Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853

Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Assistance from one or more Admins and any experienced editors is requested with issues related to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (yes there is such a thing). Short synopsis; we have an editor who has created around 160 articles, and almost all of the ones we have looked at so far have major problems. We over at the tin foil hat noticeboard are sending out an SOS. Any help is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose a Topic-Ban on New Articles in Article Space

I propose that this editor be topic-banned from creating new articles in article space (rather than via the AFC review process), since he or she is cluttering article space with a large number of articles that need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Holy crap batman--v/r - TP 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The combination of refusal to communicate with other editors, fringe topics (need less on here, not more) and the obvious vast amounts of original research. Their intent does not seem to be malicious, but they've chosen the wrong platform. All this belongs in their blog. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support seems pretty obvious that these articles need to go through AfC and that the user isn't willing to do that without some strong handed encouragement. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment/Question How will this go any better at WP:AFC? Some of the articles appear to me, a non expert in Hindu material, to be potentially direct translations form a worthy book or set of texts. I am wondering whether it might not be 'our' problem that 'we' cannot understand them easily as submissions in clearer English. A comment from an experienced, perhaps immersed, editor would be relevant to this discussion before moving to a draconian apparent remedy. For example, if they be direct translations or quotations from learned texts then we should, surely, treat them in an identical manner to other such texts an the editor should be granted the same courtesies as are extended to editors creating articles in other faiths/disciplines.

This material is arcane, certainly, but is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles? If proper then there is no issue save for our understanding the material. If improper then remedies are already available to you, ranging from deletion through to blocking the editor. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles?" Yes, in the way it is written. It presents material from Hindu astrology as uncontested fact. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: A host of reasons: 1) AFC space isn't indexed by search engines, 2) AFCs arn't searched by our search bar without going to more advanced options, 3) AFCs can be deleted easier by CSD guidelines, 4) Editors in AFC space review it before the first 2 things limitations get removed, 5) AFC has a giant "THIS IS A DRAFT" banner.--v/r - TP 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is not proper for the articles to be here, and I suspected it was not for the reasons stated by AndyTheGrump, might the correct route not be a bulk AfD? If it is not proper then AFC is not the place for them either, surely? I come back to my thoughts that one does not need extraordinary measures to deal with this. I have never heard of a topic ban against creation of new mainspace articles and I feel intellectually against it for a great many reasons. Fiddle Faddle 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am cementing and formalising my opinion as a firm Oppose. I have made a asmall edit to my original text, adding the word "clearer" as a modifier for "English"Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Timtrent (Fiddlefaddle). Look at this revision of Rasasvada, for example, which Aditya soni had created, and nobody else had edited it except one editor adding a single cleanup tag. It's quite difficult to read and understand, but that's because I'm completely unfamiliar with Indian philosophy; the article appears to have solid sources, and the difficult-to-understand comes partly from the author's way of writing, which makes me suspect that the author isn't fluent in English. As a result, I can form only two conclusions: either it's a decent article on a specialised topic, warranting only some wording cleanup, or its problems are profound enough that only a specialist can understand them. Neither one warrants the ban that's proposed here: if it's a decent article, we shouldn't sanction the guy, and if a specialist is required, the article will sail straight through AFC because people over there aren't specialists in Indian philosophy — AFC is good for filtering problems that anyone can understand, not things like this. Either levy no sanctions at all, or prohibit creation through AFC as well; if the nominator were to remove the AFC creation option, I would be neutral. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In the very first section, he has it entirely based on a primary source, Second Quantization (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as much too broad. If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I do not think the editor in question is being malicious here. But whether intentionally or not, the serious problems with so many of these articles is creating an enormous amount of work for everyone else. The FTN Board is not exactly one of the more well traveled ones and we just don't have enough regulars to deal with well over a hundred suspect articles. (Sometimes we are stretched to handle even normal posts and issues that pop up.) Beyond which the editor's refusal to engage with the community and take some advice on board or show some regard for standards and consensus makes it almost impossible not to see more problems down the road without the new article creation ban. In short, I support the ban because I believe that without it we are going to continue to see the creation of questionable articles on a scale that will further severely tax the limited resources of the community to fix or delete. I am still trying to come up with a sane way of dealing with 160 articles that need to be checked and possibly deleted or mass migrated somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changing position to Oppose based on compelling arguments from several editors, as well as closer examination of the editor's record by Salimfadhley, whose judgment I trust, and who concluded the issues are likely not as widespread or serious as initially thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mixed view here. This seems like good content and it seems clear that the user knows a lot about Hindu astrology. The real problem here is that the articles themselves are badly written. Readers of WP should not have to be experts in Hindu astrology to get through even a single paragraph, but that's kind of the issue we have here. I think this user's material and knowledge are valuable but the articles he is making should spend some time in userspace being edited a bit. It doesn't have to be perfect by any means, but it has to at least look like it was written in English. Would anyone be available to help mentor or copy-edit this content? I can do some work with the grammar myself but I would like someone (perhaps from Wikiproject Mythology, Wikiproject Hinduism, or Wikiproject Astrology) to help out since they might have familiarity with the information and can offer more direct constructive criticism. Alicb (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - A ban from creating new articles related to this topic might give this editor an opportunity to improve the existing articles to a point where they meet the WP:NFRINGE standard. I would prefer this than to have to manually review the hundreds of articles on this subject. My greater concern is that this editor feels that this subject (Hindu Astrology) is somehow exempt from the normal rules that govern articles about religious topics in Wikipedia. As a result we have over a hundred pages most of which would never have got past AFC review, this is a prime example [1]. The comment about Einstein in the lede is an automatic 5 on the Crackpot Index. Let's not allow articles about Hinduism to be of lower quality than articles about other religions. If editors were writing such blatant gobbledygook about Christianity or Judaism I think we'd be quick to delete it. I think we need to be consistent in our standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you think this would get stopped at AFC? It appears to have decent sourcing, and to someone unfamiliar with the subject, the only problem is the comparatively poor English. Most people at AFC are totally ignorant of Hinduism and other Indian philosophy (not complaining; I am too), so if an article's not badly sourced, they have no reason to object to it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regular AFC reviewers tend to have sufficient clue to recognize when to call upon subject specialists from relevant WikiProjects for assistance. Such requests for help are routinely done for drafts about highly technical, arcane or obscure subjects that are hard for non-specialists to evaluate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't take an expert in Hindu Astrology to realise that it wasn't "an evil and ruinous yoga" that made Einstein perform poorly in his studies, Second Quantization (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, definitely. Miniapolis 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I do not know where to begin from.

I started my exercise of creating new pages by first locating the most important and relevant topics that had not been earlier dealt with by any contributor, and having done that one by one I took up those topics, worked on them and created the pages on Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology, the subjects that are known to me. Nowhere have I expressed my own thoughts or done original research; I have based all information included therein as has been available to me online and in the texts that are in my possession which texts also find an online mention. I never thought my well-intentioned efforts would one day cause the kind of problem they have. As an ardent follower of Indian philosophy I was merely obeying the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. Knowledge is the light that reveals the true nature of things and removes ignorance; knowledge purifies the mind, that mind which involves all human beings in duality to suffer the pangs of pleasure and pain. It seems I have failed in this task for I have not been able to convey properly.

Friends, I am not a preacher and I am also not a teacher set in the mold of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Ramana, Varahamihira, Vaidyanatha or Kalidasa. I am an ordinary human being. Philosophy and astrology are difficult subjects to handle. This I know. They are all the more difficult for those who do not know these subjects. Where to begin from I simply do not know. It was long ago said – "they do not know who know, those who do not know, know" - which paradoxical situation will always remain due to the limitations affecting our thoughts and acts.

It has been nice meeting you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I think that you are making a lot of useful contributions of information that is badly needed on Wikipedia. There are a few concerns with language that I think we can address but as long as you provide the sources for the information that you provide (either a link to a website or the names/page numbers of print texts) then that should be good enough for other editors to work on. It may be time to call on the users at Wikiproject Hinduism to take a hand in working on these articles. Alicb (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alicb, no information in my 160 odd articles is without a direct reference to the source. I have dutifully provided the relevant links to the websites, given the names of the books, their authors and page numbers. I have neither promoted myself nor anyone else. There is no problem with the language either, because as far as is possible I have used the same words and expression that has been used by the authors of those very books and articles. Why should there be a problem in accessing those sources, I fail to understand. Moreover, there is already talk of difficulty in handling 100 odd intended AFDs pertaining to the pages I have created, doubt has also been raised about the ability of the editors who had reviewed those pages, and to top it all, my efforts have been termed as utter non-sense and a hoax and therefore already stand summarily dismissed. Then, I do not understand why so much time and effort is now being wasted just to prove my efforts are a bunch of trash. Even if all 160 pages are deleted I stand to lose nothing at all since I have already gained a great deal by way of revision of my knowledge while writing these pages, which revision has served as my Upasana (contemplation). And I am sure some readers must have also gained and improved their knowledge. Through your agency I request for the charade that is being presently played out to end, it is sickening to say the least. Already some very harsh and bad words have been used belittling my efforts, the kind of words I never use; that is enough, there should not be any more of it. There should not be any further delay in deleting my 160 odd articles. I hope you will speak on my behalf and have all 160 pages created by me deleted soon. After the requested deletion is done I shall quit Wikipedia and enjoy my liberation. Nice knowing you.Aditya soni (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• • the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. There is a beautiful passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad (in the ninth Anuvaka) dealing with this. Learn and pass on the knowledge. That is what Wikipedia is about. That is what humanity is all about. But we cannot present the Vedas here without presenting them in the correct (for Wikipedia) form. In the Western phrase, we do not cast pearls before swine, for they will not, cannot understand. More work is needed to aid understanding. For those that are willing. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Fiddle Faddle/Tim.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fiddle Faddle/Tim. As a side note, talking about tin foil hats in this context should be blockable. --John (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any substantial problem here. It looks like Aditya soni is doing a pretty good job with the sources though a little more explanatory detail in some of the articles would be helpful. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

[2]: They are claiming in wikipedias tone that Einstein did poorly because he had a bad horoscope, and claims that anyone with this horoscope has "has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious". Please explain how this is a "pretty good job", Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

super strong support; unless those "opposing" actually pull their fingers out and hold this editor's hand through the process. However, I feel Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE, and it requires its competent editors to be editing competently rather than holding the hands of someone who cannot write a coherent sentence in the forlorn hope that something might be salvageable from the inevitable mess. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Barney, the editor seems to me to have written some very coherent sentences, right here, in this thread. Better, grammatically, than some of the comments from native English speakers on this page, and certainly better than I could do in a language that may not be native to me. Sure, there are problems with English in some of the articles - it's complex content, with difficult translation issues, I'm sure, and it seems it may need someone to help him work through those issues (if he's still willing). It's probably important that he stops adding new articles until that can be worked through, to keep things manageable. Seems we may need someone who is familiar with the subject matter, and that's obviously not you or me. Maybe nobody will come forward to do that. If they do, I suggest it's not up to you or me to tell them how they should volunteer their time. Speaking of which - I thank Aditya soni for the substantial time he has so far donated in an attempt to create and share this content, and I hope we can help clear up any issues. Begoon ^talk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sort of "ban" at this stage, for clarity, per my comments above, in case anyone is "!counting". (Sad reflection on us, in my very humble opinion, that we leap straight into a "ban" vote after one line of non discussion, then try to hold the discussion we should have already had within the !vote. I hope I'm never subjected to that, and I suspect we all hope that for ourselves.) Begoon ^talk 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment, Just to clarify - nobody is proposing a 'permaban'. Nobody is proposing to wholesale delete 160 articles which are obviously the result of hard work and research. Some of us are asking this editor to cool it, and respect the norms of notability and sourcing on Wikipedia. I note that at least four of Aditya soni's recently created articles on Hindu Astrology are all subject to AFCs for broadly the same set of reasons: Incomprehensible articles on ultra-niche that are loaded with WP:OR and rely on unreliable occult/esoteric sources. This editor has not yet pledged to do anything differently even in light of the considerable attention criticism in AFD discussions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Observation: Today I was glad to note that an esteemed editor had approached one page i.e.Rasasvada, with the intention of improving it. But just see what he has done. He has deleted the entire section – "Obstacles to Samadhi and their removal", in which part I have cited Sanskrit passages from Vedantasara that provide definition of the term – "Rasasvada" – in the context of Advaita Vedanta and are the basic reason as to why I decided to create this page. The editor in good faith has extracted the very heart from the body of this essay and killed it. The reason he gives is that the passage is original research based on ancient source. Three drawbacks are evident – 1) the editor does not know Sanskrit language, 2) he does not know who Sadananda was, and 3) he has never read the work of Sadananda titled Vedantasara belonging to mid-15th century, which systemizes Sankara’s Advaita philosophy. Since then, this work has been translated and commented upon by many learned savants. I chose to cite from the translation and commentary by Swami Nikhilananda which was first published in 1931 and which translation and commentary is available online, the reprint I possess is of a recent date. I have conducted no original research.Aditya soni (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UserAditya soni, I believe that you are acting in good faith, hence any bans or threats of bans may be unwarranted in your case. I have reviewed your older articles and found some of your work on Hinduism and Buddhism in general to be of good quality and potentially useful. I remain concerned about recently created articles such as Trikasthanas (astrology) which as I have previously stated are incomprehensible and fail to articulate any kind of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. None of the sources I was able to verify appear to be particularly important or reliable. None of the sources I could verify seem to deal with the subject matter in any significant depth. The reason I am pointing this out is not to criticize your scholarship, but to encourage you to apply your considerable intellect to an appreciation of Wikipedia's rules. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• support I have mixed feelings about this, but I think in the end something has to be done about in the form of review and guidance. To some degree my issues with the Hindu terminology articles can be ascribed to my lack of familiarity with the material, but I also get the impression that a lot of what I'm reading is slight paraphrasing of near-to-primary source material. It's rather as if our articles on Judaica were constructed from reworded passages of the gemara. It's not an appropriate approach to a general interest encyclopedia. The astrology articles are worse, bordering on incoherency. I've said over and over again that we need people who know the material to write these Indian articles, but the articles need to be actually readable too. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I was still weighing this one up and believed the editor in question could turn over a new leaf until this comment which is just completely at odds with how WP works and suggest the editor just doesn't get it. An editor has no place here if they refuse to participate in discussion, especially about their own problematic editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Friends, I have already stated that I chose Wikipedia to share, with all those who are willing to know, the knowledge that I had fortunately gained through the intensive study of numerous scriptures and texts, guided by a Guru. For more than two long years I waited and kept on waiting for some good soul to turn up so as to help me improve and expand the contents I had posted. No one turned up. You will agree that most editors who are so very vocal in professing extension of aid, guidance etc., when they do appear on the scene come out with all their guns blazing, firing at will all ammunition that are in their possession ranging from code, technicality, procedure and so forth, in such a discouraging and insulting manner that persons like me who mean no offence are made to feel - "Why have I entered the dangerously dark abyss called Wikipedia, only to be unceremoniously driven out?" At least one really concerned editor ought to have long ago, or even recently, in a polite and purposeful manner pointed out my mistakes and volunteered to help and guide me; then he and I could have happily re-worked and re-written the 160 odd articles bringing them up to the set norms and standards. I would have been only too pleased to do so. But, now too much water has flowed down underneath the bridge, the bridge has collapsed, I have exhausted my patience, there is a very bitter taste in my mouth which I am unable to wash out, and I find my heart bleeding and genuinely crying out goading me to quit Wikipedia the soonest. I am being asked to turn a new leaf; I have failed to understand what is meant by this phrase. I have not rebelled. But, enough is enough. Please, for God’s sake, stop the farce which is being played out at my expense. I was here not to win praise and stars, and later become an Administrator, but all the same I have a feeling someone is being a sadist. I thank you all for allowing me to share my feelings. Be good and help the needy. Allow me to take leave. I had never had an opportunity to meet so many on a single stage; it has been a great learning experience. I have vowed not to create any new page ever.Aditya soni (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support purely for lack of a better alternative. If somebody were to offer to mentor this user, or some such, I would be far better satisfied than with a tban. Essentially, to me the user is eminently competent, but unable to distinguish between what they know and what the general reader can be expected to know; their articles are written for others like themselves. This is also borne out by the lack of wikilinks in their articles. This also raises an unusual sort of NPOV issue; though the articles may be written neutrally, their lack of context, or WP:INUNIVERSE if you will, make them harmful, because the vast majority of readers are not familiar enough with these topics to judge for themselves. To me their English is a trivial concern, and not a factor in voting "support;" there are armies of editors out there with far poorer English. Aditya soni, whichever way this turns out, I suggest you do not take this personally; take this as a break in which you can familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. A Block is not infinite; it can be appealed, and if you can show that you've addressed these issues it will likely be overturned. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It is clear to me that Aditya soni is highly knowledgeable on the topic, but needs to familiarize himself with WP guidelines. A break from creation and a focus on article improvement would be great. However, by the bitter tone of his reply, I am concerned that a tban like this might make him leave WP altogether, which would be pretty bad, as we would be losing an editor with great knowledge on a niche topic. However, I do not see any good alternative. Changed my mind based on discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Kingsindian (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia does not come out of this with glory. As Wikipedians we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor and are causing them grief, a lot of grief.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way they have approached the creation of articles, they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive. They simply failed to engage with us in the way we expect usually. We must not have tried hard enough.

Now, we are voting on whether they should be allowed to continue. That appalls me.

Patently, they have a great deal to offer. And, equally patently, we are driving them away.

This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory. It seems pretty mainstream to me. The folk there needed the help of an admin, though I am wholly unsure why that was. This type of issue can almost always be handled by experienced editors without invoking the bucket and mop, but here we are, at the big ban hammer board, voting on how much hammer to use.

I am ashamed of our behaviour towards Aditya soni, and feel he deserves an apology, one I am giving him on my own behalf for any hurt I may have inflicted on him myself.

We need to guide him, yes. He needs to be content to accept guidance, yes. Requesting him to use WP:AFC for his next couple of drafts may well be a good idea. Mandating him to do so is not. This whole process is very WP:BITE, and we need to correct this now. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor", he has been editing consistently for 2 years and has made nearly 1,700 article edits in that time. That's not new or inexperienced. "they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive" By doing what they did, they have created a large amount of work for others to fix it by trimming down fringe claims and removing non-notable articles. I brought up the issue of fringe claims with them over a year ago [3], and they didn't even respond to me. Further, they acknowledge that their articles are only of interest to fellow astrologers [4][5], that's pretty much categorically in the face of WP:FRIND. If only astrologers are interested, then there are no independent sources and it's not notable (WP:NFRINGE). You also said, "This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory" I take it then you don't understand what a fringe theory is in wikipedia. A fringe theory is something which conflicts with an accepted domain of knowledge but which has no following amongst experts. For astrology that is science. Hindu astrology is fringe for the same reason that creation science is fringe (and creationism is used as an example in WP:FRINGE). Although they have many adherents, in terms of the relevant discipline (science) they have almost no following. "It seems pretty mainstream to me." No doubt there are some indian scientists who believe it (since it is wound up with religious beliefs in India), but science doesn't obey borders. The mainstream in science doesn't accept astrology, and the subset of that in India doesn't either from what I have read of it. Second Quantization (talk)

• Oppose. [Non-administrator opinion.] I have not examined every article created by Aditya soni but I have extreme difficulty making sense of many of those I did read. I think it is fair to assume from the responses of others that I am not the only one. I reject the assertion that this is simply due to ethnocentrism, or as another editor has suggested elsewhere, a discussion of “my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery”. While I have little experiencing studying the major writings of any religion, including Christianity, I am still able to comprehend articles that touch on obscure topics of a wide variety of religions with much greater ease that this group of articles. The fact that this issue was raised in WP:FTN is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether Hindu astrology is a fringe theory or not. I would have the same opinion if this was brought up in WP:FOOTY. With that said, I oppose a topic ban on Aditya soni. It is apparent from his/her edit history that this general topic is his/her only area of interest within Wikipedia, and a topic ban would ensure that we would loose him/her as an editor. As problematic as I find these articles and as much as I would like to see him/her attempt to work with others, I do not see any history of objectionable behavior (e.g. edit warring to prevent others from trying to fix the articles) that would warrant that action. Location (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One way in which the issue of whether Hindu Astrology is a fringe theory is very much relevant is with regard to the four articles currently at AfD where editors have raised WP:NFRINGE as a policy reason to delete them, among other reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal house system (Hindu astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue here appears to be whether or not Aditya soni can put together articles - regardless of the topic - that are reliably sourced and somewhat easily comprehended. Location (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Can we concentrate on one article? Trikasthanas (astrology), mentioned above, doesn't seem at all to match what a Wikipedia article should be. It looks more like something I'd find in a book that takes astrology seriously, or on an astrology website. Is this what we want? Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I am not sure what you mean by that. You mean the decision should be based primarily on one article? If so, I disagree. If not, as Salimfadhley, who has spent much more time than me on this says, there are many contributions, especially older ones, which are decent, and should be considered as well. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: That's good to hear. I'm not saying base it all on one article, I am asking if we want this one and if it is in any way typical. What do you think of it? Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Too much detail, very dense, impenetrable to people not familiar with the subject. Probably should be deleted, but I am very inexperienced in such matters. Definitely large sections should be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from creating articles directly in article space. This seems to me very much the kind of thing the Articles for creation review process was created for. If the user creates articles via that process only, it'll be an advantage both for Wikipedia and for themselves. However, in view of the user's goodbye post above, I suppose the issue may be moot. But if they should change their mind about leaving, I do believe we need to insist they use the AFC process. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

No, we don't need to insist on anything here. This does not even begin to rise to the level you are suggesting. I understand this is your opinion, and I will respect that, but Fiddle Faddle has this correct. We are not really trying very hard and I think a good deal of this is because some editors just don't understand the subjects and don't feel compelled to collaborate. I think that we need more patience with editors. I see no reason for admin intervention or community sanctions here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I previously voted support and now continue to support this. Aditya soni is clearly an expert in certain aspects of Hindu culture but feels that this expertise provides an entitlement to disregard some of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This editor resigned in protest not just because of this discussion but because of the numerous AFDs and the growing consensus that his recent Astrology articles were not up to the standards of wikipedia 1, 2, 3. Aditya soni has never conceded that any of the criticisms of these articles were valid and his refused to make use of AFC (and other processes designed to assist new editors). Now faced with a possibility of mild and temporary editorial review Aditya Soni has resigned in disgust. In the immortal words of Cartman: "Screw You, I'm Going Home!". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for those words, which serve to escalate an unpleasant situation. As experienced editors our role is not only to create and edit articles but to provide a place where the less experienced can grow and become more valuable. I am thanking you for the Cartman quote, in case you are in any doubt.

People have driven away an editor whose understanding of the somewhat arcane topic appears to be great, but who is not quite working in a collegiate manner. I have read a number of the articles. They are difficult to understand. So is particle physics. They are not well referenced. Often, nor is particle physics, in that each has references from within the universe in which the topic exists. So what? We, the self styled great and good, are meant to be capable of editing the arcane and impenetrable to make it available to the ordinary reader. What we have said and are continuing to say to this editor is "Betake yourself and your topic that is difficult to understand, and go!" We disguise that as some sort of topic ban. Go us!

The wisdom of crowds often creates something far more unpleasant, and I believe we have seen it here. We have a posse and lunch law here. Yes, 'lunch', because we will have this editor for lunch.

The adult approach is to put this to bed as an understood but unwise proposal which will not be implemented, and to attempt to salvage something from the mess - we need to try to salvage this editor's feelings. I'm sorry that I asked them to come here and comment. As you see on their talk page they feel savaged the more by having done so.

For clarity, I have never met them before this, and never read their work. I joined this discussion because I felt then and feel now that this is a grave injustice being perpetrated on an ordinary person, someone like you and like me. I remain ashamed of us for doing this.

Are we not meant to guide and encourage the less collegiate editor, the less experienced editor? Or do we throw them under the bus when we don;t quite 'get' what they are trying to do? Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support I disagree strongly with Timtrent that we are seeing articles created that are simply written by someone who understands the subject but writes articles that are difficult to understand and need better referencing. They are in fact articles which have Wikipedia stating in its own voice that astrology is an objective fact. The author even says as much at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) - " But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination; it has a restraining and at times destructive effect." Now he has the right to believe this all to be true, but not to create articles in which Wikipedia itself is asserting these things to be true. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia presents many things as facts. A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc. If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. We use the Edit button and make judicious edits. We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI. If we did that we would have very few editors left and the WP:AFC backlog would go up tenfold at a stroke. Not all articles are excellent. That is why we edit as a community. We don't chuck them away unless and until they are shown to be hopeless cases. We certainly do not throw their creator under a bus.

If we are very lucky we may be able to salvage the editor as a contributor for years to come, but I do not blame him at all for being extremely upset with the way he is being treated. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc." Presenting hypotheses as fact? Name one and I'll show you an article which needs to be edited. Also, I suggest you read Evolution as fact and theory before implying the word theory mean "not facts at all". "If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. ... We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI" Actually, this happens all the time, because it is a massive drain on everything to chase civil POV pushers around fixing their edits (and that's even if they don't just edit war back). Second Quantization (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - this guy clearly knows his stuff. He needs some help fitting it into our way of doing things, but this is exactly the sort of material we could do with more of. I'm disgusted at the behaviour of those who want it gone because they don't understand, it's foreign, it's arcane or whatever. I know a little about this sort of stuff, and while it's very hard to get into, especially on a sleepy afternoon after lunch when I listened to a chap explain this area for a week, it's valid within the limits of the subject. We shouldn't be presenting it as fact, but we shouldn't be deleting this very real scholarship. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pete,I wish you had made your appearance earlier. I have stepped in mainly because of you. Whatever be the opinion of the people in the Western world about astrology as a pseudo-science or a hoax or a non-sense, but you know that Astrology has been a part of Hindu life and culture for the past 4000 years or so, and it still continues to play an important role in our life. Even those Indian skeptics who vehemently speak and write against astrology, in fact, secretly approach priest-astrologers in the time of need. I can vouch for this fact because I am in this field though not as a professional. After the introduction of British method of education by Macaulay, who divided the world into the educated and the barbarians, the longstanding Indian method of thinking changed; everything ancient was questioned and even rejected, which situation worsened because of the influence of Karl Marx. Hindu astrology also took a severe hit and the number of those rejecting it as a science grew larger and larger, and also because of the support extended by the then political establishment. The vexing question, whether astrology is a science or not, was finally settled by the Supreme Court of India which court on 05/05/2004 ruled that astrology is a science, and even directed the Indian Universities to teach this subject. This judgement was delivered in the Case No. Appeal (civil) 5886 of 2002 P.M.Bhargava & Others. Vs. University Grants Commission and Another. You can access the court order at Govt. of India website - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=26188 I am sure you are aware of this court ruling which is now the law of the land. Please enlighten all participants especially those who are against Hindu astrology and eager to bury my four articles already listed as AFDs. You have read the Indian Sanskrit texts. Our ancient thinkers did not use many words, they were very brief while defining and explaining the various astrological and philosophical principles. The later translators and commentators were in no position to change that method of expression lest the true meaning became lost. Hence, the language appears arcane and difficult to understand. I have not digressed from the available and referred to texts. This is it. My objecting friends should have directly asked me to re-write and if possible simplify what I had presented all that which is now under their scrutiny. They did not and you know the rest. They have driven me out.Aditya soni (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, am glad to see that you have chosen to reengage. I found the reasoning of the Madras High Court (quoted approvingly in the decision linked) particularly apt for an encyclopedia: it had "held that the very purpose of imparting education is to gain knowledge and therefore there should be every scope for making a study on very many subjects in order to enrich ones craving for knowledge. Any such attempt from any quarters in furtherance of that pursuit should not be stultified. The learned Judge further held that it was for the pupil concerned to select any particular field or subject in furtherance of his future career, and merely because the subject has got its basis or origin traceable to some cult, it cannot be held that the same would only result in propagation of a particular religion." I, for one, believe that your articles can be edited so as present knowledge more neutrally and not necessarily only result in propagation of a particular religion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that I have read the ancient Sanskrit texts. I have a shallow understanding of the arrangement of the Vedas, the Upanishads and so on. It is a rich and deep subject! I can barely read Sanskrit, and puzzling out meaning with the help of Monier-Williams is a slow task. Though very enjoyable. Max Muller is another sage I revere, and when I next visit Oxford I am charged with visiting him at Holywell.

Despite what the court in Madras says, we cannot present astrology here as fact or science. We can certainly describe it for those who do, giving the sources and rewriting to make it less impenetrable, in line with Wikipedia's policies. We already present many arcane fields. Particle physics is mentioned above, but we also cover Harry Potter and Karl Marx in great detail. There is certainly room for the Vedas here, and your contributions are welcome, at least from those who have an inkling of what you're talking about. For many others, it comes across as nonsense, and I understand their confusion, though cannot support their behaviour towards a scholar. Obviously the wisdom of Advaita is yet to blossom in their hearts.

It is obvious that you are a scholar, and one who knows his texts. I can help edit your work here in line with policy, if you'll accept my feeble understanding of your field. Quite likely there are others here with better knowledge of both Sanskrit and Vedic tradition who can join in. Some of the advice given above is very good, such as the suggestion that you cease creating new articles until we have dealt with those already here by rewording them in line with Wikipedia policy. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposal is too broad. AlanS (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I've actually read some (non-Wiki) articles on Vedic (Hindu) astrology, and the long-winded and often dire articles that this user is writing sound like they come from the Middle Ages. I believe they are not only inappropriate, too long, and a detriment to Wikipedia, I believe they are actually misleading in terms of the belief system they purport to represent. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• What an excellent idea. Let us ban every editor whose writing quality is poor, or whose style we do not agree with, from creating new articles. Far better to ban them than to educate them, because it saves so much trouble. And, even better than that, it isn't WP:BITE at all, if we say it isn't. Alternatively we can edit the articles we think are substandard. I thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said that the writing quality is poor or that I disagreed with the style. I said the articles are misleading. Do we want an encyclopedia to be misleading? If you think so, fine, but I disagree; I think an encyclopedia should be accurate and up-to-date. Softlavender (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Yesterday, I asked User:Aditya soni, if willing, to make some changes to one or two articles so that Hindu beliefs were represented as beliefs rather than as universal truths. [6]. Today, I note that User:Aditya soni has done just that. [7] and [8]. Even if one is not entirely satisfied with the results, I hope we can all agree that this is strong evidence of a willingness to work collaboratively. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was invited to ANI for a third opinion. The concepts the user writes on are "real" concepts (not WP:FRINGE) in Hindu astrology. That said; many of them do not warrant an independent article, but however need to mentioned in the master article. Trikasthanas (astrology) IMO should be merged with Bhāva and retained as a para or 2. The articles created by the user are primarily based on WP:PRIMARY sources, thus may be coloured by the author's perception (Read WP:OR). Articles like Devatas (Vedanta) seem to be WP:POVFORKs of the master article (in this case, Rigvedic deities or Deva (Hinduism)).Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Dear Mr. Redtigerxyz ^Talk ,I had seen the page Deva (Hinduism), but I did not know where to incorporate my written matter posted at Devatas (Vedanta), therefore, I created a new page owing to inexperience. But,I have not done any original research nor relied on primary sources -

Ref 1 Raj Pruthi’s book – Vedic Civilization is not a primary source; it is a secondary source on the topic. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 2 The book - Sree Varaha mihira’s Bhirat Jataka is not a primary source; it is translation cum commentary by B.Suryanarain Rao, and a secondary source. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 3, 5,6 Swami Gambhirananda’s book on Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya is a tertiary source; this is Swami Gambhirananda’s translation and commentary on the Sanskrit translation of Brahma Sutras by Adi Shankara. The entire book can be accessed at http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita-Shankara-Bhashya-English.pdf

Ref 7 The book – New Perspectives on Advaita Vedanta is not a primary source; it is a secondary/tertiary source. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 8 The book – A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy, as the title suggests is a masterly survey of the Upanishads conducted by Ramachandra Dattatrya Ranade.

Ref 9 The book- Patanjali Yoga Sutras contains the original Sanskrit text along with English translation by Swami Prabhavananda. It is a secondary source. The entire book can be accessed at http://www.estudantedavedanta.net/yoga-aphorisms-of-patanjali.pdf

Ref 10 The book – Eight Upanishads Vol.1 contains original text of Isa, Kena, Katha and Taittiriya Upanishads along with English translation and commentary by Swami Gambhirananda.

Ref 11 The book – Studies in Upanishads as the name itself suggests is a tertiary source.

By the way I have already sought deletion of all 160 odd pages created by me. Therefore, I request you to please quietly delete all pages without inviting or involving others, then, there will not be any kind of aspersions cast on my understanding of the subject, my ability, my sincerity and my integrity. And, by deleting all articles your precious time and effort would also be saved. I hope you will not disappoint me. I seek forgiveness from all you for having created so many thoughtless pages and thus carelessly bothered you all. I have deleted my user page but I do not know how to quit Wikipedia entirely (including disabling of my password i.e. access to any page), please help me. Also, please close this discussion too, which has needlessly gone on and on. I am glad you have also supported a ban on me. You may collectively ban me for ever, I won't be bothering you in future, never in any case. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Continual fringe claims in all created articles (all with terrible sourcing too),[9]: "Generally, a person born with Reka yoga has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious"." Albert Einstein was born with a Rekā yoga which made him perform poorly in his studies during the course of the dashas (planetary periods) the planets giving rise to the said yoga." That's a claim in the wikipedia voice that planet positions made Einstein do badly in school.

[10]: "King George III born on 4th June 1738 with Unmaad yoga inasmuch as in his case Mars occupying the 10th house aspected the lagna and the Moon combining with Saturn casted its inimical aspect on Mars; he suffered from mental illness." Of course this sentence doesn't seem to make much sense since the second part seems unrelated to the first, but I think it's obvious what is being implied here.

[11]: " These are the three evil houses of suffering whose lords and occupation invariably bring difficulties, suffering, loss, anxieties, worries, obstacles, disease, confinement, incarceration, impediments, enemies, lawsuits, accidents, injuries, surgeries, and death like experiences in the lives of all human beings." "From the 6th house are divined diseases, disappointments, ..." "The 12th house indicates disturbance to sleep, mental worry, ... ", "The lord of the 6th house should not be stronger than the lord of the lagna if so then one cannot overpower opponents and foes, and is vanquished illness and ill-health will overpower the body. " This is the Viparita Raja yoga that confers learning, longevity, fame and prosperity, illustrious friends, success in all ventures and victory over foes."

People seem resistant to the idea that poor writers shouldn't write 160 articles laden with a fringe POV, but I think it makes sense. Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, I did even ask him to be wary of our polices over a year ago: User_talk:Aditya_soni#Fringe_guidelines (old nick), Second Quantization (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly. I have hesitated over this due to the ideas already eloquently expressed by Timtrent/FiddleFaddle. However, can we really afford to have hundreds of articles which are poorly written, dense, and in universe, presenting astrology as fact? Who will go and clean them up? Who will monitor and fix every new page?

I wouldn't support this if the articles were just badly written, but writing astrology as factual in Wikipedia's own voice is a massive POV and FRINGE problem and I just can't support its continuation. BethNaught (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support I had intended skipping this dispute, but Reka yoga (astrology) is an abuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mahadeva states that the person born with Reka yoga is devoid of education and wealth and has bad nails - Oh come now! When feeling threatened, Squirtle withdraw their limbs into their brown-orange shells and spray water from their mouth with great force. Where's the difference? We list and describe all sorts of stuff that is patent nonsense, so long as there is a significant cultural following. Pokemon, astrology, synchronised swimming. We are an encyclopaedia, not some slitty-eyed moral judge. --Pete (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Friends, I need not disturb you but I cannot avoid narrating to you my day's experience. Only today I noticed the reasons given by the editor who has nominated page titled – Char Dham (Vedic) for deletion. His intention suits me fine, but he has very sadly termed this topic as original research and a hoax because he could not find a reliable source that indicates Char Dham exists in Vedic literature. That hurt me. He seems to have not appreciated the contents of section – Pratardana’s description of the four Dhams in which section two significant Mantras from the Rig Veda i.e. IX.96.18 and IX.96.19 referred to by two authors, have been cited along with the explanations by those authors. Evidently this nominator does not know Sanskrit and Hindi but even then I have led him to Rig Veda Vol. 5 pages 335,336 published online by Aryasamaj Jamnagar which is actually Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s translation of the Rig Veda and his commentary on that text. The word Dham (धाम) in Vedic philosophy refers to plane of existence. In order to assist him so that he properly understands this topic I have specifically brought to his notice the words – "तृतीयं धाम" at the start of the second line of mantra IX.96.18 on page 335 which is explained by Dayananda Saraswati on page 336 as – (तृतीयं, धाम) (pronounced - triteeyam dhaam; triteeyam means 'three') (three dhams) are देवयान (Devayana or Devaloka) और (and) पितृयान (Pitriyana) इन दोनों से पृथक् (beyond these two) is the तीसरा (third) जो (which) मुक्तिधाम (Muktidham) है (is); and to the two words – "तुरीयं धाम" (pronounced - tureeyam dhaam; tureeyam or Turiya means 'the fourth') appearing in the next mantra on the same page. Dayananda Saraswati explains - (तुरीयम्) चौथा (fourth) (धाम) (dham) परमपद (the highest state) परमात्मा (Paramatman) है (is). The link to this text is http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/rugveda_v5/rugveda.htm . These two mantras of the Rig Veda directly speak about the Char (four) Dhams (planes of existence), and these are the mantras I have cited. I have failed to understand as to how the nominator missed noticing these mantras. I am not objecting to the proposed deletion of this page. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the nom, but you are writing articles on the basis of original research. You are working off the primary texts, and primary religious sources (which are themselves quite old). See WP:NOR and WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Engaging in an original or interesting synthesis isn't a bad thing, it's just something that is forbidden in wikipedia, Second Quantization (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that we're getting original research? The texts are old, but there are extensive commentaries. I'm getting the feeling that all of the material is well-sourced. The problem could be that the average contributor to ANI is sadly deficient in Sanskrit, let alone Vedic lore. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Pete has the right of it. Old commentary is not original research. Referring to Dayananda Saraswati's interpretations of Rigveda is no more original research than referring to Augustine of Hippo's and Thomas Aquinas's interpretations of scripture in Just war theory. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The question is how we refer to it. So long as we are clear on that, there is no problem describing any belief system. Hell, if we could have a reliable source for what bunny rabbits actually believe, that would be awesome, and a great addition to our pool of knowledge. In this case we think the articles may be over detailed, badly worded, implying fact instead of description of a belief, and maybe misleading, because of that. The question is what we do about that. We can fix them, discard them because they are too misleading, too voluminous and too hard to fix, engage productively with the author, berate the author (and accept the risk of losing them, or even consider that a positive), or any number of things inbetween. Nobody ever said this encyclopedia thing would be easy. We edit, we discuss. Sometimes we reject. Sometimes we can adapt and include. As long as we consider these things properly, we are doing our "job". Begoon ^talk 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pete, Since I am the one who nominated this article. Dayananda Saraswati DOES NOT classify this an independent concept in his commentary. I have read the Hindi commentary. Dayananda just uses the term dham in his translation. The article plays with WP:SYTH. The whole article is a WP:HOAX product of WP:OR. That said, the author has created articles which are not hoaxes (eg Equal house system (Hindu astrology)).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Throw a mentor at the problem. Mentor needs to have a lot of good faith and patience. This author has created articles like A_Constructive_Survey_of_Upanishadic_Philosophy. Discouraging him may be a loss for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakumar RG (talk • contribs)

Are you nominating yourself for mentor? Second Quantization (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would if I weren't inexperienced myself. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support ban from creating new articles in article space on a temporary basis. Redtigerz has said above that Hindu astrology is significantly notable and from what I've seen in reference works I have to agree that there could reasonably be a fairly wide selection of articles on the topic. There do seem to be some real questions regarding the editor's capacity to adhere to NPOV in content right now but a good mentor might be able to help there. I can try in the near future to help a little in that regard and would be willing to be a secondary advisor once I become a bit better informed on the topic in a few weeks but think that for the moment anyway it would be in his and our best interests to ensure his created articles are a bit better from the word go. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The material about the India Supreme Court ruling on whether the Vedas are a science is exactly the sort of thing that should go into the encyclopedia, if it can be sourced. But over a hundred articles? Can AFC handle that much? Maybe some of them could be moved to user space to work on them, until they can be approved. At least they wouldn't be lost. I know the milhist group sometimes does this. —Neotarf (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Supreme Court’s ruling is on Hindu astrology as a science.

Sepharial in his book - The Science of Foreknowledge (pages 58 – 70)(url= [12] ) concludes that the Hindus did not get their astrology from the Chaldeans or the Egyptians; the astrological methods of the Hindus are essentially and fundamentally different from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, the zodiac is not related to the equinox, the Hindus are aware of the precession of the equinox, and the calculation of periods is based on 27 nakshatras reckoned from the place of the Moon at birth; the Chaldean directions based on diurnal aspects of the planets after birth have no place in Hindu astrology and the Hindus do not use the time-measures such as "one day for a year" method of directing used by the Chaldeans and the Babylonians. Hindu astrology like the Hindu astronomy evolved originally, the trine is the basis of Hindu astrology. Chaldean astrology did not have its birth in India, but astrology existed in India more than 2000 years before the Chaldeans.

We, in india, believe that Jyotisha or Astrology is as old as the Vedas which embody eternal knowledge. Jyotisha forms the most important of the six Vedangas or the body-organs of the Vedas; it is the scientific study and application of the language of the heavenly bodies determined on the basis of astronomy and mathematics. It is a cosmic science not bound by limitations of a laboratory. Astrology did not come to India after the advent of Alexander, references to astrology are found in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. All ancient texts of Hindu astrology are in Sanskrit covering a very wide scope and variety of principles, permutations and combinations of planetary positions; Hindu astrology is a very complex multi-dimensional system and therefore, any criticism of this system should be made by one who has studied this system.

Even so when will this inquisition stop? Do I find it interesting? No. Do I find it entertaining? No. On the contrary it recalls to my mind an Urdu sh’er from Mirza Ghalib’s ghazal which reads:

آگے آتی تھی حالِ دل پہ ہنسی : اب کسی بات پر نہیں آتی :

which means – "Previously I could laugh at my heart’s plight, but now I do not laugh at all".Aditya soni (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aditya. Let me reply to some of your comments:

• the astrological methods of the Hindus are essentially and fundamentally different from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians - There are plenty similarities between Chaldean and Hindu astrology, although no one knows who borrowed from whom. Both cultures divide the circle into 12 and 360 (the basis of modern angle system).
• The astrology found in the Vedas is not horary (ie it is not based on birth charts). Horashastra was influenced by the Greeks, as the Yavanajataka itself says. Natal astrology was found in Ramayana and Mahabharata because they were edited several times, and the final version came only during the Gupta period, long after the Hellenistic period.
• I cant help but notice how you keep on referring to astrology as 'science'. Astrology may be a knowledge system, a branch of study, but it is not a science because it does not use the scientific method. No one is against representing astrology in this encyclopedia, but ultimately you cant claim in WP's voice that astrology is scientific. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Offer I dunno about being a good mentor, but I'd be happy to work with Aditya soni if nobody with more knowledge of the subject can be found. I think we should put anything problematical into user space, work on it there, and push it into mainspace when we're happy with it. I don't think anything good is going to come out of more ANI discussion - most of the regulars here, bless their hearts, have no knowledge or interest in the Vedas. --Pete (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as it appears to comprise two distinct issues. First is "he uses dense language" which is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, although Wikipedia also has many articles written in purple prose as well. That is a good reason for editing articles to make them more readable, but not a strong reason for anything else. The second issue is the perennial "religion/science/fringe" trichotomy. My suggestion is that articles on religion be clearly marked as relating to religion, and not being in the "science" category in the first place -- thus stopping the never-ending battle about placing "fringe theory" on each clearly religious topic. We should be able to trust that readers can understand that an article properly labeled in a "religious category" is not about "science". Collect (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear Pete (talk), the issue is not the Vedas but my articles on Hindu astrology. Permit me to give a brief but essential explanation.

All created things transform, this is one of the many salient aspects of Truth. But then, Truth itself is very difficult to apprehend. Before coming face to face with Truth, which is present everywhere equally, we are asked by our ancient seers to give up righteousness and unrighteousness, we are asked to discard what we think is real and that we think is unreal, and we are also asked to discard that by which these two are meant to be discarded. Man is certainly not instinctively drawn towards Fate even though he is more aware of death. All knowledge including Astrology gained through experience and study reflects man’s attempt to understand the purpose of his own being and all else connected therewith, as also to know what determines Fate.

Our ancients who had propounded the principles of prediction were conversant with the science of astrophysics and possessed a high level of inferential ability; they were able to draw inferences with astounding results from what they observed in the ordinary course. They knew that revelation requires a human agency for its own manifestation and they also knew that knowledge can be more dangerous than ignorance. Therefore, leaving no scope for doubt and economizing on words, they evolved the method of simply defining the basic and the most advanced principles of prediction and described various yogas (planetary combinations) along with their results avoiding repetition and without offering explanations. All Sanskrit texts on Hindu astrology exhibit this particular methodology. Astrology is man’s effort to understand Time; it begins from the stage when a firm grip over the various principles of Astronomy and mathematics has been achieved.

