchest defenders since its publication.
• Reparative therapy of trans children: as with hebephilia, James Cantor has been heavily involved in POV-pushing at the article covering reparative therapy of trans children. His friends at CAMH run the world's largest "clinic" for this "therapeutic intervention," as Cantor calls it. Clinicians have called Cantor's CAMH colleagues Ken Zucker and Susan Bradley's clinic "something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals" and have noted that the goal is preventing transsexualism: "Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable." Author Phyllis Burke wrote, "The diagnosis of GID in children, as supported by Zucker and Bradley, is simply child abuse." (from the GIDC article).
• In my many, many years at Wikipedia, I have never seen more persistently egregious COI activity than James Cantor's. He epitomizes a single-purpose account. Almost without exception, he is here to promote his allies and denigrate people like me. The diffs for this are his entire edit history under all three names. I believe Cantor's Wikipedia editing can be viewed as a particularly insidious form of paid editing on behalf of CAMH. He hides behind "expert retention," even though he is really "an activist minority in the mental health field" according to his peers. Having said that, I once again believe that we have had a good recent history of working together. I have also been making good progress at hebephilia with WLU. The disruption of that work is because of Flyer22, even more so than the libel by Herostratus and Legitimus. This AN/I should never have been opened by Flyer22, but since it is, I have proposed suggested remedies below up to and including formal interactions bans for all. Barring that, let's head to ArbCom. Jokestress (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out below, Jokestress's claim that she and Cantor have "had a good recent history of working together" and that "[t]he disruption of that work [and disruption of her work with WLU] is because of [me]" is utterly false. And as has already been made clear, most people here do believe that this ANI report, which, again, is obviously not just about refractoring comments, should have been filed because it has brought significant attention to serious issues. Jokestress obviously often cannot refrain from speaking of me negatively, but that is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And regarding what Legitimus believes, I point people to the Stagnant discussion of the Hebephilia talk page where he stated: "I also do need to mention that I have no opinion on whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder. This is another reason why I have stayed out of the debate. Though I don't think it's fair to favor certain professional's opinions who have never actually conducted any primary research in this subject area and appear to have financial and/or political stakes in opposing this. I am more interested in adding information about the term (and/or very concept) in an investigative capacity. The principle (whether called 'hebephilia' or something else) undeniably exists among criminal profilers and other members of law enforcement for use as a way to classify sexually-based offenders, though the actual motive that drives a criminal towards this population varies. For now I'd rather wait for the other parts to get sorted out." Flyer22 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jokestress, thank you for giving your side of the story. I still think that what you did was wrong as two wrongs do not make a right but no one is perfect. Your explaination of events does add context however which was lacking when other editors in good or bad faith were slinging mud. Your explaination cements in my mind that this is a complex battleground and requires an ArbCom intervention. I have changed my vote supporting sanctions against you back to opposing sanctions on you or anyone else and I instead feel that referring this to ArbCom is the best way forward and have 'voted' for this above. There is lots of half-truths and mudslinging going on in this topic area, I suspect.--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

MrADHD, I don't believe that Herostratus was trying to misrepresent anything Jokestress stated; rather, I believe that he was demonstrating what type of text was in the article she created; he did use the words "with text like," and they are in quotation marks, after all. For anyone wanting to read what was stated in that AfD, here is the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not have Herostratus in mind when I was talking about mudslinging but someone else. I have no opinion on Herostratus as I do not know them and I am not familiar with their editing. I am not sure who did what and when and feel this whole dispute as stated needs the attention of ArbCom to figure everything out.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not stating that you were, MrADHD. Jokestress is the one who stated that she did not say that and that Herostratus was misrepresenting her words. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note to combat the obvious assertion that I want the Hebephilia article to represent James Cantor's view: Like I stated at the Hebephilia talk page, I recently have repeatedly stated that most researchers do not consider hebephilia a mental disorder or a paraphilia. But Cantor has criticized my use of the word "researchers" and believes that most of what he considers to be the actual researchers do view hebephilia as a psychiatric issue that should be diagnosable. Do I believe that Cantor's view should be in the Hebephilia article? Yes, of course. But, for me, building the Hebephilia article is not about only or mostly "trying" to represent James Cantor's view. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• On my talk page, Jokestress has asked me to reconsider my proposal for a topic ban for her and interaction ban between her and James Cantor in the light of her responses here. Having re-read through everything, I still stand by it. Although her stated aim is for neutrality, I am not convinced that her presence is actually condusive to achieving this. I'm less certain now that some restriction on James Cantor isn't needed, but if it is then I think it would need to cover only article space, as his talk page interaction is not causing the problems that Jokestress' is. In terms of moving forward with content, I think that it might be a good idea to reach out to get more input from the community with a well-structured RfC, particularly if the removal of Jokestress from the talk pages doesn't on its own lead to the finding of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Jokestress. I've been involved in this, although I'm not one of the main protagonists. IMO, Jokestress's position is philosophically wrong-headed, but that's not the point. Both Jokestress and James Cantor have a COI. The difference between them is that Jokestress has an unrealistic aspiration that the article should reflect her POV in it's entirety, whereas JC engages with other editors and accepts that he can't always have everything his own way. That makes one of them, on balance, a negative and the other useful. The issue is really WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've had a think about JC's role with regards to the article. It is not the case, as has been suggested above, that other involved editors are his meatpuppets. That should be obvious from reading the talkpage. He does command respect as an expert on the topic (there's no denying that he is one) and he supplies other editors with papers, which is likely to curry favour (although it seems he is willing to supply whatever people might ask for, not just material favourable to his own position). However, the end result is actually an article which contains a lot of information against his position, so it does not seem to be the case that he has had any terrible distorting effect on it.

I'm perturbed by a few comments above along the lines of "anyone who is opposed to the medicalisation of sexuality (ie Jokestress) is OK by me". The article should properly reflect that this is part of the debate on hebephilia. But Jokestress's position seems more radical (and less coherent) than this, because she seems to want to write an article that puts it on a level with palmistry, which is something not supported by the sources or by common sense. Formerip (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Response from Jokestress

Per the instructions at the top of this page, I am working with the Oversight Team instead of responding here. Please don't take my silence as agreement with any opinions posted above. I'll have a longer reply sometime soon. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-Oversight update

Now that oversight is completed, it's clear that

• I was within my rights to remove actionable libel posted by Herostratus and Legitimus under WP:TPO.
• Flyer22 and WLU were in violation of multiple policies in reverting my removals.
• Flyer22's tattling via this AN/I report is pure trolling and disruption.
• This AN/I report was a pretense to poison the well and get me sanctioned when I could not comment.

I propose:

• This AN/I case be closed without action, unless you want to give a trout to Flyer22 for creating the disruption. I consider the incident that occasioned this to be resolved, as I am the aggrieved party, not her.
• Barring that, trouts all around for incivility.
• Barring that, wrist slaps for Herostratus and Legitimus for their policy violations, and for Flyer22 and WLU for reinserting said policy violations. In that case I should also get a wrist slap for rising to their bait and getting snippy.
• Barring that, I propose interaction bans for Flyer22, James Cantor, WLU, Legitimus, Herostratus, and myself.

The COI matter of single-purpose account User:James Cantor and his sympathetic proxies listed above, along with my own COI and that of a few others, is much more complex and probably requires a different venue for resolution. Everything in the section above is a one-sided account of some drama from 2003 they use whenever I call them on their POV-pushing at human sexuality articles.

With the exception of a handful of edits, every edit User:James Cantor has made on the project under User:MarionTheLibrarian, User:WriteMakesRight, and his real name promotes himself and his friends, or denigrates their critics (including me). In the case of "hebephilia," James Cantor and his friends recently failed badly in getting the concept codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), so he now seems to be using Wikipedia to rewrite what happened and to gain traction for his views among lay readers. This is an extremely complex matter that at first glance is hard to understand, and the topic matter means emotions can run very high.

• This article space edit by James Cantor, a revision that removed a factually accurate and reliably sourced summary of what happened with "hebephilia," started the recent article space problems. Cantor is part of the "activist minority in the mental health field" (a published expert's words, not mine) described in that revision.
• Uninvolved editors User:MrADHD and User:FiachraByrne made a series of excellent observations about the obvious bias in the article.
• I was making good progress with WLU and James Cantor despite our differences until Flyer22, Legitmus, and Herostratus showed up. Flyer22 is the real hindrance to productive collaboration in my opinion and should have stayed banned from Wikipedia. This disruption is typical of her overwrought behavior. You can see she responds every single time to people she dislikes. It's a dispiriting grind to deal with her, as we can see by this entire thread.
• It's very frustrating to see the James Cantor voting bloc control article content to reflect his views, fabricating a "consensus" on Wikipedia that is the opposite of the medical and legal consensus. I had previously agreed not to edit the article and have been limiting my comments to the talk page.
• I'd rather we all spend our time fixing "hebephilia" than creating unnecessary drama here. This incident report was unfounded. These kinds of disruptions are not improving an article badly in need of attention due to POV and COI.

tl;dr version: Incident resolved to satisfaction of aggrieved party (me). Propose trouts all around, or barring that, interaction bans all around. COI issues need to be resolved elsewhere. Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated below, "Reporting [you] was clearly about more than [you] tampering with others' edits. And as all others above have agreed, what I reported goes far beyond the refractoring of comments." And above, I've already stated, "You had plenty of time to comment [in this ANI report], such as when I first brought this matter here. You decided to lay low while all this was going on."

Your claims against me are baseless, while mine against you have been validated by others above.

You state that you "were making good progress with WLU and James Cantor despite [your] differences until [I], Legitmus, and Herostratus showed up." That's false. I was already at that article, working with you and others. Legitimus was already at the article as well. Cantor was barely participating. Legitimus was barely participating. Herostratus hadn't even participated. When you created that aforementioned Stagnant section on the talk page, essentially demanding that the article continue to be designed the way that you want it designed or else you'll make the article the way that you want it yourself, I called you out on that and that's when things got unpleasant yet again at the talk page. Then they got ugly when you suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic.

Your assertion that I am "the real hindrance to productive collaboration in [your] opinion and should have stayed banned from Wikipedia." is ludicrous, as even MrADHD, who propelled more eyes on the article due to concerns that the debate/controversy regarding the hebephilia diagnosis was being significantly downplayed, has made clear. I wasn't one of those editors reverting MrADHD. I was also never banned from Wikipedia. I was blocked. And Alison, the administrator/CheckUser who indefinitely blocked me, made it abundantly clear that I was wrongly indefinitely blocked. If others need her to weigh in about that and my conduct on Wikipedia, I'm sure that she would be more than happy to do so. And if it were me that you mostly have/had a problem with at the Hebephilia article, things would have gotten ugly between us before the Stagnant section because of how you treat those you dislike. But, no, who did things repeatedly get ugly between? You and Cantor. And as for me responding every single time to people I dislike... Why should I not respond to people making baseless claims against me, other than the fact that I am clearly rising to the bait?

Your claims above are nothing but a smear campaign against me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oversight

I just checked the edits in question, and they have been oversighted. This basically flips the issue around, and should be rephrased to why Flyer22 reinstated obvious BLP issues, and when she could not keep those in the article, running here to get the person who tries to remove those BLP punished. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A section devoted to me? Your obsession with me is pathetic. And the way that you often act unprofessional/childish (for example, being unable to work with someone you hate without bickering with them) has made me and many others (such as people at WP:BIRD) wonder how you ever were granted administrative rights. Reporting Jokestress was clearly about more than her tampering with others' edits. And as all others above have agreed, what I reported goes far beyond the refractoring of comments. While you're querying answers, you should also ask the uninvolved editors why they also viewed Jokestress's tampering with others' comments as inappropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Being uninvolved, I saw those edits and they seemed like they were hypothetical statements. Maybe oversight had to get the backstory in order to deem them BLP, but at glance they didn't seem that way.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The details of this story have been rehashed many times in context of the disputed articles, and Flyer is very well aware of the details of that situation. An uninvolved editor might have been a different situation. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The details of this story have not been rehashed many times in context of the articles I frequent, including the Hebephilia article (as the article's talk page and its currently only archive show). I'm not yet as familiar with the details as Cantor or Legitimus. And Legitimus and Herostratus messed up on their wording. My initial "We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations." line, which I crossed out, shows what my mindset was. If anyone wants to WP:Assume bad faith and state that I was pretending, then whatever. But it would be ridiculous for me to assert what I did, as if the opposite wouldn't be proven. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If one removes from Jokestress’ comment the poison to get to the facts, one finds there are no facts at all, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and trying to tell people what I think (but don’t), what I believe (but don’t), and what I want (but don’t). The only “evidence” that I think/believe/say such things is what scholars of rhetoric call “the association fallacy.” (If I and someone else can be fit into whatever degrees of separation, then I too am guilty of whatever crime the other person has committed in her eyes.)

As many here have already recognized, the problem is one of politics. To folks who do not study it closely, the GLBT communities can seem to have a uniform agenda (that being GLBT rights), and opposing it is dichotomously homophobic (or to risk being so accused). For anyone who attends them, meetings of GLBT activists are famously fraught with the “drama” over opposing flavors of political persuasions. However, the gay and lesbian movement (I am purposefully leaving out bi- and trans-) evolves. When I was first in school, it was politically incorrect ever to say that G/L folks were ever any different from straight folks. As G/L issues became mainstream, however, it become not only okay to acknowledge the differences, but even to do so affectionately and humorously. (Gay men being into fashion was an offensive stereotype in the 1980s, but now it appears on Will & Grace reruns and forms an entire marketing strategy.)

The trans- movement is, naturally, at an earlier point in this evolution. It is still politically incorrect to say that trans- folks are anything other than literally ‘women trapped in male bodies’ (or vice versa), and we are not yet at the point where many writers feel comfortable saying that there DO exist meaningful differences between natal women and transwomen (or men). When it comes to civil rights and certain other issues, the women-trapped-in-male-bodies can be a helpful metaphor. However, to a sex researcher studying (for example) the brain, it is not literally true. Unfortunately, saying so has become sufficient evidence that the speaker must be transphobic, incompetent, self-aggrandizing, or whatever. It is no accident that Jokestress’ complaints about me are not about what I actually say or do, but about what she believes or tries to get others to believe I >think< (but don’t).

Over the years, I have stopped bothering to correct the oft-repeated misstatements about what I think, but for the record:

• I oppose reparative therapy. (Even though I am a member of APA, I am well known for criticizing their lack of action on the topic.)
• I have and do publicly support the rights of the widest range sexual diversity imaginable, wider than any activist, scientist, or author anywhere. Although I have been very explicit to include the many kinds of gender transpositions, I am much more noted for defending the rights even of pedophiles. To insinuate that I somehow support rights for everyone from gay to pedophilic—but not for transsexuals—is frankly bizarre.
• That WP sexology pages were doing fine when only Jokestress was here (2003+) but got disturbed from NPOV when until I arrived (2008) is also a rather frank denial of reality. Anyone is free to compare the before and after of the pages relevant to Jokestress’ off-wiki attacks, such as J. Michael Bailey and The Man Who Would Be Queen.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

James Cantor and I are in complete agreement that there are political issues here. This is about politics, labels, and definitions.

• James Cantor has been described as an activist in peer-reviewed publications (an activist minority in the field, no less). He refuses to acknowledge he is an activist.
• James Cantor opposes reparative therapy for gays and lesbians, but supports reparative therapy for gender-variant children. He refuses to acknowledge the "therapeutic intervention" he supports is reparative therapy.
• James Cantor makes a great show of supporting the rights of people, but much of his work is around claiming gays and straights are "euphilic," a word he created and attempted to add to Wikipedia as part of his incessant self-promotion. By pathologizing and distinguishing his own sexual orientation from other sexual minorities, he is merely repeating the history of medicalization that used to be done to gays and lesbians (mental disorder label, reparative therapy, etc.). His recent attempt to make "hebephilia" a mental disorder failed outside Wikipedia, so now he uses a group of allies here to push his politics.
• I have written a vast array of psychology articles related to paraphilia, including biographies of many of the main experts. I believe those edits are pretty consistently of the highest quality. I work on many topic where I find the concept problematic because few editors are willing to apply policy to those kinds of articles.

Anything that happens at this AN/I should be applied evenly to all parties, and then we can head over to Arbcom if needed after that. I reiterate my proposal of interaction bans for all, including with each other in every direction. These guys are playing a little chess game where if they get me at the price of one or more of them, they still have several players on their team in play. I have been on set all week and not really able to give this matter the time it deserves. I believe Cantor's pattern of editing needs a much more serious evaluation. The real problem here at this AN/I (in order) is Flyer22, Herostratus, Legitimus, and WLU. Cantor and I should probably go to Arbcom with his voting bloc once this is settled here. Jokestress (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The real problem in this ANI discussion? The only problems I see in this ANI discussion are the bickering, false accusations/false claims and baiting. But as for the real problem concerning this whole matter, apart from the problems that have risen in this ANI discussion, most people (here in this ANI discussion) have agreed that it is mostly the toxic history between you and Cantor...because it has negatively affected the Wikipedia environment for years...and the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia regarding other editors you don't like. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Opinion - for what it's worth, I agree with what Herostratus said here - I am also afraid of Jokestress getting a hold of my real-life identity and undertaking real-life actions against me. I am further concerned that Jokestress might knows this, and initiates discussions like this one and comments like this one as a way of chilling the discussion and opposition. I don't think that ANI is equipped to deal with this; to truly understand my concerns, participants would probably have to read a lengthy article, and I doubt anyone wants to do so. If Jokestress does not realize the effect her comments have on other editors, then I am happy to have brought it to her attention. I hope she lets the entire topic of the real-life identities of other editors drop; they are irrelevant, as all pages are based on a summary of reliable sources - not editor opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is serious concern. There are real life consequences involved outside of the pedia, or at least the perception exists. I wonder if Arbcom should just address this instead.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Pratyeka abusing admin power

Pratyeka (talk · contribs)

User:Pratyeka became an admin back in 2003, back when RFA was a lot simpler. On more than one occasion, Pratyeka has restored pages that had been deleted via AFD without without any discussion or fixing the issues with the page, instead acting within his own opinion. Observe Hack Make and Nemerle were both deleted via AFD after the discusions ended with a delete consenus, see (WP:Articles for deletion/Observe Hack Make and WP:Articles for deletion/Nemerle. Despite this, Pratyeka restored the pages without a DRV or addressing the problems. He also restored Coral Consortium which was deleted for being a copy right violation with the comment "please identify the specific section(s) infringing copyright, as IMHO this article is actually useful and unique". The fact that he used the phrase IMHO, clearly shows that he was acting based on his own opinion and ignoring policy. Pratyeka also has restored many articles that were deleted via PROD without fixing the problem such as OMAPI. While technically, that is not an abuse of power, it is not a good use of it either. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

pratyeka and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but have you tried to discuss this with the editor at all? Aside from the ANI notice you've never edited his talk page, and the instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" so was there a discussion somewhere else that I'm just not seeing? I'm not saying it was proper to restore them (though one of them happened over two years ago), JamesBWatson already commented about this on prat's talk page, and unless the activity continues, is there something else you think should be done that JamesBWatson hasn't already done? - SudoGhost 21:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost - there wasn't any discussion between JDDJS and Pratyeka, but other editors have raised the issue on Prat's talk here. m.o.p 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that (after responding), but it seems like the issue was already taken care of before it was brought to AN/I. I guess what I'm getting at is that other than what admins have already done, which is to discuss it on prat's talk page, what is it an AN/I discussion is supposed to accomplish? I think at this point the only thing that would really happen is for others to go "hey that was wrong, don't do it again", and that's already happened. Unless it continues after that I don't really see a huge need for anything else. - SudoGhost 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What's required is for Pratyeka to say "hey that was wrong, I won't do it again".—Kww(talk) 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that at all but AN/I can't do that for him. - SudoGhost 22:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To correct JDDJS's opening statement here; there was a DRV in the case of Nemerle, and the deletion was overturned, so Pratyeka isn't in the wrong there (though the language used to undelete - "Clearly notable within the global computing community. Deletion misguided. Apologies" - doesn't sit well with me, as it's citing an opinion when it should just be following process).

