Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Skookum1 again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the contrary, there was there a lack of WP:TPG in the statement they must have got an edit-conflict (no, they most likely did not). In addition, the summary given [1]] is only partially true -- while restoring edits accidentally removed by Skookum1 Panda did, in fact, remove Skookum's. See [2] for how to correct an ANI bug removal. We have enough "dirt" on Skookum without piling on nonsense. (It's this type of crap which leads credence, warranted or not, to the fiction that admins are a self-protecting cabal.) NE Ent 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BHG

On the narrow issue of this CFD, the situation is simply that after I had blocked Skookum1, I noticed that on his return he was posting complaints about me in various locations on my watchlist (e.g. [3]). So I looked at his contributions to see where else this was going, and saw a newly-created Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which didn't fit into any other category of rivers. I looked for similar categorisation schemes, didn't see any, and nominated for discussion at CFD with the rationale: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. Topics can be categorised in many different ways, and CFD regularly discusses whether new types of category schemes are appropriate. Skookum1's response was ballistic. Non-neutral notifications to no-less than 5 WikiProjects .([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and to User:Obiwankenobi[9].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

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

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

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

One Month Block Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solution

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

Obviously Skookum1 cannot continue the not concise personalized comments long term. See WP:First Law. Given that they're a 9 year, 50K / 60% mainspace editor [10], "solutions" (such as blocks) that are as likely as not to lead to their departure from the project are not actual solutions.

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

So how about a two parter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To User:NE Ent, this AN/I was not initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl; it was initiated by User:The Bushranger. I initiated the previous AN/I of Skookum1. While problems have arisen from categories, they also include personal attacks (including "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence," which constitute personal attacks), extreme verbosity, inability to stay on subject, lack of citations for assertions, canvassing, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. These collective actions create a toxic environment and disrupt dialogue, which have rendered consensus-building discussions all but impossible, e.g. 1, 2, [11], [12], etc. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another personal attack from Skookum1

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

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

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

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

Unpicking Skookum1's comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A suggestion

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

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

Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a couple of examples:

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

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

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

My post about CNBC women was a warning[13] to you about your WP:IDHT problem, which was taking you into the tendentious editing territory. If you want to pursue this, I can set out the full history ... but for now, note that I reminded you afterwards[14] that the category was deleted, and that there was a consistent consensus against such categories.

As to WP:CANWP, I posted there because another editor started a new thread on my talk page, where they asked me as an admin to comment on a dispute. I replied on my talk about the policy issues, and as promised there I posted to WP:CANTALK explicitly noting that I had been asked to comment[15]. The issue in that case was that you were abusing a talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, to push your POV. I asked you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page[16]. You refused[17].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are the diffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

An attempt at a summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @BrownHairedGirl: you said above that you value Skookum’s content contributions to Wikipedia. If so, then why did you nominate his categories for deletion (added to earlier comment on April 17 and on April 18 of 2014) as soon as he started working on them? According to your own rules at CfD this would force Skookum1 to stop work on any related category work while your nomination was in progress. Wouldn’t a rational editor conclude that you are trying to stop his work? XOttawahitech (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  RFC/U is indeed thataway (and points for copying my writing style, another indication of your following my contributions for the purpose of attacking), but as this was (regardless of what you choose to believe) intended as a simple request for one uninvolved admin to issue a warning for one set of personal attacks before it snowballed out of control (mostly due to Skookum1's actions), it was not needed, and indeed I deliberately chose to avoid initiating an RFC/U out of respect for Skookum1 as I knew he would feel attacked if I did so. As for "writing things...not able to back up": "You accuse others of WP:ABF but demonstrate it in your above paragraph by crystal-balling "intent"." Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to contained no crystal-balling and no mentioning of or reference to 'intent' [18]. From the last discussion, "Now you give excuses that you were busy or something...I'm not buying your "I was busy"". Unsubstantiated attack: my comment being referred to did not even imply being "busy" as any reason for the delay in responding to you there [19]. Both of these are examples of your entirely making things up out of whole cloth in order to attack me: I do not know if there are more, because I am not following your pages or contribution history. Now as you cannot back up your accusations of "uncivil...false and hypocritical" behavior on my part, instead only making manufactured accusations and vague waves without diffs, I request, again, that you stop hounding my contributions in order to make unsubstantiated personal attacks upon me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  You're pathetic Bushranger, filled w/ bull and always have the last word of paper tiger. You should shut up and don't address me directly, my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me. In my book you are supreme hypocrite and your accusations are never subject to scrutiny or examination, so you can exhibit as much blowhard behavior as you like and you know you can get by with same. You have no moral and especially no intellectual authority, you have only your pathetic admin badge and blocking bat, which you've already used on me. Your Wikistalking accusations are spurious and untrue, you are IMO an abusive admin and need to be de-sysop'd. Why don't you tell the world again here, how the name-call of classic narcissist is *not* a personal attack. You have no credibility what is or isn't PA after that, and should stop the condescending wikilinking of same as if you do. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  "my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me" - I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue as you have only posted here addressing me, and I request you retract that statement immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

  Probably not. He would just make the one comment (even if about 2000 bytes) on multiple message boards as in [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] instead of just at Category talk:Rivers of British Columbia by region. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for sanctions on Ihardlythinkso

I have attempted to adopt a water-off-a-duck's-back policy regarding the continued personal attacks and hounding in this discussion by Ihardlythinkso, however his most recent comment indicates that he is determined to continue to manufacture accusations that have zero basis in truth, personally attack me, and hound me (as evidenced by both his appearing here at ANI, and only in this one section of ANI, to attack me, and more notably his use of "RfC/U is →thataway" which is mocking my closing style of discussions here, something that indicates a search of my contribution history). At least three times now Ihardlythinkso has invented a charge against me, two of them involving words attributed to me that I did not say or imply: the "busyness" claim from the previous discussion regarding IHTS (His manufactured charge, what I actually said), claiming that I was "crystal-balling 'intent'" somehow (his claim, having no basis in what I actually said), and most recently "my posts here were not addressing you until you addressed me", which even if you don't count his first comment in this thread as "addressing [me]", this is (and was in reply to my reply to Ottawahitech, not IHTS). His personal attacks against me in this thread are clear ([25], [26], [27]) note that especially when he claims "Unlike you, I don't write things I'm not able to back up", and in return I responded with clear diffs and a request not to make further accusations without diffs, his response is further personal attacks without diffs.

I have disengaged from IHTS following the previous discussion, however IHTS refuses to disengage from me - and, in fact, claims that I am not disengaging from him - refuses to cease making personal attacks, without any evidence, to the point of making up things I did not say or do, and claiming that I do not substantiate my claims after I clearly have, and evidences hounding behavior while leaving edit-summaries, here at ANI of his comments aimed at me, of "creepy" and "putrid". And, after my request above for his latest baseless personal attack to be stricken, he responds by posting this at NE Ent's talk page (which, if he hadn't wikilinked my username and thus triggered the ping function, I would have been unaware of). I request that IHTS be sanctioned for this behavior, as it's obvious that he has no intention of stopping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of personal attacks and definite hounding since the individual popped into the conversation with a personal attack. I would suggest an IBAN, unless there are additional items to take into consideration (i.e. other IBANs). If anyone has better information I am open to changes to this proposal. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Ihardlythinkso was handed a mutual interaction ban against another editor ten days ago [28]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And that's so damning, isn't it? (Or at least, you'd like it to be. How about offering readers to go read that AN in totality, rather than attempt to cast defaming aspersions. Oh but of course, all decisions on AN are just and fair and equitable -- I forgot, please forgive.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then I would see my IBAN and raise it an indef. If you vehemently attack people to the point where you need multiple IBANs you need to either learn to deal with people in a reasonable capacity or be absent. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Continuing the "water off a duck's back" approach would have served you well, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatly there comes a point where when somebody repeatedly and willfully attacks you with statements that are utterly counterfactual and who continues to do so despite repeated requests they stop that that is no longer an option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • More importantly, it's not Carrite's job to determine what level of abuse other editors should put up with. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
      • @Chris Cunningham, as if you didn't harass me at at Tech Helpdesk when I simply asked a tech question re font setting to display Unicode characters, chiding and blaming me there for "policy" established at WP:CHESS that I had nothing to do with. And it isn't as if you've advised/warned/threatened several times to tear down Template:Algebraic notation, even though I already told you to go ahead and make the changes you want (that you will receive no opposition from this user/me) but then never followed up. After our lengthy discussion that went nowhere because you just pushed your POV and exclaimed "TL;DR" when replying in good-faith back to your concerns and issues at Talk:Algebraic notation. So really, you are very very neutral regarding me, right, everyone believes you. (LOL.) Just more cesspool enemy detractors at the infamous ANI cesspool board that gives the entire WP a great reputation. So just keep it up, you're doin' great. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I wasn't even talking about you, but congratulations on showing the class that you really are incapable of interaction with other editors without airing your entire list of grievances with them in public on each occasion. That's problematic in itself, but at least it's obvious to all honest onlookers. What's less obvious is that Carrite has long deliberately cultured this atmosphere by defending this behaviour. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an administrator for the love of god close this thread? It is a predictable drama magnet that is going nowhere. It never should have been started. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I got about 4 paragraphs into this, then scrolled (for a while) to the bottom. Editors need to back away and stop beating the dead horse. In addition, some thicker skin is in order for the people that believe it is a personal attack to insinuate someone has a lack of knowledge in a subject matter. I mean... really? Grow a pair; someone has to say it. Heck, even "you're being stupid" is more of a personal attack, but not enough to run and tell an adult. Give skookum some time so that he doesn't think there is a cabal after him, and maybe he'll be more receptive and less defensive. Food for thought. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: Skookum1's habit of personal attacks was reported on ANI back in 2007. The current spate of personal attacks has been going on for several months. How much time do you suggest he needs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has said insinuating someone has a lack of knowledge in a subject area is a personal attack. Implying that an editor is mentally deficient, however, is, and that was after a wide variety of increasingly virtulent PAs were slung otherwise. I'm disappointed that there is still the air of "Skookum1 has done nothing wrong and bad, bad terrible admins for going after him" here, but what can you do, I suppose. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

But calling another editor a "classic narcissist", which (if you read the lede to that linked article in the name-call) is a diagnosable personality disorder, is not a PA??? (Please explain so we can all understand your assessment re what is PA and what isn't.) It's a matter of credibility of your vociferously announced opinions and accusations, hello. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: You have not convinced me (and possibly others) that a User:Skookum1 witch-hunt on wp:ANI was necessary. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If anyone needed convincing, in 2014, that Skookum1 had behavioural issues incompatible with collegial editing around here, then said person isn't capable of being convinced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thumperward: I do not normally participate on this notice board, so am not aware of previous gossip that may or may not have convinced me to join the mob. All I am saying is that this lengthy discussion has not convinced me that it should have been started with the scanty evidence it provides. I also just noticed that User:The Bushranger did not discuss this issue with Skookum1 on his talk page as this notice board requires ("Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.”) XOttawahitech (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As with RFC/U, that option was not taken due to the fact that it would not have had a productive result and would only have resulted in more of the same; in addition, one does not ask the user one seeks to have warned to warn themselves. As for 'scanty evidence', if the evidence above is 'scanty' (considering the entire CfD was provided as evidence), I'm not sure what isn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• mentoring A suggestion was made above that perhaps mentoring would help. @Skookum1:, is this something you'd be willing to consider? I'd be happy to work with you to find a suitable mentor (I'd volunteer myself but I'm guilty of some of the same walls-o-text so would not be the best mentor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum was offended by the suggestion of mentoring, so that's a dead end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's getting worse

An attempt by User:Resolute to persuade Skookum1 to moderate his approach has been unsuccessful. See User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this.

Most of it is just the usual verbosity, and a large chunk of it is repeated allegations of bad faith in my closures of XFDs and RMs, including assertions that I made "bad closures and false invocations of guidelines that do not, in fact, say what is being claimed", "Suggesting that I should show BHG good faith when she has showed me none at all, whether to do with the facts of the Squamish matter, or the presentations of citations and policy in the RMs".

However, the bit that catches my attention is : I collapsed them to avoid yet another invocation of "walls of text" and TLDR; the latter is not supposed to be used on discussion pages at all and its use, as it says clearly, is seen as unCIVIL...but was the pretext for ignoring all the very valid arguments on the Squamish CfD, and part of that close. "She" has since found an actual "behavioural guideline" to use instead in such instances; it's one of the many reasons the Squamish CFD close was bunk and illegal; but as I've found out by looking around, places like Move Review and Dispute Resolution and RfC are not about lookign at issues and guidelines, but only about wikiquette and "conduct".. Not about content, in other words, but about editors.

This repeats yet gain the false charge that I invoked TLDR; I didn't use that term, or link to that page. It also claims that the close was "illegal", which is nonsense; an editor may believe that the close was wrong, but WP does not have laws. Above all, if an editor believes that a close was flawed, they can take it to review, where uninvolved editors can assess whatever case Skookum1 wants to make about flaws in the closure. However, instead of doing that, Skookum1 continues to make a stream of vicious allegations about me, repeatedly denouncing my integrity. This is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Per WP:ADMINACCT I am quite happy for any closure I have made to be reviewed, and I will accept the outcome. But no admin should be subjected to an ongoing barrage because an editor refuses to use the review processes.

The worst bit, though is Skookum1's use of scare quotes in referring to me as she: "She" has since found an. This is a pure ad hominem attack. It is nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of my judgement or conduct; it's an attack on me as a person and as a woman by trying to problematise my gender. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks at first glance that he was just using "she" in place of "BHG" to allude to you instead of mentioning you directly. Can you explain specifically how the edit "problematise(s)" your gender? Accusations like this should not be taken lightly at all. Doc talk 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What other purpose do the scare quotes serve? If it was simply a ref to me without mentioning my name, they were superfluous. The usage is well-described in the article scare quotes: "quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence of Skookum1 problematizing women editors there based on his use of scare quotes here. If I am wrong, so be it. But I just don't see it based on what you've presented. Doc talk 00:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, if you were described to as an "editor", would you understand what the scare quotes were trying to say about you? As in look what that "editor" has done to the page? It's the same as look what that so-called editor has done to the page.
(Note, I am not trying cast aspersions on you, just to illustrate the use of the technique)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If an editor is transgendered, and that editor identifies as being born as one gender but now lives as the other gender, and some editor comes along refers to them in scare quotes as "He" or "She" despite their declaration: I would see a "gender-bias" personal attack very clearly. Not here. You identify as a female, and I firmly think that him referring to you as "she" was simply his way of not mentioning your name. To even suggest borderline misogyny here is a bit irresponsible with this evidence. Doc talk 01:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please to be not mansplaining what BHG is intended to take from an unashamedly incivil editor's grammatical constructs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(Chuckles) Doc talk 02:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't fault you for being annoyed, BHG. I'm trying with him, but evidently not getting anywhere. I can actually understand why you are thinking what you are with the use of "She", however, in this one specific case I do think Skookum intended the quotes for emphasis rather than to cast aspersions on your gender. I am also wondering if he meant to use double apostrophes to form She but ended with the quotation marks instead. Resolute 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We have to put frustration aside. Frustration is not "evidence". Whatever issues Skookum1 has here, if you don't have evidence of "gender discrimination" by him, it is completely unfounded and should be retracted. It doesn't matter how unpopular he is. It's unfounded. Doc talk 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I really wonder if you understand my point. I do not allege gender discrimination. I was noting a personal attack in the form of trying to problematise the gender of a woman with whom he has a disagreement, by suggesting that she is not really a woman or lacking womanly qualities. It's a classic way of denigrating women, frequently used for example in the portrayals of Margaret Thatcher by some of her opponents.

I am also astonished that when the thread User talk:Skookum1#Re:_this is replete with diatribes against my alleged bad-faith abuse of admin powers by an editor who admantly refuses to use established procedures to assess those actions, I am being asked to retract. It seems that Doc's view is that there is no need to seek retraction of any of that, but that the target of that abuse should retract her complaint. Strange world :(

Maybe it's time I put away my "computer" and stopped working tonight on this "encyclopedia". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I mention only the most serious accusation because it very serious indeed. I ask again: do you have any unambiguous evidence that he is intentionally referring to you as "not really a woman or lacking womanly qualities?" People that discriminate against others based on race, gender, etc. are routinely (and quickly) excluded here for very good reason. Doc talk 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, you have mansplained the evidence away. And you continue to try to mansplain my complaint as being about discrimination, when it isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mansplained" is a term to describe what I've been saying? I'm operating on the assumption that "she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender"? AGF. Seriously. Doc talk 03:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc, how many times do we repeat the cycle of me pointing out that I didn't allege discrimination and you insisting that I did, before it becomes mansplaining? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You said he was trying to "problematise your gender". How else can that be interpreted? Doc talk 03:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please just read discrimination. Personal abuse is not necessarily discrimination, and discrimination does not necessarily involve any personal abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[29] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [30], reverts user Galassi [31], reverts Galassi again [32], reverts Izak [33], reverts Soman [34], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [35], reverts Galassi [36], reverts me [37]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[38] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[39] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[40] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[41] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[42]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[43] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[44]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Further comment: This edit summary [45] is misleading at best. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to state that the irony of Smeat75's ANI title is too much to keep a straight face over. Given the recent ANI-turned-fiasco over this same article where he declared, "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me..., his/her purported interest in 'improving' the article smacks of disingenuousness. My involvement in the article has been limited to keeping an eye out for POV pushes, and I believe I've clearly stated my position more than once as to Smeat75's interest as a WP:COI desire to redact the article into oblivion[46]. The nature of changes to the lead alone were pure POV turning the article into a parody of an encyclopaedic entry per my responses on the talk page [47].

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

Expanding on that. Smeat consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [48] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I promote extremist "memes" and push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". [49][50] He criticizes others for their wording of sourced information yet his only alternative to throw it straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". [51] Smeat clearly lacks the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and continues to try to associate other users with malicious statements or views in an effort to portray them as anti-semites and get his way. He even employs legal rhetoric and claims that he's stopping users from pushing "libel". [52] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Director just continues repeatedly reverting others' contributions (not by me, I have had more than I can stand at that article for a while) with edit summaries such as "opposed to this" - reverts sourced material by Soman - [53] by Soman again - [54] and again [55] - reverts Pharos [56] and pays no attention to any discussion on the talk page (not from me there either in the last few days).Smeat75 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, reverts another user today [57] with an edit summary "Rv. This recent addition ... is opposed." - translation, Director does not approve of it. "Discuss your edit on talk please." - there would not be any point in doing that, if Director answered at all, he would only say it was not going to be allowed. Why is he permitted to control the content of the article in this way?Smeat75 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's developments - There is a statement in the lead "The philosopher Karl Marx, regarded as the "father of Communism", was Jewish by ancestry, hailing from prominent and historic rabbinic families on both sides." Exactly a week ago user Pharos expanded the main text with more information on his background and a book he wrote about Jews. Director took it out, you can see the squabble we had about it on the talk page. That is the exact reason I opened this discussion at AN/I. Today Pharos reinstated it with an edit summary " re-add Marx subsection opposed by exactly one person - now with strong reference linking On the Jewish Question to Communism" [58], DIRECTOR reverted it with an edit summary "Rolled back non-consensus addition" [59], I put it back with an edit summary "Discuss on talk page!" [60], he immediately took it out again with an edit summary "I did discuss and do discuss. Until there is consensus for this addition I will revert it without fail."[61]. By "consensus" he means "when he approves", which will be never. As Pharos said in the first edit summary, exactly one person, (Director), opposed it a week ago and the same person vetoes it now. It makes me want to edit war and attack the page, yes, it does, it makes me very angry, I have to try to restrain myself, I just do not know how people can read what is going on over at that article and do nothing about it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

How can an article have existential issues, Coretheapple?

The outcome of the AfD, as you would well know, is dependent on policy and guideline based arguments, not the number of votes based on objections of an emotive, POV nature. Those who would like to see the article developed in an genuinely encyclopaedic manner are not those who are ensuring that the content is a travesty. Take, for example, Smeat75's recent 'contribution'[62] where, out of the blue, he introduced that Marx was a classic anti-Semite as a neutral(!!!???) version for the lead. If you understand it to be "... grossly unbalanced, a real disgrace." in its current form, I suggest that you go over the history with care and acquaint yourself with which contributors are responsible for it turning into a 'disgrace' before jumping in and tarnishing the reputation of contributors who were not responsible for the aberration that's emerged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, I would like to ask an admin about that. Was opening this AN/I really canvassing? Would informing WP Projects about the article be canvassing? Also I have just been accused of making personal attacks - [63]. There are two editors with very similar user names DIREKTOR and PRODUCER and they back each other up often in edits and on the talk page. If you refer to them in the same sentence they will accuse you of implying they are the same person and threaten you with being reported so when I refer to them together I make it clear that I accept they are two totally different editors and then I am told that I am making personal attacks and being sarcastic.[64][65]--Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

No administrator is going to wade into this thicket. - that seems clear. I suppose some of them must have read this thread, but not a one says a word, makes any comment or offers any guidance. They are all waiting for it to just go away I suppose. The talk page of the article is awash with threats of "I'll report you the next time!" "you should be reported" etc over and over, as if such threats of being taken to this board are somehow terrifying, in reality all that happens is that comments sit here until someone closes the thread as "no consensus".Smeat75 (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

These kind of appeals for "help" to targeted like minded users are flat out canvassing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at that discussion will see that in the next message I posted there [66] I said "once again I ask you, or Jimbo, or anyone who sees this, to try to help us.Smeat75 (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

At that discussion I first said "I hope there will be lots of editors... who see this, go on to look at the article, and decide to help to improve it, or change the title, or delete it, or whatever, but it definitely needs participation from a wide part of the community" [67] and then that specific person expressed his view so I said "come and help us then". I don't call that targeted, or canvassing.If I am wrong maybe an admin will tell me so.Smeat75 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that I had previously left a message on the talk page of a user who in that same discussion had expressed a strong opinion that the article should not be deleted but the title might be changed, which is a different opinion to mine, asking that he would look at the article and "make suggestions for what should be done" on the article talk page.[68]. I just think the article would benefit from more eyes on it, whether they agree with me or not.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also I asked at the NPOV noticeboard if others could look at the article and see what they thought of it, when an editor expressed an opinion I said "come and help us then" there too - [69] If that is some dreadful infraction perhaps an admin will let me know.Smeat75 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not to forget flouting the article's talk page (per WP:TALKNEW) by creating an unacceptable section[70] entitled "Attention new editors to this article and talk page" featuring an equally inappropriate call to arms diatribe as the purpose of the section. You're welcome to keep trying to justify the trail of 'just asking' around you've engaged in but, as has already been noted several times in responses to that section in a variety of contexts, if the number of forums and tone used doesn't add up to blatant canvassing, it most certainly adds up to gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Mediation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What form of mediation would you suggest, Howunusual? The point is that there is nothing to mediate. Smeat75 started an ANI naming another contributor as being the source of the problem with an article that Smeat himself has POV issues with. Smeat's problem with the article is that Smeat is of the opinion that the article shouldn't exist. He has now found himself bogged down in defending himself against his WP:COI involvement, to which he has added violating WP:CANVASS in order to attract as many like-minded Wikipedians as possible, dragging the content of the article down even further than the lower depths it had been degraded to as a result of being turned into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

There is no question of mediating between this, that or the other party involved. This should have been an ANI looking into Smeat's activities, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iryna, you, like everyone else you are entitled to your own personal POV, but please do not project that onto the rest of the universe you do not like, and hence kindly avoid the melodrama and violation of WP:SPIDERMAN. The ones who instigated this edit war and have run it all along are Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and they have recently faced a block for that, albeit a short one, but well-deserved. So cut the drama and if you wish to edit the article in a calm WP:NPOV manner please do so, otherwise your emotionalism borders on violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and fomenting the very WP:BATTLEGROUND you accuse other hard-working editors of doing. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales discussion and blocks & warnings for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER

NOTE: See the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#"Jews and Communism" article that drew attention to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER who were both blocked, questioned, warned, and unblocked over their tactics at the Jews and Communism article. See User talk:DIREKTOR#Blocked indefinitely, User talk:PRODUCER#Sock puppetry or other close relationship and the admin who did it User talk:Jehochman#User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So, people using Jimbo's user talk page because they can't get what they want through normal channels, and an admin running in and blocking one side on completely false grounds. This thing is rapidly approaching ArbCom territory. When will people learn that running to Jimbo serves no purpose but to increase drama? Fram (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fram, and feel free to join the debate, even better, please try doing something productive like improving or editing the Jews and Communism article, it sure needs help, I assure you your POV over there would be most welcome. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't need the abuse and complaints that invariably follow such articles. The previous discussion about this article that I tried to have with you here (or at AN) recently was more than enough to give me a flavour of the actions there. The frivolous blocks by Jehochman, based on some discussion at Jimbo Waleses, and seemingly unconcerned by discussions at general noticeboards and the like, have only reinforced my extreme reluctance to join the debate. But thanks for the invitation nonetheless. Fram (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I understand you fully, but not all of us can just sit some things out. Methinks though that if someone were writing about anyone's own ethnicity or coreligionists and their associations with a controversial political ideology they too would not have the luxury of sitting it out, at least I think so. Nevertheless your concern is appreciated. You know, I never voted to delete this article. My request was and is very simple, no denial, face the truth but put it in historical context for example perhaps merge it with History of Communism so that it makes sense, not an easy task. And as this debate has dragged on and on, I have often asked myself why User RoySmith (talk · contribs) the non-admin who closed off the original debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism handing victory to a minority (the vote for deletion was 22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14), making it a "non-admin closure" that was actually never noted, and who allowed this unholy mess to grow like a cancer has never bothered to participate or peek in to watch his gift to WP grow like a festering sore, at least in acrimony between editors. Imagine this article could have been deleted, nipped in the bud, or as I suggested it be redirected and merged with History of Communism, then none of this would be happening now. All the acrimony and argumentation would be channeled into more productive work of genuine article improvement (hopefully). By the way, unlike DIREKTOR or PRODUCER, my style in more than 11 years on WP is never to run to ANI to get my way, no matter how rough the debate because I always feel users should come to some common understandings and work things out on their own. That is why there are talk pages for articles and for users kindly provided free of charge by WP with unlimited gigabyte space on its servers to hash things out by their mature selves. I take my editing seriously and will almost never involve myself in a subject I know nothing about. Anyhow, I am praying and hoping that the acrimony will stop soon, we all know this is not a healthy environment to be on WP. Hoping for the best. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover

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

Some initial observations

I haven't had time sufficient to investigate every aspect of the voluminous (and highly vitriolic) back-and-forth above, but I did read Talk:Jews and Communism#Secret police, again in it's entirety, read most of the article and investigated the edit history a little, and its left a strong impression as to which side probably represents the Lion's share of the cause of acrimony there, if what I've seen is indicative of the history there. Initially, reading the first half of this thread, I had a severely amped-up variation of that uncertainty and ambiguity you often have when you try to assess a discussion that has moved from article talk space to a procedural page, there were so many endlessly recursive accusations and counter-accusations involved. But I didn't have to get very far into thread before I began to see severe WP:Battleground behaviour on the part of Direktor and Producer. To be fair, the entire thread is contentious and I actually feel very divided by the content call that was being made there myself and can relate to elements of the auteur duo's arguments as much as those of their (more numerous) opposition. However, what sets them apart is the tone of their arguments. Producer especially comes off as incredibly caustic and personally affronted; from the very start of his involvement in this thread, he seems utterly incapable of reconciling that someone else would disagree with him and he is quite upfront about the fact that he views this opposition as absurd nonsense. That opposition mostly keeps their collective cool and are (relatively) dispassionately removed as they assert their argument -- which it bears repeating, I have middle-ground views on -- and Producer and Direktor remain hostile throughout, and both employ a technique of histrionic threatening of getting a higher power involved on multiple occasions.

Frankly, they are so alike in their indignation, that, taken with other circumstantial evidence, I'd be fairly certain they were mutual socks, but this SPI says that is not the case. Still, they seem to move and take action together and in the case of the discussion I observed, their action seems to be defined first and foremost at displaying outrage at being disagreed with. Perhaps this is simply a case of their being very passionate about the material in question or that baseline discussion there has just become superheated in general -- though given the descriptions given by some of those who have had to edit with them in the past, I doubt it's just a simple matter of either of those factors -- but in any event, there definitely seems an element of WP:OWN at work here. I can't speak to the behaviour just yet of most of the other parties involved in the discussion above, since a majority of them were not involved in that thread or only commented briefly, but at present time I'm seeing Lucas and Spielberg as significant contributors to the bad vibes on that page, regardless of whether their other edits (and reversions) on the article itself are or aren't warranted and regardless of how much they have made themselves available to talk on matters. Frankly I think other contributors there could probably be forgiven for wanting to avoid them at all costs; I wouldn't want to attempt consensus, compromise, and collaboration if I knew such hostility was a given from word go. That's my (admittedly initial) impressions of the situation on that article and talk page, from an uninvolved editor who has no interest of ever getting involved in that quagmire of recrimination. Snow (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] Been claimed I push extremist "memes", "lies", "slurs", and "libel". [78][79][80][81][82] Had users criticize content based purely on feelings of being "disturbed" or "uncomfortable". [83][84] Been associated with people who use rhetoric such as "Joos!" and "commies" when I only see these terms of this sort coming from users who supposedly criticize it. [85][86] And had to repeat many times for users to discuss and use the talkpage and not edit war with one liners in summary boxes or throw attacks on the talkpage.[87][88] It gets old, one gets tired of repeating themselves, and given the environment that I am in I'd say I've been pretty patient and calm all things considered.

To add to all this I had then been indef blocked on a hunch by Jehochman (an admin who is personally involved in the discussion and considers the article "ugly bigotry") with an apparent "shoot first, ask questions later" policy. Had him throw a clear CU finding under the bus in favor of believing that some elaborate conspiracy is in play and when asked for evidence as to why I and another user had been blocked, had him "point to long discussions to justify [his] actions" (as one admin put it) or later claim he's "too busy" to do so. [89][90] Only until numerous editors told him how ill-advised such an act and reasoning was did he decide to undo this. [91][92][93][94][95] In the midst of all this I had serious false accusations thrown out liberally at me in the full knowledge that I can't defend myself in any capacity whatsoever while blocked [96] and had backpattery be sent to those responsible for winning the "battle". [97][98] Now I note that you've commended one of these users for this effort despite only having an "initial impression" on the matter. [99] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to point out though that if they are at times hostile or caustic, it is secondary to having to deal with other editors who...let's be honest here...give every impression that they are there to sabotage the article because they were unable to get it deleted at the recent AfD. I know from experience that it is extremely frustrating to work with others who don't have the same goals as you do, i.e. article improvement. Having different POVs is fine and is to be expected, that's how some of our best articles hit the WP:NPOV sweet spot by having many voices contribute. But here, what it looks like is Producer, Direktor and a few others approach it as "here's a subject that is notable, let's write about it", while others are of the "this is vile antisemitism that personally offends me, what can I do to minimize that?" Tarc (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER refers to "users [who do this or that] ....without any fear of sanctions on their part" and gives a string of diffs, they very first one which is of a user who was blocked because of their edits and actions with regard to Producer and is asking, in vain, for their account to be closed permanently because s/he does not want to participate on a site where one cannot challenge anti-Semitism [[100]. That user has retired from editing this site and I can certainly understand that. I have lost track of how many times PRODUCER has referred to me feeling "disturbed" by a particular aspect of that article, as if that is some sort of trump card showing the irrationality of what he faces, I am not ashamed of feeling disturbed by blatant anti-Semitism. I would point out that that article was quiet yesterday with user Pharos making a lot of edits that no one objected to. Today with Producer's return edit warring has started right back up again. PRODUCER and DIREKTOR should both be removed from editing that article.Smeat75 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the possibility exist that that user's claims of antisemitism were found to be a bit...lacking in convincing-ness, if not outright false. Same with the sockpuppet accusations. This project has various forms of dispute resolution and means to deal with problematic editing and editors, but the problem is that most editors do not willingly submit themselves to the authority of others around here. So we have several editors over the years make the sock accusations against Producer & Direktor, the SPI is filed, the SPI is closed with no evidence found. Yet 4 years later, editors still toss the accusation around. Presumably this Atlantictire filed a complaint somewhere such as ANI about the antisemitism he/she perceived, yes? It appears that the complaint was found to be less-than-convincing or credible, thus no action taken against Producer and/or Direktor. Yet the accusation is still tossed around. Do we see a pattern yet? The thing is, very, very few editors enter into our various means of dispute resolution with the honest intention of listening to a 3rd party arbitrate the disagreement; instead, they enter into DR with the expectation that their p.o.v. will be validated. And when it isn't the outrage begins. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not making any comment about whether it was right for Atlantictire to be blocked or not, I am just pointing out that PRODUCER said users are free to call him names without fear of sanctions and gives a long string of diffs, the very first one which is of a user who was blocked for calling him names, among other things. Did he think no one was going to look at those diffs to see what they said? It is an obvious lie.Smeat75 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well y'know, I could declare right now that I don't want WP:NPA invoked to protect me and say "ok Smeat75, you are free to call me an asshole whenever you like, I won't do a thing". That's all well and good for me and for you, but other users and admins may not be so wild about that atmosphere being allowed to exist, and act accordingly. Now that I read through more of those diffs, I do remember who Atlantictire was now, the infamous "eat my fuck" guy, who was discussed here. You can't go around being that nasty, other people will step up and squash that every time. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, once again, I am not defending Atlantictire or making any comment about whether the block was justified or not, I am pointing out that PRODUCER has posted an obvious, blatant, very clear lie on this page. "I've been referred or inferred by a number of users that I'm an anti-semite, neo-Nazi, white nationalist, KKK member, agenda pusher, ooze prejudice from pores, am affiliated with Stormfront etc. at every possible opportunity and all without any fear of sanctions on their part.[101]' He says people can call him names without any fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who was blocked for calling him names, among other things, it is a transparent lie.Smeat75 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Did Producer file the complaint that led to Atlantictire's block? If the answer is "yes", you may have a point. If the answer is "no", your continued smears, calling this editor a liar, are running afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. He says people can call him names without fear of sanctions and posts a diff of someone who has been blocked for calling him names. Contradiction.Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people CAN call him names, but his error was perhaps in the declaration of "no fear of sanction will come to you", as that was quite beyond his control. That doesn't make it a contradiction, it makes it a "making a claim that one cannot enforce". Again per my example above, I can tell you to call me whatever names you like and I won't care. But 3rd parties may indeed care and take action; my words to you are not binding on them. And yes, in the future I could envision indulging in a slight bit of glee at your misfortune as Producer did, as after all, you are responsible what comes out of your own mouth, or fingers, as it were. No one but Atlantictire was responsible for Atlantictire's words and deeds. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'll just say this. I don't know what the deal is with the editors who created and defended that line of garbage some called an article. You don't create an article called "Jews and Communism" without knowing the history of the antisemitic canard. Especially when you have a line up of all those sources. As for PRODUCER being offended by my comments about the article, I could give a shit. There was clear intent on creating that article, and anyone who knows the history of the "Jews and Communism" canard knows this. I don't care how many well meaning editors work on that article, as long as it's titled and themed as "Jews and Communism", it should be deleted. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone is free to file another AfD, esp after the last one ended not in "keep" but "no consensus". Perhaps more editors will see it as un-salvageable this time around. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to think that more editors would see it as salvageable this time around, giving the evolution from the initial version by the participation of new "well-meaning" editors (such as myself!). However, I do think that possibly the title and some of the scope issues could use some more thought, and would encourage people to participate, and not to be standoff-ish and wait for another AFD (which hopefully we can avoid!).--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you want to "fix it"? Would you want to fix an article titled Negros and Crime? How about Homos and Pedophilia? That article was created the same way those articles would be. Looking through sources, trying to find connections, and taking those connections and adding them all together. Which is what we call on Wikipedia, original research and synthesis. And the articles would be created for the same reason, the original author would have to know there is a racist/antisemitic connotation to the topic, but would delve into subject by using the same kinds of sources the racists/antisemites would use. Just search "Jews and Communism" with Google. Any non anti-Semitic results on the first page? No. How about the second page. No. There is an insipid meaning to the phrase, and I wish those who know about it's meaning and what is trying to be accomplished would step up and stop it. Instead of trying to "fix" something that cannot be fixed. Time spent trying to fix it could be used in getting rid of it. It's an insult this was not deleted in the first place. The results were obvious and the closer made a piss-poor decision. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not going to offer any defense of the original version of the article. And neither am I going to defend the name, which is pretty bad, and which can probably be changed. However, I am convinced by my reading of numerous sources that the Jewish experience with Communism in the 20th century (including Soviet Antisemitic activities) is a notable topic, and we should have some sort of article on it.--Pharos (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, on my first page in a google search for "jews and communism" I get Stanisław Krajewski's paper "Jews, Communists and Jewish Communists, in Poland, Europe"(cached version) which is cited in the article. I'll note that it ends with the statements "Talking about it must not be left to antisemites. Sensitivity and good will is needed to understand the story of Jewish communists." If only editors could relax and find the sensitivity and good will to collaborate on the topic. Maybe a dedicated article isn't needed, maybe there are better ways of handling it, I don't know or particularly care, but people should try to relax and focus on building encyclopedic content. It's not a badge of shame. It's just history, a tiny part of the "information of everything". Maybe one day, everyone will agree with Ben Katchor's view that "racial identity is just a dangerous fantasy" (from his interview with Derek Parker Royal) and there will be peace and goodwill throughout this land of Wikipedia, but for now it would be better if people stopped taking shots at each other. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Tarc said: certain editors involved over there give every impression that they're out to sabotage the article: their proposals and positions are suggestive of a disdain for the quality of the article, while disruptive users like Smeat75 have gone out of their way to render constructive discussion on that page as difficult as they can, through frequent flaming and (otherwise-useless) attack threads. This was well demonstrated by Producer. Pharos is indeed a notable exception in that regard, and hats off to him. But that's just part of the problem.