Astrology is intended for prediction, and prediction itself depends on the Rising Ascendant or the Lagna and the other positions of the planets, which positions involve astronomical calculations. Thus, Hindu astrology consists of Ganitha, the mathematical part, and Phalita, the predictive part, and is more a science of tendencies which assumes that planets influence the activity of man and hence, his destiny. Hindu astrology actually speaks of the fruits of Poorvapunya (the results of the karmas of previous births). Since all events are believed to re-occur in a pre-determinable manner, therefore, astrology is said to be the study of man’s response to stimuli, and that planets simply offer a lawful channel for the outward operation of cause-effect equilibriums each man has set in motion in the past. Prediction is broadly based on the strength, nature, aspect and combination of planets, on the qualities and the strength of the rasis (signs) and bhavas (houses) owned, occupied and aspected by the planets, and on the influence of the yogas. Hindu astrology basically requires the discerning eye to be able to identify the yogas and then apply the prescribed results judicially in accordance with the established principles.

The ancient Sanskrit texts are the primary source, the translations and commentaries on these texts are the secondary source, and texts that explain the application of principles with the aid of live examples are the tertiary source. The translators, the commentators and the later teachers and practitioners have retained the expression of the original texts because the original expression, which is treated as a statement of fact, cannot be changed. For example, Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita, tells us that if either Saturn or Venus or both are devoid of strength, occupy the trikasthanas (the 6th, the 8th or the 12th house) or are in association with the lords of those trikasthanas or own the trikasthanas then during their dasha (planetary-period) they will prove auspicious, and if one owns an auspicious bhava and the other an auspicious bhava then they will prove all the more auspicious. This statement is an observation given as a principle; it cannot be changed by us. This can be tested only through experience because observations do not depend upon specifications alone, and qualitative analysis does not depend on the quality of the sample in hand but on its natural order.

My friends have found my way of writing and the presentation of various principles to be unreadable and violating certain Wikipedia norms. This is so mainly because they had never before encountered such things, they have no inkling of Hindu astrology, they do not understand the mechanics involved; they do not respect the sanctity of ancient Hindu scriptures; they do not know Sanskrit and are also not aware of the importance of brevity. In my articles I have remained faithful to the Sanskrit texts and commentators who have presented the principles etc., as statements of fact. I cannot change their language or mode of expression to suit the critics of Hindu astrology who do not even know Hindu astrology. Nowhere have I given my own opinion or conducted any kind of research. I have not violated any Wikipedia’s norms. If you know Hindu astrology well please do improve these articles, but in case you also find this task difficult (as I have found) then why burden the unprepared editors and readers with information which is beyond their ordinary understanding notwithstanding the fact that there are more persons visiting the pages on Hindu astrology than on the Upanishads and the Vedas.

You find me here because of your notification and because I am eager to know how this discussion ends. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You have apparently taken the texts of the old Sanskrit works at authoritative and by wikipedia policies and guidelines as per WP:FRINGE and related pages we cannot. I suggest you read that page and other policy and guideline pages which relate to the broad topic of pseudoscience which is one of the fields all forms of astrology fall into. Also, it might help if you more clearly demonstrated an understanding of the fact that wikipedia is intended to be read and useful for general readers not specialists. There are other WMF entities which are more suitable for more in–depth discussion of topics which cannot be achieved in wikipedia given or particuar policies and guidelines. You have already received one generous offer above to help you better work within the existing wikipedia structre and I think it would be in your best interests to take it. I am willing to offer what assistance I can too. But you do apparently have some mistaken assmuptions about the depth and width of coverage wikipedia gives any topics and those mistaken assumptions seem to be causing you some probems here.John Carter (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the intricacies of the subject. I don't know - or have much interest in - Hindu astrology per se. Few here do. But it can be presented as lore in the same way that we present other arcana. I accept that the primary texts are beyond modification and that the laws governing the movements of planets and their supposed influences are likewise fixed. Such is the nature of Prakṛti. But in the Wikipedia world, we cannot couch our descriptions as absolute fact. We may perhaps quote recognised scholars in their opinions, but they must be presented as opinions, not eternal truth. It is a matter of presentation.

There is no doubt that Hindu astrology is notable enough to be included here, given the vast number of followers. We are a broad church and there is room in Wikipedia for all manner of arcana. You will find details of every episode of Gilligan's Island, for example, and we are positively devoted to football. These topics have their own saints, and fanatics who religiously chronicle the important trivia. Hindu astrology can be presented in these terms - a collection of articles and subarticles on a subject area with a wide following.

The typical Wikipedia editor, especially those with their minds aligned on this page, has little knowledge or interest in the subject, is quite unfamiliar with Sanskrit, let alone the Devanagari characters currently used to present it. The Vedic scriptures might as well have been composed by space aliens, for all the impact they have on the consciousness of the typical wikiperson. Hence their description of a subject familiar to hundreds of millions of human beings as "fringe". They know no better, but here is not the place to educate them.

We can work together, probably find others with an interest in the project, and massage the information into acceptable wikiformat. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

But Pete, one by one, the editors who have participated in this discussion, have started deleting the pages created by me. Some have even defaced a few with large uncalled for tags. Shortly, there will be no article for John Carter, you and me to re-work. All problems thus stand resolved. I thank you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pete: I am all for it. I will be back on wiki after a 3-day break starting now. I am not very familiar to the topic like Aditya, but quite interested. @Aditya soni: Meanwhile, please read some of my thoughts on the comment you made above. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Created over 150 articles and they have got sources. Primary or secondary, he has been creating many articles having multiple sources to show. User:Ad Orientem has made a good opinion, Aditya Soni must only add only those information that are not Wikipedia:FRINGE, if he wants to add FRINGE he must also add the refutation. Remember that both FRINGE and Refutation requires a Reliable source. Aditya Soni must follow these simple guidelines and there will be no complaints. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went thru several edits, as well as the RFC, what convinces me the most is the point put out by Timtrent and Bladesmulti. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I had previously supported a topic ban (above) based on the editor's apparent unwillingness to engage in discussion. That was, by no means, a demand that he engage with me in particular. Engaging with other editors is sufficient. I'm encouraged by Pete's apparent willingness to get involved. If he is confident that this can be resolved without a topic ban then I'll withdraw my support for said topic ban. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's a failure of communication. I'm lucky enough to have a small understanding of where he's coming from, but for most of the regulars here, he might as well be writing articles in Sanskrit. A pity, because he knows his material well, and if we can get him to accept our ways of doing things, we'd be blessed with good, well-sourced articles on a subject we are light on. On that note, some of the articles he's created have been deleted. Fair enough, that's process, but it would be good to have the article text moved into his userspace so the work is not completely lost and it can be worked on until (if) it meets our standards. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I saw was a failure to communicate but if he is willing to "accept our ways of doing things" (which includes collegial discussion) then yes, the contribution is worthwhile. I'm no longer convinced a topic ban is the best way to resolve the issues raised. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Benjamin Wey

• Benjamin Wey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 23.254.107.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The above IP, claiming to be the article's subject issued this threat at Talk:Benjamin Wey yesterday. For background (and other threats by related editors) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyndasim. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for 2 weeks. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn again

This is mostly asking for review of my actions, rather than asking for sanctions, etc. On Talk:Zoe Quinn I've just twice reverted a proposal for a new section in the article that discusses Quinn's ongoing harassment. I've reverted because some of the sources (Reddit, Talking Ship) look dubious, and the allegations made against Quinn in the post are serious. The post has been restored by Titanium Dragon and Tutelary, however. Do others think this was a reasonable move on my part, or is this more me being a BLP zealot? Opinions from uninvolved editors are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My view on this is that it qualifies under the exception of WP:BLPTALK since it was a proposed section, and directly dealing with content in the article. They were proposing for text to be put into the article. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Moreso, how can we reach consensus on how to cover the material if every single discussion about it has been revdeleted? Tutelary (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss without BLP violations? Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As somebody who has recently gotten involved with making edits on the article, I feel like there should be discussion and a consensus regarding the addition of a section talking about the scandal per what Tutelary states above, including references to wherever the supposed violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP Moreover, I feel like it should be brought up that Zoe Quinn has had 36 deleted revisions since it's creation in May, and the majority of that seems to stem from issues with WP:BLP. A third opinion is desperately needed on this matter. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 00:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. You can't simply post BLP violations on a talk page though, it applies in all namespaces. Some of those sources are distinctly shaky (or are merely repeating from unreliable sources - putting "allegedly" on the front of a sentence doesn't miraculously make it not a BLP issue). I am also slightly concerned that the "scandal" is being inserted in the article gratuitously; here on Wikipedia would not be the first location on the Internet that efforts have been made to disparage the subject recently. Now, I could be wrong (its happened before), but I agree with Mr.Stradivarius that erring on the side of caution is always the best method. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's not erring on the side of caution. It's removing a whole post to start discussion on the talk page on how to best cover it, if cover it at all in the article. You can't be asked or forced to supply a citation for every single little thing that you're arguing while you're arguing with sources. Again, see BLPTALK, it was directly related to making content choices. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And BLPTALK says "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot" - in other words, if you think something might not be BLP compliant, don't post the whole damn thing on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Since (I believe you're the one) who revdeleted it, how would you propose we discuss it then if we can't discuss it on the talk? Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be beyond clearly intelligent contributors to discuss the scope of a section without actually repeating BLP violations - and it should be fairly obvious what is and isn't one (I'm not saying the whole section was). Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I want specifics on how we can discuss this--the potential content in the article on the talk page without it being deleted as a 'blp vio'. Please and thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That particular sentence from BLPTALK has been discussed somewhere else recently. It's an unfortunate and misguided statement. More important, it's in direct conflict with the overarching mandate that BLP applies to all pages. If it were true, you could say almost whatever you wanted on a talk page as long as it was in the context of a "content choice". That is an absurd and unacceptable result.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's so that when discussing somewhat new content, it doesn't get all deleted as a 'blp vio' when it's important to get something right in the article, which is what was attempting to happen; get it right in the article. I wouldn't even say I support a new section detailing what happened, I just feel like it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk. Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, some of the text posted in the article and talk page contained serious BLP violations. It may have appeared well sourced, but it was presenting some highly negative claims as facts, in spite of questionable origins, along with some incorrect claims that are not supported by the sources. Perhaps some of the issues need to be discussed, but that text wasn't the way to do it. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, no mention is being made at all as to what information is or is not the violation. There's no means to collaborate and iron out. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious which part is problematic, though. As Bilby says above, presenting negative claims by third parties as facts is not something we can allow. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement of "We need a third opinion on all the revdels" is faulty because they're already coming from multiple parties. There's already multiple opinions present stating that these are flagrant BLP violations. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The only things which are claimed as facts in the section in question are the things which we have significant external confirmation of. The word "accused" is used re: her ex's accusations, while things which are stated as facts are things which are independently verifiable and not in contention. Indeed, we have confirmation of a romantic relationship between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson because Kotaku commented on it starting after the article he wrote about Zoe Quinn in defense of Grayson and their reporting. We have several sources which have noted the claims re: Joshua Boggs, and the fact that he hired her is not in contention. Literally everything else after the first paragraph has been independently confirmed as it is on the open internet and has been reported by a huge number of sources, and there is absolutely no way that we can report on the controversy - which has, at this point, over 72,000 results on Google for Zoe Quinn sex scandal alone, and which has been reported on or commented on in numerous sources, including Slate, Kotaku, Bright Side of News, New Media Rockstars, Daily Beast, Gamesnosh, Motherboard, Gamer Headlines, Talking Ship, Game Revolution, and Daily Dot. That's ignoring the various other folks who have commented on it, including TotalBiscuit and InternetAristocrat, the latter of whom now has several videos on the subject matter, one of which has north of 750,000 views. The entire reason that Zoe Quinn has gotten coverage is precisely because of the controversies she has been embroiled in, and her notability is pretty much entirely contingent upon these controversies - and notably, per the standards people are claiming above, if we are complaining about single sources here, it is worth remembering that Zoe Quinn's claims of harassment ultimately come from her.

Thus, I see one of two possibilities: either this article needs to be deleted, or this article needs to include the controversy. And it is impossible to include the controversy without noting what the controversy is and what caused it. Given that people have said that this article should be preserved, then it needs to include the controversy, and to do that it must mention what the controversy is about - accusations of nepotism and improper relationships because of romantic relationships she had with people who gave her positive press coverage or hired her to work for them. There is no getting around this. Wikipedia has reported on sex scandals and affairs upon many occasions in BLPs, including Ted Haggard and in the various articles about Princess Diana and Prince Charles, and I really don't see how this is special or different. We have reliable sources which have made these allegations, the fact that they are (largely, but not entirely, as there is some independent confirmation in some cases) based on the account of an unhappy ex should definitely be noted, but it does not prevent us from making note of it - if a politician's wife left him and claimed he had been cheating on her with five women, we would report on that not because of the wife, but because of the reliable sources who would repeat the wife's story and make it into a story. We have reported on all sorts of cases where we do not know all of the specifics, such as about the shooting of Michael Brown, but that does not prevent us from noting what was said about the shooting or what was claimed about the shooting in numerous reliable sources.

The proposed section is not out of line with the sort of accusations which are seen elsewhere, and it needs to be worded carefully, but I think I succeeded at that, and if not, we can work to make it better. And mentioning the cause of the scandal is absolutely necessary to talk about the rest of it - the accusations of nepotism and corruption, the censorship of posts, a voluntary media blackout on the part of many gaming sites, Kotaku's own response to the matter wherein they confirmed that Zoe Quinn was in fact in a romantic relationship with one of their reporters and denied that it was improper because the article he wrote for Kotaku about Zoe Quinn was penned before the relationship began, fights over media corruption, the other game jam she supposedly attacked... and all of this, all of this, is a matter of public record, because it is still available to be seen or has been documented by various folks, and the reliable sources have documented the issues involved. This clearly does not fall under WP:GOSSIP because we can confirm all of this actually happened. The specifics of the affairs we have reliable sources talking about allegations and accusations, though in one case (Grayson) it has been outright confirmed by his employer, so we should word those things as being accusations and allegations - and they aren't just a whisper campaign either seeing as they do, in fact, have actual evidence of the content in question, and in some cases actually link to it in the articles.

I do understand the issues involved with slander and libel but the reality is that this stuff has been reported on by reliable sources per Wikipedia standards, there have been a number of reliable sources which have written articles about the subject matter, it has a bunch of non-reliable source attention, and it is something which, assuming Zoe Quinn is notable, is what makes her notable, given that the material associated with Zoe Quinn pretty much always mentions the controversies she has been embroiled in. If we are worried about NPOV, that's fine, and we can work on the wording. But BLP clearly allows reporting on sex scandals, provided that they are reliably sourced, because we have done this several times before and have numerous BLPs with sex scandals mentioned in them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Literally everything else after the first paragraph has been independently confirmed as it is on the open internet - and therefore it must be true - and has been reported by a huge number of sources - and how many of them are reliable sources? Being 'on the open Internet' does not mean it is suitable for Wikipedia. Verifiability, not truth through reliable, third-party, fact-checked sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Every one of them - including the ones in the first paragraph - are reliably sourced. Which you would know if they didn't keep deleting it. Every single one of them. Note that list of reliable sources? "Slate, Kotaku, Bright Side of News, New Media Rockstars, Daily Beast, Gamesnosh, Motherboard, Gamer Headlines, Talking Ship, Game Revolution, and Daily Dot". Those are all used as sources. All of them have reported on the scandal. Every inch of it can be reliably sourced. Everything from the second paragraph on down - the reaction to it, the further allegations of another game jam being attacked, the censoring of posts on reddit, the YouTube video pulldown, the media blackout from several gaming websites, GamesNosh's host arguing with them about keeping up an article about it, and Zoe Quinn's response - all are documented in reliable sources. Every statement made can be sourced in reliable sources. Ergo, the whole argument seems silly to me - we're arguing BLP, but there's no question that this has been reported on, and we have covered other sex scandals in BLPs, and a great deal of it isn't even about the sex scandal itself, but accusations of nepotism and corruption which resulted from her "private" relationships with people who had given her a job and given her positive press became public. Given that these sources all pass RS, I again have to question what the problem is. People are complaining but refusing to even state what they're complaining about. When the text is put up to try and mold into an article for consensus, it is unilaterally deleted rather than amended, and then they complain when the article is changed without consensus despite deleting any attempts to create consensus in the talk page. It is obstructing our ability to improve the article and it is unacceptable, and is clearly a misinterprestation of WP:BLP as was noted above. The sources in question have editorial staff, they aren't personal blogs; Slate and Kotaku are both fairly prominent websites, and the rest all still meet RS standards.

You're not assuming good faith. Please do so in the future; I know what I'm doing. It is just a bit frustrating when every attempt to improve the article is blocked and discussion on the matter prevented. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)\

Please explain what in the wide, wide world of sports any of that has to do with Zoe Quinn. And ensure that all of those alleged connections are sourced to something more than "some guy said this on 4chan" or "I read it on a YouTube comment page." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Slate article you cite calls the accusations "a dirty-laundry double load of drama-laden chats." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of them as suitable for repetition in an encyclopedic format. I believe the current wording is adequate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Slate is a biased source; it is not unreasonable to use biased sources, and biased sources can be reliable sources. sources need not be unbiased. But you have to take care in what you use them for; in this case, they're being used for a specific purpose where their bias is irrelevant, namely A) noting the press/feminist reaction to the scandal and B) noting that the scandal exists in the first place and the fundamental, basic facts of it (or at least some of them), which are also repeated in other, less biased reliable sources. You can write an article using biased sources, you just need to take care that you don't allow THEIR bias to creep into Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Slate isn't "a biased source", which is exactly the point. Slate is a generally-accepted high-quality source, and that source states that the accusations are little more than tabloid trash. We don't republish tabloid trash in the encyclopedia. Hence, if the reliable sources in this matter are calling it tabloid trash, we are well-advised to leave it out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are concerns of neutrality in the coverage of the incident that were raised in the talk page, and these deletions does not address the problem. It's true that BLP applies to talk pages, but Tutelary is right that BLP explicitly allows discussing controversial content there in a general way when it's sourced, letting us to include such claims once; a shotgun approach of "delete everything " even from article history is not the way to protect the neutrality of the article nor the privacy of the person - the reliable sources covering the event in depth are too numerous and varied to simply hide the whole thing just because some aspects of it are gossip and should be left out. Several RSs (including those supportive of Quinn, even the Slate article you found reliable) have linked the episode to ongoing discussion in news sources about the problems of video gaming press as a young medium, in particular with respect to the previous Doritos-gate incident; leaving that side of the story completely out is a problem with WP:BALANCE, as that point of view should be covered in proportion to its due weight as covered by the references. Diego (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that at that point, you're basically using this article as a coatrack to discuss alleged problems in gaming journalism. Which isn't going to fly. Zoe Quinn's article is not the place to have a substantive discussion of various claims about video game journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not something that you should decide, that judgement should be made by reliable sources like the Slate article. So far, the professional journalists covering the event have decided that the topic is connected to that discussion, and the article should mimic that coverage in the adequate proportion, without editors deciding that one of the points of view expressed and extensively talked by those journalists should be excised. Diego (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's something we decide. We can decide that something is so thinly and tangentially connected to another thing that significant discussion of it really belongs elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When the Slate writes something like "We need to stop focusing on her and focus on the journalists. ... We need to not make this about Zoe... I read many comments like this, and they are absolutely right", it's clear that talking about journalism is not making the article a coatrack. At this point, what you're advocating is that we censor information from the article that you found reliable ten minutes ago just because you disagree with it. Diego (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the Slate piece is literally making the argument I'm making - that the issue relates to games journalism, not to Zoe Quinn's life.

More to the point, Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything ever written anywhere and editorial judgment is not censorship. We make decisions about what to include and what not to include all the time. Crying "censorship" is the weakest of all possible arguments for a piece of information, because it means you can't come up with any more compelling reason to include it. We are editors and yes, that means we make judgments about content inclusion and exclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I made that argument because I had already made the strongest possible argument -that the journalism connection is covered by multiple sources from a variety of points of view- and you ignored it. Editorial judgement is made by consensus from several editors through calm discussion, not by editors single-handedly deciding that linking to sources in order to evaluate them is a policy violation and blowing up large parts of the discussion, which is discouraged both by talk page guidelines and BLP policy (which recommends substituting them with a link to previous discussion, not revdeleting the whole thing). I think this conversation is a good candidate for mediation, given that the way this discussion is being held is way beyond the desirable properties of talking about content and the reliability of each particular reference for each particular claim. Diego (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, if some content is excluded for editorial discretion, it wouldn't justify rev-deleting it as it wouldn't be a BLP violation but merely editors agreeing that it's not relevant to the topic. Diego (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It relates to Zoe Quinn because Zoe Quinn is involved in this particular instance of dubious behavior by the press and industry; the fact that it blew up so much is because of her personal hypocrisy, long-standing objections to nepotism and corruption in the gaming press, and issues of biased reporting on gender equality issues in gaming - but that's irrelevant, because it DID blow up and she was involved and her name is all over it. Zoe Quinn is only notable for this and another incident of claimed harassment and counter-claims of nepotism. If you feel that Zoe Quinn is not notable, that's fine, but these incidents are all that is notable about her, and given that attempts at deleting the article have failed, it appears that there is consensus that the various scandals she has been involved in are sufficient for notability. It is not being used as a coatrack in the article, as the whole proposed section directly involves her and her associates and the aftermath of this particular incident. The goal is to document the scandal, not to use it as a prop for going after the video game industry. We cover scandals on Wikipedia all the time without significant issue; this should be no different. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon:, I suggest that you tone down your posts and in particular that you withhold your personal opinions against Quinn - it's not helping in any way to discuss the thing, it's irrelevant to the discussion, and it's giving reasons to the people who are using extreme editing techniques to prevent reasoned debate. The best thing you can do is limit your posts to neutral claims that have appeared in the sources you want to use, avoiding any kind of judgement of Quinn or the Wikipedia editors, so that we can evaluate each claim on its own merits. I suggest that all editors do the same around here. Diego (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diego:, I apologize. I'm just a bit frustrated because I'm trying to improve the article and discussion keeps getting shut down and people assume I am out to get them. What bothers me the most about this is that a great deal of the reason that people have gotten so upset about this is because of perceptions of censorship. I felt that the proposed section was fairly neutrally worded and would have been more than happy for people to find things that they felt were bad or wrong and remove or fix them, but instead the whole thing keeps getting deleted, preventing people from even giving much feedback on it - I had a discussion with a couple people about it earlier and it was fairly productive, and then some folks rolled in and deleted it and deleted even the revisions and the discussion to prevent anyone from seeing it and working on it, while refusing to say what their specific issue was so that it could be hashed out and improved or fixed or even removed if a given sentence could not be adequately sourced. And this is precisely the sort of thing which has gotten people incensed - I was told by a friend who hangs out on 4chan that someone there even made a post earlier today calling out censorship on the Wikipedia article, and goodness knows we don't need to get a bunch of POV Warriors from /v/ involved. I want to write something which documents this, not some sort of hit job, and I'd love to work with people on it, but it is very hard when it keeps getting deleted without people suggesting how it might be improved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the sentiment. I had the change to briefly see your additions this morning before they were deleted, and from what I recall I found that some of it were BLP violations that couldn't be accepted, some of it were not neutral claims that would have had to be reworded, and it was too long to be considered as giving due weight to the topic within the biography; but overall it could have been used as the basis for and reshaped into a section which covered the reports from several sources in a neutral way.

I suggest that you start a new section at the talk page where you create a list of sourced facts that you believe should be included in the article, in a general way and with as little detail as possible. Keep each separate fact in its own line of a bulleted list, and add items to the list one edit at a time. This way, if we later decide by consensus that some of the claims are poorly sourced and thus a WP:BLP violation, an administrator^{any editor} will be able to rev-delete only those problematic claims, leaving the rest of your post available to be discussed and archived. Diego (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Revdel needs to delete the offending revision and any revisions which subsequently contain the text. So if the BLP violations are in the first edit, the entire list still needs to be deleted, along with any subsequent discussion. Either way, it doesn't seem like a good approach to encourage posting BLP violations on the grounds that they then can be deleted later.

I should add that the problem isn't simply sourcing - yes, there were unreliable sources with the problematic text, but there were also sourced claims that were BLP violations, either because the source doesn't work to the same rules we do, or the source didn't contain them as written. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, the whole point is that (general, non-specific) content in a Talk page about a living person is not a BLP violation if it's referenced, as BLP allows that kind of content. If the claim in the talk page does not match what the reference says, or if there's previous consensus that the source is unreliable, then yes, it's outside what BLPTALK allows. But tell me, how could such consensus possibly be formed if the discussion is removed on sight, without other editors being given a chance to evaluate it for reliability? Diego (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what you suggested was to post sourced "facts" for discussion, and use revdel if consensus is that they were BLP violations. That's simply not going to work. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the relevant policy, and in truth sourced facts are actually not subject to revdel. Only "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material" needs to be hidden from sight, but explicitly not to mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations; if those are found to be BLP violations, it's enough to remove them from the page with a regular edit and it's OK to leave them available at history. So I see no problem in posting factual claims that are backed up by references and later removing them if found problematic. You're right with respect to content that should be revdeleted, but that is not the kind of material that is being handled at this article and talk page. I've updated my previous post to reflect this new understanding of policy that wasn't clear for me. Diego (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in following your advice, Titanium Dragon has done exactly what I feared would happen, with more negative unsourced or poorly sourced claims about living people being posted. If we decide we need to revdel we'll need to kill the discussion as a whole, so it is probably better doing it earlier rather than later if it amounts to that. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I kind of did the reverse of this; I'll see about redoing it tomorrow when I'm less tired and cranky. Or maybe I'm lying and I'll do it tonight, who knows?

Regarding weight, I think a big part of the problem is that Zoe Quinn isn't actually especially notable; as I noted in the talk page for it, she's really only "notable" for three things, potentially: a brief burst of coverage when she claimed to be harassed, wherein pretty much all of the coverage ultimately derived from statements made by Quinn herself - harassment which may well not have actually occurred, as is presently alleged, which is precisely why we try to avoid such sourcing. A very small burst of coverage when the Game Jam she was involved in went down, and unfortunately one of the main articles about that was written by Grayson, which runs into conflict of interest problems (indeed, it is a part of the present scandal). And the present nonsense. She doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, which doesn't mean she isn't notable but does mean that she doesn't really have a whole lot to be said about her as a creator. "She made a game, had sex with a reporter, and got in fights on the internet" isn't much of a Wikipedia article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the talk page for Zoe Quinn protected? I was interested in being a part of the discussion but an administrator set it to protected until September 13. Can this be undone? I don't understand the purpose of protecting a talk page, not an article itself. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You can create an account an make a few constructive edits at other places for a few days - that will grant you autoconfirmed status, which will allow you to edit semi-protected pages. Meanwhile, if there's some comment you want to add to conversation, you can leave it at my talk page and I will post it in your behalf.

I have to say I agree with this IP request - page protection is a measure against extreme vandalism, but this is not what is going around the talk page. If there are BLP violations from IP editors, they can be by overseen and handled by the editors actively watching the talk page. Diego (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected for good reason, as there is a significant history of IP harassment, trolling and sockpuppetry. That's what we do when that happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is? Where is that history documented? (honest question). Diego (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm an IP and I haven't harassed or sockpuppeted anybody. I haven't seen anyone else do this, either. Locking an entire talk page seems like a disproportionate reaction, when you can just deal with the problem editors individually.72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, do some research. The protection log says a request was made at RFPP. I'm guessing there were a lot of bad IP edits the day the news broke, and it's been protected ever since. Check the edits made during that time of you're really that concerned. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it normal practice to semi-protect a talk page? 72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When the subject is a woman in the gaming industry who is on the receiving end of misogynist insults and harassment from angry male 18-35 gamers (a group that greatly overlaps with the Wikipedia crowd), the yea, unusual and extra page protection may be called for. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anything like that on the talk page. Isn't it borderline uncivil to accuse editors of being misogynists?72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because a lot of the worst offending comments have been deleted out of the page history. You literally can't see it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, thanks for the pointer. I've reviewed WP:RFPP's history and could only find this, but I couldn't find anything about protecting the talk page. Are you sure that point has been debated? It also doesn't mention anything about sock puppets. Diego (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• [13], which has appeared today, is possibly relevant. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If we can return to actually discussing the WP page, that Guardian article, like the majority of the mainstream coverage, doesn't refer to the harassment campaign as 'alleged', or 'reported' - it states unequivicolly that it happened. Wikipedia articles reflect the sources, not the opinions of editors, and as such the harassment needs to be described as having happened in the article.Euchrid (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Euchrid:, that very same point was already raised at the talk page, and the current wording is the result of consensus addressing it. Please read the previous talk, and you can discuss it there if you have some new argument. Diego (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing the forest for the trees

This situation brings up a more general problem. The BLP policy relies heavily on the idea that any negative or potentially controversial content about a living person must be referenced to a reliable source. However, it happens frequently with women in gaming (and women in politics) that BLP violations are committed by the reliable sources themselves. What then? I'm not sure this can be solved at ANI, but it's particularly relevant here... Bobby Tables (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It should go without telling, but external sources are not subject to Wikipedia's policy. The relevant policies in such case are WP:DUE WEIGHT and WP:NOTCENSORED: if the sources are indeed reliable, including their claims in the article in a neutral way would not be a violation of BLP policy because it allows for well-referenced content - it only forbids poorly referenced one. (If the reference is poorly written, it doesn't count as reliable. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).

This doesn't mean that the content need to be used, but it can be used to write the BLP article. Whether to include them in that case is then subject to editorial discretion, in the form of consensus between editors that the content is relevant to the topic and is given due weight with respect to the article's state. Diego (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Material should be simultaneously compliant with both BLP and WP:V. It's not one or the other. Sometimes generally reliable sources communicate material we think would be non-compliant with BLP policy. In that case we don't use it. (For instance, sometimes B-grade celebrities have the names of their kids mentioned in an RS; we usually wouldn't use it. The WP:BLP1E is another example of the principle where BLP policy discourages the use of material even when it shows up in a reliable source). "Being in a reliable source" isn't enough by itself, although it's required for what we do decide to put in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

'Intrepreting' a source is not something we should be doing (and is, in fact against policy). If a source is reliable, it's reliable and, therefore, meets BLP; if it isn't, it doesn't. How much of the source is used is not a issue of the source complying with BLP or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Being "reliable" according to WP:V does not mean a source automatically meets other policies like WP:BLP or WP:NPOV for everything it says. That's clear from general practice and explicitly written in the policies themselves. It's not "if reliable, then must be fine with BLP in every case". We can't interpret the material to say something it didn't say, but of course we have to interpret whether we find a source reliable or whether we find material from a source policy compliant.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:STATicVapor

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

---

Is being uncivil and keeps reverting my edits and calls me a sock puppet; BlaccCrab and Scorpion0422 can vouch that STATicVapor has been unpleasant. Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're at 4RR. That doesn't bode well for you. Good luck. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harmony-n-Beatz, you will need to provide diffs(links to the edits that back up your claims) as evidence before this can be processed much further, if you need help adding diffs to this report please see here for guidance. Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

- [14] − [15] − [16] − [17] Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note. Harmony-n-Beatz had not notified STATicVapor of this case on his talk page. I have left a message to make sure he's been notified. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Harmony-n-Beatz is a sockpuppet of User:MariaJaydHicky, who has been genre warring on 808s & Heartbreak for months. STATic message me! 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged Harmony-n-Beatz's page as a suspected sock by looks of it the other confirmed ones have been checkuser'd. Probably best if everyone leaves the article well alone in the meantime to make everyone else job a bit easier. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Harmony-n-Beatz for the edit warring and as a probable sock and have requested checkuser assistance at the SPI case page. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I have not been impressed with the way the user has handled criticism. My contact with him was non-existent until today when I noticed he reverted this edit. Now, the IP in question was being rude in the summary and I can see why someone might think he was a vandal. But, his edit was completely in the right. And Static reverted him. One of my absolute pet peeves is autopatrol users who don't make sure that what they are reverting is vandalism. To me they are as bad as vandals because they should be trustable but their lack of caution leads to vandalism being re-added.

Anyway, I informed Static of this and I assumed he would either not respond or promise to be more careful. I was done with the issue and ready to move on. Instead, he went on the defensive, deciding to attack me rather than acknowledge that he made a mistake. There have been more responses, but I think you get the picture. This will probably be dismissed because of the sock allegations, and I can't speak for this editor's long term habits, but from my short-term impressions, the above users aren't that wrong. It would probably be worthwhile to investigate his behavior and habits a little bit more thoroughly. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see that as an "attack," especially given the condescending tone of your initial comment to STaticVapor. "Warrior" may not be the individual's birthname, but it was their legal name, so without reading the fine print at the top of the table, it's an understandable oversight. That has little to do with this report otherwise, which I suspect will be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the user even did that much. He probably just saw the profanity and decided to revert. The IPs edit summary says "His birth name is NOT Warrior", so if Static had put even a second of thought into this, he would have realized, "Wait a second... How could someone's birth name be 'Warrior'?" and a quick investigation would have confirmed the accuracy of the edit. People keep getting lost in the red herrings here. My argument is simple: 10 seconds of investigation would have avoided this. This is unacceptable and the fact that the user is not addressing the real issue doesn't help things. True, this doesn't have much to do with the report (though I was asked to comment) but I think it does prove that the user shouldn't be outright dismissed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith goes a long way, if you choose to not to, that is your problem. I have known for a long time that his legal name is Warrior, I do not read the page regularly so the fact that we were listing the birth name was easily missed, since when he was inducted his legal name was Warrior. You are complaining over one little revert, calling it unacceptable is just a blatant misappropriation. If anyone should be under discussion, it would be you, for your original uncivil message, followed by your personal attack filled one. STATic message me! 22:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If I can add my two penny's worth; STATicVapor is in fact a sockpuppet who has used both STATicVapor and STATicVerseatide (see [[talk:X (Chris Brown album)# "Pop Star"|on here, I even agreeded with STATicVerseatides' comment); I try to get on with users and I know this'll sound petty but when I first signed up, I started to work on creating Dina Rae a article and I just submitted my edit to the now disfunct page "The Dina Rae Show" and saw that STATicVapor had requested to have The Dina Rae Show deleted saying it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines (of course it wouldn't have 10 minutes after it was made, you need to wait awhile to see if there was any action on it); I'm not saying "They're evil for doing that" but I had also editted X's article where it stated Chris Brown said the music would be more soul and R&B and not totally pop, so I included R&B, soul, hip hop (3/5 singles released were hip hop so I included that) and pop and I got a message from STATicVapor on my talk page saying my edit was disrubted and I could be blocked, when I hadn't been a member long, so I do think that STATicVapor comes across hostile and a bit you can edit anything on Wikipedia but apart from anything I've edited as your edits are not welcome in their atittude. Thought I'd comment Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Linked accounts, like both static's are not sock puppetry as per here. Murry1975 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Not even alternative accounts, I changed my user name less than a year ago. STATic message me! 15:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass copyright violation

Mohammad Waleed (talk · contribs) is single purpose account engaged in mass copyright violation, and is adding images of people who have no connection to Pashtun people in that article. In other words, he's giving people ethnicity based on his own assumption.[18] This is very disruptive, I think indef block is appropriate. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright image issues are dealt with and the user warned but you need to discuss your assumption that he is making assumptions with him before raising it here. Nthep (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

Hi, the original thread got archived, so for convenience I've copied the postings from the original thread to here again. Hopefully that's the right thing to do.
Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to address Cailil's point above - it should be seen that there has been evidence of positive attitudinal change and development, specifically research and creation of articles, and avoiding gnoming. To address Black Kite - Cailil specifically stated that discussions on any issues was still fine and my Topic Ban did not forbid any discussions on any topics. I was never a confrontational editor to begin with, and I always discussed changes and been courteous to those that engaged on various topics. I think its fair to say that the deep-rooted issue was my insistence on an exact definition of "British Isles" in articles, with references to show that it was being used within the references. Other areas, involving an "exact defintion and usage", were also highlighted by Cailil even though these topics did not fall under the Topic Ban, but I understood what was being said. I don't believe there's any need for the Topic Ban to remain in place any longer as I've shown I understand the reasons why it was in place, and I've addressed those editing habits at the root of the problem. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that it fell off with only dissenting opinion meant the request failed. No need to repost the panda ₯’ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that there were only dissenting opinions, apologies for reposting if that is the case. I saw that editors had posted some observations and questions, and it seemed to me that it "fell off" due to a lack of activity. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting of topic ban. I'm impressed that you've not gone the sock/evasion route & have thus respected your top ban. If the community chooses to lift the TB, I would recommend less attention to the topic-in-question, in future. I don't wann seeya getting blocked or worst. :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. As I've said above, I believe I've addressed the behaviour that was at the root of the problem, and have shown to the community that I've learned. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've confidence in you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting with the appropriate ROPE. Happy to give a second or third chance. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - I assume ROPE is some further probation period? Is there somewhere you can point me? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

HighKing, see WP:ROPE. It's not so much a rope as it is a leash... Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting -- He has shown respect for the sanctions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No Support A leopard never changes its spots. Highking has been banned in the past and as soon as a ban is lifted returns to previous behaviour. To recount that Highking was never sanctioned for sockpuppetry while operating under his 2nd account - User:Popaice. No support. Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Calil states, a lack of problematic editing since simply proves that the topic ban works. My experience from working on problematic areas affected by nationalist POV is that editors do not change; topic bans expire and the same editing patterns re-emerge. HighKing can be a productive editor in other areas of Wikipedia if they wish, but I don't believe allowing them to return to the whole "British Isles" combat arena would be a productive outcome. Number 57 10:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On that basis, is it true to say that you wouldn't agree to a Topic Ban ever being overturned? Harsh. No chance then for an editor to show they have the ability to learn from mistakes, or show that they've recognized their problematic behaviour? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In areas with bad POV problems like this, I think lifetime topic bans are the most effective way of cleaning them up. As I alluded to above, I have edited around the edges of another area with some awful issues, and I haven't seen topic ban work as a temporary solution - the problematic editors return when it expires with exactly the same viewpoint - sometimes they are more subtle in their POV after their ban, but the POV remains. The issue for me is the desire to return to a topic area in which the banned editors clearly have a strong POV, and I don't believe it is a positive move to allow this. Number 57 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some background: I edited a lot of articles that in my opinion (at the time), used the term "British Isles" incorrectly. We attempted to create rules for usage and formed WP:BISE and discussed edits among interested editors. That initiative eventually failed, and led to the discovery of a large sock farm (still active today). I wasn't ever editing from a "nationalistic" point of view, but from a (misguided) attempt to enforce a standard definition across lots of articles. Cailil correctly pointed this out (took a while for me to grasp, but I see it now), and also pointed out that this was the root of problems caused by gnoming in other areas. Enforcing definitions (especially of controversial terms) where definitions are not "exact" in the real world, was the problem. I don't believe the Topic Ban is serving any useful purpose any longer - it is "working" not because it is in effect, but because I've learned and cut out the problematic behaviour (and learned too). I don't believe any editor would say I'm a POV warrior (exceptions made for the sock farm obviously), or that I even have strong nationalistic POVs. It's less of a desire to "return" to a topic area, and more of a desire to rejoin the community as a fully-fledged and trusted editor, without a shadow of a Topic Ban hanging over my edits, and being able to show that editors do learn, and do change for the good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! This made me laugh. In truth, Highking systematically went page to page removing the term "British Isles" and at an unreplicable speed. I think a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry are reasons enough to decline this request.Dubs boy (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this editor had chosen to edit in an other way then things would be different, however on the editor's own admission, editing has just been reduced so things are not different. It sounds like the editor is mainly interested in editing in the problematic way. Maybe it would help if the editor indicated the kind of constructive edits that he wishes to make but cannot due to the topic ban. Op47 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Op47 - just in the interests of transparency and completeness, No, that's not what I said. Yes, my editting has been reduced, but I stated that it is mainly due to cutting out the problematic "gnoming", and partially because I'm not as active as I was before. You appear to attribute the "reduction" as involuntary, and therefore nothing has changed. Not true. 80+% of the reduction is my choice, because the gnoming is the underlying problem. And in terms of "different" editting patterns - I have also researched and created a couple of new articles and working on another. But you've asked one important question - "what kind of constructive edits I wish to make but cannot due to the Topic Ban". I'm not going to blow smoke. The honest answer ... I've nothing in mind. Keeping the Topic Ban in place wouldn't affect my editing .... but would and does affect my "standing" in the community. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the topic ban is lifted simply for "time served" reasons, HighKing will likely return to the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. This, in turn, will attract more disruptive socking to counter his edits. Déjà vu. I think that HighKing should not be allowed any wiggle room to muck about with the "British Isles" phrase at all, ever, as it will only lead to disruption (major headaches). The restriction is not an albatross around his neck. It is a safeguard against disruption. I have no doubt that the stalkers that watch his every edit will come out of the woodwork the second the restriction was lifted and he made a "BI" edit. Not worth the trouble. Doc talk 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - to be honest, I kinda agree with you. The only point I would highlight is that I'm being heavily penalized (in my opinion) for the actions (past and potential future) of the sock (who's already attempting to disrupt this discussion). I recognize that the community can't afford to invest the time, energy and resources into every petty event, and I also recognize that the community has no appetite for anything to do with the phrase "British Isles", regardless of whether any edits are actually right or wrong. As you say, and I agree, the disruption isn't worth it. You say I'm likely to return to the same behaviour. I'm saying the opposite and I'm asking the community to trust me. You say it is not an albatross around my neck. Well .. I think it is because it's a sign that the community doesn't trust that I can behave appropriately. And it's going to be impossible for me to demonstrate that the leaf has been turned without a little trust from the community. I don't know what more I can do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello :) I have to agree with Cailil above when he says "...showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted". I see no reason to remove the ban because I know the background on this. It's not a "penalty" on you. It's there to "prevent" disruption, and it should remain in place to prevent disruption at large. Nothing personal. Doc talk 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-) I don't get that. How can it *not* be viewed as personal? It's a Topic Ban on me? I've said above that I recognize fully (and hopefully articulated the fact that I recognize fully) the behaviour that causes the problem. I'm asking that the community trusts me enough to lift the Topic Ban. You don't agree ... ergo you don't trust me. Kinda hard not to see it as personal.... I'm not whining or making excuses or blaming the sock or ranting. But I really don't see how the Topic Ban will ever be lifted at this rate ... which translates into the fact that I can never rejoin the trusted editors who operate without a Topic Ban. Victory to socking? Taking your logic one step further, if this Topic Ban extended to all editors, then it wouldn't be personal. But it doesn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I was around when this whole thing started(well before the sanction were in place). The wording of the ban "is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly construed." seems reasonable considering this user was prolific in this content dispute. I think this ban has kept this user out of trouble. I think lifting the ban would be about the same as an invitation to start editing in this area which I think is a bad idea.

While I appreciate that this user has respected the ban I also think that this user returning to this topic would result in more trouble. I don't think it hangs over him like a cloud, we don't have a big banner on his userpage or anything. The only thing this ban is doing is keeping him out of an area that was problematic for him before. Chillum 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support in part because the community seems increasingly more concerned about avoiding any 'disturbance in the force' than in creating content. It is absurd to contend that an editor cannot change. In this case any repetition would rapidly result in the ban being reimposed, possibly with greater sanction. When I started editing Wikipedia there would have been no question about time served being sufficient in this case. We are now being over precious. I speak here as a veteran on those disputes having to handle socks and ill will from both sides so I know the editors concerned through long practice. We also allowed GoodDay to edit again and he was as if not more disruptive on this issue. If it helps I'll happily agree to mentor (or monitor) his behaviour as I attempted to do for GoodDay. I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia in the main because I think it has shifted from using behaviour as an enabling constraint to one where for some admins its a governing constraint which they see as the primary purpose of the encyclopaedia as a whole. So the time I used to put in to monitoring controversial articles is available ----Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is the problem the Topic, or my previous behaviour? I've stated I've no intention of ever returning to my previous behaviour. I've also articulated my understanding of what the problem was, and I've demonstrated that I can edit without gnoming while still being productive, and seen out the agreed review period without any violation. I'm getting the distinct impression from Chillum and Doc that the Topic Ban isn't really anything to do with my behaviour. Is there an elephant in the room? Nobody here is stating that they believe I'll return to my previous behaviour... but that the Topic Ban should still remain in place as it doesn't cause me any negative impact. I disagree, hence this request. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the ban lifted so that you can continue to not edit in the area the topic ban prohibits you from editing? If that is the case then the ban is of no force or effect and you can just ignore it.

There is no banner on your user page, nothing to stigmatize you in regards to this ban. It might as well not exist if you are choosing not to edit in the whole "British Isles" area.

Unless you actually want to edit the subject of "British Isles" again then there is little point in removing the ban. It is the possibility of you returning to editing "British Isles" again that I object to.