However, bringing back Observe Hack Make is what I'm concerned about, due to the fact that Pratyeka did not re-create the page with solid sourcing or attempt to improve it; he just restored it (using admin rights), again citing "Very large/well known, serial, hacking event. Awaited for over 3/4 years. Not crystal ball/advertising." as his reason. I, for one, don't believe administrators should be using their tools to do things they could do as editors; nor should they use their tools to step around community consensus. m.o.p 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on Pratyeka's talk page as well. I'm concerned that an admin appears to be using their extra buttons to undo community consensus that they disagree with (I'm looking specifically at Observe Hack Make in this case). It would certainly be helpful if Pratyeka would agree to refrain from using the undelete option when he personally disagrees with the result of an AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nemerle deletion was overturned at DRV NE Ent 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The actions regarding Observe Hack Make were clearly inappropriate. The more frightening thing to me is that the discussion at Prateyka's talk page makes it clear that he doesn't understand that he isn't permitted to unilaterally overrule an AFD and has to go through DRV like everybody else.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

...indeed. To be very blunt about it the reply made by Pratyeka to the original query on his talk page about the Hack/Make undeletion raises serious questions in my mind as to whether he has the required understanding of policy to be an admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Had this been a personal conflict between the two of us, I would have discussed this with Partyeka first. However this is not a personal issue; this a case of an admin using his power against consensus. About Nemerle, originally I thought that he restored before the DRV was started, but it turns out he restored it in the middle of the DRV, which is still an abuse of his power because he did not wait for the discussion to end, and it does not appear that the DRV even influenced his restoration at all. JDDJS (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's still preferable to discuss the with editor on their talk page first -- maybe they'll agree with you and agree to change their ways. Never know until you try. NE Ent 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• If DRV was like it is now, recreation of the article could have still been in process to allow people to !vote at the DRV. This was not the case, but recreating something during a DRV (if you follow the proper steps) is not necessarily an abuse of the mop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But he did not follow the proper steps. He clearly just disagreed with the consensus so he ignored it. JDDJS (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Notice how I was replying to "an abuse of his power because he did not wait for the discussion to end," by stating that waiting for the discussion to the end is not, technically, required. I also noted that this particular case was not in line with policy... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

James B Watson just started discussion at 2100 UTC and an ANI thread is opened at 2146 UTC? Too quick, give the guy a chance to answer before we start heating up the tar. NE Ent 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, User:Wtshymanski bought this up on his page over a week ago. He responded that the deletion was in error, which is a clear indicator that he doesn't know that there is a limit to his power. JDDJS (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, the discussion on his talk page started at 14:27 UTC, 15 January 2013 [134]. And the response to that [135] clearly indicates that there is a serious problem here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that prat hasn't edited in 6 days I think maybe JamesBWatson's comment should have been enough for the moment; one person saying "I disagree" is one thing, when another person steps in and says the same thing it becomes a different situation. If prat continued to assert it was fine or continued the behavior it would be one thing, but what is AN/I going to do that JamesBWatson hasn't already done? - SudoGhost 22:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He should have his admin privileges revoked. He obviously does not have enough understanding of policy at the moment. He should be allowed to reapply for adminship if he demonstrates that he know has the proper knowledge of policy to be an admin. JDDJS (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen what it takes to desysop someone, and if you opened the AN/I discussion just to try to get him desysopped I'd say the chances of that happening as of this moment are pretty much zero. If he continues to restore pages like that that would be another story, but at this point desysopping is unlikely. Given that (to my knowledge) this isn't some recurring issue that he's been warned about before, a warning that this isn't acceptable behavior is the most I see happening. That warning should certainly happen, and indeed already happened before you opened the AN/I discussion. The only thing I see that needs to happen is that prat needs to acknowledge that this isn't acceptable, and not to do it again. - SudoGhost 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It would take more than this to desysop. I hope he acknowledges the problem and stops. Should he choose not to externally acknowledge the problem but stop anyway, nothing much is going to happen. The only path from here to desysop is to refuse to acknowledge and to continue doing things like this.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We should wait (a little while) for a response. If he demonstrates he understands, and won't be doing it again, no problem. If not, his judgment can't be trusted wrt recreating any articles and we can ban him from recreating any deleted articles. Presumably, he'll abide by that - if he doesn't, desysopping should take five minutes at ArbCom. He needs to actually address the community's concern. You (plural) are answerable to the community, whether you personally like it or not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you as to what should happen: a clear statement that he doesn't understand that what he has done is wrong should be enough to take action on. I'll stand by my prediction, though: unless he continues after this warning, not much will actually happen.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, a clear statement that he doesn't understand should certainly prompt action, but so should ignoring the community's concern. You are answerable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't not responding to this ANI be the same thing as a "clear statement that he doesn't understand that what he has done is wrong"? JDDJS (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He already has clearly indicated that he doesn't view what he did as wrong.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That was before he had the benefit of reading the views expressed in this thread. Give him time to consider his position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that it is a serious problem when admins clearly do not understand policy. As I said in my opening statement, this is not the only case of him overusing his admin tools. The only reason why he became an admin in the first place is that RFA was a lot simpler when he became an admin, all you had to do was be around for awhile and have some useful edits. He certainly would not pass a current RFA due to his lack of policy understanding. JDDJS (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am an inclusionist. Deletion is a last resort. It's shocking to see so much discussion about something so simple as restoring an article that clearly shouldn't have been deleted. Having said that, it's true that I joined Wikipedia a long time ago. I have not followed all of the policies' development, as I don't have time. But before assuming I am all out to get your policies and overturn your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' (one could almost say: "by self-appointed '(temporary) ministry of truth' committees", but I should probably avoid that), I'm just going to be honest and say that I make all edits in good faith, including this one. It occurs to me that if half of the effort bickering about this undeletion and policy could have been used to enhance the very valid article, then we would all be wealthier. I am going to go further and state something slightly obvious, which is that the notion of 'consensus' for deleting an article in Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed in multiple ways. Given that it's imperfect, given that some of us have been around and proven we are net contributors in good faith, what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge (I have been involved in the 'hacker' community since ~1995) if you can't press the undelete button for a huge and well known event, attended by loads of famous people (as mentioned during the restore!), that given it's quadrennial frequency it's fair to say is about to occur? I regret to say that for some time this will be my only opportunity comment on this discussion, as I am exceptionally busy and largely offline with travelling in the wilds of Zomia (behind the Great Firewall of China) before Chinese New Year. If you would like me to comment further, please post to my talk page and allow a few weeks for a response. Thanks for your collective understanding and apologies if anyone got their feathers ruffled. Also, thanks for your support SudoGhost, even though we don't always see eye to eye (re: recent issues on Bitcoin!), it's certainly a meaningful gesture. With the hopes that nobody is offended or upset, we can all get back to adding and editing useful and historic content: peace and love to all in the new year... prat (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. Considering the edit a bit more, I think as well as giving a resonable case I was also working to the 'be bold' policy. Now please relax and sorry if anyone involved in the mistaken deletion was upset by the undelete. Sometimes we are all wrong. In this case, the deletion was wrong, though the net effect (discouraging the article to grow too far until close to the event) is probably a reasonable outcome for all. PLUR. prat (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Using your admin tools to restore an article deleted via consensus at WP:AfD based on your own personal belief that it should not be deleted is so not on. Venues for contesting deletion are as available to you as they are to any other editor. How many times do we try to explain to non-administrators that having the tools and being an admin is "no big deal", only to have you completely use them out of process to further your own personal agenda? It's unacceptable, and if it happens again I will support any request that your access to the admin buttons be removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pratyeka should have gone through DRV, as overturning consensus by fiat is not what adminship is about. Reyk _YO! 01:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion

In a move that belies my exclusionist underpinnings, I've undeleted Extreme transaction processing. The article would appear to be complete crap in my eyes, but I can't see a G6 deletion as being even remotely justifiable.—Kww(talk) 06:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Goodness. That should not have been deleted. This should go to ArbCom (if someone gets the guts to actually file...) --Rschen7754 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oh dear, that was a shockingly bad deletion. And yes, if nobody has started an ArbCom request when I'm done with my paid work for the day, I'll be happy to do it - assuming the consensus is still going in the same direction it is now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Was this a bad deletion or a page move from Extreme transaction processing to Extreme Transaction Processing? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the timeframes, it was a bad deletion followed months later by the creation of a similar article with nearly the same name.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal that Pratyeka be banned from undeleting deleted articles