The main problem is that editors refuse to abide by the Wikipedia editing standards. In spite of my best efforts, WP:CON and WP:BRD have no meaning on that article whatsoever. Editors (Pharos included) insist that their ability to gang up and revert-war authorizes them to override opposition on the talkpage.
And that is indeed the core issue here: while there's edit-warring there can be no civil discussion, while there's no civil discussion there can be no resolution to the outstanding issues. This is all that needs to be done (at least for starters): WP:CONS needs to be enforced. With blocks, if necessary, for anyone who violates the policy. Or rather goes on violating it.

Uphold policy. Simple, really. And I do hope admins will help. -- Director (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a good concept to generally focus on during periods of contention, but from what I've observed, cavalier editing attitudes and even edit warring are less an issue than the general inability of parties to give ground and work collaboratively once discussion has started. On a separate point, if you are having to "enforce" consensus on more than half of the active editors on the talk page, it's likely you never achieved it in the first place. Snow (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not if half of the "more than half" arrived later and only started complaining after weeks have passed (once one of them brainstormed another in the series of "lets delete this now!" ideas). -- Director (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I"m afraid this type of attitude toward "latecomers" is pretty much the definition of WP:OWN. You perhaps don't mean to be doing this, but that is certainly the effect.--Pharos (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DIREKTOR the tone and stance you adopt are just too harsh. You come across as too much of a "boss man" when WP requires an ability to get along with a range of editors with who are only human beings with a wide range of abilities, time on their hands and other qualities. Editors are not "worker bees" who if they do not "punch in their cards and salute 'the boss'" at WP are fired or censured en masse. That is not the way to go about things. You must also show more respect for the obvious high level of intelligence and education of all editors who have gotten involved so far. For obvious reasons this is a highly emotional and sensitive topic to many people. Not every person from any ethnicity and religion would take kindly to talk calmly about the relationship of their group or coreligionists with a highly volatile topic such as the divisive and controversial communist ideology. One cannot pour hot water on humans and then say hey why are you screaming, cursing, and doing all sorts of things. While you and PRODUCER have obviously mastered some material about this topic, and your unique highly collaborative method of trying to enforce this topic from your own POV's that in in the long run is an illusion/delusion and impossibility, as you can tell, because there will always be others with opposing POV's and you will just have to get your minds around that just as you would like others to be respectfully accepting of yours. I think that the following post by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) [102] gives the rest of us who have not had the pleasure of working collaboratively with you and PRODUCER very important insights into your methods and modus operandi. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Background to DIREKTOR and PRODUCER provided by User FkpCascais (talk · contribs) from User talk:Jimbo Wales#"Jews and Communism" article: I must say that I share some of the concerns regarding behaviour of Direktor and Producer which were expressed here. I have had years-long debates with them regarding the Chetniks issue and I felt on my own skin their partisan attitude towards editors that oppose them. The main problem was that they grabbed the articles with the intention to maximally expand their collaborationist activities and shaddow the resistance ones, so that is why Producer is aware and mentioned it, how "his" articles about Chetnik commanders must be the favourite ones ammong right-wingers. They basically refused to acknolledge some basic facts such as an existing animosity that existed between Serbs (majority of Chetniks) and Germans, as they were historical enemies and had just fought a nasty war (WWI) two decades earlier. We even had a 2-years long mediation which concluded that the nature of the collaboration between Chetniks and Axis was opportunistic (as they both fought the communist Partisans of Tito). Direktor even today doesn´t acknolledge any resistance efforts to them. What they did was picky-cherring numerous sources, and it wasn´t difficult because Chetniks lost the war, so the official communist Yugoslav history labbeled them as collaborators and was pretty much a tendency followed by many authors, as there was no interest in defending the loosing side. They refused to acknolledge the complexity of the issue and often used numerous tricks to eliminate opposing editors, and with some admin help, aften succeded. I was very bitter with WP because of it and because of the failure to stop such an agressive attitude in such a sensitive issue. Numerous editors simply ended giving up because they noteced that entering in conflict with the two would only bring fristration and trouble. Now I see that same pattern they applied in Jewish subjects, and it didn´t passed unnoteced as in Serbian one does. However, I don´t beleave any of them is really anti-semite or racist. They do however have some bias: both are Croatian and in Croatia the word "Chetnik" is strongly associated with the Serbs that fought Croats during the 1990s, so their edditing pattern regarding that issue is probably influenced by that. Also Direktor is leftist, Yugoslav Partisans sympatizer, so I think the subject of Jews and Communism for them was more about communism rather than Jewish people, however they should change the agressve pattern they often show in numerous discussions.

Dear IZAK, you shouldn't be so modest about your neutrality and the good faith with which you deal with other hard working contributors. Apparently, there are many of us who should be thanking you for showing us the meaning of civility. I've found your courteous, yet straight-talking approach to be most edifying[103]. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais is a highly biased "background" provider, to say the least. Quite simply, I imagine he still hates my guts for insisting that Wikipedia not cover up Chetnik collaboration with the Nazis and their ilk (you know, stuff like this). In fact if I recall, the affair ended with him getting topic banned or something for tendentious editing. Personally I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for any of his "opinions" on my character. -- Director (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to dignify Fkp's biased complaints with a response, but seeing as IZAK is citing it as some definitive proof it should be known it is him not I that had ARBMAC sanctions placed for disruptive editing in the area. [104][105] I've collapsed this "evidence" as this discussion is already convoluted enough as it is. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, I don´t "hate you" because of you having your own opinion on the matter (everyone is entitled to disagree and opposing views should be welcomed to form consensus), I disagree with your methods of discussion and dealing with opposing editors. You make it allways a matter of win/loose and you use all partisan methods to win. Also, I don´t know how you talk about my sanction when you have a full page of sanctions and blocks. I dare to say that my topic ban at that time must have been the most exagerated TP of all time and I ended up banned because you and other users made the environment there so nasty and toxic that admins simply gave up to the easiest solution to your folcloric complains (at that time you made so many reports and you and Producer knew pretty well how to present the complains in order that when one came there to defend himself, admins unfamiliarised with the matter were already convinced by you).

Beleave me or nor, I actually came here to defend the two of you against the anti-semitic accusations. I am familiarised with your region and from years-long experience with you I know that you are a Croatian from Split who is a leftist, so I know that racism and anti-semitism was never even near you. The problem allways starts when some users oppose some of your edits and you start a full-scale war. It has been repetitive in many subjects around wikipedia. Here for instance (Talk:Yugoslav_Front#Alternate_proposal_2_.28National_Liberation_War.29) you clearly push a POV title in which the fight of your "Tito Partisans" would be the main subject, when you are not supported in that by absolutely anyone and all except you recognise the complexity of the war there. You simply deny that monarchsts also fought to liberate the country from Axis and had it as goal. I don´t agree with your attitude here on WP. This Jews and Communism was just another exemple where instead of working towards compromise you just entrered in war with another group of editors. And I think you didn´t even had the necessity to have conflict there, you could have just compromised easily there. But no, it is not your way, you like it more to fight, then enter into reports, make ir all escalate from one incident into a full-scale world war. FkpCascais (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

your observations are very interesting - your experience of direktors attitude and hostile superior-tone, chimes with mine actually, -also I remember reading George Orwell and his wondering about how fair the treatment of Draža Mihailović was- Sayerslle (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed :) The entire subject of Draza Mihailovic Chetniks is very complex. However we had Direktor and his team grabbing the articles and writting them the way they wanted, which, as everyone can see, is all about "Chetniks posing with German troops" as if that was smple as that and only that mattered. I don´t want even to recall the horror that those 2-3 years of fighting with Direktor were. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, Fkp. It would be nice if you tried to keep your pro-Chetnik agenda out of at least some of the disputes I happen to get involved in. -- Director (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Threats being issued by a user

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

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

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

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

My interactions with Princessruby have generally been more civil (one deletion request and one request for advice) and they don't seem that disruptive; however, I didn't see their user page or their interactions with you. I have asked them to respond to the thread you started; despite their assurance on my talk page that they would do so, they haven't responded yet. APerson (talk!) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His edit-warring is relevant because he's just restarted it.[106] [107] The garbage redirects demonstrate his disregard for Wikipedia rules to suit his own agenda. The frivolous/obsessive categories are merely supporting evidence of his disruptiveness. And his comment above ... is simply baffling. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And now he is asserting that the discussion never took place. [108] For someone who engages this freely in historical revision/denial to be editing articles about the Holocaust is cause for concern. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

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

More uncommunicative reverts.[109][110] More garbage redirects.[111] Please advise me on whether I should continue to try to deal with this problem editor (and if so how), of if I should just stop wasting my time asking for help and let him do whatever the hell he wants. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

He is definitely a problem - and doesn't play nice with others. If ANI doesn't do anything (and I think a topic ban may be in order) than an RfC may be the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Laughable, man. Because you two are experts on the topic, right?Hoops gza (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also weighing in here that at August Landmesser he has resumed doing something that was discussed on the article talk page in March with no one agreeing with his position - for him to deny the discussion occurred is concerning, as is his position regarding the List of Nazis articles (which also arose in that discussion). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Hoops gza for 72 hours, noting that there was also a related AN3 report currently open about this case. Not sure if that will be sufficient to get the point across though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it humorous that the header at the top of the Nazi category page says "It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." The number of pages on individuals in that category greatly exceeds the number of subcategories or non-individual articles. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also welcome comment on his exhaustive creation of redirects (e.g. random phrases from "I Am the Walrus", or 2nd wife of Herman Goering and permutations thereof, or Holocaust in other languages even those with non-Latin alphabets with no apparent connection to the subject, etc). I know what Wikipedia policy is (not to do this), but I'm not sure if it's considered disruptive or not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried looking at Special:Contributions/Hoops gza to see examples of "walrus" redirects, but there is a lot of hyperactivity there, including the creation of a bunch of redirects and a category that appear dubious to me, so I gave up. If anyone familiar with the norms of such creation has the strength to provide a few examples, perhaps a topic ban would assist. In view of the "Ergo, they were Nazis" comment above (on top of the discussion at Talk:August Landmesser#"Nazi" from March), I would support a Nazi-related category topic ban to prevent future disruption and misuse of the category system. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user's last 500 edits to the article space, the Walrus group appears to start with Expert texpert at 22:11 on 27 April; there's also a group of redirects to A Clockwork Orange (disambiguation) starting with Ultra-violence at 20:24 on 26 April and a shorter set of redirects to Full Metal Jacket starting with This is my rifle this is my gun at 03:39 on 27 April. I think the redirects to Göring's wives (1st wife, First wife, Goering, Göring, etc., etc.) to "dad" and "mum" of Mozart and Beethoven (composer's names both in short form and spelled out) and to misspellings of Thames and the different permutations of abbreviations and non-abbreviations for Natzweiler-Struthof are excessive, but I don't see a similar problem with the Porajmos categories; it's legitimate to distinguish that specific genocide. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not all of his redirects (and other edits) are problematic. But so many of them are utterly useless. Some examples from 27 April include Pornagraphic priestess [sic], Crabalocker fish wife (also "fishwife"), Expert, texpert, choking smokers (also without commas), and I am the egg man, they are the egg men, I am the walrus (+5 variations on punctuation). On 26 April, there were about 70 Clockwork-Orange redirects using phrases containing "ultra violence"/"ultraviolence"/"ultra-violence" (some of which don't even appear in the film or the novel), almost 50 redirects from variations on the names of Moatzart, Wolfgang Amadeus [sic] and Baytoven, Ludwig van [sic] and awkward phrases referring to their relatives. On 25 April were three dozen creative redirects to Erwin Rommel. In March he created redirects within WP-EN from مرگ انبوہ (Urdu), ഹോളോകോസ്റ്റ് (Malayalam), হলোকস্ট (Bengali), 홀로코스트 (Korean), and dozens of other non-English terms to Holocaust, as if there were circumstance in which they could be useful. (When this was challenged, he replied "I think that this one warrants having the foreign languages, for some reason."[112]) He's mostly just wasting his own time with these, but they set a poor example of how redirects are intended to be used. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48's incivility

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

• "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith. I don't believe you would find any argument against your faith compelling. You are dishonestly playing with words" and " Given your self declaration of religious faith on your User page, and your already demonstrated appalling behaviour in unilaterally closing the thread earlier, it's obvious that you cannot possibly approach this topic objectively. Your opinion carries no weight at all here now." (Directed at two separate users in one diff) [113]
• "Silly comment. I'll try asking some random people next time I'm in India or China. 'MOST' people don't live in places like the religious parts of the USA." [114]
• "Not good Christian behaviour at all" [115]
• "Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. Pretty sure Easter's not a holiday in India, or China, or any Muslim country. That's taking a lot away from 'global'" [116] and [117]
• "The mere fact that a self-declared conservative Christian editor shut it down hasn't exactly hasn't exactly cooled things off. It's now been re-opened, but peace shouldn't be expected any time soon with that blatantly POV pushing editor still active there." [118]
• "And I sincerely thank StAnselm, a user who openly and clearly declares their conservative Christian position on their User page, for virtually instantly proving my point by unilaterally attempting to close down this discussion immediately after I made that post." [119]
• "But a hard core of mostly Christian adherents here will continue to behave in un-Christian ways to prevent it happening. I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." [120]
• "How sad is it that the discussion has now been shut down by an editor whose User page tells us very clearly is a conservative Christian?" [121]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is extensive, in this case. None of my disagreements with HiLo have resulted in anything other than his imagining some fictitious bad-faith POV pushing on my part. I think it says something about his willingness to assume ulterior motives that "Christian" can mean nothing other than "conservative Christian" to him. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] I said I probably wouldn't post here again, but these selective claims by StAnselm and their supporters demand clarification. The first two, very conspicuously placed user boxes on StAnselm's User page say "This user is a Christian" and "This user is a Calvinist". That's a lot more than the above defensive claims. This user has gone out of their way to tell us that they are not simply a Christian. Perhaps my summarising that as conservative may not match StAnselm's view of themselves, but I happen to work with a lot of self declared Christians who would definitely see StAnselm's position as conservative. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

But you jumped to the conclusion that, for me, "Calvinist" means "conservative". And now that it has been pointed out to you that this is false, you should withdraw your personal attack. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jumping to conclusions is not a personal attack. If the editor made the assumption in good faith (yeah...I bet you don't assume their good faith do you?) then, if they are mistaken, that is it.....a mistake, however, as I read the Calvinist article, I could also agree that it is easy to make that mistake...if it is a mistake. Conservatism is a rather broad term, as liberalism is.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, WP:BOOMERANG, yes. But the relevant question for anyone familiar with the track record is, how long are we supposed to tolerate one editor who sees sinister crypto-Christian, crypto-conservative cabals around every corner? How many non-existent smoke-filled rooms must I be accused of hanging around before he stops making the accusations? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In the benighted part of the colonies I come from, Calvinist groups like the Presbyterians are rarely afforded even the second half of the "conservative Christian" designation. YMMV, I suppose. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to get completely off topic here, but while we're on the subject of userpages, it should be noted that HiLo's has contained the following mission statement for the past 18 months: "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative interpretation of the Bible." [122] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:BATTLE, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Calidum 04:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you are making an accusation without any demonstration of its accuracy....right?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've had the self-identification on my user page for several years now. I would have thought that declaration of sexual preferences would be a good analogy. I would regard it as totally unacceptable for anyone to assume that Maleko Mela is unable or unwilling to edit LGBT-related articles in a neutral manner. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC

If you cannot see your own bias...you may need it pointed out on occasion, which is the EXACT REASON I limit my editing on LGBT topics. Got anything else Anselm?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen nothing actionable to the point of a block as of yet, but I do think HiLo needs a good talking-to. His comments to Anselm were offensive and uncivil, and I fully agree with Bushranger's observation above. Anyway, he's been rather nice to me so far this go round, but we have crossed paths before. His problem isn't so much that he is habitually uncivil (I suspect a great deal of that is simply tongue-in-cheek), but that I've never seen him assume good faith on anyone's part, ever. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo48 needs to make fewer ad hominems and should assume more good faith on the part of the faithful. There's nothing wrong with fighting against bias (systemic or otherwise), but it can be done in a more respectful way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't remember any significant crossing of paths with HiLo and I'm not a Christian, so I think I can be pretty objective when I say that those comments are uncivil. They are thinly veiled jabs, mocking. HiLo, you say on your user page that NPOV is important, and I take you at your word. Then you need to realize your own bias here and perhaps pull back to a safe distance. We all have biases, and if we are wise, we realize when we have reached the limits of our own objectivity. This is the kind of stuff that will get a person topic banned if it were to continue. You need to find within yourself the ability to see through other's eyes here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not Christian either, but I am a member of several projects and help collaborate with Christian editors. What I see above is not all entirely uncivil. Some of it could be seen that way and I won't argue against that. But what I will say is that the OP was accusing the editor of attacking editors for just being Christian and that is something I don't see demonstrated. Sure, it is easy to say the remarks are uncivil, and I can see why there would be a perception of such, but I do not see this as an attack against Christians in General. Editors should not be discussing the contributor. Just comment on the contribution. So in that way, Hilo is clearly in the wrong. But I also feel the OP here has too much of a record with the editor and may well have past encounters over shadow their view. Christians editors are very much like Gay editors. They have to remember that not everyone is Christian and that being an openly declared Christian or gay editor does not mean others cannot comment on what bias they may be perceiving. To me this filing is a lot like one bias against another. I do agree that Hilo only endangers their own editing privileges when they focus on others and not the content.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be going off-tangent but I think it's a mistake to lump editors who share one characteristic in common as acting in a similar way. For one thing, most editors do not have userboxes on the User page declaring their personal identification so it is very likely that the majority of Christian, atheist or gay editors do not "mark" themselves as belonging to that particular group. So, any generalities one makes is based on encounters one has with a small subset of any particular demographic group. And, as sociology shows, there is usually more variation among members of one group than between members of different groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I follow what you are saying, just that in this case the editor has clearly decided to declare their affiliation and preference and are also very involved in editing, not just Christian articles, but other religious articles of different faiths. I trust their good faith, but that is not going to be the outcome or perception of everyone. The main reason we have these user boxes is for declaring your interests so that others can look at edits that are associated with the declaration. In the case of Hilo's comments, they don't appear to be generalizing but being a bit specific about the Christian interests of the declared editor. Sure, variations are going to occur, but here the issue seems to be that one editor feels attacked for their declaration and having it mentioned (far too many times perhaps). But the mention of one's close associations as declared are not the issue. The issue is the persistent and rude manner in which Hilo makes these comments and comes across as attacking the individual for the faith when, in fact, they may not be attacking but simply criticizing the editor over issues related to the subjects they edit. At any rate this does not appear to actually be a case where the editor is being attacked just because of their faith.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a much clearer definition of conflict of interest than it does for incivility. The former explicitly mentions religion as an area where it should be applied. For a long time I've been tying to work out why it simply isn't. The only conclusion I've come to is that it's obviously part of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What part of COI applies here? Since you mention that the policy mentions religion, I'm guessing you're referring to WP:EXTERNALREL, but I'd like to be sure before I respond.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Section break (HiLo48)

(e/c) HiLo may not intend to be incivil or to hurt anyone with his comments, but intention is usually not the most important factor in such issues. The very fact that his name is well known in these parts, and usually not for the best of reasons, says that - putting the most positive blush on it - he is not aware of his own strength when it comes to a propensity for getting into hot water. It would be a sign of his good faith if he could come here and simply acknowledge that some editors have been hurt by his comments, whether or not he intended that hurt. That would be a good step. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Intent is the very issue here not just accidently hurting someone's feelings. People get hurt over very straight forward civil remarks. Seriously. I had someone yell at me and then state on their user page that they were quitting Wikipedia over a comment I made about what I perceived in a suggestion they made during a dispute on the Homosexuality article. There was no attack on them and was speaking directly about the suggestion they made about the content. They blew up and accused me of a number of things that were really off base. If we were to start issuing sanctions and warnings over the hurt feelings of others.....there would be no one left to edit the encyclopedia.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good parallel, Mark. You are talking about one user being offended by your comments and you view them as being unreasonable. It's much different when multiple editors are having the same kind of negative encounters with a single editor that revolve around the same diatribe of how lousy and biased Christianity is. If several editors are having abrasive experiences with another editor, you shouldn't fault them for being easily hurt. The difference is that your example was a solitary incident, there are not a lot of people saying they are quitting Wikipedia over your comments. That's not the case in this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, one-off incidents like that will happen. But HiLo is not part of any one-off incident; there's been a whole swag of them involving him at the receiving end of criticism. I read this page from time to time , and I don't recall ever seeing HiLo say words to the effect of "I wasn't out to hurt anyone, I was just telling it like it is. I'm sorry if I hurt people, and I'll try in future to word my remarks and make my points in a less personally hurtful way". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

People in the past got upset with my swearing. (In some cases I didn't even regard what I said as swearing, but whatever.) I don't swear here now. Or at least I try not to. It's obvious that the linguistic environment in which I live and work is one that many here would find unacceptable. Swearing is simply part of normal discourse. I now put a lot of effort into trying tot use a form of language that doesn't come naturally. But this isn't about swearing. Also, several people who have brought complaints about me here are no longer with us on Wikipedia. (Boomerangs fly in unusual ways.) Their complaints were never valid. This is why I have concerns about AN/I being primarily a place where old mud can be thrown again and again and again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Goal: Always stay in the top three tiers

My concern is that the comments having a chilling effect on participation. When someone is constantly making slightly uncivil comments that appear to have a particular bias, yet they each slide under the block radar, neutrality dies a death by a thousand cuts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what makes the most sense to me. Little cuts that are constant can cause a great loss over time. Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Does not the same apply to the problem created by the fact that our articles on religious topics naturally attract a majority of editors who are adherents of those religions, some of whom cannot help applying their inevitable biases in favour of those religions? Our systemic bias means that Christianity will be the religion with the biggest problem of that kind. Neutrality died long ago on some of those articles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, that is a concern and having editors who are skeptics/other to participate in those articles can be highly beneficial to our goals of neutrality. That only works, however, if the editors are commenting about the merits and not about each other. You are a very experienced editor, but Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (shown right) comes to mind. Personally, I still refer to it regularly to remind me to stay on the merits. I haven't questioned your ability or intent, only your methods. I understand it gets frustrating at times (which might indicate it is time to edit something less contentious for a day or two), but you have to see why I'm concerned, and why it looks like bias to others. You can't correct someone's bias by being equally biased in the opposite direction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I think this hits the nail squarely on the head.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48's incivility is unacceptable. You could replace the word "Christian" with any religion or ideology and the problem would still remain. And, in any case, the criticism he presents has nothing to do with religion but with politics. I would like to see him given a final warning and told that if he does it again he will face a long block. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Define "incivility". HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Incivility is the opposite of what you think it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it Hilo, you cannot attempt to right the wrongs that you perceive. We are simply not here as editors for that. You should really disengage from these topics voluntarily for a while because whether you agree or not, this will only lead to either a topic ban (which sounds more and more appropriate here) or worse, a block. I think admin has been very patient with you. At some point the patience is going to wear off.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have plenty of other things to do, and probably will pay less heed to the disaster area of our religious articles for a while. I'd just like to see some independent, rational responses to the attacks on me in the initial post in this thread. Let's look at the second point in that litany of alleged sins. My apparent sin began with he words "Silly comment", and it was. I won't ever apologise for that kind of post. Several of the other evils I have apparently committed fall into the same category. If other editors post rubbish, I will point it out. Sorry about that. So what will be done about the falsehoods and silly allegations that have been written about me here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That is actually pretty simple. I am sure more than a few editors have taken note of the fact that an allegation was made against another editor that was never properly demonstrated. In other words, the OP made a complaint that another editor was attacking them based solely on their religious beliefs. That was too strong an accusation for this case/filing. But you can let it go now. A boomerang is also unlikely.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? False allegations were made against me. Crap posted at AN/I is part of what makes it a disaster area. The last person to bring me here is now on an indefinite block, but the fact that my name was brought here is still part of the evidence brought against me this time! And so will this be, and most of the allegations are absolute rubbish. There MUST be some consequence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're mistaking me (the OP) with St. A, but I never claimed HiLo's comments were directed myself. I merely said he was directing them at Christian editors in general (of which I am one). I even specifically said in my original statement that I've had lengthy record with HiLo, but none of the comments were directed at me.

As for my complaint, I think it's obvious every editor here agrees that HiLo's comments have crossed a line. So I'm not sure why you're saying my allegation was never properly demonstrated. Even you Mark/Maleko wrote that "Hilo has to stop discussing the editors. Seriously. The point here is that if one cannot stick to discussing the content they just set themselves up to be perceived as having even more bias than the one they are discussing." Calidum 00:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(EC) OK, I struck out the mistake, but you are clearly in the wrong in accusing another editor of attacking anyone based purely on religious faith or Christians in general and you are also wrong about EVERY editor feeing that Hilo's comments cross the line. I don't. I made it clear that in discussing the editor it opens the door for that perception, but I do doubt that simply being uncivil is a reason to complain as if anyone is being persecuted. That is seriously outrageous and you never demonstrated such. All you have are some comments that don't all cross a line of incivility.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase. A majority of commenters believe that HiLo has crossed a line, as I alleged in my complaint. Why you have chosen to defend him is beyond me, but don't pretend you're not in the minority here. Calidum 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And there's some more of this crap. My concern was NEVER with Christian editors in general. It's with editors who openly proclaim their Christianity, and then, at least in my eyes, post in a way that shows more concern with promoting Christian views than creating a great, impartial encyclopaedia. Please retract the falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this thread be closed as it is likely to spin out of control pretty soon.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

When do I see consequences for falsehoods written about me? Or does such crap again stay on AN/I forever? If it does, how do you guys expect me to treat the editors responsible nicely in future? I still believe what I said was true, even if some didn't like it. What has been said about me is simply not true. (Although I expect that here.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• The only spinning I see is by HiLo and Mark. The fact remains that HiLo's summaries ARE problematic, and it would be helpful if he took the advice given here to heart, as that is the easiest path to resolving the concerns. The OP isn't blocked, I have no idea where you got that idea. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well excuse me. I am not spinning the fact that this thread was an accusation made against an editor that was never demonstrated to be accurate. It accused Hilo of attacking Christians in general. If you feel that much has been proven than why are you waiting? You have the power to block. The only reason I even intervened here is because this is about one editor feeling others are being persecuted for their faith and this is absolutely a false charge never shown to be accurate. I also have no idea what you are talking about when you say "The OP isn't blocked". I don't remember that being an issue? Also, I should mention that Hilo is not one of my friends on Wikipedia and that I am actually arguing with those I do consider to be friends. In other words...I have no particular opinion for or against Hilo. my opinion is based on the OP complaining about something I do not see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Spinning as in making HiLo out to be a victim here. I respect your difference in interpretation in his comments, but I have to use my own. As I've said, the edits are problematic, interpreting them for myself. That I'm not "block-happy" and prefer calm solutions is far from a secret. They are personal in nature, they twist the knife in a way that gives the appearance of a religious bias, whether it is intentional or not. I've already said this above more than once, that he needs to stick to the merits. I was hoping for an acknowledgement of such, but disappointed when it looked like it was being spun around into him being a victim. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) So, as you can see your words and interpretations of what I am doing is insulting and offensive to me, and I know it was not your intent. No, I am not trying to make Hilo the victim, but at the same time I will not allow someone (anyone) to be accused of such a vile thing without CLEAR evidence. There is no clear evidence. I have already agreed with you above but my point in requesting the closure of this thread is that is has gained no consensus to the ORIGINAL complaint, that Hilo was attacking Christians in general. If that is how you interpret making Hilo the victim then perhaps you are reading more into my words and comments than are really there. If you are readfing my comments Dennis I am sure you would see that I agree with you that Hilo should "Stick to the merits". I used the wording that he should discuss the content and not the contributor and that by doing so it opens the door to the perception of attacks, but I really don't see this as an attack as I have seen these same discussions replacing "Christian" with "gay" and to me that seems like a double standard if it is OK to discuss gay editors in this manner but not Christians. As for making a victim, the OP seemed to be doing that not me.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't ok to discuss gay editors in the same manner, but that kind of falls indirectly under the logic of WP:WAX, so it can't be used to justify singling out any group. I was just hoping to get the point across so I don't have to propose a topic ban in the future. It wasn't about consensus as much as understanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in more than spirit as I have also suggested a topic ban may well be appropriate here, but I see these types of things happen all the time. I don't think singling out any one for their declarations as appropriate, but to me many of the comments were not singling out someone out for that alone, but for their edits. Much like another editor here did to me when I mentioned my being gay, they then singled out that mention to use against me in this argument. That didn't offend me or make me feel I was being "singled out" just for being gay...I declared it as part of the discussion. That is very much what I see happened here. It also doesn't help that the editor this centers around, StAnselm is very active in the areas they have declared as being a part of. So, yes, bias is a factor here and in many ways I agree with Hilo.......just not in the persistence. That goes beyond how I work, or what I tend to agree with as I generally disengage and find great relief in such.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If I had singled out a group, your comment might be valid. It's not. My criticism was of individuals. The OP has sucked you in. I do feel like the victim here now. But that's normal here at AN/I. Given tat you seem to be basing your demands of me on some content that wasn't true, it's rather difficult for me to agree to anything at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to find that Dennis doesn't get "sucked in" by things on this board. What he and other admin do (and even I tend to) is give as much rope as possible. You might not want to grab hold of that rope.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And do what? I truly have no idea what is being asked of me. It cannot be to never do all that was listed in that first post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I must now point out that, rather than help answer that question, Dennis chose to find further fault with me down below. He isn't trying to resolve this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The claim that you didn't single out a "group" holds no water. This edit [123] and the phrase "I'm not sure what they think their god will do to them if they allow Wikipedia to do it job properly and fairly." is unnecessarily offensive to more than one person, and was directed at more than one person. I can break them all down but I shouldn't have to, this one I just picked at random. The point is, when your edits are disruptive, your motivation isn't my first concern. I only care about keeping the playing field level, keeping the articles neutral, and keeping the peace, all while using the least amount of tools. Above, I've shown you specifically how to avoid future problems, with the bonus of it making you more persuasive in discussion. Ignore it, or put it to good use, the choice is yours. If you can't understand it, I can't help, as I've explained it as much as I know how already. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Oh, I suppose that was about a group, but a very small one (obviously not all Christians), and I still believe in what I said. I am struggling to see the offence in it. But I am happy to learn about cultures different from mine, where active, even confrontational discussion of religious values is very common. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You went straight to the heart of their belief system by suggesting that "their god" would or would not do something based on the edits here at Wikipedia. That is the line that was crossed there. I don't see that as an attack, but as a very inappropriate criticism of both their beliefs and their deity. I have seen this before and many times it gets pushed to the side or just ignored but I myself have made a point about others criticizing other beliefs or those held as holy. Surely you didn't expect that to go over well.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wanted them to think about what they were doing. I don't believe it was very ethical. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Then you need to review: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.".--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We WERE on Talk pages. I see little point in taking it further. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sad to see this, as I've found HiLo active and fairly constructive on WP:ITN. To my mind, the most problematic diff is the first one listed at the start of this notice; HiLo cannot assume good faith on the sole ground that the other editor is a Christian editing an article on the Genesis creation narrative. That's out of line, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That deserves a response. It wasn't just the fact that the other editor is a Christian that was the problem. That would never be a problem on its own. I work with a lot of very religious people, who are very happy to join in vigorous discussions on their faith, and its conflicts with the rational world. What we had here was an editor who had loudly proclaimed his Christianity declaring that a word that treated Christianity differently from other religions was neutral, and that he had seen no compelling argument to convince him otherwise. I still feel, as I said in that post, that no argument would compel him to see otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That may be what you were thinking, but it is not what you said; you can't expect us to read your mind, only your words. "This is an area where I cannot assume good faith" seems pretty clear-cut, and if it's not what you meant then you should retract it and apologise. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No point in retracting. I still believe what I said. I cannot assume good faith with such an editor. All the evidence points in the opposite direction. I have explained why above. I'm not very good at pretending to believe something I don't believe, such as saying I assume good faith, when I don't. Did that sort of pretending for a while with the church I was once part of, then, for my own sanity, I had to come true to myself. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is starting to go in circles a bit. If you still believe what you said then I think there's a problem; you didn't say that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, but in that area. What your personal standards may be are more or less irrelevant here; the community has standards that it expects editors to adhere to, and one of them is WP:AGF. It's not something you get to opt out of because you find it difficult. If what you meant is that you couldn't assume good faith with that editor, then I think we'd have to see a considerably history of that editor acting in bad faith to think that was reasonable. I haven't looked into the editor's history but I have read the discussion in which you said this; it seemed to me to be in response to a reasonable, good-faith, policy-based argument. I'm not saying his argument is right, but acting in bad faith is different to being wrong, and very different to disagreeing with your ideas. GoldenRing (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't about assuming good faith, after all, good faith isn't a suicide pact. It is about your actual words. Whether you meant them to be so abrasive or not, they are. No one is trying to change your mind, only your methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe those words would be seen as abrasive by most people in my culture. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what culture you claim as you own, so I can't refute. It isn't really relevant anyway. The issue is how it comes across here at Wikipedia, not how it would come across at your local pub. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

HiLo has since the beginning claimed that what the community as a whole sees as flagrant incivility is perfectly acceptable for formal business communication in his native Australia. That this is plainly false would be better served by Wikipedia's resident apologists not continually taking it at face value. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I should point out, as the main recipient of HiLo's incivility this time around, that I am also Australian (as I indicate on my user page). StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?

