Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Topic ban for UrbanVillager

Based on this discussion, I'd like to propose a topic ban for User:UrbanVillager on all Boris Malagurski-related articles. The editor is largely a huge SPA who only promotes the filmmaker Malagurski. Beyond edit warring, there has been a recent rise in attacks via complaints to ANI (and now SPI complaints). See Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains#Pincrete_behaving_like_he.2Fshe_owns_this_page for further conduct since the last ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After the earlier ANI report, I watchlisted a few Malagurski-related articles to keep up with what was going on and, hopefully, offer a neutral opinion on what I expected to be the occasional content dispute. I quickly removed them all, as I couldn't handle the endless drama and pointless edit wars. In the above-linked talk page discussion, UrbanVillager threatens to disrupt the article to make a point. I think it's time to say "enough is enough". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban; the ownership and promotional editing have continued despite all attempts by other editors to intervene. I have long since given up trying to improve those articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Sadly, I can simply copy&paste my previous response: I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly a tendentious and promotional single-purpose account with a massive conflict of interest. We don't need to tolerate such editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have not decided on this issue yet but an editor from 2010 who had contributed to a variety of topics does not seem to indicate a SPA to me. Chillum 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The topics edited on all relate either to the filmmaker, to the documentaries themselves or to the people interviewed in the documentaries. I'm not seeing a large variety unless you're including some edits years ago related to Serbia generally. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE 5th November, UrbanVillager, today made 7 edits on subjects not related to Malagurski, these are almost the only non-Malagurski edits in the last 3 years, even edits on subjects such as Serbian Canadians, or on talk-pages are almost ALWAYS directly connected to Malagurski (see also global edit histories below). Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A few very close calls. Most recent edits are mostly in the topic area of Boris Malagurski, however there are enough old edits in other areas that I am not willing to push too hard on the SPA side of things to a topic ban (I would need more evidence of actual promotion/advocacy that I haven't seen yet). [1] gets very, close to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point." Which I think applies in this case. --Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The two ANI's referred to by Ricky81682 above are examples of ACTUAL disruption. Having made these accusations, UrbanVillager, offered no further evidence, (but still repeats the accusations in his response below). Every editor substantially involved in the WoC over the last two years has been a target of UrbanVillager's specious accusations. I have created a section below detailing disruption[2]. Pincrete (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Ankit Maity made a relevant comment in the discussion further down this page, which I'm going to go ahead and quote:

I don't get this All SPAs are bad concept. Come on, this is not some satanic cult promoting their ancient religion of Sabbatic craft. It's simply a user who is interested in editing a specific topic. Unless the user displays really poor knowledge of policies, has COI or fails to maintain NPOV, he shouldn't be classified as a bad SPA. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Richard Yin (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, it needs a showing of "has COI or fails to maintain NPOV", although if it is a SPA that suggests that such a NPOV/COI argument is going to be stronger, but it needs to actually be made. --Obsidi (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Plenty of evidence has been given about the tendentious and promotional nature of UrbanVillager's editing. Given the previous history of disruption and self-promotion by Bormalagurski (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets, we shouldn't tolerate very similar behavior by UrbanVillager, even if he's not Malagurski himself. (And why should we care?) No such user (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban per Obsidi, Ankit Maity, and Richard Yin's comments. Yes, there are some tendentious edits here but it is not all UrbanVillager's doing. As an example, see this recent revert war between UV and Pincrete: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It looks to me like no editor has bothered to try to explain to UrbanVillager why his edits are unduly promotional, citing actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and why calling good-faith editors "vandals" is unacceptable. Instead, it does seem very much to me as though a small group of editors including Pincrete, Ricky81682, Joy, bobrayner and NinjaRobotPirate simply assumed that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski (Joy has said so outright a number of times) despite multiple investigations they opened being shut down for lack of evidence or concluding in the contrary, and have simply treated this editor in bad faith anyway. There is clear POV-pushing here from both sides. Warnings are deserved all around but a one-sided topic ban does the encyclopedia no service. Ivanvector (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, names 5 editors above, one of them (NinjaRobotPirate) has never edited on Malagurski pages, nor (as far as I know), inter-acted with any 'key' editors, it is therefore unfair to make NRP in any way responsible for what has or should have happened or not happened. I will reply to IV's comments about me if he wishes. Pincrete (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary, Pincrete, my point is that I don't think there's anything actionable here. My apologies to NinjaRobotPirate, I thought I saw a comment from you in one of the sockpuppet investigations but I was mistaken, and it was sloppy of me to have named you in my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's alright. No harm done. Like I mentioned earlier, I came into this long-running dispute rather late. I think that I did post to a talk page once or twice, but I quickly gave up. I'm not especially concerned with whether anyone here is a sock puppet or SPA; instead, my concerns are the unending drama, edit wars, and POV-pushing. While it's true that neither side has been purity itself, only one editor has threatened to disrupt the article. I understand why some people are opposing, but it's just going to drag this drama out even longer, and we'll be back here again in a few weeks. I think it's better to resolve it now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per User:Ivanvector and because I believe that Ricky abused the tools. Caden ^cool 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As editors have asked for evidence of 'disruptive behaviour', I have created a section below [15], I will attempt later to include evidence of NPOV editing. The two together, combined with edit history, constitute a WP:DUCK argument for a COI. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reponse

So, a ban on a topic because I'm interested in it? Well, alright, makes sense. However, Pincrete and some other editors have openly said that they despise Malagurski and his work, openly allowing their POV to affect their editing on Wikipedia, but nobody cares about that because they edit other articles as well, while it's apparently punishable to edit only one topic area on Wikipedia. So far, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, twice, of being paid by him, being his friend or whatever, when in essence, all I'd really like is to contribute to the area of interest, presenting well-sourced material, regardless of whether it's positive or negative towards Malagurski and his films (for those who have the time or interest to look into it, they'll notice I myself put forward sources that were critical towards Malagurski, so this notion that I "promote the filmmaker Malagurski" is pure nonsense.

Basically, a couple of editors who despise Malagurski and his work (and have openly said that) flared up the topic area by manipulating editors who don't have the time to look into the issue deeper and presenting me as Malagurski, on his payroll or whatever, saying that I must be removed so that they can continue editing the article in a way that makes Malagurski look as bad as possible. I hope that this won't happen, but everything Pincrete and some other editors have done to Malagurski-related articles had the goal of making Malagurski look bad, while everything I've done is to contribute to the neutrality of the article, not really wanting to make Malagurski look good or bad, but so simply present what he does and what other sources write about him and his work. That's all. I follow his work and if it's a punishable offence to edit articles that interest me and discuss them on the article talk pages, sure, ban me. It's easier to ban one person and let the others do what they want to the article, as they've attempted before through canvassing, so I understand it's the easy way out. I've spent a lot of time on Wikipedia editing Malagurski-related articles and I think I made an honest contribution. If a ban is my prize, so be it, though I'm still proud of defending neutrality on Wikipedia, despite some editors manipulating the system to get rid of me. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lying about other editors. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on response, apart from myself, and UrbanVillager the editors who have contributed to the Boris Malagurski pages are Somedifferentstuff, Bobrayner, and … … Recent minor edits 23 editor, Tiptoethrutheminefield . So, it is difficult to understand who UrbanVillager's 'some other editors' could be. … … (I've discounted, bots, editors involved for 'Admin' reasons:- Ricky81682, Diannaa, Dougweller, Dennis Brown … … Retired editors Producer (Retired May 2014 ) … Opbeith (last BM edit 16/10/2012 [16]) … … Banned editors Kepkke, Staro Gusle … … I've also discounted any 'one-off' editors especially if edits were more than 2 years ago.) Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC) … … Further comment on response, UrbanVillager, above refers repeatedly to 'a few other editors', but (apart from me), does not name them (he cannot, there ARE only a few others). He repeatedly says that I and other editors have openly said we 'despise Malagurski and his work'. He accuses editors of canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Two quick questions - Chillum, are you still considering this? And UrbanVillager, can you please provide diffs supporting your statement that other relevant editors said they despise Malagurski and his work. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I have not considered this further. Chillum 17:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It would take a while to gather all the diffs, but here are a few: Opbeith saying "'Malagurski's work is crap ... and it's knowingly deceitful crap" [17] (Note: Opbeith stopped editing Wikipedia November 2012, but Pincrete continued Opbeith's mission and gave the following thoughts about "The Weight of Chains", Malagurski's film:

"I'm personally thinking of making an alternative view of the Second World War, I'll start off with some cute film of some Jewish people telling the world how nice the Germans families always were to them, I'll have lots of stories of the rape and slaughter of Germans as the Russians advanced and as the Western Allies bombed .... I'll of course devote much time to the terrible conditions imposed on Germany by the 1919 Armistice ... I can probably find many individual Germans who did - throughout - act heroically and humanely. This won't be a difficult film to make, since all these things are true. I won't of course bother to mention Auschwitz, the invasion of 20 countries, the suppression of any dissenting views within Germany .... Why should I? "It's a movie .... It's an alternative view" ... put your feet up, get some popcorn watch my movie." [18]

Pincrete also presents his POV of Malagurski's film, instead of discussing the quality of the article, not the content itself: "Anyhow, many of the claims made in the film are NOT from verifiable sources ... or are from sources that a MASSIVE weight of evidence contradicts." [19], Also, he said: "those who made, watch and attempt to whitewash this film are painting themselves into an intellectual and moral corner." [20]

Bobrayner calls Malagurski a "minor film-maker" here: [21], and discusses "Malagurski-spam" here: [22]. That's only a part of it, unfortunately I don't have time right now to look for more. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager's quotes are ALL from remarks I made on the talk page on my FIRST and SECOND DAY as an editor in late 2012, I plead guilty to becoming involved (with UrbanVillager and Opbeith) in a somewhat esoteric discussion about intellectual honesty in documentaries, which - green though I was - I quickly realised was going nowhere. Even then UrbanVillager robs my quote of context as much of what I wrote that day was a direct response to HIS remarks earlier in the page. The more substantive point underlying that discussion, was HOW to represent the many controversial claims in this film, since Opbeith's and my complaint in 2012 was that the article was simply a copy/paste of the film's own website and press releases, and remained so till very recently (I didn't know about copyvio at that time, nor how to report it).

The fact that UrbanVillager needs to drag Opbeith into this (who made few article edits during 2011 and RETIRED in 2012), advertises the poverty of his 'conspiracy theories'. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Requests for further information

Obsidi, User:Ankit Maity, Ivanvector,Richard Yin have, variously, left comments or requested further information above. The subjects of there requests are (again variously), lack of evidence of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour, or of NPOV editing. This section is a response to those requests. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

The two ANI's UrbanVillager recently initiated are examples of ACTUAL disruptive behaviour. In the case of the SPI, brought against me :[23], about which the 'closing clerk' JamesBWatson, later modified his comments :[24]. This SPI is especially absurd, since even if I WERE Opbeith (or his pet monkey), not a single comma was changed in any article as a result of the 3-4 weeks (two years ago) during which we overlapped as editors. Opbeith was not banned nor censured and if Opbeith had chosen to retire and re-appear as Pincrete, no WP rule would have been broken. UrbanVillager has himself been involved in enough SPI's to know that a check-user would be so stale as to be pointless. UrbanVillager initiated this SPI because he had, been warned about clogging the talk page with accusations and disruptive comments . Thus in this SPI there was no suspicion of any 'crime' having occurred.

The earlier ANI (against myself and bobrayner) was almost equally spurious.[25] While the matter was on the ANI, UrbanVillager made this edit on 17th Sept :-[26]. The first review he inserted,(VICE) was already the subject of a RSN here:[27], where it was rejected (editors concluding that this was an advert, not a review). The second 'review' (Elich), was actually from an interview between the director and one of the people in the film. The third review's intro is altered by describing the reviewer ('teaching assistant'), and source ('blog') in a way which UrbanVillager KNEW to be incorrect. The fourth 'review' (Pečat) has ultimately been accepted in the article. That UrbanVillager's changes did not have consensus, is shown by going to the 'next' edit. This happened at a time that UrbanVillager had recently been warned about making non-consensus changes to this section. All of the objections to the reviews (except Pečat), had already been made clear, including here[28], where a threat is made, which is executed the next day. [29]

UrbanVillager's edit reason on 17th Sept, is itself perverse ("re-adding valid response, as per User:Tiptoethrutheminefield's explanations of Wikipedia policy:[30]"), a relatively novice editor had left a comment on the ANI, which UrbanVillager chose to interprete as a statement of WP policy. Having not 'got away with' this edit, UrbanVillager then offered no further evidence on that ANI, replied to no questions, but 'disappeared' for several weeks, having wasted an enormous amount of my, bobrayner's and Admin time and goodwill.

Ivanvector, refers to an edit war between UrbanVillager and (chiefly) myself during the summer (In my own defence I say this, I have NEVER previously been involved in an edit war, I was defending a majority viewpoint, I repeatedly offered compromises which were consistent with what RSs said (which were not even discussable to UV), and I ultimately called a 'truce' voluntarily BEFORE we were both reported and censured). I don't want to clog up this ANI with 'content' matters, but whereas I attempted to de-escalate matters, UrbanVillager escalated the edit-war by removing/re-writing the entire 'criticism' section. Whereas I have since then been extremely cautious about modifying this section, UrbanVillager has continued to attempt to insert dubiously sourced and misrepresented 'reviews'.[31] [32][33]

The first of these two 'reviews', turns out to be an artist's private website, the second (when a source was found, the given ref is simply a mirror), turns out to be a very brief account of a 'panel discussion', written by a student, and Markovic is not a 'Professor', (the word means teacher in many European languages). However despite reservations, neither I nor other editors have ruled out using the quote, as long as it is not given undue weight. UrbanVillager, when reverted by another editor, then attempts to appeal directly to Ricky81682 [34], again misrepresenting both Markovic and Kilibarda(Markovic = "Prof. dr Predrag J. Markovic is, indeed, very notable and perhaps the most important professional response this film has received". Kilibarda = "teaching assistants at a Hamilton university"). UrbanVillager characterises me as 'His Royal Highness Pincrete', (because I have dared to ask for a source/author), accuses Somedifferentstuff of disruptive behaviour, and signs off "Now go ahead and let your friends Bob Rayner and Somedifferentstuff know that they should jump in and back you up", a remark presumably directed at me.

I have strayed from 'disruptive behaviour' into NPOV editing, however the two are connected, the behaviour appears intended to retain WP:ownership. I finish this section by referring to interaction with other editors. During the 2+ years I have been (on and off) involved with The Weight of Chains, there have been about 8 editors who have been involved for more than a few weeks, '(additionally a few only on the talk page 'inc.Whitewriter), every one of them has at some point been accused of collaborating/conspiring etc. with the purpose of degrading the article (except recent editor Ricky81682 and Whitewriter), most of them repeatedly accused on ANIs.

Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse (I don't have a brain, can't speak English, can't read, know nothing about film's or festivals, don't know what a film credit or synopsis is, and shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit … as well, of course, as being 'His Royal Highness Pincrete' and various other things … does anyone actually want the diffs?). Enduring this stuff is mostly tiresome, however it does create a toxic atmosphere, which in itself is 'actual disruption'.

I intend to add the case for NPOV editing, when I have time. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Yes, every time you make a claim about another editor attacking you, you need to provide proof in the form of diffs. I see in one of the discussions you linked to that other editors have pointed that out to you before, as well as advised you not to put up walls of text like what you wrote above. You could summarize: "here's UV re-adding sources [diffs] that were rejected by consensus at RSN [diffs]. Here's UV throwing personal attacks: [diffs] Here's where 700 editors have tried to reason with policy arguments [diffs] but UV reinserted material anyway [diffs]."

We've discussed above and elsewhere how being a SPA is not forbidden, if editors are not disruptive. UrbanVillager is a disruptive SPA, based on what diffs Pincrete did provide, but not the only editor misbehaving in this topic area. However, the extended detail of UV insisting on using sources deemed unacceptable by RSN and repeatedly reinserting material against consensus are more problematic. But is this enough to support a topic ban for a user who only wishes to edit that topic (effectively a community ban) when they have never been sanctioned previously? (except once for editing against an inappropriately applied topic ban - quickly reversed)

I'm not an admin here and I may be punching above my weight, but I would like to propose we try a block, for edit warring against consensus and (if diffs are provided) personal attacks. UrbanVillager will be free to edit when the block expires but if they continue the same behaviour that led to the block, it will be very easy to support a WP:NOTHERE ban as the next step. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, the paragraph above, beginning: "Recently I am the one who has received the 'lion's share' of PERSONAL abuse", do you dispute that my record is accurate regarding remarks directed by you against me since approx. April 2014? Can you cite any abuse or accusations made by me against you that might have justified your remarks, EXCEPT my saying that you seem to look upon the film maker himself as the only reliable source of information? (which I don't believe was ever phrased abusively). Do you also dispute that I, and others, have several times asked you to stop making such abusive remarks?

Ivanvector, I really don't have time to assemble diffs for personal abuse and consider NPOV editing more important, however the above para gives UrbanVillager the opportunity to contradict me. Should it prove important, I will assemble such diffs. Regarding bans, I have no opinion, except that those extolling 'assume good faith' should be willing to get their hands dirty by staying involved with the pages, because those who HAVE been involved, even briefly, have all had their patience exhausted. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there are no such requirements for assuming good faith - we expect it of everyone. You've made some serious accusations of wrongdoing above with your "lion's share" comment, but I'm not going to just take your word for it - show your work. Or be prepared to retract. I could go look myself but we're talking about an alleged pattern of abuse going back years over dozens of pages. I don't have time either, but I'm also not the one making accusations. I'll suggest to you that if maintaining NPOV is your primary concern (which is good) and you see UrbanVillager as the primary impediment to that, then you should make time to find those diffs. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, in respect of personal abuse against me, it has taken place since June this year. I have assembled the proofs below, but still regard other matters as more important. I have struck through my earlier remark about 'good faith', which was born out of exasperation. I have wasted an inordinate amount of time in the last month defending myself against accusations which were wholly spurious. Pincrete (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have collapsed the proofs section below, as I do not wish it to distract this ANI. Belligerent behaviour is unpleasant, however, it is less serious than the purpose for which it is employed, which is to retain ownership in order that the article continues to be little better than a promotional outpost of the film maker's own publicity machine, which I contend it has hitherto been. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal abuse

Evidence of personal abuse requested by Ivanvector

I have been asked by Ivanvector, to provide proofs for my 'lion's share' para above concerning personal abuse. Below are the proofs, italics (except in brackets), are direct quotes from UrbanVillager, plain text (and bracketed italics) are used to clarify context. Do you speak English? [35] ... This was a response to my observation that WP should not be using the peacocky description "Official selection for XYZ festival", where "Official selection" was not used by XYZ festival itself. In previous discussions, you've shown that you don't know what are film credits, that you don't know how festivals work, and now you're showing that you don't understand the definition of a synopsis[36] ... This remark was a reply to my observation that the synopsis needed re-writing, from ==synopsis==:-[37] My reply to UrbanVillager's post is Synopsis: I agree[38]. (large sections of the article were removed shortly therafter for copyvio of the film maker's website) Edit reason here: can't you read? It was here before you started editing the article [39]. The film is Canadian, it says so in the film credits. Either you can't read or have a POV agenda.[40] ... This last was a response to a compromise I had proposed over the film's 'nationality',(during the edit war referred to by IvanVector above) my response is in the 'next' edit. your anti-Malagurski, anti-Yugoslav agenda.[41] ... This was a response to my querying whether, what appeared to be an interview given by the film maker in a Balkan paper (ie self-sourced), was a sufficiently RS for the film maker having given a presentation at Google headquarters in USA shortly before (the only source to report the event but phrased in 'our voice'). No, see, this is where a human brain comes in and says "It's Malagurski's film, the credits are there to give details about the film" ... I'd like to ask you one more time to stop trolling and find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia. Stop pushing your anti-Malagurski, anti-Serbian and anti-Yugoslav POV. [42] ... Once again my response is in the 'next' edit. His Royal Highness Pincrete[43] ... As referred to above, this also accuses two other editors and misrepresents the 'reviews'. Pincrete is canvassing in desperate attempt to fabricate consensus[44] ... I claim that I was informing, since the editor had made edits and comments only 3 days before. The incident referred to by UrbanVillager is here:-[45] "I shouldn't be allowed to edit these articles since I don't know Serbian sufficiently fluently, and ought to tell UrbanVillager WHO I am to show my competence to edit", this sentence is my summary of the discussion here.[46] ... The context is that I mis-read an ENGLISH translation, while doing article tidying, apologised and remedied the error. On this occasion I retaliated by pointing out that UrbanVillager's English isn't perfect (I believe this is the only time I have done so). The entire article (created by UrbanVillager) has since been deleted for copyvio.

Additionally UrbanVillager has 'outed' and abused another editor on that editor's talk page, which I am willing to provide proofs of 'off-wiki', do so here would compound the 'outing'.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ps UrbanVillager has never apologised to any editor, (to the best of my knowledge), certainly not to me. Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Global edit histories

These diffs show the edit histories of UrbanVillager: … … Commons [47] … … German [48] nb Das Gewicht der Ketten = The Weight of Chains … … Greek [49] nb Το Βάρος των Αλυσίδων = The Weight of Chains ‎ … … Spanish [50] … … Italian [51] nb Il peso delle catene = The Weight of Chains … … Meta [52] nb complaints about block [53]and about removal of Malagurski page on Croatian WP [54] … … Romanian [55] nb Тяжесть цепей ‎= The Weight of Chains … … Russian [56] nb Тяжесть цепей = The Weight of Chains ‎… … Sh (Serbo-Croatian?) [57] … … Serbian [58] nb Борис Малагурски = Boris Malagurski Косово: Можете ли замислити? = Kosovo Can You Imagine ‎ Тежина ланаца = The Weight of Chains … …Global[59] … … nb additionally, Hr(Croatian) 17 edits Don't show … 4 French edits which don't show … Bs (Bosnian) 1 doesn't show … Arabic there are 2 which I don't understand.

In every instance, the Weight of Chains article differs little from the 'about' page of the Malagurski website or press pack, as was the case with the English WofC page until very recently (which caused it to be in breach of copyvio, nearly 4 years after its first warning). Approx. 99% of UrbanVillager's edits on English Wikipedia relate directly to Malagurski, English 500 [60]. WP is being used internationally as little more than a shop window for an otherwise obscure and highly politically contentious film maker. Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains: discretionary sanctions

There is probably enough of a consensus above to (re-)implement this topic ban, but as I said (comment buried in discussion) I think that is unduly harsh for an editor with a declared interest in only that topic - we are effectively community banning UrbanVillager by doing so. I suggested a block but that would be against WP:NOTPUNISHMENT at this point. And I also think that this discussion has tired everyone here out already, let alone the multiple other discussions that have happened recently. So I'd like to propose a different avenue of resolution:

The Weight of Chains is subject to discretionary sanctions in the Balkans subject area - the tag was posted by Ricky81682 on October 1, 2014, but all Malagurski-related articles could be tagged for discretionary sanctions for the same reason. I don't see that any of the editors involved in this discussion have been properly alerted (per ArbCom's guidance). There has been enough misbehaviour at that article alone that several of the editors commenting here could be currently waiting out their initial one-month blocks for disruption, had they been properly alerted. I propose alerting those users now with {{Ds/alert}}, and taking no further action at this time. If the users continue to be disruptive, they can be dealt with quickly under WP:AC/DS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I think a topic ban may be harsh but the editor is taking on a topic (not just the filmmaker but the theory itself) that falls under ARCOM sanctions for a reason and it's being that there's a lot of nasty arguments from people who aren't here with the right mindset. Four years of warnings about editing on either that filmmaker, his films or other things in the same sphere seems like enough time with enough warnings about tenacious editing to say 'go work on something that isn't subject to these Eastern European arguments so we can see if it's you or the topic that's the problem.' Would this warning about Malagurski specifically be notice? (Based on this discussion it seems). I'm putting it out there, I don't think any editor would understand that the entirety of his works is within the sanctions but I can live with just warnings if everything gets tagged and all the editors all around are warned about it. The talk pages have been nothing but sockpuppetry accusations and other comments that really are poisoning the well all around but that likely comes with the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That definitely counts as alerting under the WP:AC/DS guidance, but that is from 2012, and users are supposed to have been alerted within the past twelve months for discretionary sanction actions to be valid. The template is also supposed to be applied to the user's talk page, so the advisory on the Weight of Chains talk doesn't count for this purpose. My impression is that Malagurski is notable because of his controversial views, so it does make sense to me that the entirety of our writing about him falls under the ArbCom decision. We could request an interpretation, but I see no harm in delivering the warnings anyway - they are not meant to imply wrongdoing (the alert template says so). Ivanvector (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also: this proposal is not intended to be mutually exclusive to the topic ban above. We could block/ban UrbanVillager and warn everyone else, if that is what the consensus dictates (although I remain opposed to the topic ban myself). Ivanvector (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedurally, the old warning on user talk is still valid; last time I looked, warnings under the old pre-2014 system were grandfathered in and are to lose their validity only 12 months after the coming into force of the new procedures, which was around May 2014 if I'm not mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, bureaucracy! Well if that old warning can be considered valid, then the topic ban that Ricky applied is valid, although he did so under the auspices of community consensus and not under the authority of discretionary sanctions, and he may be involved. There's a weak consensus above; if the ban is restored and UrbanVillager appeals to ArbCom, citing procedural nonsense here or not being aware of the old warning, we're likely to end up right back here again. And it's possible that they will get the message from how thoroughly their behaviour is being criticized here that they'll shape up. And if not, then a long block supported by a fresh warning will be very difficult to appeal. Ivanvector (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question. Is it the case that the proposed discretionary sanctions would automatically apply to ANY editors, (including new editors) editing these pages? If so, I think them a very good idea, since whilst I have argued elsewhere that the problems of these pages are NOT classic 'Balkan problems', the imposition of greater regulation would benefit ANYONE coming to these pages for the 'right' reasons. I would hold this point of view regardless of the outcome of this ANI. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Balkans discretionary sanctions apply to the topic, not the editor or the page. While the sanction is in effect, any editor who disrupts can be warned by any user, and then blocked by any admin if they continue. (This is not my idea, it's from WP:AC/DS) It was determined elsewhere that WoC falls under the sanction due to the film's content, but other pages we're talking about would be open to debate. Ivanvector (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret

This user has more or less become a single purpose account. There editing has become not very produce such as:

• The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless.
• And we all [k]now that you Qack, are the master of ridiculous.
• They have also been involved in a fair bit of WP:CANVASSING. For example he recently put these notes on a couple of users talk pages requesting their participation [61] and [62] and others. They earlier requested the support of one of these users after having made some controversial changes [63]

Does this rise to the level of a temporary topic ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Cherry-picked quotes? And a complaint about canvassing relating to a case where you were remanded for inappropriate notification[64]? This seems more like a play to remove editors that you disagree with, than a true complaint, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me mention that he requested mere participation not support (except in the last one where he added his own opinion). Doc James, you've been warned for 3RR along with Ferret, I believe this is just not enough for a TBAN. Doc, you're in it too. I believe you all should quit this battleground mentality. A self-imposed TBAN will go a long way. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure that what is described here is canvassing. AlbinoFerret neutrally notified seven different editors, each of whom had previously edited the page or engaged in Talk discussions and had expressed different views, of an RFC occurring on the page: the two above plus [65][66][67][68][69] This appears to be allowed according to WP:CANVASSING. I don't understand the purpose of this report, especially given that Doc James has already engaged in edit-warring with AlbinoFerret on this article. Ca2james (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In the very beginning AlbinoFerret only notified the two editors who have the same POV as he does.[70][71] After editors commented AlbinoFerret was canvassing then AlbinoFerret notified the other editors. Another editor stated "Now that I read the discussion, it looks like inappropriate canvassing."[72] The editor was referring to this this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a 10 hour difference between when the first two editors were notified and the other five were notified. Does that qualify as canvassing? I wouldn't think so but perhaps I'm wrong. If the post on the village pump is considered canvassing (is it? I don't know), then bringing it up now, a week later, seems a little late. Ca2james (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussions were long that day and I needed some sleep, there is no time limit on when editors need to be notified by, I got up and notified others. But even if I only notified the two editors you point out, they are active on the article and had both edited the article. Informing them of the RFC, and all I did was ask them to look at the RFC, is allowed. AlbinoFerret (talk)

I will address all these false accusations.

• The so called canvasing was going back a week or so in history and notifying every editor of the article that wasnt an IP of a rfc. Including ones I knew would probably disagree with my position like Yobol.
• #85 is out of sequence and happened the night before the rfc was made, all I ws doing was asking another editor to look at the edits I had done to see if a NPOV tag/banner she had placed could be removed. This distorting of the timeline to suggest something wrong is intentional. It has been pointed out the Doc James before. As such it, in my opinion the retaliation is a continuation of the war Doc James was warned to stop but has not. These accusations were addressed in the report on Doc James linked to here. I was warned for edit warring, resuscitating them here is a desperate ploy.
• My opinion of the WHO (World Health Organization) is just that my opinion, and I have a right to it. The WHO is treated like some kind of God on the article. While he has me saying my opinion of the WHO on a talk page, he doesnt have diff's of me removing statements of the WHO from the article.
• The third was a sarcastic response to a well known edit warrior QuackGuru with a long ban list history calling the additions of another editor ridiculous.