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

---

• Support as proposer. Clearly he can't be trusted to perform that task in accordance with community consensus and policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support He refuses to admit that he did anything wrong by ignoring consensus, and does not show any indication that he won't do it again. I feel that he should be completely desyposed, but I will settle for an undeletion ban. JDDJS (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill. Concerns have been raised ... if he continues to undelete stuff in the future then we can talk about bans. It's not like he's going rogue blocking editors or FPPing articles or getting in protracted pissing contests with editors... on the scale of wiki-crap, undeleting a sketchy article isn't very high. If he hasn't had major issues in eight years it's unlikely he'll be doing significant damage in 2012. NE Ent 02:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all overkill. Personally I feel that it is not enough and that he should lose all admin rights. He has used his admin powers to completely bypass consensus and has refused to admit any wrong doing, giving every indication that he will do it again. JDDJS (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support and send to ArbCom. Prat's comment that he is an inclusionist does not help his position. I'm a deletionist, and were I an admin who deleted articles arbitrarily, I would drawn, hung, and quartered, with my body parts being sent for display to the four corners of the WP empire. He is given the bit as a trust, not to make his own decisions to override the community. The comment that the deletion was made "in error" shows that he has no idea of limitation by community consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The arrogance of the statement he left above is staggering. Anyone who declares their own judgement overrides consensus shouldn't be an admin. At the very least he should not be allowed to delete articles, especially because he admits he isn't up to speed on policy. Performing controversial actions right before taking an extended break is extremely poor form as well. AniMate 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the tree. Looks like the problem is resolved.   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you please elaborate on that? The problem is that he refuses to abide by community consensus. That problem has not been resolved. JDDJS (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to know also. He just said "misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus'" and "what's the point of having admin powers and expert domain knowledge ... if you can't press the undelete button...." Where does this show any intention on his part of abiding by community consensus? The problem is definitely not resolved. As a matter of fact, the more I think of this, the more I believe that he should be de-sysoped. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He said it was a mistake, and I'm willing to AGF that it was a mistake.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he never said that it was mistake. In fact, he has said the complete opposite, and that consensus was a mistake. JDDJS (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, he said the deletion by the community was a mistake, and that his action in undeleting the article, without DRV or consensus was proper. If you can show me where he said that he made a mistake, I would re-consider my position. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely misread the statement above where I thought he was claiming he made a mistake. I will strike my !vote.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• You know, it's really not clear to me ANI can "topic ban" an admin from undeleting -- that's kind of a mini-desysop and that's reserved to ArbCom and the stewards and maybe Jimbo if decides to be the founder again. NE Ent 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI clearly has that authority. We can topic ban anyone, or for that matter, site ban them.GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a resolution from the Foundation that disallows the community from constraining the behaviour of an editor, please bring it forward. I'm not aware of one, so suggest we proceed under the assumption that community consensus applies when it comes to constraining the behaviour of individual users. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support - It's clear from the above that Prat has no clue when it comes to Wikipedia's deletion policies, instead repeating his accusations (to the point where they could be considered personal attacks) of "mistaken deletion" above and mainitaining that he has done nothing wrong, and claiming that based on his "expert domain knowledge" he knows better than we do about how things should be run. This is not the kind of person Wikipedia needs as an admin. At all. Admins abide by community consensus and policy, they are not autocrats pulling strings "because I think this is how it should be done". Frankly if I didn't know better I'd be half tempted to call it some form of elaborate trolling, as I find it nearly impossible to believe that anybody who has been around the Wikipedia community for the length of time he has could possibly hold such views as he espouses above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support Report to ArbCom given the arrogance shown in the response above, and the insistence that he was right to overrule consensus unilaterally. In my view, admins who abuse the tools to enforce their own opinions over the consensus of the Community, and then insist it was fine for them to do so, should be instantly desysoped. Anyone who said in an RfA today "I intend to use the tools to overrule the community when I disagree with consensus", would be snowed out. Admins who not only actually do it, but then go on to defend their actions and insist they have the right to do it, should be shown the door. Unfortunately, the community doesn't have the balls to put in place a proper means to get rid of rogue admins, so I'll have to settle for this topic ban instead, at least for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on further reflection, I think a ban on undeleting is not sufficient, because this is not specifically an undeletion problem - it's the classic "arrogant old school admin" problem. Both here and on his Talk page, Pratyeka continues to insist on his right to use his admin tools to override community consensus when he thinks it's wrong, even after reading this report here and reading the comments on his talk page. Unless we get a commitment to change that, we need his admin tools removed - maybe an admonishment from ArbCom would convince him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ARBCOM -- Can the community ban an admin from using the bit at all? If so, it's the same as removing the bit. Are we saying the community could do this, or is this "partial ban" fundamentally different? I'm actually okay with letting the community remove the bit by subject ban, I just don't think it is in alignment with our standard procedures and I think everyone should realize exactly what the ramifications of this might be in the long term. I'd suggest sending this to ARBCOM instead. In any case, isn't AN a better location for this discussion? Hobit (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not taking the bit off him, I believe that's something only ArbCom and Jimbo can do. We're telling him not to use a part of it. We don't need ArbCom's permission for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what's unclear to me. Are you saying we can't desysop as a community, but we can ban someone from using the bit and block them if they do? That sounds very strange. As if we are subverting the intent of letting Arbcom be the only place for desysoping. I'd personally support an RfC allowing the community to do this (though I'd say it should be at AN, not ANI), but feel such an RfC should happen first. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible support for ArbCom, partial ban, desysop, you name it. I don't mind admins ignoring all rules, but no one with this attitude toward collaboration should have the bit. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor has made some declarations on his user page specifically regarding article deletion, which goes precisely to the matter at hand. Given those declarations, and his above comment, I think it is reasonable for us to constrain him from undeleting. But he seems an intelligent and decent chap, and I see no reason whatever to assume he won't be responsible and valuable in his use of admin rights outside this very narrow area, so think it would be overreacting to desysop. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not just an undeletion problem - he is openly insisting that (as an admin and expert) he has the right to overrule consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I don't know. I do know we should give him time to absorb what's happening here, and reflect. This is a paradigm shift for him and, for me at least, paradigm shifts take at least a day or so. Go slowly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure - there's still plenty of time for him to agree never again to use the admin tools to override consensus or against policy (eg to reinstate copyright infringements - see "Possibly even more serious" Starblind comment below). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support undeletion ban (and desysop if necessary). It's one thing to have strong views that aren't necessarily supported by the community, it's another thing entirely to use sysop powers against community consensus. Any admin candidate at RFA threatening to ignore consensus would be quite rightly SNOWed out to the tune of gales of laughter. Admins exist to serve the community, not oppose it, and anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be an admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If this proposal passes, and he undletes anything again, I'm sure the consequence will be a SNOW five minute desysop at ArbCom. For that matter, if he demonstrates a disregard for policy or consensus in another area, I expect the result would be the same. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom Yes, it was bad, but to topic ban an admin from performing any action in the toolset would be a significant shift in community consensus. --Rschen7754 04:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To expand upon my comments, I don't trust him to delete anything either. And I don't trust him to respect community consensus. That makes him unfit to remain as an admin, in my book. --Rschen7754 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. (Totally uninvolved editor here - just happened to see this). The adoration for process expressed in the comments above explicitly and implicitly is what is killing WP. Arbcom? Desysop? Ban from undeleting? For this? Please. LIke Prat says, if the energy spent on this was spent on improving articles, most deletions would not be required. Obscure articles of poor quality has to be one of our least important problems. So if some of them are rescued where is the harm? And in many case there is benefit. We need more editors who behave like this, not fewer. Kudos to Prat! --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's say you're a new editor, while I've been here since 2005. You write an article. I delete it and give the reason as "I've been here a long time, so I know best." Are you ever going to come back? Didn't think so. Actions like this damage the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen a diff of Pratyeka performing any out of process deletions and, per his talk page response, it seems hardly likely an "inclusionist" would do so. How is an undeletion going to drive away new users? NE Ent 13:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Possibly even more serious than it first appeared: Looking in the logs I've located at least one case where Prat apparently knowingly undeleted copyvio material, saying it was "useful and unique". Okay, I think I'd support taking this to ArbCom as it's quickly gone from bad to worse. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • JDDJS actually included Coral Consortium in his initial post. It was cleaned by User:Geitost and listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 January 21. WP:CP regular User:VernoWhitney RD1'd it. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support- per Andrew Lenahan. Reyk _YO! 04:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Concern I morally support this. I worry about the process. I don't think that Arbcom needs to be involved, and I think this is well within power of community consensus. I'm just not sure that a drive-by at ANI is sufficient. RFC/U perhaps?—Kww(talk) 04:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No. That would be throwing unnecessary delays and bureaucracy in the way of community self-government. There are two proposals here: undelete ban and desysop. There is a very clear consensus for the undelete ban; that is obviously the very least that needs doing. And we don't need a big long RfCU to do it, just because he's an admin. Desysop is up to ArbCom. They may ask us to run an RfCU but, assuming Pratyeka doesn't change his stance between now and then, they're just as likely to take the case for desysop on the evidence in this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently pratakaya is on holidays with intermittent internet access, and so will probably not be doing anything objectionable in the near future anyway. So there's no rush to do anything immediately. Reyk _YO! 05:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Echoing comments by Boing! said Zebedee and others: This user's actions and explanatory response are unacceptable, and even alarming. They amount to a dismissal of community consensus and established process, and threaten the foundational integrity of the project. Given the extraordinarily high standards and cross examination that we currently subject RfA candidates to, this kind of roguery (there, I said it) must be stopped in it's tracks. This applies to all users, admins and otherwise; both vintage and new. We're all accountable to the community and to the project for respecting the same set of policies, guidelines and established consensus. No one is special. - MrX 05:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I've been concerned about Pratyeka ever since last summer, when the discussion at Talk:Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama#CIA_Reference_Justification indicated a lack of understanding or regard for BLP policy and synthesis. At the outset of that discussion I had the impression (via the "Wikipedia administrator" tag on his first signature) that he was trying to use his admin position to force an inappropriate synthesis into a BLP. Acroterion (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  That Obama thing certainly does show a very poor grasp of BLP policy of and Synthesis, which is disturbing in an admin - though as long as he doesn't use the admin tools to act in those areas, I don't think it's a cause for action. However, the "Wikipedia administrator" tag clearly looks like an attempt to intimidate and to imply that his opinion is somehow special, and I see that as unacceptable behaviour - as a one-off, it wouldn't warrant action, but it's all adding up to an unacceptable attitude in an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That was how I felt at the time: it didn't involve direct use of admin tools and Pratyeka didn't habitually edit BLPs so I let it pass. I mention it here as additional evidence of a poor or obsolete understanding of basic policy. I didn't catch on at first that I was explaining policy to an administrator: I thought I was dealing with a newbie. I only noticed the tag about halfway through. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support - Given the response, I do believe something needs to be done. I feel that prat's response was less than ideal, and if there's an indication that this behavior is going to continue that it needs to be addressed. However, I also feel that if it is ArbCom who typically desysops someone, something more than an AN/I discussion should be used to say "we can't desysop you, so we'll ban you from using the tools instead." It gives the impression of subverting the actual process, although I know that's certainly not the intention. On the other hand, I think that my thinking is at odds with WP:BURO and WP:IAR, at least on some level. If prat makes some sort of acknowledgement that an admin cannot ignore community consensus and resolves to refrain from doing so in the future, then I see no need for this sort of topic ban. Short of that, however, something should be done, and for lack of some better alternative, I would have to support this, though not with a high degree of comfort. - SudoGhost 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If he's willing to abide by consensus, then all will be well. If he continues with his "LOL consensus" attitude that he's blatantly and brazenly displaying, he's a rogue admin and needs to have the bit stripped ASAP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd say that an 11th-hour apology at this point (which hasn't actually happened anyway), would just be a desperate move to keep the tools. He's already made his true feelings on the matter incredibly clear, that he's above consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and request desysop. --Nouniquenames 05:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support not for the singular incident, but for the statements made above that indicate an attitude towards established Wikipedia policy that I find incompatible with being a good admin. Let me be clear, it is fine to a) make an occasional mistake or b) hold an opinion contrary to consensus. However it is not OK to deliberately and knowingly take actions which one knows to be against consensus policy, and then act as though the rest of the community has to accept it. If he had merely expressed the opinion, or had merely had one or two bad undeletions, I wouldn't support this at all. Neither by itself means much, but the fact that the undeletions don't represent an error, but rather a deliberate attempt to circumvent established norms merely for to further one's own opinions on the issue at hand, and without regard for the opinions of the greater community at large, that is incompatible with the use of the admin tools. An admin should be willing to use their tools without regard for their own opinions, or at the very least, to refrain from using them where community norms differ from one's own opinions. The fact that that didn't happen here (and not the substance of the opinion itself) is why I must, with great regret, support the proposed sanction. --Jayron32 07:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom Obviously there is support that he is not trusted with one part of his administrative duties, and if that is the case, ArbCom is where you direct concerns about him not using the tools anymore. We do not support RFAs on the basis that we take their word to not use a tool a certain way or that they promise to refrain from blocking/deleting/protecting. If he is trusted with the tools, then so be it, but he can't trusted with 2/3 of it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• ArbCom -- The user explicitly stated he undeleted articles that had undergone AfD because he believed they shouldn't have been deleted and consensus is just a silly little thing. Sysops aren't "super users", they need to ascertain and implement the community's consensus, not override it with their own views. Salvidrim! ✉ 07:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Most folks here are taking a prior restraint view of undeletion. In fact, admins can and should undelete things that are fixable, in the process of fixing them. DRV doesn't exist as a necessary stop, period. Now, the fact that this should have gone to userspace or an incubator first before remaining in mainspace unchanged is really the only structural issue I see here, and one that's quite correctable. Fact is, if he hadn't had the bit and had just restored a deleted copy from a mirror somewhere, it would have been G4'ed and he would have gotten a notice of that, and that's about it. You want to know why there are so few people willing to be admins? Look no further than how badly a single incident has been blown out of proportion. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I find this oppose disturbing, considering that one of the AFDs closed with "Consensus argued that the subject had not received coverage which would have demonstrated notability via GNG". That's not fixable. --Rschen7754 08:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's absolutely fixable - how many young actors have had early press-release-and-a-headshot articles deleted for lack of notability, only to land a notable role and get a new article later on? Subjects that are not notable at deletion can become notable later - it's the whole premise of WP:USUAL, for example. But undeleting an article because "Subject became notable when he did X" is not the concern here. The undelete here was done because the admin specifically and explicitly disregarded the "self-described" consensus. He did not fix the article, did not update it to show how the subject had since become notable, did not remove the potential copyvio (or link to show that it was not copyvio), he just restored it. And I don't know how that is justifiable - as Jclemens correctly notes, a simple repost would have been G4'ed out of existance with all speed. Jclemens is correct, admins are able to undelete articles at will - but only for cause, and only in such a way as to address the concerns that got them deleted in the first place. Acting as an admin super-vote after the fact is not acceptable, and it seems that that is what we're looking at here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and Refer to Arbcom to consider stripping his admin status. Violating WP:Consensus after a clear procedural determinantion of the community's opinion is, IMHO, a very serious breach of the community's trust that comes with the responsibility of being an admin. Taken together with his restoration of copyvio material and his self-declared position, IMHO this editor should not be allowed anywhere near an admin's toolbox. Roger (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• We're far too quick to jump to straw polls on ANI these days. Prat has been informed that the community doesn't support his use of the tools to support his position on the deletion/inclusion spectrum: it is to be assumed that he won't do it again now that it's attracted broad community attention. There should be no need for a formal topic ban here. Talk of ArbCom or a desysopping is extreme at this point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Can you show us where he has accepted the community's feedback or given any indication that he won't do it again? It looks to me more like he's saying "Fuck you community, I'm in charge and I'll decide what's deleted and what isn't". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  "It is to be assumed" because it's the only sane response. If he carries on regardless after the heat of a big ANI thread (which is far higher-profile than the previous incidents, so far as I can see) then future corrective action should be uncontroversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, leaving aside the slur on my sanity, I think it is far more reasonable to assume that he means what he says - that he believes that as an admin and "expert" he has the right to override consensus when he thinks it is wrong. And to me, that is not reason to assume he is going to do the opposite of that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Prak's sanity, not yours. Apologies for any confusion there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  Hehe, np - my misunderstanding -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Send to ArbCom and let them decide. Admins, in my opinion, should either be free to do everything, or free to do nothing, they should not be partially topic banned from certain tasks they can't be trusted with. GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysopping, and/or sending to arbcom. Unfortunately the community can't do it itself yet. Shadowjams (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom We just had another admin who ran away when told advised the he was time-and-tme again screwing up the deletion process and their response was also "yeah, so what" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is way too soon to call for a de-sysop. He's here for 1 undeletion, not multiple, and do remember IAR is just as much policy as AFD.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Send to ArbCom - not just one undeletion, but a deletion that shouldn't be made, editing through edit protection without making an edit request for another Admin to do or deny (at least that seems to be what happened at Bitcoin). It's part of a pattern. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have realised this couldn't happen. I am still not at all convinced that this editor should be a sysop. We are supposed to handle them responsibly and this isn't happening here. I'd like him to say what he plans to do with the tools if he does keep them. Admins who rarely use their tools should probably resign them - others may disgree, but we are given the tools to do a job and if we aren't doing it then we don't need the tools, and disuse makes one rusty at using the tools. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• While I would support the proposed restriction if it were either that or nothing, a user who cannot be trusted with the whole admin toolset should not be an admin. Given the shocking statement above on his contempt for the community consensus and established process, this should be send to arbcom for consideration of desyopping. KTC (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Arbcom As Dougweller has pointed out, this is more than one event. I'm not at all convinced that he truly understands the problem. I think Arbcom is the place to go for this because ANI doesn't have the authority (as far as I can tell) and as Prat's away a bit they can hold it ready till he's back to defend himself. And yes, IAR is a policy/rule the same as any others, but if the community feels that a decision taken under it was wrong, then there must be some method to undo it, and if necessary stop it happening again. GedUK  13:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. Good Christ, if I make one mistake am I gonna get desysopped? The problem isn't in the undeletion we're discussing (which was bad and which should be reversed, as consensus here seems to indicate). The problem is that an admin had the chutzpah to tell the ANI crowd that he was right and their self-described consensus was wrong. And it made us MAD. Holy shit, this guy thinks he's in charge? But sending this to arbcom, polishing up the pitchforks, setting the torches ablaze? Guys, what the fuck? Consensus is clear that his undeletion was a mistake - great. So if he continues to undelete things against policy, THEN you send him to arbcom and let them do the necessary. A proposed case describing this incident would properly be closed out, at most with a motion from the committee directing Pratyeka to fucking be careful next time kthx. "What prior dispute resolution was attempted" "...Did you see how he talked to us?" isn't gonna fly at arbcom. If Adminship is a big enough deal to get so angry about it, it's a big enough deal to take the time (here!) to discuss properly. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pratyeka made a boo-boo has been a very very bad admin A whole boatload of folks have pointed that out. As thumperward has already pointed out, the most likely outcome is he won't do it again cause, let's face, who wants the grief? This penchant for demanding editors done a sackcloth and publicly sing a kommós isn't healthy. See also Editors have pride. NE Ent 14:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not know if our hand must be that heavy and if we must club him into submission here; yes, he made a mistake, and yes, he stood by his decision. But I cannot bring myself to really see bad faith in what he was doing. And I think UltraExactZZ and NE Ent are spot on. Lectonar (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support desysop (either through banning him from using any admin tools, or by taking him to ArbCom for a true desysop). He hardly uses the tools, but when he does, he often does so incorrectly, and has indicated that this is deliberately and that he doesn't care about consensus (and, by extension, about our policies). Just take a look at his latest logged admin tools actions (editing through protection is not logged thus, so that aspect is not included). To find 20 items in his log, we have to go back to 2010, and many of these aren't admin actions but moves or uploads that anyone could have done. This includes dubious but not necessarily wrong decisions like restoring Edgware Walker (which should be taken to AfD as the documentary may be barely notable, the person is not notable at all, and the article is very poor) and OMAPI without any improvements[136][137], four deletions of his own incorrect creations (Wushun man, Kusanda language, Kusanda people and Afghan War Diary), restoring a deleted copyright violation at Coral Consortium without even contacting the deleting admin or discussing this at the talk page of the article, an out-of-process G6 deletion of Extreme transaction processing, and the overturned restoration of Observe Hack Make.

So in over two years time, he has made two undeletions or prodded articles of very low quality and without making any improvements to them, four deletions of his own mistakes, 2 clearly incorrect undeletions and one clearly incorrect deletion. Coupled with his reply in this section, I see no reason at all to let him remain an admin any longer, as he is clearly in his admin actions a net negative. Fram (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, in view of the consensus here, I have prepared a case for ArbCom at User:GregJackP/ArbComm/Prat. Please take a look at it and let me know if I need to make any corrections. GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the consensus here is actually just to prohibit him from undeleting articles. If you do take it to Arbcom, the deletion of Extreme transaction processing is just as troubling as his undeletions.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I know it's not a straight vote, but I've just done a quick count and I see 26 in favour of sanctions of some sort, with 17 of those supporting desysop/Arbcom, and 7 opposing any sanction. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to do anything until it is clear what the community wants. As I noted, I support both a topic ban on deletion and desysop, but there's no particular rush on my part. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, as it stands, I think there's easily enough support for an ArbCom request - and your draft looks pretty good for starters. But I would support leaving it over the weekend as there's really no rush. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a full ban on delete/undelete and desysop (via arbcom). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to make a point here. Several instances in where Prat either clearly abused his admin power or stretched the limits of it have been bought up. However, nobody, not even the people that are defending him, have bought up any instance in where he used his admin status to do something exceptionally good. While prat has made many useful edits as an editor, as far as I know, he has not made any exceptional edits as an admin. He also is not a very active admin. This is the very reason that RFA is so hard now. It stops people who might be useful editors but not useful admins from becoming admins. So, to summarize, what would the community actually lose if he is desysoped? JDDJS (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Another little piece of its humanity. NE Ent 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support When I first discussed this with JDDJS before he brought it to ANI, I was only aware of the one incident with Pratyeka (concerning Observe Hack Make). However, since Prat's reply on this page, I have no choice but to be extremely concerned; not only has he broken policy, he seems to defend his actions and acts like he's done nothing wrong. I could understand a slip-up and an apology, but standing adamantly by your mistakes as if you're the victim isn't advisable, and I don't think I can trust somebody like that with the sysop tools. m.o.p 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for request to Arbcom to de-sysop, and require a new RFA if he wishes to continue as an admin. I do not think a requirement to refrain from undeletions is enough. The original incidents do not concern me so much, but the unapologetic attitude shown in the response above, with the assumption that he is entitled to override AfD, restore an article because it "clearly shouldn't have been deleted" and dismiss formal deletion discussions as "your important bygone misinformed decisionmaking with self-labelled 'consensus' " shows an attitude so far out of line with current expectations of an admin as to be unacceptable. If he is going to be out of contact, Arbcom can certainly choose to wait for a response before taking action, but the issue should go to them now. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Arbcom request Looking at Arbcom's history, I see the cases of User:EncycloPetey and User:SchuminWeb as admins who retired/stopped editing after concerns over their adminship were brought up (they both ended up being desysopped by Arbcom), so there's that precedent. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 04:03, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support, support sending to arbcom if that's what people feel is best. I may be a little unique here, but I'm actually less concerned about his? belief he can unilaterally override consensus (which is still a concern) and more concerned about the fact he seems to think it's okay to undelete copyvios. Yes as far as we know this was only done once, and it was quite a while ago but I also see no admission from him it was a mistake which he won't be repeating. We already spend a lot of time trying to find copyright violations and for those used to dealing with such things they know there are still a lot more we aren't finding. It's rather concerning then when one has been identified, an admin thinks it's okay to just undelete it based on their personal opinion. (I can't see the old version nor can I do an old internet search to see whether a simple search or just checking out the links inside would have confirmed it was likely a copyvio.) From what I can tell [138] they didn't even ask the deleter (who was semi active Special:Contributions/Cobaltbluetony) or list it as a possible copyright violation on the copyvio page. Luckily it was found fairly fast (within 4 weeks) and no one else wasted their own time on editing the copyright violation it after it was undeleted (other then the person who re-identified it) but I still consider this unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it is blatantly obvious from his actions and comments that user is not suited for privilege to undelete articles, and it is also questionable if he is suited to be admin at all.--Staberinde (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Pitchforks down

Can we please wait a day or two, for Pratyeka's next response, before taking this up with ArbCom? We have nothing to lose from that. It will give him a chance to reflect on and absorb what's happening here. And, depending on his response, may save everybody a lot of time and trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He's said he's away for a while now, and any ArbCom case would have to be delayed until he is able to comment (and he's not going to be misusing the tools while he's not here), so I'd be in favour of delaying for a couple of days. It sounds like he's not going to be available to comment over the next couple of days, mind, but it can't do any harm to give it a go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed this section, and have filed the case. I did leave a note that he was out of touch for a couple of weeks and requested that ArbCom wait for him to get back before taking any action. GregJackP Boomer! 01:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider withdrawing the ArbCom case for now (If you run it by Sarek, who is the only respondent so far, you can probably just blank it.) It would be better, in my opinion, if we (and prat) spent more time deliberating and considering the facts, and ideal of course if we had a chance to involve prat in more dialogue before handing it to ArbCom. Some people do change with sensitive engagement. We may have a more useful result all round, and take up a lot less of everyone's precious time, if we make haste slowly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have no objection, I just wanted to address that one particular point for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know that I can do that. Only ArbCom members and clerks can remove cases once they have been filed. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done it, and if the clerks or ArbCom have a problem, they can restore it. If you leave a link to this thread in your edit summary, that should answer any queries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not finding things with two hands and a flashlight

I find myself quoting Andrew Shepherd again. People, there is not a direct run from the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents to Requests for Arbitration. There's a notice in a box at the head of this page that says this. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pratyeka is still all red linked and inviting, and it will prevent those big old arbitrators from taking the standard line of turfing you right out of RFAR on your collective ears with the usual So what did you actually do to resolve the situation, using the very processes that the community has constructed for giving mass feedback to one person on issues of that person's use of the MediaWiki toolset, before taking this avenue of last resort? question.

There is a second box at the head of this page that points out that discussions here are archived after (currently) 36 hours. Again, the sensible course of action is not to hold a discussion like this on a noticeboard that by its very nature is not constructed to deal with things that involve waiting for an editor who is Away From Internet for a period of days. User talk:Pratyeka is not exactly full, either.

This isn't the first time that a whole bunch of people have leapt right over RFC from AN/I and expected a poll of little more than 24 hours on a rapidly-archived noticeboard to be the sensible parallel to week-long discussions elsewhere. Nor is it the first time that a group of people bang on about what Wikipedia policies and practices are, and how others should follow them, but nonetheless themselves collectively fail to find Project:Requests for comment/User conduct with both hands and a flashlight. This time, I'm speaking up to get people to do things right. You all (supposedly) know where RFC is, and you all (supposedly) know what arbitrators always require as a pre-requisite to any such case, and will probably require in this instance. So do things right, for goodness' sake!

Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. NE Ent 12:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Calling for desysop when an RfA would run for 7 days tells me some people are rushing to the conclusion and don't let other evidences surface. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a rush to skip RFC because there hasn't been sufficient efforts yet to resolve the dispute, and thus, an RFC would not be certified as valid. If anybody wants to approach the subject and invite him to my talk page for a conversation about their complaints, I would be happy to host a discussion among the relevant parties. This venue, ANI, is not very well suited to resolving conflicts. It's just a bunch of driveby feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think you're quite right, Uncle G, at least according to the way things currently work. But my view is that things currently work badly, there is too much bureaucracy, and that an admin openly stating that he is not bound by consensus should be grounds for instant desysop - with the possibility of appeal. I also think that there should be a community desysop process - but we've never achieved anything in that direction.

  My feeling is also that RFC is another big bureaucratic waste of time. It's entirely voluntary, and will only achieve anything if Pratyeka volunteers to abide by the rules. But if he's going to do that, then we don't need an RFC - he can just say so here, or on his talk page, or at the ArbCom request, and it'll all be over.