You asking for this ban to be removed is essentially you asking for permission to edit the subject of "British Isles". I don't think that is a good idea. Chillum 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response pretty much sums up the problem. You're saying that the problem is editting the term "British Isles" - as far as I know, the Topic Ban is to address behaviour, not "protect" a term from being editted. I've summed up before above, but here's another attempt. Previously, I had maintained that the term was incorrectly used in some articles, and I had tried to nail down a definition, and nail down guidelines as to usage (the WP:BISE). That had failed (start of sock problems) but I continued to implement the half-agreed rules anyway - resulting in more disruption (height of sock problem). The problem was described that I was engaged in systematic editting of articles containing the term, and my edits resulting in the removal of the term without proper referencing. When my edits were scrutinized, most of my edits were correct. But - and this is the problem and the root of the behaviour issues - some were not and some were marginal. I think the marginal calls were the ones that gave me my Aha moment, and I started to understand the issue. In real-life, there isn't a single definition and it is often used loosely, and trying to apply a straight and narrow definition is always going to cause problems. I'm asking for the Topic Ban to be lifted because I've learned the lesson, articulated what lesson I've learned, addressed the problematic behaviour and demonstrated that I can behave without resorting to wiki-gnoming or any other of the behaviours that led to the Topic Ban. So yes, removing the Topic Ban would leave the way free for me to edit any topic including "British Isles". Just like every other trusted member of the community. I'm trusted with every other Topic. Bear in mind as I've stated above, I've no intention of seeking out any such edits involving British Isles, or resorting to any of the previous problematic behaviour. I won't seek out articles containing the term as I did previously, I'll simply edit normally as I've been doing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dive into Highkings contributions history, pick any day and you'll find some instance of random IMOS application. Take 21st Feb 2013 as an example. Highking applied IMOS across 36 different articles and at 1 point applied IMOS across 20 pages in 16 minutes! Highking was not reading the articles nor was he attempting to find a context for the edit. It was mud slinging and seeing what sticks. How would he be able to gauge if an edit is correct if he doesn't even read the article? Take away the ban and his mask will slip. And a user with a history of socking is bound to have another sock account still active.Dubs boy (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when has this guy Murray been the arbiter of what can, and can't appear on these pages? He keeps reverting the above comment. He and his colleague Highking are both long term edit warriors. They revert a change and if its reverted back they leave it a while then try again. See Murray's activity on the War Memorial Gardens article for example. Neil Edgar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Mac22203

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

User:Mac22203, a WP:SPA with no edits other than on the Centerplate article (concerning a food and beverage company), is intent on turning the article into a coatrack for negative material concerning an incident where the CEO of the company kicked a dog - an incident which clearly has nothing to do with the company's business concerns. Given that Mac22203 had repeatedly added grossly undue and non-neutral material on this incident, [19], and had refused to listen to the advice of contributors concerning the matter (see the article talk page and User talk:Mac22203) I removed the material entirely. Sadly, Mac22203 has chosen to edit-war over this, [20][21] despite being warned previously. Since it seems that Mac22203 is unwilling to comply, and is instead intent on abusing the article as a means to put the world to rights concerning the unfortunate dog, I would have to suggest that a block is necessary, at least until such time as Mac22203 accepts Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week per WP:EDITWAR. I've also left a reasonable offer on his talk page. I (or any other admin) can unblock him early if he pledges to use the article talk page, make his case, and build consensus rather than repeatedly try to add the same information over and over against consensus. As always, my admin actions are open for review, and if anyone thinks I incorrectly blocked this user, insofar as they should be allowed to continue their actions, feel free to unblock them and let them go about their business. --Jayron32 04:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Jayron32. DocumentError (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreasonably long block for a new user. Grump gave a one-sided explanation of the facts. New users did not have the opportunity to defend himself. I observed that New User made an attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies while Grump baited him into a revert-rule violation (a favorite tactic of long-time editors). Grump did not seek let alone receive concensus for removing all mention of the Des Hague scandal from the article. But yeah, good work.Brmull (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, what? How exactly does repeatedly adding material against a clear consensus 'comply with Wikipedia policies'? Mac22203 had been repeatedly advised to discuss this on the talk page - to which his sole response was to accuse all and sundry of 'bias' and 'censorship'. The simple facts of the matter are that 'man kicks dog' is unlikely to merit a Wikipedia article, and that accordingly an article on a business was being used as a coatrack to get the incident into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that User:Brmull isn't uninvolved here - and had in fact added further content [22] to a list of 'Venue Partners' that Mac22203 originally added to the article with a clear intent of advancing a boycott on the company.[23] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Some minds "think alike", so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good block. In addition to edit-warring, he also came close to making a legal threat. If the incident is widely known, it could merit maybe one sentence with citation. Otherwise, as you said, it's mostly about that guy, who currently has a redlink for an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it merits anything despite being very widely known in Canada due to the CBC carrying the story on the national news. It still has nothing to do with the company, just its (now ex-) CEO. --NellieBly (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If the CEO resigned over this, then that merits a one-line mention with a proper citation link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Note We now have new (or 'new') contributors adding similar material to the article. [24][25] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Havana Reggie is an obvious sockpuppet and I have blocked as such. Will watch the other editor. GB fan 11:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac22203 on the 3 new editors that have shown up with similar content. GB fan 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You may want to include Michael Cornelius (talk · contribs), who turned up after a 7-year absence just to comment on this. And likewise include Brmull (talk · contribs), who didn't ask, but demanded that the "undue weight" tag be removed. If neither prove to be socks, then fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• SPI says technically unrelated, but I smell meatpuppetry. Also note that the editor/s pushing this have stooped to PAs on the talk page: "I'm not sure you're working with a full deck of cards" is disgusting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It does look like meatpuppetry at the least. 74.96.240.216 and 90.221.136.227 should also have been added to the sockpuppet investigation. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Suicidal Comments

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

---

Earlier, User:Dorianluparu threatened suicide on User talk:RHaworth. Any threats of harm to self or others should be met with a block, according to Wikipedia's policy on threats of harm. This seemed like the appropriate place to nominate the blocking of this user. Lord Laitinen (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WMF has already been notified and it is currently being handled. Mike V • Talk 20:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The correct response to threats of self harm is to notify the foundation, which has been done here. If you know any admin who feels that blocking a user who threatens to harm themselves is a good idea, please direct them to remove their head from their ass. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Blocking seems a bit harsh. Do we really have such a hardass approach to threats of self-harm? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's a policy, it needs to be changed. Seriously, someone who's already depressed and thinking of suicide being blocked from a website they contribute on is only going to exacerbate it. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not policy. Lord Laitinen generalized poorly. The policy reads, "Threats of violence to others should be met with blocking..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, blocking is not overkill in this case. Threats of self-harm are very serious, and if it is not policy to punish them for it yet, it should be. Second, this user was blocked for their actions today, by User:Mike V, and rightfully so! Please do not disrespect my opinions again. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Lord Laitinen: First of all, threats of self-harm should rarely, if ever, be met by blocking. I've reverted your block notice on his talk page, because that is undoubtedly not the reason he was blocked. If you restore it, you will be blocked. I won't revert the block, because it's possible there is a suppressed reason for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Lord Laitinen: "Threats of self-harm are very serious, and if it is not policy to punish them for it yet, it should be." Please do not ever interact with an editor who threatens self-harm. Seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Sergeandrei

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

---

This user has created the same non-notable BLP (seemingly about himself) four consecutive times over the past four days with each new version speedily deleted and mentioned on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be reading the suggestions/warnings from the page reviewers. What is the appropriate course of action? Upjav (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This new user is a child. I have explained on his talk page that WP is not Facebook. given pointers to WP:NAY and WP:YOUNG, and warned that he may be blocked if he persists. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Hurtsme1 creating a lot of redirects

Hurstme1 has created almost 100 new redirects the vast majority of which go to Islamophobia. I'm sure they are all well intentioned but I don't know the likelihood of someone searching for these terms. Shiaphobic for instance is a term I have never seen and Antimuslimness just isn't even a word. Helpsome (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

wikt:shiaphobia - but is this really a form of Islamophobia? Or is it mainly seen among Sunnis? never mind, target is proper. But antinawasib and anti-Nawasib have different targets, so at the very least this user needs to be more careful. --NE2 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reopening a talk page discussion to continue making aspersions against other editors

Could an administrator review whether this edit reopening a discussion that has devolved to aspersions about other editors' motives is appropriate? The editor has been asked to revert themselves [26], and their response [27] [28]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You and Kww do not own that article, it is time you try to get that. You do not have any business closing discussions you don't enjoy on talk pages, and even less complaining if someone reopens it. The discussion is about the page and the way it is currently owned and managed by you and Kww. It is absolutely proper to keep that in the talk page; if anything what is inappropriate is your arm-twisting attempt by closing it first and whining on the dramaboards later.--cyclopia^speak! 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And the continuation of aspersions with no evidence continues here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

aspersions, user TRPoD? um no. you are among the two usual delete advocates for content in the article in question. of course your actions get mentioned in the thread about deletions there. you then twice tried to shut down the talk thread by "archive" of it. for user cyclopedia to point that out is not an aspersion. it is a retelling of events which anyone looking at the talk page history can plainly see. further up in the thread, i had hoped an admin would look into the deletion criteria you and your ally editor use. my reason for undoing your "archive"-muzzle is self-explanatory on the talk page there --see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths&diff=next&oldid=624152496 i rather hope some admins will look over the entire thread and give a ruling about the strict criterion (unless the source uses the exact word unusual about the event, you or the ally editor delete the entry) that you and a couple of tohers use on that article. i've seen nothing like it on all of wikipedia. this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#don.27t_bother_adding_content._it_will_be_deleted. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If some editors attempt to classify the application of standard policies that content must be verifiable as having been published in a reliable source and is not simply the interpretation of Wikipedia editor as "ownership", that is their problem not mine. And it is not a problem that merits the talk page becoming a free for all harangue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting sysop aid

A user has unilaterally moved Category:War in Donbass to Category:War in Donbas. There is no consensus for this change, and it has been discussed numerous times at the article War in Donbass (which is currently move protected, for good reason). I cannot fix the category now, for some reason, so I'm requesting that a sysop fix it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Has been redirected.Looks like it might have been redirected raher than moved should be able to remove the redirect to fix it. Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was moved. The edit history is now at Category:War in Donbas. I can't move it back because the user messed with the category page. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The user in question, Антон патріот, is going about disruptively changing transliterations all over the place. I don't know how to stop him/her. I'll notify him of this discussion in a moment. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, theres a redirect on the old category pointing to the new one hence my original assumption, blanking the page prior to move should allow it to be moved back but as its already in a serious state of screwed its probably worth leaving it, an admin should be able to bulk revert the changes if memory serves. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the category back, and reverted them on War in Donbass. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:@Amortias: Thank you both for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is nationalistic battleground editing (dead giveaway) and needs a warning or block. Another: [29] the edit summary mean "correcting grammatical errors". Heh. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think they've been warned enough, and those edits precede some of the comments here. We don't block retroactively, but let Anton consider that next time, such edits are likely to be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Historicity of Jesus

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

---

I'm fairly sure at least one person crossed the 3RR line here, but think someone else should figure out what to do. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it both Fearofreprisal and Bill the Cat 7 are having difficulty agreeing, should probably have gone to WP:AN3. Amortias (T)(C) 19:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN3. Amortias (T)(C) 19:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Malusia22

Thought of bringing this up here as I was wondering if his gang-related fantasy antics are enough grounds for a community ban. Said user has been repeatedly recreating pages about a supposed "sindikato" in the vein of a mega-gang like the National Crime Syndicate, though people whom I asked assert the contrary, and any allegations to mobster Asiong Salonga founding such a major criminal outfit are an outright fabrication.

Mal's articles were seemingly well-written in that it seemingly evades detection from admins, and it has been so much of a nuisance that I'm proposing a ban and a long-term abuse notice for admins and other users to watch for. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, User:Blakegripling ph. This user was blocked last January although he's created numerous socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22/Archive. Can you be more specific? Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He's still active as of now, via his sockpuppets of course. As what's stated on the SPI page, I spotted two socks of his editing on the subjects he frequents, and as it turned out several other sleepers were tagged and blocked. The damage and confusion he brought seemed enough for me to consider this as an issue needing attention. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but as they have been blocked, what would you suggest doing next? Put some articles on watchlists? Look for??? Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He's persistent, and resorts to IP-hopping. Any moment from now he'll show up under another account and try to justify his actions, as what he did when I nominated Sindikatu for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now that I got involved in this mess of Malusia22, can an admin take a look at this AFD? I found two sock user accounts and two sock IP addresses of this guy voted "keep". All of the user accounts have only edited either the AFD page or the articles involved in the AFD. Then this user popped out of nowhere and voted keep after I warned the other account for being a sockpuppet. I think an admin should clean up and monitor the sock votes in this AFD as Malusia22 will continue to create more accounts just to keep his hoax article. -WayKurat (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Now he's stepping up his antics - Mal's Lynchblare2 account respawned the article roughly a day after it was deleted, and I have a feeling the profane harrassment thrown against WayKurat and I were done by him. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ban consensus

Alright, now that we saw how much of a nuisance Malusia is, would it be alright to call for a consensus on whether this user should be banned for repeated and reckless disregard of policy? Blake Gripling (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Abusive, edit-warring IP editor

There's an abusive IP editor, 109.157.151.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is edit warring across a few articles and using abusive edit summaries. In this edit, he continues an edit war despite an attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. It looks like this edit is also from him, in which he resorts to "fuck you" in the edit summary. On Jade Cole, he has edit warred to include links to Livejournal and Wikipedia mirrors, which he insists must be included to properly reference the article. Can we block this guy for a little while, so that I can fix up the Jade Cole article without being reverted every few minutes? He's going to be back under a different IP address soon, but this one seems to be his main one for now. Alternatively, maybe someone could temporarily semi-protect these articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked, and then I saw this. I don't want to go around semi-protecting too much too soon, but please keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is fimilar to me, 81.170.122.230 he used a BT IP after his block, I think this could be the same editor. Murry1975 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible. I find it unlikely that people would change their ISP just to get around a block, but the BT IP editor seems to continue edit wars started by the Tiscali IP editor, and both geolocate to London. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think they changed their ISP, just used someone elses computer, a neighbour or friends, or even an open network. Murry1975 (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Desk - disruptive user

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

---

My apologies if I'm not following the correct procedure, as I don't frequent ANI and am unsure of the precise steps to follow. However, a long-term issue has recently taken a turn for the worse, and I feel that more formal steps are necessary to resolve it.

User:Medeis has been making unhelpful and disruptive edits to the Reference Desk for a very long period, generating much unpleasant discussion in various forums in the process. Yesterday, this user posted a deliberately provocative and faux-ignorant statement to WP:RD/M, and a little (comparatively mild) flaming ensued. The discussion was hatted by User:Jayron32, which normally would be the end of it. However, Medeis has twice removed the hat, adding a further piece of trolling to the discussion. Relevant diffs:

• [30] [Original unhelpful post]
• [31] [First unhatting]
• [32] [Second unhatting]

Many more examples of Medeis' disruptive behaviour on the reference desks, recent and historic, can be provided if necessary, but this example (in my opinion) crosses the line from annoying to unacceptable. I would request that appropriate sanctions are applied to this user - what constitutes "appropriate" is not an issue I feel competent to offer any suggestions on. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nor do I feel competent or, really, willing to apply sanctions. I hope Medeis will not undo my hatting, and I have asked them on their talk page to refrain. If you feel there are bigger fish to fry, you may do so but an RfC/U is a better venue than ANI. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the ref desk question, posted by another user, is a rule in volleyball. I suggest anyone interested in this look at the personal nature of the "administrative" action "hatting trolling by medeis" not "by user or users, since there were about 4 absolutely sincere answers in response to my question". I grew up with 8 foot nets, reference to a 9m seemed like a possible regionalism, and I asked it: "We played volleyball long before meters even existed. Is t[h]is some sort of europeanism? μηδείς (talk) 3:46 pm, 2 September 2014, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)". That's the horrible disruption your time's being wasted over. Now obviously the "even existed" part was hyperbole, but it was meant to express the fact that the original measurements were English, and that the 2.43cm height of the net (i.e. 8 English feet) shows this. There's absolutely no reason for this hatting, nor for the restoral, there's nothing hostile or that violates any policy by my action--the reason given for the hatting is that it was I who made the edit, which was answered with the only ref in the entire thread. I'd appreciate the hatting being removed, as other than User:Jayron32's personal hostility toward me there's no disruption at all. If anyone has any questions, or a policy I violated or even veered close to, please leave me a talk message. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction --Jayron32 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2.43 cm is a little less than 1 inch. Just thought you should know. --Jayron32 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting Admin Assistance with a closed and reopened AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination) was closed as a Speedy Keep and subsequently reopened by an editor who disagreed with the NAC closure. There is discussion at the AfD, on the editor's talk page and on the talk page of the AfD. To be clear there is no suggestion of bad faith editing here, but we do have a bit of a cluster bleep. Could someone please stop this from becoming more silly than it already is? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am that editor who had reopened the afd and then ironically voted for strong keep. I felt that due to the nature of speedy keep, the non-admin closure, and the fact that socks/SPAs have contributed in the discussion, I saw fit that it be reopened for the full 7 days and assessed by an administrator for consensus in whichever way. Important note: I reverted the closure of the afd, Ad Orientum (the poster of this ANI request) reopened, and I did not revert again. I however did ask the closer (Davey2010) to reopen, which he did. Tutelary (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Afd closed as Speedy Keep. Please see the closing rationale here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:SummerPhD

This user is on a bizarre rampage, undoing every single edit of mine that they can find. They have not attempted to explain themselves and there is no apparent reason for their behaviour. They have attacked about 50 articles so far. Examples include [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gomez's_Hamburger&diff=prev&oldid=624160858], [33], [34]. For the rest see [35]. 190.162.88.128 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IP appears to be sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP; blocked for two weeks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Appears or is?CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats an epistemological question. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm really asking is this a WP:DUCK or confirmed by a check user? Because most of the edits I saw were at least marginal and most were good. I would say the burden of proof for mindlessly rolling back this users edits should be pretty high for that reason. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP explains the situation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I might be missing but "Confirmed and suspected IP addresses" CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying an IP from the same ISP and geolocation who edited the LTA page 5 times to complain [36] [37] [38] including claiming they'd been doing this since 2004 [39] and defending their crap [40] and for good measure, made at least 2 edits the IP is best known for (sorry couldn't resist) [41] [42] is not quacking loudly enough for you? Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm fucking asking hence the question mark. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But the page was already linked for you which explains the problems such as the IP's history of removing "best known for". And the IP contributions similarly easily checked since they signed their post. Note that I've never heard of this IP before this ANI. I simply checked the stuff that had been presented here since I felt it resonable that my fellow editors were probably right and may have a point when they linked to the evidence. I spent about 1 minute* finding evidence that the IP had followed the trend of removing "best known for" that they are best known for (which is normally the best quacking, not possible IP addresses), another 20 seconds to realise the IP had also edited the LTA, another 40 seconds to check the IP ISP details and geolocation details with those in the LTA and then about 15 minutes or more writing these needless replies. Really this thread should have been closed long ago per WP:RBI and I would have myself except for needless questions when the clear quacking was so easily spotted and linked to multiple times before I had even read this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• There are about 10 pages in the IP's edit history that sound like they may be people. Admitedly some including David Purley were edited multiple times. However reading the edit summary give you a good idea of what they were doing. In any case perhaps unsurprisingly, it was in their first few edits that they fell back on what they were best known for, i.e. removing "best known for" so they actually made it even easier to spot. Of course I'm not saying opening up the main suspect pages was the best way to spot the signs. A more holistic look at their contrib history may have been better here, since editing the LTA was a major red flag. Still however you spin it it, it was hardly hard to spot the signs that this IP was indeed a the same as the person discussed in the LTA, even for someone like me who had never heard of them before a few hours ago, and wishes this remained the case now. BTW, I simplified the way I looked in to this a bit. I actually started with SummerPhD's reversions, it was there I first spotted David Purley and then the IP's LTA page changes before I realised I was being silly and should check out the IP's contributions not the reversion and then found all 5 of the LTA contributions and also the other best known for removal. So the time frame is probably a little off. But this also demonstrates even when checking the reversions, it's not hard to spot the obvious red flags. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew immediately that this IP was the same guy as the subject of the LTA because he occasionally follows me around. For some reason he can't resist it. David Purley was just the latest in a line of totally disparate articles that I've edited that he's hit upon: Jeremy Spencer, Phil Lynott, 1977 South African Grand Prix etc, all with the "best known for" fixation, and with the exact same pattern of behaviour. I realised that he probably didn't know about the LTA, so I linked to it when asking for David Purley to be protected. Then the IP went off and ranted at the LTA and the connection was very clear for all to see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block of the OP. This is clearly the same person in the LTA report, and is thus evading their sanctions. --Jayron32 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the block myself, it does stop the edit warring for a bit, but he'll just switch IPs again and keep going. I'm not sure reverting his work was necessarily for the best. My recommendation is to leave the edits until there is a revert with an incivil edit summary, then silently block the IP and semi-protect the article for a week, and do nothing else. That way we prevent incivility and edit warring, but do improve the encyclopaedia - a compromise between everything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Restorations of deleted pages

1. Gobautista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

2. Gibson Torreon C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

3. Alejando Cuello (Spanish) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

--Juggler2005 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit, this request makes no sense to me the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As far as I understand it, it's about WP:User pages and a massive confusion between Wikipedia and LinkedIn. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

These users restored your user pages deleted as advertising. I request to block them. --Juggler2005 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Each of these pages has now been re-deleted. I don't think blocking is needed at this stage though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I salted the first one as a repeatedly recreated page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at #2, it looks to be properly deleted. I don't think it should be undeleted. User:Kleuske's observation sounds plausible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. Seems like someone not quite knowing the rules. Doesn't deserve a block, unless the rules are explained and they continue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and derailment on a SPI

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

---

I am having some strange inconvenience on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. See the history of the complaint. Callanecc somehow confirms that there is connection with the reported sock and his supporter(Gauravsood0289),[43] I wouldn't disagree.

This may take a few days, but right now I have reverted the sock commentary on this report.[44] Notably, this sock master loves to edit war and he is obviously going to reinsert off topic content disputes as well as personal attacks.

The confirmed sock(AbhinavKumar1289) is a autoconfirmed user, same with Gauravsood0289, a suspected sock. If someone is going to protect this page I think I wouldn't be able to comment there. Talk page of this SPI page has been subject to personal attacks before. That's why I thought of bringing the issue here. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just removed his slanderous comments to this page.[45] (DNR) Bladesmulti (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

At the SPI, Callanecc deemed AbhinavKumar1289 a likely connection to Siddheart. I've asked Callanecc whether he deems a sockblock appropriate; it would resolve the issue, but I don't know whether we issue sockblocks to "Likely" results based on CU information alone. Of course I know that we issue sockblocks for WP:DUCK reasons too, but there's no time for me to check through his contributions. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely means that sock is confirmed, but he somehow found Gauravsood0289 to be a sock as well, and he thinks that other CU will confirm it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: if AbhinavKumar1289 is a likely sock per CU, why is the account not blocked yet? (I'd be happy to do the honors myself, just wanted to see if there was a compelling reason not to). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie Maybe because SPI is overloaded with many pending reports and pending blocks. I think any admin can block sock puppets. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Emanuelito_martinez political edits

I came upon Emanuelito_martinez making this edit saying a political party's website was NOT RECOMMENDED. I reverted and warned by the continued both on that article and then on another. It turns out, this editor has been making edits like this for a while. (see 1 and 2 for example) as well as blanking content they don't like. I don't have time to scour all of their edits but I would imagine there is more of this kind of thing. Helpsome (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Comicking123

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

---

Comicking123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted seemingly copyrighted content on the page Michael Colyar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It was reverted by Stesmo. Stesmo also warned the user, but they subsequently readded the content. I then removed it and warned the user, only to have it added back again. The copyrighted page is [46]. User does not appear to assert that the content has been licensed on the article talkpage or elsewhere. BMIComp 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 3 days by Protonk. Mike V • Talk 19:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate threats by User:Fram

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

---

Hi folks,

I understand that developing software in a community context is unusual and requires lots of patience and sensibility to user needs. I also understand that given recent events, there's still a lot of emotional heat surrounding deployments and configuration changes. Nonetheless, this kind of threat against a Wikimedia Foundation staff member by an administrator is really inappropriate, and I would ask other admins/bureaucrats to step in as needed.

For context, the background here is that Flow's use was expanded to test pages, purely for the purpose of giving community members involved Wikipedia:Teahouse an idea to see how it works. It was not deployed to additional production use cases. Even if it was, this kind of overreaction by a single admin (who, as far as I can tell, made no attempt to achieve consensus for such a dramatic action) would be wholly inappropriate.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Erik, I don't see where you've tried to discuss this with Fram directly, or even told them of this filing. I also think that blocking in this case and threatening to block are 2 different things. If you think the behaviour is beyond what is expected of an admin, we have the RFC/U/ADMIN process the panda ₯’ 22:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I used to watch the Flow discussion, but I had stopped for a while. I went back to look at the context of the warning, and I can see Fram's point of view. It looks like WMF is doing a poor job of working with the editing community, leaving members of the community feeling like their sincere input will be ignored. This looks to me like something where everyone needs to dial down the temperature a bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There's honestly not much dialing up that's happening on the WMF side. We turned it on on an additional test page for feedback and announced it. It's about as exciting as a sack of rice falling over from a scope of deployment perspective.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And once again, you've got it backwards. Announce, wait a couple days for feedback, then deploy. How hard is it to understand this?? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously too hard for Herr Moeller. How the hell did he get that job that he's so clearly unsuited for anyway? Eric Corbett 23:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a software company or an encyclopedia? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If it was a software company it would have gone bust years ago. Eric Corbett 23:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I had already pinged Fram on Danny's talk page about this, but also left him a message just now.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, nobody is going to "emergency lose" their admin rights for a "threat" to do something. You're either going to have to prove long term issues at RFC/U/ADMIN or Arbcom, or wait until they actually block for something contrary to the Admin policy and go straight to ArbCom. ANI has no authority right now, and this thread will just become a magnet for those who dislike FLOW as a whole the panda ₯’ 23:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

RFCU is a fucking joke. I can't believe we tell people to go there with a straight face. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, neither can I. Eric Corbett 23:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I hear you, and I was not arguing for that. I think it's important for other users to be aware that this is happening, so it doesn't just become an "us vs. them" conflict. We need to establish clear parameters for working together, and this kind of behavior would IMO be outside any reasonable parameters. I hope other users agree, and help de-escalate, in other venues as appropriate. Thanks,--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Too late, it's already become another "us vs. them" conflict. Eric Corbett 23:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I taking crazy pills? In what universe is it ok to use the tools to threaten someone like this? Protonk (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw here is where the block threat is mulled. Fram: "If they roll out Flow to any more pages without any ability for us to undo this: block! If they continue to roll it out without consensus and with this many bugs, even if the "undo Fow" fature is enabled: block." Protonk (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you link to the announcement that this was going to be put in place yesterday? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously??? Just when the Media Viewer fracas -- which included the OP making a similar totally inappropriate threat [47] -- is dying down, WMF opens a drama board thread in response to a totally toothless "threat"? That's not a threat, that's a joke. NE Ent 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fram already said here, that their aim is to do things that the WMF "seriously dislike", so I guess this thread is just that goading paying off. Whether such goading and baiting is an appropriate thing for an admin to be engaging in, is perhaps what Erik is asking. Maybe it's fine, maybe it's how admins are expected to act here on English Wikipedia. If so, fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, admins should not act like this ... but ANI cannot solve it the panda ₯’ 23:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fram could be asked not to further disrupt other editors' testing work by his abusively fully protecting Flow test pages that they have requested. If Fram chooses to continue to be disruptive in that way, other measures would quickly be effective. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Petition to the WMF on handling of interface changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• While we're at it, Erik also seems to be using HHVM on enwiki, maybe this is an unauthorised trial too, so some worthy admin should rush over to berate and threaten about that as well? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  Erik has no right to be using en:wp as a test bed, so maybe he does need to be reminded of that. Eric Corbett 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

While I can understand where Fram is coming from the warning was probably not the best idea. Since no admin tool was used here I don't think there is anything actionable unless the situation escalates further. Chillum 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, at our team's request, a flowboard was implemented at a subpage of the Co-op, which is an in-progress mentorship space supported by an IEG grant that I am managing. Our intention was to test Flow internally, as a team, because we believe the system may be useful in our space, though we wanted to test it locally and see how well it interacts with other gadgets we will implement. We were not going to direct new editors to use it, and this was explained to Fram very clearly; we don't even have a real interface, and there are no links to the Flowboard other than the few discussions that have popped up. Today, I find the page is fully-protected because Fram says it's not ready for rollout. I agree with that it's not ready for that purpose, but this is completely irrelevant when the space is intended for internal testing, not rolling out for any actual communication. Fram has been very thorough about testing on his own, and I believe has legitimate concerns about Flow, but to disallow our team's ability to internally test the space is disruptive. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to which, Fram's abuse of his admin rights by fully protecting a test page that had been requested by the Co-op editor team was justified by his belief that such pages should not be used for testing; he then went ahead and used such pages for his own tests anyway. This seems to be an over-reaching of Fram's authority, not anyone else's. It's OK for Fram to test on, but not for ordinary editors? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fram deserves a barnstar for courage in the face of the WMF's overreaching authority. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  We don't agree on many issues, but we agree on this one. Eric Corbett 23:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Burn it must, all must burn !!! —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• How about splitting the site up into 1) people who want to write, and 2) people who want to create software? Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think there's a bot for that; [48] [49]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Ok. Go get your pencil and paper 'cause I got some bad fuckign news for you. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it)

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

---

• petitions.whitehouse.gov: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• petitiononline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The URL petitions.whitehouse.gov, the White House We the People website is currently blocked by the spam blacklist, because "petition" anywhere in a URL is blocked. (Previous discussions here and here. Changes made here in 2008 and here in 2009)

I made a request to have petitions.whitehouse.gov removed from the blacklist here becuase there was no consensus to pre-emptively blacklist every URL containing the string "petition" in the first place, nor was there ever a consensus to blacklist petitions.whitehouse.gov. My request was rebuffed. When I asked about previous, consensus, I was directed to a search results page which failed to show any consensus for blacklisting the URL.

The admin instructions for blacklisting instructs "Evidence- There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines:" This seems to be a case of pre-emptive blacklisting. The consensus process was apparently not followed, and it has caused collateral effects. I request that either "petition" be removed from the blacklist, or that petitions.whitehouse.gov and sub pages be added to the whitelist, until such time as there is evidence of persistent spamming. Thank you. - MrX 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MrX. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nitpick: the entry is \bpetition(?:online|s)?\b, which I think blocks anything beginning with "petitiononline" or "petitions". This is the actual addition. test --NE2 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Has the filter gotten in the way of any proper encyclopedic use since 2008? I don't understand why the whitelist simply cannot be used when there is a legitimate purpose. Chillum 03:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on the blacklisting, but WP:ELNO #4 applies. Currently they list 102 petitions. Are all of them acceptable? Some? Are such petitions encyclopedic? Let's follow the guidance and minimize such links. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Nobody is going to go beg for a whitelist entry just to add a citation to an article. The URL should not be blacklisted, unless there is evidence that it has been persistently spammed.

@Srich32977: The need that I encountered was to use a URL in a citation. Using such an URL in an external link would indeed be inadvisable per ELNO.- MrX 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with the OP. It seems insane to block petitions.whitehouse.gov. There is no need to whitelist anything. You just need to fix the regular expression that is causing the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The regex should be removed and individual sites blacklisted on an as need basis. AGF applies.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot imagine many situations when a link to an online petition would be a reliable source. If anything you would need a source that interprets the raw data to avoid drawing our own interpretations. Chillum 04:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And for citing that a petition exists and garnered Y votes is unreliable despite being on the originating site? You seem unaware of what a reliable source is. Also the White House response to these petitions is also blacklisted. That is certainly a reliable source for what it says. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the blacklist, AGF applies and making whitelist exceptions on a case by case seems to go against normal procedures. It makes an unnecessary burden on editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• AGF is for editors, not websites. I agree with Chillum. Why do we need to link to promotional websites like this? It's infinitely better to link to secondary sources that discuss the petition. If we blanket allow this – or, even worse, all – petition sites, we'll be inundated with external links and citations to petitions. I for one don't want to chase down all these links, and I think people should use the whitelist. There really isn't any legitimate reason to link directly to a petition. If I saw someone do so, I would instantly revert it on principle; unless reliable, third party sources discuss the petition, it's undue to add it to an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Umm, has anyone got a proposal for something that would help the encyclopedia? What external link should be added to what article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring that this request is close to forum shopping / asking the other parent. Petition sites got persistently abused - not spammed by one single user (most highly visible porn sites have never been spammed, they get however, still, constantly abused by single users, not through a campaign - and to stop that abuse the items are blacklisted - does WP:AGF apply to all the editors that replace their school website by redtube.com?).

Regularly there were statements added along the lines of 'Please sign the petition here!'. That is soapboxing, not allowed per our pillars (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). Allowing petition sites allows that soapboxing. Does WP:AGF apply when an editor wants to stack votes for their good cause? Because that is the abuse that is being stopped.

Moreover, the specific petitions are not notable for mentioning on Wikipedia until someone else writes about it (it is a reliable source that the petition exists, but there is no reason to write about it until it gets picked up by mainstream journalism or similar). That someone else wrote about it is a secondary source, which trumps the need for the primary source. When the result is out, the situation is the same, if someone else mentioned it, that secondary source trumps the primary source - the primary source is not needed. Now, there are exceptions where the primary source is needed, or where there is other information that needs to be primary sourced ('the president signed it!!' - though if that is notable, others will have picked up that fact as well). Those requests can be whitelisted. Same goes for specific petitions that gain notability in their own (where it would be an WP:ELOFFICIAL) - whitelisting can and has been done. I hence oppose removal of these rules. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff, diff and diff are examples of the type of soapboxing encountered with petition sites (petitiononline.com). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since below we are !voting, making clear that this is an oppose to removal, also noted in my decline of the request to de-blacklist.  Defer to Whitelist is the solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam gets deleted all the time by recent changes patrollers and editors with watchlists. Using a blacklist so broadly to suppress usable citations, or to enforce notability guidelines, strikes me as an extreme overreaction and contrary to the purpose of free and open encyclopedia. There is a very big difference between using a White House petition URL in a citation and using it as an external link to soapbox for a cause. Could you please provide evidence that the URL under discussion has been repeatedly spammed?- MrX 14:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re that Wikipedia is a "free and open encyclopedia" - There are clear self-imposed limits Wikipedia has set for itself regarding what kind of content is appropriate, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia expressly forbids its use for such things as advertising or advocacy. Therefore we have lots of rules in place for what kinds of things are not appropriate for inclusion, and lots of processes in place for enforcing those rules. We also have limited volunteer time to patrol our pages. Blacklists and spam filters free up volunteer time to work on more productive things. This is all perfectly in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Zad68 15:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam, yes. But this is not spam, this is abuse of links. As I said elsewhere, the 'respectable' porn websites have NEVER been spammed, they are however constantly abused (and attempts at that are still made) and only have one place. Also, the blacklist is NOT used to suppress usable citations, the blacklist is not used to enforce notability guidelines, it is used to stop soapboxing. And although I do not have data at hand for the whitehouse petitions, there is no reason to expect that the whitehouse petitions are any different from ipetitions or petitiononline, or any other petition site. In fact, maybe someone should go critically through the last 100 additions of petition sites which are not closed, and see how many of those are mentioning open petitions (soapboxing), or are referencing petitions that have no reliable secondary sources (so, no-one else cared, except for the #### voters out of ######## citicens?). I hope you are aware that our policies and guidelines do not prohibit the use of primary sources, but that they should be used with care, and that, even for reliable primary sources (which petitions sites itself are not), secondary sources are preferred. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unless a real example of an encyclopedic article that would benefit from adding a *petitition* site is provided I am strongly against removing the rule from the blacklist. Soapboxing with petition sites used to be quite common at this project Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Although this content matter has little to do with this issue, for those curious, here is the edit that brought this my attention. The source is important for two reasons: Updating the number of signers, and documenting the response from the administration. Of course, that is a distraction from the core question: Where is the clear evidence that petitions.whitehouse.gov, which postdates the blacklist entry by more than 2½ years, has been a source of disruption, persistent spamming or or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines? - MrX 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If the petition is notable then there should be secondary sources covering it. We should not be interpreting primary sources to get our own data before a secondary source covers it. Original research is a concern when we attempt to directly interpret raw data.

Counting signatures is particularly problematic as a secondary source may vet this information to see if there are any dubious signatures. We are not in a position to judge the value of the raw data, we need to cite a reliable sources interpretation. Chillum 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Interpret" never entered the equation. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for plain documented facts. For example, Alexa data is even used in featured articles to update website popularity.- MrX 15:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not reading the web logs and making our own determination. A secondary party has looked at the raw data and given us a report. Online petitions are inherently unreliable as they are open to vote stacking through sock puppetry, before they are ever presented to any power they wish to influence they need to vet them.

Pretty much any website that anyone can go up to and choose to change is not a reliable source of information, not until a reliable source talk about it at least. Chillum 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw the blacklist hit, did not see that it was mentioned here. Exactly, you have a secondary source which verifies the number of votes, you do understand that that secondary source is preferred over any primary source. You could add the primary source as well, and no-one is stopping you to request a whitelist for that petition (I'll let commenting/decision to editors who have not expressed their opinion here or on the de-listing request). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: I guess you also advocate blacklisting facebook.com, MySpace.com, Instagram.com, twitter.com, discogs.com, linkedin.com, IMDB.com, and the hundreds of other websites that are routinely used as references in tens of thousands of articles. Please let me know if I misunderstood your reasoning.- MrX 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about discogs or IMDB, but facebook, MySpace, Instagram, twitter, linkedin are self-published sources that are ultimately unverifiable, as the content can be freely amended or deleted by the self-publisher with no other editorial control or supervision. Whilst many individuals and bands use the latter for their official website addresses, they are not in themselves reliable sources and ought never to be conflated with them. But yes, the problem as I see it is endemic. I see no problem listing a myspace address as an official site (provided it is official), but citing details to a person's biography must always be undertaken with great circumspection, or in conjunction with reliable sources.

But more importantly as somebody else has already remarked, this is completely the wrong forum for this poll. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Dirk Beetstra nailed it. Anyone can create a petition (it doesn't take much browsing on the site to find a number of ridiculous petitions with over a hundred signatures). Movements with petitions that achieve notability will have plenty of solid reliable sources to establish that a petition with strong support exists, without having to rely on a primary source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ohnoitsjamie: if the petition merits coverage, we use a secondary source. There might be room for an extremely limited whitelist (i.e., such that we can link to the main site and any uncontroversial primary sources on that site, such as a site history), but petitions themselves should not be linked directly via Wikipedia, either as sources or external links. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. I can think of very few instances where we would actually want to link to an online petition directly. At the same time, history has shown that online petitions are frequently spammed. The blacklisting is fine as is, and selective whitelisting can be utilized where appropriate. Resolute 14:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, indeed, Reolute has pretty much summed up my thoughts on this matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per what others have said. Discussion of a petition should not require citation to the petition itself, but to reliable third party sources that also discuss it. Anything else is original research.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as OP. We shouldn't use ICBMs to swat at flies. The appropriate and guideline-based solution is to blacklist specific URLs that have a documented history of being spammed.- MrX 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and Whitelist well-argued exclusions on a case-by-case basis per above policy-based arguments. And this should NOT be here at ANI anyway. Zad68 15:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are very few real uses for a such a url and there is a history of abuse of such online petition sites for promotion. Secondary sources are generally needed to cite a petition. The only case I could imagine it needed is in the external link section of an article about the petition. We have the whitelist for that case. Chillum 15:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Petitions that get picked up by secondary sources potentially should be included in articles, using the secondary article as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support There's absolutely no prohibition against citing both primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. Indeed, primary sources can sometimes be the most reliable sources for what a source states. Saying that we can't cite primary sources flies in the face of WP:V which explicitly allows citing primary sources. The diffs provided by Dirk Beetstra span a 9 day period from 7 years ago (November 7, 2007, November 16, 2007 22:46, November 16, 2007 22:55) and none of which involve the subject of this discussion, petitions.whitehouse.gov. In fact, the subject of this discussion didn't even exist 7 years ago. After that many years, I think that it's time to re-examine the prohibition. How about lifting the ban against petitions.whitehouse.gov (if only temporarily)? If it turns out to be a problem, we can always restate the prohibition. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  First, no-one said that there was prohibition against citing both primary and secondary sources. The point is however, the 'both' .. in by far most of the cases, people do not cite both the primary and secondary source, because secondary source(s) does not exist. Also, that is not the purpose of the blacklisting (it is never the purpose of blacklisting, the purpose is to stop the abuse). And as said, if you have the secondary source, then you can easily make a good case for the primary source to be whitelisted (though, although it is allowed, why would you: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."; WP:WPNOTRS). The examples that I gave were exactly that: examples. These were particularly strong cases of soapboxing, many others are of the type 'there is currently a petition going on to stop a to do b (but no-one particularly cares about it except for the, whohoo, 300-but-still-growing, people who already signed it). Unfortunately it is difficult to find who tried to add what, the Wikipedia software does not record that, and I do not have the records so far back. I have however no reason to expect that the additions of the whitehouse petitions follow any other pattern than ipetitions or petitiononline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Convert to edit filter. This is far too broad and we don't know what possibilities we are keeping out by not even reducing it to a specific domain. It would be better to use an edit filter set to warn, with periodic checks of the log to prevent abuse. (If it gets to be a big problem, there's always warn+disallow, which is better than a blacklist since their attempt at least gets logged and a trusted user can make the edit on their behalf if it is valid.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is a blacklist log, but unfortunately it is rather useless (MV is more important,, I guess). I'll adapt the rule to make it clearer what is going on. Then we know how often this rule hits on the whitehouse site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum. The worth/importance/notability of online petitions can only be judged in light of third party reliable reporting on them ex post. Even petitions with clearly defined thresholds, like the White House one, is meaningless because the outcome is not binding on whoever is in the Oval Office. By citing online petitions (dynamic primary sources) we encourage unencyclopaedic edits by definition. There was a huge barney when the petition was launched on the site (and on another much less credible site) for Edward Snowden which created flurries of recentist updates for no truly encyclopaedic purpose than to update the petitioner numbers. Best left alone until petitions are closed and reliable sources report on the outcome. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question What are people opposing/supporting? Removal of the filter entirely, or the whitehouse.gov petition?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Both/either. No petition sites should be used as sources or external links without a clear consensus that it's necessary and there's no secondary source that gives the same information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That seems to be the opinion of a few people, but unfortunately, it's not grounded in policy. We should never globally blacklist potential sources. Editorial judgement at the article level is the appropriate filter.- MrX 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You are now suggesting we get rid of the spam blacklist entirely? You're welcome to propose that at one of the Village Pumps, I guess... Zad68 15:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Indeed, this request and discussion goes well beyond the scope of something ANI can deal with. And Zad68 is quite correct that MrX's suggestion is tantamount to calling for the abolition of the spam blacklist. Any number of spammed websites that have been blacklisted can arguably be used as sources; petition sites are no different. Any reasonable balancing of likelihood of being a good sources versus likelihood of being illegitimately spammed in order to attract clicks would come out on the side of blacklisting petition sites. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh come on, you know that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it should be used selectively, in cases where there's no possibility of a website being useful as a source (for example, redtube). I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain why there such a disconnect between the admin instructions for the blacklist and the actual functioning of the blacklist.- MrX 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It may not be what you intend to say, but it's the effect of what you're suggesting. By your own argument, why would there there be no possibility of RedTube being useful as a source? The comment section of a particular video would be no less reliable than the signatures on a petition. But I digress: Is there a particular situation you envisage where referencing a petition directly rather than referencing a secondary source that discusses the petition would be useful? The only one I can think of is to get a live signature count... which I would argue is of debatable relevance (I believe it would be much more encyclopedic to say "As of [date], a web petition had [number of signatures]", referenced to a secondary source). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing the encyclopedic value of information on a US Government website to information on a porn video website? I hope you're just being facetious. Yes, a signature count would be a relevant piece of information to update in an article, assuming that the petition was already covered in a secondary sources. News sources don't typically update such information.- MrX 18:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a GREAT argument to bring to the WT:WHITELIST discussion regarding the Whitelisting of the use of the link to that one petition on the article that can make use of that information, given the context you are describing. Zad68 18:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The URL is not supposed to be blacklisted. It unnecessarily encumbers editing. The default is that URLs are allowed unless they have been used for persistent spamming.- MrX 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that's your strong belief. The other side of it is that spammers unencumbered by NOT having the entry in the blacklist would cause more damage than the inconvenience caused to those good-faith editors who have to go to WT:WHITELIST and make their case to have the entry whitelisted. This is a simple cost/benefit analysis. Zad68 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. I'm seriously comparing the encyclopedic value of user-created content on a porn site to user-created content on a government-hosted website. Is there a problem? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And that comparison, Mendaliv, is totally valid. Sites are not blacklisted because they are unreliable sources, sites are not not blacklisted because they are useful as a reliable source (EVERY website can be used as a reliable source). petitiononline.com was blacklisted because it was abused, ipetition.com followed and others. They were not blacklisted because they were unreliable sources (that is your argument, MrX, but that was not made, that is not what I said in my decline and oppose messages, your reading of my argument is completely wrong there - again: reliability has nothing to do with it).

It is in the nature of petition sites, and I have seen no argument, and I do not believe that it exists, that petitions.whitehouse.gov will follow a different pattern than all the other petition sites. If anything, the opposite: it is the more visible petition site than the others and is actually more likely to be linked to to gather more votes for your cause. It is being ignorant of what Wikipedia is being used for suggesting that that type of abuse will not happen, MrX. Do you really believe that Wikipedia is not a target for spam, that spammers don't know that having your company on Wikipedia actually pays, do you really believe that editors from Examiner.com will not come here and post their links, hoping for some more visits to their pages and an increase in pay because of those increased incoming hits, and that having your links on Wikipedia will not result in having more people visiting your site. Do you really believe that mentioning the 'Get Justin Bieber out of America'-petition will not gather more votes if it gets prominently mentioned on Wikipedia. And that abuse, that linking to get people to buy your project or support your cause is a more direct violation of what we stand for, a direct violation of our pillars, much, much more than a school-kid trying to change the official link of their school to redtube.com. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"They were not blacklisted because they were unreliable sources (that is your argument, MrX,..." No, that is not my argument, that is my reaction to the tangential arguments made by Chillum and Mendaliv. I agree that discussion about whether a petition website is reliable or not should not be a factor in this discussion, and if someone is able to use redtube as reliable source, great.