TOTALLY exciting but we were talking about HiLo's supposed incivility. All this is valuable material for Talk:DYK; feel free to copy. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note that one of the diffs at the start had nothing to do with StAnselm or what else is presented here, but is about the fact that some Christian (self-declared) editors put this on the front page: "... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?" in the DYK section. Not with any accompanying explanation, this is the full hook. Their original proposal didn't even have the quotes, but one editor at least prevented that. A discussion at WT:DYK#DYK should not be presenting religious doctrine as fact, where HiLo made the above comment , which is not a personal attack or even incivil at all (though perhaps not really productive either, apart from displaying his displeasure with the hook and the way it was approved). I have no idea why the dff was included in the complaint here at ANI, if not to make the list of supposed problematic edits a bit longer. Fram (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I think that calling Christian editors systematically biased is fairly incivil. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, but you're biased. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your proof for such an allegation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your editing makes me thing you are.......as far as I can tell thats the same reasoning as HiLo is it reasonable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC) You can think whatever you want. I said that the hook, and the fact that many people didn't see a problem with it, is a case of systemic bias. That's not the same as calling Christian editors "systematically biased" of course... But the fact that you thought it a good idea to put "... that Jesus Christ is Risen Today? Alleluia."[124] on the main page on Easter makes it rather clear that you don't have the necessary neutrality to edit in a NPOV way and leave your preferences, beliefs, prejudices, ... at the door. Fram (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Now that is misleading because that never appeared on the main page in that format. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, there's no need to add the "alleluia" because what actually appeared was bad enough. Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Misleading? It is your actual proposal, complete and unchanged. Fram (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Still didn't run. It was a mistake I admit, but other editors soon fixed it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It appears that it did run and that no one fixed it (well, the quotes were added). That's a little disappointing but I am new to the DYK thing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It didn't run with Alleluia in it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC) OK, got it. But...the fact that it ran as the title alone is very odd.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Your new sig, with the shadows and huge text. Rethink that. Doc talk 09:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I only saw the hook after it had been on the main page, and my first thought was amazement that it got approved. But as User:The C of E has pointed out, it was on the nomination page for several weeks. I think it highlights one of the endemic problems of DYK, which has single editors approve hooks, as opposed to a discussion/consensus model. But getting back to Fram's point, I think HiLo's comment belongs here - "Not good Christian behaviour at all" is a completely uncivil remark that has no place in Wikipedia. It would be like describing HiLo as un-Australian. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Such attempted slurs are typically only used by right-wing shock jocks (Aren't they all?) and similarly inclined and rather thick politicians. Water off a duck's back. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, I didn't think it would - and so my comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. But I notice you do call it an "attempted slur". StAnselm (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) What? I have no idea what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You said that "unAustralian" is an "attempted slur. I would suggest, then, that even if it doesn't bother you, it has no place on wikipedia. In the same way, "unChristian", or anything like it, is a slur that ought to be regarded as falling under incivility. StAnselm (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Un-Australian and un-Christian are very different things. There is really no such thing as un_Australian, but someone behaving in ways that some see as not in line with their interpretation of the teachings of the gospels could be described by them as un-Christian. Like much else that depends on Biblical interpretation, whether it is or isn't would obviously be open to debate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) One would expect the admin that promotes a hook to maintain our policies like WP:NPOV, especially for things that will appear on the main page. But the process regularly fails, and DYK is a problem area. Still, it rarely is such a blatant problem as this one. Fram (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the hook, and consensus on the DYK talk page shows that editors are OK with it. It was an Easter hook, perfectly appropriate for that day. Further, it does not promote nor encourage religion at all, it merely repeats the ancient "He has risen" meme which was found in Egyptian, Persian, and Roman cultures, until it became syncretically linked to Christianity in its most recent iteration. From a wider perspective, this hook is a celebration of this cultural narrative irrespective of any particular religion or religious belief, echoing through the centuries. This narrow, limited approach you insist upon, that defines an idea or concept by a current belief, is entirely unencyclopedic and ahistorical. One can appreciate ideas and respect them on a purely figurative level without being bound to them literally. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If anything, the hook has an anti-Christian bias. Christians, presumably, affirm that Jesus rose again in 30 AD, or thereabouts, not that he rises again every Easter Sunday... StAnselm (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see it as anti-Christian, but you do make a good point. As a song title, the hook is an abstraction of a religious tenet of Christianity, not a religious imperative compelling believers to go to church. I thought it was very well done and appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It’s at least an overgeneralization: I’ve heard Ukrainians, for example, using Христос воскрес (Christ is risen) as an Easter greeting. IIANM it’s right out of the Eastern liturgy for the celebration. At any rate, “is risen” is stative, less restricted to the present than “rises“ or “is rising”, so ISTM a stretch, to say the least, reading into it a denial of the supposed original event.—Odysseus1479 04:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Well, I too can personally appreciate the "quirkiness" in this playful mis-use of the quoted title and the "celebration" of the old Easter idea, but still, it's a profession of faith, I can see no possible way of reading it that is not making a factual claim in favour of one specific religion, and I very much doubt that if Shahada ever were to go on the Main Page, anybody would have gotten away with "Did you know that there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Prophet? (Not to mention that the hook was technically in violation of the DYK rules, in that the fact asserted in the hook was of course not reliably sourced in the article). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is an abstract hook that refers to a song title. It does not assert the existence of a one true god as the Shahada hook you offer does. It asserts that a person "rose" today in an abstract manner. That it happens to refer to a person rising from the dead and coming back to life does not impel me to believe it. As a non-Christian, I have no problem with this at all. It's a song title that refers to a religious belief held by Christians. Unlike the example you offer, it does not make a value judgment about the beliefs of others, it only comments on what Christians believe. What's going on here, is that you are and others are misreading the hook, misinterpreting it to mean "Jesus Christ is Risen Today and You Must Believe It Or Else", when it does not say nor imply that at all. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) No, we are not "misreading" it. We are reading it, literally. It's not about "impelling anybody to believe something", it is about making a factual claim. This is what it says: "Christ" (not merely "Jesus", but "Christ", i.e. the Divine personality believed by Christians) rose (i.e. from the dead). The hook was not just "referring" to that meme, as a normal hook would if it was just citing the title; by putting it into the syntactic frame "did you know that...", not as a cited phrase but as a clause, it was grammatically asserting that meme. Of course I am fully aware that it was intended to be read in a more non-literal manner, and if this wasn't on the frontpage of the website that fames itself for its strict ideological neutrality I would have no problem with it whatsoever, but still, nothing on earth can change the fact this was its only possible literal meaning. And the meme being asserted there happens to be the most central dogma of Christianity, so the parallel to my example of the Shahada is in fact very close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Future Perfect at Sunrise: we have never had to source the name of the article, it is in all the refs. See the hook "that I believe I'll dust my broom". Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (ec)Consensus (i.e. votecount, I presume?) doesn't trump policy. Furthermore, consensus? Problematic: Agolib, Sven Manguard, Fram, Hilo48, Tourchiest, 64.183.42.58, EdChem No problem: Gerda Arendt, C of E, The Rambling Man, Viriditas, Colonel Warden, Allen3, Victuallers That makes 7 people seeing no problem with the hook, and 7 thinking that it was not appropriate. The sophistry used by those defending it is astounding though. It is not about religion or christianity, it just happens to be a Christian theme displayed on the Christian Easter day. As explicitly requested. Oh yes, that is all just a coincidence, and the hook was an expression of a general, worldwide cultural idea without religious connotations, even though it explicitly said "Jesus Christ"... Please, Viriditas, do you really believe that anyone will believe that defense for one second? Just read FPaS's comment above, this hook was a deliberate attempt to get Christian doctrine on the main page in the least diluted form possible. It was lucky to get missed by people who think our neutrality is more important than professing ones beliefs on Wikipedia, and got approval and promotion by like-minded people, but that's no reason to pretend that nothing untowards happened. Fram (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That an unambiguously promotional DYK hook like this made it to the main page is apalling. What admin copied this one into the queue? If they overlooked it they deserve a massive trout, but if they knowingly posted it (which is rather blatantly in violation of the DYK rules, not to mention one of Wikipedia's core principles), they've got no business being an admin. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I explained here my views, but would like to reiterate a couple of points: 1. We will never see on the main page "Did you know ... that "Bohemian Rhapsody"?" because it makes no sense. The hook in question only makes sense as a question involving an assertion of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. 2. Equally objectionable would be "Did you know ... that God is Dead?" Unlike FPaS's example, this also uses an article title that is also a title of work, in this case a novel rather than a hymn. 3. An acceptable hook would be something like "Did you know ... that God is Dead is the debut novel of Ron Currie Jr.?" or in the Christ case, some of the examples offered by C of E. 4. Psychonaut is correct that there is an issue here with the judgment of the editor who approved the hook and the admin that promoted the set. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) On the plus side, when the somewhat surprising news ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"? appeared on the main page, it was accompanied by a picture of 19th-century female climber Jeanne Immink (Wikipedia:Recent_additions#20_April_2014). Every cloud... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC) FWIW, this one and the below hoax article were both promoted by User:Allen3. Fram (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm an anti-bible-thumping semi-pagan, and I found the hook to be a rather clever wordplay. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ...which the proposer/approver/promotor deny. It was not wordplay, but a perfectly normal hook, the likes we see every day. The "message" was not intended and is purely in the eye of the beholder. I'ld prefer some honesty form their side, but apparently they rather prefer to defend their actions by making up extremely unlikely explanations. Anyway, clever wordplay or not, NPOV and SOAPBOX are policies which shouldn't be ignored on the mainpage (or elsewhere). Fram (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC) @Fram:, you claim I have issued a denial related to this issue. I have no memory of making such a statement. Could you provide a diff? Demanding honesty from others when you are unwilling to provide it yourself tends to discourage open dialog. That being said, I found the hook in question to be a cleverly play on words that provided a date related message. Just like Gerda Arendt, Tarc, Viriditas, I also am having difficulty seeing the level of NPOV issues you and HiLo48 have been railing about. Instead, from my perspective, this looks like a couple of highly vocal individuals spotting a hook that violated their personal POV. --Allen3 talk 16:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Their personal POV being that hooks should comply with mandatory policy and that this one didn't, a POV they are of course entitled to hold. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You're right, you hadn't yet commented on why you approved it, so I shouldn't have included you in that comment. The rest of my comments stand though. There is nothing "clever" about it, there is no word play, it is a hook that promotes a purely religious POV. A hook that would have been acceptable as a normal hook (I.e. one that said something about the subject) and at the same time had given that message could be seen as clever. This is just very thinly disguised soapboxing. Which, yes, violates my POV that hooks should be factual and neutral. We don't "provide date-related messages" that support a religious (or political) POV of any one group. I thought most admins knew that (but then again, most admins know that we don't promote hoaxes either of course...). Fram (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I've asked on his user talk page if he could explain the reasons behind the promotion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The hook sucks. There is no way it should be on the main page as printed at the start of this section. None. But allegations against those involved of the type above aren't much better.John Carter (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what the editor or DYK promoter's internal thoughts were, and frankly, intention really is completely irrelevant. I share the view that it's a clever play on words for a date-related message and when I saw the nom at DYK a while back, it gave me a grin and a giggle for the fun of the wording. Since then, it passed not only DYK, but the promoter and those who load the queue, so had at least four sets of eyes on it. It is not POV pushing, it's just an eye-catching way to get viewers to read DYK, and particularly when the article is about a musical piece and not a proselytizing article. Similarly, I would be equally amused at the "God is dead" or Shahada examples above and argue equally vehemently to keep them in. I think that people here who dislike the topic need to just get a grip. Not every passing reference to Christianity is part of a conspiracy by the Sharia wing of the Southern Baptist Convention. Easter exists, so does Yom Kippur, and so do the many porn queens, bikini bars and mermaids whose articles have adorned the main page for a few hours. Viva la difference. Montanabw(talk) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Guys, political correctness isn't gonna go anywhere here. We have Christian and non-Christian editors; just because a new article and subsequent DYK happened to have a Christian slant doesn't mean we're pushing Christianity any more than anything else that shows up on the Main Page. As some have said above, this is merely a gesture for Easter, a widely accepted holiday around the world. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC) So we can simply do "Did you know [media title]?" Can we assume this construction will always be supported, or only when it's about a Christian holiday? --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC) While I would not go so far as to claim such a construct would "always be supported", this is not the first time such a construct has been used. An example is Happiness Is Dean Martin which ran on 1 April 2013. It is fairly rare that using just an article title provides a useful hook, but it does happen. --Allen3 talk 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think many people hold Dino at the same level of regard, so it doesn't have the same appearance of POV pushing, or hold itself open for the same perception of POV pushing. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I find it amusing more than anything -- that Christians feel they must go to such lengths to promote their beliefs gives them about as much credence as a man leaping from an alleyway to demand of startled passersby, "Worship Thor!!" And, naturally, it is no better as a "hook" than that would be. Plus it is a clear BLP violation, since the claim is asserted to be of a living person, with no reliable evidence of such person's state of being alive or dead as of 2014. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Golbez: as I said above, see the hook 'that I Believe I'll Dust My Broom?' It is supported when the wordplay works, as it does here. Matty.007 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Except that "I believe I'll dust by broom" is so obviously non-serious no reader would be in danger of understanding it as a serious proposition with a POV message. Likewise, "Happiness is Dean Martin" can't possibly be construed as transporting any POV message beyond perhaps a questionable taste in music. But "Christ is risen" is a serious claim; it is vehemently believed by some people and just as vehemently rejected by others, and asserting it as a fact on Wikipedia is just not right. We can't put it in a DYK hook any more than we can put it in an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" is also non-serious (it refers to a song title) and there is no POV proposition requiring the reader to do or believe anything. It is a factual claim about what Christians believe in the form of a Christian song title. We are not being asked to believe anything, we are being told what Christians believe by way of a song title. DYK used a Christian song on Easter to promote an article, not the Resurrection narrative itself. The Paschal greeting, for example, is an expression of faith that has significant meaning to Christians, not to anyone else. Outside of their influence, it does not have an imperative to people of other religions to do or believe anything, nor is there anything serious or POV about it. We are not being told there is only one god and he has a prophet, a "fact" which would seriously challenge the POV of people who believe in more than one god and different prophets. We are being told that there is a song on Easter (the day of the DYK) that celebrates their religious belief on their holiday. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) "It is a factual claim about what Christians believe in the form of a Christian song title." I wasn't aware the song title was "Christians believe Jesus Christ is Risen Today", or that the DYK hook included the caveat. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Viriditas, I don't believe you actually are dumb, but at this point in our conversation I can only conclude that you are either playing dumb or you are not listening. If the first, please stop playing dumb, now. If the second, please start listening, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) WP:NPA and WP:CIV does not exempt admins. I don't agree with your position. I think you can find a way to accept this disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I disagree. It's unencyclopedic on any day except April Fool's, when we tolerate that kind of wordplay. It doesn't matter how punny, we shouldn't supply media titles as a statement of fact (which is what we're doing essentially) unless it actually is a statement of fact, like if there were a song titled "Maine borders only New Hampshire." Which would actually be a really fun and witty way of introducing that song... but it only works for actual statements of fact. Neither "I believe I'll dust by broom" nor "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" are statements of fact. --Golbez (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Dust my Broom was an April Fools' hook. Matty.007 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Mocking or attacking fellow editors' beliefs (or presumed beliefs) is simply unacceptable. But that hook should only have run like that on April Fools' - which was the date the Dean Martin hook ran, please note - because it violates the "in universe" rule of DYK hooks, which is not suspended for Easter, or Christmas, or Hanukkah, or Eid, but only on April Fool's, precisely because it's either misleading or non-neutral to present such statements in Wikipedia's voice. It was clearly an error that nobody spotted; if it was reported at Main Page:Errors, I'm sorry I didn't see it. It's demonstrably an easy error to make if that's your belief system, but it should have been caught. (Pretty much a classic case of unconscious bias, in other words.) However—... that a mistake was made doesn't excuse mocking or attacking others' belief systems. I'm reminded that the potential divisiveness of religious userboxes was a major reason Jimbo wanted to do away with userboxes. I wasn't here then, but my recollectionis that the community moved them from template space to userspace on the understanding that they should be treated as "This user is an X or is interested in Xness"—and I had the impression they are still supposed to take that form and should never be allowed to lead to suspensions of civility. So I suggest we get back to the main thread here, except for those who want to participate in the more general thread about DYK below. That specific hook is long gone from the Main Page. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I fail to see anything wrong with a song title hook that celebrates the faith of Christians on their holiday. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (ec) I think it is pretty clear that the point of there being no hook and just the title was to purposely use the DYK allow that title to look like a claim of fact. but...removing all religious stuff from the debate, I would say that it is not appropriate only because it did purposely use DYK to make a statement and illustrate a point. My personal perception...it looks like using Wikipedia for proselytizing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't see that. I see an Easter song DYK hook on...wait for it...Easter! How dare they! Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Cool. Did you know God is dead? Would that be appropriate?--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Since Easter is "a festival and holiday celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead", I'm afraid I don't see how it would be relevant on that day. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC) And if I were talking about placing it on easter that might be an argument. Is it appropriate to have a DYK that is "Did you know God is dead ever?--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with the topic or even with quoting the title, but there's a DYK rule requiring context for fictional or otherwise misinterpretable material that applies here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The context was a Christian song title DYK on the Christian Easter holiday professing the beliefs of Christians. What is there to misinterpret? I mean, really. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Well here's the kicker: Would it have been allowed on DYK had it not contained quotation marks? If not, then it shouldn't be up there with quotation marks. No one is complaining about an Easter-related DYK entry, we're complaining about how it was presented. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I don't get that. It was actually begun without the quotation marks. I don't care that it was used on DYK, or that it was used during Easter. My issue is that it was granted a special privilege to look like a claim of fact. To look like promoting a faith and to look like it got away with something no other DYK has.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC) There's no misinterpretation involved. Honoring a religious holiday by having a DYK is fine if it stays within the rules - by providing context in the hook. I've now looked at the discussion at WT:DYK and I see that the other cited example of suspension of the rule also ran on April 1. That's the only day we suspend the rule requiring provision of a context. Think of it as explanation for our non-(Western) Christian readers - or in the more usual case, for people unfamiliar with the fictional setting referred to. It's easy to forget not everyone has the same frame of reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Except, we have dozens of DYK's where context is not provided, and it's part of the appeal of the hook. For example, did you know that baked beans have hairy eyes and iridescent antennae?[125] Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I can't seem to find any biologists who counter those claims. I can find many historians who counter a claim that Jesus was ever risen. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Huh? This has nothing to do with "claims". The DYK analogy is as follows: the "baked beans" do not refer to baked beans, they refer to an animal. In the same way, the rising of Christ does not refer to the physical Resurrection, it refers to a song. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, an animal with the name "baked bean". "Jesus Christ" in the hook refers to what then? Not Jesus? Is it not a grammatical subject? What you seem to be suggesting is that the entire phrase "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" should be understood as a noun. In that case, the sentence would actually be ungrammatical. When I read a sentence—and I think a lot of people do this as well—I favour a grammatical reading over an ungrammatical one. I think that would be part of following the principle of charity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Baked beans do not have eyes and antennae. I have been cheated by false information! But, still, there remains a song named "Jesus Christ is Risen Today", and a DYK hook that ran on Easter, a holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. I wonder, do we have any other DYK's like this? Why yes, we do! Did you know that today is the day when Krishna gave the holy sermon of the Bhagavad Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, as described in the Mahabharata?[126] But wait a second, you might say. The Mahabharata is a poem, and Krishna could be seen as the Hindu equivalent of the Christian Jesus! What's going on here? And what does "today is the day" refer to here? It refers to the day of the hook, December 23. Is this an in-universe hook I see? Well, how can this be? Does Wikipedia actually promote in-universe hooks about religious figures on religious holidays? Yes, yes it does. All the time, in fact. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Wow. Why didn't the Krishna one run as 'Today is the day when the Mahabharata says that...'? That's quite a stretch you've got with your comparative theology there, by the by. I'm a Christian myself; but I come down on the side of the editors who are viewing the Easter DYK entry as a breach of NPOV. You can't just treat the claims of the faith - even well-regarded quasi-historical ones - as fact like that. I also find it surprising that you and others are claiming that the blurb, as published, did not appear to be asserting the hymn's title as a fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I see no significant qualitative difference between "did you know on this day Jesus rose" and "did you know on this day Krishna gave a holy sermon". The only difference I see is that some editors are offended by one idea, but not by another. Both are considered similar religious figures and both hooks are stated as a matter of fact, even if it is attributed to the Mahabharata, as if we could draw an in-universe connection between a Hindu sacred text, a divine figure, and a date on the Gregorian calendar in the real world. There's no substantive difference here at all. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Can you really not see the key difference between "Did you know X?" and "Did you know that Y claims X?"? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The Hindu DYK is composed as a factual, historical event that occurred on a real date by a divine, supernatural being as described in the Mahabharata, which gives it the status of textual authenticity rather than the simple "claim" you make it out to be. Granted, it has the illusion of attribution, but saying that the act of this divine being were described in a sacred Holy book as having occurred on this day is no different than saying "today is the day Jesus rose", minus the added description in the holy book, where of course, it all comes from anyway. SSDD. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC) That's my point; neither DYK should have run as written - in each case a religious claim, a matter of faith, is presented on equal footing with ostensibly straightforward facts. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I acknowledge your argument and recognize it as having merit. However, I am not arguing that neither hook should have run. I'm arguing that we run hooks like this (religious or otherwise) all the time, and that as such, these types of hooks aren't violating DYK practices. One can seriously argue about what it means to present straightforward facts, since the very concept of a "fact" is highly disputatious. For example, in science, facts are provisional, whereas in religion, facts are incontrovertible. NPOV demands we attribute the best (and in this case, interesting) facts to their claimants, but in practice, DYK has not always done this. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC) To say that baked beans not having eyes and antennae in that sense is a counterexample to the claim that the baked bean the animal has eyes and antennae is just a run-of-the-mill equivocation. All the time it does that? I'm looking right now and I don't see one, so your claim that it does that all the time is not a "fact" at all. Of the 30 random sets at which I looked, none of them had one. It would seem to be a fortunately rare practice. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not certain we are talking about the same thing, but for the sake of the argument let's assume we are. I don't think the practice is rare, but quite common. For example, did you know that Caucasians were brown?[127] Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that there are wikilinks on these hooks that you can click on to find out what they are. Baked beans, a Christian hymn, caucasians, every last one has this built-in mechanism to let you find out what it is exactly without getting all up in arms over it. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC) That's another example like the baked beans. I can't find any biologists that counter that claim. I can find many historians that counter the claim that Jesus ever was risen. It's the basic distinction between fact and opinion given at WP:YESPOV. DYK rules for content clearly state: "The hook should be neutral." That means the relevant claim must fit WP:YESPOV. The claim that Caucasians are brown does fit WP:YESPOV. The claim that Jesus Christ is or was risen (today or any other day) does not. The former is a fact, because all the relevant biologists agree those things are brown (or thereabouts anyway). The latter is an opinion, because a significant number of the relevant historians agree that the resurrection of Jesus probably did not happen. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Viriditas, you wrote that "The context was a Christian song title". This is patently untrue. The word "context" means "the text in which a word or passage appears and which helps ascertain its meaning". The phrase in this DYK hook was entirely self-contained, with no surrounding text whatsoever, and so by definition had no context. It therefore seemed to convey only the literal meaning of the phrase. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid I disagree with you. I suggest you refrain from citing Wiktionary. The DYK was taken out of the context of a Christian song, in the same way that many of the example hooks mentioned here have been taken out of context, quite on purpose. In their original context, for example, baked beans do not have eyes and antennae and Caucasians aren't brown, yet these are acceptable DYK's, and there are more than enough of them. In the same way, the statement "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" was taken out of its context of a song as a special occasion hook to highlight the word play and attract interest. I would love to chat further about this, but I believe everything has already been said several times now. Thanks for your feedback, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Proposal to permanently change format of all dyk's based on this entry's passage to "Did you know that "[media title]"?" it will solve all problems and issues if we have stuff like "that Adon Olam?" "that "Imagine (song)"?" "that "Meera: Mane Chakar Rakho Ji"?" that walrsuses also i think yngvadottir has a great point, we already make note of religious holidays on the box right below dyk on a daily basis~Helicopter Llama~ 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Really? I can't see any there now? Is it only an occasional feature? Where do they come from? Do they fit the definition in Holiday? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I presume yngvadottir is referring to SA/OTD which does indeed feature religious observances. Many of these would probably fit some definition of holiday since they are often a holiday at least somewhere in the world, but there's no particular requirement for that (although because of item limits, they are usually expected to be fairly significant). SA/OTD appears to the right of DYK in the normal main page but may appear to the bottom of DYK with some main pages alternatives such as the this one under a small window size (albeit not really right below as ITN is in between). P.S. Good Friday but not Easter is a holiday in Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia. Note that as Sunday is the main normal day of rest in these two states, Easter being a holiday would automatically mean Monday is for most people as well due to the way holidays falling on the main day of rest are handled in Malaysia. (Meaning that for most Christians in those states, having Easter a holiday would not actually help their observance that much, unlike with Good Friday. But from the governments point of view it will end up being an extra day of work for many people in those states. And there is a vary amount of competition for what days to observe as holidays.) As per the constitution, Islam is the official religion of Malaysia although there is disagreement over whether or not this means Malaysia is an Islamic state, or it's a secular state. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If we want to make an exception for religious holidays, we should formalize it, but where would we draw the line, with 20,000 estimated Christian groups and others? DYK that Raël had sex with white-, black-, brown-, yellow-, red-, green-, and purple-skinned women? John Carter (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) If that's true, that's very interesting. I'd love to read a backstory on that and it'd make a great DYK.--v/r - TP 22:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) It makes me understand Lucinda Williams's song "Am I too blue for you?" in a whole new way. What's the guy got against blue women, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC) The problem is that hook treats Easter as if it was April Fools: It presents a song title as if it was a statement of fact. Such wordplay is inappropriate outside of April Fools, when such is expected and presented alongside many other such wordplay jokes. I don't think there's any malice, of course, but it's simply not how DYK is meant to be used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I now see that this is fundamentally about is Christian selfishness and self-centeredness. There are, what, over four million pages? Scores new every day? But Christians just have to seize the opportunity to try to grab the reigns and shout "Me!! Me!! Me!! All about ME!!" It's exactly the same as the issue with the current proposed move where every Creation myth in Wikipedia is titled something-Creation myth except their precious "Genesis creation narrative" -- as if their sales pitch will be validated and their faith will cease its historically unprecedented spiraling shrinkage if they can only find a vehicle to present the right magic words. Well you can't do that here. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The actual discussion began as pertaining directly to a comment by Hilo that had to do with a DYK that an admin felt was used in the above complaint by the OP that the admin felt was justified (while still not the best form) or at least not uncivil and was used to over stuff the above complaint. A DYK was allowed without a fact hook used. It made the DYK little more than a christian promotional tool. But it really isn't about the religious editors, it's about whether or not Hilo had a good reason to make the statements they did and whether or not this type of DYK is actually allowed. Frankly it looks like many of the Christian editors see nothing wrong. Heck, I even see some pagan editors that see nothing wrong. But...this will lead to a disturbing practice. It just seems that many editors are for this and I am not sure what the consensus is or if a local consensus on ANI can overrode the larger community consensus...whatever that may be.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) So what is the outcome of this DYK discussion? If all that occurred here is that we now know that DYK does not require a hook and that titles alone that look like actual facts being presented is the norm, are we to expect this happen more often or have we determined that it was inappropriate and that DYK requires an actual fact from the article be that hook?--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC) We could start by not trying to guess the future. Find out if this becomes a trend or a once-in-a-blue-moon play on words. Not overreact and enact knee-jerk policies based on no consensus of there being a problem in the first place. That's my advice from a completely outside perspective.--v/r - TP 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Sounds to me like requiring the hook be more than just the title of the article would be an obvious new requirement. I think we'll be fine with just that so as to not run into anything like this again, religious or otherwise. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't actually think it's a "new requirement" at all – it's simply a logical consequence of taking the expectation seriously that the hook must be a valid, factual piece of encyclopedic information. Simply building the title into the hook as if it were a clause usually doesn't result in valid encyclopedic information – at best, it results in harmless nonsense (as in the "dust my broom" example or whatever that was); at worst, it results in a POV nightmare. I think this is where the whole disagreement lies, at the deepest level: there are those of us who think that DYK hooks must be valid encyclopedic information, and therefore obey the same principles of factuality, verifiability and neutrality as any piece of article content, and there are those who feel DYK hooks are just a piece of advertisement blurb that may contain anything as long as it successfully whets the reader's appetite to go to the article. If you subscribe to the former view, then none of these playful "just the title" hooks are legitimate; if the latter, they are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly right. The hook did not meet the first two content rules already listed at WP:DYK#The hook; there's no extra rule required. Indeed, making a rule that a hook cannot just be a title of a work could rule out perfectly fine hooks. "Some people are dead when they're cold and dead" [128]—that seemingly tautological title could be a perfectly fine hook. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC) It's an important question. If this were a formal discussion, I would suggest an uninvolved admin closing it for future reference. I guess everyone agrees that ...that "God is Dead"? would be inappropriate, and nominating it would surely constitute a violation of WP:POINT. But I don't want to go through all this again next time. So I'm going to go out on a limb - consensus is against having similar hooks in the future. StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think 'that God is dead' is inappropriate. I would rather us be non-censored on all topics, including pro and anti-religious hooks, than create a bunch of bureaucratic rules. NPOV isn't just achieved by avoiding anything that can appear to be promoting a topic. NPOV is also achieved by us not picking and choosing which kinds of topics are 'taboo'.--v/r - TP 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC) What on earth does being "non-censored" or topics being "taboo" have to do with anything?! Of course NPOV isn't achieved by "avoiding topics". NPOV is achieved in DYK hooks exactly the same way as everywhere else: by not stating potentially disputed claims as fact, but by attributing them. How could you possibly consider it legitimate for a hook to be either "pro-religious" or "anti-religious"? A DYK hook is a piece of encyclopedic content just like any other piece of article content, and the demands of neutrality and the mechanisms of how to achieve it are exactly the same as elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Guys...please do not argue over the same crap. I don't think God is dead is appropriate myself but that doesn't matter. If we can say Christ has risen we can say god is dead. I don't believe the same stuff as you and you don't believe the stuff i belive. Cool....but that IS NOT THE ISSUE. Either we have a consistent policy/guideline or everyone gets to claim as fact whatever title they want to present on DYK. Good job guys....DYK is little more than a joke now. A punch line and something that pushes editors into sides. Wow.....I am amazed by the ......unusual manner in which this discussion has been taken but...I want a clear answer. Moving forward...can I present a DYK title as a hook. Either it is Yes or it is no.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If the title is a complete sentence, as it was in this case, go for it. Would anyone really get annoyed if "Did you know I Am the Walrus?" was posted? How about "Did you know She Came In Through the Bathroom Window? That offend anyone? Calidum 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neither "I am the Walrus" nor "She came in through the bathroom window" are factually true encyclopedic statements (unless you actually are a walrus, which of course nobody would know, this being the Internet). See my post above. Would such hooks be effective advertisement blurb? Sure, yes. Would they be responsible, factual and verifiable encyclopedic information? No. I'm still on the side of those who expect that hooks should be just that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I am for that as well....but i want to be able to do the same thing a Christian gets away with as a pagan. Simple. Either this was not OK...or it is OK. Everyone wants to blur the lines so that its like some personal insult to christians if we don't allow the tile of certain articles to be presented as fact. look....it is simple. If we are not allowed to such then we are not allowed to do such, but...if we are allowed to do such.........then we are all allowed to the exact same ting, whether that is claiming god is dead or i am the walrus.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC) And let's face it. If positive promotion is allowed...why not negative promotion?--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC) If you want to tell me articles are to be factually accurate - you've got my 100% unabashed support. However, the main page itself serves as a promotional ad campaign to draw attention to Wikipedia articles. There is zero other way to describe the main page. That's its purpose, its whole engineering. What we are all upset about here is that it promoted a religious topic without any sort of disclaimer and my reply is: get over yourselves, it's not that serious. (cue serious business cat). It is okay to use humor to draw attention to our articles if it serves our readers. Using silly hooks like this to draw them to bits of whatever kind of articles we have might win them $10,000 on Jeopardy someday.--v/r - TP 03:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) And my response is: Get over yourself..... as well as "Bullshit" on a very large pokey stick. In other words...don't put words in my mouth. What offends me is that Christians are being placed on a higher level here for their own purposes to simply promote their beliefs. Cool....but if that is good for those that believe in the Chiristian god, it is just as good for those that feel god is dead, never existed and that the whole belief is just one side of a coin. That and that any article title should and could be used in the same nammer. If you don't agree, fine....but that only shows that ou support a christian view and none other.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I haven't put any words in anyone's mouth (and my reply wasn't really toward you anyway) I say that anything that arises out of natural editing shouldn't be discouraged. It is editors intentions that matter. Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM behavior should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious.--v/r - TP 04:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, actually you did put words in mine as well as everyone's mouth when you stated :"What we are all upset about here is that it promoted a religious topic". No....what I am upset about is there is no standard and that even you feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form. look....you haven't lowered yourself in my view. Really. I still have respect for you....but that does not limit me from being critical of you when you are wrong...and i feel you are very wrong here.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Interesting, now whom is putting words in whose mouth? Actually, I get the feeling you haven't read a word I've said. Let me quote two passages which explicitly refute your central argument that "even [I] feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form." First, I said "I don't think 'that God is dead' is inappropriate. I would rather us be non-censored on all topics, including pro and anti-religious hooks, than create a bunch of bureaucratic rules" and then I said "Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM because should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious." So you see, I do support hooks of this nature that are anti-religion. You should treat everyone's arguments on their individual merits and not lump me in with any bible thumpers.--v/r - TP 05:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC) No I read that Tparis, but I also read ALL of what you posted and it doesn't make you look like you are that neutral on this issue or that you feel that DYK is not a promotional tool. You stated it was...but that is simply not what i believe in. You have a lot of posts. I center more on what I see as being the issue here, not the rilgious issue. This isn't about religion. it's about whether or not DYK is for promoting ideas, which you seem to support from what I am reading.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I wasn't aware neutrality was the prerequisite for giving an opinion. But no matter, no one here is 'neutral' and disagreeing with you or 'your side' seems to be your definition of what neutrality isn't. But here we have an example of 'moving the goalposts'. Your argument two replies up was, "you feel that promoting Christianity is fine on DYK but not a criticism in the same form." I offered two diffs where I explicitly stated that it was not the case; diffs predating your argument which had you read you never should have made in the first place. Now, you've shifted to a new argument, "you feel that DYK is not a promotional tool". My reply is thus, a simple one, describe DYK in a form that does not include promoting articles. Further, describe ANY of the four (five on featured picture day) content blocks in a form that does not include promoting articles.--v/r - TP 18:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neutrality on the issue at hand. I think you have your biases like everyone else. I didn't shift the discussion. I just discussed your claim that DYK is a promotional tool as are other features on the main page. And, whether you truly understand the point or not, there is a major difference between a properly structured DYK that promotes just the article and the encyclopedic content and one that is promoting an idea like, Jesus, as a matter of fact rose from the dead. This isn't a shift in argument, this is the basis of the argument. It seems, however that I was mistaken when you did indeed seem to say that either positive or negative religious hooks are acceptable. As long as the structure is made properly as all DYKs are made.....I don't even think we would be discussing any of this right now. But i do admit...I have a hard time understanding your stance on this as it seems we have fundamentally different views on what is being promoted on the main page. Is it the content and the encyclopedic value of the information, or is the main page a tool to promote individual ideals and concepts as fact that millions of readers are going to take exception to? --Maleko Mela (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Neutrality and faith or lack of faith are all just ad hominems to avoid having to address someone's actual argument. I think you're better than that, Mark, so step up the counterarguments a bit. As to your question, I have also already answered that one as well. I said, "Any WP:POINTY, WP:DISRUPT, or WP:SPAM behavior should be addressed on a case by case basis. If there is no evidence of intentionally doing any of that, then there is no problem. Be it Judeo-Religions, Pegan, Scientology, Realism, non-religious, or anti-religious." Deal with attempts to SPAM when they come up. But having a catchy hook isn't enough evidence that someone is promoting a religion.--v/r - TP 23:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Put simply, I'd answer No. As previous posters have pointed out, rarely (if ever) does a title count as a piece of encyclopedic information, and without that, the DYK would go against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one of the Pillars. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes...but you seem to be rational while others seem simply to be supporting their personal beliefs that I don't hold in any regard, other than it being the belief of another that I don't share. This isn't about Christians verses Pagans but it is quickly becoming a push pull debate over whether or not Christians have more rights to a title hook on DYK than the non-believer and that appears to be what i see.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Come now, it is no secret that Conservapedia-type Christians would wish to take over Wikipedia as a religious propaganda tool, by feigning sufficient general interest in building a neutral encyclopedia to obtain positions of respect, and then using those to play the numbers game of chipping away at reasoned presentation bit by bit. At let those involved in this current debacle thereby reveal their true agenda, and so render themselves disqualified for future trustworthiness as reasonable champions of factual accuracy and disinterested distribution of knowledge. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The pressure is too much! Your words force me to admit it, I'm part of the Conservapedia-type Christian POV pushing agenda, which is why I have been fighting them tooth and nail for the last 10 years. My cover is blown, whatever will I do now? Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Oh crap...that means my cover is blown! Woe is me for being caught as a neo conservative, religious fanatic for even caring about or working with christian editors. I guess I have to turn in my LGBT card, my liberal democrat card and my free thinking card (ok...that last part was a little over the top...but so was the rest). Now...having taken the tongue in cheek response, let me say this DeistCosmos, it isn't about belief, faith or conservatism....it's a bout a standard and an idea of what DYK was meant for. Some believe it is a promotional tool. I reject that idea.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC) To be clear, I am not speaking of any political agenda, but of the general projection of haughtiness of those Christians who firmly believe that they have "the answer" and that anybody else who doesn't see it is subhuman; and so that they are entitled to use whatever subterfuge is necessary to get in a position to commandeer platforms built by others to trumpet their "rightness." This is why there appears to be no shame, and indeed no understanding of the disgrace and shamefulness, of this gimmicky exploitation of the "DYK" platform. This is why there is no internal moral mechanism to temper the bigotry inherent in declaring that the spiritual warfare page must be limited to Christian examples despite the phenomenon existing across myriad cultures. It is, to be honest, a pervasive self-congratulatory egotism which can barely be stomached by the actual neutral observer. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think anyone was using subterfuge in this DYK. I think the editors simply thought they were being original and had a direction that would stand out. The unfortunate part of all of this is that DYK was sort of used to make a claim of fact that someone had risen from the dead and claim that as a fact when the truth is there are so many other beliefs and religions that in doing so, they were actually dismissing all other beliefs as false. Yes, if you claim that as fact you are claiming other beliefs as false. That is why it was insulting over all to our readers, believers and none believers alike. But then that goes back to the reasoning of of why it was bad, based on the content and to me that is kinda a side argument (even if I've made it). The direct issue is having a standard for all to apply so that we don't end up with a DYK that uses opinions to claim as absolute fact.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC) @DeistCosmos: You think my neutrality here is a ruse? As I previously mentioned, I'm Catholic, so yes, I'm biased in this. However, Wikipedia needs to be kept neutral, and to do that, we need to put ourselves in other mindsets, weigh the different sides, allow Wikipedia to remain uncensored. In this debate, it seems to me that no lines were crossed with the possible exception of the hook format (a few more words would've avoided a lot of this, although we'd lose the Easter-specific wording in the process). Besides that, if I wanted to turn this into "a religious propaganda tool", why would I be mainly editing articles about purely secular games (Pokemon, Mario, Magic: The Gathering, etc) and the internet? @Maleko Mela: Okay, so a small difference on the surface from what I thought. Any ideas on how to defuse this before things get really messy? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Unfortunatley when I suggested this thread be closed because i felt it was likely to spin out of control was....well, it wasn't heeded. So at this point it may have to wear itself out over time.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) There is also a problem with this entry here: A.D. 797. This year the Romans cut out the tongue of Pope Leo, put out his eyes, and drove him from his see; but soon after, by the assistance of God, he could see and speak, and became pope as he was before. Eanbald also received the pall on the sixth day before the ides of September, and Bishop Ethelherd died on the third before the calends of November. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) DYK ... that "he was despised" DYK ... that "he was despised", and from deep affliction I cry out? To the memory, and this is real. The JCiRT hook was not a good hook, because it said nothing new, - I bet that the (also biased) majority of our readers were not surprised, possibly even recognized the hymn, possibly smiled, as I did. The only new fact was that Wikipedia has now an article on it. - I will not approve such a hook again, for the minority's sake. We don't need more rules. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for bringing us more proselytizing. It only makes your bias more obvious. You don't need to do things for the minority's sake or for the majority's sake, just uphold our policies, as should have been done here in the first place. 07:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) This kind of breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL isn't needed. Saying she is proselytizing and biased doesn't help at all. This is more of a "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" situation, where religious metaphors are being employed to communicate concrete ideas. In this case, Gerda Arendt is apologizing, yet you attack her in return. If you're going to preach to others about upholding policies, at least do us the courtesy to uphold them yourself, first. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yes, this is rather uncivil, Fram. I smell WP:BATTLEGROUND. Let's focus on moving forward - as you are doing with the RfC idea. StAnselm (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC) As part of moving forward, perhaps some here could stop looking so hard for something to offend them. Somewhere way up above I suggested that to me, another's comment was like "Water off a duck's back". I've worked as a teacher in some pretty rough schools. I could not have sensibly taken offence at every rude comment or naughty word. I would have gone crazy. It's pretty hard to offend me. It's an approach I recommend. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Yeah, of course, when you want to apologize in a discussion about a Christian soapboxing hook you accepted, you start with and head it with "he was despised"... She can keep her "apology" to herself. Fram (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I was only quoting from old real DYK, and find the reactions above amusing: ... that in Handel's Messiah, Part II contains the famous Hallelujah Chorus and the oratorio's longest movement, the air for alto He was despised? (29 July 2014) ... that Martin Luther's chorale Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (From deep affliction I cry out to you) was sung at his own funeral? (14 July 2014) I was in sorrow when I wrote those, and it was not about Jesus. - Yes, I am biased, who isn't? I don't know the other word. - I am restricted by arbcom to a limit of two comments in a discussion and came to find that a blessing rather than a restriction, - off to work on Cantiones sacrae (nothing to fear for DYK, it appeared already). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I don't doubt that you were quoting from old DYKs. Your point is? What does it matter how you felt when you wrote these in 2011? Similarly, you are restricted from "making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article." How is that relevant here? Most people don't include pieces from three year old DYKs at random and without context without having some purpose for them. From the context, your intended meaning is pretty clear. But apparently some people feel that saying so out loud is a personal attack. Perhaps they can provide the same fanciful explanations for this, like they provided for the DYK that started this. I will give them all the consideration they deserve. Fram (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Repeating some of what I said above: yes, this thread is getting us away from the serious problem of denigration of other editors' religions. No, we do not need additional rules and regulations; we already have an applicable rule, which was violated in this DYK. Except for April Fools' Day, DYK requires "out of universe" context in such situations. "... that today is the day when Krishna gave the holy sermon of the Bhagavad Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, as described in the Mahabharata?" provides such context, as does "... that Martin Luther's chorale Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir (From deep affliction I cry out to you) was sung at his own funeral?". The fact that April 20 this year was a (Western) Christian festival does not supply the missing context; we do not make special exceptions for "their" religious festival any more than we expect everyone to be familiar with the words of this or any other hymn/song or the context of any particular viedo game or TV show. It was an error; let's remember and not do it again, as Gerda says. That's no disrespect to Christianity, nor yet is it rule creep; the ease with which one assumes familiarity with the tropes of one's own religion (especially if one comes from one of the many countries with a state religion) or one's own favorite entertainment is the reason we have the rule. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC) By the way, it was an Eastern Christian festival as well... StAnselm (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I'm very strongly in agreement with User:Yngvadottir here. Given that there is a rule, that it has been broken, that it has brought the project into disrepute, and that the situation has been thoroughly discussed, I'm assuming that a block would be appropriate for any repetition of this sort of nonsense. --John (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Calling Wikipedia Into Disrepute Beyond the procedural and policy issues discussed at length here, I submit that front-page that reads "Did you know … that Jesus Christ is risen today?" has the flavor and appearance of endorsing Christian belief. Elsewhere in this thread, the responsible party promises not to repeat this episode, not because it was wrong but as a concession to minorities. Both sentiments are contrary to the spirit of encyclopedias generally and of wikipedia specifically. Mishaps like this one can easily lead to censure and ridicule: I'm surprised the storm hasn't broken already. I believe we need sanctions, and we need a mechanism to ensure that wikipedia isn't betrayed on a whim. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I spy a teacup in which there is a storm sufficient to splash some of the tea into the saucer. MIghty folk are leaping into boats to ride out the storm and hitting the sides of the cup. IT was unwise, foolish, silly, but not bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, April 1st also creates similar things. Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) IMHO, a reasonable response to the mistake would be to suspend DYK from the front page for a week. It would be better to take action on our own, and promptly; should, for example, a reporter for a major newspaper or magazine take up the story, it would be good to be able to say "Mistakes were made, punishments handed out, and it won’t happen again." MarkBernstein (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC) That's way over the top. There may be reasons why DYK should be overhauled, and that's being discussed here, but it isn't (just) because of this. While this item was a mistake, the hoax article probably is or more serious issue. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC) MarkBernstein: to what purpose? I very much doubt any journalist wants to investigate Wikipedia's complex web deeply, and if they do, we can always point them to this discussion. Closing DYK for a week would be a massive over-reaction, like the fact that someone creates a hoax article: therefore, no-one can make articles for a week. Thanks, Matty.007 18:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I will say this, TAFI was removed form the front page because it wasn't working. Seems to me DYK is beginning to suffer the same fate, but we don't punish editors and there has to some effort to improve DYK before it is yanked off the front page. There are great suggestions being made by editors. I think the discussion should take place on the Main Page talk or the DYK talk page to find solutions that satisfy everyone. DYK isn't a new feature to the main page so we should make some effort to rescue it before we declare it a failure.--Maleko Mela (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC) :Matty.007: Using the main page to proselytize, or to assert a biblical story as fact, is not trivial. Our response to the hoax -- indefinite bans for everyone involved -- seems sensible. We've had not one but two major DYK embarrassments in recent days, and I understand its procedures have been a source of considerable friction for some time. It makes sense to take it off line, fix it, and when it's fixed we can give it another try. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Would a teaspoon help to make bigger waves in this teacup? Your point is made. People either accept it or not. Seriously there is nothing to see here nor do here. It was silly, perhaps even mildly reprehensible. I don't have a secret friend in the sky and I don't care about this at all. Time to move on to some other teacup. Would dunking a biscuit in it help smooth the waves? Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Facepalm Resolute 20:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[129] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[130]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [131] [132]. As anyone can see the source [133] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[134]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([135] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits so much POV that it's very difficult to keep assuming good faith. I don't want to look non-neutral, but, frankly saying, I am beginning to think his aim is to add as many anti-Russian stuff as possible and to remove as many pro-Russian stuff as possible. (I'm not trying to deliberately attack him, but I just want to say what I am actually beginning to think after seeing his edits on the Ukraine crisis-related stuff.) IMO his edits can seriously upset any editor who tries to be neutral. And he keeps pushing them in, keeps reverting people who try to stop him. I seriously hope some admin takes a closer look at Volunter Marek's editing patterns. Just look at his edits and think, "1. Did he add something against Euromaidan or something good about Yanukovich or Russia just once. Did he? 2. Why does he like to call people who are against Euromaidan nazis: [136], [137], [138], [139]? (It's, like, the first thing he does in any article.)" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins will see this Volunteer Marek's edit: [140]. Admins, please, just think, "What does the editor actually do on Wikipedia? Are all of his edits look somehow the same? Is it someone who actually expands Wikipedia, who writes good articles, who actually wants to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you guys are warring over the Euromaiden/Ukraine issue and are dragging the drama here. Neither side is in the right here in terms of attacks, but the dispute resolution page is probably the best bet for this discussion, as both sides have rather strong opinions here. Moscow Connection, I think you are going in the right direction, but this isn't the place to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources (User:Lvivske goes so far as explicitly defending his practice of not reading the sources before reverting[141]), or the talk pages. There were existing talk page discussions regarding exactly those changes, but does he follow the consensus there or even read them? No. If there is nothing controversial about making edits going against the talk page discussions, then why do we have talk pages in the first place? You say to take it to dispute resolution, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says to go here, which is why i went here. Where exactly should this be taken then? The issue isn't any particular instance of his edits, but the entire underlying pattern of behaviour, which seems like a conduct dispute to me and hence why i took it here. At this time there is simply no point in making any contributions since if they don't fit his POV they'll just get reverted again irrespective of what the sources may or may not say.B01010100 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. In what you quoted I specifically talked about fact checking, just that its safe to assume if a portion of your sources are junk then the rest likely are too, especially if it's an IP or SP account --Львівське (говорити) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When an editor deliberately introduces text complete with citations and the citations do not support the text, the citations are fake. If an editor has the habit of using fake citations, then it is not very surprising if people check-by-sampling, and revert all the untrustworthy edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that's not what has been going on. The editor who first removed the text did not introduce any text, and hence did not introduce fake citations, he removed them.[142] This was only his second edit, so he couldn't have had a habit of such things (his first edit was adding a source to a quotation to comply with WP:BLP). Volunteer Marek then reintroduced the fake citations, even though it should be BRD rather than BRR, giving as reason in his edit summary "restore sourced text" even though he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he was introducing.[143] The only thing going against the edit he reverted was that it was made by an IP-user who happened to be based in Russia. Rather than reverting again i rewrote the text to remove the parts that were not in the source and more accurately represent the source [144] (and subsequent edits), as well as using the talk page to discuss those changes. [145] Volunteer Marek then simply introduced the fake citations again[146], completely ignoring both the talk page discussion and the call to read the source first. It seems, to me, that if anyone is making a habit of using fake citations it would be Volunteer Marek. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, it's a general pattern.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if i have misinterpreted your linked comment, but in the context of the discussion where you made that comment it was Volunteer Marek who kept introducing text not supported by the source by reverting the editor who, rightfully, removed it - thereby showing that he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he kept introducing. It was for that i called him out on blanket reverting others without even reading the sources, which you responded to as sometimes being appropriate. I realize now that i have misinterpreted your comment to some degree, but i presume you can understand the misunderstanding given the context.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention at these edits, which introduce Reductio ad Hitlerum-linked car analogy, in violation of WP:SEEALSO (which demands that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant"). Nazi/Soviet events of 1938 and 1940 aren't related to modern Crimean events. Seryo93 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it." BMK (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Because this will be likely used against me in the future, would you consider amending your comment to reflect whether you checked a selection of my edits, or as I assume, is your comment ("somewhat poor") referring only to this one section/incident? I accept that it may have been an off-day, and there were more glitches than usual, however, one could interpret your comment as a general statement about my editing, so I just wanted to clarify this. petrarchan47tc 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[147] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[148] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