This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on Doc James. Perhaps its time for a boomerang. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I still think the two tags are unnecessary. You disagree? You restored the tag of shame to the lede without explaining what is wrong with the lede. Please explain what is wrong with the lede or remove the tag from the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That tag was placed by Kim, you removed it with an open RFC on it, that is still open. I replaced it because it is the subject of an open RFC. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown what is the issue with the lede and yet you want to keep it in the lede? QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be wiser to keep content related stuff to the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears that a few editors want to exclude the position of the World Health Organization and a review article published in Circulation (journal), one of medicines most respected journals. They instead wish to replace these with the position of a single author review published in a 1 year old journal with an impact factor of zero.[73] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your true motivation, a conflict over content, and silencing those that disagree with you. The boomerang should hit hard AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure it will. My motivation is to accurately reflect the best available sources. Personal attacks are unfortunately becoming more common [74] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you proved personal attacks are becoming common by coming here. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Doc, but do you really think that fighting over content issues is appropriate for AN/I? Noone - None - Zip - Nada persons want to "exclude the position of the World Health Organization". The issue over a particular conference report from the WHO is significantly more complex than should be dragged out here, and certaintly not by misrepresenting peoples views. --Kim D. Petersen 23:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

While we have this comment The WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless, which sounds like a desire to exclude the WHOs position IMO. If some come to the discussion with this perspective it makes it difficult to edit health related content. And than we have the personal insults. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that sarcastic comment, at a person who made a negative comment on another editors edits using the same word. Who has been pointed out a few times for disruptive editing of the article #1 #2. Where can we find the entry on this page from you for QuackGuru who shares your point of view? Nobody has tried to remove the WHO from the article. There is a report they commissioned, that is used 36 times, its use needs to be scaled back, but its used more and more.AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's note one thing. Doc, you've accused him of being an SPA, which I believe he is not. But the fact that he's made 786 (take away or give a few, I used Ctrl+F on his contribs) edits to E-cigarette related stuff is disturbing. And unless, he's been factually incorrect, has failed to maintain a NPOV or has some kind of a COI, there's really no problem if this is a SPA. Doc, you're certainly involved and the fact that you've not taken any actions is an excellent thing (in fact, if you felt you've been wronged and you came to ANI for that, it was a perfectly fine decision). Note to all: Please refrain from making personal attacks. It can be grounds for harassment. It's also time to quit all of your battleground mentality. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to comment on the number of edits. I rarely make single edits and leave. A majority of the time typo's, extra spaces, justification problems, and syntax errors pop up because the wysiwyg editor doesnt work quite right on my distribution so I edit source most of the time. I will add a word because it doesnt read right, or after reading the paragraph move the addition to group it. It usually takes about 5 or more edits on something before I'm done, even on talk pages. If you divide that number by 4 or 5 its not that bad. While its still over 100 it isnt that bad on an article that is constantly changing. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral on topic ban (for now). Weak support for topic ban, definite warning needed and maybe X hours block for hounding to force them to take a break for a bit and come back with a clear head. A topic ban would alleviate some issues at the page, but the behavior issues mostly seem to stem from a misunderstanding of NPOV that is causing disruption at the page. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN could be helpful for this user, but I'm not sure that will solve the problem either. I've been watching the talk page from afar, and I will admit that there are issues that need to be resolved there, but I really can't put my finger on one single thing that's the main issue we can tie everything together with. Doc James, just my take on the points you listed:

1. I do think AlbinoFerret's comments on the WHO being treated as god-like appear problematic. This could be a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS with the degree of weight (usually quite a bit) we give statements from respected scientific organizations and WP:IDHT behavior to a degree. Not really actionable by itself though.
2. For personal attacks, even sarcastic statements should not be used in spiny topics because they will rarely be taken as sarcastic. If there are many attacks though, then there would be something to consider for action there. AlbinoFerret definitely appears to have a spiny attitude in some cases after skimming over the talk page. I'm not sure the case has been made for personal attacks with just one diff though (feel free to provide more diffs if I missed a lot going through that mess).
3. I can see how you are looking at canvassing considering that those requests you mentioned (while worded neutral) did result in opinionated editors entering the fray. That does pose the question on whether canvassing was going on, but is there anything to substantiate that AlbinoFerret knew what their stance would be already and was recruiting? An extremely dicey question to tackle, but that would seem to be the only way to demonstrate canvassing here.

Overall, SPA's are tricky to actually pin down as such. The core concept of an SPA is advocacy in some form, so maybe the better question is to ask whether AlbinoFerret's edits are grounded in advocacy for a particular point of view? Looking over how much they have been involved in the topic and the general vibe I get looking at their talk posts, this is a legitimate question to look into at this point, but advocacy actually being an issue here hasn't really been demonstrated yet (i.e., more concrete diffs). This would really have to answered before considering any kind of ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently edited the acupuncture article so what did AlbinoFerret write? He wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice."[75] AlbinoFerret also wrote "If you look at the text that comes after it goes on to point out bias in other studies. so if you intend to change it, the bias statement will come in."[76] Lots of sourced text was removed from the article[77][78] but there was no reason to delete the text even if it was recently added. He undid the removal of text later when an editor commented on his talk page. Now he deleted sourced text again. Please review the problematic RFC. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC. The RFC is unhelpful and the Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC goes against policy.[79] QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear you on deleting swathes of text while claiming no consensus though when saying order or section names haven't been decided. That is inappropriate, not to mention the Unknown (etc.) talk section is a plain silly premise and WP:JDL. You guys should be summarizing what the reliable secondary sources say whether the source says something does happen, doesn't, or is unknown. It looks like AlbinoFerret does need help understanding NPOV/due weight when it comes to their concerns about "negative bias", such as this diff [80], but that's not a matter for this noticeboard, but over at WP:NPOVN unless that behavior related to all this content discussion has become either a WP:COMPETENCE issue or advocacy. The acupuncture comment is threatening to WP:HOUND you in this context, no doubt there. Basically, I do agree now that there is a problem with this user.

So, the threatening to hound should get a warning at a minimum or maybe an order of hours block to get the point across that civility is needed to cool their jets. That's just obviously bad. Everything else? Still really ambiguous for me what exactly would justify admin action since there are so many different things that are in a gray zone for whether help in other noticeboards is needed or admin action for disruptive editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43, I think this is mainly a case of he does not like what the MEDRS compliant sources say.[81] I think he will continue to delete reliably sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an unfounded accusation, one that you have repeated in quite a few places. Your source says nothing of the kind. It is contrary WP:AGF. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

1. The "canvassing" does not seem to be an issue, other users were notified in time, and I'm sure AlbinoFerret is now aware of the protocol.
2. The comment about the WHO is not a big deal, and we should be able to accommodate different opinions without allowing it to chill discussion. OF course that does not mean that AF gets to veto WHO sources that meet RS/MEDRS.
3. The personal attack against Quack Guru is unwarranted, and should be struck by AF. AF should be warned about making personal attacks.
4. The suggestion that AF will follow QG to acupuncture is unhelpful at best. AF should be advised not to make these types of comments in future.
5. AF's comment "This is just retaliation for bringing a charge of being involved in an edit war on ..." suggests that AF was deliberately edit warring. AF (and if necessary others) should be reminded that edit warring is not a good solution to disputes. However this ha already been done: AF was warned about edit warring here on the 7th. They seem to understand, though there is resistance to other advice offered.
6. There is no reason for a few hour cooling down block, this section is already several days old.

• I suggest a suitably worded warning/advice about personal attacks (2 above) and threatening to hound (3 above) by an uninvolved admin/editor would serve to resolve this section.
  

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Bbb23 warned AlbinoFerret against further WP:EDITWARRING. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive260#User:Doc_James_reported_by_User:AlbinoFerret_.28Result:_Both_warned.29. He was warned again. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is probably the root of the issue here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from electronic cigarettes, broadly construed. AlbinoFerret is a straight-up WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:Single-purpose account who is engaging in disruptive WP:GAME-playing editing regarding the topic. AF joined the e-cig conversation on Sept. 30, with only a relative handful of edits before that and long gaps in Wikipedia participation. A review of AF's contributions shows 272 of his 284 article edits since Sept. 30 to the topic itself, and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of his 681 Talk page edits(!) just since Sept. 30 related to the topic. This does't take into account his User Talk page involvement, WP:DRN discussion, or WP:3RRNB and WP:ANI activity related to his behavior regarding his editing of this topic.

  For the game-playing, one example: AF was involved in this Talk page discussion regarding one source, it concluded with no consensus to include the source because it didn't meet the WP:MEDRS standards. It was added back anyway by another editor, which led to this DRN discussion that AF was involved it. It was closed as successful by the DRN volunteer against AF's position, with "no consensus to include". AF appears to have taken this as a license to open up RFCs at the article Talk page over content he doesn't like, and then use that as an excuse to removed lots of well-sourced content while stating "no consensus to include". For example, review this RFC AF started: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Unknown.2C_Concerns.2C_Unclear.2C_Uncertain.2C_and_Possibilities_RFC, which asks "Should more claims of the Unknown, Concerns, Unclear, Uncertain, and Possibilities type be added to the e-cigarette article?" Several experienced editors pointed out that this is a flawed RFC from the get-go. Formerly 98, QuackGuru, Doc James, Cloudjpk, Johnuniq, FloNight, Alexbrn and myself have all stated that the RFC itself is at best unclear and at worst impossibly out of line with policy, particularly WP:NPOV; only EllenCT has responded in support. This didn't prevent AF from going ahead and removing a ton of well-sourced content with edit summaries like "remove non consensus edits": [82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

  Overall AF's involvement at regarding this topic is very disruptive and a topic ban is warranted. Zad68 22:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - the travesty at Electronic cigarette has shaken my faith in the integrity of the Wikipedia medical editing establishment more than any other event. There are multiple very high quality MEDRS literature reviews which have been cited in the article for months, but the medical editor clique -- the same editors opposed to AlbinoFerret here -- are staunchly against including their plain language statements that e-cigarettes are helpful to smokers who switch to them, much less harmful if harmful at all compared to cigarettes, and that physicians should support smokers switching to them. Instead of expressing concerns rooted in policy or guidelines, this cadre is simply making up new rules from whole cloth, pretending that a WHO conference proceeding has been independently reviewed when it is not, and insisting that the uncertainty of inconclusive reviews be exclusively and prominently summarized in the article introduction when they know full well there are no alternative hypotheses contradicting the fact that millions of smokers lives could be saved over the next decade if e-cigarettes are only effective for a quarter of the smoking population (as one of the longstanding MEDRS reviews says) because they mitigate the damage from smoke inhalation. If I was not so demoralized by this sad state of affairs, I would have already escalated it through WP:RSN to higher level dispute resolution to call this formerly respectable cadre to account. Oh! How my heroes have fallen! Sic transit gloria mundi! I urge administrators to admonish the fallen cadre for their blatant disrespect and violation of the NPOV pillar policy. EllenCT (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather a vast conspiracy you are positing here Ellen. Why do you suppose that a group, many of whom are physicians, and which has created for itself the most demanding set of sourcing rules of any project in Wikipedia, the Medicine Project would suddenly and en mass decide to conspire to cover up evidence supporting a health-promoting device? I'd urge you to think about alternate hypotheses for explaining the current deadlock.Formerly 98 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of bullies who have become so overwhelmed with WP:OWNership of an entire subject matter that they are willing to ignore policy and make up new rules to save face. I've repeatedly asked for alternative hypotheses on the article talk page, and none have been forthcoming. So what do you say they are? EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, Ellen, this ANI discussion needs to remain focused on editor behavior and not turn into a content discussion. You haven't made any behavior-based argument here against a topic ban for AF. We need to be able to have disagreements about sourcing and content without engaging in disruptive behavior, as AF has done. Zad68 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am complaining about editor behavior, and there is no way to explain that complaint without reference to the underlying content. That is just the way things are. AlbinoFerret should be commended for upholding the NPOV pillar policy in the face of so much willingness to disregard and violate it, and shame on your characterization of that admirable behavior as disruption. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

*Support Topic Ban, preferably in combination with a temporary freeze on editing by all editors By way of disclosure I have been somewhat involved in this conflict and on the other side from AF. I've personally felt concerned by what I perceive as a lack of understanding or perhaps a even a lack of regard for MEDRS by AF and some of his allies, who really seem to me less concerned with reliable sources and reflecting the extremely heavy emphasis placed on health issues in virtually all reliable sources on this topic than on making sure it presents a certain point of view. How one can take a topic in which so much of what is in the literature is about health and make suggestions such as splitting out the health issue discussion into a separate article is beyond my imagination as behavior of someone who is trying to build an encylopedia rather than advocate. But as I have admitted, I am to some extent a combatant here and so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

I am also concerned about the effect this long running battle has on the culture of Wikipedia. The Electronic Cigarette article has been edited 272 times this week and the Talk page 508 times. We usually have at least one RFc ongoing. This is an edit war on the scale of WWI, with an equal level of deadlock.

Its time for the United Nations to send in some peacekeeping troops. I'd urge a fairly lengthy freeze of the article contents. I think a two week or longer ban on ALL EDITS by ALL PARTIES would potentially have a saluatory effect at this point. This, combined with topic bans for those whose behavior is indicative of not putting the encyclopedia first might put us on the right track. I'd recommend both of these actions, but either one by itself might help. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on good progress today. Will oppose tentatively contingent on continued progress. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Support editing freeze - the cadre trying to omit the conclusive, prescriptive statements from the MEDRS reviews they otherwise support need to step aside and make way for editors who have respect for the NPOV policy. At this point I agree that a two week ban on edits by those who have previously edited the article is the only way to accomplish that. A topic ban alone would make things worse. EllenCT (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban It is obvious that the RFC mentioned above is formulated as a vague motherhood statement to be used as a pretext to revert unwanted edits. Contributors wanting to tell the world about the benefits of e-cigarettes will have to excuse the slow and methodical approach of the WP:MEDRS editors who correctly want to wait for suitable sources. AlbinoFerret has 272 edits to Electronic cigarette and 680 to Talk:Electronic cigarette, all made in the last 42 days, and the frenetic pace is not matched by improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Banning someone because editors with an opposing POV don't like the way an RFC is worded would be abhorrent. Issues with the RFC should be addressed within the RFC itself, not by begging admins to squelch the voice of its author. EllenCT (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Three hours after my above comment, AlbinoFerret removed verified text from the article (diff) with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing". In other words, the RFC is already being used as a pretext to remove information verified by a reliable source. The point about e-cigarettes is that they are new and it will be many years before proper studies are available to provide accurate information. Until then, reliable sources will make many tentative statements such as the one removed on the basis that it was speculative. The big problem is that every statement about the efficacy and benefits of e-cigarettes is speculative (other than statements such as the one removed). The article talk page shows AlbinoFerret still arguing that the RFC is valid—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based on above comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The construction of an off-policy RfC and the subsequent mass deletion of content because of its assumed authority is damaging the page; the torrents of WP:IDHT text on the Talk page are similarly unwelcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What looks to me like a 3RR violation as well, at a minimum getting very close for someone previously warned against edit warring: Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4 Another large set of reversions the day before, about 12 hours outside the 24 hour window. Diff 5 Formerly 98 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Striking and reversing based on some good progress today. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban It is sad reflection of the state of relations between users who edit the e-cig article that what is effectively a content dispute gets raised here. From all that I have seen AlbinoFerret's behaviour and actions have been mostly positive ones (and certainly in good faith). In regards to the points originally raised, AlbinoFerret's low opinion of The WHO that was voiced on a talk page is not a violation of any policies/guidelines that I know of, he is fully entitled to an opinion. The point regarding him calling QuackGuru "the master of ridiculous" also carries little weight since the intention was clearly to highlight QuackGuru's (an editor with an [exceptionally long block log], last blocked for disruptive editing on the e-cig article) own derogatory use of "ridiculous". WP:CANVASSING, well if it was canvassing AlbinoFerret very soon realised their mistake and notified editors with opposing opinions. WP:SPA is not specifically prohibited as I understand it, I see no evidence that they are engaging in advocacy and little evidence has been presented that they have a WP:COI. Better to WP:AGF in the face of a lack of evidence I think.Levelledout (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban this is a content dispute. I have done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Much has been said in the comments about an RFC I started on "Speculative" statements citing WP:CBALL. There has never been consensus for adding these "Unknown" and "unclear" statements. As noted they have been removed by me and others. Only to have the larger group of medical editors restore them, even if someone else removes them. But WP isnt build on who the larger group is, but consensus. I started the RFC top see where consensus lies. Citing it as a problem, use of an RFC to see what the consensus of the editors is, only goes to prove that this is a content issue. The fewer non medical editors, the easier it will be for group ownership to continue. AlbinoFerret 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, what I'm seeing isn't just a content dispute. It's concerns over behavior stemming from a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. Sometimes editors have a tough time disentangling those ideas. I've seen your concerns about "Unknown" and "unclear" statements on the page, and it looks like that is one of the main things that is getting the talk page pretty bloated. WP:CRYSTALBALL pertains to us as editors trying to figure out what future relevance may be. If a reliable source though is summarizing scientific research and stating its current state of knowledge in the field, that's a very different case (i.e., Here are important things that we don't know much about yet). Points like that don't seem to be getting across, which is a behavior issue described by WP:IDHT. Sometimes that's a competence issue, sometimes it's just being passionate in a controversial topic and not being as receptive to criticism depending on the editor. Normally, that is a behavior that can be remedied as it's not as serious as an isolated incident, but it can become very disruptive when it persists over time. I'd suggest just stepping back for a bit and reflecting on some of the legitimate criticism made about your behavior. You're definitely in a position where admin action isn't needed if you can resolve your behavior, so I'd suggest learning about how scientific research is summarized and maybe ask over at WP:NPOVN about how unknowns are summarized in literature too. I'm only slightly positive on a ban because it does seem like it would improve the talk page discussion, but it doesn't seem like a good option at all compared to following the path I just mentioned. You've definitely got room to move forward on this, so good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Kingofaces43, sometimes the words of an uninvolved editor have more impact when there is a controversy. I was hoping for more uninvolved editors to comment on the RFC, perhaps if that had happened it would have been withdrawn sooner. That a few people voted No to inclusion had me thinking perhaps I was correct that there was no consensus. I have withdrawn the RCF based on your post. I did go looking for information on WPNOV, but I asked the question in the wrong place. AlbinoFerret 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - this is just too disruptive. AlbinoFerret thinks he did done nothing to warrant a topic ban. Originally AlbinoFerret said I dont see a word about deleting anything in the RFC. but later he misused the RFC to remove text he does not like with edit summary "remove speculative statement added while RFC on topic is ongoing".[90] He wrote in his edit summary remove older study that newer ones find answers to. It was not a study. It is a WP:MEDRS compliant review. He has a pattern of deleting well sourced text he does not like. QuackGuru (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe adding speculative statements to the article has consensus, removing [edits shows there is no consensus,also this edit did not remove this claim from the article, but just from the lede, it existed in the Harm reduction section. This edit cited by QuackGuru was a misunderstanding thinking that other reviews had cleared things up. The claim exists in the article today and hasnt been removed. Two of the diffs added by you are duplicates of other links in your comment. AlbinoFerret 08:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban = Those edits were made more than a week ago. When it comes to WP:CANVASSING, WP:BOOMERANG should apply to Doc James for canvassing repeatedly. -A1candidate (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Well-meaning but clueless IP editor

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

---

Hi there. Editors working in the area of New Zealand history and the New Zealand land wars of the mid 19th century are currently trying to help a long-term IP editor (currently 122.62.226.243; who often signs messages as "Claudia" so I will use that name and feminine pronouns when discussing her) improve her contributions. Although she appears to mean well, and is certainly widely read in the subject, her contributions are poorly (or not at all) referenced and many are very point-of-view in tone and content. She has previously been mentioned here which gives additional background.

I would appreciate if an Administrator could perhaps take Claudia under his/her wing and help her improve her contributions to Wikipedia. I do not want her blocked but would much appreciate if she could knock off the sort of comments she has made here [91], here [92] or here [93] about editors who have been trying to help her, or about mainstream historians who disagree with her favourite (controversial) historian.

Thank you all for your time. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dinosaur Dave" from Invercargill is the editor who has been previously warned about "knee jerk " reactions to edits. He reverted an recent edit of mine without following any of the normal rules of Wiki. Subsequently an independent editor decided the original edit was fine. Dave made no effort what so ever to justify his "instant delete" whereas I had added good clear, detailed information and references and backed up the edit with further details and background on "talk" of that topic. Obviously he does not think rules apply to him! He has previously owned up to making impulsive emotionally charged edits or responses to edits and was advised by an experienced editor to change his ways. Apparently,judging from his knowledge, he is a very misguided old man.Im guessing he is angry he got caught out! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Claudia" (IP 122.62.226.243) is engaging at a slow-mo edit war at Pai Mārire: See [94], [95], [96], [97] despite an extensive discussion on this in 2013, which this editor has chosen to ignore. This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources. They have extensive form, have previously been banned and frankly deserve a long-term ban. BlackCab (TALK) 06:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold it right there. — @BlackCab, you have just made a very serious charge: "This editor is a classic example of a disruptive editor who refuses to accept consensus and insists on inserting POV material either without sources or, frequently, fictional sources." You need to either (a) redact and apologize or (b) show diffs demonstrating the use of "fictional sources" by Claudia — and if the latter is proven, Claudia should be out of here on a permaban without another word said. Faking sources is the most serious form of vandalism imaginable, it undermines public perceptions of the validity of the entire project. We can differ about whether this or that person is tendentious or inadvertently pushes a POV. But faking of sources is a matter that is black and white. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You made the same charge previously on the talk page of "Claudia from Hamilton" (122.62.226.243) HERE: "You have also on several occasions simply invented 'sources'..." This needs to be settled once and for all. If Claudia from Hamilton is fabricating sources, she should be tossed from the project for having violated the trust of its participants. If she has not fabricated sources, BlackCab needs to be sanctioned for falsely making this grave accusation against another editor. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The point I made was that this is a sentence -the OPENING sentence from well respected source. -You have chosen to go off topic to deflect attention from this point. Previously there was discussion about the name of the organization but no editor raised the point that the leader himself called the church Hauhau. I did not ignore the original discussion-I was part of it. Yes, we reached a good consensus back then but this is NEW information that was not part of the original discussion. I totally reject I am a disruptive editor. This is not a slow-mo edit war- it is trying to get editors to actually discuss the point at hand! My addition is small and does not change the article apart from making it more accurate in a minor but significant detail.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A series of reverts by ONE editor of the successive edits of SEVERAL editors, without bothering to discuss it on the talk page, is edit warring. 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of Māori culture clearly displays a trail of edit-warring by the IP editor: instead of sensible discussion the IP editor deals out juvenile comments denigrating the intelligence of other editors.[98] This is long-standing problematic behaviour by an editor who refuses to accept consensus. BlackCab (TALK) 07:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a long-term member of WP:WPNZ and I'm broadly in consensus with User talk:BlackCab and User:Daveosaurus over the disruptive behaviour of Special:Contributions/122.62.226.243. I bought the issue to WP:ANI previously (linked to above by User:Daveosaurus) but there was no resolution, and problems have continued since then. Non-local editors should be aware that due to the reconciliation process discussed at Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements, historical sources (pre-1980s) about New Zealand, and Māori in particular, need to be handled very carefully, even when they appear to be authoritative tertiary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To add to the above: a lot of what was taught in NZ about the Māori before European contact has been exposed as 19th-century fabrications. See Stephenson Percy Smith for some background on this - and that article is being kind to Smith. A lot of people aren't very happy to find out that Everything They Were Taught Was Wrong, hence the popularity of some modern commentators who seek to disparage more neutral readings of history. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommended that this case be brought here. It has been brought to the attention of this and similar boards several times previously - see the very first link in this thread, and the links within that ref - but no one has come up with any firm course of action. I am running out of patience, but I am an involved party as I have tried to give advice over many years to the parties concerned. If ANI cannot handle this, should we take it to Arbcom?-gadfium 08:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is a case of long-term edit warring, there should be one or two specific articles where you can document that pattern. If admins are convinced that someone is fighting against consensus, they might issue a final warning. If the person is using multiple IPs then WP:SCRUTINY might also be a concern, though nobody has so far suggested that the use of IPs is deceptive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, this problematic editor is in a permanent state of denial. She says above "I totally reject I am a disruptive editor" but the compelling evidence proves otherwise. She has been blocked four times for disruption.

Since she starting editing with this IP she has been taken to task about her editing by users Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Black Cab, Gadfium, Daveosaurus, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Darkwind, Adabow, DI2000, Stuartyeates, Winkelvi, Mufka, Irondome, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, Andrewprout and countless times by Sinebot and Bracketbot.

She has been criticised for agenda pushing, OR, ongoing poor formatting and spelling that others have to fix, changing other people’s comments at talk, lack of sources or poor sourcing, edit warring, refusal to get the point, incivility, 3RR etc etc etc. The evidence is there for all to see in her talk page. I agree with User:Black Cab who recently wrote "This editor plays a game of brinksmanship, provoking and taunting other editors while carrying out a deliberate campaign of misinformation and distortion in articles." I also think this comment from User:Irondome was spot on.

Seems to me a one month preventive block would be beneficial for the project, with the proviso clearly stated in the block notice that if when she returns to editing she just once disrupts the project she will be instantly indeffed - no ifs, buts, or maybes. The ball would then be in her court. I am an admin and would block her but might be considered involved. There are other admins here, but also involved. Moriori (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(Link corrupted) What User:Irondome wrote on the user's page was -- "Page stalker here. I have had a run in over the Dieppe raid article in the past with one of you. The one that goes on and on. It is like dealing with a bizarre cluster of multiple personalities. Luckily I never got involved with the ongoing NZ-related pages chaos that appears to be going from bad to worse in absurdity. I watch the related fall-out a bit. Tip. Why dont some of you take responsibility for your statements and contributions by signing in properly. Then you will be taken seriously, and not as a bizarre babble. What is the most scary is that you may actually be just one individual. Oh the horror!. We are all allowed at least one nervous breakdown per life, and you may be having yours if you are one person. No worries, couple of months or whenever then sign in properly. The slate will be clean then mate. One of you might have the makings of a good editor :) Good luck Irondome ". Moriori (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I also support Moriori's proposal.-gadfium 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. In answer to your first question: Māori culture [99] and Pai Mārire [100] are two articles where her recent behaviour has been particularly bad. In the latter, she insists in as often as possible referring to the religion in question as "Hauhau" - a name used dismissively to refer to it by the settler press of the day, in the same way that Chinese gold-miners were referred to as "Celestials" or "Mongolians", and Catholics were referred to as "Papists". In the former, the last couple of months' activity in Talk:Māori culture demonstrates the difficulty of trying to deal with her.

I don't know what tools Administrators have to deal with problem editors such as Claudia, but it has definitely got to the stage where she needs to either shape up or ship out. Shaping up would be my preference, but the last four or so years' of encouragement have had little success. If not a full block, I'd suggest a topic ban from any Māori subject whatsoever until her editing and interpersonal behaviour improves. (She does have other interests she can practice on, going by her editing history). She has in the past refused to create an account, giving reasons which seem to me to be illogical; but at the very least she should start properly signing her posts, and stop making rather creepy allusions to other editors' family members, or disparaging their nationalities. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors have shown kindness and patience in trying to get "Claudia" to lift his/her game, without success. The editor, however, continues to show an attitude of defiance and ridicule. In this discussion at New Zealand land confiscations the IP editor ridiculed me as an Australian "who has a limited knowledge of this topic" (In fact I wrote this article). At that article I had removed a slab of opinionated material; Claudia repeatedly reverted [101][102][103] to reinstate personal comment and highly dubious claims. Discussion gets us nowhere. A one-year block sounds good to me; editors at non-Maori pages seem to have the same difficulty in getting this person to discuss or collaborate. BlackCab (TALK) 04:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, please take a moment to glance through this archive from the IP editor's talk page—noting the IP's dismissive responses—and tell me if you can see any improvement since then. BlackCab (TALK) 08:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow so much to answer! Firstly let me say the information above about Hauhau is factually incorrect.The founder of the movement HIMSELF called his church Hau hau.This is not "me " claiming something -it comes straight from the Encyclopedia of Nz on Line on the Page about Te Huamene-I have made this point 3? times recently and it has been ignored !Anyone can look it up and see I am correct. At the time of the lengthy discussion many months ago?? this point was never raised. It is true that the church or organization was called Hau hau by the European media in NZ and by government at the time. It is an inference by the editor that this was a term in the pejorative sense. The analogies used are mischievous. The name Pai Marire was later used by followers( up to this day).It translates as "good and peaceful" You can hardly blame them for using this name now because the actions of the originals were severely misguided ,some would say barbarous(murder and cannibalism were not common in NZ among Maori at that time).

Disparaging ???(looking at the heading to this section- Pot -Kettle- Black!!In all cases where questions have been asked about an edit I have responded at length and often in exhaustive detail. In a recent case about 1 month? ago an independent editor accessed that my edit was correct despite what I would call an "orchestrated" or band wagon attack on that edit by several of the above "complaining" editors.In other words a n independent editor with no axe to grind found I was correct and the others were wrong. Maybe this accounts for their recent more aggressive attitude?

As for my "behaviour " please check the talk page on Maori Culture -the recent exchanges of views. In every case I have answered questions in detail. One editor replied but did not address ANY of the points I made but introduced a red herring. Neither of the other 2 bothered to read or respond. Previously they complained that I did not engage in "discussion"in talk. Well I have done that in spades. Now, rather than answer questions or engage in a proper discussion they simply want to ban me. It is clear from many of their answers they have what I would call narrow ,"conservative" views of things that happened in the past. NB I have learnt that where I am inserting a piece of information I make sure that it comes from a wide variety of sources so they cant say "its made up" or "POV" or offends some other obscure wiki rule. I find it strange that their was no reaction AT ALL to the edit I made 10?days ago in Maori culture about Maori newspapers, but all hell breaks loose when I insert a section about tax that is very similar and just as valid.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the edit I made about 2? years ago re Dieppe Raid. It is interesting that although my edit was debunked back then( see the rather nasty remarks made by Iron dome) the current article now has a detailed section covering all the points I made. Words like"compelling" are used! Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Claudia"'s response here is fairly typical: it's everyone elses's fault that no one agrees with me, so I'll just go back into the article and insert what I know is correct. Her discussions are rants that rarely touch on the issue. There is just no collaboration, no concession, no acknowledgment of deficiencies. BlackCab (TALK) 04:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since the editor can't be bothered to create an account, and since there are too many affected articles to semi-protect all of them adequately, I Support EdJohnston's well-reasoned, uninvolved proposal of a one-year block, since one-month blocks have proven ineffective, with the offer of repeal as per the rest of EdJohnston's proposal. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, since English Wikipedia and the WMF can't be "bothered" to make the logical and obvious rule that all editors must establish accounts and sign-in-to-edit, it's pretty hard to condemn somebody for breaking rules that do not exist, isn't it? The issue to me is whether "Claudia from Hamilton" is faking sources. If she is, she should be out of here on the speediest rail imaginable with no return possible. If she isn't, Black Cab should kindly stop making false accusations and we should deal with the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what was meant by 'faked' but to give you a recent example of the use of sources, the IP editor re added this content apparently based on this webpage (not that the URL wasn't given, but in a textual ref). Te Ara is an authoritative source (at least I've never seen it challenged and would support it if it were). The article addition includes the text "From the 1830s it was one of the 5 most common trade items and when plants became available it was grown by Maori for their own supply." but the source says "Along with muskets (firearms), gunpowder and alcohol, tobacco had become a standard trade item by the early 1800s. It was used by Pākehā to pay Māori (including children) for provisions and services, or given as a gift. Chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi were given tobacco, sometimes by the cask. Once plants became available, Māori grew tobacco in their community gardens." There are three significant issues here, (a) mangling of the date, (b) mangling of the number of items and (c) 'standard trade item[s]' vs 'common trade items'. Bear in mind that this was a re-insertion of this content, so the editor had already been made aware that there might be issues with their contribution and should be being extra careful. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

See the comments of BlackCab above about "fictional sources" and "invented 'sources.'" I'm not speaking of misinterpreting sources, which can be an error made in good faith, but allegations about the fabrication of non-existent sources by Claudia from Hamilton (IP 122...etc.), which is clearly intimated. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To Carrite: I am completely uninvolved in these articles and in this situation, but my concern is that if it is the case that this is a longterm highly disruptive editor across many articles, which seems to be the case, regardless of faked sources or not, the longterm widespread disruption and the refusal to collaborate or learn the most basic of Wikipedia policies (evidenced in small part here by a refusal to sign posts), merits a lengthy block, since by what I'm reading nothing else has worked. Alternatively, a very lengthy topic ban could be imposed (don't know if that can be instituted for IPs), and then if that doesn't take, a lengthy block. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Faked sources: Carrite asks for supporting evidence of my accusation of faked sources.