My argument is that too wide of net was cast by JzG on October 23, 2008, without so much as an edit summary, (\bpetitions\b, \bpetition\b, and \bpetitiononline\b), and modified here by Lustiger seth (\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b). The consequence is that websites that could be used as sources are blacklisted, putting the onus on editors to request whitelisting for specific instances. Users including CrunchySkies, Konullu, TJRC, and Bluerasberry have argued against this practice. Now I'm going to ask you directly Dirk @Beetstra: Where is the evidence that petitions.whitehouse.gov has been persistently spammed? Or, where is the discussion in which consensus was reached to ignore the rules and preemptively blacklist all petition websites? A legitimate answer to either of these questions can bring this discussion to a prompt close. Thank you.- MrX 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that what you appear to claim is Bluerasberry's position here is not supported by what he actually said. He said "I agree that petitions should not be cited." He never said the Blacklist entry should be removed. He is suggesting Whitelisting the responses URL, an idea which does have merit. Zad68 15:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What's tangential about it? You're arguing that we should allow citation to user-generated content. If a secondary source hasn't picked it up, it's not relevant. The live signature count is a distraction at best, and worse, promotes recentism. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take that discussion to WP:RS/N. This discussion is about the spam blacklist.- MrX 14:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No need, it's pretty clear from the discussion here that the community consensus favors not citing petitions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember some time ago that I couldn't post a link to this site on my own talk page, I just tried it again and it indeed doesn't work. I think editors should be free to post such links on talk page discussions, their userpages etc. So, this isn't just about this site beign a useful source for Wikipedia articles. The blacklisting is dspruptive for plain communication purposes here on Wikipedia. We could just as well blacklist links to blogspot, facebook, twitter etc. as links to these social media sites are not allowed as reliable sources either. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: First, you can post the link within nowiki tags, leave off the http:// etc. There are ways of posting on talkpages discussing such links. No problems there, working links are just a convenience that now you have to give up. Userpages .. NO. Userpages are just as big a spam target as mainspace. Having your page in userspace still allows readers to find your page and see your existence. Anyway, this part goes beyond the blacklist, what you are suggesting is a total different way of operating of the blacklist (but MV is more important, I guess - adaptations of the system have been suggested years ago, it is not that the regexes on the blacklist are a sledgehammer to swat a fly, it is the way the blacklist is implemented that is the sledgehammer - an abusefilter-like solution would be better, but that is too heavy on the server for all the rules that could in principle use that solution).

Regarding blogspot, facebook, twitter - you have not understood then why the petition sites were blacklisted. I stand far from the suggestion that links get blacklisted because they are an unreliable source anyway. And again, I have here not said that these sites are unreliable sources, nor has any of the other editors who oppose removal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can present a petition, including supporters of fringe views. There is no need to use this source. If a fringe group has presented a petition, for example for the government to admit the moon landing was faked, we can use secondary sources to report that. TFD (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm support for whitelisting Beetstra OhNoitsJamie Mendaliv Resolute Dbrodbeck Amakuru Ravensfire Ohconfucius You all have made the argument that petitions should not be cited and I completely agree, but most of the content on this website is not petitions but rather government statements which are almost always based on reviewing available evidence. The responses which the White House presents to the petitions are not primary sources, but rather secondary sources written by the best experts that the United States government is able to employ. I also do not want petitions cited on Wikipedia, but https://p!!!!!!titions.whitehouse.gov/responses is not a place that even has petitions and still it is blacklisted. Could you please clarify that you understand you are not opposing any petitions themselves, but rather that you are opposing the expert government reviews presented at a website that also includes a petition element? I want these responses, not any petitions, but the blacklist is for the word "petitions" used on on this site. Never cite any petitions. This discussion is not an argument to cite petitions, ever, at all. Simultaneously ban the citation of petitions while whitelisting this website which is not about petitions but which has the word "petitions" in the url. Here are some examples of good statements which cannot be cited due to this blacklisting. Please fix the url by replacing the ! with an e in your browser because these links are blocked.

• summary of United States legislation on open Internet
• summary of finance reforms
• summary of law on milk regulation
• history of gay rights legislation

I agree that petitions should not be cited. Please comment on these non-petitions at that website. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, now that's something worth considering. I think it's borderline enough to merit whitelisting, though a discussion should take place as to whether those responses should be cited versus secondary coverage of those responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with responses being whitelisted, though as Mendaliv already pointed out, in most cases a third party news outlet usually has coverage of official responses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose whitelisting for petition sites on the same rationale as Mendaliv above. Government reports may be one one thing, but petitions are another. If a petition or petition result is worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia, there will be ample secondary source coverage. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• There have, to date, been two primary uses of these links. "A petition gained X signatures, ref. petition" (i.e. WP:OR), and "Sign the petition: link here" (i.e. advocacy). Neither is appropriate. Petitions are of no value to the encyclopaedia, the tiny number that are independently notable can be whitelisted. And if we don't have them in the blacklist, admins can look forward to a loooooong weekend fighting over the numerous clueless n00bs who want to link them. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"A petition gained X signatures" is not WP:OR - do you honestly intend to tell me that referencing the official total listed by the White House on the petition and the official response to that petition constitutes "original research" in any way? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The live sig count argument is at best a distraction. Wikipedia generally should not provide "As of right now" information, because it becomes outdated immediately. If we need to state the number of signatures, it should be "as of" a particular date, and referenced to a secondary source. We aren't a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact the White House makes official statements with the URL still being blacklisted ruins the blacklisting argument. Those opposed to using the website, are you saying that an official response by the Executive Branch of the United States is not appropriate for Wikipedia? Are you saying that you are pre-emptively blacklisting on the chance of abuse by editors? If that happens you have a gross abuse of a official statement and source. Not only does the White House provide a verified statement, but also has the official Youtube channel with President Obama giving a statement that is titled: "President Obama Responds to We the People Petitions Related to Gun Violence". I think it is relevant that the response matters to the 33 petitions started on the official website is acceptable. The actual website is notable is has an article titled We the People (petitioning system), but cannot use links to the website because of the blacklist. Explain to me, under Wikipedia policy, why that official White House responses and statements are best blacklisted. I see absolutely no evidence of abuse of official White House website to merit a blacklist - the mere chance something can be abused is never justification for blacklisting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not ruin the argument of keeping URLs containing "petition" blacklisted in general. It does provide a good argument for whitelisting "https://p!titions.whitehouse.gov/response". Zad68 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And actually in the We the People article, there is a link to the website, as https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions. That eliminates the need to consider removing the general blacklist for domain names containing "petition" for the purpose of adding a differently-formed URL that points to that particular website. If the link to the website is already in the article, I don't see a reason why you'd even mention that here as an argument? Zad68 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that "A petition gained X signatures" is not WP:OR, it's unencyclopaedic and recentist to go chasing the exact numbers of petitioners, as someone who has nothing better to do is wont update these ceaselessy. The potential for spamming is a crowning argument for not allowing their links here (except for specific articles where the petition site is the subject), and IMHO nullifies any potential benefit that has been amply argued for above. Official statements are without exception well covered by the media, and I'm not at all concerned we will not have any source to quote for statements from the White House on any subject. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can present a petition, including supporters of fringe views.Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption of Wikiproject

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – 1. Specific non-editor-behavior disputes between editors should be resolved on WP:dispute resolution pages. 2. Specific editor-behavior issues should be brought up individual editor talk pages and/or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct; e.g., this page is for incidents that need quick resolution. 3. The discussion, thus far, has no focus on which an administrator might take action (such as with a ban, block, page protection, whatever); e.g., the most that might be had would be a "be civil" or "stay on the topic of countering systemic bias". – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force ("GGTF"), it seems some editors believe that just because they may dislike or actively oppose some views, potential proposals or projects, and/or individuals who are part of a Wikiproject, it is acceptable to disrupt the project. They relentlessly badger individuals on the talk page with questions and criticisms, monopolize discussions, target and nitpick comments of active editors, or bait editors to angry retorts or sloppy mis-statements that invite further criticism.

I haven't seen this allowed on WikiProjects Countering systemic bias, LGBT, Gender Studies, Feminism, Disability or even WikiProjects Israel or Palestine or Islam. Yet it happens repeatedly at GGTF, despite requests by editors and administrators that it be stopped. On September 2 an editor started a thread "Disruption" noting the option of using WP processes. So here I am. Can we perhaps see a closing opinion that these activities are unacceptable per Wikipedia policies?

Also it would be helpful if someone could counsel effectively the three editors below who I believe have been particularly disruptive over the last month or so. (Note to all editors: To avoid off-topic requests for evidence of existence of/importance of gender gap/why women quit, etc., please see the Gender gap task force “Resources” page (draft) listing dozens of relevant research, news, Wikimedia/Wikipedia, etc. links.)

User:Eric Corbett

• Corbett’s views against civility policy were a major topic at this ANI complaint and this Wales talk page. Here Corbett states: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars". He obviously dislikes the GGTF's interest in promoting more civility.
• On Wales talk page Corbett opines there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues[50],[51]. On his own talk page he opposes allowing "..strident feminists to run riot.."[52] and criticizes someone's alleged "prissy militant feminist friends".[53]
• Given his POV, it is no surprise that at the Wikiproject itself Corbett has, among other things: said "bullocks" about two women's opinions; hectored other editors for opinions; disputed WP:NOTAFORUM comments; presented a strawman argument; hectored some more; made personal attack on Jimmy Wales for promoting the Foundation's goal of increasing the number of women editors.

User:Two kinds of pork

• His first posting at GGTF criticizes someone's proposal as assinine and asks if it's a joke. Later at this diff he wonders if systemic bias exists - in a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
• At this diff he proposes the Foundation pay "high school aged girls in the Philippines" to edit to close the gap. And puts a similar "Pay to play" proposal on the main page. Not sure if he's serious, I revert, and he defends his proposal on the talk GGTF page.
• At this diff he started a derisive thread about a phrase that needed tweaking; SPECIFICO joined the hectoring. ( Whole thread archived here.) See also his response to an editor's complaints about "personal attacks and derailment in these discussions".

User:SPECIFICO

• SPECIFICO has been obsessively harassing/wikihounding me for over a year regarding various political differences: posting on my talk page, following me to articles, reverting me and/or negatively commenting on my edits or talk page comments. See these earlier complaints my warning 6/23/13; my 6/29/13 ANI; my complaint to an admin 10/31/13; SPECIFICO's 11/31/13 block for "interpersonal behavior" against me another editor filed at TPNO ANI; my warning on harassment 1/14/14; my later complaint to admin 1/14/14. See also an uninvolved editor's comment regarding SPECIFICO's harassment of me.
• I have tried to ignore the many more recent incidents; see just April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results with examples of his following me to 20 articles or pages he had not edited before and harassing me, sometimes repeatedly.
• Examples of constant and disruptive harassment at GGTF, which also disrupts the project: His first at GGTF supports a visiting editor's criticisms of me based on past disputes; here he criticizes an editor objecting to the two of them airing "grudges" against me; a put down of GGTF; hectoring demands not made of an editor who made similar general statements; dubious accusations of sexism in discussions of women at GGTF.
• On SPECIFICO's talk page last week an editor noted that that last GGTF edit was problematic. An admin asks SPECIFICO to cut me some slack, later to keep the page friendly, and later asks him to "staying away from Carol's posts". He writes "consider me on hiatus". But two days later the first editor again has to comment on new negative SPECIFICO comments at GGTF. And on Sept 3. SPECIFCO hectors me about an obvious joke about recruiting admins and writes "please consider departing the Project".

So the bottom line is, can editors be discouraged from engaging in this type of behavior at the Gender gap task force? There are eight other Wikiprojects related to women, so I think they'd also like to know. Thanks.

• Notifications to GGTF, Wikiprojects Countering Systemic Bias, Gender studies, Feminism and Jimmy Wales talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question: Were these three editors' comments directed specifically at you, or at the wikiproject in general? Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• My first reaction to seeing this thread opened about myself and others was I should probably not respond. I'm sure someone is going to tell me I should have gone with my gut. That being said, I'd like to address one of the "charges" against me that I was being disruptive asking if there really was "systemic bias". You will note in the diff above that I asked if there really was systematic bias. Systematic is not systemic, they mean quite different things. I clearly misread the word, and when someone pointed out to me, I apologized for my error. In this attempt to "get me" Carole conveniently forgot to include that little tidbit. The other diffs she presents (at least the ones I read about me) are similarly weak. If anyone wants me to elaborate on them further, I'll gladly do so. This ANI filing is a shining example of assuming bad faith on her part, which is a continuation of her behavior on the project's talk page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• This has got to be one of the most biased and misleading AN/I| reports I've ever seen. To take just one example, Carol claims I opined that "there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues". But as the diff she provides clearly shows I said nothing at all about any gender gap. What I actually said was "Where's the evidence for the existence of 'entrenched sexism' in WP?" How anyone could interpret asking that question to be disruptive is beyond me, but it sums up the attitude behind this report. Carol will make all sorts of claims on the flimsiest of evidence, or even none at all, and become aggressively feminist if anyone dares to challenge them. It is she who is disrupting the project, almost single handedly. Eric Corbett 08:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you say something about what you think would be the most useful approaches for the GGTF to take? Because looking at all the squabbling on that page ([54]), I see that you take vociferous issue with lots of things people are saying there, but I don't really see what your vision is of how the project should function. Andreas JN466 09:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no vision for the project. What I take objection to is the repeated claims unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, such as that there is "entrenched sexism" on WP, or that all male editors are "mad dogs" whose only agenda is to keep female editors downtrodden, and affirmative actions based on those straw men. Eric Corbett 10:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      In the spirit of your own objections, I'd like to see some evidence that repeated claims that "all male editors are 'mad dogs'" have been made. BethNaught (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      I didn't say that there were repeated claims that all male editors are mad dogs. What I said was that there were repeated unsubstantiated claims, and that was one of them. No doubt you already know where to look for the "mad dog" claim though, and who it was made by. Eric Corbett 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      My apologies, I misinterpreted the syntax of your post. And after doing some digging, I found this – I think the point is distastefully made, certainly, but it says some men misbehave (and by analogy are so called dogs), but not all men. BethNaught (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      • Goodness, Eric, you can find people who are wrong on the internet anywhere. You're not helping those people who are talking sense on that page by nitpicking every flawed statement made there. Andreas JN466 15:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I would be if they were open minded, but clearly not all of them are. Eric Corbett 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Having perused the links provided and keeping the allogation in mind ("relentlessly badger individuals on the talk page with questions and criticisms, monopolize discussions, target and nitpick comments of active editors, or bait editors to angry retorts or sloppy mis-statements that invite further criticism.") I cannot say these are in any way supported by the evidence provided. Offering opposition, different or even opposing views, questions and criticisms does not constitute "badgering" or "monopolizing discussions". Critisizing claims of others is essential to any form of debate and if anyone is "baited" into "angry retorts" or "sloppy mis-statements" they have themselves to blame. I _do_ get the impression that carolmooredc somehow has the idea that anyone who disagrees with her is somehow at fault simply by disagreeing. This ANI-request includes the risk of a chilling effect on the discussion, which I think is detrimental to the issue at hand. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur with this assessment. Given the pattern of notifications (to include the drama-fest of Wales' talk page) I'd say that the warning about a chilling effect is spot on. Intothatdarkness 16:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Before people pile on here, I'd counsel that they read not only the diffs provided in the report but also the background to them. The reporter has an unfortunate tendency to misrepresent/skew events, to cherrypick and to canvass via point-y edit summary etc. Given the history, there isn't much chance that this episode is presented accurately. There are past instances where these problematic methods of the reporter have been mentioned at ANI but I'm off out now and have no time to search the history. Stuff relating to the Austrian economics/Mises palaver was probably the last occasion here. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree about the need for reading the diffs carefully and for further background reading, but for different reasons. I'm not saying its happening here, any more than, I expect, Sitush is suggesting that assertions regarding 'the Austrian economics/Mises palaver' are repeating, but for some, culturally, the idea that women make false claims and men are always just misunderstood can be the default. Everyone taking time to unpack their baggage (and privilege/s) on this is worthwhile. AnonNep (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's time that the three editors above were told that their opinions are plainly unacceptable to the community, and if they don't like it, they should get out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Which community might that be? The one that tolerates lies and falsehoods, like your own? No doubt you feel emboldened in your crusade against me by Jimbo's ill-considered remarks at Wikimania 2014, but I've got news for you; I'll be here long after he's been ejected. Eric Corbett 11:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get an invite to Wikimania, so I have no idea what Jimbo said. Did he read the chief's speech? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric's usual thin-skinned unearned arrogance aside, I'm not seeing the "plainly unacceptable" opinions -- or, for that matter, what makes them banworthy. For example, the above the list of charges includes [h]is first posting at GGTF criticizes someone's proposal as assinine and asks if it's a joke. Given that hethe editor was responding to this

Ought some "level" of protection be determined as applied affirmatively to women editors (for some useful period of a few months or even several months). For example, there could be an affirmative strengthening of registered women editors by requiring that two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors. [emphasis mine]

that strikes me not so much an attack or "plainly unacceptable" opinion as it is an accurate assessment of the proposal. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you seriously think that bit of "affirmative action" is an excellent proposal, you don't belong anywhere near this project. --Calton | Talk 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

How revealing that you choose to preface your remarks by making a personal attack on me, before deliberately misleading about who it was made the comment you quote. Eric Corbett 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Calton - asking for a special level of protection for one gender is not going to help fill the gender gap, it's going to create resentment and angst. That's going to do much more harm than good. Two kinds of pork's response was spot on.--v/r - TP 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, Calton is praising you with faint damns, and does not mis-attribute the comment (he was responding to this). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

How revealing that you choose to preface your remarks by making a personal attack on me... Revealing what, exactly? What extraordinary insight has been let slip here? Was there an actual content to that statement?

Your reaction, certainly, is revelatory, in that it demonstrates once again your hysterical hypersensitivity and usual bad-faith misreading of others's remarks (which I have edited to remove the ambiguity you chose to misinterpret/twist to your ends) coupled with an overweening ego about your value to and role in Wikipedia. But this is not news, and my comment was aimed at those well-aware of your ways, so they wouldn't dismiss, out of sheer cussedness, the actual content of your remarks. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7, it doesn't help the situation to make such a statement. You are openly hinting that some editors should be shown the door, without even a shred of evidence. You assert that some opinions are unacceptable. Which ones. Do you mean the opinion that editor making charges of sexism should provide evidence? Is that an unacceptable opinion? If not that one, which one? It is impossible to respond to vague accusations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 was desysopped after blocking Eric whilst involved and wheel-warring (not to mention making snarky comments after blocking him). It is unsurprising that he would pop up here and equally unsurprising what his viewpoint on Eric would be. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I was not WP:INVOLVED and nobody said I was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What? You weren't desysopped for blocking Eric Corbett? Someone had better go correct the record, then, otherwise they might think that you are leaping into a faracs of which you have no other involvement merely so you can get your digs in at an old enemy. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Asking questions is not disruptive. Disagreeing is not disruptive. Refusing to answer with blustering and obfuscation might be disruptive as might misconstruing requests to reply as personal attacks. Some editors on that page really don't help their perceived gender gap cause and they aren't the ones mentioned by the editor who brought this here. There might be some good sense written on that page but it is well hidden and some views certainly need challenging. I would disagree with any positive discrimination towards women. Not all women would support such a pov. What wikipedia needs is competency not pov pushing. J3Mrs (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  I completely agree. As you will know from personal experience, I've collaborated with many female editors on articles, so much so that I really find it difficult to believe that there are supposedly so few female editors. I can't recall even a single occasion when I've been berated by a female editor for not taking her opinion or efforts seriously or whatever simply because she's female, which is one of the reasons why I find this AN/I report so insulting. Carol frequently attacks male editors simply because they're male, but I've never done anything even remotely comparable. Eric Corbett 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note to @Carolmooredc, supporting evidence for editor misconduct is best left to the diffs representing their conduct, not diffs showing your reporting of their misconduct. The section on SPECIFICO is littered with such links and it makes it difficult to suss out the actual pattern you're alleging. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of a Wikiproject is for editors to work together to achieve a common goal. If an editor attempting to be involved in the project does not actually share that common goal (i.e. addressing the gender gap), then that editor should not participate. If some editors are involving themselves with the wikiproject solely to disrupt it or to prevent it from achieving anything of value, or if their participation is having that effect, then they should be topic banned. There are plenty of other things for them to do, after all. 192.240.41.254 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  But the question is, who's doing the disrupting? My contention would be that it's the editor who filed this report, which is really doing no favours to those who genuinely feel that the gender gap here on WP ought to be addressed. Carol is riding on the back of the project to further her personal feminist agenda, hence her unsubstantiated claims of "entrenched sexism" here on WP, which is one of the things I was complaining about. Eric Corbett 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  You've provided more that enough evidence of entrenched sexism here on WP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm really surprised that you've not been blocked yet. Eric Corbett 22:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, I started to ping Carolmooredc and bring your suggestion (to start an RfC/U) to her attention,[55] but first, I reviewed WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. It says that ANI is one of the two DR processes for conduct disputes. I believe that her request on this page is absolutely appropriate, especially considering the behavior Eric Corbett has engaged in today. He has repeatedly questioned editors in Gender gap task force discussions even though it is clear he has no constructive input for that project. I have suggested at least twice today that he disengage, but he keeps on.

I agree with Carolmooredc that an Administrator should review the conduct of the editors she has listed. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've witnessed Eric's interactions and collaborations with female editors over the years and I find the claims that he is sexist completely false. In fact quite the opposite, most of his work or interactions to me have seemed to have been with female editors and he seems to get on very well with them. What appears to irritate him is that people think that gender identity really matters in building an encyclopedia and he clearly finds it insulting that the foundation and whoever seem to want female editors at the expense of male editors. I think that is what is bothering him the most and he's sick of seeing the gender inequality argument on here. Personally I think a higher number of female editors on here would be a good thing, but like Eric I've never seen a gross lack of female editors on here as if it's a rarity to encounter a female editor. Like Eric, a good proportion of my collaborations and interactions have seemed to have been with female editors, but I never thought that their gender identify really affected the quality of work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of disruption from Evergreen Fir

• I am happy to see that this issue has finally be brought up. The talk page on WP:GGTF has been particularly plagued by polemic and disruptive comments by some editors. Of particular concern to me is Eric Corbett who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and general FORUM behavior. While no single edit was particularly egregious, their sum shows a pattern of incivility, disrespect, and disruptive behavior as well as the edit summaries. While he did relent a bit after I gave him a warning ([56]) (which he dismissed as "nonsense") and the resulting "conversation" on my user talk page, his actions continued. Eric appears to have a history of personal attacks judging by his extensive block log.

FORUM behavior and incivility

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62] ("feminist bluster")

[63] (see edit summary as well)

[64] (always has to have the last word)

[65]

[66]

[67] ("anti male editors")

[68] (forum)

[69] (commenting on other editors)

[70] (forum)

[71] (thinly veiled comment to Carol)

[72] ("launching a crusade the primary purpose of which appears to be to alienate every male editor by imposing a series of affirmative actions")

[73] (Accusing project of "hyperbolic rhetoric")

Personal attacks and harassment toward Carolmooredc and others

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79] (see Carol's comment above for context)

Of the 42 edits Eric has made on WP:GGTF's talk page, his only mildly constructive edit to date is to ask for clarification on an issue: [80]. Frankly either a topic ban on gender-related issues, a project ban, and/or interaction ban with Carolmooredc for Eric Corbett seems to be appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• You really shouldn't need to depend on Eric's block log to make your point. Frankly, his block log is controversial because any admin can accuse him of poor behavior and hit the block button and it stays there permanently. Not that I agree with that view, but that's the view.

  Your evidence in the forum and incivility section is plainly dull and uneventful. You accuse Eric of a whole lot of incivility but what you've displayed amounts to disagreeing with editors on that page. You seem to be of the opinion that editors are allowed to create Wikiprojects to push a POV without being criticized. Again, not that I disagree with the POV but it's still a POV.

  Frankly, what you've shown is that the project is so thinned skinned that perhaps the participants there are not qualified to operate a project as controversial as this one with the care and delicacy required not to alienate men and cross the line into militant feminist behavior.--v/r - TP 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  So the answer is that women just need to shut up and not offend the fragile egos of misogynist male editors? Need I add that opinions like this are morally repugnant, and have no place here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What is morally repugnant is that you feel it is appropriate to call male edits misogynists with fragile egos and that you think opposing piss poor examples of personal attacks equates to 'women just need to shut up'. Radical feminism has no place on a NPOV project anymore than MRM does. If that's what you propose to 'fix' Wikipedia, then you have no place here either. Proposals such as this are so far from equality and a respectable environment and if you are for equality then you should be equally outraged. Furthermore, you are committing the same issues that caused several editors to be topic banned in the Manning naming dispute. Please correct your personal attacks before you are likewise topic banned.--v/r - TP 20:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well behaved women rarely make history - or change male dominated editing environments. And you don't have to consider yourself a feminist to comment about sexism, gender gaps, etc. You can just be an annoyed woman. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tparis, I'm too lazy too google the source, but a quote from my college days that always stuck in my mind seems a fitting rebuttal at the moment; "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Tarc (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So then are you for equality and truth or do you believe that [81] and [82] are attacks? I support feminism, I support equality. I also support truth. Fight the fight, but do it on honest grounds. EvergreenFir has presented some really poor evidence to support their accusation.--v/r - TP 20:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

TParis, your language is a bit... much. You are accusing the entire project of "militant feminism" and being "thin skinned". You are welcome to disagree with me, but please avoid polemics (I know I'm doing my best to do so). Eric's block log is simply supporting evidence of a pattern of behavior. While I agree that admin discretion may be an issue, there seems to be multiple admins who have come to the same conclusion. Again, no single edit is particularly egregious, though some are clearly personal attacks and FORUM. However, the sum of the edits clearly demonstrates disruption and incivility. To reiterate, only 1 of his 42 edits were truly constructive. Eric is "NOTHERE" when it comes to the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing the project of militant feminism. I'm concerned that some of the tactics have been used. In any case, perhaps you're right that I cast my net a little wide. Certainly the whole project isn't like that. In any case, EvergreenFir, it's is by your definition that only 1/42 of Eric's edits were constructive. Eric considers them all constructive. I read Eric comments and I find that when he points out inconsistencies or lack of evidence, that's being constructive. As you may have gathered from the comment you are replying to just above, I'm concerned that we 'get it right' from start to end. Evidence needs to be clear, substantial, and without bias. That hasn't happened here from you and certainly not from CarolmooreDC. What I see is appropriate responses to this proposal being removed from context and then paraded here as if they are inappropriate. If anyone here can read "there could be an affirmative strengthening of registered women editors by requiring that two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors" without seeing clear sexism - then they are incapable of participating in a project promoting equality and bridging a gender gap. Do you agree?--v/r - TP 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) TParis - Eric's edits were by-and-large commenting on his opinions of the competency of other editors, thinly veiled personal attacks, and overall disparagement of the project itself. As I've heard here and on the ARBCOM clarification request, context matters. The context of these edits show clear disdain for Carol and the project and their tone is incivil and unconstructive. If Eric truly wishes to help the project be questioning various things, he is perfectly able to do so in a neutral and civil way. But he hasn't and doesn't. I understand we all get annoyed, upset, or angry sometimes and may be rude and incivil when our emotions flare. And those are excusable so long as it's not egregious. But Eric has demonstrated a moderate but consistent level of this behavior from the beginning. While rudeness is not a block/bannable offense on WP, this is above and beyond that. Frankly I wondered if I should whittle down the examples to only show the most most clear cut cases, but I am trying to show a pattern of unacceptable behavior. It is, at the very least, disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd only have used the parts that demonstrate attacks on Carol (not because she's a woman but because she is a person). The rest looks like mud slinging and it doesn't make your point at all. In fact, it makes the opposite point as I say above.--v/r - TP 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to show the larger picture. I separated out the personal attacks for that reason however. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Just noticed this question to me. I comment in my reply below that I removed the proposal by a guy myself. If it was brought up for discussion in an identifiable and civil manner, I would have said it was really dumb and would just bring back lash. I don't know if Eric linked to it at the time, but when I see obnoxiously phrased comments by people who think it's just great to throw around nasty words about women, I tend to ignore what the comments are about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a question directed at you, but thank you for addressing it. Yes, you were responsible for removing it. You did it under a pretense other than what it was, but you removed it nontheless. Whom it was added by, male or female, doesn't quite matter. What matters is that it was added for awhile as one of the project's goals and that's a REAL concern that some elements of the project are only marginally connected to bridging a gender gap.--v/r - TP 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with T Paris. There is nothing misogynistic about disagreeing and requesting answers. Demanding that editors conform to unrealistic demands in order to edit a project page is ridiculous. Counting edits and displaying them out of context achieves nothing except possibly avoids scrutiny of the rest of the page. Not all women editors hold the views exhibited by some editors here. J3Mrs (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As studies show if people bother to read them, the big civility/gender gap issues are a) that women don't want to deal with a lot of harsh comments directed at them and see them as "attacks" while males may not; and b) there is a double standard where women who make even slightly impolite comments are seen as attacking others, sometimes in absurdly trumped up accusations. (The diffs I could share.) Given proper provocation, I would LOVE to be able to throw the snotty comments around as often as Eric does, but I know I'd be in big trouble if I did. Because I got in some trouble a few times when I slipped up.

Guys like Eric need to learn to control themselves in company that is supposed to be civil per the editing agreement we have with Wikipedia under the Terms of Service which are at the bottom of each page. Peer pressure is the best way to do that. So hopefully his more civil peers will continue to pressure him - and others of his ilk. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: I am not arguing that any editor is overtly misogynistic. I am attempting to demonstrate a pattern of disruptive and incivil behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No you are trying to suppress what you consider to be dissent. J3Mrs (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: No. Also, please avoid accusations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think what J3Mrs is trying to say is that this whole ANI complaint is coming off as a kind of "Boy's club" type of ordeal where only those who are rank and file are allowed to join. Whether that is true or not, that is exactly what this looks like.--v/r - TP 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Another personal attack against Carolmooredc by Eric: [83] (see edit summary). Pinging: TParis. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• And one against Neotarf: [84] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I just don't see the personal attack in either of those diffs. I can't get onboard sanctioning editors, and God and everyone here knows I dislike Eric, without solid evidence and that ain't it.--v/r - TP 06:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: "Carol's ravings" and telling users they are stupid are a personal attack and incivil last I looked. Perhaps I should just start a separate ANI for this one issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

To me the biggest problem is that these guys join the project and make a lot of angry criticisms and ask a lot of questions, sometimes the same ones over and over, and expect to be spoon fed the answers on demand. If editors interested int he project discuss general points that may come from different articles or studies, things that might be worked into an essay, for example, they demand references now. I present them with all these articles and studies to read and learn about the issue, but they keep badgering others to do their work. (Tonight people started badgering Eric to prove his points, and I don't think there are any studies proving them.) We all have lives and can't spend hours a day answering every confabulation of dissent that may enter their minds, while real work is thrown to the wayside. That's why disruption is the big issue. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice anyone "badgering" me to prove anything, as I've made no points, simply asked questions and drawn attention to flawed logic. I note your interesting double standard though. You approve of me being badgered but come crying here if you feel that you've been badgered. Eric Corbett 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, your "real work" seems mostly to be an extension of real-life activism, as anyone who trawls through older versions of your user page could figure out. Whether that is justified here is sometimes moot, especially since often what you say does not actually agree with what your alleged evidence says or is let down by obviously poor evidence (eg: very small samples). That said, you are one of the most repetitive (and sometimes tendentious) contributors I know of when it comes to arguments, including some stylistic things such as a tendency to canvass and to promote your opinion by insisting on section breaks just for your comments. And that said, the nature of Wikipedia is that much of it is repetitive stuff unless the contributor sticks to article creation, when the repetition is mostly confined to setting out the structure and certain templates. I, for example, sometimes wish there was a one-click button for a selection of edit summaries via Twinkle's revert AGF function: please see WP:V, please see WP:RS, please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists etc, and for certain talk page comments. You've been here a long time and despite the faux naivety, you should perhaps have realised this by now. We should all praise the bot writers for making it less repetitive than it might otherwise be. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Carolmooredc

1. Srich32977 is way too biased [clarify per request: from a year of nitpicking me and trying to shape my editing behavior] to be posting notices effectively chasing people away from this thread. I've had to ban him from my talk page at least twice for nitpicking. I think a neutral admin should decide if that note belongs there. Or can I just remove it myself, given his obvious [clarify: compulsive nitpicking] biases?
2. Second, I see all sorts of accusations that I think or wrote this, that or the other, but not many diffs. Aren’t we supposed to present diffs here??
3. Note to: Eric Corbett: “Sexism” - of whatever kind - is a gender gap-related issue all through society and here at Wikipedia. Note to Two Kinds of Pork: you were confused by systematic vs. systemic. You were in a project on "countering systemic bias in wikipedia" so your comments looked to some of us like clueless nitpicking, at best, hostile at worst. And constant nitpicking inevitably feels like harassment, not like an honest attempt to get a question answered, and thus is ignored. Think about it.
4. Above I mentioned Gender gap task force “Resources” page which took me a month to put together - among constant calls for "evidence" and mockery of my promises it would be contained in that page. It is chock full of evidence, commentary, etc. on various issues. Of course, when I announced it at the "Draft resources" entry on the talk page, there only was one reply from SPECIFICO. That gave me the impression there would be calls to remove much of the material. So today I realized the best thing would be to go through the sections one by one on the talk page. I started a relevant subsection. Maybe if Eric and Two kinds actually read some of that material they'll have a better idea of what editors familiar with gender gap issues have in mind for the project.
5. Re: the proposal temporarily on the main page that "two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors". That was one male's entry which I took down as not discussed on the talk page; he never brought it there. I don't know if Eric bothered sharing a diff, but his hostile response re: "assinine" and "is this a joke" etc. did not invite serious discussion. Please don't knock a project about getting more women because a man put up a questionable proposal.
6. Re: vision is of how the project should function. Maybe I should have mentioned that the disruption by past posters, and especially lately the three mentioned, have made two women quit vocally. Several individuals with constructive ideas have just stopped posting. It's hard to create a visions with constant nitpicking of every constructive comment. Thus one is ends up only with the bickering an editor noted.
7. RE: posting on Jimbo Wales talk page. Coincidentally as we were trying to reboot the GGTF, there were a number of relevant discussions of gender gap issues at Jimbo Wales talk page. See recent archives 167, 168, 169 indicating he thinks civility and its relation to the gender gap are important issues. And his comment in reply to my notification of the ANI indicates he did not mind the posting.
8. FYI, I added a note about this ANI to WikiProject_Council's discussion of this issue I initiated August 11th. Over the years I've seen what I subjectively consider problematic and even horrific comments, proposals, and bids for support on a few Wikiprojects. I would have liked to criticize them, but I rarely did so because I thought it was unacceptable. So I am trying to gauge here what level of critique non-members, or even people skeptical of some of the aims or views of a project, can put into a Wikiproject, per community consensus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The usual TlDR, then? I've read your last point and am mystified. Projects are not members-only clubs - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1. You have years of experience here. You know that you cannot remove someone els's comment here.
2. Diffs are good. I'd like to see more people supporting claims with diffs
3. As has been pointed out, sexism may be related to gender gap, but it is not the same thing. I've asked for examples of sexism. Other than the Filipacchi incident, which is more nuanced than some results, I haven't seen any examples of sexism.
4. I think the Resources page is a great page. It has lots of useful resources, and is very helpful. There is a lot of information abut gender gap, but much I knew already. I'm interested in the allegation of sexism, but when I ask I am pointed to the resources page, and I don't see the examples. I am sure they exist, but I've searched and haven't found them. There are a lot of links on the page, maybe I haven't clicked the right one, but after going through 30 or 40 and finding nothing, I gave up.
5. The proposal was a joke. Why is it wrong to point it out? We can't be sure whether it would have been removed anyway, but it is at least plausible that it was removed because it was pointed out to be a joke.
6. You keep asserting that three individuals are disrupting, but that's a claim in dispute. I've looked at the contributions of two of the three, and do not see the disruption by them.
7. I agree
8. I'm not sure I fully follow, but if you are suggesting that there are member only groups on-wiki, that is not supposed to be the case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the big freakout about groups. There are all kinds of groups here, for instance, look at the membership list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. What is it about groups with women that makes people want to puke all over their project page. I also don't understand the constant demands for links about sexism. Who cares? The group is about gender gap, why do people who don't want more participation by women be allowed to repeatedly make all these off-topic demands. Also my understanding was the proposal, that was made by a man, and framed as a possible topic for discussion, was not meant as a joke, it was a response to a specific research topic about the frequency of reversions of women's edits compared to men's edits. There is a link to one study further down-thread, if you can find it in this mess. And that is the real issue: people who oppose the participation of women who are disrupting the project, to the point where these content discussions become impossible. —Neotarf (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Warn Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)

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

---

IMO this filing is atrocious. Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I'm the target, but as I see above others agree there is no merit in any of her claims. Carole frequently threatens to take the whatever the issue du jour is to Arbcom, ANI, Wales in what has so far has been a fruitless attempt to silence those that disagree with her. I propose we give her a warning that the next frivolous filing will be met with a ban from initiating by herself or proxy to these "tattling" venues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let someone unattached to this propose something.--v/r - TP 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only person who can really ban someone from Jimbo's talk page is Jimbo. Similarly, Arbcom might feel that the decision over whether someone can file an arbitration request is one that should be reserved for Arbcom, rather than also available to the community. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am in some sympathy with Two kinds of pork's suggestion above. I feel we have seen several previous unevidenced complaints from this editor. Asking for evidence to support an assertion is not inherently a hostile act. Calling an asinine suggestion asinine is not a personal attack. At some point we have to weigh up who is generating the disruption here. At the very least CaroleDC needs to be reminded not to CaroleDC should not come here with vague complaints without proper evidence, and should not forum-shop (eg at User talk:Jimbo). Perhaps there are other ways we can help her, but coming here every few weeks to seek unspecified sanctions against editors on the strength of vague and poorly-supported allegations simply will not do. --John (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC) edited slightly --John (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I believe that the filing was not particularly well done, and fired a shotgun at some of the wrong people, it was not frivolous. Carol has trouble distinguishing between attacks on her personally and attacks on women generally or women's projects generally (which IS a problem here there are trolls about, definitely). She also has trouble making her case clearly. Case in point: me: She didn't like what I had to say at the task force page - I made some pointed comments on how the project is not particularly well organized, has some really useless ideas about how to increase civility, and is generally shooting itself in the foot - and when she crriticized my comments, in doing so she also accused me of being male. (Which I am not, though I don't make a big deal about it) So, she is a messenger that has a thin skin and a misunderstanding of how wikipedia operates. But, that is NOT a sanctionable offense. It also would send a message that ANI is somehow "against women." You don't want to go there - that's as much a no-win as trying to sanction Corbett for incivility. I have sympathy with her legitimate frustration at some of the people who do troll that page and cause disruption. Pork and Specifico have not been a net positive to the gender gap project, and Corbett is, well, Corbett - and he got tossed some red meat. So no - a warning is NOT appropriate here. Drop the stick. Maybe someone sympathetic to her views and goals could just talk to her and see if she is open to mentoring. She identifies a true problem; she just isn't formulating an appropriate solution. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Montanabw. I have amended my comment accordingly. --John (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Carol's filing of this report was indeed frivolous and pointed, unless you can point to any evidence at all that I am in any way biased against female editors. I look forward to seeing what you can come up with. Eric Corbett

Yes, banning Carole from filing at ANI will send a message that ANI is somehow "against women". And I'm done, here. Carole is making her own bed. If anyone thinks I need to respond, please ask on my talk page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think there is more that enough evidence in the above discussion that ANI is against women. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposing flimsy evidence on the basis that some editors disagree with the project's opinions is not "against women". It's against accusations without evidence.--v/r - TP 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "When all else fails, attack the messenger" is all this is. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose
• # This is not frivolous, it represents a sincerely held belief.
• # It is better that these discussions take place here than on the GGTF pages.
• # Even if Carol is wrong, raising these issues needs to be done to clear the air.
• # It is useful for people (including Carol) to see how their comments are taken. Without drawing the teeth of the argument it is usually possible to remove the offensive part.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

• Oppose Warning/banning Carol here will not solve anything, her concerns appear to be valid. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose I agree that Carol doesn't yet know how to get the results she wishes on Wikipedia. She approached the problem in the wrong way. That doesn't mean she's wrong. Rhetoric is not truth: having a "good" (ie. superficially logical) argument doesn't mean you're right. Any good debater could construct an unimpeachable argument that black is white, but that still doesn't make it so. --NellieBly (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rich who has the singularly best viewpoint in this entire discussion.--v/r - TP 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacking a civility board, this is where we're supposed to bring these issues. Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone should WP:SNOWCLOSE this section. —Neotarf (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Result?

I just want to ask what do editors want as a result of this huge discussion? How can we move forward to a solution rather than just talking about who did what? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I'd like to see is shared respect and open mindedness toward gender equality and creating a welcoming environment for all new editors. What I think we're actually getting is simple venting.--v/r - TP 22:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  With a straight face, you go from 'so thinned skinned that perhaps the participants there are not qualified to operate a project as controversial as this one with the care and delicacy required not to alienate men and cross the line into militant feminist behavior'[85] to Kumbaya and anyone who disagrees is 'simple venting'. I mean, really? AnonNep (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed. I believe the question is "what do we want" and not "what do we have." You're doing a fair good job exemplifying what we have, thank you.--v/r - TP 23:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• So why add to 'what we don't want' if that's how you believe things should end up? AnonNep (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Because I'm human and I struggle with the same flaws that the people I am criticizing deal with. That doesn't change what my ideal is, though, and I'd like to see it from myself. Which is exactly what I said to EvergreenFir in this comment when I said he was right.--v/r - TP 23:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Someone recently said that words cannot be examined apart from their context. As I recall the context of that comment, the gentleman who made it was responding to a study that found female editors were statistically more likely to be reverted than male editors. As I recall, the suggestion didn't get any traction, but I don't think someone should be accused of misandry or discouraged from throwing out ideas for fear of being dragged off to some tribunal. If you still find the comment offensive when examined in context, perhaps you would like to take a stab at solving that problem. —Neotarf (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  Did the study determine whether the reverts had merit or not? That would seem to be pertinent.--v/r - TP 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have a clue, why don't you ask the guy who put it there. But just offhand it sounds similar to the concept of using 3 admins, and including a female admin to close on a gender-related case. The general principle might tweaked a little for deletion discussions with some gender component as well. Since you seem to be interested, why don't you start a discussion over there, you might have some useful input--I wouldn't advise you to try it though until those three find a different topic to get interested in. Now that I think of it, I don't believe the number of reverts had any significant impact on retention for either male or female editors, but it still might be worth kicking the concept around a little bit more to see if there anyplace it might fit. You might also want to find some of these studies and have them in front of you instead of depending on my memory--it's likely to be more accurate and give a broader picture. —Neotarf (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  The study Neotarf is referring to is this one, I believe. The substance of the reverted edits was not examined, except indirectly by discounting reversions that were "for the purpose of repairing damage or vandalism". 92.4.167.191 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  That could be it, but it doesn't look familiar. But the point of this ANI is not about specific content, the point is that these content discussions have become impossible because of constant disruptions. —Neotarf (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think many of us struggle with those flaws (I certainly do). It takes bravery to admit it. Even more to try and get those who admit nothing at all to begin to for the good of WP. AnonNep (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• What we have are editors blaming other editors this has gone on for awhile now everyone can see how far we are getting from that (or not). Admin can step in and topic ban/block editors here but what I think needs to happen is that both sides need to step back here and work out something. Or are some here going to go with the WP:ROPE approach? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is ANI:Incidents, when do we not have editors blaming editors? But because this involves men it is special? Or does it involve special men? Can you clarify? AnonNep (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get men out what I said? Both sides to the conflict, nothing is one sided even if small there are always two sides to a story. Yeah editors have blamed other editors that part is above, my question is what now? Is there a workable solution? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So, based on the other side of the story, whatever that may be, what are you suggesting in the 'results' section other than general banhammer? AnonNep (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Certain editors appear to have joined the project, or are commenting on the talk page, to cause problems, and specifically to bait Carol. It's obviously making Carol nervous and unsure of herself, so she's responding in a way that perhaps attracts more of it. This is a common pattern. I'm not familiar with the men's rights issues on WP, but there seems to be an overlap with that, at least with a few of the editors.