• 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

• 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[149]

• 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

• 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[150]

• 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[151]

• 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[152]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):

• I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.

00:46, 6 February 2014

• [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.

04:50, 6 February 2014

• [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).

21:47, 6 February 2014

Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Doesn't prove a thing." This from one of Wikipedia's most notorious inquisitors when comes to COI allegations. You may be sympathetic to Petrarchan's POV, thinking her McCarthyite anti-COI campaign is consistent with yours but are you aware that she goes a step further with her beware infiltrating government agents line? This after Mastcell had already tried to get her to back away when she was trying to finger Wikipedian Dr. Fleischman as a federal agent? Maybe that's too much bad faith assuming even for you, @Coretheapple? In any case on April 8 Petrarchan went 6RR in less than two and a half hours on the Edward Snowden article edit warring with JohnValeron and I and John and I let it go rather than take Petrarchan to an admin noticeboard thinking she'd be more likely to change her edit warring ways if shown mercy. Petrarchan then turns around and takes John to this noticeboard! It's right out of the Parable of the unforgiving servant. We obviously should have gotten Petrarchan blocked at the time since editors like you are making an issue out of "...history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one." We apparently need to change our tactics with edit warriors like Petrarchan and get them blocked as soon as they violate 3RR given what editors like you make out of "clean" block histories.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, since you asked, I'll answer for the record: I wouldn't consign anyone—not even Petrarchan47—to New Jersey. JohnValeron (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, as we wend our merry way through this delightful WP:ANI adjudicating my alleged QUESTIONABLE COMMENTS, cherish this Pearl of Wisdom from Petrarchan47: "The thing is, you can't edit articles around here for very long without coming into contact with hardcore POV pushers and pure, unadulterated jerks." 20:13, 18 February 2014 Submitted here for entertainment purposes only. JohnValeron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And a comment of extraordinary accuracy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You certainly have chutzpah, @Coretheapple. You declare in this thread that Petrarchan's got a clean edit warring record when you've participated in edit warring noticeboard complaints involving her trying to get her off. I note one gem of a comment in particular: " Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull." So stressful! Yet Petrarchan bring someone else "in front of the Admin Noticeboard", well, that just's business!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I'm monitoring this board because I'm following another thread, so I dropped in on this one and another and boy! am I being yelled at. Talk about stress. It's terrible. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could relieve yourself from the stress by declining to nod along when Petrarchan complains of "hardcore POV pushers" given that when IRWolfie noted that Petrarchan was, yet again, trying to battle what she thinks is a "large conspiracy" by "fighting the good fight against US Corporations" and "insert[ing] highly polemic statements" at that time you were all about not worrying about whether there was any POV pushing and just focusing on whether your "wiki-friend" could beat an edit warring charge on technicalities. I'll also note that while you trumpet Petrarchan's flawless block record (and try to justify all her COI attacks), when SpectraValor took her editing to the edit warring noticeboard she got off because the complaint was apparently a few hours stale. Yet another editor started a case on the 3RR noticeboard and Petarchan was found guilty of a 3RR violation but was again let off. There's nothing to be seen here, according to you.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm seeing a lot of mud-slinging directed at her, doing a good deal to prove her original point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You demanded "evidence" Petrarchan is an edit warrior and I pointed out that just within the last three weeks she went 6RR in less than 3 hours and subsequent to avoiding a block there got taken to the edit warring noticeboard by another editor where an admin found that "Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR". This thread could have been shorter had you let us know earlier that you would be dismissing the evidence you ask for as "mud-slinging" since we would have known your request for evidence was not to be taken seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread would have been even shorter if you hadn't tried to divert attention from the real issues with mud-slinging and character assassination. Coretheapple (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is Valeron's behaviour at the Snowden talk page, and the disruptive hostility. If bringing up anything Fleischman once said is supposed to justify comments made yesterday about my ineptitude as an editor, or the wiki-hounding, I fail to see the connection.

It should be noted that Dr Fleischman, shortly before leaving Wikipedia last month, admitted that Brian Dell's position - the kernel of the 3 month edit war - is untenable. Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell; he came up against the exact same difficulties I had been complaining about. Dr F took BDell555's side immediately in the edit war, and regretted it later. In the end though, the POV warriors, not RS, won the day. The Lede to Edward Snowden now contains a SYNTH account of Snowden's passport/Russia saga rather than the simple account given by countless RS (that Snowden was stranded due to the US' revocation of his passport) because Brian Dell exhausted me completely. petrarchan47tc 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc is an ally of yours, is he? That's why he asked Mastcell to do something about you? "Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell" Is that so? Yet after you claimed to be "officially 100% EXHAUSTED" (elsewhere saying my comments were simply too extensive for you to bother reading) Doc's reply was that "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project" and Doc specifically addressed you.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And MastCell responded by saying that he didn't want to touch the case. The diffs I left show that after more information, Dr F progressed from blindly aligning himself with you, to becoming completely exacerbated as well and leaving WP. Before he did, he told Gandydancer: Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 petrarchan47tc 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 may now claim to be fast friends with DrFleischman, but it wasn't always so. A mere six weeks ago she posted this to Doc's user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…."

Sound familiar? Yep, it's Petrarchan47's standard charge of Wikihounding. In March, DrFleischman was "following" Petrarchan47 around Wikipedia due to his "obsession" with her. Now it's April, Doc has made no edits for 30 days, and so it's my turn to stand accused. After all, Petrarchan47 has got to have someone Wikihounding her. If not the obsessed Doctor, then I guess yours truly will do in a pinch. "This is harassment!" Maybe so. But who, pray tell, is harassing whom here? JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can close out this thread by quoting from said fast friend: "Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly been a interested bystander on the Snowden talk page. I'll just comment that this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Generally that means you need to ask for something specific, like a block, and give evidence that the requested action is required, for example three warnings on the user's talk page concerning a blockable offense, backed up by links to the offending edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced

I generally consider myself to be an editor who tries to avoid all sorts of drama as far as possible. However, ever since I've started editing the Edward Snowden page, it has become very clear to me that this is one of those articles any sane editor would want to avoid at all costs. In fact, I've practically given up trying to make it look more like a biography than a battleground. I don't know what motivates some people to keep pushing a particular POV for so many months and I have to admit I do admire your determination to achieve whatever aims you have here, but I'm fully amazed that you don't even try to hide your POV.

Can we at least agree that labelling a living person as "narcissistic" on his biography, even quoting someone who did so, is extremely unconstructive? But at least this is better than turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm.

Although I think JV is a highly motivated editor, his lack of adherence to WP:BLP and his conduct towards other editors, and more importantly, his general attitude towards the subject of this biography is a serious cause for concern. -A1candidate (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to what you say is "most important," just what sort of "general attitude" towards Mr Snowden would you like to see? I take it that it would not be Hillary Clinton's--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, please clarify your second paragraph, in which you link to the same diff for both "labelling a living person as narcissistic" and "turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm." I honestly don't understand how you can construe a single comment by former NSA Director McConnell, reliably sourced to New York magazine, as constituting an NSA quote farm. JohnValeron (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, A1candidate, if my behavior is such "a serious cause for concern," why have you waited until now to bring that to my attention—and in this highly adversarial context? I reckon you just like a good ambush. JohnValeron (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555 - An attitude that is in line with building a biography instead of fighting a battle would be more than welcome. For starters, how about not trying to remove reliably sourced information from Snowden while replacing his quotes with goveernment issued-statements? @JohnValeron - The fact that you use words like "ambush" is very telling of your attitude. Both of you obviously have a POV (you don't even try to hide it), this is something that I've long felt needed to be addressed. I always avoid drama, so this is going to be my last reply. -A1candidate (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, the fact that you stage an ambush only to turn tail and run is very telling of your attitude. JohnValeron (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on edits and ideas, not on editors'. Your comment above verges on a personal attack. Dial it down, please. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure Edward Snowden Hagiography is enforced

Note: I'm not indenting because my response applies to both the overall section Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron and its subsection What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced. Also, thanks to admin Dennis Brown and user Beyond My Ken for pointing out that my subtitle (obviously a parody of A1candidate's subtitle) should not be formatted so as to appear in the TOC.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, at the heart of this post by Petrarchan47 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is what user A1candidate identifies as my "attitude" towards Edward Snowden. In her edit warring over the past 10 months, Petrarchan47 has exemplified the politically correct attitude of blind partisanship in favor of Snowden. Moreover, she has acted as bully and enforcer, peremptorily exercising innumerable reverts to disrupt the attempts of other editors to provide balance. Shamelessly seeking to go beyond that and punish editors who have taken issue with her, last month she targeted DrFleischman, posting to his user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…." Now, having disposed of DrFleischman (who has made no edits at Wikipedia for over 30 days), Petrarchan47 turns her sights on me, taking to this page to foster the impression that I have been Wikihounding. Her success in this smear is evidenced by the very first reply to her initial post, from DangerousPanda, who applied the term "wikistalking" to me.

No doubt the pro-Snowden partisans have the numbers to block and even ban me. But until then, I will not be intimidated. I shall continue to resist all attempts by A1candidate and Petrarchan47 to enforce their hagiography of Edward Snowden. I shall rely instead on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which states in pertinent part, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." JohnValeron (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the part about due weight. One person calling Snowden narcissistic does not merit including the term in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, as explained in Wikipedia's due weight policy, "Neutrality requires that each article 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." In determining which viewpoint is significant in each instance, a Wikipedia editor must consider overall context, not just the particular report. For example, if an otherwise reliable but left-leaning, pro-Snowden publication runs a piece that includes 1,000 words of direct quotations from professional partisans such as Snowden lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, offset by 100 words from Hillary Clinton criticizing Snowden, Wikipedia is not required to reflect these opposing viewpoints in proportion to their numerical value. Rather, editors mush exercise judgment. The mere fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady publicly disputes Snowden makes her words more significant than the utterly predictable, canned retorts of longtime Snowden shills, whose unchanging views are already amply represented in Wikipedia's Snowden article.

As for the specific example to which you allude, in the Motivations subsection, we quote former NSA director and current Booz Allen Hamilton vice chairman Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic," reliably sourced to New York magazine. What you conveniently overlook, HandThatFeeds, is its placement near the end of a 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus our paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. In a subsection devoted to his motivations, that focus is entirely appropriate. However, in this context, it is equally appropriate to quote a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations.

Due weight does not require excluding significant minority viewpoints. JohnValeron (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Significance is the key here. Show that Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint, and you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't, and WP:WEIGHT is against you. Hagiography is definitely to be avoided, but so are unsupported POV opinions expressed only by a small number of people. BMK (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint not because a large number of people have expressed it, but because of the prominence of who did express it: a former NSA director and current vice chairman of the firm for which Snowden worked as a contractor and where he sought employment expressly for the purpose of stealing more secret US Government documents to leak. "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." JohnValeron (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors could choose to quote McConnell because he's a prominent person; on the other hand the nature of his prominence in this case makes him a particularly unreliable source. Specifically, his crude characterization of the psychological motivations of a whistleblower are made in an unavoidably political context: they're certainly not reliable, and arguably unhelpful. We're not required to quote a famous person every time they open their mouths. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Placing McConnell's statement in the "reaction" section would be more reasonable, as it wouldn't purport to give readers special insight on Snowden's motivations. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is properly contextualized in the Motivations subsection. The reliable source in this instance is New York magazine, not McConnell. He is quoted here not because he's famous, but because he's a former NSA director and current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton. In both those capacities, he brings an insider's knowledge and expertise to bear on Edward Snowden. To exclude McConnell's viewpoint merely because you personally disagree with it is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as a former NSA director he's about as neutral about Snowden as an ex-grunt is about the Marine Corps. It's irrelevant that he's quoted by a reliable source, what's relevant is whether his view of Snowden is shared by others without a connection to and history with the Agency. BMK (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. If Wikipedia required editors to quote ONLY neutral sources, we'd have to eliminate every quotation attributed to Snowden's lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, to mention just four of many such pro-Snowden speakers. The article would be reduced to 20% of its existing length. JohnValeron (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that McConnell's statement may be notable: as a reader I could benefit from knowing what the man said even if I disagree. However, McConnell is an overtly hostile party and not a reliable when describing Snowden's motivations, which is why I think his comments fit better in "Reactions". -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Shane Harper 4 Life

User:Shane Harper 4 Life has been adding malicious content, harassed me, and removing/ignoring warnings given. This all started when I reverted the user for adding unreasonable content ([153], [154], [155], [156]) on the Bridgit Mendler article. The user then started an edit war by restoring the unreasonable content. I then gave the user two warnings: (one for edit warring, and another for harassment on my talk page. The user then removed my and prior warnings by other users. After reverting the blanking, the user removed them again and claimed that they were attacks. If this behavior continues and the warnings don't work, I would suggest that an indefinite block from editing altogether and banning from editing Bridgit Mendler-related articles and my talk page will. IPadPerson (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you call those additions 'incoherent content' - they look reasonable on the face of it to me. Could you explain what's wrong with them?

Also, although it might have been better for Shane Harper 4 Life to engage with you on the talk page instead of reverting your revert, I think slapping them with edit warring templates was a bit of an overreaction on your part. Better would have been an attempt to engage them and discuss the edits. Additionally, I certainly don't think their reply to you was 'harassment'. Finally, editors are perfectly entitled to remove warnings from their own talk pages - it's taken as acknowledgement that they've read them.