  Anyway, the current bureaucratic excess is what we're stuck with, and so far it's looking as if ArbCom are unlikely to accept the case. So my thoughts now are that we should wait for Pratyeka's return and see what he has to say - we can show him this ANI and ask him on his talk page. If he agrees to follow the rules, we're done - but if he doesn't, RFC will achieve nothing more than filling a checkbox on the bureaucracy-lovers' charts and it'll have to end up back at ArbCom anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User Hari7478

Hari7478 has broken the 3-revert rule by reverting changes within 24 hours 3 times. I reinstated the changed version of the article twice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mayasutra . Hari7478 reverted the article thrice (and back to its original state).

Previously, Hari7478 refused to agree to mediation. He still does not agree to it. Instead, he alleges me of being abusive. I stand by my statements that his racial theories are half-baked and his statements are meandering.

The origin of this dispute is casteism. Since Thenkalais absorbed Non-Brahmins into their fold; thus, some Vadakalais seek separatism from them, in terms of ethnic / racial / caste purity. The casteist stand is derived from religious notions of caste purity. However, genetic studies are being falsified and misquoted by Hari7478 to portray an ethnic-genetic difference between the two sects. To that end, general sources are also being misquoted.

Herewith are the points of dispute:

Issue # 1

1) Misleading subheading titled Ethnicity, genetics and origin: This heading has been used to differentiate between Vadakalai and Thenkalai by ethnicity and origin. I changed this heading to "Subsects" but this is unacceptable to Hari7478. He's been changing it back to “Ethinicity, Genetics and Origin”. Hari7478's deliberate attempt to portray Vadagalais of Indo-Aryan ethnicity and Thengalais of Non-Indo-Aryan Tamil ethnicity, by demarcating and misquoting genetic studies and general sources to portray an ethnic / racial differentiation cannot be allowed.

Issue # 2

2) The line under Ethnicity, genetics and origin states: "These sects may be of distinctly different in origin.[5][6]" The sources [5] and [6] say no such thing nor support ethnic, genetic, and origin differences between Vadagalais and Thengalais. On the contrary source [5](The changing Indian civilization, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976) support mergers of deshaja (indigenous) priests into the Indo-Aryan ritual fold, before the ascendency of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhawa. I am reproducing the entire page 283 of source [5]: "Formerly, the priests of these regions were suspect. Thus, Hemadri in his Chatur-varga-chintamani quotes from the Saura Purana: "The Brahmans of Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Saurashtra, Gurjara, Abhira, Konkana, Dravida, Dakshinapatha, Avanti and Magadha should be avoided". Now these deshaja (indigenous) and foreign-origin priests were absorbed in the North- Indian priestly tradition in the Age of Syncretism. This is particularly true in the South, where four stages may be postulated - (i) Matrilineal Indusian priests over the whole of South, coming from South Iran and Baluchistan with the Iron Age groups, as brought out in Chapter 9. They were Dravidian-speaking and and echoes of their universality and supremacy in the South still survive, in spite of many incrustations, in the temple of the Mother Goddess Meenakshi at Madurai, where she is clearly superior to and more important than her consort, Sundareswarar. (ii) In the post-Maurya Time of Troubles many Brahmans must have fled from the North West and infiltrated to the South, loaded with gifts and favours by rulers like the greatly "Sanskritising" Pallavas of Kanchi (300-880 AD). These Vadamars or Vadagalai, ie "Northerners" as distinct from the Tongalai or "Southerners"" must have introduced Sanskrit and Patriarchal Aryo-Indian rites. (iii) In the Age of Syncretism all the deshaja or "native South Indian deities like Murugan, Subrahmanya, Ayappan, Sastha, the great Meenakshi herself, and others were grouped, and merged with Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu, and their priests admitted into the Aryo-Indian fold. (iv) Finally, the South Indian brahmans became ascendant with Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhava on the intellectual side ; and with the creators of the Bhakti religion, the Shaiva Nayanars and the Vaishnava Alwars on the emotional side.” Kindly note Oroon Ghosh “postulated” the above 4 points. However, Hari7478 makes no mention of that; or on the elevation of priests into the Indo-Aryan fold. He uses only point (ii) to mention that Vadakalai are an Indo-Aryan people from Northern India. Fact is, the Vadakalai community was founded by Vedanta Desika and did not exist in the said period of Pallavas (300-880 AD). On what basis can Hari7478 construe that Oroon Ghosh’s postulation refers to the current Vadakalai community? This issue requires one to take into account the term "vada" which in Tamil means "north". The Tamils were not so bad in geography (after all they recorded visits of foreign visitors from other countries). If someone came from northern India, they would have used the correct name of the northern indian kingdom from where they came. The current day Andhra which lies to the "North of the Tamil Country", was known as Vadadesa or Vadugavalli in the past. Unless explicitly stated by a source, one cannot take "vada" to mean "Northern India", or claim to be aryans or indo-aryan people "who once migrated from North India". Additionally, the Journal of Asiatic Society, the Indo-British Historical Society, Robert Lester and several authors refer to Vadakalai and Thenkalai as northern and southern ‘Schools’; and not to ethnicity / race / origin. Source [6] provided is Pg.132 Human Heredity, Karger., 1976. Google Books. 22 November 2006. Retrieved 15 November 2011. It is a paper titled "Inbreeding among Some Brahman Populations of Tamil Nadu", by S.Srinivasan and D.P.Mukherjee. Contrary to Hari7478's claim, the quoted page 132 does not support that statement that "the two sects are distinctly different in origin". Source [6] does not even mention Thenkalais. So how can he use this source to make such a statement? Am reproducing the stated page 132 as follows: "The Vadama and the Vadagalai who belong to different sects, but have northern origin in common as indicated by the Tamil prefix Vada, and show the closest agreement in the frequencies of different types of earlobe and hand clasping among the Tamil Brahmans [Srinivasan and Mukherjee, 1974], are characterized by lower incidence of first cousin marriages and higher incidence of marriages between more distant relatives. There is a level of agreement in the levels of inbreeding among Tamil Brahmans, Ayyars and Ayyangars from different states (table II). But a regional influence is also indicated by the higher value of F in the Vadagalai sample from Andhra Pradesh and the lower value of F in the Ayyar sample from Kerala. The matrilineal tradition restricting maternal uncle-niece marriages in Kerala might, of course, have influenced the local Tamil Brahmans."

Issue # 3

A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar: "The Vadakalai Iyengars are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India.[8][9]" Source [8] is The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India. Minerva Associates. 1976. pp. 283, 160. This is exactly the same as source [5], which is The changing Indian civilization: a perspective on India, by Oroon K. Ghosh, 1976. I have reproduced the entire page 283 of this source above. I request Hari7478 to quote exact sentences from pages 283, 160 or any other part of the book where it says Vadakalais are Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India. Source [9] is given as "Pg.72, Aryans in South India – by P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri, Inter-India Publications." The author PP Nambudiri posits all Brahmins to be Aryan in his book. So how can Hari7478 use this source to claim only Vadakalai Iyengars are an Indo-aryan people who once migrated from North India? Additionally, the stated source does not say Vadakalais “once migrated from North India”. Please ask Hari7478 to provide the correct page number where the book says so. Am reproducing the entire p.72 Nambudiri’s book below: "A detailed classification of the Tamil brahmins under the major heads smarta and vaishnava with many sub-sections under each major head is given below :- 1. Vadama 2. Kesigal 3. Brahacharanam 4. Vathima Madhama 5. Ashtasahasram 6. Dikshitar. Smarta 7. Sholiar 8. Mukkani 9. Kaniyalar 10. Sanketi 11. Prathamasaki 12. Gurukkal. Vaisnava A. Vadagali (Northerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 2. Vaikhanasa 3. Pancaratra 4.Hebbar B. Thengalai (Southerners) 1. Sri Vaisnava 4. Hebbar 2. Vaikhanasa 5. Mandya 3. Pancaratra The Smartas: They are divided into 12 sub-divisions. The Vadamas claim to be superior to all other classes of Tamil speaking brahmins. The term Vadama signifies northerners. They are again divided into five sub-divisions, namely Coladesa, Vadadisa, Savayar, Inji and Thummagunta Dravida. All the above divisions and sub-divisions are endogamous except the Tambala brahmins who correspond to Gurukkal among the Tamil brahmins. The Vaidikis are superior to the Niyogis."

Issue # 4

A statement under Vadakalai Iyengar: "In a genetic study in Andhra Pradesh all individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed a high similarity of rhesus(d) gene frequency with the people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.[10] All the individuals examined among Vadakalai Iyengars showed Rhesus(D) positive with a high frequency of the D allele while the other castes from Andhra showed a low frequency of the D allele.[10]" The source [10] quoted is a paper by Hameed et al. The said paper refers to an another paper (By Reddy et al) which had previously compared samples of 4 communities and found Rh(D) factor higher in the Vadakalai sample. Since Rh(D) in that study was found higher in people of Faisalabad Pakistan, the authors Hameed et al remarked that the similarity in frequency of Rhesus(D) genes “ can be attributed to the common history of these populations”. Fact is, the said paper does not even refer to Thengalais. I had changed the sentence to correctly indicate what the paper mentions as follows: “A study on Rh(D) occurrence in 1980, amongst samples from members of Mala, Yerukula, Kapu and Vadagalai Iyengar in Andhra revealed that the incidence of Rhesus(D) was higher in Vadagalai Iyengars than the other 3 groups; with a similar high frequency of Rhesus(D) genes also found in people of Faislabad in the Punjab province of Pakistan.” This, however, is unacceptable to Hari7478 who reverts the change. He insists on the talk page that there is an ethnic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Hari7478 has even used the ref name for the paper by Hameed, et al as ["ref name="Vadakalai Genetics"]. To him, the Vadakalai are Indo-Aryan people who migrated from Northern India. Let him get an appropriate source to substantiate it; instead of falsifying and misquoting papers. This paper was formerly used by Hari7478 to mention that "the above mentioned genetic similarity between the vadakalai and the punjabis of pakistan portrays the Indo-aryan origin of the Vadakalai iyengars". However, now the direct mention has been omitted out, but the paper has been used by Hari7478 to cater to his claims of Vadagalai - Thengalai differentiation. Previously, on my objection, Hari7478 deleted the source “Man in India: Volume 58, by Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur)” on cleft chin studies, which he had falsified to project a vadakalai - thenkalai differentiation. However, he has been reverting changes with the Hammed, et al paper. He is keen to portray a ‘genetic difference’ between Vadakalais and Thenkalais; and that Vadakalais are “indo-aryan people who once migrated from northern India”.

Admin must intervene in this case. I object to Hari7478's constant falsification of sources to pass of his claims of “ethnicity, genetics and origin”. Either he must agree for mediation to stop his misquoting of sources or admin must intervene here on ANI page and ask him to provide correct sources for his statements. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

---

I've refactored this to take up less space. You can revert me if you want, of course, but trust me, I'm doing you a favor: Most people see long posts and just get mad at the OP, whether or not they should. By making this appear less long, I make people much more liekly to actually hear you out, though I myself haven't read through all of this yet, so I can't comment on the merits of your complaint. (Also, to be clear, I haven't removed any content, I've only made it take up less screen space.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

---

umm, i've just gotta say your first statement is wrong, as he hasn't broken WP:3RR, and even if he had, theres a specific board for reporting that: WP:AN/EW - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He did revert thrice within a few minutes. However, it does not show up in history because he chose 'Minor Edit' and Do not Show Minor Edits. I myself reverted twice. He reverted the third time to bring it back to the original state. Anyways, thanks for mentioning WP:AN/EW. Will report there. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

(Non-administrator comment)Not to mention WP: TLDR...Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say but in cases of ANI and Mediation, it is very irresponsible on the part of admin to say Too Long Didn't Read. The above report is long because I reproduced entire page of each source misquoted by Hari7478. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

No admin has said that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i thot Des Kommisar is an admin (though making a Non-administrator observation). --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

My thoughts are already evident on the article's talk page: both editors should have been blocked for edit warring...luckily for them I'm already involved on the page (not on this specific dispute, but more generally) and another admin chose to protect the page instead. Also, Maysutra, your claim about the number of reverts is simply wrong: no editor can hide their own reverts from the page. Yes, he can mark them as minor, but that doesn't change whether or not they are visible in the history. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, unfortunately, not a single admin was involved when Hari7478 and i were sorting issues out on the talk page since 17th Jan 2013. Not sure sir, how you can claim to be involved in this now. If at least one admin had been involved and helped sorted this out on the Iyengar Talk page by now, things would not have come to this extent. Let Hari7478 answer on misquoting sources. Please do not try to protect him on that account. I too have a thesis published recently (identified genes involved in a certain disease state). If someone misquoted my work, i wud be very upset. Just how can you, as responsible admins, allow misquoting or misrepresenting sources. Also, let admin check on the reverts and find if Hari7478 reverted 3 times or not. I myself reverted twice and i saw the page being reverted the third time (by Hari7478) into the current original state but Hari7478's third revert did not show up in history. Yes, i expected this to go to edit war. After talking for so long (since June 2012), without any appropriate admin help, esp in the latest disagreement, what would you expect users like me to do to bring admin attention to the issue? Hari7478 knows very well this was going to edit war. I was being honest by directly mentioning so. Hari7478 also must have known the 3 revert rule; and hence chose to hide his third revert. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

You cannot hide reverts. Period. And it takes two to edit war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mayasutra, I've offered a few words on your talk page to try to get to the bottom of these false accusations of "hiding his edits" that you keep making - but please do stop them, or it is likely to get you into trouble. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the article history, here, you will see all three reverts made by Hari7478 (or at least, I see them), with none of them marked as minor, and clear edit warring by both of you. But Hari7478's reverts are not a violation of 3RR, as they do not exceed three reverts - to violate 3RR, you need to make four reverts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

One can still be sanctioned for edit-warring irrespective of the number of reverts in a 24h period, Boing. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, and both of them would have been so sanctioned had the page not been protected first - my point is to refute the 3RR allegation, as that appears to be a specific point of contention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The specific point of contention on ANI is misquoting sources. The 3-revert issue is handled by this wiki site. So please let all discussion in 3-revert rule be on that site. On this ANI site, please let the focus remain on the main issue of misquoting sources. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

On a subject at AN/I, all aspects of the subject and all aspects of those involved are open for discussion. As the discussion is here, both the edit-warring and the other issue are fair game. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Boing. I too am looking at the article history but cannot see all the edits. Can you as the admin access my settings and let me know what is wrong? All the same, since Hari7478 did not revert more than thrice, the issue stands null and void. The main issue is misquoting sources. Hope the focus is not taken away from the main issue. Hope Hari7478 answers all 4 issue points on this ANI page. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi. I'm not an admin at the moment, as I am on a break from it - but an admin would not be able to look at your settings anyway. I've had a look through all the options available in the Preferences page, and I don't see any that would cause you to miss some edits in a page history (all I see is the option for your watchlist). So, I'm afraid I don't really know what to suggest, sorry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I could do a Print Screen for the page i am seeing and email it to you. I am not seeing the third revert by Hari7478. We can continue discussion on this at this wiki site. Here, on this ANI page, please, i request all admin to kindly help resolve the issue of misquoting sources. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Sure, email me a Print Screen and I'll be happy to take a look - I'll reply further on your talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I've sent you an email so that you have my address and can then send a reply with an attachment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how to hide minor edits from your Watchlist but not the history page of an article... Salvidrim! ✉ 07:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(And they're not actually minor edits anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

OK Boing and Salvidrim, i figured what was wrong. On Mozilla was not able to see. So accessed using Internet Explorer and was able to see. So now in Mozilla, i did a Tools -> Clear History. Then accessed the article and talk page again. Voila, now i see all the reverts. Any idea why this happened? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I'm going to have to say "I don't have the slightest idea." But hey, if the technical glitch resolved itself, all the better. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like maybe a cache problem, where the browser had been showing you a cached version and hadn't detected it was out of date - that kind of thing happens. Anyway, it's good that it's all sorted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But how does Mozilla not show me the cached version of the article itself then? Also, will be glad for guidelines on the 3-revert rule. Just now read the page referred to by Jeremy. I remembered previously Sitush had blocked me when i reverted a change just once (not twice or thrice) (See here). So just wondering about the block warning. Here i find some say "more than 3 times" while the page referred to by Jeremy says 3 times. So this depends on whose discretion ? What happens if one admin decides to block and another does not? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Browsers have caches of all sorts of individual pages - it's easy for one to get out of step while the others are fine. As for edit warring, 3RR is just a "bright line", and blocks are often handed out for fewer reverts than that as a preventative measure. WP:EW is the more important policy, and the aim is really to stop the edit war as quickly as possible. Whether and when to block is up to each individual admin's discretion - and, as we saw here, some prefer to protect the page instead. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Boing, left a message on your talk page. Have uploaded the iyengar history page as is visible to me right now. Again showing cached version. Can help me why this is happening? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

It's an issue with your browser. Do you have it updated to the latest version? Firefox is...well, bloated these days, it ain't what it used to be. Perhaps you could try Chrome? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping out with this. A lot of my stuff is bookmarked in Mozilla. Afraid of losing it. So did not do updates. Will just have to go to another browser now i suppose. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Glad to help. As a note, it might not be your browser after all - seems the servers are hiccupping as well... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What a bad timing for servers to hiccup as well. Now i feel yuck to have accused Hari7478 for hiding reverts (something which he did not do). So i give myself a knock on the head and unconditionally apologize to Hari7478 on that account (Am very sorry Hari, i mistook the non-visibility of your reverts, very truly sorry about that whole part). Am glad EdJohnston gave final verdict on edit warring too. Now that he has concluded on the issue, may we focus on the issue of misquoting sources. Am keen to have the misquoting part sorted early. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Before i address the issues raised here, i want the admins and other users to take a look into Mayasutra's abusive behavior in talk page discussions. I'm hereby posting the diff of his talk page comments -

[139] - Mayasutra wrote "I suppose Hari7478 will want to chicken out without agreeing to the Formal Mediation..."

[140] - Mayasutra's comments - "As for the genetic/anthropological/blah blah assumptions you make; each of them including misquoting sources to support your half-baked assumptions of racism......for Dispute Mediation from which you chickened out...."

[141] - Mayasutra's comments - "So what am going to do is delete all the trash you put into the article. If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree for mediation. Good luck." This comment proves beyond doubt that Mayasutra planned the edit war.

[142] - Mayasutra's edit summary - "Expecting editwar, admin intervention...". Mayasutra indicated in the edit comment that he knew he was edit warring. He was literally calling me out for an edit war.