  A good result of this discussion would be simply that they take the hint and stop it, and that other people on the page help to stop it as soon as it starts, even if they disagree with Carol (or at least please don't say anything that might keep it going). I've been archiving some of the threads quickly, but I don't want to be archiving interesting posts, so it's hard to know what to do when good threads deteriorate. I'm therefore appealing to the editors who are doing it please just to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I Agree with Slim here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Completely disagree. This isn't an issue that effects one individual. Don't personalise it any more than the critics are. AnonNep (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a place in the Gender gap task force for "I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages" - link types of mindsets? If one's beliefs are so diametrically opposed to the aims of a wiki project, then they really shouldn't post there at all. If thy won't cease voluntarily, then it may be time for a topic-ban discussion. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Tarc if you are looking for topic bans there is always the WP:ROPE argument, admin cant do it alone though just like police cant patrol every inch of the city on any given night, editors have to help as well by talking on talk pages, informing the ANI board on a case by case basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have somehow gotten this project on my watchlist and for the last week have not been able to believe the stuff I have seen coming across my watchlist. This is supposed to be a project started to welcome new users and to encourage diversity, a goal that has long had formal support from the foundation. In the last hour alone, someone has stated "I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses" and posted an edit summary saying "can you read". Several people have posted to the project asking to have the disruption shut down, but various requests to individuals have not met with any success. Most of the commenters to the project are actually male, so it does not actually seem very successful at welcoming female editors at this point, but most of the comments are really quite well informed, except for the three individuals mentioned in the original request. Perhaps those three individuals would voluntarily agree to stay away from the project. I can't imagine, say, a disco project where someone was allowed to inject "disco sucks" comments into every thread. If these individuals want to discourage diversity, they should start their own "increase the gender gap" project. —Neotarf (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Editing in projects is like living together, if you can not tolerate each other then either A. Some people need to find other areas on Wikipedia to work on. or B. Topic bans. I do not think anyone wants it to come down to this but to me it seems like a take the hint or action result here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. Carol should leave the project because of her disruptive behaviour. Eric Corbett 23:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Eric we just had a discussion about this above, Carol is not going to leave, That does not mean I believe she is 100% innocent but per consensus she has not shown to have done anything to warrent this type of response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone blocked/banned. The 'take a hint' makes sense towards those who will have plenty of time to discuss these down the track. This group isn't making WP Policy and doesn't need warrior behavior against it. If you can contribute, without disrupting/derailing, then do, if not then let the discussion progress to the point it reaches your usual WP forums. To become policy, or anything serious, it eventually will. AnonNep (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So are you all saying that I should have just done a separate Wikihounding ANI vs SPECIFICO. I was getting ready to but decided to fold these three together since disruption of the project was my larger concern. Or is Wikihounding ok now? Despite multiple requests he stop posting on my talk page, he did it twice today.[86], [87]. Considering he was blocked for linking to some psychotic's blog that included a comment that me and my family should be gassed, I really find his constant harassment rather repulsive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• No wikihounding is not okay, a result of this discussion might be best in a block or interaction ban in these kinds of events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some guys just don't take the hint, a point rather eloquently delivered by Jessica Williams the other day. Repeatedly posting to one's talk page after a request to stop is harassment and grounds for a block. I never heard of the blog-linking thing, that sounds like something siteban-worthy. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• "So are you all saying that I should have..." - I let you tell everyone what I'm saying and leave it at that, comrade. AnonNep (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Carol, I don't always agree with everything you say and do, but there is no excuse for the way some of these guys talk to you and harass you. I absolutely support your coming here today, and I hope some admin looks this over and takes some ACTION. If you have asked SPECIFICO to stop posting on your talk page, he should stop. And the behaviors I'm seeing on the Gender gap task force talk page are disruptive, plain and simple. If these guys don't want to help the project, they should leave it alone. Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, none of these three editors has indicated that they are willing to stay away from gender gap project, in fact, quite the opposite, so the proposal should either be that they either stay off the project page or stay away from the topic entirely, not sure which is more appropriate. I'm not a member of the project, and don't want to be, but if no one else wants to make the formal proposal, I can do it tomorrow. —Neotarf (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, they've continued and rev'd up the bad behavior in the last 15 odd hours. But it's definitely better a neutral party with experience propose this. It might be nice to give them 24 hours to reform, assuming someone isn't rushing to close this. But being nice hasn't worked too well so far.. sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I know I am one who is barred from your talk page. Could you please list all of the others somewhere: it sometimes seems that there are lots who are barred. That might indicate your concerns with alleged harrassment or it might indicate concerns with your own attitude, or perhaps a mix of the two in a cause-effect type of situation. Anyone proposing that some people stay away from a project is likely skating on thin ice, especially when it is a project so mired in politics as this one. I realise that excluding dissenting males etc would make it easier for some but nothing worth achieving in life ever comes easy. Are there any males on the female-oriented mailing list that was set up some months ago? How do things work there? For that matter, is anything being co-ordinated there and, if so, to what extent might that constitute meatpuppetting? - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "allegedly dissenting males", just in case anyone thinks I was referring specifically to those named in this report (I wasn't). - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any self-awareness at all at how boorish you come across as? Yes, I happen to be on the gender-gap list; rarely post, just there to stay informed. The mailing list and the wiki-project exist because of an identified problem, that the number of female editors is small compared to the male editors, that the gulf between the two is rather sizable. I don't think it really matters to them if you do not believe that that is a problem. You approach it as something to debate, whole others approach it as something to solve. If you don't want to address the subject matter, then you really have no place at the table, any more than a global warming denier should be invited to a climate change conference. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is the "you" to whom you refer, Tarc? Me? Find me a post where I've denied that a gender gap exists, please. Find me a recent post where I've even been involved in that debate. My problem is not dealing with the gap but rather the stupid remedies being proposed and the cheerleader, who really should have had far more sanctions imposed on her over the many years that she has been here. She does nothing but stir shit, be it relating to libertarianism, gun control, Palestine, feminism, gender gap or anything else. And her almost immediate reaction to debate that challenges her is to try to close it down. When she starts actually creating decent articles and making useful edits instead of engaging in campaigns, pedantry and whingeing, and when she gets her articlespace % over 50, I might have more time for her. I'm not holding my breath. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your entire attitude, e.g. "I realise that excluding dissenting males etc would make it easier..." practically scrams it, along with Corbett. Carol has identified problems in this project, and the action that you cal "shit stirring" would simply be praised as "being assertive" if it were someone else. Article-writing is a poor metric for usefulness to the project; we have enough problematic content to deal with, creating more is hardly a priority. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You were asked to provide a diff to back up your usual nonsense. So where is it? Eric Corbett 15:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The part that begins with "Your entire attitude, e.g..." is sufficient. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Page ban request

As requested, I am now making the formal ban request, since it has now been 24 hours and the three individuals have not agreed to stay away from the Gender Gap talk page voluntarily. If anything, the disruption has increased. The request is that users Eric Corbett, Two kinds of pork, and SPECIFICO be page banned from WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. This includes the project page and the talk page. A topic ban is not requested, since positive interactions have been reported with these users in other areas.

The reason for the page ban request is frequent disruption that makes it difficult to have any content discussion. Some overlap with the men's rights issues on WP has also been reported, at least with some editors. Project participants have been archiving more frequently to try to prevent disruptions, but in the process some interesting discussion has been lost.

Discussion threads about the disruption:

• Disruption
• How male editors/men can be better participants here.
• Re "On average, males and females have different interests"
• Back to hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving

Diffs for extra archiving triggered by the disruption:

• [88] [89]

A recent development is a discussion about moving the gender organizing tasks off-wiki in order to reserve the right to determine who can or cannot join, and prevent people who are a problem from wasting their energy. Women.com, a new invite-only website, is being considered, however the site does not accept men. For this discussion see Women.com. It would be a shame to lose the male participants, who at this point are probably the majority at this WikiProject. Surely there is a way to accommodate the gender group on Wikipedia itself, without them having to go to a "No men allowed" website. —Neotarf (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. —Neotarf (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The gender gap task force has become a hostile environment due to ongoing disruptions from a small group of editors. Lately I've been afraid to post there for fear of becoming a target for harassment. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The hostile environment these editors have created has kept me, and no doubt others, from contributing to this important project, having no wish to find myself on their radar. Their lack of self-control, their need to belittle and bully others in order to make themselves feel important, and their immature behavior demands action. --Drmargi (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. While I was happy to see recognition there’s an issue in the previous closing, I have no confidence the petty nitpicking meant to upset and disrupt other’s serious efforts would stop. As an example just of SPECIFICO’s persistence, I’d like to add that since the October 31 2013 thread where I clarified SPECIFICO was banned from my talk page, I have had to remind him of the banning and/or complain about continued harassment at my talk page on these dates: Oct 31, Nov 11, Nov 22, Nov 24, Dec 19, Dec 29, Jan 10, June 30, 9/4, 9/4. Eric Corbett is similarly relentless. Yes, at the task force a few individuals have thrown up rather dubious proposals, including on the main page, which were not shot down quickly and definitively enough. I just shot down a very problematic one now. But do we have to continue to keep hearing about it three or four times a day in such a badgering fashion? Anyway, the Gender Gap Task Force is one of seven at Countering systemic bias. And let’s not forget about Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos. Let’s affirm it is not open field day for unrelenting and badgering criticisms - real or imagined - of projects meant to increase diversity of editors on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an attempt by the usual suspects to stifle valid discussion. Disagreeing with someone is not synonymous with disruption and projects should not be closed shops. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I also note that, as is pathetically common for CMDC, the list of diffs that she mentions are mostly unrelated to the matter at hand. Carol, you need to get a grip and stop tendentiously referring to your pet gripes otherwise your time here will become limited. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Ridiculous, this matter has been dealt with. [90] A project in which one of the loudest voices can write "actively recruit women editors and administrators" under "Affirmative Action measures" and "stealth recruiting [of admins] would be the best policy" (now decribed by its author as a joke) and demanding that women editors get special treatment needs critical eyes. There are some reasonable voices on that talk page being drowned out by a strident feminist anti-men attitide. That is not the way to address anything. Asking difficult questions and requesting answers is not disruptive. J3Mrs (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolute nonsense. I thought this discussion had been closed anyway? I cannot see any posts to the talk page or the Project page by any of the three editors during the 24 hours before this proposal was added here so how is there continued disruption as claimed? I also don't understand how the proposer is uninvolved? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  Since when is an active discussion closed less than 24 hours after it is opened, with active discussion still going on? Perhaps they missed the consensus that I post a formal request. I offered to make the proposal since I am not involved in the project and do not wish to be. This somehow got on my watchlist about a week ago. —Neotarf (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

By 'consensus' do you mean Carolmooredc agreeing with you and Sitush disagreeing? The proposal states: "If anything, the disruption has increased.", so can you show me where any of the three editors have posted on the GGTK page or it's talk page in the 24 hours prior to the posting of this proposal, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly. The Wikipedia Gender Gap is a topic that has attracted geniune academic research, a natural extension of that is to form a task force to address this clearly identified problem. If editors, particularly male ones, do not believe in the projects aims or goals...or even sillier IMO, but if they don't believe the problem actually exists, then they are free to not participate. Healthy criticism is integral to any debate, even the gender gap issue, but what these editors have been doing goes far, far beyond that and into disruption, divisiveness, and at times outright trolling. One does not expect to hear the term militant feminist outside of trailer parks and race tracks, to see suggestions of cheap foreign labor be used to close the gap, simple, old-fashioned misogyny. We're probably on the verge of adding a 4th to the list, as Sitush had a screed yesterday accusing the project of using the mailing list to organize meatpuppets. The bottom line is, guys should be able to participate in the GGTF, but there's no point in being there if one is so solidly against he premise and will do nothing but attack and obstruct everything they do. There are editors here who are crossing the line. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bollocks: Tarc yet again misrepresents what I said. FWIW, I've now found the mailing list archives here, and it does look like CMDC may arguably have been using it for canvassing, eg here. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• And the notion that militant feminist is a term unexpected outside trailer parks etc is simply not supported by the evidence, eg: this from Rutgers University Press. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Your words, bro, you can't seem to backpedal from them fast enough now. "OMG CANVASSING" is one of the biggest joke accusations of the project anyways, there is nothing wrong with informing other editors about on-wiki discussions. The only time "bad canvassing" comes about is when people solicit non-wikipedians" to come disrupt or sway an on-wiki matter. That book link doesn't work for me, but all of these strawmen of yours kinda ignore the main point that these people...and you, increasingly..are only involved in this top to thwart the goals of the gender gap project. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I said Are there any males on the female-oriented mailing list that was set up some months ago? How do things work there? For that matter, is anything being co-ordinated there and, if so, to what extent might that constitute meatpuppetting? How is that, as you claim, "a screed yesterday accusing the project of using the mailing list to organize meatpuppets"? Do you even understand punctuation? - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• You insinuated meatpuppetry, among the many digs you've taken at Carol and the GG the last few days it was just the tip of a very large iceberg. Stop being a part of the problem, Sitush; it's that simple. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't insinuate anything. I asked a series of questions. Stop being an idiot, Tarc; it's that simple. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If people were actively, deliberately, disrupting the page then fine (and yes, perhaps some people could tone it down a bit) but I don't see that calling out dubious assumptions and comedically bad use of statistics as being disruptive. If anything, as long as it doesn't go further than that, it's a check and balance. And I'm always really dubious about trying to topic ban dissenting editors from talk page systems unless they're a clear net negative to other editors; that's something we should really be keeping for articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  This isn't about people disagreeing about statistics, there's plenty of genuine back and forth over stuff like that. These are people who actively oppose bringing more women into the project, and disrupt content discussions with belittling personalized comments. For example:

  [91] "I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses".

  [92] "Can you read?" (edit summary)

  —Neotarf (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If anyone should be page banned then it's Carolmooredc. Eric Corbett 12:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – This isn't still rumbling on is it!? Cassianto^talk 13:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's counter-productive in the long run, to ban editors from any WikiProject. I will not agree to supression of opposing views. IMHO, there's no such thing as a male or female editor. We are simply editors period. I'm also apprehensive about possible agendas being pushed on Wikipedia. PS: All this commotion would've been avoided, if all editors had chosen to hide ther RL genders from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

'Not listening to you'-behavior

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Summary: How does one handle instances where two (or more) editors on the same part of the political spectrum apply "Not Listening... nananannaa!" mentality against others, and in doing so, ignore the most recent (clearly) factual data when presented on discussion?

Samples:

• "I simply ignore most of what MarciulionisHOF says." [93]
• "I share your policy and ignore the fellow" [94]

• Material ignored: In June 2014, a unity government was sworn in by Fatah President, who also picked, among many others from Fatah, a Fatah Prime Minister.
• Sources used to ignore: mostly from 2012 and earlier.
• Editors ignored: I believe there was no consensus -- something in the area of 5^* vs 3 is hardly unanimous and a sign-off to do what you want and change the article:
• "If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can)." 16:32, 4 September 2014
• "Read it again. "Governed" is wrong on a number of levels." 18:58, 4 September 2014
• "as per talk page consensus" 19:04, 4 September 2014

^* one of the 5 had a fringe idea (i.e. Israel controls borders, so Hamas is not in control) but at least it is from 2014.

Thank you in advance on any advice regarding "I can't hear you" behavior. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

p.s. other than me, there are 7 editors involved in talk section, 4 of them mentioned or directly appearing in the links I provided but I haven't made any one of these into THE issue - I'm not opening a section "about an editor". My point is, I don't know whether this merits notifying all of them or a few of them or non -- I'm a newbie looking for guidance. I'm not trying to get anyone into trouble. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC) fixes MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If it concerns most of the editors on the page, then notify all of them. If it only concerns one or two, than notify those. Alternatively, you could individually notify those who the post is most relevant to, then place {{subst:Ani-notice}} on the talk page so everyone else would be aware of the discussion also. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit laborious, but I notified everyone here. Thank you. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what the issue is. I said, "if nobody objects, I will change it". People did object, and I did not change it. After some more discussion, someone else made the change, claiming consensus. It could have been reverted per WP:BRD if it was disputed, or objected to on the talk page. As to the rest, I am not forced to listen and respond to every comment made. Kingsindian (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine: Volunteer Marek's pre-discussion removal of POV tag (twice)

As you can see here [95], 69 minutes after I tagged 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine with a POV tag, it was removed by  Volunteer Marek . The Talk page discussion is here: [96]. Seven days earlier, 76 minutes after I attached it, he removed a POV tag I attached to the same article. Here is the diff: [97]. Note the lively and diverse discussion of the POV tag that had begun on August 31during those 76 minutes: [98] In both instances I make numerous factual claims regarding the more or less anti-Russian, anti-rebel bias of the entry, and his response is not to respond to any of that but instead to claim without substantiation that I'm engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any case, I don't believe Volunteer Marek understands that a POV tag is just supposed to mean a substantial number of editors think an article is biased. I hope someone can get him to conform to the final sentence of the following: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Otherwise, I hope he can be blocked from editing POV tags.Haberstr (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "pre-discussion". There was a discussion, in addition to the fact that the tagging was spurious and disruptive. Haberstr (and one other editor) appear to believe that if reliable sources don't support their own POV then they get to tag the article and bully others into acquiescing to letting them POV the article by holding the article hostage via the POV tag. This is disruptive behavior as well as violation of WP:POINT.

Additionally Haberstr has been making wild accusations against anyone who disagrees with him, about conspiracies and the like. Here's diffs, but I'm actually going to take this to WP:AE which is much better suited to dealing with this kind of behavior [99] [100] [101] [102] and this discussion in general [103] where several editors and an admin have warned Haberstr about his behavior. And that's just what I can quickly round up with a few clicks.

And btw, the POV tag DOES NOT mean that "substantial number of editors think an article is biased" - never-mind that this claim is just not true. Wikipedia is not a democracy. If a bunch of WP:BATTLEGROUND-warriors don't like a particular article because it is not in accordance with their personal viewpoint, but the article is reliably sourced and well written, they DON'T get to tag it up or hold the article hostage. POV tag is for when the article is not written with accordance to Wikipedia guidelines, as outlined at WP:NPOV, not for somebody's WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I might as well point out that the Ukrainian-crisis related articles have been subject to ongoing problems by highly POV, battleground minded accounts and users, many of them socks or newly registered SPAs. This is just more of the same, and reasonable people are getting really tired of dealing with it. Volunteer Marek  15:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's factually impossible to have a Wikipedia discussion in an hour. Let's start there. The tagging is always agreed with by many editors, even when you have erased it in a little over an hour. POV tagging is appropriate when there is sharp disagreement among editors about whether an entry is biased. That is obviously the case, as you can see by the input on the talk pages, regarding many if not all of the main Ukraine conflict articles. So, your defense on this issue is 'no defense'. You admit to the charge and falsely accuse me of being tendentious. But tendentiousness involves loners going off on their own on some obscure point. Here I would imagine the majority of Wikipedia editors agree that the pro-Maidan, anti-Russian editors have greatly damaged Wikipedia's reputation by their POV editing of Ukraine conflict encyclopedia entries. Most have given up because they can't counter the POV editors' numbers. I have essentially given up too, but just want to mark the obviously POV articles as POV. I was surprised you stopped me from doing so, blatantly violating a fundamental Wikipedia policy.Haberstr (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right: I've been editing continually on a wide variety of Wikipedia entries since July 2007.Haberstr (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No one has said the POV tag 'means' that. It simply a fact, note my emphasis on them, that many editors come to my support when I insert a POV tag. Many editors also, all across entry talk pages, discuss the absolutely disgusting and obvious bias of many Ukraine conflict entries.Haberstr (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going to comment on the substance of this matter, but I will note that Haberstr has been made aware of the discretionary sanctions for Eastern European articles. Despite this, he continues to make wild accusations and snide personal attacks. There is no pro-Ukrainian cabal (junta) that is out to get him, that much I can say firmly. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Im not sure if it is related or not but the same editor also had a dispute over at Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry. involving a POV tag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant as evidence of a long-standing violation of Wikipedia policy and civility by pro-NATO, anti-Russian editors, in which they quickly delete POV tags, blocking discussion. But in that case it was POV editor User:Iryna_Harpy removing the tag, not Volunteer Marek.Haberstr (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you go on casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to POV editing, my explanation for the removal of the tag is to be found directly under your creation of the section once you'd tagged it, as well as being clearly identified in my edit summary when I removed the tag from the article. This was further qualified in my comment on the fact that I was well aware of the fact that you had tag bombed a few articles simultaneously. I believe that your position that there is some form of cabal out to get 'neutral' editors - as you are attempting to present yourself as being - has already been addressed by others from the grab-bag you've nominated as being part of a 'cabal' via some strange, personal selection criterion/criteria which exists in your own mind. Please don't project your own WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality onto other editors.

And, yes, Knowledgekid87 - Haberstr is the same editor who tag bombed articles within a short period of time with nothing but a generalised template formula for the corresponding talk pages which amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Further comment - Should we add canvassing to your history of WP:TE, Haberstr? See entries to:

1. Russiansunited
2 Moscow Connection
3. MyMoloboaccount
4. HiLo48
5. Mondschein English
6. Sceptic1954
7. The Devil's Advocate
8. Darouet
9. Drajay1976
10. Ism schism

Posting a section title of "The POV editors are trying to ban me for NPOV edits of Ukraine conflict entries" on someone's talk page is just a tad WP:POINTy, wouldn't you say? What's the selection criteria for 'neutral' editors you've targeted for support, Haberstr? The only common link I can ascertain as existing between the somewhat copious list of supporters you're trying to drum up is that they have all been involved in content disputes with the editors you're accusing of being part of a junta? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (EDIT) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism the interface isn't letting me revert

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

---

Can someone revert the vandalism at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast. For some reason when I hit hide or delete, it pops up a window, but then doesn't let me enter a reason or finish the hiding/deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 17:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Blame that on WP:flow. --Acetotyce (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, is that the future? Chillum 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Unless the WMF realizes that we have a test wiki for programs like that. --Acetotyce (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Extensive OR and POV-pushing by Zarpboer.

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

---

User Zarpboer appears to be on a one-man mission to show the WP:TRUTH about the South African Republic, throwing all consideration of WP:NPOV and WP:OR out the window and using highly inflammatory language both in edits and edit summaries. Despite repeated calls for co-operation and warning over their behavior [104], [105], [106], [107] Zarpboer insists on continuing. Edits like these clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR by introducing a highly personal view of history [108], [109] [110], [111], [112]. These edits are just a fraction of similar edits. Further, edit summaries like this one are not helpful either [113]. The user ignores all attempts to get them to understand and follow Wikipedia policies, and as the edits, though disruptive, are not vandalism, ANI remains the only option as the user refuses to stop.Jeppiz (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am simply contributing to wikipedia. I found an article about a subject in which I am well versed and the article had 0 citations, 0 references, the article name did not match the content and was generally of an extremely poor quality. I did not simply add my point of view, I added facts like actual original documents, constitutions, laws, and actual dates or proclamations as well as content, with citations, for all my additions. I am very new to wikipedia and i did edit a talk page, which another editor kindly pointed out and fixed for me, and i do apologise for that. but other than that i have discussed changes on the talk page and i have tried my best to add good quality content. whereas others simply go and undo, revert and delete paragraphs, for no reason other than their own opinions and without discussing on the talk page or adding citations or anyting of real value to the quality of the article. Zarpboer (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, I added over 40 citations and refs to the article that had 0 and did invest a lot of time and effort to ensure accuracy and quality Zarpboer (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, other articles affected (to a greater or lesser extent) by the contributor's POV editing are Transvaal Colony, Dutch language, Gauteng, History of South Africa, Second Boer War and First Boer War. I tried at first to help him edit Transvaal Colony within the rules but when the editor's POV agenda became clear to me I gave up trying and notified WikiProject South Africa about the issue. Unfortunately I'm very busy off wiki currently so I simply don't have the time to clean up after this editor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Roger (Dodger67), I didn't know the user's POV-campaign extended to so many articles when I started the discussion. All the more reason for action to be taken.Jeppiz (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer is now actively edit warring, I don't want to risk a 3RR block so can someone else please undo the edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, but I hope others will get involved and that action will be taken fast. This is rather extensive.Jeppiz (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He's now gone to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to all the violations of WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:3RR, the user has also decided to abandon WP:CIVIL [114]. As Dodger67 said in dispute resolution, the user Zarpboer is not here to construct an encyclopedia, just to push a particular POV by all means.Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Alleged violations? I have only undone vandalism. I have over 300 edits on the History of South Africa page, over time - all my work is simply being reverted and with a three letter explanation: pov. Regarding Transvaal Colony, this page was complete fiction, until a week ago when I became involved in it, it is now under construction and the wiki quality is already much improved. Regarding Dutch language, my sinlge(one) edit was reverted by you Jeppiz and I am currently engaged in discussion with you in the talk page, as I have said in the talk page, your removal of my single sentence edit is not WP:NPOV. You have not yet responded. Regarding History of South Africa, I have added the page to the category in previous countries, requesting specialized assistance from an expert. I have declared an edit dispute as none of the editors, that are vandalising the page, have explained why they are claiming POV, they simply say: POV and undo a lot of work done over time, restoring a previous fictional version of the page containing fake citation. - this is simply vandalism and not neutral point of view Zarpboer (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) I read the talk page of the article and Zarpboer's talk page and did not see a concise explanation or examples of specific things that are his (supposedly warped) POV. I'll note that the user has appeared to attempt to engage in conversation about details, and isn't getting much more than repetition of the same general objections, without specifics. He's now losing his cool, which is not surprising, and the discussion is more focused on behavior of both sides than the actual issues. For the benefit of those who might want to help but can't read through and evaluate the large number of edits and sources, would one of the objectors please describe what the overall POV is that Zarpboer is allegedly pushing, and provide a couple of detailed examples, explaining what is wrong with them, what they should supposedly say, and how those differ? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment (Non-administrator comment) Let me preface this by saying I know little about this period in South African history. OK, I encourage Zarpboer to read WP:BRD. He/she wants to make very big changes to the present article, and does not have consensus for these changes. Get consensus, then make changes please. Accusing others of vandalism when they revert your changes is also a bad idea. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing my level best to try to help out on the talk page of the article. I encourage, and would welcome, input from other non involved editors to jump in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I read WP:BRD, there is much to learn, thank you! :) - and, thank you very much for helping out on the talk page of South African Republic - regarding the single sentence removed from Dutch language, i have not had any response from that editor, as per the talk page of the page and i have not re-added the sentence or done anything else, but wait for the editor to respond. I have also learned from Prof Dbrodbeck that it is ALL about collaboration and not just collaboration, there is a difference, i think. And i did not know about WP:CIVIL until i saw it here. Zarpboer (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Request administrator review

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

---

Hello, I'm extremely upset right now. I’d like to request that someone at Wikipedia please review my case on Commons. I believe an administrator has blocked my account in retaliation for deleting several inappropriate penis pictures and has subsequently been deleting all of the images I have contributed to commons.

Details can be found at the bottom of my talk page: [115]

Right - I admit that when I had my own, perfectly clean photograph of a knitted willy-warmer (with zero flesh or nudity in sight) declared "disgusting" and deleted along with a whole load of other pictures (some of which I suspect SHOULD have been deleted, but not like this), that was what led me to look at your own contributions more closely. And I saw apparently obvious copyvio being claimed as "own work" when a reverse image search showed the original images were pretty old and had been floating around for a while. But I also saw some very good first-class quality images that I instantly thought were stolen/copyvio (based on the obvious copyvio) - and what I really don't get is, if you are this guy, why cast such doubt on your own credibility? Mabalu (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Blocked Indefinitely This user has been blocked indefinitely. .

[116]

This blocked user has asked to be unblocked. Request reason: "I am David Condrey! If there were any question about my identity, it should have been rather obvious if they had even bothered to look at my account which is registered to me... davidcondrey@me.com Highly unlikely I'd have an ICloud email account (which requires a paid subscription) and go to all this trouble to impersonate myself! I believe my account has been blocked in retaliation for requesting the deletion of a bunch of pictures of people's dicks. I request that my account be unblocked immediately, and the images that I uploaded which I did in fact mark the appropriate license (Because they are my images!) be restored, and that the person who blocked me be themselves blocked for using their user-rights inappropriately per Wikipedia policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Conflicts_and_involvement. And the accounts which deleted my images should be examined as potential sock puppets. Further proof of identity: http://www.anythingimpossible.com/img/me.jpg , http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3979905/ , http://pixabay.com/en/users/dreamcc , https://www.thebouqs.com/en/content/92-team , https://www.facebook.com/dcondrey , https://twitter.com/davidcondrey David Condrey (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)"

[117]

I request that my account be unblocked, my contributions be undeleted and the administrator who blocked me as well as the users who deleted my contributions be reviewed as potential sock puppets and administrators abusing their user-rights. David Condrey (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure anyone here can be too mcuh help on this unless we ahve some cross Wiki admins floating about. I have noted youve already logged an unblock request on commons so not sure what else can be done for now. Amortias (T)(C) 20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I understand that being blocked can be upsetting, administrators on Wikipedia are unable to assist you. We don't have the technical ability to remove blocks there, nor would our comments be held in a higher regard. Your unblock request has not yet been reviewed, but I'm sure it will be soon. Please remember that all administrators are volunteers and that such requests are not processed instantaneously. I would encourage you to continue this discussion on your user talk page at commons. Mike V • Talk 20:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to add a post to the Admin noticeboard on Commons but with my account blocked, I'm unable to post anywhere other than my talk page, so I figured perhaps I should post here. Perhaps could you move this post over to [118] for me since I'm unable to do it myself? I've also emailed oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org. David Condrey (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

When you place an unblock request, it gets organized into a category that alerts other administrators of your message. It appears the board you linked is only for requesting the block of a user or the protection of a page, not for unblock requests. The oversight email list should only be used to privately request the removal of libelous posts or sensitive personal information. Unless you contacted them for something meeting this criteria, they will not be able to assist you. Mike V • Talk 20:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

what can I do? What is the appropriate response when my unblock request is being reviewed by the same administrator I am disputing. (Sent talk page on commons to see how it has progressed thus far) David Condrey (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, your unblock request has not been reviewed yet. The blocking administrator only placed a comment on your talk page. While I won't comment on the merits of the block, there are three aspects you will need to respond to. One, the blocking administrator is uncertain that you are who you say you are. It appears that you've begun to address this point by sending a confirmation through the OTRS team. Second, the blocking admin claims that you were uploading copyrighted material to Wikimedia Commons. Finally, the blocking administrator claims that you were engaging in vandalism through your deletion request. You will need to calmly and succinctly respond to these points. If you are certain one or more of these aspects are incorrect, politely explain why. If some of these points are correct, discuss how you will work to make amends. While geared towards the English Wikipedia, we have a helpful guide to appealing blocks that may be of use to you. Don't be afraid to take some time to compose a proper response. While I can only speak from experience here, well thought-out unblock requests are much more likely to succeed. Mike V • Talk 23:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have added a thorough response in which I address every one of the points you mentioned. Please have a look Talk page. David Condrey (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I apologize for continuing to post here but I'm not able to post anywhere else. I just wanted to add, that I'd like to point out the fact that I've been personally attacked, called names, belittled, ridiculed by two administrators on Wikipedia commons

I guessed something like this had occurred, indeed. Now what we need is to have added some explanation to the orginal DR, undeleted the few still missing images, nuked from orbit this puny dispeakable clown (to match his own verborrhea). User:Tuvalkin

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:INeverCry#Commons:Deletion requests/penis (the bold statement being linked directly to my user page)

Incidentally, please look at the nominator's uploads - a very random, very suspicious assortment of stock photos and obvious copyright violations. I find it interesting that someone who nominates 600+ pictures of penis en masse, using words like "disgusting," has also uploaded a photo of a half-naked man with no sense of irony. Mabalu (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:INeverCry#Commons:Deletion requests/penis (I guess policy on good faith, and letting me prove that it's not does not apply as Mabalu states that I am obviously making violations and suggestions I'm being a bigot..)

✓ Done I think all images have been restored, and I've added an explanation to the DR page. I've blocked David Condrey for copyvio/vandalism, and for possible impersonation of David Condrey. It seems strange that a professional photog would upload copyvios and create revenge DRs... INeverCry 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:INeverCry#Commons:Deletion (defamatory)

If you're David Condrey, you've not represented yourself very well here. Your DR was a targeted act of revenge/vandalism. The DR alone is worthy of a block. I see no apology from you for that childish act. Are you really a grown man or what? INeverCry 21:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

commons:User talk:David Condrey#Continue unblock request and request block of several users based on their conduct violations (notably those related to attacking other users) as described within (personal attacks and ridicule)

David Condrey (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty standard procedure on Commons. There isn't anything admins on en:wp can do about it. 172.56.18.245 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Md Torikul Islam (Joypurhat)

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

---

Md Torikul Islam (Joypurhat) has persistently removed a speedy deletion tag from My Favorite University List past a level 4 warning. George8211 / T 19:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

He keeps recreating it and removing deletion tags. Reported to ARV. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ruze's Formula Applied to Phased Array Antennas

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

---

The article which appears on Wikipedia attributes this result to a gentleman named D'Addario who published a paaper in 2008. I suggest that the author examine Sorace circa 2000, a paper that I wrote. However, at the time that I wrote this, I was fully that it may have been published even earlier in a source unknown to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.23.57 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is generally for reporting disruptive editors and things like that, so I'm afraid you might not get the help you want. But I've put in a note on the WikiProject Physics discussion page, where people who are more familiar with this subject can consider your suggestion. I can't seem to find the source you're referring to, so perhaps you could comment on that discussion with some more information. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat on the Help desk

See [119], and note the IP's previous posts there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And note that previous posts on the subject, obviously from the same editor, came from 2 other IPs: 2605:A601:803:1401:8827:96A8:5D36:863B and 2605:A601:803:1401:C187:6BE4:73:EAF8. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In the link Andy has provided, the user explicitly states there is no threat of legal action ("Neither was a threat"). This appears to simply be a discussion of whether Wikipedia follows legal rules of evidence. I don't believe a block is necessary at this point. Mike V • Talk 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph in full: "As to legal, I simply told you the facts. Whether Wiki chooses to abide by common legal rules of evidence is Wikis choice as are the potential ramifications that one might point out. Neither was a threat. Just facts". How exactly does talk of "potential ramifications" cease to be an implied legal threat, just because the person claims that it isn't. No threat, no 'ramifications'. And note the IP's previous post: "...someone will eventually challenge that in a law suit..." [120] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think it is NLT violation at this point. I think the first was kind of an attempt make wave lawsuit threat and make people wary, but when faced with the WP:NLT, the second posting was an inelegant attempt to save face and back away. (However, a third attempt would be someone who clearly does not get the point.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat, more a misunderstanding on his part that because he may be called in as an "expert witness" in a court case that it has any relevance on Wikipedia, such that he is exempt from Wikipedia's content policies like WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 14:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat. At worst it's an attempt to put people on edge or sound important by using legalese. But I'm assuming it's just someone trying to analogize. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And explaining Andy's second diff above... what the IP is saying is that because we don't follow the sourcing standards he suggests, Wikipedia will probably get sued by someone about some other article where we got the facts wrong. So it's more a case of sowing fear to win a dispute rather than actually threatening to sue. It's not an uncommon argumentative tactic off-wiki... and while probably not acceptable when used spuriously by established editors, with this editor it merits a warning at worst (and not a NLT warning). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat but repeatedly asking the same question -- annoying creating a new section every time -- is certainly tendentious. I've left a note attempting to firmly point that out and suggest they use the article talk page instead of the help desk. NE Ent 14:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ravishyam Bangalore's disruptive editing continues

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846 § Disruptive edits by User:Ravishyam Bangalore, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821 § Aadhar, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819 § User:Ravishyam Bangalore issuing legal threats and disruption

He returned to edit the article Aadhaar, yesterday.[121] He was reminded,[122] but he continues to add promotional content.[123] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for banning user Mdann52

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

---

User Mdann52 is reverting page COMSATS Institute of Information Technology to its 'very' old version citing 'paraphrasing issues' as the reason. The truth is this that it's not true. The article has been written by myself using information from official and authentic websites. It's not copy-paste. This user seems to have some other issues involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master07420 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

On another note every single revision between his current revert and the one it was reverted to appear to have been rev-deleted, any admin able to advise why? Scratch that, theyve be redacted as copyvio's. Amortias (T)(C) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC

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

EEng and edit warring

I'm a minimal party to this, so I shouldn't issue a block. EEng has been engaged in an edit war and has ownership issues with Phineas Gage. He has greatly expanded the article to where it is a GA candidate. Six editors, ChrisGualtieri, Chiswick Chap, Johnuniq, Tryptofish, Magioladitis and I have said it is time to move on and for EEng to stop (See Talk:Phineas Gage). EEng then went and reverted for 4th time in the past 48 hours. Others editors have had their edits reverted by EEng. This has already been the subject of an ANI discussion that went nowhere. He has also been the subject of a disruptive editing this past month. EEng also resorts to name calling and diatribes. Such as name calling in the two previous discussions at ANI and a recent diatribe on how all the above editors are "hit and run" editors. Issues range from content to style. EEng's style is, as Dicklyon put it (note EEng's style in the diff), "There's no reason for this article to be so excessively idiosyncratic in style". EEng reverted Dicklyon for supporting his fellow "Gnomes and MOS Nazis".

I feel a short-term block is in order unless the disruptive editing and rudeness doesn't stop. I don't want to see EEng topic banned from the article. He is a major contributor and co-author of the only scholarly publications on Phineas Gage. His input is needed in order for the article to become a GA. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an awkward situation because EEng is very skilled and has done a lot of good things, but this may be a case where a person gets used to being right, and is unable to make allowances for others. @EEng: Suppose we are all wrong—what should you do about that? Should you revert us because we can't argue as eloquently as you? Should you persist until we go away because we are obviously misguided? Sorry, but those approaches won't be successful. Please find a way of rationalizing all this in your mind as being our fault, and move on to something else. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I protected it for 24 hours, after which I began looking at the history page to see whose edit was the most recent. If this edit be at all typical, we have substantial violations of WP:CITEVAR going on, among other things — people attempting to take the article away from the standardised citation style used by its major author. Let me remind you that not all citation standards use the {{ndash}}, among other things (example), and that the placement of {{shy}} permits the article to be formatted like a professional print publication. In real life, when amateurs tell professionals that they're right and that the professionals are wrong, without solid factual evidence, they get ignored and forced out of the way if necessary. Kindly step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Spectators should know that this is almost entirely about the preferences of certain editors for one form of markup over another -- in most cases, not even affecting the final appearance of the page! -- and who think WP is improved by their going around forcing all articles to conform -- for example, replacing {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} with literals — and – because "that's what editors expect to see" or "templates slow down the servers", which of course is nonsense. Such edits carry blithe edit summaries like "required by MOS" when, of course, MOS says no such thing. (And, of course, it's almost impossible to distinguish — from – from a regular hyphen - when editing.)

This is just the latest in the longrunning campaign, by ChrisGualtieri and others, to teach me a lesson about submitting to the will of the borg. Here's what John Vandenberg had to say about this a year ago: [124]

ChrisGualtieri, you say "someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article" - had you and others tried to do so in a peaceful and thoughtful way, you would have more success I am sure. I have had no troubles when I have suggested improvements that bring the article syntax towards greater MOS compliance .. Others have also had successes, large and small, esp. Mirokado. Sometimes two editors need to revert EEng and discuss the issue, after which I have always found him able to accept the desired changes. Not everyone has had the same success, and they cite WP:OWN concerns, but in many of these cases (not all) they have acted like bulls running through this china-shop, doing mass-/automated-'cleanups', without first discussing the issue on the talk page, or doing so in an aggressive fait accompli manner. John Vandenberg ^(chat)

(Bold added by me.) This latest kerfuffle is just more of the same of that.

EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• This EEng guy, sheesh. Hard to fathom sometimes. Anyone might think he had a metal rod stuck in his head. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:) Here's a joke: Phineas Gage runs into a bar... EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

... unlike: EEng runs into a block... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• My issue began when EEng added 487 Template:Shys to the article that did not render one active use. Putting shy and nbsp templates into invisible comments is completely useless. Cite templates should not be using Hyphen and nbsp templates as Bgwhite pointed out. EEng tries to make eloquent arguments, but has repeatedly been unable to comprehend the basic "Shy" template function. The article as I originally found it had every reference broken with a "false referencing" system that is the most complex and inane system I've ever seen. And I'm not just saying that, EEng called it a "hack of hacks", but EEng had effectively modified the appearance of the page to what looks good on his computer. I had less then 20 characters (not words) across the screen when it began. The page was effectively unreadable. While much has been done to improve it. Also... What CITEVAR issue? The biggest change I see is the Macmillan source (one of many) being cited with the year of its publication in the text; it is also the one with the biggest error that EEng is violently opposed to highlighting. Specifically, the one where Macmillan gives the wrong information and says there is a second source that apparently (according to EEng) doesn't exist. There is definitely a content and COI issue here at play, but BGwhite's concern over edit warring and EEng's name calling should be examined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• When multiple papers by the same author are cited, it's common to add the year of publication e.g.

Jones (1998) discovered this, confirming it in Jones (2001), and giving further data in Jones (2002).

-- because it looks stupid to write

Jones discovered this, confirming it in Jones, and giving further data in Jones.

This is an accepted style on WP, and that you think there's something wrong with it is typical of everything that's happened in the last year.

• My "hack of all hacks" was an experiment to see if existing < ref> machinery could be tricked into putting citations in alphabetical order by author name. I spent considerable time trying to get other editors interested in finding a better way to do it, and I finally abandoned it as too unwieldy. For a year you've been trying to make it look like this some evil thing I did, claiming that "it seems that EEng made the article deliberately difficult to edit."

My discussions with other editors about how I planned to keep others from editing the article by making the markup extremely complicated

Discussion with anther editor regarding the ref formats and figure #s [125] (section Extensively revised): "There are several technical innovations which I am not completely happy with, but I hope others might come along and offer better ways to achieve the same results ... The article is on 160 watchlists and as I said before, I'm hoping someone might be inspired to invent/discover a cleaner way to do these things." Request at Village Pump for better ways to alphabetize refs [126] (sectionControlling order of reflist): "Nasty hack though this technique is I actually feel its advantages outweigh its drawbacks and I'd like to take it live in the article, with the hope that someday a purpose-built facility will become available to make the hack unnecessary. There's only one other editor at Talk:Phineas Gage who's willing to engage this kind of technical issue and I'd be most happy if you'd look over the implementation (in my sandbox) in detail and explore the question with us." Attempts to get other editors to participate [127] "For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more" [128] "I'm wondering if you want to work on formatting/cites/technical stuff only (and fine if that's true -- this has been really helpful) or whether you'd like to engage on content as well. I'm kind of tired of being the only editor who actively engages the sources, and then gets accused of ownership!" [129] "I could really use an unbiased eye to comment ... I keep trying to get others involved but can't."