January 2013: At Invasion of the Waikato, IP editor added a fake citation of Michael King’s "Te Puea" book, complete with page number [104]; (I deleted it, she reverted) [105]. This was discussed at Talk:Invasion of the Waikato#Unsupported claims. She made no defence of that citation.
May 2013: At Talk:Parihaka#Squatters, an issue is raised over the IP editor’s citation [106] of Michael King’s "Moriori" book (without a page number) to support what turns out to be a highly dubious claim. I explicitly asked the IP editor three times to name the page where King made such a statement. She did not, and King’s book nowhere made such a statement.
October 2013: At Talk:Māori King Movement#Maori bank I challenge the IP editor over another highly dubious claim for which she cites "King Potatau. Pei Te Hurinui Jones. p 230-231". [107] I asked the editor to detail what Jones wrote at those pages. The IP editor said they couldn’t find the book. Another editor (Gadfium) located two editions of the book; neither had any relevant material at those pages. Even as I attempted to extract from the IP editor some detail over the veracity of her edits, she added similar material at King Country [108]

In each case, direct, civil requests on the talk page for supporting material are met by long-winded explanations of the IP editor's unique take on New Zealand history. BlackCab (TALK) 22:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the Jan. 2013 diff above, running a Google search for the rather unique number inserted by Claudia from Hamilton of "314,364 acres" returns turns up THIS cite to Whatiwhatihoe: The Waikato Raupatu Claim by David McCan, pg. 57, which specifies a confiscation of 1,217,413 acres and a return of 314,364 acres between 1865 and 1868. One might criticize Claudia from Hamilton for ugly footnoting form in the diff you cite, but the accusation of fabrication of a source seems beyond the pale. More to follow. Carrite (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Claudia cited page 21 of Michael King's Te Puea book to support the statement. King made no such statement. The citation was invented. False. Fake. BlackCab (TALK) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the May 2013 diff above, the insertion may well be tendentious or dubious, but as no specific page is cited and the book exists, one can chalk this up to sloppiness rather than conscious intellectual dishonesty in my opinion. It could easily have been a good faith effort to attribute an idea without doing the legwork of finding the cite. Removal seems justified. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The book exists, the statement does not. It was invented. Fake. BlackCab (TALK) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the Oct. 2013 diff, the Google Books version of the 2012 edition of King Potatau is unpaginated; it seems that first edition was 1959 so presumably there are multiple editions. Running an internal search for the word "bank" doesn't seem to turn up reference to the burning incident, but if some other phrase were used in lieu of "bank" that would be a bad search. This one seems the most dubious of the three, particularly since there are two footnotes stacked for the claim. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• The second Oct. 2013 diff is marked by multiple stacked footnotes (which is a red flag to me) and a very sloppy footnoting style, although there is no doubt from even a cursory search that King Tawhiao went to England in an effort to meet with Victoria in 1884. Which you know, I'm sure. The fine detail about the trip ("elephant named Alice," etc.) seems inappropriate for the article, even if sourced properly. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to read the thread I cited above discussing the October 2013 edits, you'll see Claudia of Hamilton was relying on sources that had been thoroughly discredited by one of the sources she cited, and scrabbling to invent others. You seem hell-bent on justifying dishonest, opinionated editing that causes only grief for other editors. Wikipedia is better than that. BlackCab (TALK) 00:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I just want to make sense of what is the real problem here. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tried as best I can to give Claudia the benefit of the doubt - that she is merely being sloppy and borderline incompetent rather than deliberately deceitful - but the end result is the same. Over the last year or so BlackCab has put a vast amount of work into fixing the messes Claudia leaves behind her, so I can quite understand the level of exasperation shown. (My spare time is almost non-existent at the moment so any involvement I have had with Wikipedia lately is mostly just reverting obviously bad edits).

Claudia, if you're reading this: You are skating on incredibly thin ice at the moment. You need to accept that you fall short of the required standards, and that your content and interaction must improve substantially if you are to remain an active editor. If you're not prepared to do so, you need to find an alternative outlet, such as a blog or a personal web site. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy is a given. The footnoting style, incomplete as it is, absolutely can not continue, nor the thoughtless errors in punctuation. I'm not persuaded that there is a permabannable falsification of sources going on here. I do appreciate that Claudia is making messes and has a bee in her bonnet about "left wing historical revisionism," although I'm not seeing at a glance the sort of skewed POV editing that one would expect of someone spouting such a line. A tough call, from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No skewed POV editing? try this for size or this, or this, or this. Welcome to the world according to Claudia. BlackCab (TALK) 08:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In Carrite's defence, it's not all that obvious how bad the edits in question are unless you've got at least a basic understanding of the subject. (I'm assuming that Carrite is here as a neutral observer, as seems to be the case.) For example, in that last diff, the Kūpapa were loyal to their Queen in the same way that Benedict Arnold was loyal to his King. Describing the Kūpapa as "loyalists" and the Kingitanga as "rebels" is, quite simply, not NPOV. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Some formal suggestions for Claudia from Hamilton

1. You are apt to find the editing experience at Wikipedia to be more friendly and less combative if you register an account and use that religiously. It is humanizing and IP editors are treated scornfully as a class. I strongly urge you to pick a name and go through the quick registration process.

2. You indicated once on your (IP) user talk page that you have vision problems. You need to solve this issue so that you are not causing work for others by bad spacing around commas and the like. Please do that. Type size can be enlarged on your screen, if necessary for you to see more clearly.

3. While you are clearly interested in history and knowledgable, your footnoting style not only leaves much to be desired, but it is absolutely imperative that it be corrected. Please use the following style: Author Name, Title of Publication: In Italics. City Published: Name of Publisher, Date of Publication; Exact Page Number. There are various FLAVORS of correct footnoting that are used at WP, but these minor style variations are tweaks on presentation of this central and essential information. You will run into severe problems at WP if you do not provide complete, full, accurate footnotes for every potentially controversial assertion.

4. Do not under any circumstances use more than one footnote for one assertion of fact. Your work is clearly going to be scrutinized by others interested in the same field. ONE FACT — ONE SOURCE. Pick your best source for each assertion; use multiple footnotes for different parts of a single sentence, if necessary. "Stacking" footnotes is both intellectually sloppy and indicative that a segue sentence or unsourced narrative may be being "fudged."

5. Please sign all your posts by typing four tildes ( ~). Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA /// Carrite (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for your very kind practical help and support. Big up to Corvallis! I tried to follow a footnoting style of an editor I believed was doing it correctly but when I looked at other articles there did seem to be a whole multitude of "styles" as you say. I will try to follow 3 above where all the information is available. My computer skills are pretty basic (no pun intended)so I have just tried to copy what is all ready in wiki. I came to the digital age very late(some might say too late!). I value my privacy as does my employer. I find it interesting that you say IP editors are treated "with scorn". I'm not sure why vilification of a "class" is necessary! Shall I start wearing a yellow star? I wonder how far some editors are prepared to go in this hounding? I note with concern that when I have flowed the rules (ie using talk)others have not and are not being held to the same standard. I have already mentioned the failure of some of the above editors to engage in any form of discussion or to answer questions. I cannot see the logic in just using just a single source. Often 2 or 3 sources make slightly different points. Frequently when I have added 2 references it is because they do not say exactly the same thing ie one may have written information ,the other may have stats. I have taken to doing this because I have been accused of "making things up", lol. Recently I did an edit that was about a paragraph long and contained information from about 4 or 5 different sources,one of the editors above simply deleted it saying:"no sources".To me this is beyond mischievous! It was patently untrue.This from one of my most pointed critics!I will be away out of wifi range for sometime now(late spring in NZ-good time for tramping)) so thanks again for being so constructive.~~Claudia~~

A few ideas for resolution of this matter

This seems a case in which Claudia from Hamilton either needs a mentor or a proofreader. I don't know if her editing is inevitably disruptive — this is something that the NZ history people are going to need to figure out. If it is a case of disruptive, POV editing, then a formal set of diffs need to be prepared demonstrating that her participation is irredeemably disruptive. If we're dealing with an editorial competence issue, that needs to be demonstrated. I don't think this is an "incident" so much as it is a chronic issue which has been brewing for two years. Claudia needs to make improvements, certainly. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence presented here is sufficient to demonstrate why Claudia of Hamilton needs to be banned. You are now suggesting NZ editors remain stuck with an editor who refuses to collaborate, immediately reverts any edit of hers, will not intelligently discuss issues and constantly complains that mainstream historians are a bunch of dolts who know far less than she does. She has already been banned and has learned nothing. So thanks for nothing. BlackCab (TALK) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll: Longterm block

Please give your !vote in response to EdJohnston's proposal, copied below:

The last block of this editor was in July, 2013 for one month. Since the problem has continued unchanged it is reasonable to escalate the block. I suggest a new block for one year due to the long-term pattern of edit warring. The block needs to be long enough that they can't just wait it out, which is what happened in the past. My assumption is that the block could be lifted if the user would agree to create an account and promise to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. As an uninvolved admin I am in a position to issue the block if it's appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-year block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. I'm willing to take the word of the involved editors Daveosaurus, BlackCab, and Stuartyeates, and, if I'm not mistaken, the apparent combined frustration of Irondome, Transcendence, Moriori, Amtalic, Gadfium, Drmies, Sue Rangell, Rudolp89, Rudolp89, Adabow, DI2000, Winkelvi, Mufka, DerbyCountyinNZ, Bradshaws1, Epipelagic, Jim1138, Dennis Bratland, JoeSperazza, I dream of horses, and Andrewprout, that this is a longterm extremely disruptive editor who refuses to either cooperate or be rehabilitated. I don't see anyone familiar with the situation rising to her defense, and the situation has apparently gone on way too long even despite month-long blocks. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. She won't learn. BlackCab (TALK) 02:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block, or longer. Reading all of this leaves me dumbfounded and depressed. The stubborn refusal to even sign posts is just the start of it. A truly intractable case. Once again it's time to say Enough is Enough. Jusdafax 02:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block, unless Claudia agrees to avoid editing subjects relating to Māori or New Zealand history, with any administrator authorised to administer the block should she not stick to this agreement.-gadfium 02:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support have reviewed above situation and believe a block is the best way forward to prevent wasted time for all. Agree with offering Ed's offer if Claudia is for it (but have doubts that will solve the problem). Ruby 2010/2013 04:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block of Claudia (I assume this is of the person, not the IP? I don't want this to start up again once her IP changes) with any unblock contingent upon acceptance of either a complete topic ban of anything to do with Māori topics, or a complete ban from reverting any other editor. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. Remove block on firm promise to change specific behaviours. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. Agree with Stuartyeates that the block be removed on promise to change behaviour, but also ask that the block message clearly state that if on her return she disrupts the project she shall be blocked indefinitely. Moriori (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support one-year block. In all honesty I think this is the only real alternative :-( . Andrewgprout (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support block. It's the best way I see she might learn to be a more constructive editor. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Editors hoping for a post-block attitude adjustment by Claudia of Hamilton might like to consider her response when last blocked in 2013. [109] "I always endeavour to improve", but as usual, everyone else's fault. BlackCab (TALK) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I fully understand the frustration of the editors involved, named in the post above by Softlavender; i really had hopes that the time Carrite took to type out some useful points would be paid off by a little understanding and adjustment by Claudia, but her post immediately below his seems to void that hope. Nevertheless, i cannot support this option, at least yet. I would far rather see Claudia mentored ~ required by the community to take a mentor if she is not willing to of her own accord ~ and led to an improvement in her editing. It is my belief that the community we all make up is capable of finding solutions better than merely saying (even after much frustration), "Go away!" Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Claudia's behavior, past and present (see my comment and link immediately above), suggests it is highly unlikely this will have any impact. The editor has a very clear agenda that involves denigrating respected New Zealand historians and using this encyclopedia to disseminate her own theories and perspectives on history. Just how will LindsayH suggest Claudia be compelled to be mentored, and what will long-suffering editors be required to do when this inevitably fails? Go through this whole laborious process again? What will be the trigger for a new ANI? BlackCab (TALK) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, i suppose that my suggestion is that Claudia be told, "You must be mentored, by XXX user, who must see and approve your edits in advance of your committing them; XXX will be looking to ensure you are meeting the goals of the Project, that you are not displaying either disruptive or tendentious editing patterns, and that you accept consensus. If you do not accept these conditions, you will be blocked. In addition, if you bypass XXX, you will be blocked on his request ~ or that of these [named] editors ~ without any warning, nor another ANI/AN process." That's as clear as necessary, i think, and requires no further trigger for another ANI report or more drama. Fair, BlackCab? Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine in theory, but in practical terms a very unwieldy process that I doubt will work and will just result in more time-consuming work for a small bunch of editors left to police it and argue the case (again). The time has come for a meaningful, lengthy block. BlackCab (TALK) 22:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

True, and that's what the consensus indicates. I wonder if LindsayH had Carrite in mind for XXX. That would be interesting, because Carrite previously told another editor "If it is found you have fabricated sources, I would support a lifetime ban." Moriori (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think it's instructive to read Claudia's talk page and its two archives. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this on principle, but I'd need to know who is going to be doing the mentoring. Such as mentor would need to have almost infinite patience (to use the carrot), be an Admin (to use the stick) and have at least a basic understanding of NZ history. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support long term block. Having read the two archives, Carrite's good faith not withstanding, this is an editor who just doesn't seem to get it. Two years of the same behaviour is just incredible. Much of Claudia's edits revolve around her recollection of various books that she has read and what looks to be sythesis of various sources. Unlike Origamite, I don't hold the same level of optimism. Also the lack of signature for two years is just really annoying. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's even longer - about five years I think - it's just in the last two years her IP has been stable. Prior to this it changed every few weeks or months. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

RTG

I want RTG (talk · contribs) to be interaction banned from me. He has done nothing but insert himself into disputes where I have been involved and show zero actual knowledge of the disputes at hand or the policies he's claiming I'm violating. After a day out I came back to my talk page to this after dealing with this nonsense two weeks ago and everything closed off in here two months ago. He has done nothing but pester me and demand I get punished for what he thinks are policy violations when every time he has been wrong on his interpretation. I want him to leave me alone for the rest of his or my tenure on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I got dragged into the drama when he pinged me from your talk page. I'm not sure what possessed him to respond to so many conversations in such a hostile manner. When I dislike a person, I stay far away from their talk page. Maybe RTG can offer an explanation for that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think RTG has flown the coop.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction, I just found this edit he made a few hours ago where he is doing the exact same shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. At the least, an interaction ban seems reasonable here. An editor should be able to edit in peace without having commentary about him/herself inserted constantly. Five comments in three days is starting to look like wikihounding. There are better solutions than hounding an editor, but RTG does not seem interested in them (or explaining this behavior). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  And he's still complaining about the fact that he didn't believe that the Instantnood sockpuppetry case should have been held at all. This is ridiculous. He's edited after I left the message and has yet to comment here. I will send him another message.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban given the obviously retaliatory thread RTG opened below. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• If RTG voluntarily agreed to leave you alone, would you agree to do the same? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  I don't go out of my way to be an asshole to him. There's really no reason for me to be formally banned from him, despite his claims below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hayatgm (second nomination)

Hi, Hayatgm was first reported to ANI by Richard Yin at WP:ANI#CSD tag edit war between myself and User:Hayatgm because he kept removing CSD templates from articles he'd created. I first noticed the user removing an AfD template in this edit, and I warned him accordingly. User has since removed a PROD template from Javed Hayat Kakakhail in this edit without resolving the lack of sources that led to the article being PRODed. (There are notability issues too, there is a non-English poem with no context to explain it, etc.) In fact, I believe that this article might be a recreation of Javaid Hayat Kakakhail, which was twice deleted, once for unambiguous promotion, and a second time for copyright infringement for including the non-English poem. (See this edit as evidence.) Like Richard Yin, I too suspect a WP:COI. My feeling is that the user is trying to memorialize family members or something, as they've created about a dozen articles about people named and related to "Hayat". Most have been deleted. Requesting administrative intervention. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User has also removed maintenance templates inappropriately, for instance here, where they are removed without addressing issues about tone or presenting the non-English jargon in a clear way, and they have yet again removed a speedy deletion tag here. It is becoming clear that the user is only here to promote their specific agenda, not to contribute constructively to a global encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the user to WP:AIV. --Richard Yin (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Richard Yin. I'll comment there. I suppose I don't know what will happen to his articles, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: User received a 48 hour block. I think it would be advisable for admins to keep an eye on him when he returns, since much of what he's been contributing is problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter

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

---

• Gamergate controversy

(Note claiming exception to the Arbcom finding, as this is a matter in which I am primarily involved.)

We have a situation at the Gamergate article, linked above, where the "NPOV issues" tag has remained on the article for five weeks now, even though there are no specific or immediate issues. The tag was added on October 6th by MSGJ, at the behest of other editors and he has not edited the article since. The nature of the controversy over Gamergate is over the misogyny and harassment of women in video gaming culture, a point-of-view strongly supported by reliable sources. A secondary point-of-view is that the nature of the controversy is about gamer journalism ethics. The side that pushes the latter has become more and more vocal about their minority point-of-view being given equal weight as the primary, but as the sourcing does not support this at all, that would violate WP:UNDUE. So, they tagged the article, and the tag has remained for thirty-five days now.

I intended to remove it last week, but the date slipped by. A thread last night, consisitng largely of vocal single-purpose accounts seems to think the matter is up for a vote, to which I disagree with strongly. Template:POV explicitly warns against tag usage as a badge of shame or as a "warning" to readers. It is meant to solicit other editors to weigh in on the matter. We have done that for over a month now, none of the concerns raised have been found to have merit. I attempted a removal just now to no avail. Admin intervention is requested, as the tag is now being misused. New editors need to keep in mind that a tag removal doesn't mean the end of the discussion, it just means the end of the immediacy of a serious issue or concern that we must warn ever make every page visitor aware of.

Also note that other editors wholly unconnected to Gamergate seem to see the tag as long outliving its usefulness as well. Tony Sidaway attempted to remove it last night, but was reverted by an SPA. Tarc (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's been decided that Tarc cannot comment at ANI unless someone else raises a thread specifically about him. Moving on, let's discuss the merits of the case itself. Tarc will no longer comment here, in this thread or otherwise, unless he voluntarily chooses to get blocked.--v/r - TP 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Note to all I have initiated an WP:ARCA case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have continued and will continue to point out there is an NPOV problem with the article (mainly impartialness; balance will never be equal due to sourcing), which a few owning editors (see ArbCom case) refuse to acknowledge. While such maintenance tags are not meant for long term use, I can point to hundreds of articles with similar maintenance tags still on the page going back to 2007, so there is no requirement that they have to be removed after a month, especially if active debate is still going on with justified reasons. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure that point out other problematic articles makes a compelling counter-argument. Look at The Troubles, abortion, climate change, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and 9/11. All hugely controversial articles are are subject to editing disputes all the time, yet none are tagged. Disputes are routine; tagging an article with "POV" is a short-term call for wider input into a matter. We've had that for over a month now, and if there are editors that cannot articulate a reason other than "it's biased!", when the sources show otherwise, then it runs afoul of the template usage instructions. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'm pretty confident (save for 9/11) that all of those have gone through ArbCom to set what proper editing process should be and approach, in addition to the fact that those are long since "resolved" (years of facts and opinions) so that long-term issues are resolved. This is still developing and only a few months old, and things are still changing, and of course, no ArbCom review yet. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Immediate block of Tarc for violating ArbCom's ban of his use of administrator noticeboards. He is banned from any noticeboard unless it directly concerns the user. He is not allowed to bring forth any issue as he is effectively banned from the admin boards. This is a use of administrator's noticeboard for this purpose and he has fragrantly disobeyed the ArbCom restriction lended to him, and as enforcement, should be blocked. Tutelary (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Sigh Arbcom should have explained what the "normal restrictions" were. Is he banned from all topics which are not explicitly about him, or is he banned from topics that have nothing to do with him? Can someone file a clarification case?--v/r - TP 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I would think that the normal restrictions involved responding to posts about you, rather than starting a new discussion. On the face of it, this appears a clear violation of the sanctions from the case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I have initiated an WP:ARCA case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This is a very obvious violation of Arbcom sanctions against Tarc, which explicitly prohibit him from posting on AN/I and Jimbotalk. Here he is stirring up drama by starting a new thread. See: "Tarc restricted (1) For actions discussed within this case, as well as past history of disruption for which he has been sanctioned, Tarc is subject to an indefinite editing restriction. Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions. Passed 6 to 2, with 1 abstention at 10:27 am, 12 October 2014, Sunday (UTC−7)" Carrite (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Support immediate indefinite block of Tarc for violation of Arbcom sanctions. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Before we all get on the bandwagon, I do believe Tarc has violated it. However, the game is in ArbCom's park and not the community's, else we could just devoid or reject ArbCom by merely having a !vote on it. I'll file an enforcement request when I get home, or some admin can just block now. It's a pretty overt violation; after all. Tutelary (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Support for indef block of Tarc in violation of ArbCom sanctions. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC) My reading of those restrictions is that they're intended to prevent Tarc from becoming involved in ongoing noticeboard drama. His proposal to remove the NPOV tag, which is being used out of policy, is being filibustered by many editors with very few contributions outside of the gamergate debacle. This seems like a clear case of 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.' -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Anybody who keeps shouting "immediate indef block of Tarc" here needs to first read the Arbcom decision himself. We don't do indef blocks for one-off violations of arbcom restrictions, even if this turns out to be one (which I'm not entirely certain of). The length of a block is a matter of administrative discretion, but the maximum would be a month, and since he declared he believed an exemption applied (and I have no reason to doubt his good faith in that), I doubt even a short block is in order – if we think he was wrong about that, we simply close the thread down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tarc did violate his restrictions. He may have, or he may not have, I don't know. Would it make the Gamergate article to be perfect? Does his complaint have no merit? Perhaps two independent and unrelated discussions need to occur here... --Jayron32 18:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Will someone please muzzle these 3 characters...Tuletary, Carrite, and Dungeon-whatever...please? The middle one in particular, a busybody with personal animosity who has nothing to do with the topic area. The Arbcom prohibition has a "normal restrictions" clause, i.e. WP:BANEX's "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" line. I, on behalf of myself and other established editors who have been keeping the muck out of the Gamergate article, am seeking intervention in a dispute because I/we are unable to fight the constant edit-warring over this tag without resorting to edit-warring ourselves. This is textbook "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". Tarc (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) You deliberately leave out the next line. It has to be related to the ban itself. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once). asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban. appealing the ban. You are absolutely in violation of this as you are not questioning the ban of itself, but trying to us the AN board to bring action against something. ArbCom specifically sanctioned you for this, and you are violating it. Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Yep, Tarc, WP:BANEX doesn't cover this; it's only about "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". I suggest we close this thread down, and if anybody else besides Tarc wishes to have a discussion about that Gamergate tag, they can re-open a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Oh for fuck's sake, I cannot be prevented from seeking redress when there is a situation in which I am involved in requires admin input. Arbcom wanted me out of admin discussions which I had no prior involvement in, as I used to comment on ANI postings quite frequently. None of this affects the merit of SPAs and their associates trolling the Gamergate article to force a scarlet letter tag in perpetuity. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Tarc, apparently we think this is not covered as an exemption from your ban. Now don't sin again. Oppose any kind of block on Tarc, in case we were still voting on this. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm, if I remember right, hasn't Future Perfect interfered with another thread involving one of the 5 horsemen of WikiBias? Specifically this? [110] I've already archived it locally and on the web, if you're wondering, you know, just to be safe [111], as I know that users with certain privledges can modify and delete logs, not implying anything, but I'm just being cautious. --DSA510 Pls No Hate 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Drama aside, can we get some actual administrator attention to this issue and the page in general? That would be extremely helpful. FWIW as far as I can see the page meets WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, and the one outsstanding POV issue on the talk page contains calls for violating those policies and is basically and excercise in beating a dead horse, but admins are of course free to make up their own minds on that. Artw (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if I opened up a seperate AN/I for the actual issue that could do with some administrator attention? Artw (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as the POV issues remain, so should the tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• While it is quite early, given that the usual suspects at the article have generally weighed in, if an uninvolved admin would review Talk:Gamergate_controversy#NPOV_tag_removal.2C_Nov_10th.2C_late to see if there has been made a valid argument for keeping the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Which set of usual suspects? --DSA510 Pls No Hate 20:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree: Whatever the history with Tarc, it's clear that what we have is, at best, a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. The NPOV tag is a pretext under which this effort will continue indefinitely, and it is not merited by the current state of the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

...a slow-moving edit war that is being openly coordinated at 8chan in order to secure a wikipedia page more sympathetic to Gamergate and less sympathetic to its targets and critics. [citation needed]. No seriously. I haven't single a single gram of proof that any editors are engaging in 8chan in any way, but what I did see was absolute trolling on the 8chan thread, people claiming and spoofing themselves to be Ryulong and North to parody them in some sort of weird hysteria. Nonetheless, we cannot control what goes on on other sites. The neutrality has been disputed many times--Just view the freakin' archives. It's ridiculous on how we can't find a way to resolve this. But the article in its presence form methinks should be TNT'd due to all the statements it makes. (Metaphorically, not actually. Just see very little salvagable stuff that isn't a 60% compromise between both sides, leading to botched sentences and the like). Tutelary (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein:, could you provide some diffs of this? pbp 22:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, the article should be nuked, and not be recreatable until January 2015. --DSA510 Pls No H8

• I don't care what 8chan is doing, but I oppose the removal of the NPOV thread and I have nothing to do with them. The attempt to paint editors as being commanded by 8chan is not appreciated. starship.paint ~ regal 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• At the risk of being seen as emulating Baseball Bugs, this reminds of an old Baby Snooks and Daddy exchange, guest-starring Groucho Marx:

Groucho: You have a very ill-mannered child!

Daddy: Hey, resent that!

Groucho: Do you deny it?

Daddy: Noooo...I just resent it.