There's a template on top of the article's talk page(Iyengar) indicating that it, like all articles on caste in South Asia (especially India) are under general sanctions, which means people must work extra hard to be civil, to not edit war, and generally behave better than usual. With the discretionary sanctions template, i wonder how Mayasutra keeps getting away with his abusive behavior and the "planned edit war". I will not be intimidated by such behavior. I would like to hear an experienced user's/admin's verdict on Mayasutra's behavior/comments in talk pages & edit summaries, first. Thereafter i'll immediately address the issues raised here. I was only reverting it back to the original revision(the version that has also been edited by other experienced users and an admin). Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not plan the edit war. Knowing how discussions on talk page were fruitless, i had a gut feeling; or so to say i knew this was going to end up in edit war and mentioned so. Am sure Hari7478 also knew it was heeding to edit war. Hari7478 reverted thrice. I reverted twice (and stayed away from the article after my second revert). Anyways, due to admin non-involvement in the Iyengar Talk page (on issue of Hari7478 misquoting sources), and knowing Hari7478 will not agree for mediation; wanted to bring to ANI notice anyways. The issue here is misquoting sources. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Frank L. VanderSloot

There is a dispute ongoing in the above WP:Biography of a living person as to (1) whether the Melaleuca company is a multi-level marketer (MLM) and, more important in this request, (2) if that assertion should be included in the lede, as a fact, as it is at the present. A previously uninvolved editor, Administrator and User:Barek, proposed removing the assertion and simplifying the lede of the article here, as follows:

I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names. The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead.

After a series of comments by editors and what to him seemed to be a WP:Consensus in favor of the new lede, User:GeorgeLouis posted Barek's suggestion as a substitute lede at 16:29 January 2013, with the Edit Summary "Slimmed-down version of the lede as suggested by User:Barek," but his posting was reverted at 13:37 24 January 2013 by User:Nomoskedasticity, who stated in his Edit Summary "indicate what Melaleuca is, as suggested by Arthur Rubin (lots of individual editors suggest things.)"

A lengthy debate followed, but much of it did not concern the basic question as to whether the lede should be changed to drop the statement about multilevel marketing. (VanderSloot is quoted in the body of the article as denying that his firm, Melaleuca, is a multilevel marketer.) Also lost was any concern over this WP policy: "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version."

I recently noted on the article's Talk Page that "it seems that consensus is not needed to remove contentious material. I guess anybody could do it, but it might be better if an administrator were to take it upon himself or herself to do so. If Barek does not want to, perhaps another seasoned editor could be recruited. Thus I am listing this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." I certainly hope somebody here can remove the contentious material from the lede while discussion continues on the article's Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(non administrator comment) I don't see any behavioral issues here. This is a content dispute. If you cannot resolve it on the articles talk page you need to ask for WP:3O as a first step. There are other steps beyond that. There is nothing anyone can do for you here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize my comment was copied over here ...

I agree with Gtwfan52; this is a content dispute. I've already commented to another involved party on my talk page that the best course would be submitting a WP:RFC, or making a request for additional comments at WP:BLPN, or looking at other options mentioned at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

However, looking at the talk page, I am concerned about accusations of personal attacks that seem to be based on very minor perceived issues that to me do not meet the threshold of personal attacks by any of the involved parties. The discussion appears to be falling into a bit of a downward spiral, and I fear it's just a matter of time before it does expand to here with real ANI issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump

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

---

AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Following latest AN/I thread that AndyTheGrump participated Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_gross_breach_of_WP:BLP_at_the_.27Derby_sex_gang.27_article. he admit that he decided to become a vandal [143] and that exactly what he do:

• He notify multiple editors of non existent AN/I thread
• He makes a WP:POINT with this edit [144]
• And as I pointed that what he did is disruptive I got a personal attack [145]

This of course only the sample of his disruptive actions the user constantly violate WP:NPA.The user might have some problems as he admit that he suffers from clinical depression [146] but Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy.So I don't understand why the community should tolerate such behaviour--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User already blocked for 24hrs by Fram. Salvidrim! ✉ 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Blocked for 24 hours, let's hope that is sufficient and that this disruption of all kinds doesn't continue afterwards. It's understandable that he's upset, but that doesn't mean that his reactions are acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My bet its not the last time that we will see such outburst.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is regrettable. I had been trying to let this deescalate and avoid the need for such a block, as there was evidently a moment when he was on a rampage trying to provoke just that, and it was my impression that he had calmed down and stopped. The objectionable edits were all during a brief outburst between 07:03 and 07:23, and he hadn't been editing in over an hour since then. At this point, the block strikes me as somewhat punitive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The block is not punitive but preventive to stop further WP:NPA attacks on fellow editors as thus was not the first time that such violation happened moreover the user can request an unblock --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

of course it's punitive. that's exactly what Shrike was going for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• (ec'd 3 times) I've re-blocked Andy indefinitely. I don't mean to overturn Fram, but this user (who has a very colourful past) - just
  • Made offensive comments
  • Pretty much promised to start vandalizing (and proved he was serious)
  • Promised to start socking
• Given Andy's past - he has repeatedly been blocked - and the fact that he hasn't learned anything, I feel that 24 hours is nothing but a slap on the wrist. However, if he chooses to back down, apologize, and make a very compelling argument for why he shouldn't stay indefinitely blocked, I have no qualms with unblocking. But I will not see someone slander and vandalize to such an extent without facing full repercussions. m.o.p 08:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Calling someone a "a repulsive little turd", especially after a lengthy history of personal attacks, isn't something that we should lightly gloss over simply because he hasn't repeated it in the last hour - in fact, I'm surprised the block is so short. This is just the latest in Andy's long term record of personal attacks, and that's what we need to prevent, not just the latest one. I've been a supporter of Andy in the past, but this is going to end up in an indef block (for preventative purposes) unless someone can stop him some other way - best of luck, anyone who thinks they can do it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • An indefinite block is too short and not punishment enough? wow, what else do you want? go over to his house with a firing squad? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It was 24h when I checked, immediately before I commented. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And now the punishment has been extended to a life sentence. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually extended the block indefinitely and gave rationale (see here), but edit has somehow managed to disappear... m.o.p 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. Andy is nearly always right on the substance of matters that he's involved in. That's more that can be said for most people who end up on ANI due to pointless and completely avoidable drama every second day. It still doesn't negate the toxicity that this introduces to the community, and inevitably makes it worse in the long run because such editors pick up fan clubs. Suicide-by-admin wastes the community's time and deflects from the matters that such editors are actually trying to address. And lastly, "indef" for established editors nearly always means "short" around here anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Hope he gets help as he pointed out about his clinical depression. Though something not quite right about what he mentions here.--Ekabhishek^talk 09:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not him who needs treatment for mental problems... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Andy gets an indef and yet many others, with worse track records of personal attacks and incivlilty, still roam these mean streets? Ridiculous. The indef should be overturned; in fact, it should never have been introduced while this discussion was ongoing. GiantSnowman 09:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want to go around retrospectively indeffing any editors whom you think have gotten off lightly, go right ahead and do it. Otherwise, this is boilerplate whataboutery. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You know as well as I do that that would be an exercise in futility. GiantSnowman 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, I've seen plenty of successful enforcements. The handful of high-profile failures are the outlier here, not the norm. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite not infinite block When someone has a block log this long and shows up in this many ANI threads, something's not right. Might support an unblock under some strict unblock conditions. --Rschen7754 09:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block Every single time I come across ATG, he shows gross incivility and a basic inability to WP:AGF. The user seems in good faith; still, his behaviour is toxic. The block log is clear. Until he understands he can't behave like that, we can do without. --Cyclopia^talk 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to undo Master of Puppets' extension to indefinite

 Done This has been done. NE Ent 22:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Master of Puppets, this is not the first time you have extended a 24-hour block of AndyTheGrump.[147] It was for a poor reason in November 2011 ("Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy, I'm extending his block (originally for 24 hours) to 72 hours") and it's for a poor reason now; nothing new had happened, then or now, there had been no discussion with the blocking admin, you simply overrode the original admin after 13 minutes (in 2011) and after 15 minutes (this time). I consider this gaming of WP:WHEEL: by being the second admin to touch the block, you have made made sure anybody who reverts your extension is liable to desysopping. Please revert your unwarranted extension. I can understand Fram's original block, but, as Johnuniq said about the November situation: "Yes, Andy is out of line, but when an excellent editor freaks out from an overdose of nonsense, they need help: remove the uncivil comments and leave a gentle note at Andy's talk."[148]

Well, excuse me, I see further down in the 2011 thread that you had actually discussed with the original blocking admin on IRC:

"A few editors were discussing this on IRC so I checked it out and went to block Andy for what I saw to be grossly inappropriate language. Upon going to block, I saw that Chris G had already issued one. We discussed it and I changed it to what I thought was appropriate. It's ironic that you see it as hasty when the very reason I took fifteen minutes to do it was because I was discussing with the blocking administrator."

Ironic? That's not really good enough, you know, and the following discussion cited Wikipedia:IRC: when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action, the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships. The whole 2011 thread is interesting, I recommend it.

In 2011, it appears you were involved with ATG (=had a recent grudge against him).[149][150] Your block extension (plus, though with less enthusiasm, the original block)was overturned by ANI consensus.

You have history with ATG; you shouldn't have been the one to block him now under any circumstance, and absolutely not with this extension to indefinite. Please revert yourself now. If you don't, I hope it won't take us any longer than in 2011 to reach a consensus to undo your action.

• Undoing of Master of Puppets' extension to indefinite proposed per the points I make above. Bishonen | talk 10:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

I'm replying further down the page, but I have to say - wanna throw me a bone here? I'm not trying to game anything; I'm trying to act in the encyclopedia's best interests. Also, as I say below - I had, nor will I ever have, any grudges against Andy. I don't care if we've disagreed in the past; I outgrew grudges quite a few summers ago.

I understand that sometimes things look different from the other side of the fence, but I'm not acting maliciously and I'm not trying to game the system. I'd like to make that clear. m.o.p 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Andy's got his heart in the right place, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour. I've been the target of his personal attacks (which bordered on homo/transphobia) in the past and they're not pretty, especially when there's a culture on Wikipedia (that has existed for years) to give some users leeway because that's just what they're like, which definitely happened in my case. For years now, Andy's behaviour has been a lot worse than we would otherwise tolerate, and I think that MOP's block is justified, and indeed, maybe overdue. However, if he adheres to a strict civility parole, he should be allowed back. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo the indef block - should never have been implemented in the first place, given this ongoing discussion, the blocker's history with Andy, and the community's precedent not to indef block for incivility and personal attacks. I'm happy, however, for there to be a short block for his recent comments/behaviour. GiantSnowman 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The community does not have a "precedent not to indef block for incivility and personal attacks". It happens all the time. It just happens not to stick in some cases if the editor is popular enough to attract ANI flashmobs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Same difference. GiantSnowman 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Only if you agree with the latter, which is at present one of the most toxic notions on the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo indef block. I expressed surprise that the initial block was so short, but a unilateral extension to indef without community discussion was not appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  And yes, m.o.p was the wrong person to be extending blocks anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo of course... and then we'll see if he's still willing to put up with the nutcases that bait him. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block However given ATG's track record he should be blocked for a week at least. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block- in the hope that AndyTheGrump will not become AndyTheThermonuclearRagequit. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• To quote further up this thread - And lastly, "indef" for established editors nearly always means "short" around here anyway. And people wonder why the civility policy and 4th pillar is considered a joke. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block, but continue to monitor closely -- The Anome (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Torn Reality is that Andy has more than used up his own 9 lives when it comes to civility. Direct personal attacks - regardless of any perceived provocation - are against a core pillar. In reality, an indefinite block means "until the community is convinced that the behaviour will not recur" - with all the shots across the bow Andy has had, I think one could easily WP:IAR when it comes to who leveled the block and say "yeah, we as a community really need to know that Andy won't do it again - seriously this time". As such, I'm not wholly against indef, based on its meaning to Wikipedia. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I see. Meanwhile, his detractors can now continue to bait him with insinuations of antisemitism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike is probably about 2 more stupid edits away from his own indef for provocation and NPA themself. Interaction bans might be needed, but Shrike's own behaviour lately has been 1-sided enough that yes, an actual ban may be needed - but that does not excuse Andy's actions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And I see you rejected to clarify the matter , abused you rollbock tool and violated WP:NPA [151]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He's free to ignore you and to "abuse" rollback on his talk page if he wishes. Let it go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(ecx5)He cannot really complain about that, he insinuates others are racist and calls them bigots quite often. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have stricken my edit to not create more drama moreover my edit was not a vadalism--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - unwelcome attacks - especially if you have been asked to refrain from such interaction - can most certainly be rolled back on their user talkpage in that manner (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo It is shameful that Andy reacts badly when trolled, but it is more shameful that the community has bad-word police who cannot deal with the underlying problem (trolling and/or incompetence directed at Andy). Andy raised an issue with a claim that an editor has a "habit of writing sensationalist material, often based on a poor reading of often-questionable sources, frequently apparently aimed at placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light. Andy was then subjected to a string of absurd attacks which derailed the report. Civility police are useless if they are not able to deal with the underlying disruption before considering whether action against Andy is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This implies that there is no recourse to dealing with such disruption other than flying off the handle. No matter how many times this assertion is made, it doesn't get any truer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, as for that, Andy asked repeatedly above for admin intervention with Media-Hound and was ignored by you and all other admins on this page. Frankly, he had every right to tell you all in no uncertain terms to fuck off. Which he didn't. Take some responsibility, please. Exercise some subtlety, demonstrate some understanding of human nature. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The editor Andy asked to be sanctioned was blocked for four months. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
        • After Andy went ape. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
          • If you want to believe that the admin corps deliberately did nothing for 36 hours after Andy opened the thread, but took action within seven minutes solely because Andy threatened to vandalise the project, then there's little anyone is going to be able to do to persuade you otherwise, but it's not particularly plausible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I don't have to "believe" anything. The facts are above. Apart from some sound cool down advice from Bishonen, nobody addressed Andy's justified concerns raised at #Accusations of 'Cyber harassment' etc for 25 hours, despite repeated requests for attention, and escalating harassment from Media-Hound until immediately after he exploded.[152] What's to "believe"? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block MoP's rationale says Andy was slandering. I'm pretty sure he was just insulting. (MoP seems to be confusing Andy with the editor Andy brought to this board, who was slandering, in the worst possible way, in a Wikipedia article.) Andy appealed repeatedly for admin intervention with Media-Hound above, who was slandering him, accusing him of cyber-bullying and darkly hinting about British legal processes, and was ignored by MoP and all (but one) other admins on this page. This is a regrettable outburst by a valuable contributor who clearly needs to step back from the computer and cool down for a spell. Also, given MoP's history with Andy, it was incredibly ill-judged of him/her to take this action. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Struck, in light of below comment by MoP. 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo Fram's block was justified but there didn't seem to be any real justification for changing it to indefinite in the circumstances (described by others above). Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo indef block per GiantSnowman.--В и к и T 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment You know what the funny thing here is? I had no idea I'd even interacted with Andy until I read this thread. Something people should know about me - I don't hold grudges. Short of murdering someone I love, I believe people can change and better their lives. The reason that I don't remember ever interacting with Andy is because there wasn't anything personal between our disagreement; there wasn't anything personal between us when I first extended his block, nor is there anything personal between us now.

The reason I'm blocking Andy is simple, and can be found in my explanation here. Let's pretend that I'm only counting from my previous block of Andy; there have been 6 more blocks for a total of 540 hours. That's more than three weeks. And even after all of these incidents, the editor is still insulting others, threatening to vandalize and threatening to sockpuppet.

In case it's not been made clear yet - I couldn't care any less about my past with Andy. The thing I'm concerned about is that we have an editor here who, after years of activity and weeks of being blocked, still flies into a personal attack frenzy when provoked. Once, I'd be sympathetic. Twice, I'd be concerned. Nearly a dozen times? I'm not having it. And it pains me to say it, but every instinct in my body screams against unblocking, for the reasons above.

Also, since it's been skimmed over multiple times, please understand that this isn't simply a matter of personal attacks (though they are a large part of the problem). Andy literally threatens to vandalize and turn to sockpuppetry. At the risk of becoming redundant, I acknowledge that Andy has made constructive contributions, I have no personal grudge against him, but this behaviour is unacceptable.

So, there you have it. I've bolded things for people's convenience. Could this have been avoided? Completely. If Andy felt he was getting the short end of the stick, he could have raised the issue in a calm, civil manner, and it would have been dealt with in turn. Instead, he yet again violated core policies.

I'm going to take the block back down to the original time set because consensus seems to be in favour of that. Had I known who Andy was and our history, I wouldn't have blocked (though, as explained on Fram's talk page, I was originally intending to block him indefinitely anyway - Fram just pressed the button first). As I said above, I definitely do not want to scale this back; I feel that this was the last straw, and, until Andy apologizes (which he still has not done), the core issue still exists. But, consensus is king, and I will do my utmost to empower the community's decision (no matter how much I may disagree with it). m.o.p 11:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated comment I'd like to direct attention to Andy's reply here, along with his request that his threat of vandalism be stricken. In light of this apology, most of what I've said now may be treated as void; while I do still think that Andy's toeing the fine line between constructive and disruptive, an apology takes an admission of wrongdoing, and, as I said above, I don't think anyone's beyond reprieve. This isn't to say an apology is a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, but it's a much-appreciated step in the right direction. m.o.p 12:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for altering the block time to something reasonable. It would have been nice if you'd had the grace to express some regret for blocking in a case you ought not to have touched. Bishonen | talk 13:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

Addition: I see you say above "I had no idea I'd even interacted with Andy until I read this thread. Something people should know about me - I don't hold grudges." I'm glad to hear you have a lovely personality, but are you saying you weren't even aware you had blocked him before? You didn't remember the uproar about your 2011 block of him? OK, it was a while ago. But since you're aware that you don't remember bad interchanges, it seems to me that the least you could have done before blocking was to check his log, or yours, to see if you'd blocked him before. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC).

In reply to your first point - I'd express regret, but, to be blunt, I don't regret blocking Andy. Given the circumstances, his actions warranted an indefinite block in my eyes, and there's nothing more to it. My past with him (which was, again, unknown to me until you brought it up) had literally no bearing on my decision, and I won't defend myself for blocking an editor who threatened to vandalize and sock (of course, Andy's now apologized, so obviously the circumstances are different).