I would encourage you to discuss the issue with the editor on the article's talk page, and only return to request admin help if that doesn't work. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I left them a message on their talk page pertaining their disruptive behavior on that article and talk pages, and the user had yet to reply. IPadPerson (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, IPadPerson, you have yet to reply to Olaf Davis's question. What on earth is wrong with this and this edit? Clearly edits made in preparation for this edit, which therefore consists of verified content (if the edit was done correctly, of course)? And what's your problem here? I mean, I can think of why I would find it problematic, but you haven't given a reason. And sorry Olaf, but before Shane's revert there was this completely over-the-top, dismissive, and unexplained revert (and Twinkle abuse, I might add--Dennis Brown, what was the status of "pulling Twinkle like it's rollback" again?). No, IPadPerson, it is you who was in the wrong here, and why Davey2010, would roll(back) along with you is a mystery to me. As far as I'm concerned, and I welcome other admins here, both of you are guilty of BITE and of Rollback/Twinkle abuse. I just saw the "warning" you left on their talk page, this one, and--how do I say this diplomatically--have you lost your fucking mind? That is SO unacceptable you should have been blocked for it, and if you can't figure out what you did wrong, from the callous and unexplained revert, to the Twinkle abuse, to the edit warring warning after they reverted your unexplained revert, to a ridiculous and overblown "only warning" for this edit--that's harassment??, to the reinstatement of a warning they'd removed (and Davey2010 did the same thing)--if you can't, I repeat, figure out what you did wrong there then you probably deserve to be blocked for unwarranted warnings, edit warring, incivility, overblown charges, and Twinkle abuse, per BOOMERANG. Want to make this better? Apologize to Shane Harper 4 Life. Seriously, Dennis, how do we pull Twinkle? Drmies (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Without regard to the merits here: To my best knowledge, there isn't a normal way to remove Twinkle. Technically, you could remove it from their *.js pages and then full protect all their *.js pages (ugly kludge but should work). I think the standard way to do it (assuming it isn't covered by WP:Discretionary sanctions) is to propose it as a type of "topic ban", and if it has consensus and they use it again, you block them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Brain spasm, you can't do it that way anymore. You can only do it via a topic ban now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I gave him a warning because 1. I assumed he was spoken too and 2 I thought removing the warnings was disruptive until I remembered it was fine and in all fairness I did self revert & remove the warning. [157] →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure, but didn't you remove it because you thought it was a duplicate? Yes, removing warnings is fine: I would have been much happier if you had undone the revert in the article. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah I wasn't aware I'd reverted incorrectly too, I shall make you happy! :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: @Dennis Brown: - I've apologized to Shane [158] since I clearly didn't show some good faith, 9/10 I do but seems in this case I didn't - No one can be perfect but nonetheless Lesson Learnt . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Davey, I've seen you around and it seems to me you're one of the good ones. I hope you understand why I took issue with the revert (more than with the warning, by the way), and I appreciate what you just said. (And I already reinstated the edit.) Drmies (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I totally understand, I'm not sure why I had reverted but obviously in future I'll be ALOT more careful, Thanks for the kind words means alot, (Damn you beat me to it :) ), →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Zeshan Mahmood - Copyrights violation

• Zeshan Mahmood (talk · contribs)

This user is persistently creating articles with copyright violating content and doesn't seem to pay heed to any of the advises at his talk. Can an admin please have a look. -- SMS ^Talk 20:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• De728631 blocked him for 72 hours. Might be worth sifting through the contribs for obvious violations that haven't been picked up yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis beat me to this update, but he's right in that there's more work to do. I've already found an unattributed copy from simple.wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I've already found at least one article, Jinnah and Kashmir that was deleted under A7/11 but was also infringing. This is a bit of an uphill battle. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• De728631 (and others), please don't issue temporary blocks to serial copyright violators unless you're planning on actively monitoring the user's edits for several months following the expiry of the block. Drive-by warnings and temporary blocks rarely end up correcting the user's behaviour. All too often the user ends up slipping under the radar; months or years later someone notices another copyvio of theirs, and we end up opening a massive WP:CCI with hundreds or thousands of articles to painstakingly check. These users need to indicate that they understand why they were blocked, and undertake not to engage in further unauthorized copying or plagiarism, before being allowed to edit again. The only way of doing this is to block indefinitely and engage them in conversation. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Copyright help needed for further information on this. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone that has 38 edits total can't be classified as a serial copyright violator. And I've already explained in plain English what they did wrong, and pointed them to where they can learn how to avoid getting blocked in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I doubt he will listen. He is on track to become exactly the type of editor I complained about in the above thread. MER-C 13:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for taking the time to explain to the user what he did wrong. However, keep in mind that as he has been completely uncommunicative so far, we have no evidence that he has read, understood, and agreed with your explanation. I hope you or others will check back occasionally to make sure he's corrected the problem with his editing. (Unlike other types of disruptive editing, such as spamming and personal attacks, copyright violations are frequently overlooked because they resemble good edits. If this user resumes his copyvios, this may not be apparent to other editors who have not already encountered him.) If you can find the time, please also consider stopping by at WP:CCI to help process the enormous backlog of cases where this didn't happen. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The fact that I've taken the time to explain and offer a place to go for help will make it much easier for someone to indef block them next time if they do not engage or take heed, as they have been given all the information they need to comply with community standards. Those messages do serve two purposes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• @De728631 and @Dennis Brown, as soon as the block expired he is back to creating COPYVIO articles: Kashmir Black Day and Rajputana Liberation Front, one of which is a recreation of the earlier CSDG12 speedied article. -- SMS ^Talk 22:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• His article was also quickly tagged by CorenSearchBot as a Copyright Violation [159] and he deleted the Copyvio tag [160], which I restored. This seems to indicate that he knows what he's doing. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked his editing privileges. MER-C 23:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with the block. I know this seems long winded to some editors to have to block twice, but as admin, we must give the benefit of the doubt to a new user and give a short block first in cases like this, then escalate it as needed. Policy (ie: community consensus) dictates if the problem might could be solved with education, we try education first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbullying over article about Anita Sarkeesian

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

---

On December 20th, User:SarahStierch invited me to Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon. I had participated in a local Chicago Wikipedia meetup before. I didn't have the opportunity to attend. Today, I was looking it over, and I was reading various articles related to feminism. I stumbled over Anita Sarkeesian. I had never heard of her before. I was reading over the article, which seems only one-sided. I saw that Sarkeesian had been the subject of a massive hate campaign, when she tried to raise funds for a YouTube series addressing girls in video games. I wanted more information about how someone with a Master's Degree needed to raise these funds to make simple videos via Kickstarter, so I looked into income and employment for communication studies, women and gender studies and political thought. As a disclosure, I am computer engineering major at University of Massachusetts - Lowell on a Provost Scholarship with a 4.0 GPA. That being said, I have absolutely no agenda against people with going for Sarkeesian's related majors, since some of my best friends are also going for majors in public administration, marketing, business administration, economics and health administration, which require communication and political science courses, that were important for Sarkeesian to get her degree.

In her background information, I saw the universities she attended as well as her majors in communications and political thought. I visited the university websites and looked at the curriculum. I was shocked that there were no prerequisite math, computer science or science courses whatsoever. I was thinking that this supposed expert would have skills related to video games if she chose that major and topic of discussion. I looked at income and employment opportunities at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as well as The Wall Street Journal. I also looked at the college rankings of the universities she attended. I compiled this information and posted it to her article.

The backlash I received was beyond my comprehension. User:Tom Morris reverted it saying I it was original research. User:FenixFeather Posted on my talk page that I did not cite any sources, when I very obviously did. I posted on the talk page to facilitate discussion. I won't link to every diff, since you can simply view the discussion at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Academic credentials. Rather than constructive discussion, I received bullying claiming original research, synthesis and unreliable sources, all of which are completely false and the other editors have conceded. Instead, I was faced with discussion comparing my edit to adding "puppies and sunshine" to computer science articles, comparing my edit to computer "puppets" and even the use of the F-word. I told the users I would not tolerate this behavior and would simply report the incident. The users continued to bully me on my talk page, again with an instance of the F-word from an edit I helped with free licenses and accusations of original research. (Seriously, I cited every single piece of information. This is unwarranted behavior.) I asked the users to stop and leave me alone. They did not. In attempt to stop the bullying, I archived my talk page and placed {{talkarchive}} at the top, "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page." They have continued to edit it anyway.

I would like this bullying to stop. I suggest blocks for the associated users. I find it echos the bullying Sarkeesian received, and these editors have formed a close-knit bunch to keep the article their way, as some way to protect her. (All her YouTube videos and even her Ted Talks have comments, ratings and statistics disabled.) I would also like the article to have a better even tone. A while back, she was the suspect of copyright infringement, for example, and there was a heated discussion to block this from being added to her article by people passionately defending her, obviously not conforming to neutral point of view.

Also, since this is not about a specific user but the group of users who are keeping close watch of the article, would you please advise if I should use {{subst:ANI-notice}} on each one of their talk pages or not? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You should definitely use {{subst:ANI-notice}} on each of their talk pages. Thank you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are one of the users in question. Please refrain from your obvious conflict of interest and be patient for an administrator to answer. Taric25 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You just requested that everyone that talked to you on that page be blocked. Of course you should put the notice on their pages! You don't need an admin to tell you that, just common human decency. Also, with regards to editing the archive, I had not realized that you archived the page (usually, it isn't typical to archive a thread in the middle of a discussion). Feel free to undo that edit if you wish. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I had already moved the page and even edited it a second time with the box template. You did not receive an edit conflict. You clicked into the archive, had the opportunity to preview your edit, where "/Archive 2" was in big, bold, black letters at the top of the edit window the entire time. In fact, your edit, not mine, is still the very last edit on the archive page. Taric25 (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you should always notify everyone who your ANI is about - that's why there's the big orange banner at the top of the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I wanted to make sure multiple templates were not a cause for disruption. I visited the talk pages of each user, and a notice exists now anyway. Me posting a second one is not necessary. Taric25 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I notified everyone for you. You're welcome.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit in question and talk page discussions are self-explanatory. The complaining user made a tendentious edit on a biography of a living person, which consisted entirely of original research, synthesis, hand-waving and literally making things up, in a clumsily-designed attempt to impugn the article subject's educational credentials. Several experienced users, myself among them, made efforts to tell the complaining user what was wrong with their edit. The complaining user refused to hear any of it. So we're here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That edit was ridiculous. Taric25, I very much doubt any action will be taken against the editors who are telling you why it's ridiculous. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to specifically address actions of the users in question.
1. Claiming I did not cite my sources

This is totally and completely false. If you would like to dispute how I used my sources, that is perfectly acceptable on the talk page or with a tag.

2. Claiming unreliable sources

This is also completely false. No one is disputing the validity of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Wall Street Journal,U.S. News & World Report or the websites of regionally-accredited universities. Again, disputing how I used my sources is a different matter entirely

3. Claiming original research

Seriously? Do you honestly think I decided to get up early in the morning and do my own research by somehow surveying thousands of employed and unemployed individuals and then hack into the BLS and WSJ websites to post this research?

4. Using the F-word

This is just self-explanatory.

5. Continuing to post on talk page after I have told you to stop

This is also self-explanatory.

Separately, I think the matter of how one-sided the article is could be the heart of the matter in question. Taric25 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the nature of the original research and prohibition on original synthesis policies of the encyclopedia. You need to read them. What you are doing is taking a number of different ideas and sources which are completely unrelated to Anita Sarkeesian and combining them to make a specific argument about the validity of Sarkeesian's educational background.

Do any of the sources you cited mention Sarkeesian in any way, shape or form? Do other reliable sources make arguments about Sarkeesian's educational background? The answer to both questions is no. Ergo, using those sources to make any argument about Sarkeesian is original research and absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia - especially when related to the biography of a living person.

Your objective here is patently clear to anyone - you wish to use your own personal biases and beliefs about Sarkeesian's educational background to depict Sarkeesian as somehow incompetent or unqualified to comment on video games. You may do such a thing on your own personal blog. You may not do such a thing on Wikipedia. We won't allow it. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs please? I looked at your Tom Morris and Fenix diffs and your characterizations very conveniently left out they were also talking about synthesis, something which is right on the money. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to read the discussion, it's only a few paragraphs. You can read it at Anita Sarkeesian#Academic credentials. If you need an individual diff, you can click the history. I provided all the rest of the diffs. Taric25 (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and as I just stated, your characterizations of posts are rather misleading. So we can discount 1, 2, and 3. No one is going to be censured for "TL;DR: Give it a fucking rest" (#4) and #5 was a mistake. Anything else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I never intended any misleading statements whatsoever, and yes, there is something else, stalking my edit history, such as this, for use of the word, even when it is the actual name of an article I was linking. Taric25 (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If an editor makes an obviously problematical edit, and furthermore defends that edit, it is not unusual for other users to check the editor's contributions to make sure problems don't exist in other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What problem are you suggesting is in this edit of my edit history that this user decided to focus in that edit by this user? That is the name of the article, and the link to the word is described in the article itself, which I even linked to that exact same section. There is no problem here. The user decided to stalk my edit history for use of the word, which was benign since it is in the name of the article, as a form harassment and obviously deserves censure. Taric25 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Now who's assuming bad faith? Your Sarkeesian edit was poor. Your subsequent defense of it shows you have trouble writing appropriate BLP content. Editors are going to check over your edit history to see if you made the same type of edits elsewhere (heck, that's pretty much standard practice for many of us). During the course of checking, other edits might come up and be commented on. This is not stalking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to continue discussion with an individual who will defend that made a lousy edit so I deserved to be harassed, and yes, it is harassment. The user was looking for an instance of the word in question, which I have never, ever used on Wikipedia inappropriately, as is so obvious from my edit history. Have a nice day. Taric25 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I have been notified of this thread, my involvement in this is limited to a single comment on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. I maintain that the edit in question was synthesis, which is why it was removed, but I believe that it could have been made in good faith. The problem is that its substance closely resembled edits that have been made to the article in the past by editors who wanted to express their own distaste for Anita Sarkeesian and her Tropes vs. Women project. Novusuna ^talk 00:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Novusuna, I think that may be why I experienced such backlash. I think the editors here are so used to seeing people making vandalism and bad faith edits, since she was the target of a large hate campaign that it is difficult to see when an edit is made in good faith. True, an argument could be made for or against synthesis, which I was never and maintain that I was never attempting that whatsoever, I still think it would be appropriate if a user wants to revert the edit and discuss it on the talk page. That is fine with me.

What is not fine with me is outright false claims such as not falsely claiming I am not citing my sources, accusing me of bad faith or another agenda, unreliable sources, using foul language, talk page harassment, sarcasm, etc. That is why I posted here on ANI. I am totally open to discussing the content to improve the article. Taric25 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you make it fine in short order. Combined with original research violations with severe POV-pushing is (fortunately) one of the easiest ways to get blocked. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, who are you? Did you forget to login? Taric25 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Taric25 - Let me add my voice here: your edit was classic OR and SYNTHESIS, and in a BLP, it was absolutely correct that it be removed immediately and kept out of the article. You had best catch on to the truth of it, because it turns your reported "cyber-bullying" into what it actually is: correct protection of the article according to policy. Further complaining about it will not change that, any further action to support your edit will almost certainly end up in a WP:BOOMARANG. Please read 'closely' the policies on original research, synthesis and biographies of living persons. If you still don't understand what you did wrong, ask an experienced editor that you trust for help. But rest assured that you are at fault here, and no one else. BMK (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not making any claim whatsoever that it is inappropriate for editors to discuss with another editor why they feel another editor's contribution may be synthesis. I am totally open to discussion on that topic, and that is why I started the topic on the article's talk page. The reason I came to ANI was to report their behavior, not to force my opinion that my edit was the right one. Taric25 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

BMK's comments are spot on: Taric25, your edit and subsequent reactions are much more serious than anything you're trying to report. Even beyond the serious WP:OR and WP:BLP violations of the initial edit, your failure to get the point when the issue was explained to you by various other editors is a problem of its own. Hopefully this is a wake up call and the behavior will cease; please take it to heart.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cuchullain, considering our history together, I ask you recluse yourself from this discussion. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no excuse for swearing at an editor. The person who did that should be held accountable. Howunusual (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Sunday lunch with your grandmother. I don't use obscenities because they invite unnecessary distraction but "give it a fucking rest" isn't worth any kind of censure. It would be if Wikipedia had a strict policy against using obscenities as some forums do, but I don't see that happening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, while certain instances of swearing can be problematic if they are maliciously aimed at making personal attacks on another editor, in this case it was more of an expression of frustration and clearly not an attack. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 05:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is clearly an example of stalking and an attack. It was also the second instance of that user using the F-word towards me. Taric25 (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Taric25, it looks like many people have already told you this in some fashion but just to reiterate, your edits appear to be a clear cut example of OR, particularly synthesis (which is a form of OR). In fact, when I was reading you initial complaint above, the more I read your complaint, the more it became clear you were engaged in highly problematic OR, so it hardly surprised me when I came to the part of your complaint where you said you had been accused of OR etc.

OR is always problematic but it's particularly problematic on BLPs where we require high quality sourcing.

It's possible that the way some people approached you about this wasn't ideal, but it's perfectly fine and expected and not bullying or harassment that when you make such edits, people will approach you about it and make it clear such edits aren't acceptable. You should expect this even more if you fail to understand that and why your edits were problematic.

The fact that you may be acting in good faith doesn't change this. In fact if people believed you weren't acting in good faith, it's likely people would talk to you less, since there's little point talking extensively to someone who may already know their behaviour is problematic and probably isn't going to change in any case, instead simply warn and block as needed. But in the same vein, acting in good faith doesn't mean you won't be blocked if problematic behaviour continues.

To put it simply, if your own complaint screams out to people 'my behaviour is problematic' but you apparently don't recognise that and are instead complaining about people who have told you so, you shouldn't be surprised at the response.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am completely open to discussing problems the other editors may feel amount to synthesis. That is perfectly decent conversation. The reason I came to WP:ANI is for the swearing, false accusations of not citing my sources, using unreliable sources, repeated swearing, sarcasm, harassment, etc. Taric25 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The first law of holes is that when in one, you stop digging. Everyone else disagrees with your assertion that you weren't attempting synthesis. When everyone else disagrees with you, you may need to consider that you're wrong. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and continually bashing your head into that consensus may be considered by the community as a waste of everyone's time.

People who tell you you're wrong are not harassing you, and there is no prohibition against the use of sarcasm on the encyclopedia. Nobody said you didn't cite your sources - what everyone said is that you misused sources to synthesize new claims which have not been made by reliable sources. This is prohibited on the encyclopedia, as literally everyone has pointed out. Your claims otherwise are unavailing - because they are wrong. Full stop.

If you're interested in constructively contributing to the article, you are welcome to participate. This means listening to other editors, making your edits conform to policy and consensus, and refraining from claiming that those who oppose your edits are "cyberbullying" you. You are responsible for reading and understanding content policies and ensuring that you do not violate them.

If, on the other hand, you're going to continue to waste everyone's time trying to use BLS statistics and USNWR rankings to insinuate that Anita Sarkeesian is unqualified, your editing career is likely to have a brief and unhappy future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not come to ANI to debate your opinion on my reliable sources I cited. I came to report behavior. If you would like to discuss synthesis, we can do that on the article's talk page at a later time. I emphasize I came to ANI to report behavior of swearing, etc. Taric25 (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's evident that nobody cares about the use of "fucking" and that nobody else thinks you were "cyberbullied" in any way, shape or form. You don't get to control the direction of the discussion and if there are unintended consequences to your report, then maybe you should have considered that before making it.

This thread has predictably boomeranged on you, and I really suggest you give it a rest, like everyone else has suggested. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're open to discussing problems with other editors then why did you come here? As I've already said, when you editing was so terribly problematic, it's difficult for people to really care about whatever other minor violations other may have committed in telling you about it, particularly when you continue to insist your editing was problematic when it's been pointed out to you time and time again that it was. If you had started this thread and said "I made some major errors in editing because I didn't understand policy but I feel that this behaviour was others in addressing my major errors was over the line", perhaps people would have had a little more sympathy. But when you come here acting as if you did nothing wrong and then talk about how you're open to discussing problems with your editing when thats what people have tried to do multiple times but you still don't get it, you should expect the little sympathy that you've gotten here. You can't just completely ignore others comments about your editing because you find them offensive, particularly if a bunch of editors are saying the same thing about your editing and no one has defended it yet which often (not always of course) means they have a point. Definitely it's entirely resonable for your problematic behaviour that started whatever mess to come under scrunity when you complain about the behaviour of others towards you, and that isn't even unique to wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• This edit by Taric25 is an outstanding example of WP:SYNTH violation. The negative information is not directly related to Sarkeesian, but it is added for the purpose of diminishing her credibility. Taric25 should be trouted for bringing his complaint here. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As I stated time and again, I am completely open to discussing incorporating information to improve the article, and at no time was I ever attempting synthesis. I did not come here to insist my edit is the right one. I am completely open to discussion. I came here because of the behavior of the other editors, as I have stated above,which, I may add, I also do not appreciate you suggesting I should be smacked with a fish. Taric25 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Binksternet. That is a bad case of OR in the diff. Is trouting enough? The fact that this user still thinks a bit of swearing is more of an issue than putting this sort of OR into a BLP suggests they should be kept away from BLPs until they get it. DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • BLPs, like Miss Foozie? Oh, wait, yeah, I wrote it. I know how to edit Biographies of Living Persons, thank you. I don't know why you insist smacking me with a fish is appropriate. Taric25 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's great if you've successfully edited BLPs in the past in accordance with wikipedia norms and expectations. But the fact remains your editing to the article that started this whole mess is problematic and you still don't seem to be getting it, which does suggest you probably should stay away from BLPs until you do. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was original research and it is completely inappropriate for inclusion on a BLP article because it advances a conclusion in the voice of Wikipedia that is not present in any of the presented secondary sources about Sarkeesian. I stand by my reversion for the reasons I have given on the talk page. I have the page watchlisted because it has—over the last few years—been the target of repeated incidents of abusive and vindictive vandalism and violations of the BLP policy. It concerns me that an experienced editor with 4,000+ edits and reviewer/rollbacker can't see immediately why this edit was a problem given policy. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tom, I am perfectly happy to discuss construction and improvements to the article. I did not come here to insist that an admin side with me to make my edit the right one. I came to ANI for the behavior and backlash I received, which was completely and totally inappropriate. Taric25 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look through your changes and can make the following conclusions. What you added was obviously verifiable by sources, but it was about California State University, Northridge, not Sarkeesian herself. It is very important when writing biographies of living people to strictly adhere to a neutral point of view, and in this case, that means we should simply report that Sarkeesian graduated from CSU Northridge and earned a masters degree from York University. Any criticism of the universities, where validated by sources, should go on their own articles, and even then I think your edits went into excessive detail. People should be allowed to make up their own minds what they think of a particular academic institution - I grew up in an era where we had "real" universities, polytechnics and when getting a job aged 18 wasn't anything unusual - but my own biases and opinions can't go into Wikipedia.

As far as profanity is concerned, I'm not averse to using the odd "f" word in real life (if I saw that somebody was about to plug something in the wrong way round into a breadboard with a 450V HT supply and potentially electrocute themselves, it's a great word to use), but here I generally take the view that it usually says more about the editor who offers it than who it is directed to. Anyway, just ignore it - most people will.

Of the comments left on the talk page, I had a look at Tom Morris' reply and thought it was well thought out and explained why your edit was problematic. I see no harassment there. If I had to criticise any of the other replies, it would be that they didn't explain their position well, assuming you knew about various guidelines you may not have done. I can't offer any solution there other than just a reminder all round to assume that we all try and make the encyclopedia better, and that people, particularly non-regulars, aren't necessarily as familiar with policies and guidelines as you might think. And don't use three letter acronyms before you've defined them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Could someone - don't know who - clarify this

I happen to be looking at my contribs and noticed that my post in the above thread appeared to be revdel'd. Puzzled by this, since I can't imagine that anything I said warranted it, I see that it's still visible on the page. I looked at the edit history of this page and noticed that about half a dozen other posts about the same time (06:00 onwards 28 April UTC) are treated in same way. Could someone explain it? It's not a big deal I suppose, and probably there's an obvious explanation that I've missed but I'm not keen on having in my contribs a post that was apparently so bad it had to be rev del'd. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

At 5:35, a troll tried to out an admin and posted personal info (even the troll's username was an attempt at outing). You posted at 6:52. The personal info was not removed until 7:07. The personal info needed to be revdel'd, so all posts from 5:35 until 7:07 (including your 6:52 post) had to be removed from public view as they all contained the outing. Your post remains in its entirety, as do all of the post made during this time (other than the troll's), however the *diff* of each post is inaccessible because each diff would still contain the outing made by the troll. Clear as mud. Rgrds. --64.85.215.186 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Consult on possible Socpuppetry

I blocked a new user's second account, User:Sharoetry, because they were edit warring something he had been editing as Unicornwhite. He is claiming the policy doesn't exclude content focused accounts, but that seems like trying to thread between the clear policies towards grey areas. I normally don't handle user blocks, and would appreciate a consult at the alternative account's talk page User talk:Sharoetry. Both User:GrahamColm and myself perceived it as malicious and against community standard codes of practice. Would anyone mind chiming in, so that I don't go too far down the rabbit hole of paring words? I think the user has good intentions, as far as I can tell. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• At the top of the WP:SOCK page, is the phrase "This page in a nutshell: The general rule is one editor, one account." Using more than one is an exception that needs to be justified. There are plenty of good reasons, but doing different tasks is not a good enough reason. That can easily get into good hand / bad hand accounts. In this case, there is crossover in edits, so the fact that you didn't indef block the sock and two week block the master shows you are being plenty tolerant here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just to shed a bit more light, there is a list at WP:VALIDALT which shows when it's permitted to have alternate accounts. Anything that doesn't fall under one or more of those categories is an unauthorized use of multiple accounts. In addition, when using multiple accounts you are almost always required to give some sort of notification (whether that's a private message to a CheckUser or Arbcom, or some obvious notification like similar account names or links on user pages and/or signatures). When I've run into an editor who uses multiple accounts in an unapproved manner, but isn't obviously abusing the second account, I usually end up blocking the alternate account but not the main account. But I also talk to the editor first, to be sure that they're not using the second account legitimately and to let them know exactly why they shouldn't be doing what they're doing. -- Atama頭 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

More editors required for polar amplification

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

---

Today, i begun some editing at polar amplification, after a user suggested it, based on my previous edits. However, while still editing and discussing article content on the talk page, user William M. Connolley (talk) reverted without providing an explanation. A little later NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) reverted my edits too and subsequently posted on my talk page, warning me of edit warring. I'm well aware of the 3RR rule and only did two reverts, since both editors failed to provide explanation. I also notice that NewsAndEventsGuy recently begun to follow my edits, and his judgement in at least one case (here, was not accurate. I ask here for the assistance of other experts on the subject to assess the edits and ask both involved editors to start to use the talk page and express explicit what they consider at issue, rather than to disrupt editing. prokaryotes (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please explain the notion of gradually escalating WP:DR to this editor? I tried calling his attention to those options in a recent to-do at the COI noticeboardm, but to little avail apparently. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean this COI report? Nothing wrong with that, and the discussion belongs there. Your continued involvement in my edits and related actions are disruptive, since you often revert entire edits based on single wording or just get involved without contributing anything to the articles in question. prokaryotes (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy's page edits show that he did not account for the projected long-term Antarctic amplification (besides, this was pointed out above). Also is he confusing page content and doesn't consider references, which have been heavily cited on the talk page and in my article version. After addressing his concerns, I've asked the editor to revert his edits, which are not an improvement. prokaryotes (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Further edits from NewsAndEventsGuy show that he doesn't acknowledges the references given Nature study, or per IPCC AR5 chapter 11 p 983 & 12 p 1031). NewsAndEventsGuy should read the references given, to avoid confusion, however he makes statements such as I have not looked up the cited references. Thus, he should not interfere with active editing. prokaryotes (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Instead of receiving potshots I'd rather discuss the question I posted seventeen minutes before your last remark. Found hereNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I already explained it to you several times, here with reference], and here in a detailed explanation, how you should act in the first place. prokaryotes (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to be specific! However, in good faith you have inadvertently made sort of a WP:VAGUEWAVE by accidentally posting links to various versions of the entire talk page. Please review WP:DIFF and then try again, to show me the precise comments in which you say you explained how your proposed first sentence is an improvement over the original. I generate diffs via the page history, and using the little radio buttons on the right. Copy and paste the resulting url. (There is probably an easier way, which I would be glad to learn.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific diffs you have asked for, here and here. prokaryotes (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have followed up at the article talk page here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, revert to my version, and keep the first sentences intact and or add tagging as you require, this way your concern is addressed and mine. Then we figure out how the wording should be, or go ahead and edit my 1st sentence, otherwise i have nothing to add so far. prokaryotes (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline, but am willing to talk about indivdual parts in new thread(s) at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Disruptive editing by NewsAndEventsGuy

There has been a disruptive pattern recently when the user NewsAndEventsGuy, follows my page edits or reverts edits, without prior discussing it.

Global Warming

On April 15, NewsAndEventsGuy and William M. Connolley) reverted my entire edits to global warming. A part from my edit was at issue, but William M. Connolley did not explained this when he reverted my edits. In the following talk page discussion, it became clear that i conflicted a particular external climate forcing. However, i decided i leave editing at that article to other editors, but pointed out the rest of my edits. NewsAndEventsGuy, later added the external links part from me but forgot parts and added or removed wrong links. He also did not addressed various other article additions, which he did not even commented on.

Earth's energy budget

NewsAndEventsGuy, removed important info from image caption and adds wrong tagging and makes a unnecessary revert.

Sea ice emissivity modelling

NewsAndEventsGuy, removes page notification for deletion request, without prior discussion and later stating that he doesn't feel competent enough to edit the article. In a subsequently COI issue related to the article the editor NewsAndEventsGuy claimed i attacked an editor. However, my initial deletion request for the page, is echoed by other experts.

Polar amplification

As discussed, did the editor revert entire article edits, based on a single word. He did not revert to the particular edit, but everything. He also stated that he did not looked into the cites. Besides several attempts to explain with reliable sources to NewsAndEventsGuy that the word in question is valid or that he could just change the word he has issue with, the editor heavily expands the talk page discussion, adds new sections, on a stub article where he never before was engaged.

Conclusion NewsAndEventsGuy should not get engaged in article edits until he has studied the related science and should not engage with to many articles, since his judgment is not always good. He should not revert entire edits based on his point of view. He should discuss edits prior to reverting. He should not use talk pages as a place to over and over discuss the science and accept references, rather than to question reliable sources. He also posted randomly on my talk page in the past days, here. Granted the user makes good oversight on the subject of climate change, but not always on subjects he is new in. Therefore i ask here that the editor sticks to what he knows and throttles back his engagement on various articles i post and is welcome to ask question on talk pages. prokaryotes (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Response by NewAndEventsGuy

(A)I'll watch this thread but am not going to reply in this thread until some admin is involved.

(B)I will continue to WP:FOC in the climate articles where this editor has made a sudden splash of large scale un-announced article overhauls.

(C)It would be helpful for some uninvolved admin to explain gradually escalating WP:DR for handling content disputes to this ed.

(D)It might also be helpful if someone provides him with the formal notice about ARBCC and to log the notice here.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that we could resolve the issues for now. However, i strongly recommend for future engagements, to better assess reverts, and to isolate issues (tagging or single reverts), without removing consensus items. prokaryotes (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Boomerang review of Prokaryotes requested

I'd like to ask that a WP:BOOMERANG review result in hooking up Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) with a WP:MENTOR; but I need to be mentored about how to ask that! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PS Oh.... I just found Wikipedia:MENTOR#Involuntary_mentorship and see that its track record is abysmal so mentoriing is probably wasted wishing. Still admin review requested. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, is confusing my ANI request for assistance of experts and outlining of the situation with something. I did not file a report about his pattern of following my edits, and did not escalate the discussion, to focus on the content. Today, both our edits are basically in agreement, thus this report here should be closed and it would be nice if NewsAndEventsGuy could agree to what i just concluded, rather than to sidetrack. prokaryotes (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Note that this article is now under |discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and I thanked you for that yesterday, but I'd rather not pull that lever. Any other ideas? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we could not find a common ground in the edits discussed previously? prokaryotes (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that an admin look at this complaint in terms of WP:BOOMERANG. I think you are familiar with that, or should be, since you earlier incurred a boomerang topic ban here, with many eds mentioning WP:COMPETENCY. I am intentionally not posting the links to those archives. Note that they were referring, I think, to the ability to apply wiki guidelines to work with others smoothly and graciously, and not your technical knowledge about various subjects. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a boomerang ban and i don't know exactly what you referring to. For me this discussion is over, if you need to pull something new now, i guess that is up to you. prokaryotes (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

A50000

Last month, I reported A50000 (talk · contribs) here because of his disruption at Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as seen here. Since then, all he has done is make half-assed attempts at arguing with me over the pedantry of my claim that he was edit warring while constantly claiming that his version is correct and that he was not violating WP:CONSENSUS. After his last message, I gave him a warning not to bother me again over this matter. Without my knowing, he edited the archived thread two days ago and today sent me an identical version of the message that he sent me earlier in the month. It is blatantly clear that A50000 is no longer here to work on this project collaboratively. All he has done is gotten into petty disputes on issues regarding communism and socialism and when asked to drop the stick he does not, multiple times. I don't know if this is because he is a WP:SPA, it's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he's a case of WP:NOTHERE, or just a lack of competence. Drmies previously said that he would possibly block him, but because A50000 has not been disruptive in the article space, he saw no need for it at the time. I should not have to deal with this editor coming back once a week to say "why was I wrong" or "it takes two to tango", blatantly ignoring anything I've said to him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 28 April/18:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

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

---

BLUF: Science.Warrior needs an indef block for repeatedly restoring copyvios and for being remarkably disruptive.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and I have been reverting SW for inserting copyrighted material and disrputing other articles, such as removing an AfD template from a nominated page and issuing inappropriate warnings]. Multiple users have tried explaining his actions to him, however, he pays no heed to the advice and continues on his rampage. He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein. The user has also made reference to WP:BEANS, so I'm pretty sure we're not dealing with a new user. Please block; I'm done dealing with him. Ishdarian 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Science.Warrior clearly has earned a block. As Ishdarian notes, he has broken 3RR on two different articles, repeatedly added nonfree images to articles while preposterously claiming to be the copyright owner, and harassed editors who disagree with him - in my case, removing the AFD tag from an article I'd nominated earlier today, then announcing at the top of my talk page that "i will be frequently giving you visits from now onward".[161] The account has only been around a few days, and appears to be a returning editor with an agenda, despite suddenly claiming to be a newbie when attention was drawn to his editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - This statement is not true regarding the Goldstein article. "He has busted 3RR on two separate articles, Self_actualization_theory and Kurt Goldstein."

See info here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Goldstein&action=history After counting using the article history, it appears that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Science Warrior undid revisions two times EACH. Looks like a bit of fuzzy math?