--Calton | Talk 02:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree: The issue brought up by several editors is that the tone of the article is in violation of the NPOV, not about some old discussion about "the nature of the controversy over Gamergate". Adversarial and hostile tone do not belong in either article or talk pages. Since much of the article is about living persons, WP:BLPSTYLE should taken as a requirement rather than a hint that article should be written in a dispassionate tone, in a non-partisan manner, and avoiding both understatements and overstatements. All three is current issues with the article and thus the tag should stay. Belorn (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• are you sure? that is not the way I read the instructions for the templates use. Template Instructions: " The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. ... This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. ... This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the talkpage, I see much discussion about BLP and NPOV issues that fits the requirements of the template. Is there something I'm missing here? KonveyorBelt 22:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you see lots of SPAs coming in and claiming "BIAS !!! Its not NEUTRAL!!! You are not covering MY SIDE!!!". But those are not " pointing to specific issues that are actionable" based on "the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources". Please point to a discussion that meets the criteria, particularly one applicable to the entire article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me, TPRoD, is that something written in a Scarlet pen? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• There is an entire RFC on concerns about the neutrality of the article. Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. I do acknowledge the majority of reliable sources do depict harassment, etc. but, to quote Masem, we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof), and overuse of near-full quotes from antiGG sources when they are not needed for explaining the key parts of the narrative. That is the specific neutrality problem in the article. Also, an additional problem in the lead-> search for Masem's post in Talk:Gamergate controversy on "18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)". starship.paint ~ regal 23:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"we are instead giving the antiGG side far too much coverage, to the point of being preachy on how "right" the antiGG side is, and how bad the proGG side is. This is evidenced by certain phrasing, excessive use of the negative words "harassment" and "misogyny" (and forms thereof)" - that's your own personal feeling. The only question is, do reliable sources use these so-called "negative words" such as "harassment" and "misogyny". And you're goddamn right they do. So you're basically whining about the fact that the article reflects reliable sources. Get over it. Quit tagging the article per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's other outlets for your frustration on the internet. Hundreds of them. This ain't one of them. Volunteer Marek  23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's of course no way that we can hide those words in the discussion of GG - they fill 90% of the sources at least. However, per IMPARTIAL and FRINGE, we cannot act like the press's opinion is the only opinion. We're not going to balance the article, but we can write it impartially to treat both sides in a clinically neutral manner as NPOV requires. This means we don't need to use lengthy pull quotes (which bring those words up again over and over) to hammer in the press's side of the argument, but we do have to mention these as serious issues that the situation has presented and has tainted the GG arguments. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

thats just crazy talk. you would need to through out our policy of UNDUE AND all of the reliable sources AND then inappropriately give the claims that have been repeatedly invalidated by the sources credence. Your TE pushing of such nonsense needs to stop. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all the discussion on the talk page, I don't see any useful reliable sources there that aren't in the article. To quote WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. There are a buttload of sources on one side of this issue, just as there are a buttload of sources on one side of the shape of the earth, but our role is not to ensure that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about ensuring that "that the flat-earthers get equal column-inches". It's about presenting and phrasing the discussion in an impartial and neutral manner, and not taking any sides. starship.paint ~ regal 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the tag, please identify specifically one of these "phrasings" or "not taking sides" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, starship, Avono, Belorn, Random, and Retartist, (all five of whom argued for keeping the tag) are all very much not SPAs as you claim. Not sure why this is being raised here as it is clearly a content dispute and not a matter for administrative attention, unless you are requesting full protection of the article, but that should be requested at RPP. You are literally just fueling the edit war.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree: I agree with the devil's advocate that this isn't an appropriate issue for ANI. If anything a failure at the talkpage should result in an RFC to get more opinions. Seeking to settle content disputes through administrative action rather than consensus is an endemic problem here. As far as the tag goes, it is clearly the case that the neutrality of the article in under dispute, and casually reading the article makes me feel that is correct. The article is pseudo-psychoanalysis written by people with no experience in psychology trying to diagnose an unorganized group as being driven to misogyny due to a cultural identity crisis. Being a reviewer of videogames doesn't qualify you to discuss the death of "the gamer" identity. I also couldn't help but notice that after skimming the article I have come absolutely no closer to understanding what these groups are even arguing about; it seems the article should be renamed Analysis of GamerGater's motives by the media.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree. The weight of reliable sources is so far tipped against them, that User:Masem has resorted to attempting to jettison a core principle of Wikipedia regarding reliable sources with tortured -- and evidence-free -- claim about how ironclad reliable sources aren't actually reliable, owing to some original reasoning rendering them suspect, which is -- somehow -- supposed to therefore allow the GamerGate partisans s,ome sort of carte blanche to tip the scales. And User:The Devil's Advocate is, of course, once more indulging in his hobby of being contrarian for its own sake. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The bulk of the sourcing about GG is opinions; there has been no verified evidence (outside of observation) that the GG movement is one based on misogyny: The pattern appears misogynistic to most of the press, but that's opinion, and not fact. That does not jettison any RSes, but instead demands we treat them as opinion pieces and not fact. The overreliance of opinions, however, does pose an NPOV problem.--MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• BLP issues: One has to be careful: the Gamergate controversy is basically a number of unfounded attacks on a number of named individuals, and a number of - to use the term people are using above - "Gamergaters" who want to promote these attacks. We can't, per WP:BLP, repeat the claims of the Gamergaters without quite a lot of sourcing explaining that there's no evidence. As such, we literally cannot give into the demands. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree - removed it once, only to be reverted by one of the involved editors here whose other edits consist of MMA and "professional" "wrestling" article minutia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disappointing that an admin someone needs to bring up my background to make a point, and only half right about that too. (yeah my post is ironic) starship.paint ~ regal 13:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree The many enthusiasts will prevent removal of the POV tag despite the fact that there is no reason for its presence other than as an expression of discontent. The talk page discussion gives no examples of problematic text, and the only justification is to point to an unclear vote. The issues presented by this topic are rare, and an uninvolved admin should remove the tag and warn anyone restoring it that a precise justification is required before addition. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's been many many other sections , outside of that one, at least by myself, through the current and the archives. The lead is not impartial (immediately focusing on an effect of the controversy and not the subject of it), and the section about the ethics concerns of the GG is written against how IMPARTIAL and FRINGE would suggest, giving those parts the benefit of the doubt. I've also repeatedly address the use of far too many lengthy quotes to drill how "GG IS BAD, OKAY". We don't have to give that side any sympathy since the sources don't do it, but we shouldn't prejudge them in WP's tone and voice. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Masem, you are inverting the very meaning of WP:FRINGE to say that when the reliable sources report something, Wikipedia should go out of our way to find less reliable sources that disagree. That's exactly what WP:FRINGE is supposed to preclude: a false equivalency in the name of a bogus balance not supported by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • That's absolutely not what I'm asking for. I've been working on the basis that the sources that are there are fixed. And they are clearly against the GG side. That can't change, the article will absolutely carry a pre-dominate "antiGG" basis. However, impartialness and balance are two different things. And no, I'm not asking either for what the proGG would really love, having them smell like flowers and trash the press side, that's absolutely impossible. I am trying to get the article to be impartial - which means that when we present any arguments in favor of proGG, we don't give those any more praise in WP's voice, and when we present arguments against GG, we don't condemn them in the same way- the balance of sources is not touched at all. Absolutely 100%, we are going to say "the mainstream press considers GG misogystic-driven movement", as that is impartial, but we cannot say "GG is a misogystic-driven movement" , or use lenghty pull quotes to keep pounding that point into place. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As an example of what I would consider impartial, this [112] is an edit (later reverted) to the section about the ethics concerns of the GG, which generally have been laughed off, for the most part, by the press. My change did not drop any sources (in fact added more critical sources of the movement), but simply reordered the language to follow how FRINGE puts it - give the minority point at least whatever reason space can be given. Which works out to a handful of sentences out of 5 total paragraphs - the balance that the credibility of the GG's ethics issues have been given in the press. But the way it is written (give or take grammar) doesn't prejudge the GG side as the prior version had done, until after we've given all we really can on the GG side. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Masem, you're really getting it wrong. "Some say X", "Some say Y", is your version of "impartial"? That's not an encyclopaedia article, that's a bunch of wish-washy nonsense. You're trying to skirt around the facts reported by reliable sources, discrediting them with "some". If you actually had to write out the substance of the "some", it would be "nearly all sources that Wikipedia usually considers reliable". This is WP:GEVAL, pure and simple, and it is wrong. I'm shocked to see that you are an administrator, given that you clearly lack comprehension of the applicable policies. RGloucester — ☎ 04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  No it's not, that's absolutely not what I have. We have a controversy, with two primary sides. The GG side which has minimal - but enough - coverage to explain what their point is, and the rest of the media/press that strongly condemned that side for its actions and its unactionable statements. As per FRINGE, like the Birthers or the 9/11 truthers, we explain - without prejudgement - what the fringe point is, and then we start explaining the criticism about that point. "Some say X" "Some say Y" is a fair way to handle that. WE have to be wishy-washy and not take any sides regardless of the press (aka court of public opinion) in presenting information, though that won't change the balance. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry Masem, but your claims about Gamergate have no basis in standard procedure and you are losing credibility. There is no pro-gamergate organization that could be described in a neutral manner per what it did and what statements it made. The only thing that actually exists is an ill-defined group of gamers, some of whom have performed despicable harassment, with many more who have supported the harassment—even at Wikipedia, we see commentary about how the claims of the victims may be a hoax. There are plenty of gamers who do not support harassment, but no reliable sources have tracked them down and written a coherent account of what they have done and what statements they have made. Therefore, there is very little material that can show pro-gamergate activity in a positive manner. The resulting article is a product of WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Again, I'm not asking to show it in a positive manner (we can't), but simply to give them a say without comment in a clinically neutral manner. For example, one thing we can document from antiGG sources is that the proGG side wants reviews for games done in a more objective manner, which most of us all agree is a contradiction of what a review is. But we can document from a high quality RS that this is there claim. And that's all we'd be able to say in any sort of favor about it. So the next sentence in the prose would be the appropriate response to that by the press, which has been one of ridicule. However, I am aware there are many many more claims that some GGers have made like "false flags" by the targets of harassment, but these claims have not been picked up by any reliable source at all, so there's absolutely no reason to include that. My point is that there is a few points made about the GG side that are made by the better reliable sources that we can address without comment or twisting the statement, and then provide a lengthy counterpoint about why that's not going to fly. It is just like we do with other FRINGE topics. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't that more or less what the second sentence of the article says? "Many supporters ... say that they are concerned about ethical issues in video game journalism" Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, but after presenting the result of the controversy (the harassment and misogyny) which is prejudging the issue and not impartial; compared to where if we simply moved that part of the first sentence to the third sentence, we ascribe no "topic" of what the controversy is broadly about (that's part of the issue of reporting it in the first place) and then present one side (second sentence), and then the counterpoint of the other side (third sentence). This is a similar way to redo the section about ethics considers as I linked in the diff above, stating that those concerns without prejudging them, and then throwing all the opinions of the press to show how fringy they are. --MASEM (t) 06:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  That's because the controversy has nothing to do with journalism ethics — outside of the pro-GG fringe, the debate is entirely framed around the campaign of vile harassment and threats made by the movement's supporters. Nobody outside the movement takes the "but ethics" claims seriously, because as has been discussed in literally dozens of reliable sources, the movement hasn't made any meaningful claims that neutral sources view as being about journalism ethics. The only people with the POV that GamerGate is about journalism ethics are GG supporters, and they are demonstrably a fringe POV, based upon the conclusions of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. What we have is a situation where everyone outside GG looks at the movement and says "Wow, there's a lot of misogynistic harassment against women who aren't even journalists, they're bizarrely demanding 'objective reviews' that don't exist, they want to silence anyone who is criticising games from a feminist perspective and are still clinging to long-discredited arguments about Zoe Quinn. Literally none of this has anything to do with journalism ethics." GG supporters respond "but ethics!" repeated ad infinitum. Wikipedia cannot fail to take into account that clear and indisputable dichotomy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It takes a quick glance at the article to see that there is bias, so I find these complaints ridiculous. If you want specifics:

Actor Wil Wheaton and former NFL player Chris Kluwe also posted criticisms of GamerGate, with Kluwe's being noted for its use of "creative insults",

Why are we randomly praising the insults of someone against GamerGate as being "creative"?

"virulent opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games."

Is one reporter, really sufficient to back up the claim that so-called "GamerGaters" are fundamentally opposed to social criticism and analysis of videogames? That is a ridiculous thing for someone to be opposed to and sounds like projecting.

"However, Hill said that Gamergate's perception of how the games industry works is "completely different" from reality"

This needs elaboration. It is just a floating sentence, it doesn't connect with the previous sentence or subsequent sentence. Can we at least **explain** what their perception of the games industry is if we are going to call it completely wrong?

"Gamergate really can't claim to have exposed anything but their own visceral meanness, which borders on fascism,"

Are we just building a coatrack to hang any negative quotes we can find about GamerGaters?

"Writing in Vox, Todd VanDerWerff said "Every single question of journalistic ethics GamerGate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with", yet "GamerGate seems to keep raging simply to do two things: harass women and endlessly perpetuate itself so it can keep harassing women."

I am confused. Earlier in this article, it is stated "Video game journalists have acknowledged that there are conflicts of interest and other ethical problems within the video game industry, with some news sites adopting new policies in response to the Gamergate controversy." This is a recurrent theme in this article, stating that there are legitimate problems with ethics in gaming journalism, but that Gamergaters haven't focused on these problems. Now we are quoting a journalist stating that Gamergaters cannot come up with a single legitimate ethics problem, and that they are driven solely to by a desire to harass women. At the very least I would like to hear what these debunked questions of journalism ethics were/are?

"In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. "

What could be less biased then mentioning that there are GamerGaters who are "known neo-nazis". I'm sure there are Republican and Democrat neo-Nazis as well, should we just mention that in passing in their respective articles?

While saying gamers were just "opposed to change for the sake of change",

So they are misogynists, with neo-Nazis, who are opposed to any type of social criticism or analysis of videogames, are opposed to change just because they hate change. I'm sure there's more in this article I would dislike if I continued reading it, but I think I've made my point, and I think those claiming that the article isn't biased have not actually read the article.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You are almost exclusively complaining about quoted text rather than anything original to Wikipedia. And this belongs on the article talk page rather than here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a point with that "creative insults" thing (it's unnecessary), but are pretty wrong about everything else. Volunteer Marek  05:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Creative insults" is a quote from one of the sources cited in the article that essentially paraphrases Kluwe's uses of the phrases "slackjawed pickletits", "slopebrowed weaseldicks", and "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol" amongst others.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@ All 3 of you: it is obviously biased to cherry pick a bunch of random insults and place them them throughout an article, please explain how mentioning that there are Neo-Nazis who are also gamergaters is not "unnecessary", and please consider issues like how repeatedly characterizing a subject with negative adjectives while applying positive ones like "creative" to the criticizer of the subject can generate an overall biased tone to the article. Please see the article on Hitler and notice how it doesn't excessively pepper the prose with disparaging adjectives and quotes about Hitler, but actually tries to inform the reader about the subject. That is what an NPOV article is.AioftheStorm (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we really allowing the constant comparisons to Hitler on ANI when it has been banned from the talk page? But I digress.

If you would read the reference being cited for the "Neo-Nazi" mention, it would go on to say how Gamergate has been co-opted by right-wing conservatives who don't give a damn about video games or video game journalism and are instead people who are anti-women, anti-feminism, or anti-minorities. And "creative insults" is a quote in the reference cited. Everything is in the references being cited. They are all marked as quotations from the citations. Read the references instead of going on and on about bias that doesn't exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been to the talkpage, so I have no idea about special Hitler sanctions, and I fail to see how pointing out that the Hitler article is NPOV despite the overwhelming amount of sources being extremely negative about him would be in anyways problematic or how it constitutes "constant comparisons to Hitler". You have not provided any argument about the merits of inclusion of details such as there are known Neo-Nazis who are gamergaters, you have simply and inadequately responded that all these factoids have appeared in reliable sources. Inclusion in a reliable source is not sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, there are concerns such as NPOV and there are mechanisms such as placing tags at the tops of articles in order to ensure that those concerns are addressed. And since I can't use Hitler I will bring up another generic "bad guy", Commodus, and point out that his article isn't hodgepodge of negative attack quotes. Are there thousands of negative attack quotes about Commodus? Most certainly, probably enough to fill hundreds of articles. But it would be similarly biased if it contained those.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Hitler" comparisons prevail in offsite discussions. And I answered our questions regarding the "Neo-Nazi" mention and the "creative insults" question. Not to mention that there's nothing on Gamergate controversy that says "this group is evil". There is a statement saying what they've done is misogynistic which is a statement supported by like 75% of the citations on that article so I don't know why people constantly compare the Gamergate article to the articles Hitler, Commodus, the KKK, and plenty of other people or groups considered morally "evil".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Which part of your response explains why the mention of Neo-Nazis in this passage is at all relevant:

In The Guardian, Jon Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis, it almost exclusively attacked "others" and those it sees as "biased", it has hit lists of undesirable journalists, and used military-style hyperbole. He also said that any attempts to engage with GamerGate was seen as an act of provocation while silence on the matter was seen as hostility. He also said that when The Escapist tried to get a balanced piece from people on both sides of the argument, the male Gamergate interviewees were "eager to provide and flesh out a mythology that rationalises hatred towards the feminist/progressive element in games", leading Stone to compare them to Rush Limbaugh and Richard Littlejohn, while any female participants sought anonymity. He also compared them to the men's rights movement in that they sidelined any discussion on sexism for which they may hold a form of responsibility, and instead make themselves out to be victims.[96]

The bolded part could be completely removed and it would do nothing to change the meaning of the other parts of the passage. You seem to be arguing that mentioning neo-Nazis is relevant because the source connects it to groups like neo-Nazis infiltrating the Gamergaters. But the Wikipedia article provides no such context, instead it provides a thoughtless list of negative tidbits culled from a source with no indication of importance.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it can't be removed. It's a key part of Stone's point that GamerGate is being co-opted by fringe groups to push their own ends, taking advantage of the fact that GG has no organized leadership or objectives which could steer it away from political extremism. The Guardian is one of the most respected English-language news sources on the planet and an indisputable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"a key part of Stone's point" that is never presented in the Wikipedia article. All Wikipedia does is state there are known neo-Nazis who are gamergate supports, an obviously inflammatory salacious detail, and the only time Stone mentions neo-nazis is in this one line "Marching under the incredibly vague banner of “journalistic ethics” allows bona fide neo-nazis to hold hands with ticked-off customers and claim common cause.". He could have replaced neo-nazis with any other extremist group without changing his message; the fact that he mentions neo-nazis is hardly a "key part" of Stone's op-ed. All Stone is arguing is that anyone can march under their banner due to its vague goal, and what Wikipedia has instead reported is simply that "Stone called GamerGate "a swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment", saying it included known neo-nazis". There are obvious differences between how Wikipedia and Stone are presenting this: Stone uses it to highlight a point which could've been highlighted with any fringe group, Wikipedia mentions it in it of itself. Besides this nobody has still addressed the fact that the article is a coatrack of unnecessarily inflammatory quotes.AioftheStorm (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• You know, some may say certain specific GamerGate concerns about ethics in journalism are fringe or not (can you really call it fringe when numerous major outlets adjust their policies in response?), but the view that ethics in journalism is a major or predominant concern of GamerGate is hardly fringe. Numerous sources, including ones cited in the article, agree that GamerGate is about ethics in gaming journalism. Some are fully sympathetic, others see that as being overshadowed by harassment, but there is really no way anyone can look over the entire body of sources and come to the conclusion that agreeing with GamerGate is akin to believing the Earth is a square. It is a minority view, but not a fringe view. The majority view is definitely not that somehow these concerns are just a smokescreen, though there are some sources presenting that view. You would not get that from reading the article in its current state, because editors like Tarc have been allowed to run wild. Best way to describe the majority view would be, basically, that people feel any legitimate ethics concerns they have are overshadowed by harassment. Honestly, whatever the Arbs intended when they allowed Tarc certain unstated exceptions for posting at ANI, I am pretty sure "gathering a posse to edit war and canvass a discussion where I am involved" was not what they had in mind. Pretty sure such a use of ANI was actually the opposite of their intentions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  It's a major predominant concern of Gamergate, but their concerns are as a whole fringe unto themselves because outside of the "Patreon" clauses put forth at Kotaku and the Escapist and Polygon, there was no actual corruption to speak of. They just added the clause to just make sure that these idiotic complaints ledged against the people involved won't happen again. There obviously is corruption in video game journalism, but it's not coming from any personal relationships between indie developers and any people writing on Kotaku or Polygon who may have sent them $5 on their crowdfunding campaigns.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The editor-in-chief of Destructoid resigned over some questionable activities on GameJournPros dude and you actually fucking know that shit too since you at one point reluctantly added it to the article. Sure, that sort of stuff is not getting widespread coverage and when issues GamerGate does discuss get covered, such as Shadow of Mordor or the Aussie Gaming media stuff, GamerGate is rarely ever mentioned by these outlets, so you obviously know it is not limited to Patreon donations. On another note, why the hell are any of us discussing this at ANI again? What admin action is being requested?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  It was also removed from the article for BLP reasons seeing as issues weren't confirmed. And Gamergate didn't break that story IIRC. And the administrative request is to deal with editors that demand that the NPOV tag remain despite common sense on Wikipedia saying otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  You are wrong about GamerGate not having anything to do with that, but leaving that aside, how exactly is an administrator supposed to do something about those editors or the tag? Tarc claimed most of the people who objected to removing the tag were SPAs, but all you have to do is look at the names I mentioned to realize that ain't gonna fly. Is he calling on admins to choose sides in a dispute and enforce it? Are we now using ANI to address content issues? Seriously, what the hell are people agreeing to above? That is not particularly clear to me. Looks like Tarc is just trying to rally an army behind him to push his position in a content dispute and the others are signing on for the task or is just looking to get an admin to make a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  They're supposed to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the editors themselves cannot or will not. The NPOV tag does not belong on the article as a way for the gaters to say "WE DISAGREE WITH THIS" when there are no valid complaints regarding the neutrality of the page, particularly when so many administrators and editors have been extensively disagreeing with the actions of several established editors pushing a POV under the guise of seeking neutrality as well as the various obvious single purpose accounts (that is brand new accounts created to stir the pot) and accounts revived by Redditors and the 4chan to 8chan exodus to get past the semi-protected status. But we have no real rule on this, at least not until ArbCom actually decides that Gamergate is worth their time and the concept of "zombie accounts" gets written into Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except, the tag is being kept because there are various disputes regarding the article's neutrality that are not resolved. Some of them are long-running issues that have never been resolved. The only reason the article is in its current state is because you and a group of other editors have spent far more time than anyone else systematically slanting all material towards your POV then revert as much as possible to insure your preferred version sticks simply because other people tire of dealing with you guys. Once again, why is this an admin issue? The validity of the tag is fundamentally a content dispute. Despite what you and Tarc have said, a very large number of established editors with significant pre-GamerGate editing history this year have been objecting to your edits and the attempts to remove the tag. You appear to be either canvassing or looking for a supervote.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia. And no. This "very large number of established editors with significant pre-Gamergate editing history this year" almost exclusively refers to the "zombie accounts" issue. Nearly all of these people have done nothing on Wikipedia in the past 3 months other than push the Gamergater POV. Barely any of them have touched an article that is not in some way related to Gamergate because every time someone tries to get something done on the article the clarion call is sent out to r/KotakuInAction and /gg/ to keep everything in the status quo and hope that they get rid of the people that they disagree with through whatever vague attempts to game people into being so fed up with them that they get banned. There are so many more people in good standing who are established editors who are here more often and most of them are administrators who are looking at this dispute and finding it so impossible to get through because of the constant disruption happening from offsite that is only being enabled by the editors effectively on their side. That's why they're exclusively looking to discredit myself, Tarc, TaraInDC, TheRedPenOfDoom, and NorthBySouthBaranof and not giving a shit about anything editors like you or Tutelary have done. That's why there's a thread on /gg/ right now imploring people to go through my over 200k edits looking for anything that they can feed to Retartist to use if the arbcom case gets accepted. Why they've gone to ED and Wikipedia Review and Wikipedocracy to find whatever they can against me. Why they brought up banned users I had had a hand in getting rid of who released my old emails or other personal details that had no reason to end up on any website. It shouldn't go this Hubble Deep Field deep but here we are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "POV" you claim I possess is the same POV as the mainstream media looking at Gamergate from the outside in. It's the POV that you and several other editors share with the Gamergate movement that has no place on Wikipedia.

  You don't understand NPOV, it is not to select the POV of the right/mainstream/winning side and reflect that and remove the other sides POV, it is to have a neutral POV that doesn't apply value judgements to any of the sides.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The "neutral POV" is one that completely discounts one "side" of the "debate"'s very arguments for existing. Gaters are no different than people going "Grassy Knoll" or "Obama is a Kenyan".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  The neutral POV isn't whatever POV you think is correct. Flat-Earthers are obviously wrong about their views, but an NPOV article would a)Report their views, b)Report the contradicting view of all known science, c)Not adopt the condescending and incredulous tone that most people have when discussing people who believe the world is flat.AioftheStorm (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  Except Gamergate controversy isn't an article about the Gamergate movement, as denoted by its title.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You know, I am just going to stop addressing this shit. The arbitration request is open and evidence from the past week will be provided if necessary. Sadly, you and Tarc do not even seem to get that you are digging a hole for yourselves with these remarks. P.S. Auerbach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Appending "Controversy" to the end of anything suffixed with -gate is a redundancy, and it was only done here because Gamergate was already the name of a type of ant. The fact that you think this article isn't about GamerGaters and doesn't need to report their beliefs illustrates how badly it needs a rewrite, and the importance of the NPOV template at the top.AioftheStorm (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  "GamerGate" the movement doesn't meet WP:GNG as much as "GamerGate" the controversy surrounding the movement does. The article is not solely about "GamerGaters" so there's no reason to frame any information in the article in any way that legitimizes their causes at any stage of their history because the world at large doesn't believe them. The article can contain their claims as to being all about ethics in video game journalism but that's not the majority view point on what GamerGate has become. The reliable sources used in the article depict GamerGate as an anti-feminist backlash in video game culture rather than any sort of valid consumer movement and that the claims of ethics (whether it be pointing out alleged corruption in the video game media or the demands that video game reviews be more objective) are not valid or are being used as a front to further the campaign of hatred towards the women in video game development or the feminist critics who dared to speak their mind, no matter how many times they can say that the person who sent the shooting threat to USU was some "Brazilian clickbait blogger" or deny that anyone in their movement has been involved in any of the publications of addresses and phone numbers or the constant harassment and death threats sent to people. Multiple people completely uninvolved in video games journalism have made these distinctions. And there have been multiple people who have identified that the various talking head heroes of GamerGate are a bunch of right-wing pundits who have had nothing to do with video games before but have had plenty to do with anti-feminism. "But ethics" is a meme now because no one takes the demands of Gamergate seriously until someone has to call the FBI to report extremely specific and violent threats. All of this is supported by the sources in the article. Except maybe the "Brazilian clickbait blogger" bit because I don't think any reliable source has actually covered that but it is a constant point of contention on /gg/ when they have to complain about Sarkeesian.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close please, this is clearly a content dispute. There is already a talk page discussion about the removal of the tag, and (apparently) there is no consensus to remove it. Please note I am completely uninvolved about GamerGate, I am just tired to see on daily basis inconsistent and sometimes frivolous GamerGate threads at WP:AN. Cavarrone 09:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware this is the first thread in at least a week because that was when the general sanctions were put in place. And "no consensus to remove" is inorrect because the people arguing for retention have no guideline or policy based reason for retention. It is being used to say "We don't like how this article depicts our side" when their side doesn't have a majority view point on the matter as stated time and time again. Perhaps this is a content dispute, but it needs an administrator to end it seeing as multiple uninvolved editors, one of whom was an administrator, all attempted to remove the tag based on their understanding of the events ([113], [114], [115], [116]) and all were immediately reverted ([117], [118], [119], [120])—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree This is an attempt to create a false consensus in a less viewed part of Wikipedia, this discussion belongs on its talk page, as it was placed before, and time and time again, there's been NO consensus, and there's a real concern about NPOV Loganmac (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • HUH? how is bringing in outside views to "a less viewed part of Wikipedia" an attempt to create a "false consensus"??????-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disagree There is NPOV problem and every source, no matter how reliable, is labeled "fringe" or "unreliable" unless it supports a particular narrative, then the source is "okay" for that purpose. Tarc, for violating Arbcom sanctions and forum shopping should be topic banned at a minimum based on the general sanctions as applied to the topic. Amping up the drama should be dealt with extreme prejudice. The tag should remain until consensus is reached which has not happened. --DHeyward (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• • again, what specific issues in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DHeyward. There are too many marginal sources in the article. It doesn't matter what they say or who they support, anything less than the highest quality mainstream sources should be removed. I'll put a list on the article talk page presently. aprock (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with too many marginal sources. Lines like this one from the online-only "Paste Magazine": "In Paste magazine, Garrett Martin suggested that any concerns about ethics in journalism were merely a cover for attacking women, even if some sincerely believed otherwise." It directly contradicts other sources that state that gamergater's legitimate concerns are drown out by misogyny, by now stating that they they have no legitimate concerns and are all about misogyny. And what even are their concerns? The article never mentions them, because according to editors here the article is about criticism of gamergaters and not gamergaters and therefore their views don't need to be presented. This article is literally nothing more than a disparate collection of criticisms of gamergaters culled from op-eds, and serves only to highlight the fact that our site is unequipped to handle controversial topics.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources have been discussed on the talk page. The removal of content based on a small but persistent group of editors has created the NPOV issue and is the exact reason why NPOV tags exist. The contant discussion is extremely long and that should be the first clue that there is an NPOV problem. The whole NotYourShield meme was created out of this. Everyone in touch with reality knows this is the case but the current narrative removes this perspective based on arbitrary interpretations on the realiabilty of sources. It's dubious at best and deceitful at worst. WP should not be a social justice cheerleader nor should it be a shill for gamer viewpoints. It's currently biased as a social justice cheerleader whence the NPOV tag. The one constant theme in discussion is acknowledgement that other prominent viewpoints exist but because of bizarre interpretations of policy, they can't be reflected in the article. That's an NPOV problem. --DHeyward (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please actually identify specific "arbitrary misrepesentations". Yes, there are a bunch of rabble that repeatedly appear chanting the mantra "UNFAIR! BIAS! POV!" But, no one is, as is required for the NPOV banner, identifying specific instances in the article that are actually bias. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's on the talk page. Are you unaware on the shear volume of talk pages comments? Are you unaware that sites like "gawker" are acceptable for on narrative but deemed unreliable for another? That's the convoluted logic on the talk page that justifies the NPOV tag. We cannot summarize the volume of talk arguments here. It's a POV problem that is obvious by the shear number of talk page comments that challenge NPOV with no compromise or collaboration. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what immediate admin action is needed here. I'd appreciate it if Orangemike could keep an eye on the page and talk page discussion (as we have a shortage of uninvolved admins), but I don't think there's anything here which looks like an "incident" Protonk (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: The admin action requested is a determination of whether or not there is a community consensus for whether the conditions for placing/removing the tag have been met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of tag. Tags are supposed to be for actual problems with articles, not for stubborn but fringe groups to register their continued disapproval with the correct application of Wikipedia policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Pointless !vote to keep tag The neutrality of the article has been disputed so many times. It's just short of I believe...uh...an insane number. But this !vote is pointless because you can't vote on content. And specifically administrators trying to use their tools to endorse or deny content I think is a big step too far; and a dangerous precedent. Tutelary (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've hit on a brainstorm of why there is the consternation on this article, and recognizing that there are two different types of POV here: the one that is coming from the proGG side that would want the article to more reflective of their side - something we absolutely cannot do given the sources - and the writing style POV issues that myself and others have pointed out. I have proposed an idea of rethink the structure of the article to make it 100% clear that the article primarily about the controversy over the harassment, and not as much about the "controversy" that the GG movement wants addressing; with that clarity in the setup of the article, there is absolutely no way we can justify the first POV aspect, and I'm confident we can remove the POV nature on the writing style since we won't be kludging the two aspects together. More details can be found at [121], if anyone wishes to comment. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordination

I was asked above to provide evidence of lobbying at 8chan. See https://8chan.co/gg/2.html (this will scroll to a later page eventually, of course) where a thread specifically seeks to gather evidence against NorthBySouthBaranof, Ryulong, Tarc, RedPenOfDoom, TaraInDC, Gamaliel, and Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. Another wikipedia thread is here: https://8chan.co/gg/res/478105+50.html.