In reply to the second point; yes, I wasn't aware I had blocked him before. I was barely even aware of who he is. I can remember the details now that I've re-read the old diffs, but that's beside the point - if someone is disrupting Wikipedia to the extent of threatening to circumvent their block and vandalize the project, I'm more concerned with how to stop them. That being said, if I had been consciously aware of the specifics, I would have left the block alone to avoid this sort of discussion. m.o.p 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Undo indef block. 24 hours was perfectly appropriate. We believe in escalating blocks as necessary here, not in rushing to the death penalty. At least, most of us... Carrite (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Undo Andy may or may not deserve an indef. But per WP:INVOLVED, Master of Puppets should not have taken any action with regards to Andy. LK (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility parole feeler proposal

We're all agreed that Andy commits civility infractions that we often let slide. However, I think some of us are also concerned with the frequency. Back in my editing heyday, the Designated Grump was User:Giano, who was a good article writer but often got very angry. Eventually, with a lot of prodding, he learnt to keep cool and take breaks when the going got hot. I don't think he's been blocked in a long time since. Hence, I'm putting out a feeler proposal towards a civility parole, with specifics to be discussed, to try and reign in his anger. It'd be sad to lose a good editor due to his anger. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if we add an interaction ban that Shrike cannot interact with Andy ... let's not put the yoke on only 1 editor here when there's plenty of blame to share (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record - I've already requested that Shrike avoid interacting with Andy for now; formalizing this would be completely OK with me. m.o.p 11:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This community's "civility policy" is, put simply, fucked. Perhaps we could consider civility parole as a behaviour modification tool once the community decides what civility is. That will happen. But until it does, civility parole is unworkable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The community has codified civility for years and years and years, broadly in line with how decent society codifies it. The existence of a remarkably vocal minority on ANI and other drama boards utterly rejecting it doesn't change that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. (And I can't help but find it interesting that other policies don't get the same "for thee but not for me" treatment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The community's take on civility is topsy-turvy - X can say something and get away with it, but Y can't etc. Until that is sorted, this 'civility parole' idea is a non-runner. GiantSnowman 11:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sigh. "Civility parole" is precisely what the community has come up with to resolve this: that certain class of wikicelebrities who, until now, have been free to do as they please are put on a "civility parole" which basically says "behave like all the common people or you'll get blocked like all the common people". They actually regard being asked to stop acting in ways which would get any regular editor uncontroversially blocked as a sanction. But nonetheless, this broadly works with the exception of (literally) a handful of high-profile cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Cilvility Parole for XYZ only means one thing: everybody's free to have a field day baiting and pushing XYZ to the limit until it's "gotcha!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note that people are not free to bait anyone at all. If Andy was (hypothetically) on civility parole and someone baited him, it would be incredibly easy for Andy to turn to an admin, say "Here are some diffs", and have the admin take care of the baiting user (who would face appropriate repercussions) while Andy went on his own way. m.o.p 12:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I am of the opinion any editor or admin who is found to have 'baited' someone under sanctions - they should have to share the sanction/punishment. Sadly however MoP it doesnt work that way - take a look at the recent YRC action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I started typing out a reply to this but it got too long, and I don't want to drag this off topic. I agree - however, ideally the baiter should be the only one punished, as the person being baited should know to avoid replying. If they reply, it's no longer solely the baiter's fault. m.o.p 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If that utopia really was true, we wouldn't have all these issues. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an idealist, I know. But I'll defend anyone - Andy included - who's being targeted by others. Of course, it has to be brought to my attention before someone flies off the hook, because that escalates things. If baiting happens, I'd like to see it reported without the person being baited reacting. m.o.p 12:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• There appear to be two problems, here. 1)The apparent claim that it's ok to say anything you want, if you are "right." And 2) utter impatience with everyone else. These demonstrated problems for any user in a multi-party discussion format covering all time zones, to find consensus just will not be tolerated forever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  First deal with the oily snarkers who bait and bait and bait and then come running to ANI when their target dares to utter an obscenity. Then we can talk about the people who tell them to fuck off. Reyk _YO! 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  It's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that POV-pushing ethnic/nationalists who bait productive editors are never dealt with. They usually are, and harshly. Moreover, that still repeats the fallacy that the only way to deal with such baiting is to explode, which denigrates the efforts of those who manage otherwise. Lastly, even where editors do lose their cool in such situations, the community normally gets the right idea anyway (I'm thinking of a recent incident with Sitush). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  (ec) I'm just putting these problems in order of importance. Stop the provocation and you don't have to worry about what the retaliation is like. Reyk _YO! 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  No, as the problem is presented we have to deal with both. The later often interferes with dealing with the former. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh-my-god-oppose. Sceptre, I appreciate your good intentions here, but when you say I don't think [Giano]'s been blocked in a long time since. Hence, I'm putting out a feeler proposal towards a civility parole it just shows me you don't know much about Giano's civility parole. It was an arbcom sanction that became (in)famous for working so badly, and leading to so much baiting and so much lawyering, that it became an example and a warning to all later arbcoms: Civility paroles don't work. They stopped using them as a result. The reason Giano is rarely blocked nowadays is that he rarely edits nowadays. Oppose because, you know, Civility paroles don't work. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC).
  • Considering that a civility parole got broken, assessed, and said breaking resulted in an indef ban just two days ago, I think saying "they stopped using them" is a little counterfactual. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That wasnt imposed by arbcom. nableezy - 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal was absurd. Tattoo this as a memento: "The reason Giano is rarely blocked nowadays is that he rarely edits nowadays." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, oppose - Per Bishonen above. And usually "civility parole" just encourages unscrupulous editors (if they may be called that - I'm avoiding incivility here myself, but there's a dozen better words for these folks than 'editors') to begin baiting and provoking the subject so they can go running to AN/I with a report and demand more serious sanctions. Bad incentives.Volunteer Marek 17:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Who's The Man With The Golden Gun pushed to the back of the "baited" editors' heads forcing them to reply to the baiting? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, surprisingly - because we don't need to be putting individual editors on "civility parole". We need to simply put the community's foot down and state clearly: if you egreriously violate policy, you will be blocked, regardless of which policy it is. WP:CIVIL is a core policy and one of the Five Pillars. There is precisely zero reason for anyone to "get away with it" when they flaunt it any more than we'd let fragrant nose-thumbing of WP:V or WP:COPYVIO slide. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Andy is worth his weight in gold because of his work on BLP issues and because he is a leading indicator of good sense. We've had enough target-painting on the backs of article-writers by reverse leading indicators. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wait a second... I'm a little surprised to see the OP suggest a sanction on Andy without disclosing the background between the two editors. Participants in this thread shouldn't be misled into thinking this is being proposed by a disinterested party. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Andy has a function here. It can be brutal and you might want to avert your eyes, but we need at least a few hardcore, committed Wikipedians willing to go to the mat to crush out civil or semi-civil POV warriors. Sometimes he goes too far. Sometimes he punches the wrong person in a scrum. But he is as invaluable in his own way to the big picture of Wikipedia as somebody like New York Brad is in constructing ArbCom decisions or Moonridden Girl is in analyzing and fighting copyright violations. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanctions are about preventing disruption and civility paroles just take an often disruptively-applied policy, and add a shot of nitro to it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a civility restriction enforced by a suspended block, as in this RfC/U outcome, might be an option? Prioryman (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:The Duke of Madras

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

---

Resolved

Unfortunatly, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Duke of Madras (talk · contribs)

Please have a look. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

At what? It's a nice ermine he's wearing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the page is now deleted, before which I posted here. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my point was: what were you wanting us to look at? His continual removal of speedy deletion tag (usually goes to WP:AIV)? The fake-article that was a userpage? The copy/pasted source from another article being used inappropriately? You'll need to be a little bit clearer as to what you want people to look at in the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He was continuously removing speedy deletion tag, that was what I was asking to look after. I seriously did not have in mind that it was a userspace. But after going thourgh the policy on userpages, although it was in userspace, the content violated WP:UPNOT. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the funniest page I've seen in a long time. Can we move it to BJAODN? Nyttend (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd probably want this one, which it was shamelessly copied from - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone read the bizarre discussion on my talkpage that was started by the "owner" of the offending page (that I deleted) - and review his use of multiple accounts, and absolute badgering. I'd rather not have someone accuse me of being "involved" today (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct link. And given that the user page was moved/account renamed, we're dealing with socking. I'd block myself except I'm taking a coffee break after having the WikiRage meter go up a tick looking through AN/I this morning. (And that's the only thing I could extract from that mess.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Trolling-only account, no sign of wanting to build the encyclopedia. Somehow my block button is itchy today. Must be the weather. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aw, another trigger-happy virtually powerful man. How cute. Oh yes, go ahead and block this account as well. That's the way to go! Block citing the most frivolous reasons, like not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Well, how do you know in five minutes I had spent here before getting the pink vandal badge? Block the IPs of the entire world, I'll still be back. Don't worry, countless "rulers" have tried to oppress their subjects only to eventually realize that's not the way it works. Democracy won out eventually anyway. And to BWilkins, don't try your ganging-up-on-a-newcomer tactic again either. It's rather uncivil. I was glad for Floquenbeam's message on my user page. I was about to say thank you and how much better Wikipedia might be if everyone was that understanding instead of sitting on a self-built high pedestal, and lo and behold, a block! So, back I come. Brilliant stuff, this. And also, have you conveniently received a satisfactory response from the other user yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke Reborn (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam's experiment in unblocking was not a success. This is a trolling only account. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Duke is right about one thing. The link he tried to insert in the "not democracy" line above is wonderfully appropriate. Taking the freedom to fix that now. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reblocked the account. For the record, I had not noticed either this thread or the block log until well after I had blocked (I used a script to block). So I did not intend to wheel war here, and regardless, the behavior continued after the unblock. If a consensus forms to unblock, I have no problems with that, but I doubt that it will. --Rschen7754 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also indefblocked User talk:Duke Four‎. --Rschen7754 05:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And User talk:Duke Five. --Rschen7754 05:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Rigged votes/WP:MEAT violation

Please help. The article MUD_trees was nominated for deletion, but the votes were rigged by "MUD" owners who listed their MUD on the page, as you can see on their forum here: http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/tavern-blue-hand/5287-defense-all-muds-our-genres-noteworthiness-being-questioned-16.html EternalFlare (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Even as a non-admin close, this wasn't a controversial interpretation of the discussion that took place, and while several of the comments were plainly canvassed there were also multiple comments from established editors which expressed the same sentiments. You could ask for it to be relisted at WP:DRV on the grounds that it was a NAC unduly influenced by cancassed opinions, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have requested that the user involved in the closure re-nominate the article for deletion for multiple reasons. It should be noted that Sue Rangell (talk · contribs) has been advised on at least 2 occasions this month to be exceptionally careful with their Non-Admin Closures. I will not make any recommendations regarding how we can improve the AfD closures as I am one of the ones who has previously complained about their NACs. Hasteur (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think she can just revert her closure, and then relist. I've suggested it to her. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you do that, Hasteur? Would you have done the same if it were an admin? I can't imagine any sane editor, admin or not, would not come to a "keep" from that discussion. There seems to be a recent trend of "OHMYGOODNESS NAC MUST SCREAM" that is both counterproductive and highly unpleasant. It's a solid keep. Get over it. Trouts to EternalFlare for bringing it here and Hasteur for encouraging such nonsence. --Nouniquenames 02:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08 Returns; Request for range blocks

Indef blocked user DragoLink08 continues to disrupt the project two years after he was indefinitely blocked. Their MO is to make undiscussed and sometimes quite detrimental color changes to articles and templates on American college sports. Activity has picked up over the last three months; they've created a number of new sock accounts, but more usually edit anonymously, mostly using IPs that appear connected to the University of South Florida. Several accounts were confirmed through the SPI, and I and others have DUCK blocked several more (here and here). I've escalated the blocks to a month on the IPs, but I hesitate to do more, or to propose a range block, to avoid affecting others on these IPs. I'd appreciate some additional eyes and input on this.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I was also typing a related report regarding DragoLink's continued disruptive and deceptive editing (immediately below) at the same time you were making this report. I have gone a step further and requested the range blocks. I believe it is time to take this step after three years of wasted time and effort to curb this user's disruptive editing and egregious sock-puppetry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

User:DragoLink08, his registered sock puppets, and his editing from dozens of IP addresses at the University of South Florida in the Tampa, Florida, have plagued the constructive editors of WikiProject College Football, WikiProject NFL, WikiProject Universities, and many others who work on other sports articles. His edits have been concentrated in articles related to American professional football, college football and other college sports, mixed martial arts and anime. His disruptive edits were first identified in the undiscussed changes that he made to the hex color schemes of the navboxes, infoboxes and tables used in college and professional sports articles. After months of other editors chasing and reverting his edits to consensus hex color schemes in 2010 and 2011, DragoLink08 was indefinitely blocked in August 2011. He had been previously blocked for defined periods in March 2011 and July 2011. During 2010 and 2011 and before he was blocked, multiple editors attempted to engage him on his talk page and requested that he stop making his disruptive edits to navbox color schemes. No one can say that he has not been fairly warned, repeatedly, of the disruptive nature of his editing.

For the last several months, administrators User:AuburnPilot and User:Cuchullain have taken the lead in investigating Drago's continued sock-puppetry and abuse of IP addresses, and have blocked multiple registered accounts and IP addresses. A quick review of AuburnPilot and Cuchullain's talk page histories will reveal in more detail Drago's recent sock-puppetry and disruptive editing. A review of the archived SPI for Drago is also instructive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragoLink08/Archive.

Since his DragoLink registered account was indefinitely blocked, Drago has engaged in sock-puppetry to continue his pattern of disruptive editing. At last count, he has employed at least fifteen registered sock puppet accounts to repeatedly evade his blocks:

• User:Danzer13
• User:Bullz-Eye13
• User:Newlife512
• User:Ufbcschamps960608
• User:Timtebow4he15man2007
• User:NyteLyfe14
• User:Gr8ass
• User:Johnbrantley4he12man
• User:Bonjourstupid
• User:Firefighter407
• User:Flabcschamps960608
• User:EveryMan12
• User:Acoustics101
• User:Balificboy
• User:CompDude13

Additionally, he has also repeatedly used IP addresses registered to the University of South Florida to evade the blocks on his registered sock puppet account, and to register an ever-growing farm of sock puppet accounts:

• User:131.204.254.72
• User:131.247.24.12
• User:131.247.25.132
• User:131.247.25.193
• User:131.247.26.27
• User:131.247.26.178
• User:131.247.27.197
• User:131.247.37.75
• User:131.247.38.231
• User:131.247.102.208
• User:131.247.224.56
• User:131.247.229.72
• User:131.247.231.99
• User:131.247.231.135
• User:131.247.244.20
• User:131.247.244.21
• User:131.247.244.22
• User:131.247.244.23
• User:2607:FE50:0:8207:9A0C:82FF:FE6E:57C4
• User:2607:FE50:0:820B:8CEF:FCC:C863:D14

Accordingly, I am requesting a range block for the IP ranges registered to the University of South Florida, as represented by the ranges above. Specifically, the range block should be structured to prohibit IP editing and new account registration from these ranges of IP addresses, but permit editing by registered accounts to cause the minimum amount of disruption those legitimate future editors who might use University of South Florida IP addresses at some point.

I do not make this range block request lightly. This user has engaged in a long-term pattern of widespread disruptive editing, deceptive sock-puppetry, intentional block evasion, and other negative editing behaviors over a period of two to three years. Despite repeated warnings and blocks by a host of administrators, he has only redoubled his attempts to continue these patterns of disruptive and deceptive behaviors, using the University of South Florida IP addresses as his escape hatch to continue his activities. Simply put, this user has wasted countless hours of registered editors and administrators, who have been forced to revert his edits, engage in sock puppet investigations, block discussions, etc., and it is time to bring this circus to a close.

I will notify those administrators and other editors who have been active in chasing DragoLink08 and his various sock puppets, as well as placing notices of this ANI complaint on the talk pages of IP addresses recently used by DragoLink08. Thanks for reading this report and considering my request for an appropriate range block to bring an end to this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Solid and convincing arguments. Do you have any clue what range will need to be blocked? Tell me and I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can add nothing of substance to the foregoing, and am posting simply to agree that it is a real headache to deal with this fellow and clean up his messes, and if there's a practical way to prevent him from editing the encyclopedia (or even just reduce his volume), I'm all for it. JohnInDC (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

AlanM1 suggested on my talk page that contacting USF to help deal with the problem might be helpful. I seem to recall that similar things have been done for long-term disruptive editors in the past; would this be worth pursuing?Cúchullain ^t/c 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, for starters, I would suggest that we block all of the USF-registered IP addresses identified above for at least 12 months, blocking both IP editing and new account registration, with an appropriate talk page message briefly explaining the history of abusive editing and letting everyone know who wants to edit from a registered account that they may do so ---- but they will need to register their new account from a non-USF IP address. This should contain Drago's activities and make him easier to track. Before we implement a range block across all USF IPs, we need to ascertain what IPs have actually been assigned to the university, so we are not range-blocking third parties. It appears that virtually all USF IPs start with the numbered sequence "131.247," but I don't know if that includes the entire sequence or only assigned subsets of that entire sequence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Range blocks will be good, but if he's easily IP hopping/using proxies they won't work. Has anyone tried setting up an edit filter for him? Legoktm (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's WP:CBAN time as well? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I need to be given a specific set of addresses to block — if I just set a rangeblock by guessing what should be done, I'll probably accidentally block the entire university and the rest of the southeastern United States along with it. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Taking a look at range contribs and WHOIS. ⁓ Hello71 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like blocking 131.247.0.0/16 should be fine, it's broadcasted (BGP) and owned (whois) by the University of South Florida, and all those are in there (except for IPv6 and first Austin University one). Incidentally, they all (the ones I checked) have "wifi" or similar in the hostname; perhaps this individual is not actually a student, but a wifi leecher? Going to see if following up with abuse@ would be useful. ⁓ Hello71 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• So going with Special:Block/131.247.0.0/16 will do that? I just made one big mistake, so I'd like to be sure not to make another one. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure, I'm not a sysop, or else I might have myself. Would probably consider using the UI though. ⁓ Hello71 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have the range contribution gadget enabled, check Contributions from 131.247.0.0/16 Since 2012-01-01 there is some collateral damage in terms of good IP Edits. Monty₈₄₅ 20:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I have reviewed every edit by every one of those IP addresses. Virtually every one of those edits is consistent with the subject areas in which Drago has had a demonstrated interest. It is difficult to find a single edit from one of these IP addresses which is not within one of those subject areas. Are all of Drago's edits disruptive? No, they are not, some are unequivocally positive contributions. The real problems that most sports editors have with Drago stem from his need to tinker with the hex color schemes of navboxes, infoboxes and tables in sports articles. These navboxes and other displays have coordinated color schemes across multiple navboxes, multiple articles, multiple sports, multiple seasons, etc., and the disruption caused by non-consensus tinkering has undone a lot of good work by other dedicated editors over the years. Drago has made a nuisance of himself, repeatedly, even after multiple attempts to communicate with him, multiple sock puppet investigations, and multiple blocks of multiple registered accounts and multiple IP addresses. He has made a mockery of our anti-sock puppet remedial measures because has has always been able to use the USF-registered IP addresses to edit and create new sock accounts. It is his use of the USF-registered IP addresses that have permitted him to quickly create new sock accounts and continue with his disruptive activities. Without access to these USF IPs, he could not have continued his campaign with the same ease that he has.