Carriearchdale (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. Ishdarian 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that was an allegedly well thought out way to tag team a newer editor, and get him/her to a ani in a jif! What happened to not being bitey to newer editors?

Carriearchdale (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, however, that was not the only reason the editor is here. I'm pretty sure that breaking 3RR is small potatoes compared to the restoration of copyvios. Thanks for assuming good faith, though! Ishdarian 23:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Just ignore "Carrie"; she's a malicious, dishonest troll with a burn against me because I caught her committing gross BLP violations and forced the cleanup of this articles involved; see Rachel Reilly and Talk:Rachel Reilly. Nobody who looks at SW's talk page history and sees the barrage of independent warnings from five different editors will give her nonsense any credence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians. I (user Science.Warrior) am pretty sure that user "ishdarian" & user "hullaballoo" are part of a bigger conspiracy on Wikipedia, So let me answer all the baseless allegations reported by them one by one.

• Inserting copyrighted material The copyrighted material both these users are talking about, are the pictures prepared and uploaded by me using CS6 . When i asked for their help on how to change the license, no help was provided rather both of them vandalized the articles Kurt Goldsteinand Self actualization theory deleting the images from the articles, which are been solely prepared and uploaded by me. So if they both have problem with the copyright material why don't they guide me on how to make valid changes in the license section of the pictures? I really don't know what "3RR" these guys referring to, when i search wiki it shows up this page 3RR, I am a new user and have joined Wikipedia 4 days ago, these users are trying to use "technical buzzwords" to cover their act of their vandalism and personal attacks.

• Reference to Wp:beans Well i am new here but i am a fast learner, as user-"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" stated "The account has only been around a few days and appears to be a returning editor with an agenda, despite suddenly claiming to be a newbie when attention was drawn to his editing" I take this as a compliment, that he is so impressed by my contribution to Wikipedia in few days that he thinks i am a returning editor. Yes i have a agenda and anyone can read that on my user page.

• Removing the AFD tag I think this was a pre-planned conspiracy setup by both the user "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian". They reverted my edits endless times on the article Kurt Goldstein, self actualization theory and user-"Ishadharin" 8 times in a row reverted the link of the article self actualization theory to the article self actualization, The primary motive of writing the article self actualization theory by me was because the article self actualization does not meet the quality standard of Wikipedia and was tagged with 3 "Bad article" tags, if i would have edited the article i would have to delete the previous contributions of other contributors, so i rather decided to write a new article and let other editors decide what can be done, This information can be seen on the talk page of the article self actualization, where users have complaints about the quality of the article. So after their constant attacks i also tried to do the same & fell in their trap, i am a new user 4 days old & i don't know much of technicality of Wikipedia right now.

• Beside this both the users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" have started personal attacks on the articles i was or working on for past few days, I constantly asked for their guidance on their talk pages but they don't reply or provide any guidance and rather keep on vandalizing the articles i am working on, they have made 28 edits in past 5 hours to the articles i have corrected recently.

• But i would really respect both these users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" if they are really concerned about the authenticity and quality of material on Wikipedia as they claim, but i rather feel they are trying to establish their unnecessary authority on Wikipedia by forcing other editors and new editors to comply on what they feel is right.

• Both the users "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" & "ishdarian" use a very strong and rough abusive language on "edit summary" of articles and on other users talk pages, for eg. "Just ignore "Carrie"; she's a malicious, dishonest troll" which user-"Ishdarian" used to refer to user-"Carriearchdale" on his above comments publicly, You can imagine what kind of language he would be using on other user talk pages. I strongly feel both these users are trying to establish their unnecessary authority on Wikipedia by their conspiracy tactics and should be reminded that this would not be tolerated here. Science.Warrior (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment-Just to let you and everyone else know Science.Warrior this one user h that was posting back and forth with you on Monday is himself dishonest, instigating, and an inciting troll that picks out victims on wikipedia just to give a hard time to said victims. It appears as if the other user I allegedly went in tandem, or tag team mode with h to try to incite you to be reverting h's ridiculous and vandalizing changes to the articles that you were improving.

I read where h typed a very demeaning message to you when you were trying to discuss with him the issues on his talk page. And then h erased all the banter between you and him on his talk page by reverting or erasing somehow perhaps to hide the evidence of his uncivil and threatening behavior towards you. see WP:CIVIL

I saved this one post he made to you:

"NFCC issues

In response to your question, poorly placed as it may have been, on my talk page, you badly need to become familiar with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. You've also just broken WP:3RR on the Goldstein article, so unless you immediately revert yourself you're going to get a break from editing in which to do so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"[162] - one instance see WP:CIVIL

That one reads a bit like a threat and or personal attack to me, as well as possibly violating WP:CIVIL.

I have been a member of wikipedia since 2007. I would like to welcome you Science.Warrior to wikipedia. If you have any questions about wikipedia, or I can help you you in anyway with some of the questions and wiki technical type stuff please do not hesitate to contact me @ my talk page. I hope you and everyone have a most citational and perfect Tuesday! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Science.Warrior: "been solely prepared and uploaded by me" So you're saying you met Kurt Goldstein and Abraham Maslow and took these photos? And this happened when? These images don't particularly look like they were taken close to the age these people passed away, particularly for Kurt Goldstein. So you took the photos or at least the Kurt Goldstein one 70 or more years ago perhaps?

Also please see WP:Vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the other editors here, their actions clearly aren't vandalism and calling it such seriously discredits any valid point you may have.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you're a new user, this still doesn't explain why you removed the AFD template which clearly tells you not to remove it. Removing the template doesn't of course change the fact the article is at AFD which is why it was later fixed by a bot, and as others have said you're reasoning didn't even make sense (you apparently didn't read the tag properly, it sounds like you didn't even read the article properly). I don't know what nonsense you're talking about a preplanned conspiracy either as you had not edited the article Master Liam Lockran or its talkpage until you removed the template, unless you're saying you're an alternative account of User:Sutorta. How was anyone to know you would randomly stalk HW and remove an AFD tag they added to an unrelated article, apparently without reading much at all. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came across this editor yesterday, after seeing "unnecessary vandalism by nominating for AFD, this is valid article, with strong theory and history." as an edit summary something felt really strange about this. Note that their way with language seems to dramatically decline over time, which to me seems like they're trying to appear like a newer user. [163] [164] [165]

While Science.Warrior is claiming that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Ishdarian have something against them, SW has been following the users contributions and reverting perfectly valid edits as "vandalism" [166] [167] [168] I'm unsure whether SW is a new user or just a new account, but to me it seems like they're WP:NOTHERE.

--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - ok now i (user Science.Warrior) can connect the missing dots to this conspiracy, after reverting the edits by User-"Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and "User:Ishdarian". User-"Lewis Hulbert" was the one to put the speedy delete tag on the images i uploaded, i tried to remove the unnecessary tag but user-"Nil Einne" came and tagged it again, following this i decided to write on user-"Nil Einne" talk page on how the improvements can be made, but before that can be done, to my surprise i see both of these users have already commented here. Are you guys working in a team or what?

• "been solely prepared by me" means made on Adobe CS6 platform, which i stated above, if you are not aware of the of what CS6 can do please ask your friend Google and I am really confused why are allegations of "returning editor", "old user with new account" cited? am i that good learning things, i even didn't knew that. The best part that makes me laugh is, I am a "returning editor" and writing articles and uploading photos related to "psychology" and "business theories", the allegations would look good if i would be writing promotional contents or extremist articles on religion and countries.
• right now i am dead sure this team is a part of some "conspiracy planning" or the "teenage superiority war games". "Listen up guys, i am devoting my precious time to provide quality contribution to Wikipedia, if you ask why? you can find the answer of my user page. So if you are really concerned about Wikipedia content quality and governance like you show, try to help me out rather bombarding me with personal attacks and wasting my time." Science.Warrior (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're either blatantly lying or just confused. I haven't tagged any of your images for speedy deletion either here or on Wikimedia Commons. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I haven't been involved in this at all prior to the earlier comment on this discussion. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Science.Warrior for a week. I was tempted to block the editor indefinitely, but because they are new I cut them a bit of slack. This editor is convinced that the warnings they've received are illegitimate and a small group of editors have a conspiracy against them. My hope is that a block will snap them out of that mindset. If not, an indefinite block will probably be needed to prevent further disruption. -- Atama頭 16:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(multiple EC) Look I doubt anyone really gives a damn what you did or did not do in CS6 which was why I didn't mention it earlier. CS6 cannot magically construct images out of thin air. And it's clear these are photos, not paintings you drew from memory or your imagination or whatever.

These photos were clearly not taken by you therefore they cannot be your own work, whatever you may or may not have done with them in CS6. To claim they "solely prepared"" by you, let alone that they were your own work, was quite misleading when the core creative work, that of taking the photographs, was clearly NOT your work. Your apparent inability to understand this doesn't bode well.

New editors do sometimes get confused with copyright matters. But as copyright is serious they should read and think about what they are doing and be willing to listen and defer to others and stop any possibly problematic copyright related editing until and unless they properly understand the problems with their editing (seeking help when needed) and are unlikely to repeat such problems. You've shown none of that. While not technically a wikipedia issue, removing the speedy deletion tags not once but twice on commons without converting it in to a normal deletion was clearly not acceptable there. Nor are any reversions of copyright violation removals you're made here.

Incidentally the tags were added in commons by Commons:User:The Big Bad Wolfowitz who I presume is an alternative account for HW. Lewis Hulbert is correct they were not involved. So again, you've failed to properly read and check before doing stuff (in this case accusing someone). All this might be slightly tolerable were it not for your continual shrill accusations when you appear to be mostly in the wrong (and most of your accusations make little sense), inability or unwillingness to understand what you're being told, and general unpleasant attitude that I've seen here and elsewhere.

P.S. Since Kurt Goldstein is deceased and we possibly have no image of them, it's possible a WP:NFCC claim could be made for some image. That would of course need to be done here, not on commons and particularly given his age, perhaps a check to see if any public domain images exist (I mean it's possible the image you're trying to upload is in the public domain, we just don't have anywhere enough info to say that it is). People could have, and probably would have, discussed this with you if you'd approached it in a more resonable manner rather than the way you did.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• A week-long block for the WP:C issues demonstrated herein is unfortunately inadequate. Per the precautionary principle, I've changed the block to indefinite until such time that Science.Warrior can demonstrate that they understand the issues at hand. Anything else puts both them and Wikipedia at risk. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale

Good. Now what should be done about user:Carriearchdale? Hr contributions to this thread have been far from helpful (rather the complete opposite), and from reading coments here, it seems she has displayed problematic behaviour for a long time. She e.g. stated here that one of HW's statements was not true and that SW only reverted twice: however, looking at the edit history she linked[169], it is very obvious that Science Warrior reverted four times in the span of less than two hours (20.07, 20.27, 20.38 and 21.22). Later comments in the same discussion include things like "h's ridiculous and vandalizing changes to the articles that you were improving." (Hullabaloo removed a copyvio, hardly vandalizing). Her involvement here seems to be rataliation for Hullabaloo's edits at Ink Master (season 4)

Carriearchdale was editing that article, and removed the GOCE tag at 18.45.[170], making her last edit at 19.29[171]. 6 Hours later, Hullabaloo edited the article[172], and the immediate reaction from Carrie was to readd the GOCE tag[173]. Hullabaloo ten makes ten edits to the article, which were all at once reverted by Carriearchdale because "GOCE tag is in place"[174] (no edits were made on the article by Carriearchdale between placing the GOCE tag and reverting Hullabaloo). More back-and-forths followed. Apparently they have a longer history, but that doesn't give her an excuse to insert herself into a dispute and try to derail it by spouting incorrect statements and claming that Hullabaloo made personal attacks (see above, no personal attack exists in the example she gives). Fram (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive, authoritarian editor

I am reporting an editor (User:Winkelvi) who has, over the past year, been a huge disruption to the development of a series of articles. The user refuses to work with other users and is quick to attack those who try to resolve disputes via Request For Comments. The user has used abusive language and has made editing these pages a true hassle. The user has not added any material to the pages over the past year but denies being a disruption. This user's apparent only purpose with these pages is to prevent the addition of new content and rewrite sentences, often times distorting the intended meaning of the sentences and introducing grammatical errors. Nearly all content added to the articles on Template:Sound of Contact since their creation has been subject to a veto attempt by User:Winkelvi. Even the very creation of the Dimensionaut article was argued against by User:Winkelvi. The user has dismissed WP:CONSENSUS in the past and expressed hostility towards other editors, for example here: [175]. When talks are taken to that user's talk page, the comments are swiftly deleted; i.e. here [176]. Every discussion we seem to have escalates into this user accusing myself or, in one case, User:Spanglej, of various issues, often in the most hypocritical manner. Here is another instance of another editor speaking about User:Winkelvi's hostility: [177]. Many discussions have been had, and there has been no resolution. The current discussion prompting this notice is: [178]

That entire page (in addition to my talk page, and the talk pages of the affiliated articles), meanwhile, is evidence of that user's repeated attempts to dispute and block every addition made to this article and its related articles. This user has been reported on this noticeboard twice already for similar conduct:

First report: (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=561690390#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_No_action.29).

Second report: (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=565703341#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_Warned.29).

This user has only done harm to the process of developing these articles over the past year. I request a ban on this user (User:Winkelvi) from editing the articles found on Template:Sound of Contact in addition to any new affiliated articles that may be added to that template in the future, as the user appears to have an interest in preventing these articles from growing, and refuses to collaborate with others involved. The user has in the past week alone been involved in numerous incidents attempting to block content from being added:[179], [180] (a three-month process to add a paragraph of content). As someone who is undoubtedly frustrated with this and who appears to be one of the only editors working on these articles, this has made me very weary of having to face this obstacle with every revision. Every attempt to add to the construction of the page is a lengthy, difficult process involving the same editor.Vuzor (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you expect admins to do? Howunusual (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My request is a WP:TBAN (a topic ban) as specified here [181] and here [182]. I don't know where else on Wikipedia that editor participates, so in fairness to that editor I think this is a possible solution. Vuzor (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm opposed to anyone involved in a topic proposing sanctions on other editors. If you have a legitimate complaint, lay it out and let uninvolved editors develop suitable sanctions.--v/r - TP 01:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I apologize; this has happened numerous times, so I am quite frustrated. I will wait for recommendations. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have much to say in response other than Vuzor, in my assessment, simply doesn't like having his prose and content changed or challenged. Strangely, just a few days ago he placed an apology on my talk page for past disagreements we'd had and said he appreciated my help. He further stated he hoped there were no hard feelings between us. Then only a few days later, we end up here and everything he said about no hard feelings is history. It is, however, a good example of his passive-aggressive communication style with me over the last year. So passive-aggressive that I have seriously wondered if Vuzor isn't a User Name for two people, because he can be complimentary and cooperative one minute then aggressive, angry, uncooperative and unreasonable the next. My issues with Vuzor's editing have been that he has a tendency to overwrite content, use lofty language, and add extraneous detail and wording. He also has consistently added content that makes articles about music, musicians, and bands read like fan sites. After being angered that I copy edited content he added at Dimensionaut, he opened an RfC at the article talk page where he promptly began to chastise me and bring up old issues from a year back where he perceives I wronged him. The premise of the RfC he opened was supposed to be about content. He chose to abandon that premise from the jump and, instead, began personally attacking and making the RfC about me. Numerous times I reminded him that the RfC was about content and edits, not editors, and asked him to stop. He refused (as evidenced by his comments there). That RfC is still open, by the way. Would coming here without closing the RfC be considered forum shopping? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You dropped a link right in the middle of my report here. I've since fixed that. Diff of that can be found here: [183]. A little bit of proofreading may have prevented it. I don't believe there is more to say from me in regards to your comments here. My initial report here, I feel, is itself a response to the text above. User:Winkelvi aimed accusations from the very beginning of that RfC.Vuzor (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look at the history to see who wrote it, but the Sound of Contact article looks awfully promotional to me (and why is there a navigation template associated with a band whose debut album was in May 2013?). Does the name Winkelvi have anything to do with the Winklevii duo? If not, there is a potential for confusion here. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The promotional tone to Vuzor's editing has been my major concern since he started working on the Sound of Contact article as well as the associated articles. I also asked why there was a navigation template for such a new band, Vuzor threw a tantrum over my questioning of that and I decided to let it go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Now this is an outright lie. The only incidents involving the template involved you removing it from member Dave Kerzner's page, citing "the page is about Kerzner, not Sound of Contact" (see here: [184], [185], discussion on talk page: [186]) and then attempting to change the name of one of the tours on the template to something that did not exist (see here: [187]). When member Dave Kerzner left the band, you removed the template from the page again; I added it back as he was clearly on the template and was important to the band's history. You gave no response. (see: [188]). There was absolutely no conversation or even an issue about the template's existence, so don't lie about it.Vuzor (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is this alleged lie in my response? You said it yourself: I gave no respnse. That lack of response was me letting it go, as I stated. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your response above: "I also asked why there was a navigation template for such a new band, Vuzor threw a tantrum over my questioning of that and I decided to let it go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)"... That never happened. The entire "incident" you speak of never occurred. Your statement here at 18:51, 29 April 2014 contains a significant lie.Vuzor (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I could have that incident confused with the all of the other dramatic tantrums you've thrown over me copy editing your content inclusions and removal of blatantly promotional and fan cruft content at Sound of Contact and its associated articles. Nonetheless, my lack of response was simply me moving on and letting it go, as I said, and my recollection remains that you threw a tantrum. There is no intentional "lie" being told. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you know what you're talking about. Don't just loosely throw accusations, particularly about incidents that never occurred.Vuzor (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I always thought "Winkelvi" was "Winkel the 6th". But I don't see anything problematic about the username, there's a notable difference between "Winkelvi" and "Winklevii". -- Atama頭 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I can also comment on the Sound of Contact article. Winkelvi did not originally create it, but has done a lot of work on it, including removing a large amount of promotional and/or unsourced information over the article's history. Perhaps it needs improvement but it could be worse than it is. -- Atama頭 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I must note that User:Spanglej, a more experienced editor than User:Winkelvi or I, oversaw the initial development of this series of articles. In the case of the article Dimensionaut, administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee also oversaw the intial stages of the article. In an early incident involving the article, User:Winkelvi flagged the article for WP:CSD (speedy deletion); administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee (his user page at the time here: [189]) removed the flag, citing that User:Winkelvi's criteria were not valid. User:Winkelvi undid User:Boing! said Zebedee's revision. Administrator User:Boing! said Zebedee then told User:Winkelvi: "When a speedy deletion request has been declined, it must not be put back - go for WP:AFD if you think it needs deletion." This can be seen here: [190], [191]. To quell this controversy, User:Boing! said Zebedee and I decided to move the page's development to my user sandbox: [192]. Throughout the article's development, User:Boing! said Zebedee vetoed several of User:Winkelvi's revisions: [193], [194]. As a measure of WP:GOODFAITH and per User:Boing! said Zebedee's suggestion, I asked for reviews of the page before User:Boing! said Zebedee moved the page to Dimensionaut: [195]. These articles were created with the supervision of more experienced editors.

As cited in the initial report here, User:Spanglej was later attacked by User:Winkelvi: [196].

"Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"

In another instance [197]:

"Span, your comments started out by quoting me, not by addressing the article. That says you were more interested in me than giving constructive criticism to anything else on this talk page. Claiming I'm "hounding" (which you've disguised by saying "ongoing hostility" instead) is complete bullshit. If the nature of the model is founded on trust, then Vuzor has damaged that trust over and over with the "community". But please, do continue to enable him and send the message that he's justified and the victim here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"

Vuzor (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanglej wasn't overseeing anything. She was there just like I was, just like Vuzor was. Boing wasn't overseeing anything, either. He was just there like the rest of us. As far as the speedy deletion issue, I have no idea why it's being brought up, why Vuzor thinks it has any bearing on anything. It was a simple misunderstanding on my part regarding procedure, nothing more. Boing didn't have an issue with it, we worked it out immediately, that was all there was to it. And just for the record and complete disclosure: that article written by Vuzor ended up being deleted because it was about a music album by Sound of Contact that had not yet been released (the article was put up again about a month later). Interesting how Vuzor left that out while retelling his version of the drama. But, Vuzor is portraying it all dramatically for what purpose? And who cares if Boing "vetoed" several of my revisions? That's what cooperative editing is about. There was no "supervision" or oversight occurring as Vuzor claims. His need to re-hash stuff that's nearly a year old is puzzling to me, especially when you consider he left the following on my talk page ten days ago: "Hi, Winkelvi. I apologize for some of the past disagreements we've had, and I'd very much like to say I value your opinion and appreciate your help. Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us." found here: [198] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Boing's vetoing of your revisions has everything to do with your approach to these articles. Spanglej's attempt to mediate (as cited in [250]) was met with your hostile response. When I spoke to you regarding how we can collaborate with one another and work things out, you responded (see here: [199]):

"Your continual lecturing is truly tedious and boring. I'm sure you will now cite AGF and CIVIL, but I really don't care. Please move on. Again, have a nice day (and please walk away from the horse that's now stinking and becoming a fly-farm). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)"

And here is another incident in which User:Winkelvi refused to work with User:Spanglej and I (see: [200]):

You have just threatened me with the three-revert rule on my talk page, Winkelvi. I count five reverts from you within the past twenty-four hours, reverting the edits of multiple editors. That's almost twice the violation. You've already broken the rule and tried to control the way the page is being edited, reverting not only my edits by Spanglej's. Your hypocrisy and authoritarian approach continue to amaze me. If I were to revert your edit myself, I would be breaking the three-edit rule, but considering you have consciously broken that rule and almost doubled it, I am reporting this; you had the presence of mind to have that link while reverting my edits and had already broken the rule; while we could have waited for a fourth user to make a decision (after all, two users disagreeing with you isn't enough) so you wouldn't have edited a fifth time, you edited anyway, consciously challenging the rule a fifth time just moments before you had the nerve to threaten me with a hypocritical three-revert warning. Vuzor (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe we are even having this conversation, Winkelvi. A band release an album and then immediately go on tour and you are disputing that the album and the tour are related. In no way are the details of a tour promotional puff. You'd be hard pressed to find an article about any major band or album that doesn't mention its tour. True Blue (Madonna album) (GA), I Am... Sasha Fierce (GA), Achtung Baby (FA), OK Computer (FA), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (GA), (What's the Story) Morning Glory? (GA), Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (GA). I think you have somehow got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia editing. It's supposed to be collaborative, mutually supportive, fun and consensus-based. As the admin said on your page: " I don't see anywhere that you got consensus for this change." You wrote on my page "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." Consensus-based collaboration is not bullshit, the foundation of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals". It's not a figment of my imagination. Civility and respect for other editors is also one of the five pillars of the community. Span (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a crap what you personally believe, look at the band's own website and you will see that the tour isn't for promoting the album. There are scores of other bands who will be performing, and there is nothing on their website that states it is an album promoting tour. NOTHING. Everything Vuzor has come up with to make that conclusion is based on assumption, original research, and synthesis. Those are the facts. Your personal opinion of me or anything else is irrellevant. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)''

These are further examples of User:Winkelvi's conduct. Here is an instance of User:Winkelvi removing acceptable sources, only to have them replaced by a more experienced editor (see: [201], [202]. And here is User:Spanglej specifically advising User:Winkelvi and I that primary sources are acceptable, and clearly supervising the process (see: [203]).Vuzor (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is not only borderline forum-shopping with this report, he's now canvassing for it: [204], [205]. I still fail to see and understand where Vuzor thinks his walls of text and examples are leading us. Can you say "stale" in regard to all of these things, nearly a year old? Whatever might be done by an administrator in regard to Vuzor's year-old butt-hurt over all of this ancient history would be punitive, not preventative at this point. Someone asked him yesterday right after he filed this report: what do you want administrators to do? I think it's still a valid question. Valid, because it seems clear (to me, at least) that Vuzor needs vindication, he needs me to be "punished", in spite of the message he left me 10 days ago that said he is sorry for our past disagreements, values my opinion, appreciates my help, and hopes there are no hard feelings between us. At this point, I'm pretty much done with responding to the drama Vuzor is putting up here because none of it seems to have any point that would serve the community positively. I have to wonder how much longer it will go on. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:AN/I, as the two users have both been named in this thread, I believed it was only right to notify them that they have been discussed here. There is no expectation from me for them to participate. It was only a gesture of good will so as not to speak of incidents involving them without their knowledge (in my general opinion, speaking behind the backs of others is often wrong to do, and in this case there is no reason to withhold that knowledge from them).

My message to you at 07:46 on April 19, 2014 was a gesture of good will in hopes that you would become more willing to work together and move beyond our past differences (see: [206]). I provided an apology when I did not need to (and perhaps foolishly so). It was an act of WP:DGF ("encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith"). The fact you have cited that now here for the complete opposite purpose is disappointing.Vuzor (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor is correct, notifying someone neutrally (with a template) when they've been mentioned on ANI is not canvassing. There is no violation, if anything it's polite to do so. -- Atama頭 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, Atama. That's not how I read the noticeboard notification policy nor policy on canvassing, but I'll take your word for it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"TV Show People Court" threat

In this edit Forever17 shabazz says that s/he is going to "sue you guys big time" and that s/he "will take this all the way to the TV Show People Court".

There is no action required here, but I thought I should notify this noticeboard, to be on the safe side. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. It's some kid who's here to advertise his "over 7 nice awards for being the nicest person anyone has ever seen!". Yippee. This isn't Romper Room. He's also using at least one IP to further his goal of "notability" here. Doc talk 08:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Maybe in a few years they'll get over themselves and desire to actually contribute. the panda ₯’ 08:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone should probably delete User:Forever17 shabazz/Shabazz Sallier too, if only because he claims some of it is copyrighted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done via CSD#G12. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Might want to also delete their userpage, or at least this revision, as it contains the same material as the other deleted pages. There's also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shabazz. Good thing he won that "Track Participation Award" back in 2012; can't take that away from him. Rgrds. --64.85.214.214 (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports need to be combined

In the course of identifying previous SPI reports for editors showing similar behaviour to one I was reporting, I discovered at least two archived reports which are obviously for puppets of the same master, and should be combined. The ones I identified are for Azul411 (earliest report 10 September 2012), and for Selfdelusivecontradictoryliar (earliest report 13 September 2013). Others have recently been combined, but sockpuppets are listed under a puppet rather than the puppeteer; I am currently correcting this. RolandR (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, clerking SPI pages should only be done by SPI clerks. Normally, they don't even want admin doing that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• So where should I request this, as the archives and reports should clearly be combined? RolandR (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive, authoritarian editor in Snake articles

I am reporting the editor Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!}. The editor has taken over the Black mamba article, and it has been tedious work to fix erroneous data he added which has been shown to be added by him not in good faith, and one addition which is fabrication of scientific data. Further more he has deleted scientific consensus material from two other articles snakebite, Venomous snake, in order to hide his fraudulent editing in the black mamba article.

He seems to mostly cite from books, thinking nobody will check up on him and then quickly nominates his articles for GA without the reviewer knowing the manipulation of data. gaming the system to lock the articles etc. all in pretense of being an expert.

Basically he's motivation is to make his favorite snake appear more venomous by a huge margin 0.05-0.30. venomous snakes toxicity is commonly compared through subcutaneous injection testing of mice, representing a real bite (as seen in his deletion of the venom list in the two other articles - since his snake is not quoted due to lack of venom potency).

It all started here Talk:Black_mamba#Black_mamba_LD50_quote_is_incorrect. he defended his source quotation by false arguments, in which finally i was able to show directly from his own source that he fraudulently attributed to their quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Multiple times he has been caught misrepresenting citations Talk:Black_mamba#Discussion_2 to promote his POV
• Removing of scientific consensus material of two other articles in order to promote his POV on the black mamba article Talk:Snakebite#RfC:Should_the_List_of_most_venomous_snakes_by_LD50_from_reliable_sources_stay_in_the_article.3F, Talk:Venomous_snake#No_more_.22Top_10_most_venomous_species.22_lists
• Fabrication of scientific data on the black mamba article Talk:Black_mamba#The_hypothetical_debate_is_over

I am opening this Incident request now , because the editor constantly present himself as "Academic" "an expert" etc. and he in not only misrepresenting citation he is fabricating information into them. i find it severely troublesome.

If you find this Incident case to be true, my practical suggestion is to put back the data in the two other articles

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venomous_snake&oldid=605989121
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339

and to revert the black mamba article back to when it represented clear scientific consensus data

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&oldid=605989081 79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Real Issue Here

• Let's start with this IP editor's history. Admin Diannaa wanted to block the above IP editor for a wide range of Wikipedia policy and guideline violations. He almost entirely plagiarized the Inland taipan article. It wasn't "close paraphrasing", but outright plagiarism. Guess who figured that out? I did. Immediately afterwards, this IP editor began a full on assault on my credibility, my integrity, and I would even say he is somewhat obsessed with me due to a deep resentment and bitter feelings because I happened to discover his plagiarism, his complete disregard for any Wikipedia policies as evidenced by his continuous violations of said policies. He has attacked me personally, calling me a "charlatan" and accusing me of "fabricating data". This is a quote regarding this IP user and his recurrent issues with regard to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just the other day, he violated the 3RR rule several times in a single day. His problems are ongoing and aren't going to stop because it is not borne out of concern for any articles integrity or factuality, but his bitter resentment of me and his desire to destroy my work or antagonize me because he perceives me as a hostile person (projective identification) because I found out all the problems he had caused in the inland taipan article, so he is trying to do the same to the article in which I put in most, if not all the work in. That is what it really boils down to, folks. I am trying to be civil, I have even altered the black mamba article in order to compromise, but this has gone in vain as he continues his assault on my person and the article. I have listed the most known LD₅₀ values for the black mamba, which is in line with the neutrality policy (represents viewpoint fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each). I have done that by giving different examples of toxicity (values in the article are from Minton, Spawls & Branch, Ernst & Zug, Brown, and Australian Venom and Toxin Database). The IP user prefers to use only HIS preferences, but that is not appropriate for such an article.

This is an administrator's quote regarding the violations of this IP user:

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to sound arrogant or patronizing, but this IP user (who is confirmed by an admin to use several IP addresses, and likely has an account on Wikipedia) is definitely an amateur because he shows a gross lack of the very basic concepts and knowledge of snake venom, venom variability, toxinology, venom composition (and the interactions between these components that can make a venom which, for example, tests as a 4 mg/kg (LD50) on mice, be particularly deadly to humans causing severe envenomation), scientific methodology, limitations to research studies, and other important scientific concepts. I happen to have studied herpetology, more specifically, ophiology at a university level. I'm also a Medical laboratory technologist. So this entire issue is due to one single issue which he seems to be obsessed with and that is LD₅₀ ratings of venomous snakes. This is what its about at the end. This should be of least concern to anyone who has a real interest in science, biology, and herpetology. Debates about which snake is more toxic should be left for kids, or those who lack real scientific curiousity for more pressing and important issues related to snakes and snake venoms. This is a non-issue. Why? Here's why:

• Lists of top ten venomous snakes don't belong in ANY encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. These kinds of lists belong maybe in a children's book. Venom composition is not static. Even within a single individual, it will vary in quantity and relative proportions of components over time. Greater variability in components is seen between individuals of a species, greater still between species. Further, venom continues to evolve, often very rapidly, so there may be wide variations in venom composition and toxicity within a single species, over its geographic range. This is especially true for widely distributed species and may cause problems in antivenom effectiveness. Factors involved in the variation of venom and its toxicity include diet/habit variability, seasonal changes, geographical location, age-dependent variability, gender-dependent/sexual variability, altitude, and the list goes on. Then you've got the research methods used. This can be critical, as some snakes produce many venom components, but eject them sequentially, rather than as a uniform mixture. The immediate fate of the venom after collection is important, particularly in relation to environmental conditions that might denature certain components. The storage of the venom is also vital, and exposure to heat may cause damage to certain toxins. Prolonged storage in liquid form may damage others. Pooled venom may introduce many variabilities, because each pooled batch of venom will contain venom from different specimens, compounding both intra-individual and intra-specific variability. There are many potential variables in such research that may affect comparability and interpretation of results. The choice of test animal may be crucial, because each species may respond differently (including humans). The choice of route is also critical. The standard test of toxicity is the LD₅₀. Mice are most commonly used. The LD₅₀ remains the most universal standard for determining and comparing toxicity of venoms. As an example, the rough scaled snake (Tropidechis carinatus) has a much less potent venom than the tiger snake (Notechis scutatus), on LD₅₀ testing in mice. Yet clinically, the two venoms are virtually identical in the type and severity of effects on envenomed humans. There are many examples just like this across all species. The black mamba is not the most venomous snake species in the world, but it untreated human moratality rates are 100% and produces death in the most rapid time. To compare, the many-banded krait has a more potent venom on mice, but doesn't produce the same devastating effects on humans the way the black mamba does. Many more examples are readily available. Mice aren't humans. Yes, they may give us an idea on toxicity, but they aren't the same as humans.--Dendro†Naja^{Talk to me!} 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad he brought up the inland taipan article. that was his first attempt in deleting scientific consensus information in order to elevate his favorite snake - the black mamba.

What's more cynical, is he copied my style article writing in many places (sections, lead etc) in the black mamba, after complaining about my style.

He tried his best, even quoting a study showing that the black mamba venom was more toxic to monkeys then the inland taipans in a study. Not knowing that the inland taipan was discovered in australia only one year before the study publication and was not availabale to the scientific community. yet another "show of expertise" by him and misrepresenting citations. As usual only after tedious arguments he conceded to the fact , and erased that fact from the black mamba article.

I was a new editor to wikipedia when i edited the inland taipan article, and thought that citing pasages from sources with references doesn't conflict with copyright. it was a good faith mistake. But this was his way of gaming the system to kill that article which was in his way for his POV pushing in the black mamba article. Most of the information is back on the inland taipan article without making copyright violations, using multiple non conflicting scientific consensus references.