But 8chan aside, there is an overwhelming likelihood that this page will be edit-warred indefinitely by GamerGate supporters. As long as they can muster a few editors at the talk page, they can perpetually argue that removing the NPOV tag is not supported by consensus because support for removing the tag will never be unanimous. This will ultimately require a policy decision. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

8chan's GamerGate board talks about stuff concerning GamerGate? Shock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sausage making of wikipedia articles is not about gamergate. The targeting of editors is certainly a disruptive tactic. aprock (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can say finally that collecting on wiki links is a 'disruptive tactic'. (No literally, that's what they were doing. Though they kind of got carried away by taking screenshots of Ryulong's Twitter and trying to submit or aver that is valid proof.) Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, this is the new thread. "WP ARBCOM GENERAL" I'm merely monitoring it for links. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Close per WP:DR policy - stop the spillover drama over a content dispute tag

• Propose close as beyond scope of ANI per WP:DR, section 4. The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the place to raise disputes over content or conduct. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). This request was started by an editor under arbcom sanction and should have been WP:BOOMERANGed immediately and closed so dispute resolution can occur. There is no action that is immediately necessary on a 3 month dispute. Close and salt gamergate content disputes. --DHeyward (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• And.. what do you want the admin to do? - This is WP:ANI, these kind of things should be handled on the article's talkpage. In my opinion I would go ahead and even say that the article should be fully protected until a consensus is worked out here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

@Mdann52: You were predictably and almost immediately reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the restoration (eg removing the tag) per this close decision. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Close is absolutely and positively gaming the consensus policy

One user cannot close this heavy, hard hitting discussion because apparently 5 'agree' and 5 'disagree' votes is now a consensus towards the 'agree' side. When did we started getting into this? WP:ANI cannot be used to deal with content disputes, and for the 'No discussion ongoing on talk page.' Are you freakin' serious? Check out the archives and archives and the just recently, the NPOV dispute section and the like. There was absolutely on going discussion so I've reverted such a close. There is positively and absolutely NO CONSENSUS to remove the tag in any formality. More on his close, he also reverted the tag before his close, citing WP:ANI...before he closed the discussion based on the false premise that there was no active discussion. Tutelary (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have restored the close; you're clearly involved in this controversy and should not be unilaterally undoing a close merely because you disagree with the outcome. Consensus is not !voting, and all consensus decisions must fundamentally comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with this closure. Discussion at the talk page is clearly ongoing, consensus over there is overwhelming right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

1) it's !notavote. and 2) mere claims of "bias" without identifying specific actionable instances where the article is not representative of the mainstream sources is not a valid rationale for the tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: As for the timing issue, If you are going to bring up a 2 minute gap between me removing the tag and saving the close, that is stupid (the difference is actually due to an edit conflict if I remember correctly, or I may have just forgotten to click save, realised my error, then completed it). As I've mentioned on my talk page, leaving a tag in place that is clearly having no effect is like tagging an article for notability while at AfD. In this case, there should not be a tag in place, as discussions keep breaking down and starting up. As and when there is a serious discussion into this, then this may be worth revisiting, but only when a NPOV can be shown, which IMO as an uninvolved editor prior to this, it has not. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've really been trying to justify it and even changed up the close trying to justify it. First, you say 'no valid discussion on talk page' to the close, making it biased and absolutely false. Then, when other editors complained, you didn't revert it. You still haven't reverted it. You've kept it there even though there was blatantly no consensus at all in this WP:ANI thread for ANI to rule in a content dispute. One single editor--you decided to instigate this 'close' and edit warred for it to stay in spite of its problems. Now, I'd like to ask you a single question; Was this a conduct dispute or a content dispute, in your eyes? If it's a conduct dispute, then you're in violation of closing a discussion in which you can't possibly enact the solution. (a violation of non admin closure) If it's a content dispute, then ANI cannot help and you've extended ANI's scope which is in itself a violation of its sovereignty and authority. And what's up with moving the goalposts? Seriously. First 'No active discussion' -> Active discussion starts -> 'No useful discussion started, just same rehasing' -> 'No uninvolved editor says there's a problem' (that's actually a Quest for Knowledge saying that there's a problem, btw) What's next? 'NPOV tag stays out until Tutelary gets off of my back?' Come now, don't you see the problematic nature of your close? I'm going to ask that you self revert the closure out of respect for other editors' remarks on it, not just myself. Tutelary (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct that it's not a vote. The problems with the article are clearly outlined, from tone to sourcing to balance and bias. Of course the tag should remain. The only reason it's been removed is because one side doesn't like it, and that's a problem regardless of what side you fall on the debate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

POV tag at Gamergate controversy being used as a scarlet letter Pt 2

Why was this discussion closed (and against consensus)? Many uninvolved editors (such as myself) have pointed out several issues with the article. The only editors who want the tag removed are heavily involved in this dispute. If anything, this should have been closed to keep the NPOV tag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to be a non-involved editor. If you do have specific and actionable NPOV concerns I would suggest you point them out in Talk:Gamergate controversy. This discussion should be closed. — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I only have one edit to the article itself (a style change) - I don't think that make me involved. The thread that you point it is about a poorly worded, confusing sentence, not about NPOV. And for the record, I have attempted to provide an outside view on the article talk page.[122] Perhaps you don't intend it this way, but you give the appearance of wanting to close down legitimate discussion, rather than resolve disputes in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree on this, it says a lot about the current POV pushers already mentions when they worry about the POV tag, they might want people to take the article content as fact Loganmac (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion does not say the article is neutral, or there are no issues, just that there is not a consensus to include the POV tag. Anyone interpreting my close as saying the POV is perfect is not reading it in the manner intended; Personally, I have no opinion on the tone of the article, as I really have not read the article nor the sources enough to determine this. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

However, there was ongoing discussion specifically about the tag; this section started by Volunteer Marek (a "put up or shut up"), I responded to with my specific issues as to why the NPOV tag should stay. And that's one of several sections about NPOV at the present talk page. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

...Which appears to support the action taken here, with you admitting people are refusing to build a consensus. If this is the case, then a tag encouraging discussion is not going to do it's job in any way. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

But the tag should help (discounting the fact/influence of external pressures to make changes to this article in a certain way) bring new voices to the discussion that might provide more insight or the like, as long as there remains a significant dispute. I will point out that no cleanup tag has a time limit on which actions should or should not be taken - I've seen articles tagged since 2007 with one or more of these. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And I do want to be clear, there's two ways that the POV tag could be taken. One way is the way that the external groups want to push for, that being that the article doesn't cover GG enough, puts it in far too much a bad light because of the weight of press criticism, etc. The problem is the sources cannot at all support that point, per NPOV/UNDUE/WEIGHT. If the POV tag was being used only for that, I would be completely behind it's removal. But I and others have pointed out the second way that the tag should be taken, in that while the article, broadly, meets the appropriate balance required by NPOV and available sourcing, the wording and approach is not an impartial take on the situation, which could be improved; the idea is not to make GG look any better (Because the sources prevent us), but to at least tone down the vitriol that the press has towards GG, that is presented in a manner that gives a strong non-impartial view of the situation. That's a POV situation that can be addressed and discussed, if people would work towards consensus, and thus a reason to keep the tag. (I'll follow any ANI decision on that, of course, I'm just expressing the reasons here) --MASEM (t) 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How is is IMPARTIAL to misrepresent by "toning down" the external commentary that has been directed at GG? "Toning down" would in fact seem to be antithetical to WP:IMPARTIAL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Preppy12 and IP accounts on Christian Serratos

This account and a few IPs that all geolocate to the same area (presumably the same editor) have been repeatedly removing all prose references to a TV show this actress had a recurring role in. There has been no good rationale given, either in edit summaries or on the talk page, for removing what is arguably her breakout role. Instead, there have been bizarre personal attacks on another user (1 2 3) against User:Greg Fasolino who has obviously not made any of the edits this user speaks of. There are also disingenuous edit summaries given for removing the contested information (1 2). I considered just going to AIV for a block and semiprotection, but this edit was genuinely helpful, albeit with another bizarre accusation in the edit summary, and if my suspicions regarding the user and the IP accounts are correct, was likely caused by himself. Also, the article was semiprotected after the first barrage of IP edits and these restarted about a week after the protection expired. Perhaps some sort of rangeblock is also in order? If this is a matter felt to be handled at AIV I'm happy to go there instead Cannolis (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Preppy12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also made this edit, in which they claim that they were "assigned" the page.--Auric talk 00:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely, but maybe it's a school assignment? In that case, this should be referred to the education program noticeboard somehow. Epicgenius (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful, given the very strange personal attacks that have been made and the counterproductive edits. I'd think that anything posted under an educational program would be seen by his/her instructors. Cannolis (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Now he's posted a rambling post on my talk page (diff) in which he refers to "her team". ('now he takes things down that her team places up) and uses the plural "us". I think this is starting to look like a competence issue. --Auric talk 13:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Could there also be some sort of COI or paid editing concern? The assigning, team, and "us" pieces make it hit a few alarms in my head for a shared account of some sort that is possibly being paid and/or has a COI. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

COI from someone with some sort of personal relationship is not impossible, paid seems less likely. The English writing level of this editor ("do harmful against the law type of things") seems to be rather basic, and I'd think a PR professional would be a bit more savvy. My money's on insane fan. Cannolis (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by Djcheburashka, proposed ban(s?)

This user has been here since April 13, 2014 and has already racked up quite a few warnings (see User talk:Djcheburashka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)). As of recent, they've been generally disruptive. Actions include:

• Bad faith AfDs on Feminist school of criminology and Dark figure of crime. (See this, and this)
• Removal of comments from AfDs ([123], [124])
• Template regulars or sending them nasty messages when they revert their edits (e.g., [125], [126], [127])
• Assuming bad faith and accusing editors ([128], [129])
• Edit war on Dasha Zhukova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Roscelese's own talk page User talk:Roscelese (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hounding/following Roscelese ([130], [131], [132], started section on Talk:War on Women soon after Roscelese edited)

User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault (see this edit, edit, this edit, this edit, this whole NPOVN mess, edits on False accusation of rape, edits on David Lisak) as well as financial crimes (e.g., this BLP proposal, edits on Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin).

I won't say they haven't made constructive edits, but their recent actions have garnered the attention of a number of editors. But the editor history on their talk page speaks volumes. I would at the very least suggest an IBAN with Roscelese and a TBAN on all things sexual crime related (as that's where the most disruptive behavior has occurred). But honestly I get a big WP:NOTHERE feeling and think a site ban might be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They seem to have a desire to drag uninvolved parties into this dispute that specifically don't like Roscelese[133]-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Some more reading, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#User:Djcheburashka, User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Page protection... and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Harassment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban. The disruption in areas related to women is self-evident, but the user's behavior at Dark figure of crime is also illustrative, and additionally, his harassment of various users (including stalking and canvassing) is something that there's no reason to think will not happen again in other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support siteban. I too thought an iBan would be enough, but I no longer think so. Only a community imposed siteban will do. They lack the ability to see that their behavior is the problem. They lack "behavioral competence". Their behavior is very much like the blocked User:Worldedixor. They could be twins. A huge timesink, with denial and lots of blaming of others. This comment of mine, while written to Worldedixor, applies here too. I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor. The inability to process and accept advice creates huge problems. Both of them need to be sitebanned. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Response This is a bad-faith request by a pair of editors who engage in improper tag-team editing with a third, User:Roscelese. After I found serious sourcing problems with a page and tried to discuss them on the talk page, and R refused to do so or allow editing, I started a POV discussion (properly). R then reverted the POV page repeatedly, causing me to ask for protection and administrator intervention. In fact, it was me who requested the protection on those pages so the "edit war" would stop and the dispute resolution process could proceed. The retaliation for that is what brought us here.

There are a lot of accusations here, which should be addressed, and I apologize in advance that because of the shotgun approach above I need a bit of length to respond:

I do not have a "bone to pick" regarding sexual assault. It is true that after a decade practicing law, when I see someone say that the false-reporting rate for 'any' crime is 6%, it makes me laugh my coffee out my nose. We're discussing this about sexual assault only because that crime has political implications, and wherever there's politics there are extremist academic claims alongside the mainstream discussion. (To preempt the inevitable misogyny allegations: My view is that rape is probably underreported more than most other crimes, but also probably falsely reported more than most other crimes. One reason is that rape laws are very complex, and people often believe they've been raped when, under the law of the jurisdiction, they have not.) Anyway, when I saw stuff on the page that didn't make sense to me, my response was to go into detail, read the sources, and try to improve the page. I thought my edits and proposals should have been relatively uncontroversial since they were quite moderate -- expanding the discussion of sources, putting things in chronological order. The vehemence and nastiness that followed is part of why I suspect bad faith -- something I did not raise until the nastiness had gone on for an extended period of time and involved multiple personal attacks.

EvergreenFir became involved then. She and R use tag-team editing that page and a number of other pages.

There was no edit war on Dasha Zhukova. I and others revised the page over a period of time after opening discussion on the talk page and soliciting comment. The page has had a not-very-often vandalism issue where periodically someone will drive-by and without comment try to revert the page to the preceding form. A few nights ago an editor (one not otherwise involved here), claiming to be fixing honorifics, brought the page to the preceding form. (I find behavior like that to be curious, but that's a topic for another day.) I reverted the changes and asked the user to open discussion on the talk page and seek consensus if he wanted to change the article. That's when Calton, who had no prior involvement with the page but had made a series of nasty comments on the discussions about the Rosceles issue, showed up to unrevert my revert. That's straightforward disruptive editing, and I left the template along with an explanation of the page's history. I invited Calton, if he cares about the page, to raise the issue on the article talk page. He declined. I also invited him to explain to me why he felt my disruption template was improper, and offered to self-revert if he had a good explanation. He declined again.

Regarding whether I have a "bone to pick" with financial crimes - well, I suppose that is true in a sense, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of financial frauds. My edits to these pages Stratton Oakmont, Enron scandal, Donald Trump, Jordan Belfort, Joseph Borg (regulator), Ray Nagin, were generally adopted, usually after raising the issues for consensus and discussion on the talk pages. Early on I wasn't as good about that, but I've gotten better. I've also made a proposal regarding WP:BLP and convicted felony fraudsters, because I think there are special issues that arise in fact-checking fraudster biography claims. Many of my other edits on these pages involved removing pointless cutesy biographical detail sourced only to the subjects' memoirs.

The actual edits that this is about concern pages where sources have been misrepresented in favor of a study by David Lisak. Lisak, during his now-over career as an academic researcher, published studies claiming, among other things, that 16% of men are confessed rapists, 9% of the men on college campuses are "serial rapists," and 8% are child molesters. The edit to David Lisak that they object to, is that for the lede I want to use Lisak's own description of his occupation from his website of his occupation. Described on this site as a "leading researcher" in his field and expert who helps prosecutors, in fact Liskan has no affiliation with any research institution -- he was rejected by the academy and the courts a decade or so ago. He is now a consultant who gives speeches on sexual assault. A political sector continues to promote his work, and they're large enough for it to not be WP:FRINGE (barely), and that's fine. I don't think it should be marginalized. But neither should Lisak be lionized, nor should the wiki declare that any disagreement with him has been "discredited," as though opposing work, which is the majority of the field, were the intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers. I think the pages should simply relate the facts, saying what the studies say, what Lisak actually did, and what he actually does. They don't need to take a side.

I understand that B, E and R disagree with me about Lisak's views. This does not make my participation "disruptive" -- it means issues should be resolved through the talk pages, and if necessary the POV dispute and other dispute resolution mechanisms. I have tried to do that. This is the retaliation.

Regarding Brangifer: He claims to be a neutral, said any pages where he and R both edited must be incidental and he doesn't know about it, etc. But, see here: Talk:War_on_Women. The substantive issue with that page concerns one half of a single sentence. Another editor tried to take it out as unsourced and wrong. R objected, and bullied him off. I took a look at the sources and realized he was right. I therefore opened a talk page discussion on the subject. (To preempt the bias accusation, my view is that what Republicans were doing on womens' rights issues, which they never really stopped, are bad enough to speak for themselves, but are exaggerated and distorted in the page.) There is a pattern here: editor find a problem with a page and attempt to help. The response (most vehemently from R, usually with support from B or E or both, sometimes others) is a refusal to discuss substantive issues and torrent of accusations of bias and incompetence, threats, disruption templates, etc. Going through some of these, I realized that in some cases, I agreed with the editors who had been bullied-off (in most cases I did not). I therefore have started to re-raise those issues. An interaction or site ban would, of course, allow them to (falsely) maintain that there's a consensus in favor of their version of the pages, again without having to address the issues that led multiple editors to object. Similarly, an interaction ban, where the other editor has touched a slew of pages on topics in connection with their own agenda, would simply prevent someone they disagree with from joining the discussion, allowing the continued claim of a consensus that doesn't really exist.

If you think I may have been harassive or abusive, I refer you to the comments that Brangifer and Calton have been leaving on my talk page. Nasty, personal, aggressive, pointless --- and neither of them has said a thing about the underlying issues that led to this, which have to do with improper sourcing, POV issues, and a refusal to participate in either the consensus-building or POV dispute resolution process.

Regarding templates, I stand by every template I applied. Regarding templates for "regulars" -- is that a joke? Even if it mattered whether the person was a "regular," the templates were proper. R has received similar warnings and block threats from numerous editors and several admins for what has been a multi-year career of abusive behavior, bullying, improperly using templates herself to bully and harass other users, violating blocks, and so forth. Mine were comparatively mild. Calton, I haven't checked whether he has, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't considering his self-proclaimed role as Batman-of-the-wiki.

Regarding the afd for two pages: I realize now that I made technical errors when I nominated those pages and in response to a vote from R that I'd misinterpreted as another improper reversion attempt. Those were my mistakes, and I take responsibility for them, but they were technical in nature, not bad faith. There was a substantive error in one of the requests, though. Because of that and all of the static, I have not re-nominated either page. I do intend to return to them once the rest of this has calmed down and they can be discussed (unless they are improved in the meantime) without all the strum und drang. Both pages have serious writing and lack-of-source problems for years that no-one's bothered to fix. Why did R get involved in this so quickly? Either because she was tracking what I was doing, or because of tag-teaming with evergreenfir; the pages seem to be linked to her forthcoming PhD dissertation.

Regarding this 'I'm really tired of newbies coming here and thinking they know better than every experienced editor.' from B, I thought we didn't have a hierarchy on wikipedia? We have editors, we have administrators, and we have ArbCom, but that's really it. Editors' work is supposed to be evaluated based on the quality of the work, not the tenure of the editor. Doesn't B's comment really say it all?

Regarding "hounding" and bringing in others, I have gone through many of R's edits after seeing how she dealt with mine and problems on a few other pages. Most of the edits I looked at seem to be perfectly good. Some of them, on women's rights issues in particular, seem to have real issues. R has had run-ins with a number of people on those issues over the years. Each time, there's a core group (e.g., E, R, sometimes B) who seem to track each other and show up quickly so they can declare consensus. WP:CIRCUS. Editors are not just disagreed with, they're driven off with threats, disruption templates, and accusations. If those editors' views were cumulated, 'they' would be the consensus. It's also true that, where R received certain block warnings from administrators, where those warnings involved conduct similar to what I saw here, I reached out to the admins to ask them to get involved.

I think that covers it. If there are additional accusations I may pop back in to respond, and if anyone reading this wants sources or links to examples, please let me know.

Best, Djcheburashka (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read - When you reply to a post with an absurdly long reply containing personal attacks, remember that you might be throwing a returning boomerang. What the subject has proved with this reply is that he is a combative editor. I don't have an opinion on the original merits yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I have been watching this editor since they first started editing. I have also been watching subsequent events with some dismay. The only reason I haven't taken administrative action is because I am WP:INVOLVED, having gotten into a content dispute with the editor on two articles from the get-go. I noted early, though, the obvious aggression and distortion of facts. I also believed the editor was on a crusade, although, frankly, I wasn' sure what it was. Others may have a better handle on that based on his more recent substantive edits. In the beginning, he had a problem with an Alabama regulator, Joseph Borg (regulator). Because Borg was mentioned in the Jordan Belfort article, he attacked both articles because he believed too much credit was being given to Borg. As a consequence we had a lovely exchange on the Belfort Talk page here. One of Dj's more choice comments was "I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case. Try me." His subsequent behavior has been just if not more intemperate. That said, I wouldn't move directly to a site ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. The diffs above paint a picture of someone who has the rather impressive ability to repeatedly deny the obvious and extensively argue indefensible positions. If this isn't trolling, then it's essentially indistinguishable. Editors should not have to waste time arguing with someone who insists that a sourced article has no citations. The characterization of removing multiple valid votes at AfD as a "technical error" is equally perplexing. I wanted to wait until Djcheburashka had a chance to reply, but apparently, the editor in question still sees nothing wrong with these actions. A topic ban or interaction ban could work, I suppose, but the problematic behavior would probably just continue in other areas. An indef siteban seems a bit over-the-top with no evidence of blatant trolling or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know who all was responsible for Dasha Zhukova, but I removed three four completely unacceptable sections from that article. BLPlease, people. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• It looks to me like one of the sections you removed was also removed by Dj.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually all of them -- I hadn't noticed, but Calton had re-re-reverted it again. The edits by DRmies put it in approximately a similar position to what I and others had done -- actually he took out a bunch of stuff that I had wanted to take out, but I didn't want to go further than we had without more involvement from others. So I'm happy to see the edits. Djcheburashka (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. You removed one piece recently and did some other editing much earlier. Drmies removed considerably more. Regardless, this does not change my recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked. As someone said somewhere above, not all your edits have been destructive. However, many have, and equally important, your attitude is not suitable for collaborating on this project.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that Djetc. removed one of the things which were later restored and then removed by me. I went to that article to see what was up with this editor and saw that the blind were leading the blind, at least there. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment "User appears to have a bone to pick related to sexual assault", EvergreenFir, you identify with the feminist school of criminology on your user page and that school has very distinct views about false rape accusations in comparision with some other criminologists (Djcheburashka apparently was pushing for another POV). Are you honestly concerned about the user conduct, not ideological differences? It would be bad if it seemed like ideological sniping. To be honest, all the "violations" here are mild except for the two AfDs. Templating regulars or hounding Roscelese to vote keep just like she did on Palestinian stone-throwing are not a reason for indef block. --Pudeo' 20:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pudeo: he edits on those pages are what brought this user to my attention a few days ago. After the bad faith AfDs, they've moved on to other areas... kinda. I don't mind people with other POVs discussing a page's content. But I think I've shown in the edit diffs that this was much more than that (edit warring, hounding someone related to that page and feminist topics in general, bad faith AfDs, etc.) While I understand your concern, I am perfectly capable of getting along with people that don't share my views (just ask Two kinds of pork). This user is not just someone who disagrees with me. They are disruptive to the point of being WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your clarification and believe it. Although I still think those offences are rather mild given the editor apparently does not have any previous sanction log. If the editor does not engage anymore in what can be seen as hounding or POINTy behaviour, I think indef block is too harsh. --Pudeo' 21:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban - the evidence provided is weak. A lot of it is legitimate consensus-seeking discussion in a contentious topic area, which is very difficult, but in which the user has mostly kept civil even when other editors haven't. Indeed, Calton and BullRangifer made inappropriately angry, aggressive posts on Djcheburashka's talk (e.g. [134], [135], [136]) and the user did not respond in kind. Their comments, while much too long, show an understanding of neutrality and verifiability policies we don't normally see from newbies. I share some concern that the user is here to right great wrongs - I accept that the user did not understand how to complete the AfD process but a more serious issue is that they felt those articles should be deleted in the first place. I am similarly concerned that they may be wikilawyering our policies to push an agenda, but they have edited in several disparate topic areas and it's not clear what that agenda would be, and we are required to assume good faith unless there is strong evidence otherwise. For the procedural issues they have apologized, repeatedly. They and the other editors involved should be warned to actually discuss their issues politely rather than disruptively and repeatedly templating each other and calling each other names, and Brangifer should be cluebatted for claiming a privilege of authority based on their edit count. Ivanvector (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban based on the fact that this user only has an edit count within the hundreds, and Wikipedia in itself is a rather convoluted and complicated mess of policies. The afd thing is unambiguous that he removed people's comments, but when you are a new person to the topic area of afd, you're probably unsure of how things worked. I believe that he used WP:IAR approach to justify deleting the comments--as he mentioned, he was trying to evade the keeping of a problem page with overt problems. I can absolutely see why he would have that POV. I also believe that in spite of the OP removing comments, the afds were closed out of practice as 'speedy keep' and assumed bad faith on the OP, when that wasn't warranted. The other 'templating the regulars' and supposedly combative edit summaries; I've seen more established editors talk to me in a much more combative way in open view, with no repercussions at all. I see no swearing, I see no outright anger, I see maybe a misunderstanding of what a 'disruptive' editor is and what a 'SPA' is. But I don't believe the evidence waivered deserves anything but maybe a mandated tutor on exactly which policies and guidelines to follow and whether he has a skewed outlook of them. Blocking somebody indefinitely because they didn't know all the wiki syntax and etiquette is kind of harsh, however maybe a 1 month topic ban (and then a block if it continues into other areas during that time) would be warranted. At this time, however, it doesn't seem so much to warrant an indefinite block--which is the last resort in any sort of conduct issues. This is attempting to shotgun a fly instead of using a fly swatter instead. Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN with Roscelese I think there is a call for this but it would be in excess to indef them. They are a new user. Perhaps a warning could suffice and we could point out to them where they can recieve help such as the Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Adopt a user.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• The evidence of hounding provided here is extremely weak. However if Roscelese believes that an interaction ban will improve the situation, I will support it. Ivanvector (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I weigh the weak evidence against DJ with them trying to draw a user that doesn't like roscelese into this dispute. If this isn't canvassing itself it certainly seems to me to violate the spirit of the Canvassing rules. But yes I agree that would be a good idea to see what Roscelese views on this are.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I wouldn't object to an IBAN if that's all we can get out of this discussion. But my first interaction with this user was a week ago and since then he's stalked me to various places in the encyclopedia, harassed me on my talk page, blanked my discussion comments, and canvassed other users against me. That's not evidence of a problem he has with me, that's a behavioral problem. Do you really think that that won't just happen to the next user who disagrees with him, and the next? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do object to an iban if the effect of it would be to confer ownership over the pages at issue, which I think is what is being sought. I have not "stalked" or "harassed" Roscelese; in fact, I think the record of our talk page diffs shows the opposite. All of this arose when R refused to abide by the consensus or POV dispute process, then (with evergreenfir) commenced an edit war over it, and so on, which are issues R has had in the past. A lot. EvergreenFir participated with her in that initial edit war. WP:INVOLVED I followed dispute resolution and consensus procedures and sought community and admin assistance when I saw the edit war brewing, and tried to freeze things so that the process could proceed. The POV dispute resolution process should have been, and still should be, allowed to play-out without interference, harassment, retaliation, canvassing, tag-teaming, abusive template-adding, bullying, threatening, retaliation, or disruption. That's it! Djcheburashka (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The power not to interfere, harass, retaliate, canvass, tag-team, abusively template, bully, threaten, retaliate (more), or disrupt, was always inside you. We all would have loved if discussions could have proceeded and consensus could have been built without any of this, but it was your own choice to behave poorly that prevented that. I recommend that you recognize what you've done, decide not to do it again, and possibly even apologize. (Although I'll note for the benefit of other readers that Dj evidently considers his own opinion, opposed by 4+ other users, a "consensus.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I tried to discuss these matters with you reasonably on your talk page, on mine, and on the POV dispute page. You reverted, deleted or ignored at least 5 of my attempts before this became an "edit war." Can you point to any diff, anywhere, where you attempted to engage me in any conversation or discussion about this, or responded to anything I said other than to declare whatever matter closed and threaten me?

By the way -- if you now agree that there is no consensus regarding the original pages (even if you're miscounting), then we're done here. Because you're then admitting that the POV template should be on the pages in question; that your conduct regarding the "edit war," the POV dispute, the "warning templates" left on my page, and so on, on your part and EvergreenFir's, were all violations; and that the conduct you claim was harassive on my part (i.e., complaining that the repeated reverts and threats were disruptive) was actually proper.

This ban proposal will be over soon, and we will then move forward. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the extreme projection in this comment is useful to note. If any constructive users are interested in talking to me about this issue, I'm reachable, but I don't see a point in continuing to coddle this person when he continues to deny and defend his misbehavior and show every intent to continue it. Hit me up if you need me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED does not apply. Evergreenfir is not acting as an admin here but as an editor, further is evergreenfir an admin? If the record shows the opposite surely you can show how the record shows the opposite. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Not admin, just reviewer. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are reviewer of course of wikipedia per WP:RVW, but right now and during this dispute where you have taken part have you acted in your capacity as a reviewer or have you acted in your capacity as an editor?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean "involved" in a technical sense -- I just meant, she's involved in the underlying dispute. This did not, as she claims, "come to her attention" looking at pages. In fact, as I recall she fired several of the first edit-war salvos. Sorry if my use of the link was confusing as to my intent. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't mean involved by the in the wikipedia definition of the word involved that you linked to but you mean the general definition. Well that's great. The fact the they made edits or fired salvos or what ever doesn't disprove that they were looking at pages that they were looking at pages before they stumbled across your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

She didn't "stumble across it" -- she was one of the people who started the edit war. She went into the background after Roscelese got very aggressive about it. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE for many of the same reasons stated by Tutelary. Experienced editors are supposed to be patient with new editors, but that certainly isn't evident in some of the comments I've been reading. I recommend mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 18:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just point this out, Atsme is the user that Djcheburashka attempted to bring into this conflict[137].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to the editors participating in this discussion for the pointless comment made by Serialjoepsycho who has relentlessly been WP:Hounding me for nearly 8 months now. Following are the diffs showing the question asked by Djcheburashka on my Talk page regarding Roscelese's abuse of warning templates. [138] And my response to her question. [139] I suppose it's just coincidence that Serialjoepsycho supports the same POV as Roscelese, who - purely by coincidence, I'm sure - happens to be one of the certifiers in the RFC/U Serialjoepsycho initiated against me after a recent BLPN consensus determined the Islamophobia template on IPT was a BLP violation. It doesn't surprise me that he attempted to distract the focus of this discussion away from his own actions, but then, that's how he operates. At least he's consistent, right? I'm not here to pass judgement on who is right or wrong - I'm just recommending leniency toward the new editor, Djcheburashka, and suggested mentoring. Atsme☯^Consult 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is very logical. Djcheburashka canvasses Atsme and my responding to this fact for a second time here is me hounding atsme. I supposedly support Roscelese 'POV' here and yet Atsme is not actually going to be able to point out which POV of Roscelese I support. Now if you review the above you will see that I support one of multiple POV's that Evergreenfir has brought forth. The IBAN. Atsme is not here to pass judgement, She is here to help a user that has canvassed her to go against a user that she does not like because of among other things this user had opened an RFC/U against her.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your hounding and false accusations have been duly noted, Serialjoepyscho. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Atsme had left a warning on User:Roscelese's talk page. It seemed to involve some of the same stuff as I'd been concerned about, and it seemed more authoritative than most of the warnings -- I'm really still getting the hang of the way all this hierarchy and dispute resolution stuff works. Apart from the warning I saw, I had no knowledge at all of who Atsme is or any prior relationship or interaction with Roscelese, RFC/U (whatever that is) or anything else. Honestly, I really still don't.

That night, I made a series of requests to Roscelese to discuss and resolve things. I then tried to seek dispute resolution help when it became clear that she would not discuss the matter --- using the POV disputes page, and the page protection request page, etc. My post to Atsme -- which asked him/her if s/he would take a look at things, was part of my attempts to seek dispute resolution through the community process. Is that canvassing? I thought I was seeking community dispute resolution assistance. Pls compare my comment to Atsme with this: [[140]] Djcheburashka (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Djcheburashka, asking questions is not WP:Canvassing, however, the behavior exhibited by your accuser is typical of troll behavior, but more specifically of his very skewed interpretation of policy. Ignore his rhetoric, or he will continue until it consumes you. The post by Robert McClenon at (20:23, 11 November 2014) is excellent advice. Atsme☯^Consult 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right. Asking a question is not canvassing. For example if they asked you what color is the sky that wouldn't be canvassing. Asking a question to someone solicit their involvement in a dispute because that individual may specifically not like the editor in question is canvassing. Robert McClenon offers great advice, If you can notice it you should keep it in mind.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent examples of classic canvassing can be seen in your talk page discussion with Roscelese regarding this dispute, [141], and again in the recent past when you drug her into your obsessive attempts to get me topic banned because I corrected a BLP violation you ignored, [142], [143], and in the not so distant past when you contacted a banned user who supported your POV during a BLPN and a merge-delete discussion for IPT: [144], and again here regarding a pending edit war on another article: [145]. I consult you to stop making false accusations in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to get a new user blocked or banned for making inconsequential newbie mistakes. Your pattern of behavior is one I am quite familiar with as the target of your relentless hounding and recent attempts to get me blocked or topic banned because of your skewed interpretation of policy as you have demonstrated here. Atsme☯^Consult 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole unrelated argument is, I believe, showing exactly why it was wildly inappropriate for Dj to contact Atsme for support. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What that is a classic example of is you simply not knowing what the hell you talking about Atsme. But there are plenty examples of that. Contacting Roscelese to tell her that I wasn't going to ask any more questions to an evasive editor in the RFCU that she was involved in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II to about the discussion on the BLPN that you mentioned them multiple times in is not canvassing. Contacting Sepsis II about an editwar they were involved in at to try to get them to discuss it on the talk page is not canvassing. Contacting Roscelese that a user is is trying to canvass you into their dispute is not canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese I think your last comment demonstrates pretty clearly that you either haven't been reading what other people say, are assuming that we're lying, or just don't care. I think this entire ban request was bad faith from the start, and at this point the question is how to move forward.