If there is any "collateral damage," it will be minimal and can be largely ameliorated by permitting registered editors to edit from the USF-affiliated IP addresses, but blocking the creation of new accounts or anonymous editing as an IP user from those same USF IP addresses. The minor exclusionary damage that will result from properly blocking these IP addresses is far outweighed by the ongoing disruption and aggravation he has caused other editors, and the additional work he has created for dozens of other editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The IPv6 addresses are also university of south Florida, but it is unclear what kind of rangeblock that could be done, as the university has a /32 - the minimum would have to be 2607:FE50:0:8200::/60. Collateral damage may still be substantial even still, but it's hard to tell without an IPv6 range contribs tool.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jasper, let's start by blocking the IP addresses specifically identified above. We're making this harder than it has to be; we can take our time in identifying the larger ranges for range blocks so as to avoid any significant amount of "collateral damage," which if limited to USF IPs, I expect will be minimal (see my comments above in response to Monty). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That was not my point. In any case, though, depending on how the university distributes IPv6 addresses (static or not), I don't believe it will be useful to block those on an individual basis, although it's worth a try with the IPv4.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the range contribs gadget and I can see range edits using an asterisk (not CIDR apparently). ⁓ Hello71 21:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

131.247.0.0/16 blocked for three months; account creation is disabled, and registered users are able to edit. Not fond of blocking an entire university (although of course I wouldn't have done it if I believed it unnecessary), so I'm going to notify the Communications Committee. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Should questions arise in the future about unblock requests or related issues, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. I'm familiar enough with the editor's pattern that I should be able to provide some form of insight. --auburnpilot talk 05:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at this with CheckUser last night, and a hardblock would've definitely caused a little bit too much collateral than I'd approve of, so I agree that this is the best course of action for now. However, if this still doesn't quench the disruption, I would recommend ramping it up to a hardblock with the liberal distribution of IP block exemption to good faith users. WilliamH (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Community Ban of DragoLink08

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

---

Per the evidence listed above, I propose that DragoLink08 be subjected to a full community ban, as mentioned by The Bushranger above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support community ban of DragoLink08 and his sock farm. Three years of disruption and evasion is enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• I last enter this story nearly two years ago, when I issued the final block to his account. Looking at what has happened since I would say he is already de facto banned, no admin in their right mind would unblock a user like this, but for what it's worth support a formal site ban and whatever degree of range blocking needed to curb this disruption without causing undue collateral damage. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support a site ban, per Dirtlawyer1's summary above. My personal experiences with this user from several years ago are in line with everything mentioned here. As Beeblebrox says, this user is already de facto banned, but let's make it formal. cmadler (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. JohnInDC (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - clearly disruptive behavior in many ways. With this many sockpuppets, There have been numerous blocks, numerous incidents of major drama, and numerous reincarnations. This user has unfortunately demonstrated that the Wikipedia community cannot exhaust any more patience here. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Significant disruption over a long period of time, and they clearly have no intention of stopping.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The extent of the sockpuppetry is, as demonstrated, quite significant and has been going on for a considerable amount of time. We might as well make the ban official and start making appropriate range blocks. 131.247.0.0/16 seems like the best way to start, along with notification to the university. --auburnpilot talk 22:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - socking at this level is definitely not indicative of intent to contribute constructively.--Jasper Deng (talk) 3:19 pm, Today (UTC−8)
• Support giving some big bada boom to this fella. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - three years of rampant socking by username or IP deserves long overdue ban. Especially when a potential rangeblock can affect a large region. Nail his hide! --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Nickaang Paid Editing And Disruptive Behaviour.

• Nickaang (talk · contribs)

Nickaang has on at least two occasions admitted to creating promotional articles in exchange for "tips" [153], [154]. These article were all created in quick succession and most of them IMHO do not even come close to passing the GNG. Everytime I mention this to Nickaang I get some variation on "I searched the web and this has a lot of hits so it's good." I have sent about a half dozen of these articles to AFD. In response Nickaang has reported me to RPP [155], AIV [156], and has now started trying to Prod notable articles that I have worked on in the past [157]. If Nickaang really wants to contribute to project in a constructive way as he has claimed several times he sure has a funny way of doing. Ridernyc (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Nickaang's PROD of The River of Crime (Episodes 1–5), an album by The Residents, was clearly retaliatory and in bad faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also since noticed that despite having a ref improve tag on it, it is indeed referenced so the reason given for the prod is totally invalid. Ridernyc (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already apologized to you [158] and apologizing again. I'm very sorry for all the trouble caused to you by me. I've asked you for help which you reverted as vandalism [159]. I've created about 21 articles out of which 9 are marked for deletion but you're saying almost all my articles are paid promotional [160]. I've created all the articles in good faith and not whenever I get money without considering Wikipedia policies. If I have to do bad then I wouldn't admit paid editing in your question [161]. I learned that I was wrong in choosing the web sources for references but whenever I found that the topic is not meeting the Wikipedia guidelines then I accepted that like I did here [162] long before you marked the first article created by me for afd. But one thing I should say that you were not nice to me from the beginning and also in your talk page I found similar with other editors [163]. All I want now is neutral editors or admins who will review all the pages I created via process to check if they should be deleted or not. To be honest I've no problem if the pages I created stay or deleted but my problem is accusing me for creating all articles for payment. Please, just advise me. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have zero interest or concern about your apology. Your disruptive editing is the issue. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of policy and are simply acting out of vengeance at this point. Your pages are at AFD and most of them are well on their way to deletion, one of them was already taken care of through CSD. Your focus on me will not stop the process or prevent the process from happening to any of your other articles. Stop focusing on me, stop trying to stop me or get back at me. Focus on learning policy and sourcing your articles. Tired of this. Ridernyc (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now also found this truly great bit of disruption, creating an article then a day later commenting that it needs to be deleted at AFD [164]. Now I have seen everything. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! You've found it or I showed you? I've already commented on this and I'm also tired of you and don't pretend to be the boss of wikipedia[165] and bashing me for paid editing then you also need to learn the wikipedia policies. NickAang (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that AfD a little differently from Ridernyc. He was simply trying to withdraw the article, having been convinced by the discussion that it would not stand. People have done that before, and its very satisfactory when an AfD gets a agreed result like this, just as much when the nom withdraws, being convinced the article should stay. Since he is the only positive contributor to the article, I closed it as speedy G7. As for the paid editor stuff, it's no worse than the Reward board, which explicitly permits offering money, though the most recent monetary offer was in 2010 [166] and the last one actually awarded was in 2008 [167]. I think I will once more try to eliminate monetary offerings, as a suggested edit on that talk page. In the current environment, it's no longer harmless. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey NickAang, all you need to do is provide a clear list of which articles you have been paid to edit. Your comments so far has been extremely vague. Just put the list on your user page (see WP:BESTCOI) and you'll be good to go. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Servers screwy; extra dose good faith today, please

According to VPT, different users in different parts of the world are seeing different versions of pages -- there's some discussion about something like that in Hari7478 thread. There's also a AN note about maybe putting up a site notice... in any event, if an editor says they didn't/don't see something you do it's likely they're being absolutely honest. NE Ent 17:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible legal threat on Private spaceflight

• Private spaceflight

An anon editing from 207.203.67.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.42.61.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made an implied legal threat in a series of edit summaries on Private spaceflight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), stating that he was "removing the unlawful hacker alteration of content of unpermitted use [of trademarks]". Given that he seems to be claiming that the word "private" is trademarked, I'm pretty sure he's just a troll rather than anyone making serious legal threats, but since I don't know much about US IP laws, and his comment does seem to violate or come close to violating WP:NLT, I'd appreciate it if someone with a better understanding of the situation could check. The edits the summaries have accompanied have been largely the removal of chunks of text, and the replacement of every instance of the word "private" with "non-governmental" regardless of context. (Diffs: [168][169][170])--W. D. Graham 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There wasn’t a legal notice, the problem is that a group of hackers wanted to alter the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_spaceflight article taking currently US Trademark protected content. That’s the problem with Wikipedia it can’t follow the law or common sense. I don’t use this site for that reason and rarely have to take notice that these scam artists conducting trademark theft exists. Then is no reason or permission granted to have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight since it was nothing but a hoax copy of the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_spaceflight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.203.67.250 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• There was and is no Non-Governmental Spaceflight (and I think I tried all the capitalization variations). Your comment is a bit garbled, syntactically and semantically, and I don't know what you are trying to say. If something is a copy of a (former?) Wikipedia articles, then such copying is fine if proper attribution is given (some smart person correct me if I'm wrong here). And, eh, "hackers"? What hackers? I just reverted you again. Continue, and you'll be blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring Noticeboard is That away. I'd like to express my disgust at the IP addresses missing "Bold, Revert, Discuss", the Talk page, and the above lauded WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't see any legal threats being made, therefore this devolves into garden variety edit warring and dispute resolution. I strongly suggest that all editors start using the talk page to make the case for why (including retaining the status quo). Hasteur (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This recent edit by another (related?) IP includes the summary: "This is the second edit attempt to comply with US Trademark Registration Number:4208499 removing the unlawful hacker alteration of content of unpermitted use including Private Space forms without permission." This refers to this registration of "Private Space" as a trademark. This seems a rather bizarre reation, given that the registrant clearly isn't involved in actual spaceflight.... Nick Cooper (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but trademarks on "private spaceflight" (apparently not a trademark) and "Private Space" do not interact. In fact, there are any number of uses of "private space" which do not infringe on the trademark "Private Space"; in fact, I'd lay odds that the trademark would be invalid if challenged in most of the claimed areas. It does look like a WP:NLT violation.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean, the trademark registration claiming first use in 2009, compared with a Wikipedia article that's included the phrase "private spaceflight" since 2004?[171] It still looks more like edit warring than legal threats, but the IP could probably use some friendly words on how to follow up with the Foundation if they really think it's a problem that they can't/won't discuss at a talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No need. He's already been in contact with OTRS, and been given the appropriate information. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's at it again. Sigh. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's looking closer to a legal threat this time. Here's the message I just left at User talk:207.203.67.250[172]:

Please also note that Wikipedia has a strict policy that no legal threats may be made against other editors. When you make comments like "Since waiting on whether this Wikipedia hackers forum has a legal representative who can be recorded and respond, here is the activity record since Wikipedia is in lieu of a formal lawyer representative" or "Of course I don't expect a hackers forum to conduct full legal activity and specifically don't use the forum of Wikipedia as that result,"[173], it implies that you are contemplating off-Wikipedia legal action. In such case, standard policy is to block your account until the threat of legal action is rescinded or the action is otherwise completed–for your protection as well as our protection. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I copy the message here in case others may find it useful in cautioning any other accounts related to the incident and for evidence of what the IP has said. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Even if IP 207 were able to avoid the NLT issues, with one removal of info, and an additional FIVE reverts in less than an hour, they are WELL past the 3RR brightline rules. I'm only noting this as I don't have blocking capabilities at the moment. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Since he's obviously still at it, I've semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. Drmies blocked the IP, but I'm sure he would be able to find another to edit from. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Elen. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, This (diff) was previously posted on User talk:Aaron Schulz by the same IP, under the header "Sockpuppet investigations".--Auric talk 23:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Request review

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

---

Please see the edits by:

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

I blocked the second IP for continuing disruption following a final warning (4im) on the first IP.

In short, they are spamming the same claims to multiple articles, using a search result as a source - which if you drill into the search results they don't match the user's claims. The claim they are making fails WP:NPOV being obviously biased to one site, and presenting incorrect amounts and other inconsistencies. Basically, needing a complete re-write if they were to be kept. I instead reverted their additions, which they continued to restore and spread to still more articles.

The second IP is now insisting on my immediate banning and asking for arbitration in their unblock requests. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Barek was definitely misusing rollback, which should be used for vandalism only. The Gawker media edits, lacking reliable sourcing are BLP violations and the edit summaries of reversion should indicate the reason for the reversion. Likewise posting the vandalism template on the IPs page is off -- they should have received notice of reliable sourcing and BLP policies.

No reason is given for revert of a statement backed by a daily newspaper. While reverting may be find per BRD, the reasoning should be explained and the editor invited to use the talk page to discuss the edit.

.147's last edit is at 1418, and then all the edits are from .237 starting at 1618, with no overlap. This a dynamic IP addressing, not sockpuppetry. So, yea, not handled all that well. Recommend Barek explain applicable policies on .237's page and unblock. NE Ent 22:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed the multiple unblock requests and declined the first request as it failed to address the basis of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The basis of the block is that Barek fucked up -- how is the IP supposed to address that exactly? NE Ent 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Surely you can make your point without being obnoxious. This seems like a new development in your behavior on these boards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the comment was harsher than needed - but, in this case I'm willing to accept it as a case of needing to call a spade a spade - so I was not offended. I have no idea if there's a history as you imply, but no offence was taken in this particular case. I like to think my skin is thick enough to accept a trouting when well deserved, as it appears to be in this case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I've made this point before (not with NE). As a matter of principle, it's largely irrelevant whether you were offended. NE could have and should have made his comment in a more constructive manner, e.g., "The basis of Barek's block was wrong ..." I might add that the real target of the comment was me, not you, and I didn't take offense either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Barek, NE Ent's right - if you check, both of these IPs are managed by SBCIS-SBIS-6BLK, an AT&T resource responsible for, among others, the range of 75.0.0.0 - 75.63.255.255. It appears the editor's on a dynamic connection; I doubt they were intending to abuse multiple accounts. Even if they were, the accounts were not active at the same time, nor was .147 blocked and .237 an attempt to evade that block. m.o.p 23:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood - I've removed the block. As they were dynamic IPs, they were not actively trying to evade warnings by switching to another - it was a system change outside of their control. I'll post a note to the IPs talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your unblocking based on the procedural point, but the edits were still mightily disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But, in all fairness, the reason given for the block was not valid under the circumstances (I admit, after having it pointed out that it is likely a dynamic IP), and others feel the warnings previously given were not the appropriate warnings for the type of disruption. If the disruption continues, they can always be reblocked now that the issues have been better explained to them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Very reasonable of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Unblock request of User:DileepKS69

For the past few days, I've been reviewing the unblock request of DileepKS69 (talk · contribs). He - I assume the user is a he, otherwise I fully apologise - he was blocked indefinitely in September 2011 for sockpuppetry (see investigation. One sock was confirmed by check-user, the others were possible, based on geographical evidence, but not confirmed.

DileepKS69 fully admits the one confirmed sock, which he states was due to being hounded by other users. The other accounts he claims were other users co-ordinated by on-line forums (i.e. meat-puppetry). He was unaware of the meatpupptry rule, though he now accepts that neither sock or meat puppets are acceptable, and he has agreed not to use these again.

There remains the issue of the tenacious editing of articles which let to the sockpuppet investigation to start with. I'll be honest here and admit that this is the area that concerns me most. DileepKS69 has stated that he'll use the talk pages where required, but I'm not fully convinced, and this may be something that may need to be addressed if he's unblocked.

Despite this however, I'm willing to give him another chance. The blocking admin, User:Toddst1 has no objection. However I'd like feedback from the community before going ahead with this, so I'm asking for other opinions.

Just as a point of order, the unblock request was rejected yesterday, however the rejection was mainly due to a misunderstanding about DileepKS69's usage of Wikipedia during the block, which has now been resolved to my satisfaction.  An optimist on the run! 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the best course of action is to get him to explain to you, in his own words, exactly and unambigiously, what he understands WP:BRD to mean, preferably with reference to examples in articles if you can think of something suitable. Once you've got that, you may be a bit more convinced that he's genuinely trying to contribute under our policies, and if he goes back on his word, he can be reblocked without so much as a how d'ya do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. What swayed me is that he was blocked (this time) for sockpuppetry, not edit warring, so I feel it unfair to let my misgivings about the latter get in the way. I just hope I haven't been wasting my time, only time will tell.  An optimist on the run! 18:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Thargor Orlando and North8000

Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

North8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a long dispute in the single-payer healthcare article regarding the polls. For a long time the matter was settled until the two editors engaged in disruptive and POV edits.

Thargor Orlando began editing the article after a consensus was reached that removing the polls constituted a POV violation. (diff) (diff) Since then Thargor had canvassed North8000 who has engaged in the same behavior (diff) (diff), (diff).

Other editors had also either called for topic bans or commented on the disruptive nature of the editors:

• Scjessey: "A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work."

• Ebe123: "Thagor, say something useful or go away from the article and CD. You do not seem to care about the article, nor are you helping the discussion."

Thus I am adding my vote for a topic ban on healthcare related articles as well as a possible protection. I don't think it has to be long either (probably a week at most) but this behavior has to stop. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What CartoonDiablo is not telling people is that his attempt to get sanctions at arbcom was shot down, his attempt to get sanctions via the edit warring board was shot down (along with his claim of consensus), and that he hasn't made a constructive comment at the talk pages in months, not to mention the blatant errors in the links he's provided above, especially about canvassing and the DRN discussion, I don't support a topic ban for anyone at this time, but sheesh - if you're interested in pursuing this, do due diligence.. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

At no point were they "shot down" there was no conclusion reached (and the conclusion at ArbComm that it was it's still solvable) the fact is Thargor has continuously violated the consensus of the page, alleged that I "willingly" sabotaged a discussion and has made no effort to justify his actions nor responded to the people here (Scjessy's call for topic ban etc.). CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is probably in your best interests to keep things honest here. Right now, you're not doing that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you didn't say that I "willingly" abstained from a conversion so it would fail? That aside it's not even that important and completely irrelevant to the point. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I clearly did not, as shown by the diff. So yes, your honesty is important here. As you've been doing throughout this, you're being dishonest in an attempt to eliminate people you disagree with from the discussion. It's what you do, and, hopefully, if someone does decide to get involved, they'll look at the complete picture. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly think that but no one is going to look at you say I "willingly" abstained from a conversion (which I didn't) and it failed because I allegedly did so, and not think you're accusing me of sabotaging it to get my way. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A boomerang is clearly in order

I've not even had a POV on the material. I've spent the last few weeks helping trying to bring some sanity to the process, prompted by an uninvolved admin pinging me to see if I had any ideas. This is a continuation of the immensely problematic behavior of CartoonDiablo at the article. They have been going through a continuous series of forum shops, threats and insults while absolutely avoiding any substantive discussion in talk, and I believe as an excuse / smokescreen to avoid a discussion in talk. They used a continuous series of pending-forum shops (noticeboards, DRN, a unanimous turndown at Arbcom) as an excuse to edit war at the article while avoiding discussion. After Arbcom unanimously turned them down, and they ran out of forums to shop they then used a claim that they were "discussing it with another admin" as an excuse to continue to edit war while still avoiding discussion. I've focused solely on trying to convince them to join talk to the point of not even mentioning (until today) that what they are trying to war in is a clear violation of wp:verifiability. All of this has been accompanied by a continuous stream of insults, false and baseless accusations and threats. A read of the last few weeks of talk page (and edit summaries of the article) will make it abundantly clear that this is beyond-baseless and that a boomerang is certainly in order. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody give me one reason why this shouldn't be a ginormous boomerang against CartoonDiablo? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Because these are actual concerns and I'm not the only person suggesting a topic ban? Even here North is calling every attempt made at DRN and admin requests as "continuous series of forum shops, and "excuse[s] / smokescreen to avoid a discussion in talk."