User:DendroNaja loves his original research POV to the point of deleting the mainstream published scientific consensus in other articles, and shamefully fabricating and misrepresenting his own citations. This has to stop (same ip editor)79.180.5.90 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the venom toxicity list. there were two lists originally in the snakebite article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=589136661#Cause

He had no problem with them not being "encyclopedic and for kids", he just killed one list that didn't list the black mamba, and he was itching to declare the black mamba "the fourth most venomous snake in the world" in his lead. So under the pretense of "more accurate citation is done via Saline with Bovine serum Albumin, and not saline alone". he left the other list to stay.

The list he was pushing to stay was found out to be not representing the citation and had nothing to do with Bovine serum albomin (surprise surprise) "First of all the list posted in the article is not the list published in the book. This is the list in the book, you can verify it in google books (see the first 3)." quote taken from the talk page

So a new list was made citing both modes from reliable sources (saline, and saline with Bovine serum albumin) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakebite&oldid=604598339#Most_venomous which non of them cite the black mamba in their top venomous snakes (for good reason).

As usual when he gets caught with misrepresenting citations, he changes his strategy. now suddenly putting venom lists "are for kids". though the final expanded list is sourced from lists published in peer review articles and academia (references 56,57,58).

Hypocritically, at the time he used this "kids play" in the black mamba article "Based on extensive and most comprehensive toxinological study conducted the toxicities of snake venoms by Ernst & Zug et al (1996), the black mamba is the fourth-most-venomous snake species in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_mamba&diff=606120034&oldid=605989489

Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV. 79.180.5.90 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will give a classic example demonstrating this editor M.O when I say "Do not be deceived by his professional sounding jargon. this editor, behind all the bells and whistles is abusing and distorting scientific data to push his personal POV" :

An experienced editor/reviewer opened a WP:Good article reassessment section in the talk page, noting "There's so much that's wrong with this article it's difficult to know where to start"

Other editors have agreed and commented as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_mamba#GAR)

User:DendroNaja Modus operandi is this : He bombards with what looks like a very knowledgeable and scholarly text. Here a fine example from that section, responding to one of the editors:

Now to the toxicity/LD50 issue: the black mamba is the 4th most venomous snake species in the world based on the study by Ernst & Zug (1996). That is unquestionable. The toxicity ratings obtained from this study/experiment is considered to be the most important toxicity study on snake venom in the world. This is due to several factors: first, the data that was obtained was based on snake venom that was collected from hundreds of specimens from some species, while for other other species, venom was collected from thousands of specimens from all different regions of a species' geographic range (which was the case for the black mamba - 1,200+ specimens of wild caught black mambas from all localities had their venom extracted). Zug et al. also used Fraction V (bovine serum albumin). This method is known to produce the highest purity precipitate, usually in the range of 98-99%. This precipitate is the dried venom which is then used to determine toxicity. Basically, this means the most accurate toxicity rating is obtained due to the purity of the precipitate. The study conducted by Ernst & Zug was extensive, costly and the scientific methods used had been proven to produce toxicity ratings that were consistent and although variation was still observed (as expected, it was insignificant). They were meticulous and the study is considered to be nearly flawless within the herpetological community. All other methods of determining snake venom toxicity always result in wildly varying toxicities, which is/was never the case with the 1996 study. In addittion, venom is usually collected from only a handful of specimens from each species (usually such experiments will study the toxicity of a very limited number of snake species, unlike the 1996 study). Up until now, there has been no single study that has been as large in scale as the 1996 study.

Except for the fact that Ernst & Zug listed the black mamba fourth on their list - the entire paragraph is completely fabricated. he literally made up EVERYTHING else regarding that list.

It took me some time, but i found Ernst & Zug note regarding their venom list, in their own book. On the columb heading LD50 they have a small star.

This star leads to their note regarding the list (page 120) "also, the LD50 values are mixed data, derivd from different studies using different sites of venom injection (intermascular, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous)". http://books.google.co.il/books?ei=iidDU6TqKqKv4AT_wIDQBg&hl=iw&id=TuY5AQAAIAAJ&dq=Snakes+in+question%3A+the+Smithsonian+answer+book&focus=searchwithinvolume&nfpr=1&q=Subcutaneous

Do you get it? Ernst & Zug simply collected info from other studies, and they mixed up all the data which makes it un-citable regarding mode of injection, and if it is Saline alone or saline + Bovine Serum Albumin. Ernt & Zug book "Snakes in Question:the Smithsonian answer Book" is a popular science book: "New titles for a popular audience from SP/SP included Snakes in Question and Bats in Question, part of the Smithsonian Answer Book series. These inviting, easy-to-read books, written by Smithsonian experts, satisfy the curiosity of both adults and children." http://archive.org/stream/annalsofsmithson1997smit/annalsofsmithson1997smit_djvu.txt . I'm starting to believe that User:DendroNaja is a compulsive liar. (same ip editor) 79.177.130.168 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread is not attracting any administrator attention, because it's basically a content dispute, and admins don't make content decisions. You would be better served trying dispute resolution. WP:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread isn't getting any attention because it's a content dispute, contains walls of text, bickering between the disputants, and a host of other issues that I cover in WP:ANI Advice (I've been spamming this essay on here because I'm fed up with this crap on ANI).--v/r - TP 19:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiable data contribution which is argued about indeed should be dealt in dispute resolution. which i have earlier started on those talk pages. The nature of the dispute changed once it was proved that User:DendroNaja is fabricating scientific data (from a cited book, that could not be verified easily as a web link) and also deliberately misrepresenting citations in his arguments, which in turn led to the present corruption of three articles black mamba, Snakebite, venomous snake). This is the core reason i approached the panel of admins here to address. (same ip editor)79.180.139.200 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No administrator will make the call as to whose data is correct. It's not part of what admins do. Please see the information at WP:Dispute resolution, which offers several possible venues to assist in resolving this matter. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We've had trouble with snake articles before. There is a blocked editor whose name I can't recall right now but maybe a checkuser is in order. Warping content is a serious charge and should be investigated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Update - right, it was Sebastian80 (talk · contribs), also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive - @Sasata:, any comments on the content? and @Drmies: who looked into this previously? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha Casliber, I stopped here before you pinged me. Yes, that was fun. Interesting: fairly new account, black mamba, from Canada, interest in snakies and DYK and GA (6 already? quick learner!). I mean, compare user boxes, even. So please, let someone run CU, and get ready to have a good look at the GAs.

Now, on another note, for all those admins who blah blah TLDNR content dispute and all that jazz--please consider more seriously that where there's smoke there may be fire, and that we should take IP edits on good faith as well. Thank you--and thank you Casliber for looking into this and pinging me. Someone should make you an admin one of these days. :) Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of the snake content contributed by this editor that I have looked at is problematic. I've noticed a couple of incidents of close paraphrasing/copyvio in Black mamba and Eastern green mamba, and I suspect that more issues will be revealed when I can get to the library and check the print sources (but AGF and all that...). Sasata (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked Sebastian80 on their talk page if they could please stay the hell away from GA in any future reincarnation. They couldn't--see Talk:Black mamba/GA3 (Casliber, you'll be interested in that given Talk:Black mamba/GA2, the delisting). Sasata, the problem with Sebastian is that they think they know shit, like a lot of it, and they don't. Plus, they can't really write--typical biology major, maybe, with a C- in freshman comp. So we have the Dendro-Sebastian problem right now, which CU will deal with shortly I hope, and then we have the bigger problem of GA (pinging HueSatLum here). Is it the case (you know the article better than me) that the article was in better shape when it was reviewed for GA? Do we want to yank that little green cross again, regardless of whether what HueSatLum passed was a valid GA or not? (I don't doubt their good faith, but that's not the issue here.) Or could we revert to the article as it was in an earlier state and still claim, hand on heart, that this is a GA we're looking at?

Sasata, you sound like you know what you're talking about; perhaps you can have a look at their other GAs as well. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

When I passed the article as a GA back in January, it met my standards for GA; since then, I have admittedly not always kept track of major changes to the article. I have been following but not participating in the discussion on the talk page because my knowledge of the scientific matters discussed there is very limited. As it stands, the article would most likely fail GAN due to its instability and potential copyvio. To me, a potential casual reader of the article, the "Venom, envenomation and antivenom" section seems quite long and technical, and I have not yet looked into the alleged copyvio. (For the record: a diff of the article as I passed it versus the current revision) /~huesatlum/ 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You understand why I'm pinging you--not to impugn your GA reviewing; if you can tell me, hand on heart, that the version you passed is a GA, you could consider reverting to that version, and perhaps reinstating whatever positive edits were made by other editors?

Sebastian was in the habit of doing GA reviews also, and getting Black mamba at GA is a long obsession of theirs. In other news, I've been going through some old edits of some old socks (VeronicaPR (talk · contribs) and Thegoodson (talk · contribs) (pretty disgusting appropriation of a Nick Cave classic). What they all have in common, besides sssssnakies, is Temazepam. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Vgcdrtcrrsu

This user has continued to revert my edits on a redirect for the article The Powerpuff Girls: Dance Pantsed, I have tried reaching out to the editor on their talkpage: [207], as well as starting a discussion on the mainpage. [208] despite both of these I have received no response only reinstated edits. In addition the user has blanked content over at List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes with no explanation. The Powerpuff Girls articles have been a target for vandalism in the past and do not know what to think of these recent edits, asking for some advice here. Thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there any advice on this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Since they seem to be new, I've pinged them about using edit summaries and communicating on talk pages. Hope it helps. All the best, Miniapolis 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Just for the record I am not opposed to the idea of an episode article just there was a-lot of un-sourced WP:OR added to the new article and the rest just repeated info already included in the parent article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Microlawyers

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

---

I'm having trouble editing Wikipedia since I came here. I can't edit without being reverted. I really don't know if this case fits in vandalism, sock puppeting, paid editing, COI or something else. Maybe all of them?

I believe that Codename Lisa is a young man and Jeh is an old man that works for Microsoft Corporation or other third party companies. I suspected so when I saw his user name after reading Windows Internals. His user name is the same as the one used for exemplification in the book. After he started citing personal information about people connected to M$, I was sure of that. (page history, this edit).

They wikilawyer each other (including other users) and I guess that they know each other in real life or at least exchange emails. When something happens against one of them, another just pops up from nothing and protect it.

Before creating an user account on wikipedia, I was already familiar with the software because I was a reader and I also had wikimedia installed on a Debian server. As soon as I created it, I made sure to read as many policies as possible and watch other users' behaviour to avoid making any mistakes. But when I started editing, I was soon attacked by C. Lisa. That went on. I now, a few hours ago, I made a major change on ntoskrnl.exe and was preparing some modifications on that article that was somewhat abandoned for a long time. It was soon reverted by Jeh and later, all messed up. I'm stuck now. I can't revert it to the "boost" review. I'm fed up.

It's really sad to see that such people, behaving compulsorily, are the first to talk to (by attacking) newcomers; (really) smart people that don't care about Wikipedia and are here just for fun; and non-native English speakers. They exploit WP policies (especially WP:V). I believe that policy has a loophole (if you're a non-programmer) or a security breach (if you are a programmer :-) that allows an user to to remove (by reverting or something) the edit that another user created. That is quite useful for removing a vandalism without a warning. But they are causing damage to Wikipedia because users that exploit it prevent new content from being inserted and worked on.

It's impressive the tone that C. Lisa uses when talking and how Jeh brags about himself. They and other users involved also make jokes about their disruptive editing. If you look at their contribs you'll see that there are mostly reverts and "fixes" of what other users have done. They are no content creators. The just "enforce" Wikipedia policies and "manage" other users by wikilawyering.

We really should do something here. If nothing is done again, I will quit editing Wikipedia and do something else. But don't worry, I will make sure the world has the chance to hear what I have to say. --M4t3uz (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You've tried to make some major changes to an article. Yes, we appreciate being bold. However, someone reverted those changes (and I can understand why at first glance). Wikipedia therefore requires you to open a discussion on the article talkpage in order to try to gain consensus for those changes. A hint: 10,000kb+ of changes at a single edit is a very bad idea. Break your changes into smaller chunks that everyone can both make comments on and modify as per discussion, THEN make the changes. Accusing people of having COI, and trying to guess their ages is a very poor idea in terms of civility and real life outing the panda ₯’ 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone based on their ages. I just tried, on that paragraph, to show how I imagine things to be going on in real life. I don't talk about my age neither. But that is not the point. The point is what you can see in their contribs and user talks. Please take your time to analyze that. I know big chucks of code is bad due to the size of the diff. I had no choice. Please take your time to see what these users have done and what has already happened. --M4t3uz (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I did review, and suggesting that I didn't is rather non-AGF. Have you followed any of the suggestions I provided since? By linking a Wikipedia user to a real-life person - especially by using as you call it "Microsoft internals" you CAN and will be blocked for attempted WP:OUTING the panda ₯’ 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Calm down. I did not point to anyone in real life. There could be anyone. Windows Internals is a set of two books public available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz: I reverted your changes to ntoskrnl.exe because they were a) riddled with errors, b) almost completely unreferenced, and c) simply not written to WP's standards for quality of English prose.

Regarding c: Your writing is disorganized, progressing in no logical order; lacking in motivation (that is, the reasons why particular points are supposedly interesting or essential were often not given), technical terms are used in detail before being described (or not described at all or even wikilinked), etc. In addition, the quality in terms of the basic rules of English grammar and sentence composition is amateurish at best.

I understand the "work in progress" aspect, but as it stands that material is flatly not anything that should be in a Wikipedia article, not even for a day. (And if I were editing a tech news site like Ars Technica, I wouldn't accept it there, either.) We do have standards of quality here. A reader of Encyclopedia Britannica, or even Ars Technica, never goes away from an article thinking "wow, that was hugely disorganized, and I wouldn't even grade the grammar higher than 'D'." Your material will, on the other hand, provoke such a reaction.

Are you really so unaware that your writing is of much lower quality than the typical WP article? WP:CIR doesn't just apply to technical content, you know. It also applies to the ability to write good, clear expository English prose. Your material does not demonstrate that you have that ability. Your responses indicate that you refuse to believe that you do not have that ability. This does not bode well for your ability to contribute finished text to Wikipedia.

But! I offered you a workaround: Create a sandbox (under the article talk page, NOT in main article space), put your changes there, and invite others to help. After all, at the very least, you have started on a good expansion of the outline (the topic list) of the article. I even gave you a link on your talk page by which you could create the sandbox with two clicks, and then a few more clicks (and a copy-and-paste) to copy the article as you had it into the sandbox. Then we could revert the main article back to its previous (admittedly very short) state while the work you started progresses. I ran an article improvement project on Binary prefix that way a while back, and it worked very well.

See, I had hoped that if you would accept the sandbox route, and then accept improvements to your material from other editors, we could all could avoid having to confront you with what I said in the preceding few paragraphs. You have apparently rejected this route.

Your complaints about WP:COI are off the mark. I am not a Microsoft employee, but it would not matter if I were: COI would not prevent me from contributing to articles about Microsoft products, nor from reverting changes such as yours. From the intro to WP:COI:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.

My only goal in reverting your edits was to remove inaccurate, poorly-written material from the encyclopedia. How you think that is going to promote Microsoft's interests, promote my own business or financial interests, or make the encyclopedia less neutral or less reliably sourced is quite beyond me.

I am not going to confirm or deny your WP:OUTING attempt (other than, as above, to state that I am not a Microsoft employee), but I have to ask you: If I did contribute to Windows Internals, as you certainly seem to think I did, then by what rationale do you reject my judgments about your writing on the subject of the Windows kernel image? How do you hold those two thoughts in your head at the same time? Jeh (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@M4t3uz: You may know the Wiki software, and that's good. But while you've read policies it's clear you don't understand them. This is not meant to be an insult, I didn't understand them either when I started and it took me awhile to catch on. That's normal with any editor. The issue is that if you run into a conflict, where you and another editor disagree about what should be in an article, the correct course of action is to talk about it. The preferred place is on the article talk page, but it's also okay to talk things out on a user's talk page (whether yours, or theirs, or someone else's). You've been deficient in doing so in this case. I know that you know how to participate on talk pages, you've left comments on a few article talk pages and you left a comment on Codename Lisa's talk page. But what I haven't seen you do on Wikipedia (before this noticeboard posting) is get involved in a discussion. That is how everything is sorted out on Wikipedia

You seem like someone technically experienced, you know a good bit about software. I can relate, I've been a network administrator for almost 15 years now in real life. But you can't approach issues on Wikipedia the way you'd troubleshoot a glitch. The challenge with Wikipedia isn't a technical one, it's a social one. Wikipedia works through consensus. Almost everything on Wikipedia works via consensus. Even the policies and guidelines we're subject to were created by and refined by consensus; people getting involved in discussions and coming to an agreement. You have to collaborate, which requires a few things. It requires you to assume other editors are trying to make things better the same way you are (until you are given absolutely unambiguous evidence that they aren't). It requires that you are able to clearly express your ideas, and in such a way that others can understand you. It requires that you are able to make compromises, and sometimes concede that you're wrong. Above all, though, it requires you to make an effort to solve problems through discussion.

Reverting someone's edits (either through an "undo" action, or removing something that someone added, or re-adding something that someone removed) repeatedly is considered an edit war and is disallowed. If you get into a situation where you have to continue to do that with someone, you need to stop and instead take to a talk page. Jeh was also guilty of this on the Ntoskrnl.exe article, but at the very least Jeh made a suggestion on your talk page (that you never responded to). In any case, you need to stop being belligerent with people. Wikipedia is not the place where you can apply your technical knowledge to make improvements and expect them to stick because of your expertise. What matters is what you can back up with reliable sources in order to verify what you assert, and what also matters is your ability to be constructive in dealing with others who disagree with you. If you lack either the ability or intention to do those things, this project is not for you. -- Atama頭 21:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry... Where did I revert M4t3uz's edits "repeatedly", or even more than once? Jeh (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You reverted M4t3uz's edits one, two, and three times in a slow, 13-day edit war. Note that a revert doesn't have to be a complete reversal of everything that a person adds, it can also include removing part of what a person has added. I did credit you for reaching out to M4t3uz on their user talk page, though you should have followed up when they complained that they were having problems using the sandbox. It was a half-gesture of assistance at least. -- Atama頭 21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs 1 and 2 were about completely different content; and were 43 days apart, not 13. Honestly, is there no "timeout" on 3RR? Once having reverted an editor in a given article, I can never revert that same editor again, even re different content? And your third diff is far from a simple revert - please see the edit comment, and my following edits. As for the "half-gesture of assistance", please check the times. I suggested creating a sandbox... then M4t3uz said he had problems creating it... then I posted that info on his talk page. There was no response that I saw, either on his talk page, or mine, or in the article talk page. I then decided to at least correct the technical errors in the material that was there. The next thing I heard from M4t3uz was a notice of this ANI. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I totally agree with you. You have chose the right words. That's what I tried to convince C. Lisa that Wikipedia is about when I came to Wikipedia - talking, consensus, a community. But that's not happened. The discussions started to heat. And there we have it. About the sandbox, I tried it. The server was trowing an error on me for an unknown reason to me. (I have a screenshot by the way.) --M4t3uz (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. Many of the "talks" started by him were barely offensive history page description. --M4t3uz (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jeh Yes I make mistakes. But many are types and many I don't notice when previewing the page. --M4t3uz (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz, can you show me where you asked Codename Lisa to discuss an issue with you and they refused? The closest I can find in your editing history is here, where you said you were annoyed by Codename Lisa for reverting your edits instead of adding "citation needed" tags. Which, by the way, you were incorrect about; an editor has the option to add the citation tag if they believe that the information is correct but still should be sourced, but it is customary to remove information completely if it has not been verified by a source and the editor disputes either its factuality or relevance. Regardless, Codename Lisa replied to that message, twice, and left you notices on your talk page so that you would be aware of those replies, yet you failed to respond at all. That shows that you are talking at other editors, rather than talking with other editors. That behavior needs to change. Right now, this discussion on this noticeboard, it is a positive one and it's a good example of how to resolve these issues. But we possibly wouldn't have had to come to this noticeboard if you had continued the discussion you started. Let me assure you, this noticeboard is a place you don't want to be at. This is where you go when you want an administrator (like myself, or DangerousPanda) to take action, which can include blocking someone temporarily or indefinitely. It's not a good place to take an issue unless you're desperate and really have no other choice. Just know that for the future. -- Atama頭 22:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was about NTFS. And it was the first interaction I had with a Wikipedian. Hacker Vocabulary (if you are not a programmer): dualboot=someone that runs more than one operating system (e.g. Windows AND Linux) on the same computer; otaku=a smart person who likes Japanese animation. Sorry for bothering. I was really considering leaving Wikipedia. I felt it was necessary. --M4t3uz (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Yes I make mistakes. But many are types" - I assume you mean "typos". Well, text that is riddled with mistakes, typos or otherwise, needs to be corrected or reverted. And if you tend not to notice mistakes when you preview a page, then that is an excellent reason to NOT complain when you are reverted. Or to use a sandbox and let others help you.

btw creating a sandbox has always worked for me whenever I've tried it. When you get a server error, just try again with whatever you were doing a minute or two later. Or, I'll create it for you if you want. Jeh (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a typo of the word "typo" on a non-article page. Fine, but that doesn't prove your point of reverting a 300+, 500+ or even a 10000+ edit. Get it? Reverting an entire edit because someone made one or maybe even multiple typos? That's no excuse. I still think you're trying to remove content, for some reason. I'm still trying to guess what the reason is. But I'm not saying it out loud again. :) A revert have consequences that you guys are not considering. --M4t3uz (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The only "consequence" of a revert should be the person who originally made the edit heading over to the article talkpage to discuss their edit, and associated reliable sources. There is no other consequence acceptable the panda ₯’ 23:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz, don't try to "guess what the reason is". I can tell you what you should guess, you should assume that Jeh wants to improve the article, not make it worse. You brought your concern to the admins' incident noticeboard, now you're getting advice from admins. If you continue to personally impugn someone you're in a conflict with and you're not bothering to address their concerns with your editing, you're not even trying to collaborate here. That kind of behavior isn't allowed, do you understand?

Let me try this from a different angle. Why are you on Wikipedia? Are you trying to improve articles? If so, and someone is criticizing your writing, why aren't you trying to improve your writing? If someone is complaining that your information isn't verifiable (and that's a requirement here, verification is the only shred of integrity that Wikipedia has) then why aren't you digging up references for it? If you're not making these efforts, how do you feel you can criticize others for their behavior, or cast doubt on their intentions? -- Atama頭 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

M4t3uz: This is exactly my point: While defending yourself over the quality of your edits, you couldn't even be bothered to not make a typo in a simple four-letter word. And as I said above, typos are FAR from the only issue with your content.

As you may have seen, I have been going through your material correcting the factual errors, and I'm not finished yet (which rather puts the lie to your (very much non-AGF) accusation that I am "trying to remove content"). But even with the tech errors fixed it will still be grossly disorganized. I can do this sort of thing once, to show you that I'm not blowing smoke when I say "riddled with mistakes"... but you should not expect to post such amateurish material and have it remain on Wikipedia for long. It is simply not good enough, and I and the other volunteers here don't have time to clean up after you, not when you present that much to do all at once. Please take it to a sandbox and we can do something constructive with it. Jeh (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama. I'm here on Wikipedia to do collaborative editing. By "collaborative", I mean working with people, talking, changing, improving, growing. I consider myself (and people that write here on Wikipedia) content donators. We spend our time to give Wikipedia good quality content. When I make a contribution, I don't want it to be reverted in a fraction of a minute, of course. If someone changes the content I wrote entirely or reverts it, I will talk to him and try to reach an agreement. During my small period here on WP, I did it already and will do it again. That's not what these guys do and this is not an AGF case. I explained to Codename Lisa what I think the WP:V is asking from the users. I'm NOT saying that I disagree with the policies and that I won't follow them. And this is not a AGF case! This discussion has turned against me. @@DangerousPanda a revert may lead to content removal that other users could be learning from. Sometimes a revert is good and sometimes it's not. The later is the case here. (It also lead to server cost, but you guy s know about them) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda Also, a work that does not exist cannot be improved. All the pages I tried to contribute were somewhat abandoned. If Jeh knows so much about it, why those pages only stubs for so much time? --M4t3uz (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted early on, the revert of your edit was a valid revert - no issues about it whatsoever from a policy reason - I would have reverted it myself if I was watchlisting that article. Why have you not moved forward collaboratively to try and discuss adding correct and corrected information to that article? the panda ₯’ 23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda Why would YOU revert it? Because it's big or because it's bad quality. I said I don't like making huge diff. And if you think that edit and all my edits are of bad quality, that's OK. I'll just leave because someone else will transform that stubs in a full fledged articles.--M4t3uz (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The size of the edit would have drawn my attention, the instant note of spelling mistakes would have caused the revert. Hence the original suggestion: change SLOWLY. Preview often. Discuss. This whole thread wouldn't need to exist if you have followed WP:BRD as it's written. Being reverted is not an insult, so don't take it as one the panda ₯’ 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Add: nobody is saying "you suck, go away". They're saying "take your time, use proper references, do things in small chunks, discuss before making significant changes, don't be mad if reverted because it gives you a chance to discuss with others" the panda ₯’ 00:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand it, DangerousPanda. Belive me. It's like developing Free Software, small changes of new features and bug fixes because they can be verified by the other contributors. I have proposed a merge, a rename (I have notified the main author even not being required to do so) and I discussed when a contributor changed my edit on IIS. I like talking and discussing too :) --M4t3uz (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Have we reached a conclusion here? Bye.--M4t3uz (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You made the complaint initially. The editors you've complained about don't seem to have done anything requiring administrative action, nor has anything you've done. Other editors have given you advice, which I hope you take to heart. Based on your responses I'm not sure that you have, but I guess we'll see. If you take away anything from this, I hope that you understand that you should focus on the content and ideas, and not on the motivations of other editors. -- Atama頭 01:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

RfC at Talk:List of Bohemian Club members

[209] started an RfC on whether a specific source can be used to call people "Honorary Members" of the Bohemian Club.

Ought this list include "honorary members" whose membership is noted in Phillips' and not in standard WP:RS biographies? 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is a neutral statement of the issue at hand to be discussed.

This has been repeatedly changed to

Ought this list include honorary members? 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The editors who have repeatedly made this very substantial change to the topic at hand kept the original time stamp implying to all who come to it that this was the issue posed. All have been notified [210], [211]. WP:RFC specifies: If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template and implicitly says unilaterally altering a question is improper.

[212] amended per POV [213] RfC questions must be neutrally worded [214] Undid revision 606360629 by Collect (talk) Don't set up a non-neutral RfC by putting some of your arguments into the question!)

I consider the removal of the entire actual issue to be improper, and shall make due notification on that talk page. By changing the topic, the editors involved seem to desire to elide the existence of the prior RfC which has now been totally ignored. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, the RfC is about this edit of yours where you removed honorary members. I restored these members, so that interchange is what's on the table. You seem to think that the issue is about the 1994 Phillips doctoral thesis used as a reference, a reference that was judged to be perfectly okay at RSN. Nevertheless, your removal of honorary members included people such as Charles Coburn and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. that were cited to Phillips, and you also removed honorary members that were cited to sources from 1895, 1898, 1904, 1905, 1908, 1918, 1922, 2003 and 2005. Thus, it is clear that your concern is not just about the Phillips source. It is instead about honorary members being listed at the list of Bohemian Club members. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect's concerns are completely irrelevant here. Do not modify the wording of an RFC that someone else has started: it's deceptive, making Collect look like he's said something other than what he really did. If you disagree with the question as stated, you're free to oppose the proposal, but under no circumstances is it appropriate to change someone else's proposal without that person's acquiescence — let alone to edit-war with that person! I couldn't care less about honorary Bohemians, but any more deceptive edits of this sort will result in reversion and block. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And Binksternet just gave me a formal 3RR notice for my belief that RfCs ought not be reworded to say something that they were not intended to say, and ought not put words into others keyboards which they did not type per the actual WP:RFC page. The question is about usig a particular source which traces back to self-published claims by the club. We have already established a consensus that the source is bad, but two editors seem to think their two !votes outweigh the other six, which includes total outsiders. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of all else, Binksternet's edits are a violation of WP:TPO, and are also against what is suggested at WP:RFC. Let this be a formal warning to Binksternet: refactor Collect's RfC information again and you will be blocked. You have no justification for doing so, so just stop. You are disrupting the process. There is already an alternative for you on the RfC page (add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template). -- Atama頭 23:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing I said is potentially confusing, so let me clarify it. "Collect's concerns are completely irrelevant here" — I was responding to Binksternet's statement of "it is clear that your concern..." I'm basically attempting to say that I don't particularly care about the substantive matters, and that they're not relevant to the issue of WP:TPO compliance. Not attempting to dismiss Collect's concerns about this specific situation! Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, deletion of sourced content

User:William J. Clark, also known as 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8, 66.81.241.77, and 66.249.173.226, has engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, and deleting of sourced content on Street Artists Program of San Francisco on a continual basis from February 10, 2014[215] to the present[216]. While the article is extensively sourced with reliable sources, Clark claims that these sources are inaccurate and that the truth is with him[217] [218] [219] [220]. Clark has also persisted in adding extensive, extraneous content emphasizing his personal role in the founding of the Street Artists Program[221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] and giving plugs to his friends[229] [230]. In two egregious posts on the talk page on April 2[231] and April 28[232], Clark offered to stop reverting sourced material if a sentence could be reinstated citing his brother's and another friend's involvement in the program.