Right now, if there was a vote on the POV discussion, it would be 4:2, which is no consensus anyway; 3 on the "4 side" are strongly affiliated with what some have called "radical feminism," and I will decline to try to name because any name will be deemed offensive by someone; and none of the four have identified any WP:RS in support of their position, or offered anything but a conclusory statement that "the literature" says something (which it plainly does not). Meanwhile, no-one has offered a defense of the current form of the David Lisak page in any respect.

User:CambridgeBayWeather suggested we take this back to the article talk pages. Are you willing to do that and to work with me in a constructive, non-warfare way to try and get the articles to simply note what is noteable, express the key points from the key sources, and not take a view on controversial matters or marginalize legitimate and widely-held views? If so, I am willing to put all the noise behind us and let's get back to work. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The question he had asked me,[146] it speaks for itself. I would consider Djcheburashka to be fairly new as he don't know how en.wiki works. It is better to give him a chance to be good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright issues from User:Irmovies

Looking at this users talkpage shows a whole host of articles tagged for copyvio problems. They just revert the bot notice from the article in question (example). I don't know where to begin with this to be honest. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reduced the Taraj article to a stub to remove the copyrighted material. I did the same for Trial on the Street and Kianoush Ayari (another article where the editor remove the bot notice). An admin might need to revdel the previous versions. I had a quick look through their edit history and there doesn't seem to be anymore obviously copyrighted material apart from Fish & Cat which is already tagged for speedy deletion, though I might have missed something. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I did miss a few. Copyrighted material removed from At the End of 8th Street, Hush! Girls Don't Scream, Shahab Hosseini and Cinema of Iran. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I revdel'ed the edits at Kianoush Ayari. If others need it, you can ping my talk page. I'll be on and off Wikipedia all day (at work), but these are easy enough to clean if caught early, like this. As for the behavioral aspects of the case, I'm hoping the user will come here and explain, or be explained to. You might try a stern warning regarding copy/paste copyright/etc on his talk page. Sadly, many new editors never "get it" and end up getting blocked because they can't get beyond the idea that anything you can copy is ok to copy. Dennis - 2¢ 14:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistake(s). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This user has now recreated the previously speedy deleted page Fish & Cat as Fish & Cat (2013 film). Copyrighted material was removed by Reddogsix [147] then more was readded by Irmovies [148], which I have now removed. Dennis, or any other admin who is about, could this user now be blocked please. They are clearly not getting the message. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Hi In the have me been insulted here, simply. But you do not understand your personality and human effort Brigadier human character into question. I just tried to get better, but you do not see. I've compiled source. No copyright Freedom here is, I work hard and I am positive...Irmovies (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You've just reinserted a copy and paste portion of text from IMDB to the very same article you were told not to. WP:CIR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically all your article space edits today are re-adding the copyright text, or recreating articles deleted for copyright issues. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - This user is now just re-adding all the reverted copyright text, despite the number of warnings on their talkpage not to. WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDNHT apply. Appreciate if someone can block this user, and quick. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on their reply, I think we all knew where this was going. Communication is an important thing. Dennis - 2¢ 13:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Good block, but reading that statement above makes me think that english is not this editor's first language. Not sure if that changes anything, but it might factor somehow. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly incomprehensible comments elsewhere would seem to confirm your view. I had already suggested on the user's talk page that if he/she didn't understand English it would be wise to stick to editing a Wikipedia in his/her own language. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Cancina5645 makes advocacy for including original research

User:Cancina5645 has stated upon his own user page "This is Wikipedia, and we can accept original research, because we know it is true if the individual did the correct research." This would be in itself an act of defiance, but he also practices what he preaches, see e.g. [149]. He has been warned long ago about about this, see e.g. [150]. He claims that he joined Wikipedia in 2009, so he should be familiar with the WP:NOR requirements. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done about it, but something has to be done, I am beginning to see a pattern of inserting original research and even defending it as the right action. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We permit people to advocate for things not currently in line with consensus; if that weren't the case, consensus could never change. See {{User:Jeandré du Toit/DatePref}} or the various userboxes that say "IP users should have to register before editing", for some examples. I assume that your talk page link refers to this edit, wherein Cancina5645 supplied a nonexistent ref name, perhaps thinking that it had been used. This obviously isn't a behavioral problem per se (it's easy to make this kind of mistake), and anyway plot sections in literature articles are weird, as apparently it's normal to permit these sections to be simply summaries of the books.

In other words, judging by what you've provided, I see no reason for sanctions. However, I'll say something different if you can supply diffs demonstrating original research or other problematic actions. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

At Special:Contributions/Cancina5645 there are several examples of inserting original research. I could provide diffs from there, however, the idea is that the editor gets the idea that it is not acceptable to insert original research. So, I don't advocate blocking him, but only that he understands that such conduct is problematic, like a serious warning (he received at least three warnings about it, see his talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If he continues or resumes posting OR he is likely to end up sanctioned in some way. Your observation speaks his desire to continue or resume posting OR, and maybe even the likelihood. Sanctions are not going to happen unless and until he does though. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

What a mess

Matt200055 has made some unusual edits, had been warned and the situation was apparently settled. However, I noticed edits to some of the same articles from AntiMatt200055. I somehow believed that Matt200055 was blocked and using an obvious sock to evade the block and opened a sock case. Recognizing my mistake, I undid my reverts of AntiMatt's edits, CSD'ed the sock case and place a note on the two talk pages.

Matt has now state both accounts are his, with AntiMatt being a kind of "backup" account, in case his other account is hacked. I do not think this is an acceptable reason for a second account, but that is easy enough to resolve.

Jeffro77 disagreed with my second thoughts and removed the deletion notice from the sock case and made some fairly pointed accusations on Matt200055's talk page. I tried to use "helpme" for an admin to step in and address this, but -- duh -- needed to specify "admin helpme". (Having corrected the tag, I haven't heard back.) Now WilliamJE is apparently upset about an AN/I I was involved in here. While WilliamJE was blocked, an anonymous editor started the AN/I case in his defense. I mistakenly believed the IP was WilliamJE. That hurt his feelings. (Apparently, the IP was a sock of a different blocked user.) WilliamJE has joined in on the talk pages about the current issue, seemingly in a delayed response to the February AN/I and sock cases.

Now Pinkbeast has made a rather cryptic comment about 162.157.225.132 at the sock case. As the IP's comments have been hidden, I really don't know how this fits in.

1) The sock case does not seem to be necessary. Unless there is some acceptable reason for the second account, I think it is merely a matter of Matt abandoning the AntiMatt account and possibly a note there. If there is something hidden in the IP's history or something I'm missing, I could be wrong. (There is a note of an AN/I case on the IP's talk page, but I don't see a case anywhere) 2) Jeffro77 probably needs to step back from Matt a bit. 3) I have no idea why WilliamJE's comments would be in any way helpful in this situation. I removed the comments as personal attacks (unrelated to the current situation and clearly assuming bad faith: "SummerPhD likes making Sockpuppet allegations that both lack evidence and are totally wrong.") WilliamJE asked me to bring it here, but I am not here for that reason. Whatever.

Any assistance in resolving this FUBAR of mine and the resulting cluster---- would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not particularly complicated. The ANI has been archived. The archived discussion is linked at the sock puppet investigation. It explains the relevance of th IP editor. Will explain in more detail when not on mobile device.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, [[151]]. Searching the archive for "162.157.225.132", I didn't find it. My bad. I looked at [the edit] and (obviously) connected the timing and a substantial A ha edit to Matt. I didn't notice it was Jeffro's page. Warnings to Matt at the time (all of 4 days ago) were appropriate. I still think his secondary account (while unusual) is a misstep based on ignorance of our policies. YMMV. If anyone feels continuation of the sock case is necessary or any further action is needed re Matt200055 = AntiMatt200055 = 162.157.225.132, have at it. I feel it is not a major issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's probably not worth continuing the SPI since the editor subsequently confirmed the named accounts are both his (albeit with an unlikely explanation), and SPI investigators will not confirm IP users as a matter of policy. It's quite clear that all three are the same editor, dispite the editor's asinine challenge to 'prove it'. A further warning about retributive editing and attempting to game the system is probably in order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Summer can't keep his facts straight plus falsely accuse people of socking. I wasn't blocked at the time the ANI case he links to above was started. Secondly, within the last month he started another sockpuppet investigation that proved to be wrong. Here it is[152]. Yesterday he accuses me of personal attacks because I point out his blundering and reverts posts of mine to another editor's talk page. His conduct speaks for itself, please note his response to an administrator here[153] after he was advised to say sorry and there should be talk of WP:BOOMERANG before he accuses another editor falsely of sockpuppetry....William 11:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Summer cant keep his facts straight..."? Let's start with "her". My mistake, you were not blocked when the AN/I case was opened. It had been lifted several hours previously. The Fortherecord23 sock case was "fairly obvious", but failed after a check use.[154] I do not in any way regret starting that. If you'd like to talk about a boomerang for a sock case from early February, please do: This would be an appropriate forum for that. The talk page of a completely uninvolved third party would not. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WilliamJE, since the editor in question has already confirmed he's the same individual as the other named user account, your previous grudge against SummerPhD is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't irrelevant. Summer has on multiple occasions accused people wrongly of sockpuppetry. Her behavior, which includes her deletion of my posts to another editor's talk page, needs to be examined and sanctioned if warranted result in her getting blocked and or prohibited from starting anymore SPIs....William 14:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to be wrong about SPIs. If they were always right we wouldn't need SPIs. If there is an issue with deletion of your posts, then please provide diffs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

To put it a different way, if there really are some problems with false sockpuppetry accusations from SummerPhD, you're going to need some good evidence for this. Clearly asking for a boomerang when the accusations were correct i.e. the "boomerang" already hit and got stuck on its target before it had a chance to return, isn't going to cut it. (Even if there's something else, you'd need to be looking for the boomerang coming from a different direction, it's clearly not going to come from the direction you'd expect if it didn't hit someone first.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here it is[155]. Unfortunately its been deleted (I'm sure it can restored if necessary), the reason it was deleted was its absurdity. He claimed I was socking through an IP address based on a discussion going on at my talk page where not one of the half dozen participants (not counting me and the IP, Kumioko by the way was the IP) thought socking was taking place. The sockpuppet allegation had one single purpose- to attempt to intimidate me. Her reactions afterwards, check this[156] and this[157] threads on Summer's talk page, further validates what I say. Instead of apologizing, she accuses me and the IP of paranoia. When an administrator says an apology would have been a wise course, she comes back with the ludicrous statement-"Speaking of which, 108.48.100.44 has been blocked for personal attacks". No entry on their block log[158] for that.

Here is my talk page edit[159] which Summer reverted[160], then another[161] she did the same to[162], besides a notice[163] to me on my talk page not to make personal attacks. Please note what she says in the edit summary of one of those reversions. That my edits were good faith. Under what right does can an editor revert good faith edits to a talk page other than their own and how is a good faith edit also a personal attack when a second almost identical edit is said to be that?

Summer will make bad faith SPIs. I can bring this up anytime she again accuses someone of sockpuppetry without evidence....William 13:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the talk page issue, but you implied a pattern of very poor sockpuppetry accusations. A single incident isn't going anywhere and isn't worth discussing in itself, no matter how poorly SummerPhD may or may not have handled the aftermath. Also I stick by my earlier point. It's fairly dumb to bring this issue up in the context of a sockpuppetry accusation that turned out to be true. You're basically damaging any case you may have from the start. If you really believe there is substanial wrong doing, it would make far more sense to start a new thread rather then hoping for a boomerang which makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another sockpuppet investigation[[164]] where Summer turned out to be totally wrong and had no evidence. This was linked up above by me. No comment on the talk page behavior. No problem at all with any of Summer's behavior, just mine. Summer has clearly proved once she will use an SPI in an abusive fashion. Why should she be able to continue doing so?...William 14:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Um that was CU endorsed, so I don't see how you can claim SummerPhD had no evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, may be SummerPhD should have clarified better (although it doesn't look like anyone asked them), but they appear to be more or less correct. While the IP 108.48.100.44 was never blocked itself, 108.45.104.158 who appears* to be the same editor with a new IP as 108.48.100.44 was blocked for personal attacks (then multiple times for evasion, it seems fairly obvious who they are). *=same ISP range, same geolocation, non overlapping editting pattern of 108.45.104.158 starting as soon as 108.48.100.44 stopped, and even in the same thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Nyttend abusing his tools. In fact rereading your earlier comments, it sounds like you know who the IP is so you shouldn't be surprised that one of their many socks or IPs they used was blocked for personal attacks. So I don't get why you brought up the issue at all. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. I had a brief look at the removed comments and while I'm not sure it was wise for SummerPhD to remove them, I'm also not sure it's wise for you to be bringing them up, particularly since you are the one first brought up a boomerang, so I guess you're well aware of the concept. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is preposterous because she wrote specifically 'IP 108.48.100.44' not the other IPs. And anyway her behavior after maliciously accusing an editor of sockpuppetry is relevant when judging her use of SPIs....William 14:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's preposterous for you to make a big deal about them not clarifying that 108.48.100.44 was only blocked under a later IP. I don't get the relevance of your second comment. I never said behaviour wasn't relevant, simply that a single poor SPI, no matter what their behaviour afterwards, was not sufficient to establish your claim of repeated poor sockpuppetry accusations. Anyway I'm done with this thread, you've demonstrate time and time again that you're bringing up silly stuff, first with the silly suggestion for a boomerang, then when you made a big deal about them not mentioning that 108.48.100.44 was only blocked under a later IP, then when the next evidence you had for their alleged poor sockpuppet accusations is a case which was CU endorsed yet you said there was no evidence for the sockpuppetry accusation. (It doesn't help that even the comment deletion, while perhaps not ideal behaviour by SummerPhD, seem to show worst behaviour on your part.) I suspect I'm not the only one who's stopped paying attention having read your complaints, presuming there was anyone else still reading this thread. I suggest you think much more carefully about the evidence you bring to light if you want your complaints to be considered in the future. In fact, it may be helpful for you to reread Jeffro77's comment as I'm not sure you understand the difference between an incorrect sockpuppetry accusation, and a poor let alone malicious one. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Let's not forget they may not have even noticed that 108.48.100.44 had changed IP. If you're discussing something with an IP, and they suddenly change to a fairly similar looking IP in a discussion, it can be quite easy to miss. Then if you check out the newer IP's contrib and see they are blocked, you will just think of the IP as being blocked. It's hardly unusual to then go back to their own talk page, and copy and paste the older IP and say it was blocked without realising you have the wrong IP. Of course ultimately when you are dealing with a changing IP it's also hardly unusual to just mention one of the IPs, when you mean another variant of the IP or the user behind the IP in general. As I suggested in my first post, I may likewise understand you not knowing of the new IP and thinking that the IP was never blocked hence why my comment was initially more tempered. Except that since you apparently knew who this IP was, you should have realised they may have been blocked under a different IP and so SummerPhD could easily have been nearly correct. The final straw for me was when I pointed out that the IP was blocked under their later IP, rather than simply accepting that it was at best just a minor referencing error, you still treat it like it's a big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Summer probably should not have removed those comments (though there is a case for doing so), however the edit summary (Summery?) assumed good faith, and quite reasonably asked you to address any problems over her SPI reporting here, or directly with her. Summer can make a convincing case that your comments were wikistalking, personal attacks and assuming bad faith. I agree with Nil Einne, the best way forward for you is to walk away, the second best is to put together an independent thread, with all your accusations, supported by diffs, and a suggestion of what administrator action you want. From experience the best (from your viewpoint) you are likely to achieve is a polite note left to Summer advising her to be exercise restraint in removing talk page comments, the worst is a formal caution for you over WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

• I'm not sure if the Matt-Antimatt situation has been resolved, but I'm going to leave a note for WilliamJE. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has imposed 0RR on the article, in response to some edit wars. Regardless of whether there was a problem, 0RR is absurd in potentially pseudoscience articles, as unjustified claims cannot be removed. Hence, I applied full protection to the article. If the 0RR not an arbitration enforcement remedy, I would revert it to 1RR myself, but John hasn't specified, and I don't want to get into that mess.

I propose that the restriction, if a single admin is permitted to add restrictions, be changed to 1RR, and anyone blocked for a 0RR violation be given an apology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, John also imposed the restriction that there should be no major changes without consensus. That is probably a better choice of restriction than any revert restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that the article be reverted to the state it was at when the 0RR restriction was imposed, with any edits made with consensus reinstated. I doubt any edits were yet made with consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There were many edits made after consensus.[165]-[166]-[167]-[168] I also think that we are nearer to resolution, it may take a few days, but things are going well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think things are going at all well. The "anti-Ayurveda" editors except QG are intimidated from commenting on the substance of the article on the talk page. (QG should be intimidated, as I can't figure out what he was blocked for. He apparently can't figure it out, either.) All other comments are on the failures of 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of editors said they were no longer watching the article because 0RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus for those edits, or at least no more consensus than for adding the bald statement "AV is generally considered pseudoscience." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 0RR for a fringe medical topic is not a great idea; as anybody who watchlists this type of article knows, pretty much every day some drive-by editor will add some kind of claim to one of them that cumin cures cancer or somesuch. If bogus health information is locked in place on Wikipedia by ad hoc rules, then that's a poor show. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• A "zero-revert" restriction is a monstrosity in principle and pretty much never a good idea at all, as it unilaterally gives an advantage to people who insert tendentious stuff, and makes cleanup of sub-standard edits nearly impossible. I'd strongly support lifting this thing. What could work instead is a set of "slow-down" rules, such as: (a) before any (non-vandalism) revert, it is mandatory to first explain the need for the revert on the talkpage, and then waiting a given period of time (say, 4 hours) before actually making the revert, to allow for discussion. (b) nobody is allowed to make any contentious edit without prior discussion; a contentious edit is defined as any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance of a piece of text in such a way that any reasonable observer would expect it to be unacceptable to editors on the other side of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Probably better than what I suggested. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) 0RR seems unreasonably restrictive, as Fut.Perf. points out it gives the upper hand to the POV warriors. Wouldn't full protection have been better? Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• This will be my only comment here. I would ask anyone commenting here to take the trouble to read the actual restrictions I imposed, which are at Talk:Ayurveda#Going_forward. They are written in English, in plain text, so this should be easy to accomplish. If, after reading the actual restrictions and not the very poor summary presented above, anybody has any concerns, they should message me at my talk as stated there. Since the restrictions were placed on 20 October, a grand total of 0 editors have done this. Not even the two editors I have blocked so far have complained. Coming straight here to complain about my (successful) admin actions under a misleading summary is a strange thing to do. I am a little concerned that User:Arthur Rubin's actions (which include an out-of-process full protection) here arise from some more sinister motive than lack of competence but for now I will assume good faith and put it down to that. --John (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Multiple editors assumed that you would respond to the multiple requests for your involvement on the article talk page. This discussion on this noticeboard seems a good way to clear up the problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  John: I did read your wording of the restrictions before I commented here, and my criticism above does apply to them as worded. A "no reverts" and "no major edits without prior consensus" rule is a recipe either for slow degradation or standstill of an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• fwiw, i had just recently started editing the article when the 0RR was imposed. i objected, as did Bobrayner and as did] Yobol, and when John remained firm, I said I would not participate under a 0RR condition. I stopped watching it (although I did pop in to !vote in an RfC that I saw notice of). Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors raised concerns about the 0RR restriction for precisely the same reasons as noted above, with unfortunately little direct response. I have also largely ignored what has been going on on that page due to said restriction. Hopefully we can find a solution to the problem without driving off experienced editors. Yobol (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be fair I did not read John's restrictions before I commented above, but I have now, and I stand by my comment. Other editors' concerns about what's considered a revert are valid. If I'm working on a page where anons are repeatedly inserting nonsense claims, and any corrective action I take comes with a reasonable risk that some admin is going to interpret it as a revert and block on sight, I'm not going to waste my time with it. Besides, isn't WP:0RR meant to be applied to seriously edit-warring editors, not to pages? Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Arthur Rubin, under the circumstances, imposing 0RR was a mistake. Fully protecting the article was responsible a decision, and modifying the restriction to make it 1RR would remedy the situation. Alternatively, Fut Perf's restrictions could be be implemented instead. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• "No reverts, at all, for any reason other than obvious vandalism. There should be no reason to do this. WP:0RR" is what User:John put in place. That is an unworkable restriction on most articles, and certainly not one about a pseudoscience. A 0RR restriction places the crackpots on an even footing with legitimate editors, and that prevents building an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about others, but this page has to do nothing with pseudoscience. I was notified about zero revert soon after I had edited. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me.[169]

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I get the picture. I see now that the ArbCom tag was added here on 30 October by User:Roxy the dog, one of the problematic editors at that page, well after I had become involved in keeping the peace there. I later had to block said editor for repeatedly insulting other editors there. Then just now I get an ArbCom notice from User:QuackGuru, (diff above) another problematic contributor who I have also had to block. The problems there, quite apart from any perceived COI involved, is that the question whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience or not is one of several things the two entrenched camps have been arguing about for ages. If the tag is to stick there, I might step back and let Arbcom administer this as that is what they are paid the big bucks to do. I wonder though whether Roxy and QG need further sanctions for this game-playing and battleground behaviour. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I just about fell out of my metaphorical chair when I read that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Their 'thinking' cannot be found even among the smallest minority. Sadly if someone is convinced to think that 2 and 3 is 4, and keeps repeating the same miscalculation, we should seek solution. Page was created 10 years ago and there was no discussion about pseudoscience on its talk until last month. Only RTD believes and his intention is to plaster the article with 'this pseudo scientific claptrap', it is possible that he would receive some support from the editors who haven't researched. Bottom line is that they cannot really form any compatibility, nor there is any comparison with any other pseudoscience. No expert would agree. నిజానికి (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• To describe the person who described the people that have been attempting to keep the article reflecting mainstream thinking as problematic is itself problematic.... We are not here to discuss article content, but thank you for making your position clear on that. I myself am strictly neutral on the article content and will do whatever I can to enforce proper editing and decorum there. If 0RR is felt to be unhelpful by neutral admins such as Fut.Perf. and PhilKnight we can strike that. We can of course still block for edit-warring. The more serious question is should an editor who is involved not just in editing the page but in insulting those he disagrees with, be allowed to add this tag while the article's status is being discussed? Should it be allowed to stay? I haven't seen this situation before and am genuinely curious how other respected and neutral admins think it should best be handled. --John (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• e/c I find it rather sad that for the third time today I have found John to be dishonest in his edits. His actual reasons for my block, per the log, are, "harassment and personal attack" and as he himself stated in the discussion following said block ""when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority"". For the third time this evening, we expect better behaviour from our admins. I might also add that a fellow admin of John's stated that "I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. - It is time to examine your own behaviour, John. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NPA carefully -A1candidate (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• According to Roxy the dog, calling others a fringe editor is not personal attack. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hi Blades, just so you know this isn't a personal attack, it is very nice to see you here. I would just like to point out that I'm a fringe editor too. Best regards. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sounded like fringe advocate when you were referring to others. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• John, my position is quite clear: we are here to make an encyclopedia. We certainly have battleground articles, and it's important to make certain that some behavioural norms are adhered to. That does not include making it simpler for people to portray myth and superstition as if it were science, and that's what a 0RR restriction does: it treats the two as being equivalent. Our goal here is to ensure that we maintain civil discourse while ensuring that reality-based edits prevail.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• As you said it yourself, we're here to make an encyclopedia, not to fight pseudoscience. An article in a permanent state of edit-warring deserves 0RR restriction. -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ensuring that pseudoscience is not described as factual is an essential component of being an encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 00:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• That would be best done on the talk page instead of turning the article into a battleground. -A1candidate (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Problems could have been solved in a single day, if we were going to follow the consensus and the long discussions that have been made about hardly 4 issues. But what I have seen is that even if 10 people are in agreement, there is always one, mostly Roxy the Dog, who disrupts the process. John is actually correct if he claims that Roxy the Dog is gaming and battling. I would like to add that this page never had any edit conflict before 18 October, this year. One day, Dominus_Vobisdu had removed long standing content from this article, with the summary "This whole section is unsourced, but comparisons to real medicine are egregious OR and POV)",[170] yet there was no OR and POV and section was actually sourced, all he did was remove the translated terms. After I added more citations to each,[171] he reverted it again[172] without even reading the citation and said "Must be MEDRS sources", same thing was done by Roxy the Dog,[173] "None are WP:MEDRS". Though none of these required MEDRS, and when I brought it to talk page, I only had a one-liner from Roxy the dog, it was "e/c none of those comply," I had to bring it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification, where the consensus was established to include these terms, yet, both Dominus and Roxy the dog had started to edit war, they were not discussing about the removal of this longstanding content. That is why the page had to be under 0rr restriction. Today Roxy tells that there was no consensus[174] but he is alone opposing these edits, at least since 18th October. Whenever Roxy the dog was asked about the reasons behind his opposition to this kind of common information that has been cited with reliable sources, he could done nothing about it but refer to comments of Dominus Vobisdu,[175] though they lacked any policy backed rationale, and approached Wikipedia:DONTLIKE. Roxy is ignoring that clear consensus on Medicine project, still pushing that irrelevant comment of Dominus Vobisdu and telling others(Jayaguru-Shishya) to "stop being disruptive",[176] right after coming from a block. I have never seen even a single edit from Roxy the dog, that could benefit the page. All he has done is revert others' edits and distort. Of course some kind of sanction is needed for Roxy the dog. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think sourced text should be in the article:

The talk page discussion is not helping. Click here to read the text and sources.

The classification of ayurveda as a science has been rigorously debated. Scholars, such as fr, Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, have argued that though classical Ayurveda contained religious and magical elements, its core and, for its time, revolutionary focus on materialism and empiricism qualify it as a science. On the other hand, scholars such as Steven Engler argue that the empirical and religious aspects of Ayuryeda cannot be neatly separated and that labelling classical Ayurveda a science "in categorical opposition to religion is misdirected". In recent years, there have been efforts to claim Ayurveda as a scientific and intrinsically safe system of mind-body medicine that is the source of other medical systems; and parallel efforts to professionalize its practice, adapt it to modern biomedicine, and study it scientifically. However, rigorous clinical trials of Ayurvedic treatments have been limited, and the concept of body-humors (doshas), fundamental to the Ayurvedic system, has been challenged as unscientific. Scientists, and rationalists groups such as the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, regard Ayurveda as a pseudoscience, while others debate whether it should be considered a proto-scientific, an unscientific, or trans-scientific system instead. Ayurveda is generally uninterested with the apparently manifested diseases, seeking instead to restore what is believes is a body's balance of both spiritual and physical aspects. Quackwatch states "Because Ayurvedic medicine relies on nonsensical diagnostic concepts and involves many unproven products, using it would be senseless even if all of the products were safe." References

• The talk page discussion is going nowhere. Maybe a group of admins can decide what should go in the article. What do others think? The 0RR restrictions are not helping with improving the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong, cannot be stopped breaking rules

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

You cannot delete my valid talk page entries without signs of abuse. User:Ryulong has done this to me three or more times and is and has been doing it regularly to others with dozens of examples including the most recent [177][178] (this has happened several times in several places [179][180], with other forms of invalid interference with my comments [181][182]), but as regards their interaction with others, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of related diffs, to which blocks and warnings bring not even admission of wrong doing let alone any assurance that they are taking the rules of the site as meaningful.