• As for the rest, I refer again to John Vandenberg from last spring ([130], bolding added):

from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a troll is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. ... John Vandenberg ^(chat)

EEng (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought Phineas Gage was a delisted FA, I'd never realised it had never got there in the first place. Having a done a few edits on it, just from the referencing and prose in the bits I looked at seems it ought to be possible to get up there. I see last year it had an abandoned GA review which seems to have broken down over stability issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, but somebody once asked at the Graphics workshop, when I was active there, if we could enhance one of the images, so that the words on the bar could be read. I think we were unable to help much, because the detail wasn't there. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've been involved in trying to get editors to solve these disputes for a long time. The problems are not entirely one-sided, in that editors on both "sides" of the dispute have a history of asking for help with dispute resolution, then suddenly losing interest when the resolution process starts to look serious: see, for example Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phineas Gage.
• There is a comment above that tells the editors who have expressed concern about the situation to "step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard." That comment is not helpful. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and if we are suddenly engaging in "professional" editing, I'd like to know when I'm going to get my paycheck. Until that time, I would suggest that all editors who come to a page in good faith are entitled to be listened to, without being told summarily to step aside.
• About edit warring, EEng was already at 3RR when I reminded him at his talk page: [131]. His page edit subsequent to that time, [132], is, despite the edit summary, in part a 4th revert.
• This dispute is partly about formatting, but also about writing style and how to balance sources, some of which EEng coauthored in real life. The talk page discussion shows numerous editors expressing thoughtful comments, with EEng a minority of one, and not persuading anybody. Even allowing for some stubbornness on both "sides", he is unilaterally impeding progress towards making the page a GA.
• A this point, I would see a block for anything other than 3RR as punitive, rather than preventative, and I doubt that EEng's opinion of his role at the page would change following the block. I share Johnuniq's concern about preventing EEng from making any contributions to a page where he truly does bring expertise about the subject matter.
• It seems to me that the best action would be to topic-ban EEng indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, but continuing to allow him to edit Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disappointed to see EEng here again; I think we may need a block at this point. I take John Vandenberg's point with a pinch of salt, as it contains zero diffs. If the problem was one caused by "mass-/automated-'cleanups'" we would not be here for the umpteenth time. This seems more like an OWN problem. Block or a topic ban? I don't know but I do know we cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't read all that. Who is interesting on working on the article? I don't mean who is interested in working on how template xyz displays some picture or transmits some bit of mysterious data to some other template, but who is interested in working on the article to provide information about the subject to a reader? If it is just EEng, you should leave him alone to get on with it and formatting be blowed. If it is genuinely other people too, then EEng needs to lighten up a bit about the formatting (who cares if the line splits midway through supercalifragilisticexpialidocious if nobody else can make out where supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is in the text when editing because of all the templates?). That's it, if anybody wants me, I'll be cutting a baby in half to stop two women arguing over it. Belle (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a significant group of editors who want in good faith to not only improve the page, but to make it a GA. This isn't a question of telling us to leave him alone, but it is a question of EEng needing to lighten up. (No babies were harmed in the posting of this reply.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would include myself in the group who would like to help bring this article to GA but have been turned away by EEng's OWN and BATTLE behaviour. I would also encourage anyone interested in helping out here to read the last discussion here on this editor's conduct, which was archived without resolution a few weeks ago. I think we do need to take some sort of collective action here. --John (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we agree on a topic ban? I, for one, support an indefinite topic ban at Phineas Gage, while allowing continued editing at Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would be happy to settle for a topic ban rather than a block. --John (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Tryptofish, you don't seem to have made any response to EEng's explanation for the template formatting - that he was attempting to get "citations in alphabetical order by author name". I'm not saying that's the only problem, nor that his approach to that problem was the best one. But it seems like a reasonable explanation for what he saw as good faith improvements to the article. Do you except that explanation or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It may explain one or two edits, but not the larger issues here. If one goes over the talk page history, for example Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, the concerns are far more wide-ranging than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against that. I was searching for some admission of (at least some) good faith on the part of EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, via the link given by EEng, the "citations in alphabetical order by author name" attempt was made over a year ago and before any of this mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. So it's not part of "this mess" at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I don't believe it is part of this mess. But I may have missed something from the loooong talk conversations. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been AGF'ing for the longest time. Don't just look at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, but also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Personal attacks and OWN violations. I'm hardly someone who is unsympathetic to him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The ongoing "discussions" you and EEng have had are the main reason I took that article off my watch list last year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Then let's be very clear that I have not lacked for AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban for EEng and ChrisGualtieri I think are now in order, plus a minimal block for EEng for the latest round of edit warring. This is not just about styling, though placing 487 {{shy}} templates is extremely excessive. Arguments have also been over content and referencing. EEng and Chris are the most vocal. Taking both out of the equation would help any of the other editors get this to GA. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does EEng have any explanation for the 487 {{shy}} templates? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 If I understand correctly, EEng states MOS says you can use them (MOS:SHY), but says nothing on how many. If you want to consider style as part of the argument, I'd say judge for your self via this snapshot, before most of the mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They look like aids to editing that might be dispensed with after a major article-wide edit had been completed. And invisible to the reader, of course. But I guess some other editors might find them troublesome. (In some future software release I suppose they might be part of user-definable edit skins). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee note. Another editor found them to be an issue, but I support EEng's use of them in captions and other tight places as per the Template's documentation. In our last discussion and EEng's last edits, he has resolved the vast majority of the issues. SHY appears to trigger on spelling check runs, but overall, they should remain as long as the perform a function. So the previous issue has actually been resolved, but getting to that point was a bit tougher than I would have liked. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for both of them at Phineas Gage, but I oppose banning either of them from Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, no offense, but do not blame me or EEng when you caused the mediation to be rejected. That's right you (the filer) caused it to be rejected. EEng felt it was premature and I didn't even get a chance to voice myself. You may mean well, but you certainly have gotten your facts wrong here. I ask that you strike your above comment about that. EEng should not be blocked, there is no reason to block because it'd simply be punitive. ANI is not a place for an RFC/U and it most certainly is not going to help when 5+ people all want this at GA. Tryptofish, you supported much of my changes, I realize my changes were far from perfect - and I'll admit that I was blindsided by all the errors in Macmillan 2000. You know better than anyone else that I also want this article to be GA or FA. EEng reacted with hostility and I have been afraid to try and deal with it since. Sorry if I add my voice to the pile, but I spent 40 hours researching Gage and I tried to work with EEng - but I do not need to be abused. I won't stay in such editing environments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EEng's being receptive and fixed all the issues I had and then some. I do not think any MOS issue actually remains now. EEng fixed all the issues before this came to ANI with this edit. Why was this brought to ANI anyways? WP:CIVIL? Recently, he's been tense, but not anything outright 'disruptive'. I'm confused. Anyone care to explain why this is open still? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a recent sample edit. EEng has been fighting for years to keep his idiosyncratic formatting in this article. Use of {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> is eccentric, disliked by other editors, and makes the article very difficult for others to edit. EEng has added this formatting many, many times and is currently at 4rr. He is arrogant and rude if challenged on his weird formatting and long-winded writing style, such that it is very difficult to work with him. Most people just walk away, which has reinforced EEng's feelings of ownership of the article. It's not viable to suggest we can go on like this. --John (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I feel a need to reply to what you said to me, although it also is becoming clear to me that nothing is going to come of this ANI thread. I can sympathize that you would want to respond to what I said (following what Bgwhite proposed, although subsequent talk separated my comment from his), but turning it back at me is a cheap shot, and I think you know it. Your diff simply shows that I withdrew the request, after seeing that no one besides me was willing to participate. I didn't cause you or anyone else to choose not to participate. You made that choice – and I remember diffs where you, first, came to me at my user talk to ask for my help and, then, were demanding dispute resolution and, later, turned tail when I started the mediation. Also, the reason given by Bgwhite was not related to the attempt at mediation. It was what he called your "most vocal" posture at the talk page. So my advice to you is to take notice of how Bgwhite, coming new to the page, perceived your conduct, and keep it in mind going forward, since undoubtedly this issue will crop up again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Its interesting to look at the page statistics, EEng (talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) have between them contributed 81% of the article [133]. Although a couple of editors who've commented here pop in the number of edits, none of them have substantially contributed to the prose and do not appear in the top 10 contributors of text. Their sole contribution appears to be undoing EEng (talk · contribs)'s formatting style to substitute their own preference and its really for no benefit to the article. I dunno guys, there are plenty of really badly formatted articles out there but this isn't one of them. It may be idiosyncratic but it works and it works well - the article looks fantastic in WikiWand. I think some people are forgetting that wikipedia is first and foremost an exercise in writing an encyclopedia. So if your only interest is in formatting it "differently" I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a red herring. If your only interest is in making fallacious observations at an administrators' board I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. --John (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And so we arrive at the nub of the matter

It's even sadder than you make it sound, BedsBookworm. This bunch isn't changing the (visible) formatting of the article to be more attractive to the reader or conformant to MOS -- for the most part they're changing the internal, invisible markup to other markup that does exactly the same thing.

Are {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> unusual? Yes. So what? Why does everything have to look like what some self-satisfied roving enforcers are used to?

Are these forms really "disliked by other other editors"? It depends on the kind of editor. If you mean "disliked by editors who show no interest in an article other than to make the markup look they way they think it should look, and who, out of nowhere, arrive to assert their personal preferences as 'rules', apply their mindless scripts, then rush off to clutter the edit histories of the next thousand articles (having had zero effect on what the reader sees)", then I guess Yes.

Oh... except sometimes they do affect on what the reader sees. As explained here, there are places where double-newline doesn't create a paragraph break as it usually does, and <p> must be used instead. Yet here's a high-handed edit (edit summary in full: "no need") taking out <p> in the places where there is, in fact, a need -- and thereby breaking the formatting. Then someone else has to take time to fix it. [134]

So the best thing these activities achieve is nothing, but now and then they screw something up. It's like the old joke about selling at a loss but making it up on volume.

If there's a lesson here, it's that Wikipedia needs a rule something like "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" -- except that there already is such a rule, right at the top of each MOS page. (Take a look.)

I've been fond of quoting Beyond My Ken in recent days:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and I have had our serious differences, but at least he takes a longterm interest in the article‍—‌Tryptofish too, of course. John may think this incident has reinforced my "ownership" of the article; I'd like to think it's raised awareness of the cumulative damage done, and the huge amounts of editor time wasted, by (I'll say it again) these self-satisfied roving enforcers. EEng (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Careful now EEng, you wouldn't want to get blocked by an uninvolved admin, would you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After the block

I'm saddened to see that there was a block, and I have some concerns about Bgwhite being involved. But, instead of being "the nub of the matter", I feel that EEng's post above was a saddening demonstration of why we have a problem, and a problem that will continue after the block is over. (It's certainly a textbook case of turning an ANI thread that was about to peter out as "no consensus" into something worse.) EEng, sincerely, I'm glad that you point out, just above, that I have a good-faith interest in the page, so please listen to me about this: The claim that the editors who express concerns about the page are simply driving by, and objecting to the formatting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any legitimate interest in page content, has started to become a recurrent theme in this discussion, and it is wrong and needs to be refuted. It is starting to run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS. What has happened at Talk:Phineas Gage over the past week or so is not anything like that. It is not just a matter of disliking something trivial that readers of Wikipedia do not see. After all, we can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. What really did happen was a group of editors showing up in response to a call to make the page a WP:GA, and trying to work in good faith to that purpose, and then finding themselves in an edit war where each of them successively made either one or zero reverts, and you made all the opposing reverts unilaterally. It's a falsehood to say that the idiosyncratic page formatting is an accepted alternative, equal in the eyes of the editing community to what occurs on greater than 99% of all other pages. If all that formatting (not to even mention the more substantive issues about sourcing on the page) is a good idea, let's have a community RfC at WP:MOS and determine that the community thinks that. Until then, such a consensus does not exist. But the editors at the Gage talk page expressed concerns that are consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus, and the talk page consensus was unambiguously against you. So let's put an end, right now, to this theme of calling the editors who have disagreed with you drive-by editors who do not care about page content. It's a lie. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an offensive and disruptive lie and the block was merited for making and repeating it. John (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• I think the block - done during the middle of this discussion - is not necessary a good thing (because now unless someone copy-and-paste stuff over from EEng's talk page, his opinions cannot be heard. Thus, I have added a {{DNAU}} for a few days so that this discussion is not archived before EEng gets a chance to reply here again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

For those who took the weekend off, Bgwhite blocked me Friday night, calling my post above "harassment".

• I posted the following (here edited somewhat) at my own talk page, in response to Bgwhite's block notice:

Noting that you blocked me for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill explain how ridiculous you're making yourself look:

If the test [of what is offensive] be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them ... an intemperate opponent.

In other words, Bgwhite, it stings because it's true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is within bounds. I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness.

EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Bgwhite had nothing to say.

• Tryptofish says: We can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. But I didn't say that each change was simultaneously damaging and petty/trivial/unseen. I said that each change was at best trivial/petty/unseen, but now and then one of them is damaging.
• Here's the actual "lie" in this conversation (since apparently it's not OK to call other editors self-satisfied, but it's OK to call them liars): that the article violated MOS, or GA criteria, or the mysteriously unspecified "present-day Wikipedia consensus" to which Tryptofish refers; and/or that any of this posse have responded to my attempts to discuss their changes, other than to tell me they are five and I am only one.

• Here's a diff [135] showing the hundreds and hundreds of changes which started this scuffle. Point out a few of the violations of MOS, or of the "present-day Wikipedia consensus", or of the WP:Good article criteria, being corrected here..
• Here's a link [136] to my attempt to discuss these changes. Point out where anything more meaningful than "we outvote you" was said in response to my attempts to discuss.

• Let's hear again how self-satisfied is hurtful namecalling, while accusations like "COI", "arrogant and rude" -- not to mention "lying" -- are thrown around with impunity in this very discussion.

EEng (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Name calling is childish gaming to involve an admin who takes interest in any case on ANI. Doing it isn't going to make you immune.--v/r - TP 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn between rolling my eyes, too, or just wiping a tear from them. I got into this whole mess as someone who considered EEng a Wiki-friend, thinking that I was coming to take his side in a much earlier complaint, but I was surprised by what I actually saw, and for the longest time, I have tried to take a middle stance that opposed any sanctions against EEng. What tipped it for me was the unambiguous edit warring and unwillingness to accept consensus during the recent GA discussion. In the last ANI complaint about EEng, just a month ago, the discussion was about to quiet down when EEng needlessly re-inflamed it. The same thing happened above, in the post that prompted the block. And now, it has happened yet again, in the post-block comment directly above. Although I can understand that any editor might want to let off some steam after a block that they consider to have been unfair, I'm afraid that I cannot pass this off as simply that. EEng does not have to agree with other editors, but he is failing to acknowledge that they have non-petty concerns, and failing to indicate that he is willing to make an effort to work towards consensus, unless that consensus is what he personally prefers. The discussion here got off track with competing proposals to issue blocks and to topic ban another editor, but I suggest that the only way to get a meaningful conclusion is if editors will focus on this one editor. I still think we should topic ban EEng indefinitely from Phineas Gage, while continuing to allow access to Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems whose correction I was reverting

• The true lesson of "The last ANI complaint about EEng" is quite different from the one Tfish implies. The OP of that thread (Johnuniq) complained that "recent behavior of User:EEng at WT:MOSNUM as disruptive ... EEng should be told to make an argument a couple of times, and then keep quiet". But none of the editors subsequently calling for my head in that ANI thread were participants in the MOSNUM discussion -- instead they were (surprise!) the same cast of characters seen piling on in this ANI thread. And in fact, in a subsequent MOSNUM discussion the following unsolicited compliments were posted by someone who actually was involved in the earlier MOSNUM discussion -- the one in which (according to Johnuniq) I had been so disruptive:

• [137] The discussion on kWh was mostly good-natured, and it was resolved well with Eeng's stewardship
• [138] If I had known about the proposed topic ban I would have opposed it. You are doing a good job. Consider toning down for newcomers not yet accustomed to your style, especially non-native English speakers who might not appreciate the wit.

It might add force to that editor's comments when I say that he and I completely disagreed about the issue under discussion until almost the very end.

• I believe in the good faith of everyone here, but some are so certain that they've ceased to examine their own claims. So please, do what I asked in bold above, which is to open the diff linked there and point out two or three of the MOS violations, or "concerns consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus", that were (as you've claimed) being addressed in that diff, and which I was therefore resisting or reverting. Unless you do that, everything you and John and Bgwhite say here falls to the ground.

EEng (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Others e.g. Martinevans123, Nyttend, BedsBookworm, Ritchie333 -- please, everyone ping your favorites -- are encouraged to look at the diff as well, and opine.)

Difficult to offer an objective comment as I have become familar with EEng's "colourful" style of interaction. I think much of this is good-natured but often appears, especially to those unfamiliar, as flippant, aggressive or arrogant. That said, as EEng suggests, I think actual clear diffs, to illustrate this "blockable" behaviour, are still required. It's obvious that he does not see himself as the only guilty party here. But I've always found both Tryptofish and John to be very resonable in all my previous dealings with them, so I'm sure they must have a valid point. I think Bgwhite may have made a grave error of judgement, as an involved admin, in blocking EEng while this discussion was still open. It seems to have served only to antagonise EEng and made postions more entrenched all round. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thank you for the kind words and for your desire to find a reasonable resolution. I will attempt to reply with specifics. Where you ask about blocking, as opposed to a topic ban, I want to make it clear that I have advised against any block, throughout this discussion, so I am not going to defend the block. I think there is a case that the block was borderline WP:INVOLVED, and I also think that there are cases that, both, the block was provoked and that there was a valid rationale, instead, for a 3RR block. In the end, it's time to move on from the block, not to go back over and re-parse it.

EEng asks for specific diffs concerning the consensus about MOS. I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [139]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [140]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [141]. He never disagreed.

EEng presents the discussion about the GA editing as one where the only responses he got from anyone were of the "we outvote you" nature. I will point to an example where I tried to engage with him with great specificity and in great detail about these editing issues: Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. And that's just one example of where I have tried to engage on these issues; there are many more. Now I understand that EEng is asking here about responses in the most recent talk page thread, but anything he asks there, I already answered before, and it is unhelpful to keep acting anew as if nothing has been discussed already.

EEng argues that the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one, and that my analogy was incorrect. In that earlier thread, I said this: [142]. EEng replied: [143]. The first half of his reply could have ended the entire affair peaceably. The second half was a needless jab at John. Unfortunately, John responded: [144]. EEng then massively escalated the conflict: [145]. When I referred back to that exchange, here, I was referring to the fact that EEng failed to drop the stick then, as he is also doing now.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I did not ask for "diffs concerning the consensus about MOS". I asked you to point to something in the article that violates MOS. To make that easy I provided you with a diff of the "corrections" (which you supported) to these alleged violations. You still haven't pointed to anything.

• But since you bring it up, as seen in your diff I did not say that 'the way [I format] pages is largely just a matter of [my] personal "pet peeve" and "pastime"'. I said that ragged right margins are a pet peeve, and hunting them down is sort of a pastime". That's quite different. (I have to sit through lot of boring meetings, and they frown on pornography, so I hyphenate instead.)

• I didn't say that "the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one". In fact it's a lot like the present one (e.g. same cast of characters piling on). What I did say that you draw the wrong lesson from it, as explained above.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wish I was smart enough to understand edits like this one. Whether Bgwhite should have issued the block or not is somewhat beyond my ken, but that EEng's behavior left something to be desired is clear to me, and that a stick needs to be dropped is clear to me also. "Drive-by editor", if it involves an assumption of bad faith as seems to have been the case here, is certainly not productive and can be considered a (blockable) PA. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• This bullet point slightly revised for clarity. Don't blame me for your headache, Drmies, because that's not my edit -- this one is [146]. To see what I mean by that, see this slice of the revision history [147] I was in the middle of fixing citations, adding content, and other such trivial stuff, during which members of the posse showed up repeatedly to revert to "their" version, in which important stuff (like non-visible markup linebreaks) is they way they like it, and irritating blemishes (such as internal notes pointing out missing page #s in citations) have been banished. That this old version of theirs was missing a lot of actual content didn't matter, of course.
• After the third such visit from The Enforcers, I opened a discussion [148] in which I carefully outlined the issues as I saw them. As you can see, with one minor exception, I got no substantive answer -- just a lot of "we're right and you're wrong".
• After a few more days with no response, I explained [149] that I was restoring the article to a blended version, for example removing most of the hidden notes "since I gather editors find them to have low signal-to-noise ratio".
• And next thing you know, here we are at ANI!
• I have never said or implied that anyone's acting in bad faith, only with such certainty that they forget that consensus means "reasoned discussion" not "voting".

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Those kinds of edits give me a headache, myself, and I've parsed through probably a hundred of them. The tl;dr to take from them is that there are a huge number of non-displaying comments, templates that you have to look up what they are for (and that often have no effect on the appearance of the page on most devices), notes appended to notes, and content about how some investigators (collaborators of EEng in real life) went about determining that previous investigators were "incorrect". At a minimum, there is a good faith conversation to be had, as to whether other editors agree with having all of that in a GA (and I predict a forthcoming complaint that I got all the details wrong in that description), given the complexity that it poses. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your strikeouts, Tfish, though now a perfectly good "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge will have to go to waste. I guess I can forgive that in the interests of the greater good.
• My "collaborator" is a man I've never met and have spoken with just twice on the phone, and with whom I coauthored one paper six years ago. If there were a dispute of any kind on this subject I'd most happily present it -- warts and all. But there's not: every paper on Gage in the last 15 years explicitly endorses the article's presentation.

We can have a good-faith conversation on all of this, but it's going to require that absolute certainty, and accusations of COI, be checked at the door. Back to the Talk page!

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies, I appreciate the outside view. It would really gladden my heart if EEng would voluntarily recuse from editing that article for the duration of preparing the article for GA, something it is easily capable of. I tell you that as a frequent GA and FA reviewer, the esoteric formatting would be an instant fail. It makes the article more difficult to edit without imparting much if anything in the way of improvement or utility. If you don't trust me (or any other editor) to have the best possible at heart for that article, I will voluntarily join you in recusing from the article. Apart from the funky coding, most of the work in the article is good, but it is improvable. No work of man can say otherwise. There are a zillion other articles you can edit, and you can of course contribute to article talk. I predict the only alternative will be a formal topic ban, and/or more blocks. I would totally have blocked you for your obfuscation, rudeness and contempt for your fellow editors had I not been involved in trying to edit the article a few months ago. I am famously lenient and I am sure other admins may have a quicker block reflex than mine. Or do you have another option you wish to suggest? --John (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• And sorry, I don't know how that happened. I read your comments EEng, and the last bit about returning to talk is a good point. But earlier on you talk about other folk who want to improve the article, and to raise it to peer-reviewed status, as being a "posse" and call us "enforcers". That isn't acceptable at any time, and it especially isn't right after a block for being mean to your potential co-workers. Please, take a break from this warfare, and do something else for a while. It's a wiki and you really can't prevent others from editing your work, or be mean to them when they try to do so. This is fundamental to our enterprise here. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• John, I have no answer to offer here. A very narrow topic ban may be the best solution: no one wants to prevent EEng from editing (I hope), but it seems to me there is broad enough disagreement with their edits to this article. BTW, I agree that "posse" is not acceptable language and violates AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I also think that a very narrow topic ban has become unavoidable, as much as I have tried (fruitlessly) for the longest time to avoid anyone having to be sanctioned. Below, EEng calls me to task for, in his opinion, never providing a direct answer to his questions. In my opinion, I already did exactly that, many times, with Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD being just one good example. EEng apparently believes that I'm doing WP:IDHT, and I believe the same about him, so I'm not going to respond below, and I'll just allow whoever may be uninvolved to decide for themselves.
• I propose, yet one more time, that EEng be topic-banned indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an understanding

Directly above, Drmies points to this diff: [150]. Take a look at the diff, and see who the editor was. EEng replies "that's not my edit". EEng goes on to refer to the editors who disagree with him as "the posse" and "The Enforcers". And all this in the context of an ANI discussion about his unwillingness to treat other editors in the discussion with good faith and without insult. I'm not asking him to agree with other editors. But I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge that other editors really do have good faith concerns, and demonstrate a willingness to engage with them on neutral terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, you have to look at the revision history [151] to see what I mean by "that's not my edit".
• I have said repeatedly above that I believe everyone to be acting in good faith, if misguided. It's the stubborn certaintly, combined with the absolute refusal to give even a single example of the alleged problems (see below), that's pissing me off.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems (nth request)

Tfish, you and John keep talking about the "esoteric formatting", but despite my repeated requests you never say what that is. For the love of God, right here, right now, in front of everyone, after all this wasted time and effort, one of you please specify what you're talking about. Let me suggest you do this by making (say) three actual, live edits to the article, each illustrating one variety of this "esoteric formatting" by removing or fixing one or two instances of it. Then link the three diffs here, each with a link to the pertinent MOS provision or other guideline).

If indeed there really are clear violations of MOS, I'll be the first to rush out and fix all instances of them. If it's a matter of judgment or opinion, we can talk about it on the article's Talk page, one by one.

That's all I've ever asked for, and not too much to expect. I doubt I'll be participating here further until that's done. EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, people can reference the recent past and the reason this was brought here, but let's review some issues. This edit resolved the <!--In con{{shy}}sid{{shy}}er{{shy}}a{{shy}}­tion of this important omis{{shy}}sion, --> issue. Shy templates in invisible mark up = totally useless. Painfully old, but this edit to restore useless invisible comments was a repeat issue. Part of the issue has been resolved by you acknowledging Template:Cite_web#COinS after BGwhite pointed it out, but that was also for technical reasons. Glad you understand that now. Though MOS:MARKUP was a repeatedly mentioned. The replacement of many templates you've added with actual characters makes sense and many equivalent changes are so widely supported that even AWB makes the changes for you. Though I am certain that: <!--DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING>>>>-->{{sic|neighbouring|hide=y}}<!--<<<<DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING --> is a perfectly good example of two irrelevant and distracting invisible comments that is in the current version. Your insistence on nonequivalent measurements "three inches (8{{nbsp}}cm)" are also a bit unusual because of the way you choose to display them. Though this and numerous other issues are best dealt with on the talk page... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the article in the editing window right now. Half of what I see seems redundant to me. Upload links in the image syntax, all kinds of templated spaces and spacings, marked-up paragraph breaks, lists, hidden comments of all kinds, hard returns in the middle of sentences and paragraphs, a plethora of notes with all those formatting codes in the notes (hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins)--I have never seen so much templating in one article, and the net effect is, for an illiterate like me, that my editing the article seems very unwelcome. I hope that was not the purpose, but man this looks awful. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for links to pertinent MOS (or other) guidelines showing that this is anything more than a matter of judgment that should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than unilaterally thrown away by people using edit summaries like time to move on, majority opinion the best guide [152]. So much for discussion and consensus. Your bit about "hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins" is especially amusing, since there used to be comments explaining <!--END NOTE--> (see [153]); but I was told those weren't wanted, so I got rid of them [154] It sure is hard to please everyone. EEng (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I am glad you find something to be amusing here. There's a better option, of course, then adding another layer of commentary: simplify. (The problem isn't really the notes itself, it's the enormous number of templates sprayed throughout the article. Someone should count curly brackets, just for fun.) You're not doing anyone any favors with this style of editing, or with these interactions here. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR, EEng, 4RR. --John (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD, WP:VOTE, John. EEng (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR is an absolute rule, one of very few we have. Believing you are right or that a consensus was improperly arrived at are not legitimate justifications for breaking it. If you plan to break it again, you will be blocked again and you would be better topic-banned from the article as this is less stressful for all concerned. Is this the case? --John (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Do you plan to high-handedly WP:TAGTEAM me again, then talk sanctimoniously of 3RR? Do you plan to shift from one misinterpreted guideline to another, then in desperation denigrate another editor's work as "shit writing", as in [155] --

If I'm confusing you by referring to ideas that are perhaps new to you, I can make it simple to help you. It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girl's diary, not an encyclopedia. Does that make it easier to understand? --John (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

-- then give lectures about respect and collaboration, and threaten blocks and topic bans? EEng (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly sorry if I hurt your feelings by calling "notably", "remarkably" and "went so far as to say" in the article "shit writing" when you insisted on edit warring to retain it. I stand by my judgement that this is not good style but I accept I could have put it more nicely. It is both notable and remarkable to me that this disagreement took place over a year ago, and that you are still edit-warring to prevent others from improving the article. I note with regret that you are still throwing around personal judgements like "WP:TAGTEAM" following your recent block for personal attacks. It is better to talk about improving matters (which I was doing in the section you highlight, albeit in unparliamentary language) than to discuss their motivation, as you are doing. If I had said you were a "shit editor" that would have been a personal attack. I did not though. Do you see the difference? --John (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. Whose meat puppet are you accusing me of being? What is your evidence for making such an accusation? --John (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difference.

• If I say your comments are hypocritical bullshit (which I am saying), that's not a personal attack. But if I were say that you are a bullshitting hypocrite who splits hairs to remain within the letter of the rules while violating their spirit (which I'm not saying), then that would be a personal attack.
• If two editors take turns reverting a third, and I call that a "tag team", then I'm violating AGF. But if you say I'm "edit warring to prevent others from improving the article", that's not a violation of AGF.

Your deft shapeshifting between pious saint and flailing bully being now fully on display, I'm happy to end this. You will want to have the last, sputtering word, so be my guest. EEng (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a pious saint and I don't think I am a flailing bully either. Once again you are criticising the person rather than their arguments. My arguments are: you may not prevent others from editing the article in question by edit-warring, you may not insist repeatedly on obscure and user-surly coding that nobody but you thinks is of any use, and that you and the article would therefore benefit from some time apart from each other. Your conduct in this thread, and the last one here, unfortunately reinforces my judgement. And now I too will back off and let others have their say. --John (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have more eyes on Phineas Gage. Perhaps even if some fresh eyes would do what Drmies did, above: try opening the edit window for any part of the page, and see what you think about it. Or perhaps try to help at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic, but the citation style makes it impossible for someone not already familiar with the article (not just the topic) to edit it while keeping the reference style intact. If it was the original style with which the article was created, it would be marginally acceptable, but would prevent the article from being a GA. Converting the references to harvard-style names would make it possible to edit without the risk of confusing or duplicating references, but I have never before seen a Wikipedia article with this many notes, and few with duplicated notes, other than table footnotes.

Some of this may just be saying the reference style is complicated, perhaps not unnecessarily so. But that would have to be justified on the talk page. It doesn't appear to have been, although I haven't checked all the talk archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that examination. Your experience with the complication is similar to what many of us have experienced. As for whether there has ever been an established consensus for doing it that way, I'll repeat something I said above: I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [156]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [157]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [158]. He never disagreed. He subsequently said here that his "pet peeve" is actually ragged right margins. Most of the archived talk page discussions are about EEng and other editors disagreeing about the formatting; EEng certainly has explained his reasons there, but he has not for the most part gotten editors who disagree with him to change their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Block and admonishment proposal

• For being excessively pedantic with the Phineas Gage article (including wasting time with the GA and Talk page)
• For repeatedly bringing up the same "Prove that I'm being disruptive" argument when many of the disputants have been fait-acomplied into submission by digital forests of carefully composed debating prose
• For excessive wasting of volunteers time here at ANI

A 2 month block should be implemented upon EEng coupled with a significant admonishment reminding EEng of the standards of behavior.

• Support as Proposer Gah... huge wall of text is enough to push me from disinterested apathy to enraged action. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, in that form, but I support your intentions, and I thank you for that. EEng is a helpful editor in many other ways, but he just has an issue with this particular page. I'll repeat what I suggested above, instead: I support an indefinite topic ban of EEng from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose both the block and the proposed topic ban. EEng has written a interesting, well sourced, and informative article, and while they could/should try to behave a bit better, to topic ban them would be losing sight of Wikipedia's main goal (being an encyclopedia). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is for that reason that I proposed no restriction on editing the talk page. That way, we don't lose EEng's expertise about the content of the page, but we allow editors to edit the page itself in accordance with consensus, instead of having to defend against edit wars that go against consensus. That is the real way to advance the main goal of building an encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban on EEng largely per user:G S Palmer and comments by user:Nyttend earlier. The block handed out to him recently is outrageous. If anything EEng has shown remarkable restraint in the face of being baited for almost a year now. Tryptofish, your proposal to restrict EEng to the talk page is ridiculous, like many of the false content issues that you and others drowned the talk page in over the last year, such as supporting the idea that a children's book can be a good source from which to base medical facts. You never lifted a finger to help fix the citation and notes problems caused by others on this article, but join their chorus of 'ban him' when EEng's syntax takes advantage of the features available for making a page very attractive, even after they have been discussed at MOS. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised to see a discussion now underway at Talk:Phineas Gage which shows that user:ChrisGualtieri, EEng's strongest critic, is engaged in fruitful collaboration with EEng, as it matches my experience over the years, where I've never had a problem finding an agreeable solution with EEng on this page even on aspects that I dont 100% agree with him, and I have enjoyed discussing gritty details with him re both content and syntax which have resulted in vast improvements to the article over the years. We should be so lucky to have such dedication shown to all our articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per G S Palmer and John Vandenberg. I can't put it any better than it already has been put. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block and topic ban. I largely agree with G S Palmer and John Vandenberg. I think as things cool down, more cooperation will emerge. I am One of Many (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per I am One of Many. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block and topic ban, per John Vandenberg and others. "Excessively pedantic" is one of the silliest charges I've ever seen on Wikipedia. EEng does appear to be quite pedantic, but that same pedantry seems to have produced a remarkably thorough article on Phineas Gage. This whole proposal and its wording suffers from a lack of WP:AGF. Are you claiming EEng is purposefully wasting people's time, or just that too much time is consumed as a result of his editing/formatting style and "digital forests of carefully composed debating prose"? Should EEng be admonished to debate less effectively, then? IRW0 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - EEng's working with me, but I don't think another block is going to result in a net gain for Wikipedia. The article is still so arcane in formatting that its a tedious chore to make even trivial changes, but its been a huge improvement in the year and the content has somewhat improved. This is a very important page because of its high number of views and work is being done. It has not been easy and there is always something to disagree over, but in large, progress is being made and the page is improving - that's all I really care about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment EEng needs to be clear that further edit-warring will result in another block. --John (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

John needs to be clear that it takes two (or more, in case of tag-teaming) to edit war. Remember to turn out the lights when you're done. EEng (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support block and add indefinite topic ban. Wikipedia is not therapy. --John (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is, it doesn't seem to be working. EEng (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Someone should probably close this entire thread, as nothing further is going to come of it. I continue to oppose the use of blocks in this situation, as they truly will not prevent anything that needs preventing. I do note that ChrisG and EEng actually do seem to be working well together, and I hope that it lasts. As for all the editors who oppose any action, I was one of you until the recent edit war changed my mind – and I hope that you all have a good plan for how you will each, individually, help bring the page to being a GA, and that you will have good solutions when a GA reviewer has objections to the page formatting. And something else: I want to set the record straight. John Vandenberg claims some things about me – and some other editors appear to be accepting it as truth without checking for themselves. Throughout this dispute, I've learned to expect that John Vandenberg will eventually show up and attack me, without letting the actual facts get in his way. It's puzzling how such a person could ever have become an administrator, much less get elected to ArbCom, because truly, whatever it is that sets him off about me has no basis in the world of reality. There's a consensus at MOS??? I don't distinguish between good and bad medical sources??? I don't engage in fruitful collaboration with EEng??? I've never lifted a finger to help improve that page??? Amazing!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, those aren't the things John Vandenberg said (except about MOS, though I'm not sure what he's referring to there). Also for the record, you and I certainly have engaged in fruitful collaboration in the past, and I hope we will in the future. EEng (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I stand by what I said about John Vandenberg – but what is much, much more important is that I, too, look forward to working with you fruitfully in the future as we have done many times before. For me, none of what I've said about you here has been personal, but I sincerely hope that what you, and Chris, and anyone else will take away from this ANI wall-of-text is that editing of Phineas Gage is about working collaboratively to improve the page, and not about having things one's own way. You said to John, above, that it takes two or more to edit war; please remember that the recent edit war had you on one side making multiple reverts, and everyone on the other side making only a single revert, or none at all. That doesn't make the other editors a tag-team, or a posse. Now, will somebody please close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

After commenting here, I looked at the most recent edits at the Gage page and at EEng's user talk, and I hope that I didn't speak too soon here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IPUser 128.189.191.60

IPUser 128.189.191.60 (talk) posted persoanl attacks and insulting comments in a discussion[159], and he continued his personal attacks in his comments despite being asked to revert his offensive comments.[160] STSC (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP says they are withdrawing, but I don't understand the attempt to use reasoning to argue for city anthems, we depend upon reliable sources directly stating that the "national anthem of " HongKong, Beijing, etc "is...". Hm, that might put me on the side of the IP. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have used the RPT template to remove the personal attacks from the IP. Regarding the "national anthem", you might have misunderstood the issue. STSC (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation by Tarc

Tarc (talk · contribs) has been misrepresenting comments made by me relating to the Gender Gap discussions that have recently been closed here. Their response to one of my comments and a minor clarification was to accuse me of being boorish and of somehow not believing that there is a gender gap problem on Wikipedia. I asked for a diff to support their accusation but they have consistently failed to do so, eg: one response was this and there is a thread at User_talk:Tarc#ANI_thread.

Ok, that's just one misrepresentation but then they made another here where they accused me of having written a screed yesterday accusing the project of using the mailing list to organize meatpuppets. They had no basis for that further accusation, as I tried to point out to them in this series of edits.

Tarc has now adopted the same course as Carolmooredc adopts when faced with a problem of their own making. Instead of apologising or retracting, they've suggested that they will ban me from their talk page and accused me of yet more things.

Anecdotally, I've seen comments in the past from people who have queried Tarc's ability to comprehend the statements of others. I've no idea whether Tarc's first language is English or not. Is there really a comprehension competence problem here or is it just one of plain rudeness, of misrepresenting for effect etc? Can someone perhaps have a word before their unfounded accusations against me become a part of the usual folklore based on scant fact that is repetitively trotted out by the likes of Carolmooredc. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone suggests you don't continue posting to their talk page, stop. It's a very easy thing to do. Are you demanding talk page access here?__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read what I said above, including the diffs? It doesn't look like it. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't know if Tarc speaks English, you don't know if I can read; it sounds like the world is filled with things to learn and discover. So, looking at the diff, you're objecting to the suggestion of the possibility of a potential future ban from a user talk page. Maybe he's not taking your buttercup-friendly comments in the spirit you're giving them? Either way, it's their talk page and you're not entitled to post your random thoughts there, if you're coming off as rude and patronizing (which those comments could be seen as, honestly).__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about being banned from that talk page. I am bothered about someone making misrepresentations, refusing to correct them and instead seemingly expanding on them. I am particularly bothered about it because the Gender Gap related discussions seem commonly to be perpetuating myths, half-truths etc about what people have said and because the main voice in those discussions has a documented habit of repeatedly drawing on those, even when irrelevant to the issue at hand. Tarc's misrepresentations of me will become set in stone unless someone sets that record straight. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this entire dispute should goto Arbcom, this is nuts and I feel that people here are getting fed up with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am getting fed up of it and I've barely contributed to the discussions at Talk:GGTF. I'm not sure of the grounds that would be used for referral to ArbCom. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that original comment contains your advice prodding Carolmooredc to write down some kind of an ersatz "enemies list" somewhere. I don't think that's usually allowed by policy, and rightfully so. Maybe you didn't mean it exactly that way, but I think people will agree that you were giving not-very-helpful advice at the time, as Carole could be censured if she followed your advice. And you do seem to be asking what could arguably be seen as a loaded question regarding meatpuppetry and the mailing list, in the sense of "To what extent does your project harm puppies?" and then protesting that you never meant any puppy-hurting would ever happen. I don't know how much of what you said will be "set in stone" but I also don't know what you're trying to achieve here. I don't think you've started this without throwing some insinuations of your own.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't suggest that she made an "enemies" list and she is well aware of what she can and cannot do (she has asked about keeping lists of diffs on-wiki for possible use in ANI reports, for example, previously). If you think that I have insinuated anything here then just say what those things are and I'll provide some diffs. I, on the other hand, have not accused Tarc of insinuating anything here: they've massively misrepresented and I'm not sure it that is a comprehension issue or deliberate. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you're not sure, and your words can be interpreted a few ways, then I think we've all learned an important lesson here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my words cannot be interpreted in a few ways. And I am sure that Tarc is wrong, for which ever reason it may be, and that it needs to be dealt with. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And I am sure that Tarc is wrong, for which ever reason it may be... This sounds close to demanding a crime found to meet the sentence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. You are twisting things. Just take me as read: I'm not a complicated person and I'm not a schemer. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't stop you from unfair comment about your fellow editors. This thread is not constructive__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Sitush:. No, they won't become set in stone, that hardly ever happens. (Admittedly, it's set in stone that I'm a toxic personality, but that was Jimbo, not Tarc.) The sooner you disengage, the sooner they'll be forgotten, and they're altogether not worth chewing over in this way. @Tarc: Please don't call people "boorish" (an extremely poor choice of words) and suchlike, that can only inflame a situation. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

Situshi seems to object to various criticisms leveled by Tarc, and to prove the point Situshi vaguely points to edits and remarks made by CarolMooreDC. So CMDC is the strawman/strawwoman and is thereby subjected to NPA violations. Those comments about CMDC should be {{rpa}}/redacted. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Srich, the arbiter who manages to piss off both Eric and Carol with supposedly well-intentioned pseudo-admin interventions? Tell me which criticisms need support and I'll provide the diffs - unlike Tarc, I have no objection to doing so. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

All this is is just spillover from the big Gender Gap discussions above. I took umbrage yesterday to Sitush badgering and browbeating Carolmoore, particularly with the insinuations that the Gendergap mailing list is a place to coordinate meatpuppetry...a theme, it seems, as he harangued the GGTF today with this "warning" about registering at women.com. As if women gathering together to discuss issued they're interested in is in itself nefarious. So ever since, Sitush has hounded me with this "DIFF DIFF DIFF GIMME DIFFS!" crusade, when I have clearly explained (via this response) to him that it is his overall attitude and demeanor, towards Carol and towards the subject itself, that is at fault. That is my answer to his question of "tell me where I said that"; I'm sorry if a wiki-jargon "diff" cannot encompass the entirety of one's sub-par behavior when it runs the gamut from my talk page to An/I to Jimbo's talk page (this secion, which contains colorful gems like "'only an involved idiot does that.

I don't want to bar people from my talk page...I even let some of my former banned foes that I've made amends with lately post there if they have something to say...but it's almost at the point where this particular person is going over the line. Besides the "do you have a reading comprehension" stuff already noted above, Sitush likes to insult via edit summary as well; nonsense - you don't seem even to understand punctuation, stop being an idiot. If he can clean that up, that'd be great. If not, then it's outta my hands. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a valid concern that there might be meatpuppets that are being gained from the mailing list. It looks like it's unregulated and any discussion there can lead to a page being edited by request, therefore de facto meat puppetry. Whether that's bad or not is up for debate; especially given it's mostly people who support getting rid of the gender gap. But I don't see him insinuating that there is, just telling you to be cautious about WP:MEAT. to him that it is his overall attitude and demeanor, towards Carol and towards the subject itself, that is at fault. So he's editing with a supposed POV, like everyone else on Wikipedia? Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And, yet again, you misrepresent what I said, now including what I said at the GGTF talk today. Are you ever going to stop? - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is called a "difference of opinion", obviously you have a different interpretation, but what I see is you undercutting and undermining the Gender Gap people with insinuations of coordinating off-wiki actions. You'e done it twice; once regarding the mailing list, the second time regarding the women.com registration site. We could allow for the possibility that you did not intend to be so insulting, but to the outside readers here, it comes across as precisely that. You really may want to tone down the "pseudo-admin bollocks again?" stuff, too. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of assuming that I am talking in code, assume that I mean what I say. It's far easier than trying to read what I deign to call my mind and, more, it is what I meant. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your comment to me above, you've given information about the criticisms from Tarc, and those criticisms are what the community should look at. Supplying diffs by CMDC would be meaningless. And whether I piss off Eric, CMDC, or you does nothing for your case here. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, the thing is, given the other examples of your poor attitude and demeanor (amply detailed above) towards the gender-gap members, I think my analysis is rather spot-on. Now, I am running back out before the thunderstorms come, engaging in the quaint New England art of haggling over other people's stuff. Until then, have some WP:TEA. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't give a fuck what you think any more, Tarc. You're obviously not prepared to respond to the point that was originally raised and you're obviously incapable of reading English. WP:CIR, I guess.. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush I'm not completely sure what this is all about, but please do not resort to insults and assuming things that may not be true. Remember to stay civil. :) Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 00:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't insulted anyone, I've commented on my state of mind. As for assuming things that are not true, well, that was the entire point of me raising this issue here because that is exactly what Tarc was doing. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it ... - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been disruptive and nasty towards the GG task force, taking the side of the primary disruptors who an ANI was filed against above. I called you out on that after your insinuations that they could be up to meatpuppetry. The "do you understand English?" thing is getting a little stale by now, though, do you think you could kinda...knock that off? I'm an Apple-pie eating, love-my-momma type, and have been speaking the good ol' English for 40+ years now. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merely correcting a mistatement

Sitush wrote that I and Tarc have "suggested that they will ban me from their talk page". I don't know about Tarc, but in fact Dec 14, 2013 I did ban Sitush from my talk page for constant nitpicking comments I perceived as hostile harassment. (He responded here with "Do you think I really give a crap?"...why on earth you think that I might post on your page again is beyond me...") Nevertheless he has kept posting and I have kept reminding him he is banned: December 21, 2013, July 27, 2014, July 30, 2014. Need I say it again? Sitush has been banned from my talk page since December 14, 2013 [Later clarification: except, obviously for official notices of things that don't belong on article talk pages.) Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Someone else who cannot read. I never suggested that you would ban me; I said that Tarc had suggested they would ban me - you are among those who have been encouraging gender-neutral pronouns etc. As usual, you are turning all of this into a "this is me, let's rehash all the old stuff that I wasn't able to get support for before" history. And you are doing it with a point-y subheading, as is also typical of you, drawing attention to your usually pointless and tendentious "it's all about me" scenario. I've also suggested a solution to the forgetfulness of me and others regarding TP bans by censorsious, non-collaborative editors but Elaqueate has suggested that is inappropriate. The sooner you are banned from this place, the better because you are either not learning despite your many years experience, particularly stupid (unlikely) or deliberately anal. Anyways, I'm out of here. Bish knows why. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush wrote: Tarc has now adopted the same course as Carolmooredc adopts when faced with a problem of their own making. Instead of apologising or retracting, they've suggested that they will ban me from their talk page and accused me of yet more things. Whatever you meant, it sounds like you are saying both us us will ban you, future tense. Don't bring up my name in an irrelevant context and in poorly formed sentences and you wont have these problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To What problems do you refer? Is it just bad luck to utter your name, or were you making a threat? If so, could you be more explicit? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of deletion process

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

---

- Wrongly tagged for delete based on no sources - corrected without apology - Source wrongly tagged as self-publshed - corrected no apology - Extra deletion process started before discussing with editors on the page or on talk page - initiator withdrawn - Vote cast by policy acronym without anyone having read provided source or even asking what it says - Vote not withdrawn without any clear explanation. [[161]] FinalAccount (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• And the deletion discussion is still ongoing. You should wait until it's over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to have grasped that I, a Wikipedia content contributor, am asking for help from Wikipedia administration to discuss or help with what I perceive to be misuse of the deletion process, currently at the last point of misuse listed above? FinalAccount (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC) p.s. i have no doubt the article won't be deleted, it very obviously won't be, this is not a roundabout way of trying to get at that. I am talking about apparent user misuse of the process. FinalAccount (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Final Account is correct. The delete votes were withdrawn, and now there are none, I'd say it's ripe for a close as keep. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As above, have closed the AfD as withdrawn with nominator, followed by withdrawal of only actionable !vote. Euryalus (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well thanks for closing the deletion process but again I am asking for Wikipedia administration to make some comment about the user who started off by mistakenly using a delete tag that's for articles with no sources listed, when it had two listed, and hasn't acknowledged let along apologised for risking my hard work in this way, and then for voting delete before waiting for verification of one of the provided sources, and then, even when it's clearly obviously a non-deletion article and had even been reviewed and passed by someone separately, STILL just said 'can't confirm keep' thus stopping the article being deleted on the basis of the instigator withdrawal - apparently simply to annoy me, even though he started all this by his mistake. FinalAccount (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing matters here. The prod was added by User:Nafsadh, [162], it was then removed by User:GB_fan [163] as the reasoning seemed invalid (as you said, the article did have sources). It was then nominated for deletion by User:Stuartyeates [164].