Several editors[233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] as well as two vandalism patrollers[241] [242] [243] have continually reverted Clark's unsourced and self-aggrandizing edits, citing policy, but he persists in reverting their reversions [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] Several times on the talk page, the vandalism patrollers and others have attempted to explain to Clark applicable policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SELFPROMOTION, and WP:CONSENSUS[252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260], but Clark keeps reverting sourced content that he contends is inaccurate [261]. At this point, I believe a WP:TBAN is in order. I'd also like to note that Clark was editing from 3 different IP addresses before opening his own account on April 10[262], and he may very well turn to another IP address to continue edit warring if his account is blocked. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. If you see any IP edits of this sort, report them here or at my talk page for a WP:DUCK block, and don't forget to ask for an extension of the account's block. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the process, I initially asked for a "block", but I think I meant a WP:TBAN (I corrected my request, above). The user is now only editing under his named account. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't notice that you were asking for anything, per se. All I saw was a lot of evidence saying "this guy has been really disruptive" and asking for admin action, and I thought a block most appropriate. If you actively disagree with the block, I'll be happy to talk about that, and willing to consider reducing or removing the block. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to emphasize User:Yoninah's request that we need some type of page protection for the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article. User:William J. Clark is the most disruptive individual that I’ve met on Wikipedia in seven years. He shows no interest in working with Wikipedia’s most basic rules, and only seeks out articles where there is an opportunity to insert his own name (also notice the Sea serpent article). With a false sense of entitlement he consistently ignores the advice of experienced Wiki editors ( User:NeilN, User:Seaphoto, User:K6ka, User:Yoninah ) and repetitively deletes sourced material while attempting to insert unsouced opinions of his own. A quick reading of his words on the article’s Talk Page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco ] reveals what we have been dealing with. IMO, it might make sense to first block William Clark from the article, and if he posts again in the future with more Anonymous IP Addresses, then we should consider a greater blocking mechanism.James Carroll (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As I read Yoninah's comments, Clark's only used a few IPs; it would be easier to block them than to protect the page. Am I right, or have I misunderstood something? The only reason I blocked was his actions in the article; I didn't look at most of his edits to the talk page, since the ones I checked were (at worst) annoying but not outright disruptive. Unless he's actively disrupting the talk page, I see no reason to restrict his use of it (aside from times like now, when a block is needed), since we can normally ignore him; do you disagree? Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that permanently blocking the known IP Addresses and William Clark from the article and its talk page might solve the problem, and if he returns under new IP Addresses we should consider more drastic actions. Have you found the time to look at Clark's many disorganized rants within that Talk Page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco ]] ? His verbose, unformatted, and repetitive rants on the Talk Page disrupt the normal flow of discussion, and fatigue sincere attempts from admins like User:k6ka who attempt to familiarize Clark with the basic methods of Wikipedia, only to later find Clark ignoring all suggestions and deleting whatever sourced content he chooses. He has been so persistent over the article's short lifetime that it's impossible to ignore him – by the sheer volume of his rants he has become the dominant voice of the Talk Page. IMO, the law of diminishing returns suggests that this very obsessed individual, who shows no sign of restraint or moderation, is much more of a problem than an asset to this article. To let him remain will only threaten an acceptable DYK article and additionally fatigue and discourage earnest editors from participating at Wikipedia.James Carroll (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not an admin - just a reviewer and a rollbacker. I say that indefinitely blocking Clark's IP address should be used as an absolute last resort. For now, let's try a temporary topic ban first, and then escalate as needed. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Attention might want to be paid to Inquiringmindswanttoknow who displays the same verbosity and desire to give Clark credit that User:William J. Clark does (example).. He stopped editing on March 24th, the Clark account started on April 1st. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the possibility of block evasion, is there anything you think we need to worry about with the older account? Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

No, just potential run of the mill sockpuppetry. I didn't connect the two accounts until now, when I reviewed how I got involved in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, In the interests of providing extensive diffs, I may not have stated the problem clearly. The main problem is not multiple accounts, but disruptive and tendentious editing and edit warring. I first came across this page in my role as a DYK reviewer, and thoroughly copyedited the page on February 23[263] to make sure it complied with policy. Since then, the page has not been able to be developed in a meaningful way due to the constant edit warring, deletion of sourced material, and addition of unsourced material (specifically, anything mentioning Bill Clark) by User:William J. Clark. Moreover, editors and vandalism patrollers are spending an inordinate amount of time explaining policy on the talk page (see talk page thread), after which Clark goes ahead and reverts anything on the page that he doesn't agree with. Clark has a clear conflict of interest on this page, as he was involved in the formation of the Street Artists Program, and is uninterested in complying with policy or editing in a neutral manner. He must be banned from this page and this topic. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Clark claimed that he stayed at a relative's house for a while and thus explains why he edited under another IP address. On the WP:AGF principle, I think he's telling the truth. Sockpuppetry isn't my big concern - the main concern, as Yoninah said, is the edit warring and disruptive editing. He may need a topic ban, temporary or indefinite, as he has a high Conflict of Interest in the subject and persists in "Putting up the right version"; the excuse many edit warriors use. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vanja_Bulić

I am reporting the exchange between myself and User:QuackDoctor User talk:QuackDoctor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vanja_Bulić. I began in good faith, but instead of offering calm arguments for retention, he laid into me and immediately questioned my motives. When I advised him to stop, he laid into me with the whole deletionist troll routine, after which I will decline to interact with him in any other way, other than to replace the required ANI warning on his talk page. If he has arguments for retention, he should just make them and not question my motives or the motives of any other user. Safiel (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• To prevent any escalation, I will not continue the discussion on the deletion page. Safiel (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite the contrary, the editor Safiel, who has evident deletionist practice, has questioned MY motives, by accusing me of having conflict of interest about the biography of a well known Serbian author and journalist (author of several bestselers, among other things), even accusing me of being Vanja Bulic. This is clearly ad hominem attack and not assuming any good faith. He also wants to remove page about a perfectly valid and well known person (that has page on Serbian wikipedia, has written screenplays for major Serbian movies, hosted over 2000 TV shows, was editor of a major news magazine etc) that a friend of mine created as a way to experience wikipedia editing. What he experienced is major abuse, and it is extremely annoying (obviously, Safiel is now extending his abuse to me). QuackDoctor (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I notice you have gone through and reverted unrelated deletion related edits by me, without giving any substantial reason for your edit. And none of this needed to have happen. If you had merely given your reason for retaining the article and not attacked me to begin with, there would be no argument. I would have had no problems. But you choose to go personal right away. Editors have a right to propose deletion and the articles are duly considered by the community. Had you been nice, I would have thoughtfully engaged you in discussion. Instead, you immediately went personal. Safiel (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why but I think I have seen this user before? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to see a brand new editor with 30 edits using language like "deletionist". Ravensfire (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture on the profile rings a bell as well as the type of name but cant put my finger on it, I know though that this was months ago at least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• QuackDoctor's first "argument" in the AFD lacks good faith and civility, outright calling the nominator "malicious" and ignorant. The rest is just icing on the cake. At AFD you make your policy-based argument for the outcome you feel is the correct one, and move on. If you don't understand that then you should not be participating at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to say who is participating or not? Your attitude is that of turning away new contributors (and the new contributor in question is the person who created the article, not me, who have anonimously contributed from time to time for many years; certainly, the attitude towards contributing editors who are new or anonimous has changed for the worse over time, and you try to bully people out of editing, defying all advantages that existed in this project in the first place (and are sadly ruining it, as potential new editors turn away in disgust, making diversification of editor base that is missing impossible). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.252.43 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Except most new editors don't use the kind of remarks made by Quack here, FreeRange here used the words "If you don't understand" before making the last comment in which you cited which in this case is correct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not create the article, the person who did is new. You are turning him away (and bullying me too in the process). QuackDoctor (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay first I want to say how do you not see your own edits as being a "bully" to other editors? The person who created the article may be new but articles get deleted here on Wikipedia that are created by experienced editors as well, you cant and shouldn't take it personally. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the article history. The very moment it was created, it was suggested for speedy deletion. I removed the notice, and told my friend to continue editing. He did so, and learned a few things about how to do it. Then it was proposed for deletion, and then had article for deletion page, despite the fact that the article was extended (now by me) to show more of the content. Yes, articles do get deleted, but people should give it more time and some google check since the effect is that you turn away potential contributors. If you assume that every new article is some hoax (despite the very numerous google pages with news sources, albeit in Serbian), you are damaging the project. This is the real issue here, since many people get scared away in this way and never come back to edit. If my reaction was strong, it was justified. It should make people here reassess this attitude, which is not doing any good, and this is a problem that has been discussed at length here [264]. I had opportunity to see it happen with this article and a friend of mine, but I am sure it happens all the time. People who I reacted to are not going to leave the project. People like my friend, on the other hand, are not going to stay if this is how they are "welcomed". There used to be some policy about treating newcomers in the distant past but it seems it is long gone. QuackDoctor (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You do have a point, no welcome message was placed on your talkpage, the welcome message helps explain how to use Wikipedia and explains the policies. There is no justification however for being nasty towards uninvolved editors a better thing you could have done is ask for help from an editor. I want to say too that in the future try using the WP:SANDBOX or request a new article to be made at (WP:REQUEST). Before you hit submit or save you can always text a new article and see what others think about it before saving it onto Wikipedia to be seen by everyone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@QuackDoctor: Just for your benefit, I believe you were trying to remember the WP:BITE guideline which suggests to treat newcomers carefully so as not to drive them away. -- Atama頭 02:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• More of the same: Proposal is biased, from a devoted deletionist that damages wikipedia, removes valid articles about subcultures that he knows not a thing, is possibly racist and deserves some scrutiny! diff and The flag is symbol of the new republic, and it is well known. The deletionist and Ukraine breakup denialist just attempts to change history, but it will not work diff. Looks like the Doctor is here to "tell it like it is". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"It is very hostile to try to delete the article the very moment it was created. The person who created the article (as a way to come to wikipedia, and at MY invitation) was disgusted by this, and told me "I don't want to do this, this is not worth my time". That is the kind of environment you are presenting to new users. I am simply reacting to that" (Copied content from one of the AfD discussions).

@User:QuackDoctor I answered your concern above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment regarding the tag for speedy deletion. I was there when it happened, and reverted the removal of CSD tag, I then looked at the artilce and saw it was tagged immediately tagged and talked to Katieh5584 about adding No context tags right when the page is created. It was a mistake by Katieh5584 and myself that was resolved quickly. TheMesquito (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment On the basis of several good faith keep rationales by other users, I have withdrawn and closed the AfD. Had the other party behaved civilly towards me in the first place and given a good faith reasoned defense of the article, rather than attacking me, I would very likely have withdrawn the AfD then. I suggest the other party take a lesson that civility and good faith will get you a lot more cooperation of Wikipedia, than will failing to assume good faith and conducting attacks. Safiel (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the evidence [265] shows the opposite. In fact, out of his last 1000 edits, that almost exclusively consist of proposals for deletion of pages not a single proposal for deletion of an article that he suggested, Safiel closed in this way - a pretty impressive track record. A typical situation, that shows how this deletionist behaved is this [266]: Clear keep concensus (without even a single vote for deletion of Ernest Hill article), similar arguments like here (google in fact shows notability etc), but did Safiel speedy close the proposal? No, it was there for a week, until someone else closed it. The only speedy thing he did was speedy delete - A LOT. Seems like the outrage generated (by spooking deletionism turning away people) made him reconsider his ways, at least in this case it worked within a day. In any case, WP:BEFORE seems to be what was missing here, in addition to WP:BITE QuackDoctor (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That is completely wrong, the user has 9,332 edits to the mainspace or about 53.24% of his edits to Wikipedia compared to 1,086 to the Wikipedia space or 6.20% of his edits (he has more edits to the both of the Talk spaces at 3,299 and 3,188 respectively. You seriously need to stop attacking other editors with baseless claims. I would suggest an admin close this immediately before it gets any worse. TheMesquito^buzz 03:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Socking at Rosalie Abella

Blocked IP makes a legal threat and switches IP addresses. Rangeblock possible? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Not bothering to notify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the article has been semi-protected. For good measure I've range blocked 173.176.40.0/21 for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 01:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V: Thanks. I suggested a rangeblock as the original IP had other targets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article, but agree with you two that a rangeblock is a good idea, given the multiple targets. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Harrassing a New Editor User talk:Nativecultnlaw by User talk:EvergreenFir

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

---

I moved this here to let someone more experienced have a look at this. A new editor is being thrown to the wolves in my opinion. The experienced editor is very aggressive towards the new editor. Attacking new editors only discourages them. It violates the no bite of new comers and assume good faith. Because of this behavior on the parts of some editors I myself will never become a registered editor. I honestly do not know all the policies and procedures but I know when someone is being an ass. What can be done is up to you more experienced administrators. Thanks 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This clearly relates to WP:COIN#Multiple editors related to U of SD School of Law. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Frank Pommersheim

Your recent editing history at Frank Pommersheim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of the 3RR and have come no where close to it on that article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will let the evidence speak for itself; Also note it does not require 3R's to edit war.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606280411 @ 04:18 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606349505 @ 16:25 29 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427474 03:41 30 APR 2014 Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&oldid=606427517 03:42 30 APR 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.196 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@172.56.11.196: You need to read WP:3RR. EvergreenFir has done one revert and one removal of an unsourced item. The first was adding a speedy deletion tag (not a revert). The second was a revert. The third added tags (not a revert), the fourth removed an unsourced claim with significant wp:puffery. I don't see a 3RR issue. Jim1138 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct the first one was a speedy delete on an article less than 2 hours old that was being worked on by a new editor. See WP:BITE The subject is notable and due diligence was not performed. He then started a COI on the new editor 5 minutes after nominating the article for speedy delete. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nativecultnlaw#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion Scroll up to see Speedy delete. Then 12 hours later he reverted 5 edits of the same new editor on an article he wanted deleted. ??? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606292739 He then was shot down for speedy delete by User_talk:Y. He then reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&direction=next&oldid=606427246 If this was the only edit it would not be an issue. But it could appear to the new editor or a reasonable outsider that he is being stalked and harrassed. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The CSD was rightfully declined but EvergreenFir has just as much right as anyone else to revert unsourced and weakly sourced content and point out potential issues with the article. No stalking, no harassment, no need to bring this to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Content dispute and incivil behavior on Naga, Camarines Sur and Legazpi, Albay

I don't know how to start right from the very beginning, so let me begin from the moment I responded to User:P199's request to intervene.

P199 left a message at the Philippine Wikiproject talk page asking for help in an apparent content dispute between new editors. According to him, "Both articles are being edited by new editors who have an agenda to promote these competing cities. Both articles suffer greatly from WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues. Other issues include problematic references, such as references taken out of context and taken from unreliable or biased sources, to support biased claims."

I volunteered to help and I took a good look at the article, as well as that of the edits made by all involved editors and also the comments they left on various talk pages. It is the first time that I've tried reviewing both articles and, consequently, my first time to edit them. After reviewing both articles, I thought of doing some clean ups myself and began with the shorter article, that of Legazpi, Albay. After doing some edits, I moved on to the Naga, Camarines Sur article and did a little bit of cleaning up. Since the Naga article is considerably longer and since it was already past midnight in the Philippines at the time, I decided to take a break and write a message on the Naga talk page. Since I was still confused as to which of the editors are on which side, I avoided mentioning any specific user in my reply; rather, I gave reminders on policies that are relevant to the issue, and asked the involved editors to discuss their differences in a civil manner.

Hours later (or specifically, around 11 in the morning), User:Unique Albay responded to my Talk post and, among others, said that:

• I wasn't neutral in my post ("even if your post seeks neutrality, it doesn't appear to be such" / "This alone creates serious doubt as to your neutrality");
• he took great concerns over the article for the simple fact that he lives in the Philippines' Bicol Region, where both cities are located ("I am crying foul because my beloved city was vandalized, over and over again." / "As a Bicolano and as a resident of this region, I know all too well which are true and which are false! Again, I have time and time again said that I am all here for truth and nothing else.");
• and that I was being unfair in that I applied most of my edits at that point to Legazpi, but not to Naga.

Realizing that I overlooked this last point, I said in my next reply that it was already already too late in the evening for me at the time, so I decided to just leave the message first and call it a night, and come back to editing the articles the next day. I also mentioned the following points:

• I reminded him that as Wikipedia is a community project, no single user has ownership (or at least can claim entitlement on solo editing) of a Wikipedia article; and
• edits that introduce new information must be accompanied by proper citations (he restored an edit with a comment that the information he's restoring is referenced, but the restored edits did not cite a specific source);

Not happy with my response, he came back with another reply---with a new section heading titled "Tito Pao's Double Standards"---and said that:

• he still doubts my neutrality;
• the issue of article ownership is irrelevant since he did not bring it up;
• I "tolerated" edit warring (I'd like to note, though, that I did mention earlier that edit-warring should be avoided; it was P199 who actually described the situation as "edit-warring" when he left his notice in WT:TAMBAY;
• he provided sources in Legazpi and yet why did I let other edits in Naga remain unsourced; and
• he also edited his User page to provide more information about himself.

It seemed to me that he did not address some of the concerns I raised in my first reply, so on my next reply, I said that:

• he hasn't pointed out any clear bias on my part, other than the fact that I edited Legazpi first and hasn't come back to Naga;
• anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all edits will almost lead to edit wars;
• I didn't like it that he insinuated that since I stepped in, I have neglected the Naga article, short of him saying that I have full responsibility for cleaning it up. I pointed out that he, too, can clean up the Naga article if he so wishes, and it's not just me who "should" clean it up;
• what may be "undisputed knowledge" to him may not necessarily be "undisputed" for most Wikipedia readers or editors, hence the need to cite sources;
• and more importantly, with regard to WP:OWN, this:

2. It does matter, because in at least one instance, you were asking an admin to block another editor for "vandalism" because of an edit he made in the Legazpi, Albay article (although an admin did respond to your vandalism complaint in WP:AIV and ruled that the "vandal" edits you complained about were not vandal edits). You even said in your Talk page comment, "There is too much vandalism coming from that city for some odd reason only few people know. However, I could not reveal what their intentions and purposes are. I am only here to restructure the wiki page of Legazpi, which is badly-damaged by some people with evil intentions."

I don't know---and I don't care and I don't even want to know---what those reasons are, but by bringing that up in the talk page, it seems to me that your only intention for signing up for a registered account in Wikipedia is to focus on editing only the Legazpi, Albay article for a specific reason that you care so much about, and protect it against unwanted edits that do not satisfy you. In other words...it appears that you want to take ownership of the article. Are you trying to tell me that because of some particular reason, you're the only person qualified to edit the Legazpi, Albay article? Was it really necessary to stress that most other people who would edit the Legazpi City article have "evil intentions"?

I must admit that those were pretty strong words on my part (and I'm ready to take a hit for saying it that way), but I felt it necessary to support it with diffs, hoping that he would at least explain why he took that course of action. I also asked why there was a need to bring up his personal circumstances, as I don't see a reason why it would matter in the content dispute.

Instead, what I got was this reply, with the following points raised:

• I am not competent to edit the Naga or Albay articles;
• the edits other people made were politically motivated;
• he still reiterated that I should just spend time editing the article to settle the issues surrounding it instead of reminding him of Wikipedia policies; and
• (in his own words) "Re last par.: I hope you have read the complete version of the article. But I should just assume that you have. I am quite surprised to know though that you do not recognize its relevance. I will give you more time to realize the relevance of competence, knowledge, and personal background to the editing of articles on an ENCYCLOPEDIA"

At that point, I was already exasperated with the tone and manner of his replies, so I left one last message on the Naga talk page, to wit:

• I pointed out his insistence on putting the entire burden of cleaning up the Naga article, when he could have also cleaned it up himself;
• I also pointed out that he claims he is not assuming bias on my part, yet the words he chose does that;
• I also mentioned that the way he worded his replies (and by telling me that I am "not competent enough" to edit anything related to the Bicol Region) could provide a potential conflict of interest situation on his part (e.g. something like "I'm from Bicol, I know Bicol more than anyone else, so I'm the only person competent enough to edit Naga and Legazpi and you're not because you're not Bicolano"; also probably implied by what he wrote in his User page).

(I don't know if this might matter, but...I've never been in either Naga or Legazpi, and neither am I related to anyone living there. So there.)

You may notice that I have mentioned just this piece of correspondence between me and Unique Albay, but I haven't even mentioned events that came before it. May I present to you the following relevant links on the matter, mostly with what came before I stepped in this issue:

Article histories

• Naga
• Legazpi City

in the Article Talk namespace

• [267]
• [268]

in the User Talk namespace

• [269]
• [270]
• [271]

To be honest, I would have wanted to just move on and leave the matter to rest, but I think it would be better if other administrators can look into this matter and help resolve it. I don't think, given the circumstances, there's anything more I can help with the issue, unfortunately. I leave it up to the admins at this point.--- Tito Pao (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

TBH I'm not that sure on how to settle this, either. But seeing how insistent Unique Albay is in spite of being caught red-handed something needs to be done. I can be rude-mouthed at times if you ask me, but keeping a cool head on such matters should always be a first option rather than cussing and/or name-calling fellow editors like what you did to Tito Pao. If you don't agree with me or Pao, fine, but remember we have policies here, and based on what you stated on the articles' respective talk pages, as well as your user page, it seems apparent that you're pushing something. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. When did I cuss?

2. When did I name-call?

3. What are the instances?

4. What are my violations?

Unique Albay (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Let us settle this once and for all. I am sorry Tito Pao that I have been so harsh on you but let me clarify though that I have neither cussed nor called you names. Please review everything we have discussed. If you see one portion where I did any of those, please point them out to me because I have never done any of those in my life nor will I ever do them for the rest of my life.

2. I have been so harsh on you because I could not believe you would resort to excuses like "having no time, etc etc." I have told you that if you are trying to solve or settle issues (here on Wiki, and wherever you may go), you should not only be neutral but also appear to be neutral. Appearance of neutrality is just as important as being neutral. You may not see this on the Wiki policies. However, I am currently working in the legal system and we settle controversies/disputes on a daily basis. It is a must that anybody who wishes to settle disputes/controversies must be beyond taint of bias. That means, the arbitrator or whoever settles the issues as a neutral party must not only be neutral but also appear to be neutral. Why? Because it creates trust and confidence on the neutral party. I feel like even if you try to seek a neutral point, it is not enough. Even if you say you are from somewhere else and you do not even have connections to Bicol, I could not easily believe that. We are all anonymous here so sandboxes are not easy to believe in. I have not known you nor never met you. From my point of view, you are just some stranger whose background I do not know. Neutrality can never be shown by some assertions made by the person who claims to be neutral. It must be accompanied by outward acts.

3. The competence I meant was for settling the issues via posting some ground rules. Lack of competence was due to lack of neutrality or prudence to appear neutral. I did not mean to say you are not competent from editing. This was what I said: "You are not competent enough to try to attempt to settle these issues."[272] There is a big difference between the two. They belong to different dimensions. Sure you can do some editing if you want, nobody stops you but to settle the issues is another issue.

4. Re your statement, "I pointed out his insistence on putting the entire burden of cleaning up the Naga article, when he could have also cleaned it up himself." >> I do not wish to clean it up for fear of being charged of edit warring. Hence, I have only edited it once. After my edits were undone, I just voiced myself up in the talk page and accompanied my statements with references/citations.

5. Re your statement, "I also mentioned that the way he worded his replies (and by telling me that I am "not competent enough" to edit anything related to the Bicol Region) could provide a potential conflict of interest situation on his part (e.g. something like "I'm from Bicol, I know Bicol more than anyone else, so I'm the only person competent enough to edit Naga and Legazpi and you're not because you're not Bicolano"; also probably implied by what he wrote in his User page)." Again, what I meant by lack of competence was lack of neutrality or at least lack of prudence to appear neutral.

6. Re "conflict of interest(e.g. something like "I'm from Bicol, I know Bicol more than anyone else, so I'm the only person competent enough to edit Naga and Legazpi and you're not because you're not Bicolano"; also probably implied by what he wrote in his User page):" >> I have never said that. It was taken out of context. Oh, here's my user page anyway: [273]. I didn't say any of those statements on my user page. However, I am of firm belief that residents' POV are not necessarily unreliable because they have been part and parcel of the community/ies they belong to. They have witnessed the events that unfolded in their places. They have traveled throughout their respective places. They have witnessed the different parts of the cities/provinces, etc. It is not necessarily unreliable. But I would not go so far as to say that they are infallible. There is a big difference between the two. Neither would I go so far as to claim that residents are the only ones competent enough to make edits. I have never said anything to that effect.

8. Re taint of bias: I have already mentioned this from the very very start. Tito Pao, if you are looking for any incident that taints your neutrality, please look into my very first reply to you. This has gotten very tiring already. You have even admitted that you have "overlooked this last point" referring to your admission that you have not "edited the Naga Page." The act of not editing the Naga Page is one incident that taints your neutrality. Your reason for not editing the Naga Page has become moot and academic now because two days has passed and nothing has changed. You may still be neutral, but judging from the outward acts you have made, I am not going to make a conclusion but I have reason to doubt.

9. All this brouhaha would have never gotten this big had Tito Pao made a disclaimer from the start or at least not to cite instances which are all coming from one side only, or maybe provide a good excuse, or he could have waited until he has already thoroughly checked both pages. My only problem is not competence to "edit" but competence to "solve the issues."

10. Mine: I couldn't see what the admins replied to my report at all. I have looked at the article page of Vandalism but everything is gone now. Also, when I compared my edit to the last edit, there's no mention at all of any response. Hence, there seems to be either no response or it was hidden. Be it noted, further, that I have used the link Tito Pao provided. I highlighted this part to emphasize that there is no way I would be able to know how I could respond to whatever response the admins have for my report.

11. Lastly, for everybody's peace of mind, we should just move on. I will not think that Tito Pao is not neutral anymore. But please, the very reason why I am having a problem with him is his inability to impress on me a sense of neutrality.

I rest my case.Unique Albay (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the bits in the ref tag so they show. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Old Great Bulgaria and related articles POV-pushing

99.33.211.25 (talk · contribs) has been engaged over the past few days in pushing a peculiar POV/OR version on articles related to the Bulgars (Old Great Bulgaria, Togarmah, Asen dynasty, Kubrat etc). His typical MO includes arbitrary and unexplained, let alone unreferenced, changes in dates, identities of peoples and tribes, the forms of personal or ethnic names, along with rants at relevant talk pages of the complete gibberish variety. Thw same IP account has been engaged in the same sort of activity over at the Bulgarian versions of these articles as well, where he also has been reverted. His talk page is littered with warnings and he has been repeatedly reverted, and blocked a few days ago for 24h with a quite clear explanation of the reasons, but keeps on in the same spirit right after being unblocked. Given the really poor level of English this user displays, there is little hope of a constructive discussion and change of attitude here. Constantine ✍ 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for another 72 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Coolie

Short and sweet. Could someone uninvolved keep an eye on coolie or perhaps explain why a large number of recent semi-random editors (mostly IPs) seem determined to crudely remove any instances of the word "slave" or "slavery" from it? This doesn't look like an on-wiki content dispute, and it's being done so poorly as to break bits of the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect it's the same user (Richey90211), whom I've warned and notified of this discussion. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've semi'ed it - probably best that everyone edit with named accounts on the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso violating his IBAN

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

---

Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) and MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) were placed under a mutual interaction ban on April 18 [274]

Six hours later he violated the ban by mentioning MaxBrowne and the "narcissist" comment [275], he was cautioned by Doc9871 [276]

He has continued bringing up MaxBrowne's "narcissist" comment twice in an ANI thread above. First on April 28, then again on April 30. Interaction bans prohibit the affected users to "reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". On the face, the latter two edits are direct complaints against The Bushranger (talk · contribs) for not calling "classic narcissist" a personal attack, but they are also clear references to the conflict he had with MaxBrowne and his conduct, something that the interaction ban was implemented to stop.

For violation of the interaction ban despite the caution, I propose a block of 24 hours at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who should be sanctioned, admin Sjakkalle, for attempting to turn something into something it is not. (Something = admin Bushranger's credibility identifying what is or isn't PA, into something I've been very careful to avoid in compliance with the referred-to IBAN.) I admit I made an out-of-compliance reference initially, but corrected that mistake in good-faith immediately. Your opening this ANI is clearly a hostile and bad-faith intentional misinterpretation to carry out your aggresive agenda against me, and that kind of hostile move is not becoming of admin, and, I think you know that. (Your complaint should be on AN board anyway, not ANI, and I think you know that, too. But ANI is infamous for it's mud-throwing cesspool nature, and I suppose that was your first choice, huh!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And as long as you have publicized things here, I would like to survey any responders whether they do or don't think if they were called on Wikipedia a "classic narcissist" that it would quality as a PA or not. (But I don't need to hear from you on the matter, Sjakkalle, because you already opined that being called such a name is simply "not helpful". [And I likewise don't need to hear from admin DangerousPanda on the matter, since his response was "So what if you're a narcissist?" And I *especially* don't need to hear from admin The Bushranger on the matter, since he has already made clear he thinks said name-call is not a personal attack [and in fact on my user Talk, wrote that the name-call was not a PA but merely "calling a spade a spade", essentially making the same name-call himself, against this reg editor/me! {Is that admin-worthy assessment and comment??}] Not to mention that said admin ignored said name-call, but *blocked* me when I made a baited response, for [you guessed it!] "personal attack".) Pinch me, is this site real, or am I writing in a live comic book in a dream?? (How high on the abusive wall do you admins want to climb, anyway?!) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else you don't want to hear from? Perhaps you might want to think about it while you're sitting out your soon-to-be-coming block for so obviously and egregiously violating your IBAN? BMK (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

He obviously does not understand what an IBAN is and/or does not believe it matters, I would agree with a block to show that the admins are serious. TheMesquito^buzz 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I could see the first comment being a blatant violation of the IBAN. However, the following diffs where they bring up that comment, I would not call a violation. The "classic nascissist" comment is being used as a very big stick to flog a very dead horse and quite frankly rather than being worthy of a sanction, it's only worthy of pity. It's pitiful that IHTS can't let go of their grudge and has to chew it over and over like mouthfuls of stale vomit. It's pitiful that they attempt to place themselves as the centre of attention in threads that have utterly nothing to do with them. If anything, IHTS's pattern of behaviour is proving the truth in the comment that they take such umbrage at and it's really pitiful that they don't see it. Blackmane (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I think, Ihardlythinkso. I think calling someone a narcissist is a personal attack, it quite clearly fits the definition at WP:NPA. Having said that, it's known that bringing up that term is a reference to MaxBrowne, and asking whether or not it's an attack is an indirect criticism of someone you are not allowed to reference per your interaction ban. I don't call it blatant enough for a block at this point but don't do it anymore, or I will block you if no one else does. -- Atama頭 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ihardlythinkso does not need "confirmation" that the original statement about being a "classic narcissist" was a personal attack - the original AN/ANI discussion that led to the IBAN clearly specified that the statement was inappropriate but based on severity, expectations of recidivism, the fact that further action on the comment was going to be punishment not prevention, MaxBrowne CLEARLY understood the warning over that kind of name-calling in the future. In fact, MaxBrowne directly accepted the IBAN without further discussion. I repeat: MaxBrowne was warned to not repeat. The "narcissist" situation was CLOSED as actionned appropriately based on circumstances. Now, IHTS's comment above is clearly taking things out of context in order to ratchet up the rhetoric. Although I don't recall saying "so what if you're a narcissist", the context of the statement was not "you're" as in "him" ... it was a generic "so what if anybody is a narcissist". I mean, I'm OCD...so what?. In the long run, IHTS is guilty of flogging the horse so bad that he's now got to be blocked for violating the IBAN - there's little option here the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

New SPA replacing academic material with his own personal commentary in several articles

Self-admitted SPA Tenzinwestcoast (who says he has "spent the last 18 years practicing Kadampa Buddhism") is replacing academic material with his own personal commentary in several articles. Heicth (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A few diffs would be helpful here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Diffs aren't needed, they only have 15 total edits and all look problematic. And, as someone pointed out, their style, timing and choice of articles is so remarkably like the blocked editor User:Truthsayer62, that it seems unlikely it is a coincidence. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In 2008, Truthsayer62 claimed to have 14 years experience, this new editor claims to have 20 years experience 6 years later (compare their user pages). That combined with the other evidence Dennis Brown gave above is enough for me to call this a sockpuppet per WP:DUCK. I'm blocking. -- Atama頭 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted a second opinion, but I was thinking it was quacking pretty loud as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just as a request, even when it's a clearly quacking duck, please pop the block notice onto the pages? Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A puzzling editor

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

---

An IP editor initiated a page move request at Lynx (spacecraft), an article I've had my eye on for some time due to the high number of links directing traffic to a commercial website, in this case that of the craft's builder XCOR.

There is nothing wrong with a long-term editor choosing to use an IP address rather than establish an account. It is rare, but it happens. Likewise, an established editor may sometimes be logged out and make an edit or two before logging back in. It happens. However, on checking this editor's contributions, I noticed the IP address was first used a week ago, beginning a week of solid editing, including many strings of edits a minute or so apart, each one showing the skill and knowledge of an experienced editor. I raised this on the talk page, asking if there was any explanation available. The editor has responded, but given no explanation of what's going on and what other accounts they have used.

Is anyone able to come up with an explanation of what's going on? I'm not - yet - making any suggestions of improper behaviour. It's just, well, odd. --Pete (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As Skyring/Pete says, there's nothing wrong with editing with an IP address. So I fail to see why he's claiming "unbelievable history" and "paid editing", as he himself says there are editors who edit with IP addresses longterm. He also said in the discussion, that my edits didn't seem wrong either. It seems he himself already has explanations. Dynamic IP address allocation will change IP addresses, so it isn't very surprising to start an IP address history with knowledgeable edits either. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The explanation is simple: some editors prefer not to have accounts. This is simply more bad faith with regards to this subject from Pete, who refuses to drop the stick that the Lynx article is somehow promotional. This statement, especially, is the complete opposite of AGF. I'd advise Pete to look out for the WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The bigger question is "are any of their actions problematic?" Is the move request a reasonable one, even if some will disagree or agree? Is the behavior problematic? Some people leave/retire, but then come back as an IP and do some small things. That really isn't sockpuppetry. To be socking, there has to be "abuse", ie: overlapping edits where they are voting twice in the same discussion, or two accounts in an edit war to prevent one from going over WP:3RR. Are they a banned or blocked user? Maybe, but unless there is abuse or something that points to a specific user, and as long as their edits are "normal", then we have to assume good faith. Maybe keep an eye on, but assume good faith. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of bringing a case to ANI of an IP editor who is editing well and not being disruptive. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ahunt. You suggested WP:SPI but I don't know the base or previous account of this editor, so I chose this route, looking for clarification. I note the IP editor has now suggested - but not stated - that dynamic IP address allocation is involved. If this is the case, then perhaps it could be stated and the previous IP addresses noted? My concern is that Wikipedia is being used here to direct traffic to a commercial enterprise, as opposed to industry news outlets and government sources. It would be helpful if the IP editor was more forthcoming. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, bringing this to ANI is jumping the gun a bit, wouldn't you say? AN/I is for pressing issues that require quick administrator intervention. I understand Pete tried to discuss this with the editor on the article talk page, but this is something that should be discussed with the user themselves on their talk page first, which from the looks of it Pete hasn't done yet. Honestly, good editing shouldn't be cause for suspicion (as I myself came in prepared, having been on Wikia for a while before editing Wikipedia) but Pete throwing around accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence and taking them to AN/I before the usual methods of Dispute Resolution shows bad faith. If you have a problem with the page being renamed, discuss it on the talk page, not the editor who propsed it. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As linked above, I discussed this with the editor on the article talk page. Their evasions prompted me to seek further input. Happy to take this discussion to a more suitable location. --Pete (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Pete, what you are asking for is a fishing expedition. If there isn't a problem, there isn't anything to investigate. SPI would be a bad idea, and when I was a clerk I would have just closed it without action. If there is no abuse, there is nothing to investigate and it will just make you look like you are forum shopping. This is nothing but suspicion, bordering on paranoia. If any of the sources are problematic, replace them, but we can't take action for what someone might do in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What I'm asking for is a reasonable explanation of some very odd behaviour. People don't just come in out of the blue and make a string of skilled edits and then refuse to disclose any previous history. That's just weird. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes they do, even if it isn't as common as having a registered account. Again, you are wanting us to take a situation where there is no evidence of bad behavior, and find some bad behavior (socking, etc.). That is the de facto definition of a fishing expedition. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited for months using a series of random IP's that were given to me by my old ISP every couple of days. So my first edits under an account were reasonable quality. Not sure why Pete sees this entire situation as something fishy ... WP:AGF is a key around here the panda ₯’ 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are many IP editors. But generally they are happy to admit - as you just did - their previous experience. Not to worry. I think this bloke is a sockpuppet of some sort but I won't take it any further now. I'll just keep digging. Thanks for the assistance, and this can probably be closed now. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

National Library of Pakistan

National Library of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I have been trying to add and review items for the National Library of Pakistan and it appears that a contributor named Smsarmad uses a dire threat of copyright violation to remove content..then reports me as a vandal. There is nothing wrong with content I have added. it is referenced and not copied. Can someone explain to Smsarmad that his reporting of me as a vandal is bullying behavior. He has no right to "watch" the library site and remove content with a made up accusation of copyright violation. I have no special interest in Pakistan as I am a librarian who wants all libraries to have good Wikipedia entries..so if Smsarmad is thinking there is some issue here related to Pakistan, this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooksky (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

editor uses foul language and even resorts to homophobic insult, "fag"

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

---

Editor I3roly undoes revision using foul language ("bullshitting") and gratuitous insults (e.g., "econfag"), in direct violation of WP:PA. See revision 606552252 and corresponding summary (23:48 April 30th) on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Statistical_learning_theory&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jala Daibajna (talk • contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

i stand by comments. this guy thinks he has the right to insult a very high breed of mathematics for his own benefit. how dare he. do you know what it takes to do SLT? i don't think you do, rookie. instead you pop data into weka and think you're a master. you're nothing. shut your mouth. to the editors: i challenge you, as recreational scientists, to explain to me the validity or applicability of high pedigree mathematics (SLT) to "economic physics". it is an insult. i would consider myself quite proficient in this area and find your attempt to relate us to your garbage as extremely offensive. stop it. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I3roly (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked For being a giant homophobic dick as well as a few vandalism edits which should've earned a block awhile ago.--v/r - TP 04:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

More IBAN violations by Ihardlythinkso

Again Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) violates both the letter and the spirit of the IBAN by continually referencing the "narcissist" comment. [277].
Note also his behaviour on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Shogi, where his posts made clear references to me and my actions. This proposal for a new WikiProject had lain dormant for months; why did he suddenly feel compelled to post a whole lot of inflammatory stuff immediately after I posted there? This wasn't picked up in the recently closed thread but it should have been. Does this IBAN actually have any teeth or is he just going to be "warned" again so that he can continue with his unacceptable behaviour? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the appropriate venue for these kinds of concerns is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GeneralNarcissism (AN/GN)? That might apply to about half the threads here. Anyway. Carry on. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)