• As a sign of context, one editor has currently dedicated themselves to quietly reporting Ryulongs continuous 3RR immunity.
• I have also seen regular interference with others comments for purposes other than to revert blatant vandalism, nonsense or other valid comment deletion. Ryulong deletes talk page comments they consider invalid. Many diffs can be provided to that.
• And there is repeated incivility, particularly with those who Ryulong considers *condemned or insignificant*.
• I myself have encountered and confronted User:Ryulong for focusing on an actual genuine contributor of long term good standing and zero apparent conduct or content issues, for having the supposed gall to admit they saw a dispute on a non-WM site, before they gave an opinion here. Try some of the commentary, she only made one or two edits to the dispute but... "contributed so much to the point that it's daunting to even try to read it all because you feel that you do not meet the definition of meatpuppet. You can complain to the audit subcom all you want..." And you can, because User:Ryulong has immunity. Needless to say, User:Leeyc0 has left the site for the longest period and blanked their userpage. This is a contributor in good standing on another site. Is there no knock on effect from this behaviour? Does User:Leeyc0 not go back to the site they came from and spread more antipathy for us on this site? And do we tolerate that? ~ R.T.G 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the below response is directed at this report

Could you explain why you've dismissed a big chunk of discussion like this? Personally I think it's quite relevant. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Some of their edits are ok, I'm failing to see what admin action is needed. Per above thread, support IBAN between the two. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to suggest that my couple of interactions with User:Ryulong somehow implicate me in their massive list of ongoing issues. I am one of dozens of users needlessly burned by this dragons breath. I have not one single interaction with them over actual content except once that they followed me. User:Ryulong breaks the rules and cannot be stopped, and I get to say that and so does any other user so long as it is true. Bring me anything meaningful to compare to Ryulong or show some sort of unprovoked harrassment over a handful of interactions. There is no guideline to say that editors, who wish to request a rule breaker is acknowledged, should be punished and silenced. There is no way that I should be topic banned from any content that User:Ryulong has been involved in for a start. And I've posted on their talk page only on one occasion that wasn't to put an ANI notice there or to simply state in response that I was not interested in their following me around for a fight (content of which was:"Not interested" and a signature). It's my duty in a way to report wrongs of other editors isn't it? ~ R.T.G 17:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You want to sanction me for posts like this and this, but these are not my posts... ~ R.T.G 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what happened here? You, RTG, posted a hostile but barely intelligible and incoherent rant [183] on a noticeboard, where it had no business to be. Yes, Ryulong should not have removed it himself; somebody else should have though. Posting hostile rants on administrative noticeboards is generally not a very good idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not accuse me without evidence. Let's see a quote. This is ridiculous. The post has been deleted because. There was no abusive content. Any accusations were founded and about conduct. Nothing personal except the fact of the person. But I am an incoherent babbler, right? ~ R.T.G 17:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: fut.Perf. provided a diff above. Yes, it was of the removal, but the point still stands; That was not sutable for AN3, and was borderline personal attacks. My advice would be for both of you to leave each other alone, before one or the other of you is forced to. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I was reading your SPI link from a couple of months ago, regarding a banned user called "Instantnood". Are you aware that edits by banned users are subject to deletion on sight? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

fut.Perf.'s mistyped the diff, the link should be this. — Strongjam (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, this has nothing to do with Instantnood. The only relevance there is that I went to that page to suggest that it was become a badge of honour for socks (this stuff is in the guides to watch for) to debate it with whoever, no-one in particular for genuine purpose, and there I met Ryulong and found them to be hauling editors of good standing, so I complained to which they followed me around, addressing me directly on various talk pages promtping me to check them and follow their discrepancies. Is it to be said that my report here is not even to be reviewed because it is me only that is being reviewed and that sort of seems a little bit suspicious given that Ryulong is a perennial, often daily on ANI, whereas I am not that, and so on... The diff being waved around is certainly hostile. Ryulong is fully hostile to all. I am not that, and my hostility for Ryulong is not incivil even and is about their conduct only, and their apparent longstanding immunity thereof. Show me some genuine blockable behaviour I have before any claims that I should not be given the chance to make any claims... genuine founded claims. ~ R.T.G 17:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is not the first time Ryulong has been caught violating Wikipedia policies. I would also like to point out that it seeming to be the same admins who keep coming to his rescue. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to provide diffs when making such comments. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Right right, I'll collect my evidence tomorrow, my laptop's charger broke, and I don't have time to find them right now. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

DSA510, you shouldn't be one to talk at all here considering you returned to editing by linking to my old website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Block OP for repeated disruption, per the diffs provided by Ryulong in that user's request for RTG to stop WP:HOUNDing them. This thread is clearly retaliatory. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, 2 diffs merits a block of somebody who just wants a review taken into another editor's behavior? Not buying it and oppose any block. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Retracted; apologies to RTG. More comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a blatantly retaliatory thread to the one I made 3 days ago. None of RTG's interactions with me have been productive of anything. There was no reason for him to have made any of these messages to me or about me [184], [185], [186], [187], [188]. This is why I want him to be indefinitely interaction banned from me. I have no problem staying away from him but he obviously has a problem staying away from me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to comment because I was involved in the AN3 issue. RTG's addition to the noticeboard was an aggressive, unhelpful rant. Still, Ryulong should not have reverted it. I actually restored it and then shortly after formally closed the discussion. It's an administrator's discretion what to allow at AN3, and I usually give a fair amount of latitude after my conclusion for editors to complain. As for here, I can't discern what administrative action RTG is requesting. In addition, I have only glanced at the merits of their complaints about Ryulong. That said, the style here is similar to the style at AN3, combative, aggressive, and overly dramatic. That certainly doesn't help RTG's credibility.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, three respondants are admins. Yeah, I've got hostility for Ryulong, but it is not raw, is instigated by them, and hostility is their MO, not mine. Most non-admins here are implicated in Ryulongs content disputes. I am not. At all. My posts here are directed at admins. I have little or nothing to debate about the content of the diffs I OPed above, because they are relatively simple and the violations are individually minor. But the site needs WP:CIVIL and 3RR and none of you have standing above that. Jimbo don't have it. Material Scientist don't have it. does Larry Sanger have it over on Compendium? No, I don't believe so.

So I am a bit craking up with the Ryulong situation, but needless to say, I can see that and have not nor will not devolve with it. There is no chance of me descending into attacking behaviour here, except attacking hostility, which is all I am trying to do. Ryulong was not getting these blocks before this time last year. Someone gave them offsite hassle. I appreciate peoples situations, but I am not the one, and Ryulong did pursue me from which I was spurred to investigate, and I found what I found, and I don't believe perpetuating it is fair either from Ryulong, or from anyone else.

The reasons for my presence are clear. I have no content interaction with Ryulong (they've questioned me once on a talk page about something which I was correct or at least went with the site). I will be just as impressed if I see this editor get a hard time at Christmas as I am to find their immunity and manner of support. I want to see some smooth. That's all it is. Everyone here has decided to focus me, or at least they have managed to destroy every other impression of this thread. He's not dumb. If he insists on being blocked out, maybe he wants to. You won't get them back into RFA like this anyway. This really isn't my area. I've made the report. It's valid. I've only come back that I could comment as the OP. I don't want to bicker. The reason I have posted here is to report bickering. ANI has returned a so far verdict of: More bickering. Now please forgive me while I go and dream of incoherent laughter (and ombudsmen) instead, cheers. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this rambling even mean? I have not had any sort of interaction with you for several months and you decided three days ago to lambaste me across my user talk page and then again at WP:AN3 on a thread that was closed for non-actionable reverts. You have gone out of your way to try to get me blocked. I want you to stay the equivalent of 300 feet away from me on this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain redundant passages of this kind. Please be bold in deleting these passages." ~ R.T.G 02:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? You and I have had zero interaction in the article space as far as I am aware. What are you trying to even say?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here are more diffs of RTG appearing out of nowhere to try to get me blocked. [189], [190], [191] (reverting my removal of the AN3 notification), [192] (warning me I'm apparently not to remove it from my user talk), [193] (complete ignorance of WP:OWNTALK), [194], [195].—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a single ANI thread (the above diffs). I already mentioned it. what I didn't mention is that there are about a dozen or more diffs of evidence of User Ryulongs disregard for the site at the expense of others good feeling. Strange how they post up each diff rather than post up the thread altogether which was closed, as the 15RR was labelled as over, and my posts to the ANI, including lists of valid incidents gone without acknowledgement by the perp, were responded to wholly by the accused. Isn't that an interesting incident? Who's to blame there? Me I bet. ~ R.T.G 02:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because I am calling for your behavior to be examined as a reason to leave me alone. You have no reason to pile on to any thread that's posted at ANI or AN3 or anywhere to get me blocked because you have shown to have absolutely no knowledge of how policies and guidelines are to be applied. You have your own personal interpretation that is contra to standard practice. I shouldn't have made that many reverts in a single day. But the article is a point of contention that is subject to extreme offsite disruption. But that thread was left alone for hours and obviously I wasn't blocked for it, unlike the multiple other times I've been blocked (often when dealing with users who are later banned from the website for the edits I was reverting) for edit warring. You have gone out of your way to get me blocked when it has nothing to do with you whatsoever. I want you to go back to your side of the project and I'll stay on mine. If it has to be a formal ban from each other I will have no problem adhering to it. You obviously cannot keep yourself from trying to get me banned for no valid reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One thread on ANI and one thread on AN3 ever, only one of which I instigated. Surely Ryulong is indundated by my persistent harassment, or, as happened over at RFC archive.is, you think that I am an idiot, and if you keep calling an idiot an idiot others will join you, and they will, but this magic breaking of the rules I have done in relation to you. it's not there. I am not perfect. You think I do not and should not confront other abusers, but I do, because I am not about abuse, and neither is this site. So, why don't you move on the the SPI. It's all you've got left. I've got your entire contribs to point out the relevance of reporting you here... Face it Ryulong, I ain't interested in your content disputes. I ain't your harasser or any of that. You do break the rules in intolerable fashion. You are not beneath the intelligence level to claim you do not understand that... Even if they ban me from interacting with you, you are building a goodbye ticket. If you can't get back to the site while you are on it, you know you'll be seeing it on the ARBCOM sooner or later and that I will not interact with you there and that no amount of pointing at me will make it seem that I have caused any of your incidents. What you think of that then? Seems legit to me. ~ R.T.G 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not the one here who has repeatedly gone out of his way to make sure that the other party knows what they think about them. I will have no issue if I am banned from interacting with you because you and I don't edit any of the same pages. You are the one who has the desire, or even need, to go "Ryulong is an awful person and he should be banned from Wikipedia".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hurting you, even if it seems you have done wrong. I do attack hostility that continues, but I reason about it. I mean, if I thought you should be banned I'd be saying, ban that editor now, and I'd be a lot more careful about how I presented any information. What I think they should do, should have done ages ago, is give you a short block for some stuff and a warning for others, as and when it happens. I have seen that you do respond to that stimulus, but that the reprimanders go back on their intentions, and leave you again to neglect when you need, or start supporting you for the wrong reasons, worse than neglect. You've been an admin. If you cannot produce this attitude, you don't get to be admin, so you know this attitude, and also so do the admins here. What kind of support is it they give you if they aren't trying to fold you back in as an admin and be a strength for you should you decide to be more careful again? I just want to see it fixed if it is broken. The fact that you are implicated in that for the moment is secondary. That is where my desire lays. If I was trying to slay you, you'd see a wall of diffs, not a load of text. But it's meaningless if the admins refuse to take notice. They are giving you barnstars for biting noobs. It's not fair, and I don't mean to me, I mean in general, me included, you too. Everybody here should be trying to resolve the situation to the most amicable outcome possible or its meaning is worth less. ~ R.T.G 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone understand this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to understand what I say Ryulong so long as you understand that you create hate for this site in the way you conduct your self. The site is more important than you are, and the admins are here to protect it. It doesn't matter how much poison you or passing revellers chuck on that. You are temporary. There's been worse. A true dragon would strike fear. You strike as getting cleaned up after. :0 ~ R.T.G 11:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You create hate for the site among ones that love it. Is that funny too? ~ R.T.G 11:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Knock it off, both of you. RTG, this is now crossing the line into wiki-hounding, stop it or you'll be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:The tools are yours to abuse. I cannot hound someone who has followed me to a thread can I? ~ R.T.G 12:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I please have the equivalent of a restraining order now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Propose/Support IBAN - There is clearly discord between these two editors maybe it is best to keep them apart and see how things go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN, unfortunately. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as I did in the thread above. As another editor put it succinctly on the AN thread RTG opened today, whenever these two editors interact, drama is the result. There is clearly no hope for an amicable resolution here. I also think it would be a healthy decision on RTG's part to step away for a bit and get some fresh air, but that's up to them. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Pie in the sky proposal

First, we're getting a new thread nearly every three day in the intersection of Ryulong, Gamergate, and someone who feels offended by Ryulong enforcing the standard operating procedure. While I know this will be resoundingly opposed by the hordes of SPAs and POV champions I propose the following To discourage frivilous reports, any ANI or AN report brought after November 14th with respect to Gamergate controversy that does not result in action being taken against the reported shall have the same magnitude reverse sanctions applied to the reporter. The goal of this proposal is to sweep these drama magnets off the AN boards and to encourage reporters to have a bulletproof case when they file the report. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems out of place here. This report really doesn't have anything to do with Gamergate. There is also now Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement which hopefully will cut-off Gamergate issues before they reach ANI. — Strongjam (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongjam Since I can only surmise that you've missed the dots that connect how this report connects to Gamergate: This report was regarding an AN:EW filing, which was about edit warring on the Gamergate controversy article. As demonstrated at the ArbCom Case request the advocates bringing these frivolous cases are not interested in working inside/with the system. Their goal is a slash and burn strategy to get their way regardless how many pseudonyms they have to burn. Hasteur (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, this is entirely unrelated to Gamergate. After RTG disrupted an SPI case I had opened (SPI archive, SPI's talk page) where he was making claims that either policy should not be adhered to or that our interpretation was wrong or I don't know I can't understand a word he's ever saying I had found he was making other problematic contributions to the Archive.is RFC (RFC page) and involved myself. I then left him be and then two months later he goes to the AN3 report (AN3 report) and disrupts my user talk page under the false assumption that I'm forced to keep Tutelary's AN3 notification there. And then three days ago he goes insane on my user talk, adding comments to several old messages I was sent, completely unprovoked ([196]). I report him ([197]). He ignores this and two days later leaves another rambling message at another AN3 report that had been closed ([198]). I notify him of the thread again and then he opens this retaliatory thread. And when he's not getting his way in this thread seeing as he's now shot himself in the foot he forum shops over at WP:AN ([199]). RTG's behavior towards me since August 31 has been nothing but disruptive and shows evidence that he doesn't know anything about Wikipedia's actual policies and guidelines and only acts on what he thinks they should be instead of actual practice. I want him banned from ever being involved with me again. And this bilateral interaction ban stuff should not be applied because there is no history of me hounding him as he has hounded me time and time again. Just because he's decided to hound me on something peripherally related to Gamergate does not make this a Gamergate issue.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Vishnumohankerala

Appears compromised due to edits. Jeremy Sallis (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that the account is compromised? The account was created only this morning, and the first edit was only 6 minutes later. I see no evidence that the account is no longer under the control of the editor who created it. You may believe that the edits are unconstructive or even vandalism, but nobody has yet given any comments or warnings regarding this on the user's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What's more suspicious is, why is the OP's account so new and yet they come here for help at the first chance they get? The Jeremy Sallis account was also created this morning. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed... Jeremy Sallis appears somewhat familiar with how things such as WP:AIV and WP:SPI work. Is it zeal or is this someone we should know? --Kinu ^t/_c 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

nota per gli amministratori EUPHYDRYAS e BUGGIA.

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

---

Unnessecary rant

Gli interventi che ho fatto su Chiesa Cattolica e Papa sono condivisi da milioni di persone (anche cattoliche9 e non sono soltanto mie personali opinioni. Si vede che il Vostro fondamentalismo non vi consente di valutare con serenità e di avere "buonesenso" solo Voi. Scrivete "discussione" ma non consentite la discussione se non è "politically correct" nei confronti dei potenti. Eppure non dovrete ignorare che una discussione non è mai su cose certe ma su cose opinabili (altrimenti è solo presa d'atto). Vi faccio comunque contenti: non interverrò più su Wikipedia per cui attuate pure il "blocco perpetuo". Salutatemi, se potete, anche l'utente Shivanarayana (dogmatico come voi). Un distinto saluto di commiato. FABRIZIO ANSELMI (come vedete non temo di firmarmi e non mi nascondo dietro pseudonimi come voi...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.166.137 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Questa è la Wikipedia in inglese. La Wikipedia in italiano è qui. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

Dammst has been WP:CANVASSing for this AfD. He is an SPA and has posted multiple bad-faith WP:SOCK accusations. [200] and [201]. I think this merits a disruption block, but that's my opinion. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Did they only canvass this one user?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Have a look at their contribs. They've posted the same notice on 21 users' pages, preferring admins, and including Jimbo. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have some deleted contribs, which us plebs can't see, their entire contribs history is the canvassing and attacks at the AFD. Agree with Origamite that a block or at the very least a final warning is needed. Blackmane (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I apologise FOR BOTH. I didn't know you call this way if I send this to so many admins. I shouldn't have attacked the users but maybe I am right. I didn't offend anybody, I didn't post the notice to spam. Dammst Dammst (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a problem, but @Origamite:, I for one sure would have preferred that you link to this "canvassing" discussion from my user talk page instead of just deleting what he wrote there without explanation; initially, my first thought was that someone on the other side of a dispute was trying to suppress a request for help. Clearly that's not the case, but just reverting didn't tell me that. - Jmabel | Talk 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

My intentions are 100% good, Jmabel. I explained there how we are abused. There's no kickboxing record on the internet and all the people are checking Wikipedia. Meanwhile some users that don't care about this sport are deleting everything. The work. It would be ok to delete if they would know anything about kickboxing. 2-3 people can do that and nobody cares about us. This is in the advatange of the Wikipedia and of more people than 2-3. Dammst (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Jmabel. I was rollbacking from his contribs, since I knew it was spam and don't have that much time today. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dammst, your argument seems to be that of righting great wrongs. You might do better at arguing for a keep vote if you use policy and not assertions that someone does or doesn't care about something. Deletion discussions are based on policy, not care or usefulness. The deletion discussion was founded on the observation that the article's subject might not be notable; the way to refute that is to find reliable sources to establish its notability. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just in case it comes up, I have commented in the AfD after seeing the discussion here, and subsequently posted a notice about it on a relevant WikiProject. I am doing so as neutrally as I can to seek comment from editors more familiar with the topic area. If this comes across as bad-faith canvassing, I apologize, that is not my intent. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be a kick. --NE2 21:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, what you did and how you did it were perfectly fine. "Canvassing" is gathering people who you know will agree with you, so you can skew the result your way. What you did is notify people who know the topic and policies and may have differing opinions, and you didn't put in your own opinion in the notification. In short, good job. And Dammst, you've voice your concerns, it is probably time for you to back away and just let others have the same privilege. You have had your say. Bouncing around and calling other editors sockpuppets without providing any evidence is not smart. If you make a habit of it, there will be consequences. Listen to Purplewowies, who explained it better than I can. And Blackmane, there are no deleted contribs, just the unusual history. Dennis - 2¢ 22:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dennis. That does make their history unusual indeed. Blackmane (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs is one of the largest donor to Wikimedia

(NAC) Content dispute, not for this board. Talk:Goldman Sachs is where one wants to go regarding this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hallo to all. I wrote and insert in the article [Goldman Sachs] that "Goldman Sachs is one of the largest donor to Wikimedia Foundation, since 2012. "
A neutral and factual remark.
Somebody had removed, few minute later. Not repositioning in the article but removed it. I write it again, and somebody, again in few minute, removed it again (not repositioning), with the comment "Why is this notable?". I think that it is important to spot this large contribution, made by large giant enterprise, like Goldman Sachs. Do you think it is relevant, to know it, for better awareness about the concept of indipendence and neutral orientation (on the subjectt itself) and defend it? Thank you for you attention and patience. I belive it is an hot subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.180.5 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

First, sign your name on your post. Second, provide a diff or article or this will be quickly be closed as non-actionable. Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And consider talking at Talk:Goldman Sachs. This is a content dispute. Closing, but if an admin wants to reopen this, they can undo my edit. Epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Possible legal threat at Sara_Lilly

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

---

Hello. While patrolling via Huggle, I came across this edit by the IP 92.232.69.130 and here's the text of such. Source for HMMA nominee finalist awards 2012 http://www.hmmawards.org/2012program.pdf These comments surmount to slander and will not be tolerated legal advice is already being sought since all work is evidenced. This feels like online bullying and harrassment that is unjustified. If further comments arise each individual will be legally contacted. and Links http://www.hmmawards.org/2012program.pdf www.saralillyofficial.com with links to iTunes and Strawberry Girl site which is TradeMarked globally....photos of fashion week event with designed clothing. Videos of live performances including LGR, POK, SKY. iTunes / Amazon / LGR can all be evidenced and there are videos....photos etc. This is online slander and also online bullying that is unjustified and will result in legal action if further unwarranted comments emerge. Use a laptop and you will find all evidence.

I believe that this is a legal threat and as a result I have reported it here. Tutelary (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the threats. Mike V • Talk 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Conflict on Ghazal Omid involving the individual the page is about

I came across this edit using STiki. Noticing that the user and page name were the same, I investigated further and discovered multiple discussions on User Talk:Ghazal Omid regarding this page and edits the individual wishes to be made. From looking on her talk page, it would appear she wants her picture changed and isn't sure of how to do that. She is being rather aggressive towards other editors who have been trying to help her. In order for this discussion to be more controlled and hopefully not escalate further, I'm bringing it here. demize (t · c) 01:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a comment. Hopefully it does not rub the wrong way. Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue appears to have sorted itself out, and I believe this discussion can be closed and left to be archived away. demize (t · c) 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bribery but not enough

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

---

So what is the going rate for restoring protected articles to a prior state? I really don't think that $500 is quite enough. This has to do with G Force Pakistan which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Force Pakistan. It was up for full protection but by mistake I used semi-protection. Later I saw the error and fixed it. By then the article had been reduced in size. Should I have returned the article to the state it was in when I semi-protected and what, if anything, should be done about Gforcepakistan4? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account. I will accept no sums of money less than $100.000 to unblock. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

$500 is just insulting..-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you a million dollars to edit the page, then. Are you satisfied?

On a serious note (I only have $1,000,000,000,000 in my Nigerian bank account), it should be kept as is. Otherwise, if the article is changed back, it may signal partiality toward a certain page version on the part of the admin. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had figured they needed blocking but wasn't 100% sure. As for the protection there is the argument that I should have fully protected it in the version when I first saw it but I'm not bothered either way. But I would certainly want more than they are offering. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting indef for confirmed sock of indeffed user

Batman1601 has been blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, per this SPI report, user Batman1601 is a confirmed sock of indeffed user Avenger2015 and thus should also be indeffed, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

I would like to report User:Volunteer Marek for disruptive editing at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The user refuses to discuss content and prefers to engage in endless bickering that doesn't lead anywhere, to the point where other editors and admins refuse to read the walls of text on the talk page. The article is only 4 months old and has 21 pages of archived talk pages, where starting on page 8 Volunteer Marek is stifling any meaningful discussion by saying "already discussed" and refusing to say anything more. When asked a specific question, I get answers like "Do you see the words "At" and "best" up there?" and nothing more. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#BRD Let's discuss Here are two examples where after lengthy bickering, attempts to discuss content were completely ignored Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Conflicting claims and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Untold Story Documentary. First argument was that the article is about the crash, and not about the investigation. My attempt to resolve this issue by taking the investigation portion into a new article, resulted in an edit war where he called me "daft" [202]. In addition, sources are being cherry picked to support whatever VM wants them to support, and even a report in Time Magazine was cherry picked to support whatever VM decided was the "truth" like in this example. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Reliable sources for this article This behavior is very disruptive, and it's not happening only in this article, there are numerous complaints, but you're probably already aware of those. USchick (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: this editor's actions are also being discussed at WP:AN3 (here) and WP:NPOVN (here). Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Which editor? USchick or Volunteer Marek? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Since it as at AN3 shouldn't they be able to handle that?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, and at WP:AN3 it looks like the user who reported me (there was no 3RR violation) is going to get WP:BOOMERANGed. Likewise in the WP:NPOVN discussion, my position has pretty clear consensus, with two users engaging in a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. One of these two just got blocked for a week. The other is the one who filed the spurious 3RR report. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What form of dispute resolution have you used?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a standard "they won't let me push my POV on the article!" request. The reason I said "already discussed" is exactly because it *was* already discussed. USchick did not get their way. So they've been trying to resurrect discussions over and over and over again per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I called them "daft" because they were being daft. First they made this "cute" little personal attack [203]:

"Dear Volunteer Marek, as the owner of this article, I appeal to your Excellency for the humble permission to move the investigation section of this article to its own page. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Your most honorable servant of all time"

Then, they tried to pretend that the above comment, the obnoxious addressing me as "your Excellency" and the WP:POINT (failed) sarcasm where meant in earnest (with another personal attack of "I feel sorry for you"):

"I asked as nicely as I know how. If you consider that a personal attack, I feel sorry for you. "

Now, does anyone here seriously believe that that comment was USchick "asking as nicely as they know how" in good faith? Is anyone here that naive?

Rest of the claim is nonsense too. There's no cherry picking, USchick just doesn't agree with reliable sources. They have not engaged in good discussion, just a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In one case they misrepresented the position of another user (not me) and accused them of racism. The user rejected a source USchick wanted to use because it was based on a fringe conspiracy site. USchick pretended that the user in question was rejecting a source because of racism. This wound up at AN/I with USchick almost getting indef blocked (they backed off). Yet, couple days later USchick was back on this article's talk page claiming that the source was being rejected due to its origin and that "consensus at AN/I established the source is ok" (or something like that). Basically, very little this user says has any resemblance to reality.

I should mention that this is like the third or fourth time that USchick has tried to being me to AN/I. Nothing happened each time, because the requests were spurious. This is essentially a form of harassment. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The AN3 is about a different article. On this article, I tried an RfC where one admin said, "Keep comments as succinct as possible: no-one is obliged to, nor should we be compelled to, read a treatise." Another admin recused himself because he was worried about a threat to his children in real life as a result of this article. I would like to see some proof where I "tried" to bring VM to ANI. USchick (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)" Another admin recused himself because he was worried about a threat to his children in real life as a result of this article" - you BETTER NOT BE IMPLYING that I had anything to do with this! Holy crap, that's is one helluva dishonest bullshit low blow insinuation! I expect you strike that and apologize. Volunteer Marek  19:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate threat to an admin that has come from wikipedia it should be investigated. Are you suggesting VM did this?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They are sure as hell doing their best to insinuate I did! That is the most dishonest bullshit I've seen since... well, since USchick falsely accused another user of racism. I demand that USchick be blocked for making - or implying - such a serious accusation against myself. This is preposterous. I will not have myself lied about like that. The admin in question was talking about the controversial nature of the topic, and I'm pretty sure that they were referring to possible threats from the pro-Russian separatist side. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin was concerned about the nature of the discussions taking place. As a government employee, the admin was concerned about his children's safety. No it wasn't about VM, but it happened during the RfC in question. I'm describing what happened when I attempted dispute resolution. I will look for what he said exactly. USchick (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse. I notice there is an Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions tag on the talk page. Has USchick been alerted? Ivanvector (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"I notice there is an Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions tag on the talk page. Has USchick been alerted?" - Yep.  Volunteer Marek  19:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Here is a link to the previous discussion where USchick accused another user of racism [204]. Here is the accusation [205]. Here is administrator's User:TParis response to USchick: "If that's your response, I'm tempted to block you right now. You literally called someone a racist. Are you actually saying that you expect someone to not accuse you of slander for that? You didn't at all say "discounting Malaysian sources simply for being Malaysian is racist". You said "your racist friend". That's about a person, not sources. Seriously, your next reply needs to acknowledge how you escalated this issue dramatically and how you retract your accusations and in the future you will address the edits and not the editor"

This is more insane accusations along the same lines. The implication that I had anything to do with some hypothetical threats on someone's life really take the case. Can someone explain to me why a user like USchick is still allowed to edit wikipedia?  Volunteer Marek  19:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The mentioning the admin and their concerns for their safety here, when they don't involve VM, is highly inflammatory and certainly not helpful to your cause.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was answering what happened during my attempt at dispute resolution. VM was involved in those discussions, bud did not make a direct threat. I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please. USchick (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"But did not make a direct threat" WHAT. THE. FUCK. As in "made an indirect threat"??? You little shit. Stop lying about me. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

|} Sadly, the whole Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article is a disaster area at the moment. Unfortunately there is not yet a final, formal report on the incident. This has left space for a group of rather dominating editors, strongly representing Wikipedia's western systemic bias, to fill the article with all sorts of speculative and politically motivated statements about what might have happened, mostly representing a view that is anti-Putin, anti-Russian and anti-Ukrainian separatist. Volunteer Marek is one of them. I would like to suggest a bold solution. A strong Administrator needs to step in and remove every speculative statement from the article, no matter who it's from. If the ONLY content about the cause was what has so far come from the official inquiry, all of these dramas would disappear. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I just had an edit conflict with that hatting action, and I must say I have probably never seen a less helpful hatting. That won't make the problem go away. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is where my previous attempt at conflict resolution ended. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19#Aware of ARBEE where the admin said: "I'm sorry, there isn't a chance of that happening even if everyone here agreed. All I need is some wacko with a blog fully of conspiracy nuts to suddenly enter the picture and make wild threats toward my kids. Or someone in Russia prints some paper about how the US Gov't is in charge of the Wikipedia article on this and then I get in trouble for giving the appearance of government endorsement/involvement in what I do on Wikipedia. Just not interested in my hobby turning into a nightmare. Thanks anyway for the vote of confidence.--v/r - TP 22:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" USchick (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem relevant to an ANI against VM.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

They're just forum shopping. They're running out of forums. So now here. Volunteer Marek  20:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where I have written "rather dominating editors" above, I had originally written "bullying editors". I changed it in the interests of peace and diplomacy. I might change it back. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with HiLo. USchick (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

COMMENT: I have reopened this thread because the hat was not wisely applied. The last edit before the hatting was from an editor attempting to find information he had been asked for by others. He said " I will find the exact link where the admin said he felt threatened. Give me a minute please.". When he returned he found himself shut out. He surely has the right to provide the information and present it with the request it refers to. Moriori (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• There are a number of noticeboards. You could also consider making an RFC about content instead an RFC about a tag. The RFC about the tag leads me to believe that someone feels that there is a NPOV issue. You could take that to the NPOV noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a question about what have I done to resolve the dispute. If you review the 21+ archives, you will see that any attempt is met by VM's histrionics similar to what caused the hatting above. An admin refused to enforce ARBEE by saying: "I've changed my mind. Reading through some of these talk page comments, I see that there are accusations about western media and western governments, particularly the US government, of a conspiracy for a new world order and some other rubbish. Being that I work for the US Government during the day, I don't need to be caught in some conspiracy bullcrap and accusations of being an arm of the US Government on Wikipedia (not saying the accusations have happened, yet). So, I'm out. Some other admin can enforce WP:ARBEE.--v/r - TP 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" followed by the comment about being afraid for his children. USchick (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a disruption issue, just like outlined in my original complaint here. If the disruption stops, I believe we can negotiate content. USchick (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP lying. You are once again trying to insinuate that I had something to do with TParis statement. Rubbish. You say "If you review the 21+ archives, you will see that any attempt is met by VM's histrionics similar to what caused the hatting above.". You then follow that up with " An admin refused to enforce ARBEE by saying...". You are very clearly trying to imply that User:TParis refused to enforce ARBEE against me because they were afraid of something I might do. THIS IS UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT. I had NOTHING to do with TParis' choice or statement. You are trying to imply that they were about to enforce some ARBEE action against me, but then changed their mind. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. STOP lying. In fact it was *you*, or some of your friends on the talk page, who was about to be sanctioned - *that* is why you were given the ARBEE notice [206] - when they changed their mind. And given how deceitful you are, and how scummy you are acting right here, I can't say that I don't understand why they got afraid. Volunteer Marek  20:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be clear, Volunteer Marek had nothing to do with my decision - at all. I made it after reading some of the conspiracy nuts theories and having an impression through news stories that conspiracy nuts like to bully people online. I'm not calling anyone here a nut. I'm specifically referring to off-wikipedia sites. Wikipedia is a hobby and I don't need people who take this stuff way too seriously to decided to target me. Entirely 100% my own concern having been influenced by no one. No threats have been made against me. This was a preemptive decision.--v/r - TP 20:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was asked a direct question here at ANI. I answered it. My answer was blanked by VM [207] followed by a personal attack. This is the kind of disruption that led us here in the first place. USchick (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• USchick has now implicitly accused me of threatening an administrator's children three times. This. Has. Got. To. Stop. It is as bad, if not worse, than the time they falsely accused someone of racism [208]. Why is this person even allowed here? It's beyond tolerable. Volunteer Marek  20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is link to relevant discussion at this article talk page. I think this has nothing to do with VM, but with a number of POV-pushing SPA who currently edit these pages (one of then just reported VM to 3RR). My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I explicitly accused VM of disruption. For the record, there is no "implicit" accusation. USchick (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Then strike your comments and apologize. Volunteer Marek  20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I answered a direct question. Then I clarified more than once that this is not against you VM. It has also been clarified by the admin. I think it's clear. USchick (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors wanting to see Volunteer Marek's ownership of the article on grand display need look no further than here, from just a few minutes ago. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are proposing to remove reliably sourced text simply because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You've brought this up half a dozen of times if not more. Other editors - not just me, but quite a few editors - disagreed with you. Yet you keep on and on and on and on about it. After awhile it gets extremely tiresome to repeat the same thing. That's not "ownership", that's simple frustration and exhaustion with tendentious, tenacious, stubborn POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here in this thread I am proposing nothing about the article. I am encouraging others to look at your editing style (see the topic of this thread). I think you have satisfactorily reinforced my point with that post. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And here is another fresh example. It's either ownership, bullying, just plain rude, or a combination of any of the above. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Is any sensible Administrator watching? This bad behaviour is happening right now. Easy to see Please do something. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop wasting my and other people's time? There's nothing wrong with my "behaviour". You are demanding that we remove well sourced text from the article because you JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I'm saying no, that's against Wikipedia policy. You call that "ownership" and "bullying". No. It's simply following Wikipedia policies. If you don't like Wikipedia policies then that's your problem. But will you please stop making this demand over and over and over and over again, and demanding that we discuss it over and over and over and over again? Other editors (again, not just me) disagree with you. You're wasting their time. That's where *your* behaviour crosses the line from being merely irritating to being disruptive. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• New idea I'm tired of seeing these things swirl down the sewer drain to an endless sludge of negative reinforcement and negative corrective actioning. Let's try a new strategy. Would any of you four volunteer to give your 'opponent' a sincere and thoughtful compliment? The idea is to find a common ground that you can build a foundation of cooperation on.--v/r - TP 22:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Volunteer Marek believes he is doing the right thing. There, does that work? HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's like someone else saying they suspect that you believe you are doing the right thing on Christianity articles. Would you take that well? Can you find something that you appreciate VM for? Perhaps you guys can share appreciation that you both dedicate hours and effort to a shared goal of developing a world-wide free encyclopedia?--v/r - TP 22:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate VM for his efforts on the Euromaidan article. USchick (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is silly. It's a distraction that won't solve the problem. It's not about what I think of someone else. It's about someone else's behaviour. I have provided diffs above demonstrating that behaviour continuing even after this thread began. I have described long term problems with the article. It's terrible. A neutral Administrator with some guts needs to take action, now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, TP, I hope the editors take you up on it. Just a question - who is the fourth? This seems to be a dispute between Marek, USchick and HiLo. I'm quite fond of their relentless passion for this project. Ivanvector (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I presume it's Herzen. I think Herzen is acting in good faith and means well. Hey, I even stuck up for them when they got reported for something or other. Volunteer Marek  22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, I thought maybe he meant me. Of course you can say nice things about me anyway if you really want. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a great idea. It's a distraction that won't solve the problem with either the editor behaviour in question or the article. It's just more evidence that we lack Administrators with guts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's evidence we have some admins willing to employ creative solutions to defuse conflicts. Ivanvector (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Because no Administrator has had the guts to do anything sensible about that whole article before now, it's a little too late for that sort of nonsense. The fuse has been burning for too long. Admins have the tools do something about it. It's time they used them. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is I who was meant, but it is true that Volunteer Marek very kindly intervened on my behalf after Stickee aggressively referred me to AN3 on a technicality. – Herzen (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot regard behavior like this as being good for the encyclopaedia, no matter how much the editor cares and how bloody hard he works. Do we have an ethical Administrator here with any courage? I am here to make a great encyclopaedia, not for a love-in HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Look HiLo48, what you are asking is for some (naive) administrator to come into the article and help you enforce your own personal POV. Despite the fact that the consensus on the talk page is and has been against you. You are asking for some (naive) administrator to come into the article and empower you to remove some text, which is sourced to reliable sources, simply because you personally don't like it. You are asking some (naive) administrator to come into the article and help you violate one of Wikipedia's pillars, WP:NPOV. You are asking some (naive) administrator to come into the article and act as your own personal thug/enforcer so that you can do what you want.