Sorry but basic Wikipedia policy of DRN and asking administrators for input is only a "threat" or "smokescreen" when you are violating something like WP:POV. Anyone can go to the talk page and see that me and Scjessey have been involved for 8 months and that it was Thargor and North who used talk to avoid solving the problem and insert the POV edits. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I don't think it should boomerang because I think there's more than enough evidence that CD needs some coaching, not some bans. CD needs to understand some basic policies and the purposes (and limitations) of dispute resolution processes, nothing more. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Other than OMFG, I have nothing more to say that I didn't already say here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Correct diff; Scjessey accidentally left off a number, producing a very odd-looking diff. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wait--did I just see this act of generosity/benevolence by CartoonDiablo on the talk page, about a topic ban for Thargor and North, "I am willing to extend that to both if they do not cooperate". OK: I'm willing to boomerang this right back. A quick perusal of the talk page suggests that this article would be well-served with a topic ban for Thargor and CartoonDiablo. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• boomerang against CartoonDiablo Ok so you shouldn't have a problem with ArbCom then. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

comes off like a cross between wikilawyering and threat. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

By those reasons we might as well just topic ban Scjessey and Ebe123 as well; the fact is I didn't come here to throw around allegations (especially since other people suggested it first) I came here because two editors are obviously inserting a POV and no one is interested in helping or even offering a third opinion.

If at least one thing can come of this is that neutral uninvolved editors or admins can help out the article.CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Where else to move on to?

Assuming nothing comes out of this, where would this even move on to? The editors here literally believe in two different objective realities and the issue has failed page talk, DRN, NPOV noticeboard, RfC and ArbComm and without any conclusions either way. And it's not just a content issue but an issue where certain content would be considered a violation of POV. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be too quick to assume that. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be quick to assume people will get banned if other solutions are available. Wikipedia is not about winning it's about coming to solutions and this one is 8 months overdue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

...but you came here asking for a ban? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked for one because it seemed like the last possible option given the situation (going through the different disputes resolutions etc.) but that doesn't have to be the case. I hope you all didn't think I just came here to spite users or that I enjoy being involved in an 8 month dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be "failed" at the talk page if you would bother to try and resolve it as opposed to using the dispute resolution processes to try to get people sanctioned. It's hard to take your motives as expressed in good faith when you're constantly forum shopping in an attempt to get your way, and dishonestly so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The reality is that CartoonDiablo has been doing everything EXCEPT engage in any substantive discussion in talk. Forum shop, threaten and insult editors, try to MISLEAD people and blatantly MISREPRESENT the situation at each forum shop (as they are attempting to do here). The ideal resolution would be for CD to agree to (if they want to stay at the article) genuinely engage in the conversaitons in talk on what they are trying to insert. I don't think that this can realistically happen. I thing that they have long since given up on talk because they realize that what they are trying to war in is in clear violation of wp:ver. They have even avoided the core question in their attempted forum shops by mis-framing the question in a way that avoids discussing article content. Given that I believe that they have decided to avoid any real discussion on the content, I think that the only alternative is that they be given a rest from this article.

Regarding Thargor Orlando's behavior, I can only speak from the few weeks that I've been watching the article. I believe that it has been exemplary and very cautious. I think that a review of the last few months of the talk page establishes there.

Finally I want to LEAVE the article. Again, I just got involved when I was pinged by an uninvolved admins asking for ideas. I've tried to stay out of the topics themselves and only help get a process in place and give some vague advice. I was wondering if there is anybody who would like to replace me there. Make some efforts to bring sanity there while CartoonDiablo insults and threatens you, and tells blatant lies about your activity there....it's quite gratifying work for the sake of Wikipedia.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've given my reasoning an infinite amount of times now both on talk and elsewhere and I consider not abiding by it to be a POV violation since North's definition are not as valid as Politico, NYT, Huffington Post etc. One of the only places this can move on to is mediation.

To North if you want to leave the article that is your choice but your voice should be at least included in mediation.CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo repeating the same behavior. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK CartoonDiablo, you just completely fabricated two more lies / personal attacks and I'm going to call you on the first one. You have just said that I asserted a "North's definition". If you are going to assert that what you said is not a completely fabricated lie, please provide a diff to the "North's definition" that you just lied about the existence of. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You edited for Thargor's version, that is asserting a definition of what the polls are, it's so simple it doesn't even need to be explained. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Overwriting Deletion

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

---

I'm not entirely sure where to put this since notice boards confuse me. I was wondering if someone could restore my nomination for deletion at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinford Bandog]] which was overwritten by someone posting a keep. I'd do it myself, but I'd rather it be done by a neutral third party. Should I notify the person who did it? It's not a dispute or anything I have against them, it seems like a legitimate editing mistake. --TKK ^{bark !} 01:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 DoneChoyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

SPA at Dale Bozzio of the unconstructive kind

At Dale Bozzio, there's been some disagreement, to put it mildy. The Master (talk · contribs), an editor with around 200 article edits and few interests outside of the Bozzio article, has been edit-warring for quite some time now with the clear intent of removing as much material as possible. They do have in interest in inserting material, material that was deemed problematic at the BLP noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive165#Dale_Bozzio, and note that while Malerooster wasn't opposed to inclusion if the sources were deemed reliable, no such verdict was ever sought at the RS noticeboard.

If you look at The Master's edits you see what it is that they want, and while it is true that the article can do with improvement, edits such as this are unwarranted: it removes factual material that while unreferenced is hardly controversial in any way. Now, on the other side we have Doc2234 (talk · contribs), who is probably a fan, and who has in the past asked me for advice. Doc at least tries to improve the article, and the accusation (more in a moment) that they're turning this into some fan page misses the mark by a pretty wide margin.

As for that accusation--well, the cat came out of the bag in The Master's latest comment on the talk page: This article is basically a hagiography of a former singer in a one-hit-wonder band written by a bunch of guys who had crushes on her after seeing her in the "Words" video. That note, a blatant personal attack disguised as a rant, was the straw that broke this camel's back, which is why I bring this here: The Master cannot seem to work together with other people to improve this article, they have no interest in improving any other article, they are edit-warring and editing against consensus, they resort to personal attacks, and they obviously have an odd interest in this particular article--in short, they are not here to improve the project. I propose that The Master be topic-banned from the article and its talk page, broadly construed--to include Zappa-related pages, for instance. Disclosure: I've never seen the "Words" video, I don't know that I know that song, and I don't think Dale Bozzio is my type. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hello? Duke game is over, people. Back to work. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting short term block for Demiurge1000

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

---

SO we started here with bad faith declaration against six or seven editors including an Admin saying we voted for deletion because the article subject was Indian [[174]] He then made another accusation after a non templated warning reminding him of good faith which he then expressed more bad faith[[175]], then followed it up with a borderline personal attack with more bad faith [[176]] I suggested maybe take a step back and take a break because as a contributor that has been here a while he really should know better, which was then responded to with [[177]] yet again more assumptions of bad faith. I don't know if he has more of an issue with AFD then I have noted but I'm thinking and requesting a 24 hour block. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank the gods for small mercies, someone who actually tells administrators what administrative action they desire! That's some minor measure of progress, I guess.

A different sort of progress would be if you put the effort you spent on this report into looking to see what sources mention the person in question. Thus far, only myself and some IP have made any contribution in that respect, I think?

Given the timing, a 24 hour block would also make sure that AfD closed the way you want it to close without my being able to reply any further, but assuming oodles of good faith here, I'm sure that's not why you settled on that particular figure.

Oh look, I didn't even !vote Keep yet, that's an easy solution then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that your alleged disruption took place in the AfD, requesting a block for the duration of the AfD is entirely appropriate and has ample precedent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be sure to keep that one in mind. Sounds like a fantastic idea. Can't have people disrupting the place by expressing their opinion at AfD, now can we? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Expressing your opinion at AFD is fine as long as you aren't doing so unciviling and assuming bad faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll gladly undertake not to do any "unciviling" if you'll undertake to tell us what steps you took to look for sources that mention this article topic you're so keen to have deleted. I put the work in and looked - why shouldn't you do the same? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And as I explained I left my rationale on that page, it doesn't say per nom, it gives a short and concise reason why I think it should be deleted. I'm sorry that isn't good enough for you, but my conduct isn't the issue being raised here, yours is. You are assuming and continuing to assume that seven editors didn't do any research and we are all there to pick on Indians. That's unacceptable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is a useful, or not useful, contribution to an AfD discussion. If useful, why is this guy harassing me about it and all over my talk page about it and now we're at ANI about it? Because I wouldn't withdraw my little piece of Google "research" when challenged? Interesting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hell in a bucket, when you open an ANI thread your behaviour will be considered too. If you're aiming to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG here, you might want to strike your accusation that I said people were "asking for deletion due to him being Indian" (your words), when actually what I said was "if we're deleting this article just because the person happens to hold a post in India" (my words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems a clear case of "Running to Mommy" to settle a content disagreement. Carrite (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My only issue here is the bad faith. If they decide that they want to stop the accusations and strike those comments I'm perfectly fine with no action. One keep vote is unlikely to sway the debate in favor of keeping. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're happy so long as you've got the AfD result you aimed for? Great! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• After noticing Hell In A Bucket's misguided comments regarding Flyer22's report above I thought I should check this out. What a surprise—nothing there. Demiurge1000's comments at the AfD have been grossly exaggerated. The kindest thing that could be said is that this report, and the two "warnings" on Demiurge1000's talk, are a waste of space. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No I'm just stating a fact, you raised the issue above and I responded to it. And there are plenty of times that things don't go any of our ways here, that's why we all bend over for consensus. Why such a negative view on me Demi? ~

• @John, how do you exaggerate diffs?Hell In A Bucket (talk)
• Also if you'd like to discuss my behavior as well and show me where it's been inappropriate in this situation in contravention of Wiki policy, I'm more then happy to modify that behavior. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• "show me... Wiki policy" -- wow, are you trying for a classic definition of WP:WIKILAWYER or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see how Demiurge's initial comment could be interpreted as an assumption of bad faith, and their comments afterward are basically just the same kind of potshots HiaB was taking at them (albeit with slightly spicier language). Probably best if everyone just disengages; continuing the potshots on ANI ain't never helped nobody. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Demiurge, you stated above WP:BOOMERANG, I was agreeing with you and asking you to show relevant information to what you were trying to say. And as I have stated if they want to strike the comments about multiple editors wanting the article deleted to the subject I'm ok with that too. I have zero issues with Demi other then that, absolutely none, they are obviously a decent contributor based by their userpage and the awards they have earned. That's also why I only asked for a 24 hour block, it's not a huge deal but I do have issues with the claim of racism. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't see his comment as an accusation of racism. I think you're being a wee bit oversensitive about this, HiaB. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • if you think that's the case then shut the thread down. There's a reason I don't have the block button. I get riled and I have a short fuse. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

B. Mandal copyright violations

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

---

Resolved

B. Mandal (talk · contribs) is continuing to post copyright-infringing text despite several prior warnings and a prior block for this behaviour. Can I suggest that another block be instituted to prevent further damage? The existing contributions have now been taken to WP:CCI. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that the editor only once ever communicated on a talk page (and never on his own). That single edit shows that is capable of communicating (i.e. there isn't a language issue). Given that he has continued to post copyright violations regularly (I checked three of his edits today - two were straight copies from copyrighted sources) I have blocked him indefinitely until he engages on his talk page and acknowledges the problem. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've noticed something strange with one of the files he's uploaded. File:Tajuddin Ahmad.jpg was deleted on 27 February 2012, but if you visit that page you can still see the image. There doesn't appear to be a corresponding Commons entry, so I'm confused as to how the image still exists. Can anyone explain this? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The image description page was deleted but the image itself was not. I've taken care of it now. I remember getting completely confused about a similar situation a few months back! Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Anon vandalism to cricket related articles

There's recently been a spate of vandalism to cricket related articles, principally Limited overs cricket (now semi-protected) and Test cricket. The vandalism is clearly from the same user, but from different addresses. The pattern is always the same: repeat the same vandalism whilst ignoring all warnings until blocked, then posting an unblock request along the lines of "i'm sorry for being so mean, i won't do it again." I blocked 120.148.224.186 ‎ (talk · contribs · ‎ WHOIS) for six months on 24 Jan, following several chances, so any further vandalism is block evasion, and I've increased the block on some other addresses to match this. Could someone look at the addresses in question, and carry out a range block if required. In the meantime, if anyone else spots this sort of vandalism, I would suggest they can be blocked for a long period without warning.

The addresses in question are:

• 120.148.224.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.172.213.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.173.127.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.173.85.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 101.172.42.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 202.161.23.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 124.148.184.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There may be others.  An optimist on the run! 12:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Audition date website link

Special:Contributions/Iamrakeshh has added a non/notable/below standard site's link in a bunch of article's external link section. Manually reversion will take time! Can an admin quickly revert all edit using any tool (if there is any)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think I've cleaned out all of his/her link spamming now. --—Wasell^(T) 15:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Spam

There is spam going on at Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet. Could someone watch/warn/block if needed? I'm about to be away from the computer. Biosthmors (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a proxy server anyway - I'll see if I can do a rangeblock. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryanspir

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

---

A number of us are having difficulties with User:Ryanspir

This user has been removing others comments from a talk page [178]. Was warned against this and the comments restored[179]. Than removed more comments of others [180].

Discussion supports that this page [181] should be redirected to Medical uses of silver per here[182]. However they have changed it three times and I have changed it back three time. Now they have left a "block" notice on my talk page with someone else signature on it.[183] Anyway all a little strange.

This user is a single purpose account editing only this topic. Have invited said user to participate in this discussion. I would propose a topic ban of this user. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Have removed comments of user who are continuously trying to provide off-topic but seemingly on-topic comments as disruptive. Example:

"Please understand that "active research" has no necessary implications on medical use. That makes sense, right? Biosthmors (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)" - At first glance it seems as it makes sense. But "active research" was refereed to a discussion on quackwatch site reference which is of 2005. Medrs has it that in the area of active research the references shall be 2-3 or up to 5 years old. There wasn't any talk about medical use whatsoever. So that user makes an appearance as if he provided an argument, but in fact he is sublimely muddying the talk page.

"Another example: "It currently redirects to silver, which doesn't make sense because that article doesn't even have the word "colloidal" in it. I'll redirect here. Biosthmors (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)" It wasn't redirected to silver, but to silver nanoparticles. Why it wouldn't make sense solely for the reason that colloidal silver is not mentioned there?

In addition, there are certain editors who are for years keeping this article biased by disallowing any positive research to be included. Many users have complained that this article looks like a propaganda website and not an encyclopedia article. The evidence of this is found in archives. This group of editors has united around idea that they have to protect the public from the danger of colloidal silver by posting predominantly negative nanosilver related information, warnings and research; and at the same time disallowing any positive research to be included into the article. And they continuously enforce their personal views of such into the article. The editors who are doing this are: Doc James, Zad, Alexbrn, Yobol and perhaps few others. I have tried to engage with all of them based on agf. However it proved to be unsuccessful.

1) Proposing to issue warning to all to stop making efforts towards a biased article and using wikipedia as a speaker for their personal opinions. 2) Encourage participation of experienced user/admin in biomedical field in re-editing of the article. If they will not follow the warning (and I highly suspect they won't) recommend topic ban. Ryanspir (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of the article discussion, per WP:TALK it is against policy to remove or refactor another editor's comments unless they violate BLP or are a threat. Blackmane (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute (or was until now), but the thing that really makes my eyebrows raise is Ryanspir's impersonation of an admin with that block message. If nothing else, that needs a sanction of some kind. I've checked out the comments that were deleted - I see those as being on-topic and in good faith - definitely no reason for a non-admin to remove them. I would say you should've waited an extra day or two in the discussion about the redirect, Doc James, before moving it, but that's just my personal opinion. I can't say I see any reason to not give Ryanspir a sanction of some kind. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes was just restoring the redirect to where it was before this user changed it rather than moving the redirect to some place new. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have protected the article for a week and warned Ryanspir not to continue edit warring, particularly in the light of the discussions DJ linked to above. I have done nothing about his message of impersonation but agree something should be done about it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have left another message on his talk page relating to removing/refactoring talk page comments and impersonating administrators. If any other administrator thinks anything else needs to be done, go ahead. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There can be no legitimate reason to post bogus block messages - A block would seem a foregone conclusion here. I'll check that the editors above have been notified, per policy notified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The block notice was not his fault. Will explain in separate thread below, shortly. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks just noticed the same thing. The template he had used had just been broken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed, but I've apologized to Ryanspir on the talk thread on his page. Not sure this thread needs to go on much longer now :) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Be on the lookout for (and AGF with) "false" block notices

Due to a combination of seemingly minor mistakes (Parishan (talk · contribs) forgetting to substitute a template [184], and Nick-D (talk · contribs) clicking the section edit button, and not noticing that he was editing the wrong page [185]), for just over nine hours today all {{An3-notice}}s were accompanied with untrue block notifications. Clearly no one was at fault here, least of all anyone who used the template in that timeframe. I'm posting here to head off any other complaints about admin impersonation, like the one above. If any AN3 regulars can think of users who might have received such a message in that 9-hour window, or anyone good with computer-y stuff knows how to search for them (What Links Here doesn't work in this case, since, of course, the template's substituted), it would be nice if we could head off any confusion right now. This has already complicated the SPI of the original user. (I've added added {{Subst only}} to the template, and if no one beats me to it, will do so for the other noticeboard notification templates in a bit.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much to PinkAmpers for fixing this up, and the polite and positive response. As noted on my talk page, I don't even have the excuse of being drunk or crazy ;) Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've also just taken the liberty of fully protecting that template: it's a high profile and high risk template, there seems to be no reason to think that non-admins would ever need to edit it, and the all-pink screen should stop other admins being as dumb as I was. That said, any admin who disagrees with me is very welcome to lift the protection. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And I've now {{Subst only}}'d everything in Template:User noticeboard notices (except for {{WQA-notice}}, which someone should probably take to TfD). If there's any future problems with the section-edit thing (since, as I said, this seems like a deceptively easy oversight), we could probably add a {{#if:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}issubst}}||__NOEDITSECTION__}} function to the lot of them, but I believe the auto-substituting bots work pretty fast once a template's in the right category. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Reopening User:Flagrantedelicto

I would like to reopen the complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783#Verbal abuse and outing by User:Flagrantedelicto, as I don't think the user got the message. He seems unable to discuss the source material without attacking me: here he accuses me of a "propensity for embellishment and/or inaccuracy". He's welcome to look for other editors who agree with him, and to open an RfC or whatever, but until then, he needs to stop using an article talk page to assess my intellectual acuity and ability to read and summarize sources. We all make errors sometimes, but high content standards matter to me. (For some reason, he dumped an entire TOC into the talk page in order to show I made a typo on the volume number of a periodical.) I'm the one doing all the research and finding sources, and somehow this is a reason to impugn my work, as the user's crude praeteritio insinuates ("it is not that I am suspicious of Cynwolfe"). I believe that admins Someguy1221 and The Bushranger had the right initial instinct. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)