The fact that a mistake may have been made in the rationale by Nafsadh doesn't affect the AFD nomination by Stuartyeates in any way. From what I can tell, Stuartyeates never claimed the article had no sources. Nor did they comment on an inability to verify. It appears that their primary problem was the sources you used at the time did not establish notability under the WP:GNG (and also I guess failed any subject specific criteria). Verification of the sources doesn't help if they either aren't WP:RS or lack sufficient coverage to establish notability.

To be clear, I'm not saying Stuartyeates was definitely right to AFD, I haven't looked at the sources present at the time so can't comment. I'm simply saying that whatever mistakes Nafsadh may or may not have made have no bearing on Stuartyeates AFD.

Also, even if Nafsadh made a mistake, you really need to learn to WP:Assume good faith and let things go or you aren't going to last very long wikipedia. Note also that even if a mistake was made, that doesn't mean there was any abuse of process. Contributors aren't expected to be perfect and it does sound like there were problems with the article at the time of the prodding, or at least one other contributor feels there was. So Nafsadh likely had a fair reason to be concerned, even if they may have made a mistake in the specific prodding rationale.

And no one is going to rule that someone made a mistake, that's not what administrators do. (Actually you're far closer to earning administrative attention i.e. a block if you continue to fail to AGF and make accusations like "apparently simply to annoy me". You seem to do good work, but understand wikipedia is a collobrative effort. So you need to learn to get along with your fellow editors even when you have disagreements or mistakes are made. And that includes not continually demanding apologies or confirmation of wrongdoing. It sounds like you may be a new editor. If so, may be seek help at WP:Teahouse if you're confused about something rather than coming to ANI and complaining about other editors.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory Note from involved editor. The article concerned was PRODed during a regular NewPagesFeed reviews - a very affective practice withing Wikipedia, especially because a lot of hoax-pages and articles about non-notable subjects pop up. Subsequently it was AfDed again by another editor Stuartyeates probably mostly with similar concern as mine: no apparent reliable sources were present. Stuartyeates investigated and was not satisfied about notability, neither was I. Meanwhile original creator, FinalAccount, harshly attacked me in the PROD notice on his talk page [165] questioning my cognitive ability -- which by no mean nice, and I felt extremely offended. Off course FinalAccount continued to add sources about Ronald R. Fieve, but he (assuming FinalAccount is a he, correct me if wrong) was not ready to cool down on AfD. Consequently his comment, "No thanks coming from you are accepted - my work on the article has nothing to do with your tagging deletion efforts - you hindered what I was working towards anyway. And you are a policy joke" made me think whether I should go for a RfC/UC or not. Since he is relatively new contributor and as I was extremely confounded from his remark about himself on his page: "do have a mental disability" -- I decided to cool down. In the end, this ANI (without notice!) bothers me. -- nafSadh did say 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nafsadh to begin with there is nothing obligatory to leave a note no matter how involved you are with a situation. Your inappropriate BLPPROD was the initiation of this entire thing. A BLPPROD should never have been added to the article as the very first edit had sources. You need to take responsibility that you did not follow the BLPPROD policy. Finally as I suggested to FinalAccount drop it because you are not helping. GB fan 00:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's all I want - some slightly sense of acknowledgement of some responsibility. Not just for my benefit but for Wikipedia content. And not just for the BLPPROD but Nafsadh then voted to delete WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT HAVING READ OR ASKED FOR VERIFICATION FOR OR ASKED ME ABOUT one of the extra sources I listed. Wikipedia administration - please confirm that this is not acceptable, or is it? FinalAccount (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement to explain any !vote for or against deletion. No one has to ask for verification of any sources or ask anyone about any sources. FinalAccount drop it and move on to working on articles. GB fan 00:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The deletion process was based on a statement that there was no evidence of independent sources. I provided three, one being in a psychiatric journal. Nafsadh then voted delete without any comment on them and without even having read at least one of them. That's perfectly fine treatment of the general public trying to contribute to Wikipedia then is it? FinalAccount (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the PROD (proposed deletion) or the AFD? As I've already said, these are seperate things and shouldn't be conflated. If you are referring to the AFD, your statement seems even more incorrect (but I don't think anyone is going to insist on an apology). The AFD rationale was "no evidence of in depth coverage in independent source". Without commenting on whether this rationale was valid, you've missed out a key point namely the we need in depth coverage to meet the WP:GNG not simply coverage in independent sources, and the claim was the sources you used didn't meet this. The fact that the article may have had 3 sources, no matter whether these are journals or whatever, is obviously irrelevant if this coverage wasn't sufficient. In fact, it seems unlikely a psychiatric journal would have in depth coverage of a reseacher. Remember this is an article on the person, not on their books or research or anything else. An article on the person will cover such details if it's a signficiant part of their life, but it ultimately still needs to qualify for a standalone article on the person. A person who's research is famous or has written a very well known book will generally meet one of the subject specific guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC or WP:WRITER but that doesn't negate the fact the subject of this article is a person. It may be that the information in the article was sufficient to establish presumed notability under one of the subject specific guidelines despite not clearly meeting the GNG. But that's a distinct point and doesn't mean the claim in the deletion rationale was wrong, simply that there may have been reasons to keep despite that. (You could say if that is true, that the article probably shouldn't have been AFDed, but that's a more complicated point.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

BLPPROD stipulates that there shall be some reliable source. Sources did not seem to be reliable. I considered CSD/AfD and PROD. So, you can think the tagging is inappropriate, it is not necessarily a violation of BLPPROD policy. @GB. -- nafSadh did say 00:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nafsadh, You should go back and read WP:BLPPROD again. It says you can only add a BLPPROD to an article if it has no sources in any form. The reliable source portion only kicks in when sources are added after a BLPPROD is on the article. If there are any sources in any form that confirm any information in the article then a BLPPROD can not be added. There were sources in the article that confirmed information (reliability of those sources have nothing to do with it) so a BLPPROD was inappropriate. You were absolutely wrong to add a BLPPROD to the article. GB fan 01:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory note from involved editor As noted above, I've withdrawn my nomination based on the numbers of editions of this academics work listed on WorldCat (many editions of multiple works by a mainstream publisher == evidence of a widely held / used books). In my withdrawal message I suggested the article creator add this data (and a {{Authority Control}} template) to the article; this has not been done. I also note that most of the links in the references don't work for me and aren't really suitable for an international encyclopedia (the issue appears to be region-locked texts in google books unavailable outside the US, but could also be the maximum page access limit that we sometimes hit). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, why are are the links not suitable for an international encyclopedia? Sources do not have to be in English. Sources can be behind paywalls. Sources do not have to be readily available to a majority of editors. The sources only have to be verifiable. If others can get to them and confirm that they verify the information in the article that is all that is required (it does not have to be someone from the US). If you think a {{Authority Control}} template belongs on the article, you can add it. There is no requirement for any one else to add it. GB fan 11:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The links are unsuitable because they appear to be region-locked; working only for a relatively small subset of editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Like talking to two brick walls - as just pointed out to you, no links are even necessary at all, as the information to find the source is there in the citation? And you know what, I realise now you mean because some of the links are to google.co.uk - but you know what, you know how hard it is to access them - change it from books.google.co.uk to google.com?!?

In any case this is just bizarre as they are all totally normal types of sources in english for which I provided direct online links and I am not in the US and no one asked me for other links or extracts. One of the two original sources was in any case perfectly reliable, being published by an international mainstream academic society. As to some worldcat/authority, who cares, I already sourced in the article which I expect Stuartyeates saw that the english language version alone sold over a million copies in five years and was instrumental in introducing America to Bipolar Disorder. FinalAccount (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What GB Fan said. Note also that this also mean sources don't have to be online. In the case of any book source, Google Books or whatever would generally only be a convenience link. The citation details should generally have sufficient information such that the book can be tracked down via some other method, such as a: physical copy. I didn't and don't really want to get in to the back and forth on the original AFD more than I already have. But even if the way they're approaching this isn't helping, I do feel the FinalAccount has a point that you should always take great care if you're AFDing an article and haven't actually read the sources (even if the reason is you can't access them) and can't be sure they aren't reliable. (Although I'm not sure that the sources were sufficient to establish notability under the GNG anyway, which seemed to be what you're AFD was for. It sounds more like a case where the sources may have established notability under one of the subject specific guidelines.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources currently in the article where not in the article when I AfD'd it; but their addition didn't cause me to withdraw the nomination (because as I mentioned, the most of the links don't work for me). There was some weight added when I found (and added) a handful of papers on google scholar with more than 100 cites (see in-line comment). What caused me to withdraw was the WorldCat editions, which has not yet been added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect - two of the sources were in the article when you AfD'd it (one of them a chapter by the subject published with biographical paragraph by an international academic society). And as you must know, no links are even necessary at all. Are you seriously claiming it was beyond you to search for the books online yourself, or change books.google.co.uk to google.com? And that a bit of Original Research of citation/sales figures on your part is better than the multiple sources of significant coverage I've added to the article? FinalAccount (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing this a second time - see comments in results box above. Please feel free to continue a discusson on sources on the aticle talk page, but there's no admin action required here. Euryalus (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Reptilians

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

---

User:MONGO declared his/her intention of edit-warring on the Reptilians article and talk page here and here, and has carried out the threat here, here, here and here. He/she has offered no constructive criticism, saying only that "That is the typical ploy of everyone that thinks they are right....to make others disprove their edit." When I tried to discuss it with him/her on his/her user talk page, my post was deleted with the edit summary, "dont start something you cant finish". Can this user be requested to edit civilly and collaboratively, please? Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Scolaire wrote the section he has in the article in his sandbox then circumvented discussion in much detail by moving the entire passage to article space. That is not editing collaboratively. He has repeatedly reinserted PAs in the talkpage made by an IP because the IP supports his edits. His post on my talk page wasn't anything other than threats and snide insinuations. No need to provide the diffs as they are already above. Looks like an ownership mentality on Scolaire's part...he should learn to build an article within that space and seek consensus for his changes before assuming all would be in agreement.--MONGO 15:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs you provided of Mongo "edit warring" on the talk page are diffs of him removing personal attacks, which is entirely appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A defence of removing personal attacks might carry more weight if the deleted post had not been a response to a personal attack on the editor by Mongo: I'm just going to remove your adolescent posts on sight no matter what IP they come in on and you can take that to the bank. --Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then his comment can be removed as well, but it is disingenuous for you to call his removal of an attack "edit warring" and doesn't cast the rest of your complaint in a favorable light. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend Scolaire post his material to the article talk page and if concensus is the references are neutral then no reason the material cannot then be added.--MONGO 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A pity you could not be as reasonable on the article talk page or your user talk page. Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure...you've been spreading love and joy everywhere as well...--MONGO 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that article just got off full protection a couple days ago and reverting is still happening, perhaps full protection should be restored until meaningful discussion has resumed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to on my account. I have started an RfC as suggested. I will not revert before it is resolved. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the most inflammatory editor is an IP, perhaps it would make sense to semiprotect article and its talk page for a while. Cardamon (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP has since toned down his/her comments in the discussion, and is not making any edits to the article. There is no apparent need for any kind of protection. Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful IP editor is back...accusing myself and another editor of being hypocrites and that I'm his meatpuppet...I see no reason to not simply remove it for the long winded trolling it is.--MONGO 20:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Or you could simply ignore it as tl;dr. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

The dispute has now been resolved. It would be safe to close this now. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Drmies

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

---

Drmies (talk · contribs) is engaging in edit warring, NPOV issues and ownership behavior. He recently created an article on Jewish businessman Maup Caransa,[166] which had recently expanded to include a number of odd statements. These statements appeared to me to consist of unintentional, antisemitic tropes that appeared to be misrepresenting the sources, claiming this Jewish businessman had made a "killing" selling parts from a wrecked car (not in the source); that his parents and three brothers were simply "taken away" to "German camps", failing to note that the actual source said that his family died there; that he survived WWII because of his "non-Jewish appearance"; and that when he was kidnapped and held for ransom, he "continued to ply his trade, which was wheeling and dealing".[167] In combination, these are all known stereotypes of Jews, and combined with the playing down of the Holocaust and the death of Caransa's family, I began to take action.

I attempted to fix these problems,[168] and left a message on the talk page.[169] Instead of responding to the talk page discussion, Drmies partially reverted my edits, saying "no, this is what the sources say" in the edit summary.[170] I can handle that view, and not wanting to engage in any edit war, I visited his talk page and politely directed the user to the article talk page, as by now, there was still no response to my outstanding request.[171] Since I had already addressed this problem on the talk page, I made my way back to the article to look for additional problems. Because Drmies was very interested in sticking to "what the sources say", I noticed other problems right away.

For example, Drmies had added, "During World War II his parents and three brothers were taken away to the German camps." But the actual source says " After the war - his parents and three brothers died in concentration camps." There is a big difference between "taken away" and "died", so I added "During World War II his parents and three brothers were taken away to the concentration camps where they died."[172] This was again reverted by Drmies, with no mention of the revert in the edit summary.[173] After reverting, Drmies finally arrived on the talk page, not to discuss the problems, but to make baseless threats.[174] Further, he visited my talk page and accused me of "original research" simply for linking to Nazi concentration camps.[175] It was explained to Drmies that the previous term German concentration camp is a redirect to List of Nazi concentration camps, and as such, there is no original research.[176] I have no idea why Drmies is trying to play down the fact that these were Nazi concentration camps and that Caransa's family died there (both facts that he has deleted), but combined with the above edits about antisemitic stereotypes, I am concerned.

Please note, I have made every attempt to use the talk page, to politely contact the user, and to avoid all semblance of edit warring, and I have refrained from making a single revert. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You opened a talk page discussion a little over an hour ago and you're already here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree I don't know how this escalated so quickly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have exhausted every avenue available to me, which is why I filed this report. Instead of addressing the concerns I raised on the talk page, Drmies has made a series of threats and false accusations. This is in addition to his edit warring and addition of unsourced, problematic material. I have already been reverted twice, and I'm unable to edit. And as for the talk page, my attempt to discuss has been blocked. That's why I'm here. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. (Re)read WP:DR. Lots of avenues still open. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I chose to pursue this one. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not for DR the panda ₯’ 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• The user didn't do anything even remotely politely--I reverted one of his changes because, well, they were wrong and I figured they didn't know since, well, I speak Dutch and they don't. Next thing you know I'm being accused of being an antisemite on the article talk page, of being an alcoholic on my own talk page (or gay--whatever "bender" means for this user), and I get an edit warring template slapped on my talk page. So yeah, I'm a bit pissed at this character, yes, who could have posted a nice note with a question on my talk page, rather than the passive-aggressive third-person insults in their edit summaries. You reckon I'm going to get an apology for the drunk, gay, antisemite comments? From someone who has templates at the ready after one single revert? Imagine if this person runs into a new editor--great advertising for the project. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I edited the article and made a comment on the talk page, complete with diffs, with no accusations against anyone. In response, you reverted me twice, and made threats and false accusations on the talk page. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Ahem **bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language"** **edit warring warning after one revert** **"We aren't transcription monkeys, as I'm sure you've heard"** **"you are on a bender"**. Cough. What threats? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Scorecard:

Drmies -10 points for templating a regular

Viriditas -100 points for accusations of being "on a bender"

Drmies -2 points for "banning" someone from your talk page -- that's so lame.

Ent -1,000,000 points for falling off the wagon and reading ANI again ...

Perhaps --

Someone could wrap a close tag around this obvious content dispute admin action not required

A neutral, Dutch speaking editor -- perhaps from the list at Category:User_nl -- could be politely asked to review the sources?? NE Ent 04:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See talk page, Ent. Note they templated me first, so they should get those ten points too. Plus "Your disruptive edits" is a non-neutral heading. Also, don't be so hard on yourself; you're doing fine, and an occasional relapse is no biggie. Finally, does anyone get points for spending a few hours writing an article on someone who is eminently notable--someone who was certifiably tragic, heroic, and comic? Or does WP only do negative scorecards? Caransa played bridge, every week, in the Continental Club until 1 AM. I think he was a better sport than some of us. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is disruptive, and the heading was accurate, as is this report. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see this report going nowhere. Are you still calling me a drunk antisemite? or just an unintentional one? BTW, I retract my "get off my talk page", after Ent's wise words; please come by any time you like. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have interacted many times with Drmies over the years, and we have collaborated on a few articles. I happen to be a Jew, for whatever that is worth. Occasionally, we have disagreed, though far less often than we have agreed. I have found him to be responsive to any concern I raise, willing to correct errors (we all make them) and kind and thoughtful in every way. I see zero evidence of any malice on Drmies' part here. Zero. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Drmies could, I dunno, actually address the concerns about his editing choices instead of going on the offensive with the variant of the old "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR!?!" deflection. So, want to actually act like an editor discussing edits instead of exercising your fainting couch? --Calton | Talk 05:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, that both http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/4/AMSTERDAM/article/detail/257579/2009/08/08/Ten-Slotte-Maup-Caransa-1916---2009.dhtml and http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/20489814/__Caransa_dwong_geluk_af__.html indeed literally says that he supposedly survived the second world war due to his non-Jewish appearance. ".., making a profit" is a huge understatement when you buy a car wreck for 1.5 gulden, and sell it piece-by-piece for 'een paar tientjes' (a couple of 10 gulden notes; which suggests at least 20 gulden): at least 13 times as much as what he bought the car wreck for. That is, indeed, a significant profit (I think the simple mathematics involved here far surpass the original research involved). Going on, our article already says that they were taken away and did not return, I think that the 'where they died' that Viriditas inserted is superfluous, it is mentioned clearly later. So maybe Viriditas here could, when they have concerns about writings referenced to other-language sources that they do not seem to be able to read themselves and at best use a translation for stick to talkpage discussion instead of implementing such changes themselves (or at the very least, not react like this when they get reverted by an editor who can read the original text without using a translation service? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra, I must take serious issue with your defense of Drmies here. The NRC Handelsblad source cited in the article says, "Na de oorlog – zijn ouders en drie broers stierven in concentratiekampen" ("After the war - his parents and three brothers died in concentration camps").[177] Clearly, that is not superfluous. "Making a profit" is not an understatement at all, and the original wording added to the article was "killing", which isn't supported. In fact that source says he made a profit and uses the word "winst"[178] which means "profit"[179] so my edit was correct. Furthermore, the parool.nl source says nothing about a "non-Jewish appearance". It says "Dat hij overleefde, dankte hij, zei hij later, aan zijn gemengde huwelijk en zijn uiterlijk: blond, bijna rood, lichtblauwe ogen."[180]. According to that source, he said he survived due to his marriage to a Catholic woman and his blond hair and blue eyes. However, the source used to support this controversial wording De Telegraaf is clearly inappropriate and unreliable in a biography article.[181] According to our own article on this source, it "contains many "sensational" and sports-related articles, and one or more pages the content of which is supplied by the gossip-magazine Privé ("Private").... During World War II, the Telegraaf companies published pro-German papers, which led to a thirty-year ban on publishing after the war". I would say the use of this source to support the wording of a "non-Jewish appearance" is inappropriate. What do Jews look like? Do they have horns protruding out of their head? I stand by my comments on this matter. To recap, 1) his family died in the Nazi concentration camps. This should not have been removed and was fully supported. For Drmies to call this "original research" is unusual. 2) The word "profit" was entirely correct per the sources, and 3) the only source cited for his "non-Jewish appearance" was the unreliable sensationalist/gossip newspaper De Telegraaf. Lastly, at no time did Drmies attempt to discuss this before engaging in multiple reverts and making baseless threats and accusations. I was on the talk page trying to discuss this matter with no response from Drmies at any time, just reverts and threats. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies created Maup Caransa (1916–2009) seven hours before this report was created! If (that's if) Drmies used such problematic language in the article that a report to ANI is warranted, Viriditas should first spend some quality time explaining the issue (not in edit summaries, and not with sections titled "Your disruptive behavior", and not here). Drmies is well known as a good content creator and I have seen no previous suggestion of problematic language, so this report is amazingly premature and should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried explaining on the talk page, and invited Drmies to discuss. In return, my edits were reverted twice without discussion and I was threatened and accused of adding original research. At no time did I ever use edit summaries to explain the problem, and I proceeded directly to the talk page after I made my first edit to the page and before the reverts ever occurred. The section title of "Your disruptive behavior" was added to the user's talk page after two separate edits were reverted twice by Drmies without discussion, and after the user refused to discuss the problem after he was invited to do so. Edit warring is disruptive behavior, and my section title was accurate. At no time did I revert Drmies, nor have I added back any content that was removed. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just minutes after I filed this report, Drmies added additional controversial material, this time claiming that the actions of the Dutch Jews were directly to blame for the German invasion of their town. Drmies appears to be insisting on a false equivalency between the actions of the Dutch pro-Nazi movement and the Jews who fought back in self-defense, but places the blame squarely on the Jews for the subsequent actions of the German soldiers, writing "The killing of WA-man Koot by a Jewish knokploeg was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans".[182] I've assumed good faith that he isn't doing this on purpose, and this is mostly due to his poor translation, but even the source he cites doesn't say this. Drmies cites an opinion column (he shouldn't be doing that in a biography) that attributes that claim to the Nazis, which Drmies conveniently forgets to cite. ("De Duitse bezetter gebruikte dit incident als aanleiding om een razzia te houden en meer dan 400 Joodse jongemannen op te pakken.") I believe that NPOV means "Neutral Point of View", not "Nazi Point of View". Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are blatantly accusing Drmies of being an anti-Semite. This is a very serious personal attack on your part, and an egregious failure to AGF. Doc talk 09:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, actually I quite blatantly said it was "unintentional" (exact word) and I wrote just above your comment, "I've assumed good faith that he isn't doing this on purpose, and this is mostly due to his poor translation". Is that clear enough for you to retract? Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Retract what? You said just above he "conveniently forgets to cite" stuff; and that it should not be a "Nazi Point of View". Because... of someone else? Heh. No, I will not retract the observation that you are accusing him of what you plainly are. Doc talk 10:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into my comments, more than is actually there. If you bothered to read my report you would find that I have not accused anyone of being an antisemite or a Nazi. Furthermore, if you bothered to read the article on Maup Caransa, you would find that much of it is written in broken English as the result of a poor translation, hence the current problems up above. "Nazi Point of View" refers directly, in this instance, to the claim in the opinion column, which illustrates the Nazi POV. That's called attribution, and it did not find its way into the article when Drmies added it. Pretty simple, really. In other words, the claim, ""The killing of WA-man Koot by a Jewish knokploeg was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans" was the claim made by the Nazis, per the source.[183] Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, I think you have strayed into the ridiculous (although thanks for the "broken English" comment!). "Impetus" does not mean "a valid excuse". You are the one who is reading that into the word, and now you are accusing me of a Nazi point of view? The absurd claim that this is based on a column is just that, absurd, and shows that you don't know your ass from your elbow. Yes, De Telegraaf was "wrong" during the war [GASP! another euphemism! NAZI POV! "wrong"! well, that's the word the Dutch use], which doesn't mean that they're automatically wrong sixty years later, and at any rate every reader of history knows that the death of Koot was the excuse the Germans were looking for, and led directly to the February strike. Here and everywhere else. But I'm saying this not for your benefit, but for the onlookers.

Last night I thought maybe you were misunderstanding things, and that you were going to stop digging in this silly hole of yours. Now that you have accused me of having a Nazi POV, I really have no words for you, and I don't know what to say to everyone else either. This is more character assassination than I know what to do with. Let someone who masters English better than me rewrite this article, and give Viriditas a barnstar for heroically fighting Nazi scum. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. "These statements appeared to me to consist of unintentional, antisemitic tropes that appeared to be misrepresenting the sources..." That's how you start this thread. I don't care about your content dispute! If you weren't really accusing him of anti-semitism, you might not want to lead off with that... and then lamely try to explain it away as not actually accusing him of it. At the top you say, "I have no idea why Drmies is trying to play down the fact that these were Nazi concentration camps and that Caransa's family died there (both facts that he has deleted), but combined with the above edits about antisemitic stereotypes, I am concerned." Why are you "concerned"? Because of "Nazi POV? Doc talk 10:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you visit the talk page, you'll discover that I first described the problem as "highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language.[184] I believe this is due to a poor translation of the source material. Nobody has been accused of being an antisemite or a Nazi. I think there is a huge difference between identifying content that has problems and a problematic editor. I brought Drmies to this board because he refused to let me edit the material and he refused to respond to any discussion about it, and then he began making threats and accusations. I did not bring him here because he's an antisemite or because he's a Nazi. Unfortunately, it's quite late here (12:35 am) and past my bedtime, so I won't have any free time to address new comments. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• I propose a boomerang here. --John (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose away. I stand by every word I've written here. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

On the one unfortunate occassion that I've found myself on the other side of a conflict dispute with Viriditis, I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of personal pointlessly insulting commentary such as:

"Keep fucking that chicken and keep drinking what's left of that Kool-Aid, because pretty soon the cat's gonna be out of the bag, and you'll be the last one standing."

Followed by additional comments such as

'Now you are clearly trolling" and "Your so-called "evidence" is pure bunk. Give it up"

Along with a fair bit of similar commentary. It's very difficult for me to believe his claims of being the innocent victim of a completely unprovided personal attack in this situation. His track record says otherwise. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I really fail to see what your comment has to do with this discussion. I have not claimed to be a victim of any personal attacks in this thread. Are you sure you're in the right thread, or even on the right noticeboard? The link you offer indicates a dispute from March about cannabis. I'm having trouble seeing how that fits in here. Is that what is known as thread hijacking? Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it looks like a pattern of the first response to any content conflict being to question the motives, intelligence, or good intent of the person on the other side of the issue.

"Just a note to say that I've removed highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language" may be what you consider "very diplomatic", but what I would call highly diplomatic would have been something more along the lines of "Drmies, I am concerned that the specific language that you used here ("quote")could be interpreted by some as inappropriately supporting stereotypes. I propose changing it as follows, or "For this reason I have changed it as follows". Initiating a discussion by calling another editors language "highly problematic" and informing them that you have changed it for this reason is not "very diplomatic" in most people's minds. And Mark Millers rant went completely off the charts. I'm not sure why he is not the topic of this discussion. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean discuss the issue? But ANI is more satisfying. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed. --John (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Scuse me Viriditas, but you might have taken this slighty wrong. I know Drmies, we wrote articles about for example Jewish artists when he clearly expressed that he condamned and hated what happened in the concentration camps. This the playing down of the Holocaust ... well, must have been some kind of communication problem. Please seek WP:Conflict resolution instead, you don't want to put this on ANI, he was nice to you several times and deffended you, remember. Do not make this into a conflict, I am sure it can be resolved. Hafspajen (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Above, Formerly 98 says "(On the one) unfortunate occassion that I've found myself on the other side of a conflict dispute with Viriditis, I found myself on the receiving end of a barrage of personal pointlessly insulting commentary". Yup. This is exactly my experience as well. In additional to the personal pointlessly insulting commentary, it's usually mixed in with lots of subtle insinuations, weaselly insults and attacks (worded "just so" that if anyone points out that insults and attacks are being made, Viriditas can come back with some kind of "oh you're just being sensitive" excuse) and... just comments and assessments completely detached from reality, but made with a straight face as if repeating something over and over again made it true. That kind of behavior is plenty on display here it looks like. Not a pleasant person to have to run into. A boomerang is long overdue. Volunteer Marek  05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

For some insight as to why "Volunteer Marek" feels this way, see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list case from 2009, particularly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Viriditas. That's a long time to hold a grudge! Viriditas (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• If someone called me an anti-Semite, I'd be pissed too. Technically Viridatias didn't call Dmries anti-Semitic. The question is does anyone think it was intentionally phrased not to call Dmries an anti-Semite, but rather to imply and provoke?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed sanction

• Propose warning to User:Viriditas for personal attacks and failure to follow prescribed avenues of DR, with a block to follow if repeated. --John (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have this quote on the article Talk page:
    • "I don't know what the fuck you are screaming at and I don't give a fucking shit. Don't patronize me either. Thanks. If you don't understand what my issue was...fine. But don't you dare try to make me the issue when you are the one that added the content. I actually DID give you credit and you actually did make a change to the content. So...what the fuck is the issue?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)"

How you are going to single out Drmie's behavior from the other incivil and escalating behavior in this interchange is beyond my imagination. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Meh; Viriditas is clearly upset by what is in the article, and we should try to understand that. The PAs and failure to follow DR are problematic, but "sanctioning" with a warning (is that even a sanction?) isn't really necessary. The failure of an ANI thread to attract useful attention is usually warning enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• i don't wish to see the editor sanctioned but I wish to see the hideous charges of antisemitism and inserting Nazi POV retracted. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, it's clear from the talk page that for whatever reason you quickly became very agitated and uncivil there. It's also clear that Viriditas was careful not to suggest that you personally endorsed any such POV. Where do you see such charges, the ones you wish retracted? SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the exact quote, emphasis mine Just a note to say that I've removed highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language. And a grammar ... expert like Drmies should -- and I believe would normally -- recognize that "wording," not "Drmies" is the subject of that sentence, and that, at the very beginning Viriditas was explicitly stating they did not believe there was any intent to be offensive. (To be explicitly clear here -- I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing that the original wording was offensive, only that I can easily see how it might strike editors of differing backgrounds that way.) NE Ent 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Additionally, of course we inserted Nazi POV into the article -- because the sources tell us it was historical fact Caransa survived because of how the Nazis perceived him, and I interpret Viriditas's comment -- as expanded up by Mark Miller -- as a concern that hewing too closely to the sources made it appear as if Wikipedia endorsed that viewpoint, not that they ever believed Drmies personally felt that way. And when Viriditas made the comment on Drmies user talk about a Bender, well, that was just acting like an ass. NE Ent 17:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The community has an overriding right to expect better behavior, civil, constructive, and collegial, from its Admins. Notwithstanding any miscommunication, good intentions, or anything else, Drmies failed in that respect. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it kick an admin day already? Drmies created an article, and 90 minutes later Viriditas removed "highly problematic wording" and wrote the above on the article talk—that's what we do when confronting a known anti-Semitic POV pusher. If people are going to edit in a collaborative environment they need to recognize when they are dealing with a known-good content creator and actually engage with them. Viriditas has stated as fact that Drmies is either anti-Semitic or stupid when what was needed was a frank exchange of views based on an assumption of good faith—something like "Hey Drmies, are you aware that what you wrote can be interpreted ... I think that has to go". Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen Viriditas state that anywhere, please provide a diff to support that contention ... or better yet, strike it. NE Ent 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't believe Drmies is an antisemite or stupid. However, Wikipedia is an international project, and editors from different parts of the world with unique cultures may not spot certain tropes. As an American who is sensitive to American issues, I might see something like "so and so loves fried chicken and watermelon" in an article about an African American, and I'll remove it as vandalism. But would someone from another country recognize that as problematic material? Even if it was sourced? In the same way, I can detect Jewish stereotypes on biography articles. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: All the information is in my comment, but to expand, "highly problematic wording" is an assertion of fact, and I'll leave it to you to interpret "bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language". There is no way to parse that statement without concluding that it asserts Drmies is stupid—what other good faith conclusion can be drawn? That Drmies might not read books and so is unaware of WWII history and its aftermath? My comment above explains what should have occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I don't think Drmies failed in that respect. Viriditas got angry and called Drmies a bender (that would mean gay or alcoholic) - and Drmies got angry - because he did helped Viriditas quite a lot before. These dicussions about sensitive topics provoke often feelings that run higher than usual, - like minorities, women rights, and so on provoke often feelings that might run much higher than usual, and people misunderstand each other twice as fast as usual. And then somebody - tried to - well - do something, and posted a template on his page that he edited Easter European country related articles - and those are under Arb. Com. sanctions, probably as a warning so he should stop, but Amsterdam (the place this article is related to) is in Western Europe, so that not made him very happy either. Mark Miller tried to help - but then it was to late because Drmies was quite upset, so he made a sharp comment to him, - and - Well - Mark is a warrior. In soul and hart. But he and Dr Mies are friends in fact... so, here you have the whole mess. Hafspajen (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right that we have a right to expect better behavior, civil, consturctive, and collegial

• Thus Viriditas should not have initiated the conversation with a confrontational post, referring to the language of the article as "highly problematic" and waving the "stereotyping" red flag.
• And Dmries should not have engaged in unexplained reverts.
• And of course Mark's comments were as over the top as anything one sees in a typical month on Wikipedia.

What is not clear is why the narrow focus on Dmries behavior, and zero on the behavior of the other participants in this escalation. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When I saw this thread, I figured it would be depressing, and it is. I've interacted with Drmies plenty of times, and I am very sure that they are responsible and reasonable about editing disputes. Open up a content dispute where antisemitism and Nazis are involved, and people are going to get upset easily. Edits in that area require extra effort to make sure that one is not being misunderstood. Instead of seeking understanding, this conflict escalated much too quickly. Someone said way above that this didn't need to come to ANI, and they were right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, where antisemitism and Nazis are involved people are going to get upset easily. That is the whole point, the whole tragic point, because they made those poor people suffer incredibly - and - sigh, it is still there. Will this never stop? Hafspajen (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• The latest news is that Viriditas has decided that the article needs to be renamed, and has moved it to Maurits Caransa without talk page discussion or a by-your-leave--much to the surprise of Maup himself, no doubt. This is sour grapes, pure disruption, and without justification given the sources (which are roughly 50-50, though leaning toward Maup, which is also the title of the Dutch wiki article). Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you are being confrontational every time I edit the article? English sources refer to him by his formal name, not his nickname. Could you please look at the English language literature? Or are you saying we should base our article titles on the usage preferred by Dutch sensationalist gossip rags? Local media often chooses "pet" names for their local boys. We wouldn't, for example, move Barack Obama's page to "Bam", simply because the New York Post chooses to use that pet name. The Associated Press and other English sources refer to him by his formal name, as should we. I made a simple move. There's nothing controversial or disputed about it. Per WP:CRITERIA, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• And for the record, Drmies has just reverted for the third time, just over the 24 hour mark.[185] I have not made a single revert, yet I have been accused of edit warring on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Guilty as charged. I'm not accusing you of edit warring, by the way; I'm accusing you of pointy behavior, of grinding an axe. Go write an article yourself: this one seems to take up all your time and energy.

    In this case I'm accusing you of misreading the Dutch source (it was a series of raids--please don't minimize what the Nazis did) and of producing an English sentence that can't be parsed: does your "them" refer the members of the Jewish Action Group or to the Germans? So, sure, yeah, I reverted you. Cause you wuz wrong. Sorry, but I think there are more important issues than you getting your feelings hurt after you butcher a source--things like correctness, and respect for this man, and respect for the Amsterdam Jews, who weren't subjected to "a" raid but to a series of raids ("razzia's") that went on for days and then were ghettoized and subjected to a Judenrat. Those things are important. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • You are doing everything possible to be obnoxious (moving the article because you know best, and escalating at ANI with talk of 3RR). Why don't you give it a rest and return in a week? Is it really so important to win a war over what is essentially a good article? Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, I haven't made a single revert (Drmies has now made four in the last 24+ hours, three against me and one against an IP) and I haven't been obnoxious anywhere. I moved the article to the correct page title per our best practices, and I did so to improve Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you stick to the facts and avoid making comments about my intent. Admins are not exempt from the rules. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • And now we're at WP:ANEW as well. I note that Viriditas has spent all but two of their last 82 edits on this crusade, so I regret to say that we're really in HOUNDING territory. In the meantime I wrote up Oud-Strijders Legioen and Hendrik Koot (which I suggest Viriditas check for Nazi POV), wrote up a few DYK noms, reviewed a couple of them...in other words, I'm doing my best to not concentrate on this spat too much, but with three active threads and a bunch of talk page stuff that's hard. The latest: "thou shalt not use non-English sources", with the utterly false and preposterous claim that "There are more than enough English language sources that cover his life in detail". There aren't. Now, I'm pretty much done with Maup (that's his name, not "Maurits") and will happily try to forget all about this and the other forum threads. I wouldn't mind an IBAN though, if it meant Viriditas would leave me alone; I'm not very likely to bother him with his articles, though the last time I did it was to help him out with a harassing sock puppet. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • We're at ANEW beacuse you are still reverting me (and an IP) and you've made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours+. I really don't think an IBAN is appropriate here, as it seems like an attempt to game the system and avoid addressing the problematic edits I've described on the talk page. I feel that is highly disingenuous at best and an attempt to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• I've closed the ANEW report as No action. Probably best to discuss this matter at one location at a time, and no 3RR is involved or alleged. --John (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, can I put this clearly enough? STOP this, stop this here and now. Take some deep breath, just take walk, go shopping, fishing, boxing, go to the church, synagogue, take a long walk on the beach - pick some flowers, sing a song - anything but this. It is hurting YOU, my friend. Stop it NOW. Please. We all understand that you are hurt - but don't don't hurt back, please. שלום־עליכם Hafspajen (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • (ec) As I stated on the 3RR noticeboard: Viriditas, Drmies instated an edit, you Boldly changed it (and started a Discussion), and got Reverted. Why are interested editors not at the Discussion on the talkpage (like with every BRD), but keep Reverting (against BRD), and going around on several noticeboards (it is also at WP:RS/N I understood, and I commented earlier at WP:3RR regarding this). Can some admin please close this thread, close the other threads on the other noticeboards with the strong suggestion to first try to come to a consensus on the talkpage (and not push reinstating the change or go to other dramahboards until that discussion has come to an end - failure to do so should likely need to result in some editors being sanctioned here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. Hafspajen (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Obamasstraight420 inserting obscenity into the sandbox

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

---

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

---

User:Obamasstraight420 has pasted an obscene image into the sandbox and also made a personal attack on Jimbo Wales. I have reverted the actions. What can be done about this? The diff contains obscene content. Here is the diff: diff 1999sportsfan (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The image was hardly obscene though. I do it that way all the time ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAH I KNEW someone was gonna say that ! KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Protected page without log entry

I'll try to keep this generalized, as it may be that I am not supposed to draw attention to the specific page...

There is a page with 84 deleted edits, without an entry in the logs, without an indication which user did the deletion, and so on. The page apparently is also fully protected, but again without any indication in the logs of who did this or why.

Can I undelete the page? Can I unprotect it? I can't contact the admin (bureaucrat, steward, ...) who did this, so how do I continue? It is a delicate BLP, so it's not as if think that something nefarious is going on (and I don't believe it is some software error either), but I think it should be at least a redirect to the event it is connected to. But am I allowed to create this?

How does one proceed in such a case? Fram (talk) 09:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's something you can't discuss publicly, the usual approach is email arbcom. It does sound weird. I thought log entries were made automatically when a page is deleted. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like some oversight action, but I would think that they would at least put some notice on the talk page indicating who to contact about it. The only result they can achieve in this way is that individuals will contact them, and they will have to reply over and over again the same thing. Not useful. It is not some stupid attack page but a high profile WP:BLP1E, so it gets lots of attention at the moment. Fram (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, chances are an oversighter will see this thread, or you can email oversight-l or arbcom-l. If the article is protected and cleaned up of problematic BLP content though (or if it's a protected redlink, if that's what you're saying about undeletion), I'd tend to treat it as non-urgent. So people can't edit the article for a while or maybe there's temporarily no visible article about the person. We'll be fine. If you're worried about people being confused by seeing a redlink, you could put up a protected info template saying the article is temporarily unavailable pending resolution of BLP issues, or something like that. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what the oversighter should have done, as he or she knew what the reason for the oversight was. I can't claim that it is temporary unavailable for whatever reason, when it may be that it is permanently unavailable for legal reasons for all I know. And it is relatively urgent as the page really gets many views, which means many readers currently not being served at all (not even by a redirect). The title of the page currently yields over 11,000 Google News results, so it is not some obscure thing or someone only mentioned by name once or twice... Fram (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there's an article about the related incident, it's probably ok to make a protected redirect from the person's name to the incident article. With that many news results connecting the two, I don't see how the redirect can worsen things. The info template approach still seems ok with suitable wording, e.g. "this article is currently unavailable due to unresolved BLP issues, please try again later" leaves open that the status can change in any direction. I also wouldn't freak out about readers looking for an article and not getting one. They should get more used to that. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The continued suppression of <censored>

forum shopping. Nothing more to do here --Mdann52talk to me! 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently a topic is suppressed on Wikipedia. The suppression goes against all existing guidelines. A similar incident happened in the past, however it was deemed acceptable because there were no widely circulated reports of the incident. (see: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Wales-Denies-Censoring-Wikipedia-Over-Journalist-Rohdes-Kidnapping-497337/1/ and also http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein#start-of-comments and also http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105775059) In this case the deletion/suppression taking place is different, as the information has been widely circulated by highly reputable news sources world wide'. Suppressing an article from being created by locking out potential article names, removing the name from related content, suppressing Afd's and undelete requests, blocking users, and also removing references from articles because the name was used in the the title of the article goes against the all existing policies and guidelines in place about something that is world wide news and widely available and acknowledged world wide. The Oversight Committee has gone and created their own policy, instead of only acting within their established parameters. This erodes trust. Wikipedia needs to update their public guidelines/policies to disclose their position on censorship and that they do indeed censor/suppress based on the rejected principle of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm , or this topic ban/suppression needs to be released. The current topic ban destroys the credibility of the encyclopedia. MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC) This is quite outside of AN/I's purview, IMO. You can't just keep forum-shopping a pet concern all over the project and expect favorable feedback. Actions were taken by the oversight team out of concern for a living person, per WP:BLP policy. I'd rather see them err on the side of caution, even over-caution, in situations like this. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for blocking IPUser 213.224.50.154

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

---

After this IPUser received two "last warnings" at his/her userpage lately, today he/she made at least two more edits showing blatant vandalism, more specifically at Thibaut Courtois and Antwerp International School. Kareldorado (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Schoolblocked for a week. For future reference, AIV is the correct venue in which to report this sort of thing. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for informing me. Kareldorado (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Vandalism account

User:ZNaseer5's edit history seems to contain only baseless modifications, usually of numbers, without any source or explanation. Please stop them before more damage is done.

Place to report vandalism is thisaway. Amortias (T)(C) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Avenger2015 resubmission

Original ANI report here. Despite a 72 hour block from admin Go Phightins! for failing to adhere to MOS:TV by submitting ponderous Cast lists that duplicated existing content in the article, user Avenger2015 continues to be disruptive.

In these two edits he adds another redundant cast list. In these two edits he continues adding to a duplicate cast list that he started. I think once a reasonable person learns that their duplicate cast list is objectionable, he would think to remove them, but he certainly would not add to them. And in the following four edits, he starts to add a cast list, then removes it, then adds it again, then removes it again. Taunting? ([186][187][188][189]).

Then, he makes 34 consecutive edits adding more cast to yet another duplicate section that he started in June. User has not yet gotten the message, and seems to be deliberately disruptive. Compounding matters, the user has never participated in a discussion, so admin help is needed here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a seven day block might grab their attention, unless, by coincidence, they take an eight day editing break. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to dissuade the anti-community behavior. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 604,799 seconds. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Harassment claim by conflict of interest editor

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

---

I reported User:Ruthjhendry at WP:COIN for her repeated attempts to add her name to the article Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) without appropriate references or verification. In her reply, she has made an accusation of harassment:

'I have not edited anything on Wikipedia before, and I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement. I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain.'

I am elevating this here because of the seriousness of a harassment complaint, which should be investigated. Whilst I am here, I welcome editors to read the posts at WP:COIN. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should never have been raised at WP:COIN (or here for that matter). Ms Hendry saw a list on Wikipedia which she feels that she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and has offered what she considered to be a legitimate means to verify said claim. That such verification doesn't comply with WP:RS requirements doesn't make for a 'conflict of interest' at all - instead it is a simple misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. A little more sympathy for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's bureaucratic labyrinth of policies and guidelines would assist greatly in avoiding such problems in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and I posted to the COIN page about it. 86.158.181.1 is being excessively confrontational. Dangerous Panda (at COIN) also should try to be more understanding if he decides to engage with an issue like this. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason it has been raised here is, despite having the policies explained by multiple users, Miss Hendry has not engaged in discussion and tried to force her edits through [190]. I have taken the time to provide details explanations for her. A conflict of interest is defined at WP:COI as 'an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Miss Hendry's only edits have been problematic edits to include her name on the article that have avoided discussion. I hope you can see why a conflict of interest request was appropriate, considering the lack of discussion elsewhere. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw and commented on this issue at COIN discussion seen in this thread.I agree completely with AndyTheGrump's comment above. This is a legitimate request per our own article on Senior Wrangler. If there is a lack of understanding on how Wikipedia functions we should help and inform, kindly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

The article in question includes an incomplete list of Senior Wranglers. Wishing for the list to be as complete as possible does not constitute a conflict of interest with Wikipedia's objectives. And neither does failing to understand Wikipedia policy on sourcing constitute a conflict of interest. I can see no evidence whatsoever that IP 86.158.181.1 attempted to discuss the matter with Ms Hendry prior to escalating the matter at WP:COIN - and any complaint of a 'lack of discussion' works both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP hopper spamming livingselfsufficient YouTube channel

So far I've found 98.172.137.172 (talk · contribs), 190.198.148.91 (talk · contribs), User:91.238.146.30, 190.201.131.15 (talk · contribs) and User:190.204.106.127. Whoever it is quickly changes IP addresses. They are spamming [191]. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can this be addressed with an edit filter? The parameters for the {{youtube}} template used by the IP seem to change all the time, so I wouldn't know how to grab the actual output. Anyhow, we should put the full url on the WP:BLACKLIST. De728631 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Vandalism at a Turkish Topic

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

---

Hello,

I see a page on Turkish Wikipedia its about Gospel of Barnabas but fully islamic sided and not trust sourced. Writer believe its lost bible of allah and its original bible, all article insulting christians. He resourced from not academical book and a Turkish news paper. Then i translated from English Gospel of Barnabas wikipedia topic and i added with university resources. Administrator Kibele returned sided topic again. After that i reported to Turkish admins they banned me. They are muslim and they are creating not sourced islamic views Turkish topics. Please help! --Bilnur (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that there is nothing administrators on English Wikipedia can do to address issues on other language Wikis.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Trust Is All You Need and South Yemen

User:Trust_Is_All_You_Need is involved in multiple content disputes over the country article infoboxes. The South Yemen dispute (in which I'm not involved), seems to have got particularly nasty, culminating in:

• 26 Aug Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. (...) Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you.