Do I really have to explain that it is *this* kind of attitude, not anything I might have done or said, that is problematic here? Both in terms of your dedication to disregarding Wikipedia policy (in fact, a pillar) in pursuit of your POV, *and* the way you're trying to go about it. I've been critical of administrators as a group before, but even I don't think any admin would be that naive. Volunteer Marek  23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Long term editors all know there is not point in correcting some articles because they are owned by a click of editors that just use wikilawer excuses to to revert. Has WP now evolved to a point, that a ownership patrol is justified and warranted to encourage these current owners to follow the spirit of WP and not to just delete whatever article corrections these owners disagree with -regardless of however good the reference!? I have noticed that these clicks appear not to have proper jobs, as they are on WP 24/7. It almost appears to me that, their only outlet in life to be noticed. They may not have any deep insight to the subject but being able to own a WP article gives them a feeling that they are important – they have found a reason to justify their existence on this planet. However, they don't seem to understand that there is a difference in science, between healthy skepticism (where doubts and contradictions in evidence, is all-meal for-the-grist) and pseudo- skepticism (that they actively promote), where they demand extra ordinary evidence whist not providing their own extra ordinary evidence and so anything that feels wrong by them is deleted and supported by their other pals that stalk the same article. Finding that they don't have to walk out their front door to find friends, the birds of a feather flock to together and they support each other even when the don't understand the issues themselves. So they collectively promote blind ideology. They may disagree with my analysis but on what evidence? Come on. A lot of us here, have had to oversee employees. We value those that show good judgment. How many editors that own article would we employ? Maybe this is why they have the time to stalk WP 24/7? It is easy to cherry-pick to support one's own POV, yet many editors desire only to improve WP period. We need to bring some of these article ownership clicks back into line. I firmly believe that one of the great strengths of WP is that anyone can edit it to 'improve' WP, by bringing to it the benefit (without any personal reward) their own expertise. These clicks however appear to worship their own ultracrepidarianism. Some long term editors may record a a few essays by editors explaining why they where leaving WP. One puts in a lot of work to improve an article only to have it all reverted because the click that owns the article prefers to believe Fox News or wherever source that gave then their 'true insight'. It has left many an editor thinking why should I bother? And since these clicks can afford the time to stalk it 24/7 they can wear the productive editor down through attrition. WP, I think, now needs to address these little clicks that take over some articles and wast so much productive time.--Aspro (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultracrepidarianism, eh? I've definitely learnt a new word today. Thanks. (I'm not game to try to pronounce it yet though.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Marek's history in this topic area is poor. Here are some particularly glaring examples from a few months back: [209] [210] [211] [212]. Not surprisingly, the edits to RT similarly reveal that same POV-pushing tendency Marek exhibits: [213] [214] [215]. Marek has a long-standing history of POV-pushing on Eastern European topics as a former member of EEML (under a previous username). This editor should not be anywhere near these topics as his desire to push his POV is clearly more important to him than policy and sourcing. Note that these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the linked edits are problematic. In fact, they represent consensus. We still believe in consensus, don't we? *IF* there is some problem with my edits, please feel free to file an WP:AE report. That is the venue for these things. Why aren't you filing an WP:AE report? I would really like it if you filed WP:AE report. Please please please. The chances that you'd get blocked (per WP:BOOMERANG) by User:Sandstein or User:EdJohnston are pretty good. Unlike AN/I they don't put up with nonsense over there. Volunteer Marek  23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban for Eastern European articles will be considered? USchick (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban from Eastern European articles for USchick is LONG OVERDUE. USchick has falsely accused another editor of racism. Then they lied about the resulting AN/I discussion on the article's talk page - specifically, they claimed the AN/I discussion established consensus for the use of a conspiracy website based source, whereas in fact the whole AN/I discussion was about whether or not USchick should get indeffed for falsely accusing others of racism. Might be worth mentioning that the slandered editor, User:Geogene has left Wikipedia since. I don't blame them. THEN, USchick has repeatedly implied that I had somehow threatened an administrator's children. They offered some weaselly "clarification" - since the implication is both offensive and false - and then repeated it anyway two more times. On the article talk page USchick, as pointed out by uninvolved User:Ivanvector ("Having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree with Marek's assessment of the situation. Indeed it does seem as though multiple editors have tried to explain rationales for particular edits that USchick disagrees with, and USchick is not listening and relentlessly flogging the dead horse.") has tediously engaged in ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Their presence in this topic area has been nothing but a complete time sink for other editors. They have also misrepresented sources and derailed discussions but that's sort of par for the course in this topic area, so never mind on that part. Volunteer Marek  23:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs (even if that IS the case here) don't make a right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are complaints about me, I would appreciate a separate thread. This one is about my complaints. Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick you are mistaken. This complaint about him by you is where his complaints about you should be discussed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, if a ban on me is to be considered, I would like to request my own section where people can praise me before I get banned. Since we already have a section for VM along with all the attention he's getting at the other notice boards. lol USchick (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I actually had a WP:AE report on you half written up, since, really, your behavior here has been nothing if not despicable. Then I saw that someone hatted this discussion and I thought "ah screw it, let it go, not worth the effort" and I didn't file it. Then somebody unhatted this discussion and we got more of this crap. And now I'm regretting I didn't file the Arbitration Enforcement request.  Volunteer Marek  00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@USchick and Volunteer Marek: Do either of you have a problem taking this to some form dispute resolution? Can you agree in principal that you would take it there this situation not withstanding?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this problem has been shuffled around at various notice boards, even though the articles in question are sanctioned, and so far nothing has been done, I would like to have more information about the proposed dispute resolution and what we can expect to happen there. In addition, since i'm not familiar with the process, can someone please explain why HiLo's proposal for admin intervention at the article is not being considered? Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle I'm not opposed. I would like some kind of show of good faith from USchick which signals that I am not going to have my time wasted. Some more. Striking the false insinuations about how I supposedly threatened some admin's children and apologizing would be a good start. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's some more bad faith editing from Volunteer Marek. Put-downs like that NEVER help build a great encyclopaedia. Come on Admins. Show some courage, please. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying that an RfC is vague is a "put-down"? Stickee (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about??? There's nothing wrong with that comment. It's more substantiated than all of your comments put together. It's not bad faith. It's criticism. Criticism, in the real world and on Wikipedia is ok. You guys seem to have coordinated an RfC so vague that you're basically asking for a carte blanche to do whatever it is you want with the article, Wikipedia policies be damned. I've been on Wikipedia since 2005 and that is the most vague RfC I've ever seen. Quit ban-shopping please, it's unseemly. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you're both not really that stupid, but I'll clarify for those who really need it. VM paraphrased USchick's post with "This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request." That is mocking another editor. It's very rude. It isn't making this a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see how many other outside discussions VM can drag into this discussion. Isn't there a policy against that? USchick (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick, that's kind of easy. What reasonable things would you like to see on the part of VM for you to take dispute resolution with them and for VM what reasonable things would you like to see. Just as a random example, could you two be as brief as possible when taking part in this dispute resolution. 300ish per response. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I'm here is because VM cherry picks sources to support his version of the "truth" and no amount of people being reasonable has been successful in turning this around. This is outlined very clearly in the 21 archives of the article discussion page. Just like I linked above, even Time Magazine was cherry picked to support his version of the truth. He is not the only one with this mind set, but he's the only one who is extremely disruptive. I don't mind people disagreeing, but this is ridiculous. USchick (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I already stated this above. USchick could start by striking the comments where they engage in pretty transparent insinuation that I had something to do with threatening an administrator's children. They could apologize for making such odious suggestions. Volunteer Marek  00:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

VM coercing an apology likely won't accomplish anything. USchick, So are you indicating that you do not wish to seek dispute resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but please try to think of it from my perspective. Those comments by USchick crossed a line. At best they were, as you yourself put it, "inflammatory". Look. I understand disagreeing about content. I'm fine with arguing about sources. I'm even fine with users calling each other "POV pushers" or "propagandists" or whatever. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and that kind of thing does not bother me in the least. But USchick did insinuate that I had actually threatened an administrator's children, and as a result that administrator left the article. When called on this bullshit they backed down and said I made "no direct threat" (my emphasis). Which was of course another way of insinuating that I had somehow made an indirect threat. When their comments were criticized and scrutinized by others they said "well, this wasn't about VM directly". Or something like that. And then they repeated the very same insinuation again with the comment about histrionics.

Also, I saw what USchick did to the other user, Geogene, whom they falsely accused of racism. That user has since left Wikipedia (there was an unfortunate side show where Geogene used the word "slander" to describe USchick's action - which it was - and some nit picky AN/I denizens jumped on them for supposedly "making a legal threat", because you know, they heard on some TV show that "slander" is a legal term). In other words, USchicks bullshit accusations were not an isolated incident. There's a pattern here.

I understand the importance of assuming good faith. But it gets a little hard after awhile. What is more important than assuming good faith is acting in good faith. I need to see some indication that USchick is acting in good faith. That these previous ... "incidents" were just "accidents". Bad choice of words, misreading of a situation or something like that. And if that's all they were, then an apology is both called for and easy to give. Volunteer Marek  01:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would LOVE to get real dispute resolution. Before we go there, let's find out what we can reasonably expect please? I'm not interested in going down a rabbit hole. USchick (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE ADMINS? USchick has politely raised several issues. I have now posted here the diffs of several examples of bad faith editing made by Volunteer Marek SINCE this thread began. Not a word of response from an Administrator to the posting of those diffs. Now, what's the first word in the name of this nticeboard? I ask again - WHERE THE HELL ARE ALL THE ADMINS? And what the fuck are they doing? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Politely" my ass. What's so polite about falsely implying that someone threatened an administrator's children? What's so polite about falsely accusing others of racism? Maybe there's not a word of response from admins because they see it for what it is. Despicable behavior by a user and his buddies who want to push their POV on a controversial article so they're ban-shopping their asses off. And quit shouting. You're no more important than the rest of us and neither are you saying something more profound. Volunteer Marek  01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration that the absence of administrators causes, but I feel the need to remind you to keep this discussion civil. Administrators are volunteers too, and they can't always be around; just take a look at the admin backlogs for some proof of that. There's no need for profanity, a simple reminder that this discussion needs attention will do. demize (t · c) 01:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's bullshit. The Admins volunteered to be Admins. They sought the power. They need to bloody well use it WHEN it's needed. I swore to get attention. It's worked before. I've got a little attention, from you. Earlier polite attempts to get Admin attention DIDN'T work, so you're talking crap. The problems with the article in question are not new. It's fucking obvious to me that too many Admins are scared to touch it. Only the POV pushing ones are willing to get involved. Our Admin system sucks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's needed. To stop you from trying to ban-shop because you can't get your way in a discussion and the consensus of users on a talk page prevents you from POV pushing. HiLo48, it's obvious. You have a particular POV on this topic which does not happen to line up with reliable sources. It's frustrating. So you want to - and keep proposing and demanding - that reliable source be removed from the article in question. Other editors, who don't have a problem with reliable sources disagree. So you come here and TYPE IN ALL CAPS IN BIG BOLD LETTERS BECAUSE YOU THINK IT MAKES YOU SOUND MORE SERIOUS (is there a "big^2" mark up? I'd like to use that here plz) and demand that anyone who disagrees with you is banned from an article so you are left to push your POV in peace. Sorry, not how an encyclopedia works. Volunteer Marek  01:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The admin are chilling with their martinis and relaxing trying to break a new Guinness World Record of most admins inactive from WP:ANI in a single day. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This admin is watching Cal-USC while perusing this board. Cal-USC, that's boring West Coast stuff. Neither team is ranked. I couldn't care less. If an SEC offensive linesman farts every defensive coach in the PAC 12 runs for cover. Yet it is more exciting than watching a couple of the usual suspects yelling at each other, and then at the poor schmucks "who sought the power". BTW, just to go through the motions, I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there ("fuck all", for those who speak alternative English). I don't mind blocking Marek; I don't mind blocking HiLo, I don't mind blocking USchick (I don't know them, I think, but they sound like a razor and I don't like shaving). Who else did you want me to block? I get $10 per block from the WMF, $20 for an indef, so I don't mind.

There was an admin here who tried an unorthodox tactic to stop you bitches from bitching. I doubt they'll try that tactic again; it's wasted on you all. But I do have a recipe to lessen your frustration with lack of admin interest in this here ANI thread: don't post on ANI. Get each others' Twitter handles and have it out there. Or, you just try to improve your own behavior and forgive the next person some of their behavior, and try to assume a little good faith. Or maybe you stay out of some discussion for a day or two. Or whatever. Since I haven't seen anything that yet calls for a block, and this is ANI, and you didn't accept the peace pipe passed around by TParis, someone is going to close this shortly, I don't doubt. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to go down a rabbit hole. I'm asking to ask some reasonable things of VM during the proposed DR and I'm asking them to do the same. You agree to this and they agree to that. If either of you violate said agreement that would be bad faith negotiating. If you violate the agreement then they come back for the topic ban and if they violate it you comeback for the topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are we going? Link please? Can I see some examples of previous discussions? Who is going to enforce it? Will it be better enforced than the sanctions already placed on the article? And can someone please answer why HiLo's proposal is not being considered? Thanks. USchick (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why USchick should do this. Nobody is doing anything about VM's unreasonable and incredibly rude editing on the article's talk page SINCE this thread began. USchick has been very polite. Why doesn't anyone have the guts to do anything about VM now, based on an obvious bad attitude? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say that I have noticed a pattern in VM acting in disruptive ways when it comes to articles involving the recent fighting in Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes and we've had disagreements before so you're jumping in here. Substantiate, file a WP:AE report or go away. I'm getting tired of being picked on and harassed. Volunteer Marek  01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Enough. This is previous ANI tread, and this is previous statement by USchick. @USchick, perhaps admins do not want to help because you "have a serious problem" with one of the best of them and accuse people of "tag teaming" without a shred of evidence? My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy about dragging previous arguments into a new argument? I believe you are in violation of policy. Why was this comment not made on my talk page? Please, with all respect in the world, GO FLY A KITE! USchick (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What policy are you talking about (any link?) and what kite? My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• To all participating involved parties: Please read WP:ANI Advice #'s 10, 12, and 16. The "Nuh uh's, you said blah!" aren't inviting outside participation.--v/r - TP 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

USchick we can actually figure out in a minute where to go. Right now lets see if we can an agreement on how you to communicate when you get there. You say his behavior is the issue and he basically says the same for you. So lets see what reasonable things it will take for you and what reasonable things it will take for VM to go somewhere and talk.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My issue with VM is cherry picking sources AND disruptive editing where I attempt to discuss content, and everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown at me. Just like here. USchick (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One more time. I have neither "cherry picked sources" nor engaged in "disruptive editing". Hell, I didn't even write most of that article. I'm not the one who choose the sources that went in there. The article was written by a number of editors and it reflects general consensus. My only fault here has been that I've opposed your attempts at removing reliable sources from the article according to some POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your "attempts to discuss content" after, the fourth or fifth time got tiresome as it became obvious that you were not trying to discuss things constructively in order to reach consensus but rather resurrecting old issues which had been covered in detail previously. Again, for the sake of some POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In other words, this accusation, like the others is completely unsubstantiated and complete bullshit. It's not as serious as your other false accusations (see above), but it is still completely false. Volunteer Marek  02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the problem. USchick repeatedly casts aspersions about you and other editors and admins [216] here and elsewhere, but does not provide any proofs (his links above do not prove anything). He/she must either provide their proofs on a more appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:AE, or be restricted from doing such things in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See the top of this thread with my original complaint for specific examples I provided. USchick (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. The top of the thread where you're complaining that I object to the following comment by YOU: ""Dear Volunteer Marek, as the owner of this article, I appeal to your Excellency for the humble permission to move the investigation section of this article to its own page. Pretty please with a cherry on top. Your most honorable servant of all time"' and then when you tried to pretend that that was actually, really, no seriously, why don't you assume good faith, a good faithed, sincerely meant, "nice" comment I said "don't be daft". Volunteer Marek  02:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you already said that in your first comment. Would you like to rehash the entire argument again? USchick (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these are links I am talking about. In my opinion, they do not prove anything at all, except a legitimate content dispute. If you disagree, file an WP:AE request, but be prepared to be sanctioned yourself if AE admins find you guilty of misconduct. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. USchick (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I will be unavailable starting now until Monday, I hope that's ok. USchick (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why not, in my view I feel this whole section has accomplished nothing but bickering between the two sides. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My attempt to get Admin action here simply led to abuse, even from Admins. That's not helpful. Today I posted Diffs of bad behaviour from VM. Nobody has said there was anything good about those diffs. (Except of course VM.) They have just been ignored. And I have been attacked for seeking intervention. I say again. Our Admin system is stuffed. What is the point of AN/I? HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You want Admin attention? Can an admin please give HiLo48 some attention?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done: "I clicked on some diff that was apparently irrefutable evidence that Marek should be blocked. There was jack shit there. ('fuck all')" - Drmies (admin). Stickee (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's apparently not acceptable. I think they want blocks. Speaking of that message, Drmies This was actually already closed once I believe. Oh and do not feel bad about your unranked team. I think in Texas highschool football is big.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily asking for a block. What can we realistically expect here? I listed my concerns at the beginning. Is this disruptive editing or not? Is it going to continue? Is cherry picking sources to support one version of the "truth" ok on Wikipedia? I made an accusation and VM denied it. Now what? I'm simply asking people to be accountable. I will have limited access, so if I'm not back until Monday, it's not because I don't care. USchick (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What I see at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is an article on an unsolved mystery in a politically charged location that contains an awful lot of speculation. This is mainly speculation by people outside Wikipedia and reported in reliable sources, but it is a very selective set of those sources. It's a set that gives an extreme slant towards the western view of things as previously presented in propaganda that was going on over the area for long before the plane crashed. There is a dominating group of editors, of whom Volunteeer Marek is one of the major players, who insist that speculation from anywhere else is unacceptable because the sources are Russian, or biased, or almost anything else that rules them out. The suggestion that all speculation that's not part of the formal enquiry be removed is also rejected, with equally nasty argument, and with the half-baked justification that "it's sourced, so it belongs in the article". It's a crappy, unbalanced article. Volunteeer Marek's style in defending the status quo is one of considerable aggression and rudeness. It is not one involving polite discussion, and has not been for a very long time. Hence my rejection of the alleged olive branch from one of the weak Admins here. The biased shape of the article reflects Wikipedia's systemic bias. Those who are part of that bias, of course, are unlikely to recognise it. I think USchick was brave in bringing the problem here, because that same systemic bias dominates here too of course,. This is one of those sad situations for Wikipedia. Nobody should be proud of that article. Nobody should be proud of the behaviour used by some defending it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by User:Nansjsjd

Well as per this edit they appear to be too angry to want to appeal their block so am proposing that an admin block them from using their TP. Gabriel Turner (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, "fuck your balls" is such a dumb attempt at insult that I don't think there's much we need to do. Edgar181, I think it wuz your balls being talked about, so I'll leave them in your court. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gforcepakistan4

Already in section above. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

This is a ban proposal of the above user because we at Wikipedia don't accept bribes so to make sure this user isn't blocked without proper discussion I am proposing that we discuss to enact a ban in addition to their indefinite block as per policy. As well as the evidence above as linked to by another user they offered someone money to stop reverting their vandalism here. Gabriel Turner (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the section above. Amortias (T)(C) 23:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Defamation per se at Luxembourg Leaks

Apparently a website exists called Luxembourg Leaks which has listed dozens of companies as having made "shady deals" according to the source: Here's A Full List Of Companies That Allegedly Have Shady Tax Deals With Luxembourg. No evidence of any criminal activity is implied against the companies, buit apparently their private tax documents are being made public. Half the companies are non-notable, which is bad enough per WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but alleging bad business practices is Defamation per se and without specific documents of criminal charges, creating such a list amounts to both a violation of WP:ATTACK and a copyright vio of the attack blog itself, since it is simply a cut and paste of the blog's list with no independent verification. I have removed the list, but User:Thue has restored it, again using a copy-paste from a blog making defamatory accusations, with no independent verification of wrongdoing by any company on the list. I suggest the list be removed and the article frozen until the current AfD is completed, and a reference is provided for any individual company named. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where does wikipedia list these companoes? I feel like I missed it on the page you are discussing. It seems like it says some 300 and something unnamed companies are involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

talk) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The text above the list which Medeis removed said "This is the list of companies as of 6 November 2014 whose Luxembourg private tax rulings and corporation tax returns have been leaked". When Medeis says it is listed dozens of companies as having made "shady deals", Medeis' claim is false. The list is merely a factual complete list of companies whose tax paper has been leaked. Knowing which companies' have had their papers leaked is factual and central information for the leak. As for Medeis' claim of copyright infringement, databases are only protected under copyright as "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship". Since the list is a complete listing, no selection has taken place, and as such is not protected by copyright in my understanding. As quoted in [217]:

In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act."

A complete listing such as this one obviously contains no creativity. Thue (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Slackfsj999

This goes to vandalism noticeboard. BTW it's blocking indefinitely, not banning indefinitely, which is very separate. Epicgenius (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Am proposing that we discuss banning this user indefinitely for creating a vandalism only account. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is better suited for WP:AIV, however I doubt it would succeed there. This user's only made two edits, there's still a chance of them turning around and becoming a part of the community. demize (t · c) 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Consider this closed then. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Meatpuppetery by User:Weegeerunner

Am requesting that action is taken against this user for assisting a sockpuppeting troll with their edit war here Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

open a SPI-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Done so consider this closed 79.79.137.119 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

'79.79.137.119', are you the same person that claimed to be representing the Canadian House of Commons (despite having a UK-geolocated IP) yesterday? And are you the same person that claimed to be acting "instructions from the German ambassador" yesterday too? And are you also User:Gabriel Turner? [218] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes to the first two but no to the third. I happened to search SPIs and suggest an admin close this 79.79.137.119 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be kept open until you explain why you were claiming to represent the Canadian House of Commons and the German ambassador while making legal threats on Wikipedia. [219][220] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume your point to the IP was that the OP should be asking for a close, not some IP off the wall. Usually when a user is anxious to get an investigation closed, it means the investigation is getting too near the truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an SPI for Weegeerunner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my 'point' was that the IP had been making spurious legal threats, and that we need an explanation. And quite frankly, I have to suggest that I find the assertion that the IP and Gabriel Turner are different people less than entirely convincing - it should be noted that Gabriel Turner only created the account yesterday, but has dived straight in to raising a SPI and starting multiple threads here, while also issuing at least one questionable'vandalism' warning for what appears to be a legitimate edit (removing a name which in no way matched the subject's from a BLP infobox) from a new contributor. [221][222] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The mystery is why the IP remains unblocked, despite that outrageous legal threat. (Maybe the admins are all busy working on the backlog of SPI's.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javier93h and the checkuser says that Weegeerunner is unrelated. I have blocked the IP for a week for the legal threats. -- GB fan 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1). I was not a part of any edit wars, I just reverted an edit once because I thought consensus was against them. That does not violate WP:3RR. 2). I do not know anything about legal threats. Can someone show me where legal threats popped up? 3). I am not a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet of anybody, I just make an edit.Weegeerunner (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The legal threats were by the IP who proposed this thread be closed - nothing to do with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything about the other stuff I said? In my above post? Weegeerunner (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me, and there is no reason why they should have been raised here in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Weegeerunner (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dayosllc

Am requesting that as per this vandalistic diff by the blocked user to their own talk page that they have their talk page withdrawn. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) If it's a vandal, then next time, go to WP:AIV to do this. This noticeboard is for general requests only that can't be solved at the other noticeboards. But I don't think this is actionable. It is only one edit. They should have TPA revoked only after a series of such edits. Epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Hi, SPI is still a little backlogged. May I please ask an Admin to take a look at the following report and make the appropriate decisions about who or who not to indef? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soy Hermoso. And if you can help with some of the other reports, that would be appreciated as well. Much obliged, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No pushing any case to the front of the line! SPI backlog noted. Doc talk 03:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Need assistance with a Wikihounder

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

---

If you look at the bottom of my talk page you will see that I'm being Wikihounded by another editor. I want it stopped and I want it stopped right away.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoiceOfreason (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)Sign your posts please.Weegeerunner (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment)Oh, and you are in no way being wikihounded Weegeerunner (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) User:Winkelvi posted a single warning to your userpage about test edits, and then responded rather pleasantly to your accusation that they were stalking you. From my perspective, your reaction to the warning was uncivil and, honestly, out of line. Please keep in mind that an important principle here is civility. A single warning does not amount to stalking, nor to Wikihounding. demize (t · c) 04:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You aren't being hounded. You should read WP:BOOMERANG, this essay offers good advice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could file a report for the personal attacks from the editor making this report. But, rather than responding in a retaliatory manner, I'll just mention that scrubbing personal attacks doesn't truly remove said personal attacks:[223]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Byates5637

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

---

Hi. There's an ongoing problem with Byates5637 regarding the reiterated deletion of reliably-sourced news ([224]) from the James S.C. Chao article.

The entry being deleted has to do with news reported a few days ago by The Nation that one of the cargo ships operated by Chao's privately-held shipping firm has been detained in Colombia. This verified incident, however, is both notable and relevant. Notable because they involve 40 kilos of cocaine (worth $7 million wholesale) and the impoundment of a Panamax-size cargo ship, as well as an ongoing investigation, by the Colombian Navy; and relevant because Chao's shipping firm, Foremost Maritime Corp., was founded by the subject of the article and is still privately held by him and his family.

Byates has switched arguments numerous times during our Talk Page exchanges, but he began by asserting that this news shouldn't be mentioned because they've been "covered in a small handful of far left opinion sites which border on being tabloids." I doubt most editors consider The Nation (the most detailed source), El Tiempo (the largest paper in Colombia, and hardly "left-wing"), the Baltimore Sun, and the Louisville Courier fringe sites or tabloids.

I should add that I wasn't the only editor to add news of this to the article ([225]). I find his description of these news as something from the "far left" good reason to believe Byates would like to revert addition of these news for reasons of personal/political preference.

Numerous attempts to resolve the dispute at Talk:James S.C. Chao have failed.

Thank you. Nononsenseplease (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Recommend that you try the dispute resolution noticeboard as this is a content related issue that is beyond the purview of ANI. Blackmane (talk)

I'll try. Thanks for your time. Nononsenseplease (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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