And that, I think was that, until yesterday:

• This discussion does not make any fucking sense; its just four users who pretend they know something about something they clearly don't know anything about...
• And today wikipedia is not a democracy. Do whatever you want, but you stupid *****hole. Don't vote over nothing; just add the factual inaccurate statement in the article if you're stupid enough (you clearly are)
• [192] "I don't care, rape wikipedia. Go fuck it over. Add misinformation. Add information which doesn't fucking make sense. If you're stupid enough to think "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" is a real term (after living in South Yemen), fine add the fucking terms. I don't give a fuck. [...] But go rape Wikipedia, I don't care if you're stupid enough to add those descriptions [...] Again, go and rape Wikipedia and add inaccurate statement. [...] Go and rape wikipedia."

He has unilaterally closed the relevant talk page thread, struck others comments in the process and added the summary "Do whatever you will fools; add the description you like. Idiots do what idiots do best." He then took to a user's talk page to add the above. Somehow I don't think the current closed diff will be allowed to stand and it will probably escalate.

Pretty straightforward: an admin should probably warn him about egregious personal attacks and striking others comments; and block him if this goes any further. I'm not sure that others have been behaving impeccably (some attempted canvassing) but can't see anyone else there has lost the plot this badly. bridies (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, he obviously needs to calm down and observe consensus. It looks like he's getting parting shots in before he retires. If this continues, he definitely does need to be blocked to prevent further disruption. It's frustrating when you see consensus form around what you believe to be factually incorrect, but that's not a reason to disrupt the project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the 26 Aug diff above he said he was retiring, but then changed his mind [193] [194]. bridies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just remove/revert his disruption. If he continues, he can be blocked. This looks more like an isolated incident of blowing up, I doubt blocking here would prevent anything. Seems he's going to take his own break and hopefully he'll be refreshed when he comes back.--v/r - TP 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

block me. Who gives a shit. They add false information on Wikipedia, and I get blocked. Sounds reasonable. What about blocking me for a day, a week, a month, a year, maybe all eternity? Who gives a fucking rats ass; if the point with WP is that three editors are going to come together and make-up things (and then add on Wikipedia), I should be blocked for all eternity since it doesn't seem like I understood the encyclopaedia's agenda. Block me, who the fuck cares? Not them, of course, since they are adding false information (making up forms of government and so on). Go and fucking block me. I give up, I'm a good editor; but the discussion at Talk:South Yemen is literally making me crazy. If thats the point of WP , I certainly shouldn't participate . If you want to block me, 'block me'. The only winners are those who are misinformed! ... And yes, I'm a drama queen. --TIAYN (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In his talk page he said to me: "Fuck you Zozs, I don't give fucking shit about what you think is true. You're wrong, you're adding info on WP which you think make sense, but doesn't.. Marxist-Leninist state, what? Does a liberal state exist? Nope, Conservative state? Nope, but yes, a Marxist-Leninist state exists. Wow, who would have thought. Well fuck you . You're probably one of the dummest people I've met on this site. Fuck you, fuck you fuck you. Do I sound like an idiot? I don't care, why? I'm retiring (at least a very long "extended vacation")."

But he never took any break, he came back just a few hours later and is now active again.

This user page has been involved in anti-consensus edit warring, including violating 3RR, in multiple articles, to push his POVs. Just check his editor history. In every interaction he has several personal attacks. It is intolerable. Zozs (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since the filing, he has written https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=624716502 this] on the ANI and this on the article talk page, and still presumes to carry on non-nuclear arguments on other talk pages. Suggest a temp block. bridies (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have watched some of this from the sidelines and without taking sides, I can see TIAYN's frustration. Clearly, he is here to build an encyclopedia based on his contribution history and from the comments shown above, is vehement in his belief that Wikipedia should contain factual information. That said, ranting and raving at other editors is unacceptable and is not going to solve anything, whatever the motivation. TIAYN please take a wikibreak, a walk, a vacation, paint a masterpiece or anything you like, just please walk away from this for a while. When you come back, act rationally and use the appropriate avenues to raise your concerns.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: OK. --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody close this please? Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No. He's said he's going to leave a thousand times already and then keeps violating guidelines. It means nothing. Zozs (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The user has violated WP:3RR in the Vietnam article (1, 2, 3, 4) along with other instances, in what was anti-consensus edit warring to push POV against what is standard, with no discussion in talk page. Zozs (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're raising a 2 week old edit war. Blocks are preventative. The question isn't what he did from this point back. It's what he is doing from this point forward and whether there is reason to believe he plans to continue being disruptive. This seems like a case of blowing up. It can happen over more than just an hour and can last for a couple weeks until someone gets their head straight. If he is edit warring now or he continues to be disruptive on talk pages, raise it here. But bringing up a 2 week old edit war is really hurting your case rather than making it. You're essentially saying there is nothing bad going on right now that would earn a block.--v/r - TP 18:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User worth a look

Abdurrahman Muslim (talk · contribs) has made a number of rather contentious edits, might be worth admins keeping an eye on. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Murry1975 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• User now notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour such as (by implication) calling many editors "heathens, sinners and the fallen" in a "cesspool of filth", demanding that the women of Brighton and Hove be described as immoral in an article, and saying that certain people did the work of the devil in an article, suggest a lack of understanding that must be remedied, if possible... BethNaught (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is right. Hangs out on talk pages to lecture people about his view of proper morality. Dougweller's given him the proper warning and if he doesn't heed it he should be indeffed unceremoniously. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You all fell for that trolling? I have no doubt that this was an impersonator making fun of Islam--and of some of us. Then again, "In this world of heathens, sinners and the fallen it is inspiring to find the occasional beacon of light in an otherwise benighted cesspool of filth"--that must be nice to hear, right Sjö? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I always like to give editors the benefit of the doubt. Or enough rope to hang themselves with. In any case, good block. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IP and WP:DUCK sock of blocked editor at Zoroaster

Resolved

 – Sock master and puppets all blocked, page semi-protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sabazius01 (talk · contribs) was blocked yesterday for breaking 3RR. This morning Zostrianos007 (talk · contribs) arrives to restore Sabazius01's deleted edit. That's reverted and along comes 107.219.7.8 (talk · contribs) to restore it again. I'm involved but could someone please block the sock and IP and also do something about the puppetmaster, who doesn't seem interested in discussion. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming annoying. He just used another IP to revert [195] . Bladesmulti (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Dealt with by Yunshui and I. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What I hadn't noticed was Sabazius01's unblock request said "Futile attempts to block my sociohistorical relevant contributions are fueled by a Zionist who makes claims to be neutral. Moreover, this individual and his following should be aware that I will not allow such bias to have authority over the page in mention.Sabazius01 (talk) 10:20 am, Today (UTC+1)" Is it my imagination or is "Zionist" a code word for Jew? Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Zionist" term has been abused a lot, people often use this term where it is not needed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Zionist" is a codeword for Jew. It basically means pro-Israeli. Its use permits the person using it to appear not to be attacking a religion or people, only a foreign policy, and therefore not be seen as a bigot. To put this in Wikipedia context, it appears that the edit warrior is saying that he is here to right great wrongs, and so 3RR, the rule against sockpuppetry, and other rules should not apply. Maybe he should start a blog, where those rules won't apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you Robert, you put that very well. If no one indefinitely blocks him now I'm sure he will make sure it happens when he edits again. I'm obviously involved. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Being bullied and Ninja Tactics

Greetings , i try to abide by wikipedia rules to the maximum , and i believe i do so 100 % . So i woud like to report that 2 experienced users are bullying me ( Alexikoua and DR.K ) and are in fact not abiding by the wiki rules by applying ninja tactics.

I am refering to this > 3RR warning

I have not reverted anything more than twice . And his 3RR is coming because i am restoring a removal of multi sourced content of another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history , a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:REMOVAL .

Given their experience , one would assume that they would be the first one to have a civil and pleasant collaboration with other editors . So i am forced to report this because i do not want to be reported or something .

Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: Are you sure about your revert count? I just looked at the history of Albania, and I count at least four reverts by you this afternoon (diffs: [196] [197] [198] [199]). —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually now they are 3 . But as you can see his 3RR warning when i had only 2 reverts . Please do see the matter thoroughly , 2 users are removing in collaboration multi sourced content because of WPidontlikeit . The other revert was adding a source , and a citation needed tag , irrelevant to the revert that i am talking about . Greetings , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjirokastra15 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: I'm not seeing anything to convince me that you or they are editing in bad faith. Thus, your edits do not fall under any of the exceptions to WP:3RR, and you did commit three reverts before the warning message was left. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the report at 3RRN regarding this user. He keeps inserting unsourced OR at Albania and does not respond in a substantive manner at the talkpage, arguing with personal attacks but without providing any proof that the sources support the OR he is edit-warring about. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 very easy way to prove that DR.K is lying , is to find a single word where i am insulting in the slightest form any of the involved parties . You will however find more than 2 sentences by Dr.K that he is implying that i do not have the required IQ for checking sources .... while i just asked that the sources to be put where the citation needed tags are needed . It is all there ... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear more about these ninja tactics. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So Fred removing multi sourced ( 5 sources ) sentence is not reverting in bad faith ? I am not objecting your judgement , i am just trying to make sure that you have seen their revert .

They have removed this : Large parts of Albanians, similarly fear irredentist claims on northern Epirus following Albanians changing their nationality to Greek due to monetary and other benefits.

References

Regards ,Gjirokastra15 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps Gamaliel . If i am mistaken however , i apologize . I just ask that the sourced content to remain , because no one has removed any sourced sentence that they have written no matter how ridiculous some of their claims sometimes might be .

Alexikoua Revert n1 Alexikoua revert n2 Dr.K supporting alexikouas revert Dr.K issuing a 3RR warning when i had made only 2 reverts and it had nothing to do with him up until that moment

This was my case , i hope i did not use too much of your time . Thank you , and regards Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Although this sentence and the sources have been splattered at ANI by Gjirokastra15, it may yet serve some useful purpose if other editors can verify that none of the sources support the sentence. Apparently Gjirokastra15 cannot understand this simple fact and is edit-warring to keep the sentence at the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is this: every editor agreed to edit according to WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia. Every single one. One of the best essays regarding that is WP:BRD which says, be bold, if it's reverted, then discuss. That's how to get consensus. Nobody gets to keep reverting for ANY reason (except for minor exceptions, none of which count here). Articles change; some sources are found to be non-reliable, and other situations occur that could result in what appears to be sourced-edits to be removed. That's where the discuss on the talkpage until you gain consensus happens. Nobody is entitled to 2 reverts...you can be blocked for edit-warring at 2. the panda ₯’ 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand perfectly now . I will be more cautious towards these kind of matters . Any decision here , will be totally respected by me and no further edit will be made regarding that article . I apologize for my inexperienced approach albeit i felt a bit bullied ( maybe my mistake ) . As i said any ruling will be more than respected by me , be that even a blocking of my account ( which i hope not lol ) Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Recruiting new editors

CONFIQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently blocked a new account because of the involvement of the account in an edit war. The details can be seen on the user's talk page (link). I wish to end my involvement in the incident, so I would like other administrators to look at the incident and decide whether CONFIQ should be admonished for "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia". -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there was no intention nor invitation to influence anything. The question on he:wiki was more about consulting of political policy in wikipedia and link was given as example. I might made a mistake by asking that question in he:wikipedia and not in english but only reason for that is because he:wiki is more organized and easier to understand. This is not my official statement about this issue, if needed I'll collaborate more --CONFIQ (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Need semi protection removed on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

• Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can see no valid reason to lock out IP editors on: Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Thanks. 64.21.211.131 (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:RFUP and asked David Levy about the protection? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The protection was from The Anome [200], it just got pulled in when David Levy moved the page (it's had a few moves recently). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I got no idea about all the crazy process stuff. I just edit here and there and wanted to fix some stuff but el-lock-e-rooni. 64.21.211.131 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected twice since mid-August for excessive vandalism. You could wait until 12 September for the semiprotection to expire, or you could use {{edit semiprotected}} on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations after final warning

InfoDataMonger appears to persist in violating our copyright policy after a final warning. Dade William Moeller was listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2014-08-26; after finding copyright infringement there I looked at other contributions by InfoDataMonger, and immediately found problems at Eleanor J. MacDonald. The user's talk page already has numerous warnings from Voceditenore; User talk:InfoDataMonger#Copyright problems identifies a number of problem articles, and is followed by a final warning on 28 June 2014. I request that this editor's editing privileges be suspended until this is fully clarified. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

CCI requested here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is very disappointing. InfoDataMonger is contributing articles on valuable topics here, but his continued copyright violation must be stopped. I attempted to work with this editor back in June and explained in some detail how to avoid his hitherto extensive copyvio and plagiarism. I accepted his explanation that editing WP was a steep learning curve (true!) and assumed he would take my advice and warnings on board. At the time, I asked him to go back over his remaining articles and remove any copyvio (I had already repaired 9 of them). Not only does he appear not to have done so, he has gone on to create yet more problematic articles. I was away all of August and had stopped following his contributions. Unless he voluntarily agrees to stop creating new articles or adding substantially to existing ones, at least until the CCI is complete, an indefinite block may be the only answer. I know from personal experience how incredibly time-consuming it is to find copyvio and repair it. We cannot allow him to continue consuming the time of multiple editors like this, not to mention causing potential legal problems for WP. Voceditenore (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Recycling to note that I have blocked this editor indefinitely. MER-C 06:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

SLBedit edit warring - block necessary?

User:SLBedit is vandalising and trying to control the S.L. Benfica page, he is undoing all my edits, he acts like he owns the page, It doesn't seem fair how he can do this. He claims that most of my edits were useless which isn't the case because edits are clear improvements based on other higher-rated football club pages, the Benfica page needed alot of work to get it to a higher standard of quality. I have put alot of work into the page.

He has previous edits warning from other incidents so I'm not the only one with an issue with him. What can be done, can someone help please?

I have stopped undoing his edits to decrease the tension. He has been reverting edits of other people also. Look at his history, and his talk page. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

He delete a warning that I put on this page so make himself look better because he already has a few others, I have just put a second warning on this page. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 213.133.205.35 is vandalising and trying to control the S.L. Benfica page, he is undoing all my edits, he acts like he owns the page and it's not the first time. It doesn't seem fair how he can do this. Most of his edits are not useful as it removes information, changes the whole layout. The Benfica article needs alot of work to get it to a higher standard of quality. I have put alot of work into the page, more than IP 213.133.205.35. IP 213.133.205.35 has been doing this with other IP addresses. What can be done, can someone help please?

IP 213.133.205.35 has been reverting all my edits, as well other IP addresses that troll the page from time to time. Look at his IP history and his contributions. SLBedit (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at how many times the page has been locked because of IP vandals like him! SLBedit (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I think the goal of most IPs that edit the article is to lock it. SLBedit (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who started the reverting of edits not me, and I am not a troll or IP vandal. Also if someone where to look at your talk page they would see other complains from different users. Anyways, lets edit this, its pointless, we both are trying to make positive contribution to the page, we just seem to have a disarrangement to how to do it. I will make an account so I don't use my IP which seems to make me look like im trolling though I'm not. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica

S.L. Benfica has been locked 9 times. Most of the blocks resulted in IP vandalism or edit warring. Those IPs were reported, some requests were accepted, others declined. The problem is that the article continues to be a target of vandals and trolls, mostly IPs. What can be done? SLBedit (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also a horrific target for block-evading sockpuppets (especially those of User:Fixed4u) and those with conflict of interest the panda ₯’ 08:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This dispute was also reported at WP:AN3. Due to my impression that this is an IP-hopping edit war I've semiprotected S. L. Benfica and warned User:SLBedit for edit warring per a complaint there. The most recent IP editor has offered to create an account. That sounds like a good idea. I have no opinion on who is more likely to be right about the underlying dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

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

---

Hi, the original thread got archived, so for convenience I've copied the postings from the original thread to here again. Hopefully that's the right thing to do.
Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to address Cailil's point above - it should be seen that there has been evidence of positive attitudinal change and development, specifically research and creation of articles, and avoiding gnoming. To address Black Kite - Cailil specifically stated that discussions on any issues was still fine and my Topic Ban did not forbid any discussions on any topics. I was never a confrontational editor to begin with, and I always discussed changes and been courteous to those that engaged on various topics. I think its fair to say that the deep-rooted issue was my insistence on an exact definition of "British Isles" in articles, with references to show that it was being used within the references. Other areas, involving an "exact defintion and usage", were also highlighted by Cailil even though these topics did not fall under the Topic Ban, but I understood what was being said. I don't believe there's any need for the Topic Ban to remain in place any longer as I've shown I understand the reasons why it was in place, and I've addressed those editing habits at the root of the problem. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that it fell off with only dissenting opinion meant the request failed. No need to repost the panda ₯’ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that there were only dissenting opinions, apologies for reposting if that is the case. I saw that editors had posted some observations and questions, and it seemed to me that it "fell off" due to a lack of activity. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting of topic ban. I'm impressed that you've not gone the sock/evasion route & have thus respected your top ban. If the community chooses to lift the TB, I would recommend less attention to the topic-in-question, in future. I don't wann seeya getting blocked or worst. :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. As I've said above, I believe I've addressed the behaviour that was at the root of the problem, and have shown to the community that I've learned. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've confidence in you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting with the appropriate ROPE. Happy to give a second or third chance. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - I assume ROPE is some further probation period? Is there somewhere you can point me? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

HighKing, see WP:ROPE. It's not so much a rope as it is a leash... Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting -- He has shown respect for the sanctions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No Support A leopard never changes its spots. Highking has been banned in the past and as soon as a ban is lifted returns to previous behaviour. To recount that Highking was never sanctioned for sockpuppetry while operating under his 2nd account - User:Popaice. No support. Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Calil states, a lack of problematic editing since simply proves that the topic ban works. My experience from working on problematic areas affected by nationalist POV is that editors do not change; topic bans expire and the same editing patterns re-emerge. HighKing can be a productive editor in other areas of Wikipedia if they wish, but I don't believe allowing them to return to the whole "British Isles" combat arena would be a productive outcome. Number 57 10:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On that basis, is it true to say that you wouldn't agree to a Topic Ban ever being overturned? Harsh. No chance then for an editor to show they have the ability to learn from mistakes, or show that they've recognized their problematic behaviour? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In areas with bad POV problems like this, I think lifetime topic bans are the most effective way of cleaning them up. As I alluded to above, I have edited around the edges of another area with some awful issues, and I haven't seen topic ban work as a temporary solution - the problematic editors return when it expires with exactly the same viewpoint - sometimes they are more subtle in their POV after their ban, but the POV remains. The issue for me is the desire to return to a topic area in which the banned editors clearly have a strong POV, and I don't believe it is a positive move to allow this. Number 57 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some background: I edited a lot of articles that in my opinion (at the time), used the term "British Isles" incorrectly. We attempted to create rules for usage and formed WP:BISE and discussed edits among interested editors. That initiative eventually failed, and led to the discovery of a large sock farm (still active today). I wasn't ever editing from a "nationalistic" point of view, but from a (misguided) attempt to enforce a standard definition across lots of articles. Cailil correctly pointed this out (took a while for me to grasp, but I see it now), and also pointed out that this was the root of problems caused by gnoming in other areas. Enforcing definitions (especially of controversial terms) where definitions are not "exact" in the real world, was the problem. I don't believe the Topic Ban is serving any useful purpose any longer - it is "working" not because it is in effect, but because I've learned and cut out the problematic behaviour (and learned too). I don't believe any editor would say I'm a POV warrior (exceptions made for the sock farm obviously), or that I even have strong nationalistic POVs. It's less of a desire to "return" to a topic area, and more of a desire to rejoin the community as a fully-fledged and trusted editor, without a shadow of a Topic Ban hanging over my edits, and being able to show that editors do learn, and do change for the good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! This made me laugh. In truth, Highking systematically went page to page removing the term "British Isles" and at an unreplicable speed. I think a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry are reasons enough to decline this request.Dubs boy (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this editor had chosen to edit in an other way then things would be different, however on the editor's own admission, editing has just been reduced so things are not different. It sounds like the editor is mainly interested in editing in the problematic way. Maybe it would help if the editor indicated the kind of constructive edits that he wishes to make but cannot due to the topic ban. Op47 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Op47 - just in the interests of transparency and completeness, No, that's not what I said. Yes, my editting has been reduced, but I stated that it is mainly due to cutting out the problematic "gnoming", and partially because I'm not as active as I was before. You appear to attribute the "reduction" as involuntary, and therefore nothing has changed. Not true. 80+% of the reduction is my choice, because the gnoming is the underlying problem. And in terms of "different" editting patterns - I have also researched and created a couple of new articles and working on another. But you've asked one important question - "what kind of constructive edits I wish to make but cannot due to the Topic Ban". I'm not going to blow smoke. The honest answer ... I've nothing in mind. Keeping the Topic Ban in place wouldn't affect my editing .... but would and does affect my "standing" in the community. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the topic ban is lifted simply for "time served" reasons, HighKing will likely return to the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. This, in turn, will attract more disruptive socking to counter his edits. Déjà vu. I think that HighKing should not be allowed any wiggle room to muck about with the "British Isles" phrase at all, ever, as it will only lead to disruption (major headaches). The restriction is not an albatross around his neck. It is a safeguard against disruption. I have no doubt that the stalkers that watch his every edit will come out of the woodwork the second the restriction was lifted and he made a "BI" edit. Not worth the trouble. Doc talk 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - to be honest, I kinda agree with you. The only point I would highlight is that I'm being heavily penalized (in my opinion) for the actions (past and potential future) of the sock (who's already attempting to disrupt this discussion). I recognize that the community can't afford to invest the time, energy and resources into every petty event, and I also recognize that the community has no appetite for anything to do with the phrase "British Isles", regardless of whether any edits are actually right or wrong. As you say, and I agree, the disruption isn't worth it. You say I'm likely to return to the same behaviour. I'm saying the opposite and I'm asking the community to trust me. You say it is not an albatross around my neck. Well .. I think it is because it's a sign that the community doesn't trust that I can behave appropriately. And it's going to be impossible for me to demonstrate that the leaf has been turned without a little trust from the community. I don't know what more I can do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello :) I have to agree with Cailil above when he says "...showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted". I see no reason to remove the ban because I know the background on this. It's not a "penalty" on you. It's there to "prevent" disruption, and it should remain in place to prevent disruption at large. Nothing personal. Doc talk 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-) I don't get that. How can it *not* be viewed as personal? It's a Topic Ban on me? I've said above that I recognize fully (and hopefully articulated the fact that I recognize fully) the behaviour that causes the problem. I'm asking that the community trusts me enough to lift the Topic Ban. You don't agree ... ergo you don't trust me. Kinda hard not to see it as personal.... I'm not whining or making excuses or blaming the sock or ranting. But I really don't see how the Topic Ban will ever be lifted at this rate ... which translates into the fact that I can never rejoin the trusted editors who operate without a Topic Ban. Victory to socking? Taking your logic one step further, if this Topic Ban extended to all editors, then it wouldn't be personal. But it doesn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I was around when this whole thing started(well before the sanction were in place). The wording of the ban "is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly construed." seems reasonable considering this user was prolific in this content dispute. I think this ban has kept this user out of trouble. I think lifting the ban would be about the same as an invitation to start editing in this area which I think is a bad idea.

While I appreciate that this user has respected the ban I also think that this user returning to this topic would result in more trouble. I don't think it hangs over him like a cloud, we don't have a big banner on his userpage or anything. The only thing this ban is doing is keeping him out of an area that was problematic for him before. Chillum 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support in part because the community seems increasingly more concerned about avoiding any 'disturbance in the force' than in creating content. It is absurd to contend that an editor cannot change. In this case any repetition would rapidly result in the ban being reimposed, possibly with greater sanction. When I started editing Wikipedia there would have been no question about time served being sufficient in this case. We are now being over precious. I speak here as a veteran on those disputes having to handle socks and ill will from both sides so I know the editors concerned through long practice. We also allowed GoodDay to edit again and he was as if not more disruptive on this issue. If it helps I'll happily agree to mentor (or monitor) his behaviour as I attempted to do for GoodDay. I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia in the main because I think it has shifted from using behaviour as an enabling constraint to one where for some admins its a governing constraint which they see as the primary purpose of the encyclopaedia as a whole. So the time I used to put in to monitoring controversial articles is available ----Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This editor cannot change. Every time the ban is lifted, the editor returns to his former behavior. Too risky. 1999sportsfan talk to me 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was around before the Topic Bans occurred and experienced the problems. However, reading and considering the answers given to the questions, below, and on the basis that this really is a final chance, I would support lifting the Topic Ban for this last time. If re-imposed, it would be difficult to support any future lifting. If anyone else causes disruption, then so long as HighKing behaves in the ways he has said, I don't think he should be penalised for other editors' bad behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If the community recommends that you have a mentor as a condition for the lifting of the TB, then I suggest you accept Snowded's offer. It didn't work out for me, that was because of my own behaviour/conduct. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take up Snowded's kind offer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is the problem the Topic, or my previous behaviour? I've stated I've no intention of ever returning to my previous behaviour. I've also articulated my understanding of what the problem was, and I've demonstrated that I can edit without gnoming while still being productive, and seen out the agreed review period without any violation. I'm getting the distinct impression from Chillum and Doc that the Topic Ban isn't really anything to do with my behaviour. Is there an elephant in the room? Nobody here is stating that they believe I'll return to my previous behaviour... but that the Topic Ban should still remain in place as it doesn't cause me any negative impact. I disagree, hence this request. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the ban lifted so that you can continue to not edit in the area the topic ban prohibits you from editing? If that is the case then the ban is of no force or effect and you can just ignore it.

There is no banner on your user page, nothing to stigmatize you in regards to this ban. It might as well not exist if you are choosing not to edit in the whole "British Isles" area.

Unless you actually want to edit the subject of "British Isles" again then there is little point in removing the ban. It is the possibility of you returning to editing "British Isles" again that I object to.

You asking for this ban to be removed is essentially you asking for permission to edit the subject of "British Isles". I don't think that is a good idea. Chillum 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response pretty much sums up the problem. You're saying that the problem is editting the term "British Isles" - as far as I know, the Topic Ban is to address behaviour, not "protect" a term from being editted. I've summed up before above, but here's another attempt. Previously, I had maintained that the term was incorrectly used in some articles, and I had tried to nail down a definition, and nail down guidelines as to usage (the WP:BISE). That had failed (start of sock problems) but I continued to implement the half-agreed rules anyway - resulting in more disruption (height of sock problem). The problem was described that I was engaged in systematic editting of articles containing the term, and my edits resulting in the removal of the term without proper referencing. When my edits were scrutinized, most of my edits were correct. But - and this is the problem and the root of the behaviour issues - some were not and some were marginal. I think the marginal calls were the ones that gave me my Aha moment, and I started to understand the issue. In real-life, there isn't a single definition and it is often used loosely, and trying to apply a straight and narrow definition is always going to cause problems. I'm asking for the Topic Ban to be lifted because I've learned the lesson, articulated what lesson I've learned, addressed the problematic behaviour and demonstrated that I can behave without resorting to wiki-gnoming or any other of the behaviours that led to the Topic Ban. So yes, removing the Topic Ban would leave the way free for me to edit any topic including "British Isles". Just like every other trusted member of the community. I'm trusted with every other Topic. Bear in mind as I've stated above, I've no intention of seeking out any such edits involving British Isles, or resorting to any of the previous problematic behaviour. I won't seek out articles containing the term as I did previously, I'll simply edit normally as I've been doing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dive into Highkings contributions history, pick any day and you'll find some instance of random IMOS application. Take 21st Feb 2013 as an example. Highking applied IMOS across 36 different articles and at 1 point applied IMOS across 20 pages in 16 minutes! Highking was not reading the articles nor was he attempting to find a context for the edit. It was mud slinging and seeing what sticks. How would he be able to gauge if an edit is correct if he doesn't even read the article? Take away the ban and his mask will slip. And a user with a history of socking is bound to have another sock account still active.Dubs boy (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when has this guy Murray been the arbiter of what can, and can't appear on these pages? He keeps reverting the above comment. He and his colleague Highking are both long term edit warriors. They revert a change and if its reverted back they leave it a while then try again. See Murray's activity on the War Memorial Gardens article for example. Neil Edgar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that in general, there's more regular community members saying that the ban should be lifted than not. But the general concern appears to be that *if* I edit (on "British Isles"), *and* there's disruption (unspecificed), *then* that's a situation to avoid. So as a compromise, can you please comment on the proposal below as a step to ease concerns please. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Highking and Murry1975 are never far from each other. Some would consider this suspicious. BI and IMOS editing are inherently linked especially given that Highking has been topic banned for replacing BI with Britain and Ireland. I'm not sure Murry1975 should be removing any user comments and especially without notifying said user. I'm sure an Admin will be along shortly to speak to him.Dubs boy (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Following on from various discussions, the following proposal was suggested by Doc: "trial or "probationary" period suspending the topic ban would be more realistic than a complete removal of the ban, FWIW. If no disruption occurs as a result of the ban being lifted during that specified amount of time (like 6 months minimum), we go from there." I'm agreeable to such "probationary" period. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. But, seeing as there's no consensus for that, a 6-month probation is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There was just barely a consensus to lift the Ban, but I'd rather address the concerns properly. Thanks again GoodDay. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The editor seems to have an agenda which cannot be fulfilled as a result of the present ban. I suspect that if the ban were lifted the situation would revert to how it was previously. Neil Edgar (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per what I have said above. This proposal is not substantially different since there are no concerns about disruption while the ban has been in place. The ban is doing its job. Chillum 01:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions as to what you'd like to see in the proposal? It would also be helpful if you articulated what disruption you believe I played a part in. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I said there has not been disruption since your ban, meaning the ban is working. A probation period is of little use since there is no issue with you violating the ban. I used to me known as HighInBC, perhaps you remember me, I used to warn you about the behavior that led up to the ban. I still believe you want the ban lifted so that you can go back to what you were doing before. Chillum 16:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The topic ban works, and it concerns me that the editor is so keen to return to an area where they created many problems previously. Number 57 17:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. As you have seen above Highking and Murry1985 operate on a tag team basis and would give The_Dudley_Boyz a run for their money. Remove the topic ban and you will see these 2 continue to collaborate promoting a skewed POV.Dubs boy (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Two reasons: One, i remember the huge amount of kerfuffle this editor (and others) have caused in the past, and see no reason to go back there; perhaps he has moved on, learned his lesson but, Two, below, in the answers to DDStretch's questions (specifically Question C), it seems to me that he really has not need for the ban to be lifted; clearly, it has worked, is working, will continue to work in the future with no real effect on the planned editing of HighKing. Thus, why change it? Simply to avoid some putative shadow? Not worth the risk. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Second set of Questions

It is true that every editor should be given the opportunity to change his or her ways (to "reform", if you like), and that giving them an opportunity to show this is all part of the process of reform. So, with that in mind, I'd like to ask the following set of specific questions of User:HighKing. Some have been covered in previous messages, but it is worthwhile to have them all centrally given and answered, I think, here:

A. How would your behaviour change if the Topic Ban was removed compared with your behaviour now?

B. How would your behaviour change if the Topic Ban was removed compared with your behaviour before any of the Topic Bans?

C. Are there things you can't do now, because of the Topic Ban, that you would want to do if the Topic Ban was removed?

D. What are the areas you currently contribute content to, and how would those areas change if the Topic Ban was removed?

E. Suppose the Topic Ban was lifted, and then you saw a number of articles that used the term "British Isles", what would you do? Would you: (a) Remove "British Isles" from the articles; (b) Post a message on the articles' talk pages enquiring about the use of "British Isles" with a statement that unless people gave adequate justification for its use, you would remove it; (c) Post a message on the articles' talk pages enquiring about the use of "British Isles", perhaps join in any discussion, but refrain from editing out the term in the articles; (d) Do nothing and move on; or (e) Something else?

F. Would you keep to the decision you selected in the previous question if the Topic Ban was removed, accepting that an immediate re-imposition of a Topic Ban might happen if you don't, and that this new ban would be unlikely to be removed in the future unless really convincing and clear changes in attitudes and behaviour were shown?

I would be grateful to hear your clear and full answers to them. I've asked them with the aim of then determining the chance of disruption brought about by consequences following from any and all of the answers given.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DDStretch.

• A. I think the behavior you're seeing for the past 6 months is most likely to continue as is. That is, no "gnoming" of large numbers of articles, try to focus more on content.
• B. I would hope you'd have seen and noticed a big difference already. Gnoming was the big behavioural problem previously. Before the Topic Ban I was caught up in a bubble with the idea of implementing strict definitions across articles for terms such as "Ireland" for the name of the state, "British Isles" to mean the geographical region only. That led to edit wars and long disagreements over references. I can see now how that idea isn't workable because it doesn't reflect real world definitions and usage. There's none of that behaviour any more. The job of Wikipedia isn't to define a term, especially a narrow and tight defintion that doesn't reflect day to day usage.
• C. Nothing springs to mind to be honest. I've no desire to jump into any particular topics or edits. But it's normal and healthy to want to show the community that lessons have been learned, and to remove the shadow of editting under a Topic Ban.
• D. I mostly contribute to Irish interest articles and topics (history, local articles, sport, nature, names), technology and food/drink.
• E. OK, trying to answer this in the sprit I believe it was asked. I'm not sure if you mean to say "a number of articles"? If it was a single article, and if I thought the usage was really wrong and not a "grey" usage, I'd do C. Not A. Not B. Also E. - Snowded has offered to "mentor/monitor" any edits, and if that offer is still open I'd pop him a message on his Talk page and wait to see what he thinks. Ideally I'd prefer, even if I pointed out something that was incorrect, that the community made the edit if they felt it was appropriate, but sometimes there's no engagement at all at the Article Talk page. In the situation where there's no engagement on the Talk page, and Snowded thinks it is fine, I'd like to think I could make the edit. I don't want to derail the discussion, but realistically, the elephant in the room here, is the sock. Perhaps its not obvious, but there's a high probability that if I make an edit, any edit, correct or not, the sock would revert anyway. Also, realistically, the community has no appetite to deal with any disruption relating to "British Isles". Too long and too complicated, and a trivial matter at best. So unless there happened to be a clear plan or process in place to deal with any sock-triggered disruption relating to any of my edits that resulted in the removal of "British Isles", I wouldn't and couldn't be confident that no disruption would take place. So I know that realistically D should be the logical next step to avoid disruption. On the other hand, I'm sure that we, as a community, should be aghast at the idea of allowing a sock (any sock) that kind of power/influence. But thats a different issue and I don't want to derail this discussion. I'll take whatever direction and advice people have in this regard. And after C/E above I'll do whatever, including D, if that is what the community believes is best.
• F. Yes.

Thanks DDStretch, answered as best I can. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those answers. Having read them and considered them, I think that as long as you edit wisely and carefully, and try to take up Snowded's offer (or anyone else's similar offer) for the situations I asked about, then I will support lifting the Topic Ban. You may have to convince others still, though. But good luck!  DDStretch  (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. DDStretch can you formulate something to get consensus? We might want to check out on some of the editors commentating here as well. At least one has had an antagonistic pro-Unionist position on the Derry articles for example. So it might be an idea to ask for uninvolved editors to make the decision. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded, I'd like to take you up on your kind offer. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to Close

Ok, so HK asked the question & got a negative answer. Then he asked again. Same answer. Then asked a third time and got the same result (no consensus to lift). The process is then repeated (or rather DDStretch repeats it) a fourth time and with 2 editors there's a "maybe" answer.
You can't just ignore 20 days or so of a "no consensus to lift" result with 2 days of "maybe". Wikipedia is not a game. While it has been remiss of other admins not close this in a timely fashion, the repeated asking of the same question has let this appeal descend into farce.
In terms of the proposal above from my perspective, as the banning admin, this is not what is necessary. What needs to happen is HK editing and creating whole articles for a concerted period without focusing on this issue. If HK can go on and edit productively for a prolonged period then I would consider lifting the ban without condition. But it's not a matter of quantity of time, rather the community needs to see a different kind of approach to editing. HK needs to show the community why the ban is irrelevant not just tell us.
This thread is an example of some of the worst aspect of the old HK. When the community said No the first time it was time to drop it. By time 3 it was *really* time to let the horse die. Abusing process like this (as you can probably tell) convinces me that it's only appropriate to leave the ban in place for the time being. If HK can follow this advice (advice I've given for 4 years now) I'll rethink my position--Cailil ^talk 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Snowded's offer of mentorship? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the topic ban stays, be they can be mentored on every other aspect of the project. Good behaviour and good editing for 6 months, we'll see HK back here, hopefully with the full support of their mentor the panda ₯’ 21:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Per DangerousPanda - If Snowded can help HK get to stage of holistic editing in other areas then in 6 months (or more, again quality of time not quantity of time is the issue here) then I'll happily look at this again. But FYI attempting to find ways around the restriction or actions that appear to do that really do not help HK's case here. Rehearsing the issue to death will only calcify opinion, it rarely change it and it looks tendentious--Cailil ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll talk with him and see if there is a way forward. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Conspiracy, coverup...and frustration that editors keep deleting it

Hi there. User talk:Scotthoughauthor seems to be using Wikipedia to promote a personal theory about what that editor feels is a wrongful death/conspiracy/cover up...you know. The editor has been adding this theory to the Kirkland Lake article [201], and defending it to the point of edit waring [202]. The editor's frustration with Wikipedia is the same as their frustration with the mainstream media; that they are not paying any attention this obvious cover-up. Please have a look at their contributions. This seems like destructive editing, and I'm waiting for some innocent people to be named. Thanks for looking into this editor's conduct. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Although it appears that they're not as interested in improving the encyclopedia as in pursuing a personal crusade, I've left a warning about BLP, which they've clearly violated by posting accusations of complicity in a death. I suspect a block is in their future, though it looks like they might have departed for more fruitful places to post exposés. I've redacted some of the obvious BLP violations, but much of what they've posted at the Teahouse has hundreds of intervening edits and isn't easily removed. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• It wasn't so bad--I think I was able to take of it. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry on Weekly Shōnen Jump

After the article on the manga magazine Weekly Shōnen Jump came off semi-protection, the socks of Cow cleaner 5000‎ have return to adding information from fake sources about the magazine is a terrorist organization and was banned from multiple countries. I've reopened an SPI case, but one of the sockpuppets renominated the article for deletion again (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekly Shōnen Jump (2nd nomination)). Requesting immediate action on the AfD and expediting the SPI case. —Farix (t | c) 11:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I closed the AFD, I'll let a checkuser handle the SPI. --Jayron32 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the two most recent ones. GedUK  21:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the remaining account and a couple of probable open proxies. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate AfD plagued by SPAs

The AfD for the GamerGate article has been plagued with SPA's since day one, and is in desperate need of admin attention, regardless of how the AfD ultimately goes. This is part of the same off-site canvassing effort that's been hitting the article as well as Zoe Quinn, Depression Quest, Anita Sarkeesian, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, and perhaps others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems there are maybe six or so SPAs that have popped up, all but one being IP editors and they actually seem to be split pretty evenly between keepers and deleters. Does not seem to be a serious issue. I would hardly call it a "desperate need" as these kinds of articles do bring out a few SPAs. No admin will struggle with sorting out comments from established editors and SPAs. Even so, I have tagged the SPAs accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes but ignore them now and they pop up later, sock puppeting should not be encouraged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We see these kinds of SPAs pop up whenever an article with high levels of attention is up for deletion. All you can really do in this case is semi-protect the page, but that does not really seem to be necessary as there is no serious disruption and the number of SPAs has been pretty low.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of sock puppetry or just single purpose accounts (SPAs)? The former is a problem that needs admin intervention, the latter does not. —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Mark SPAs with {{subst:spa}} and move on. It's not going to change the amount of work the closing admin has to do one iota. If an admin steps in now and starts striking or indenting it might look like supervoting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen at least one suspicious account in the Tropes article. If anyone feels the urge to do some comparing and investigating, "don't feel, conceal" is not the right advice: let it go and write up that SPI. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• That White Eye account clearly made ten edits months ago to get autoconfirmed and slip by semi-protection. It screams sock to me. Need to turn that editor away and slam the door.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

I'm asking for help with Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. While there is some sniping back and forth, I think we can get around that. What I can't abide is being called a troll. I have asked him to take his trolling accusations to my user talk page, and he's not done so -- he's just continued on the article talk page.

I am not asking for any sanctions against Wdford. I'm only asking for administrator intervention, to prevent the situation from getting worse. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just reviewed Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC? and while you are correct that people should not call each other trolls, nevertheless it would be accurate to describe your contributions there as indistinguishable from trolling. It's way-over-the-top for me to complain about that single section—the problem is the overall hammering of the issue with no discernible attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion. Fundamentally you are correct that "The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus", but you need to say that in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you just called me a troll. Nice. Here's a suggestion: Instead of calling me a troll, try telling me exactly what I'm doing that's "troll-like" (since I can't read your mind.)

You say no discernable attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion? You want me to say things in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion? Great. Here are some links to discussions I've started: [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210]. Feel free to review these, and tell me where I've *not* attempted to engage in reaching a conclusion, or said things in a way that doesn't further discussion?

Oh, and are you going to address the issue I actually came for? Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who came in late, the article in question has been subjected to a long-winded struggle over (a) what exactly the subject of the article is, and (b) whether various high profile people in the field (e.g. Bart Ehrman) can be disregarded when they state that the majority opinion is that there was a real Jesus, whatever else could be said about him. FoR's participation in this has been frustrating to a lot of people, and it times (in my opinion) has employed a style of arguing which could be interpreted as deliberately obstructive. Wdford's outbursts are a measure of his frustration at this; he of course should stop, but the FoR and the various detractors of the previous state of the article need to cut to the chase and not bury the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this incident is a fine example of how ANI is screwed up. I came here with a simple, distinct and clear cut problem, looking for help to work it out. The two admins who have responded so far have done more to complicate the issue than to clarify it. (Here's a video of a group of WP Admins discussing an ANI incident: [211])

This ANI issue is very simple. All you need do to resolve it is say this simple statement to Wdford: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." If that's too much, you can just point Wdford to WP:ASPERSIONS, where it says just that. Do that simple thing, and the incident is closed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI no admins have responded, just myself and Mangoe. Reacting to the most recent inappropriate comment on a talk page is rarely useful—some consideration of the underlying issue is required, and that's what my first comment addressed. Please do not use article talk pages to frustrate other editors with very civil but unhelpful commentary. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'd come here looking for administrator help, and you decided to pop in and call me a troll? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, as well as on the article talk page, is that you are engaging in a battle rather than engaging with the underlying issues. Use of very civil language does not change that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What underlying issues are you speaking of (here and on the article talk page)? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

See my first comment including "you need to say that in a way that has a hope of furthering the discussion". I have tried to dip into the talk page a couple of times to see what the fuss is about, but it's too hard to work out (or I've missed the place where someone has stated the issue without editorial commentary). For example, I have no idea what it is that you want from that page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll note, FoR, that when you open an ANI thread, there is nothing that says anyone must stick to the original request only. Your behavior becomes subject to scrutiny and review just as much as those you are reporting; there's a reason WP:BOOMERANG exists. (Indeed, it's virtually a rule of thumb that the more an ANI poster tries to say 'stay on topic, why are you paying attention to me', the more likely it is that there's a reason they don't want their behavior scrutinized). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not a service desk where you come to get other users warned/blocked/banned; it's a place where incidents are looked into and people try to sort them out, inasmuch as admin tools can help to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Noticeboards#Administration says that ANI is "for reporting incidents requiring immediate attention by administrators."

GoldenRing, I have looked on WP:List of administrators, and you are apparently not an administrator. Nor are Johnuniq, or Mangoe. Not to be impolite, but since I made it very clear that I was looking for administrator help, why are you involving yourself? You have no knowledge of the Historicity of Jesus page (including it's long existing problems.) You have no authority or responsibility to deal with the issue I've reported. And your comment here was neither particularly enlightening, nor did it help bring this incident any closer to a resolution.

Bushranger: I came here to report an incident and get help from an administrator. Thankfully, you are actually an administrator.

If you want to examine my conduct, feel free. I've made 51 edits to the article, and 191 posts on the talk page. The archives containing my talk page posts comprise 138,000 words - which happens to be the same number of words as in the New Testament. If you'd like, I'll post a notice on the talk pages of a dozen or so other users who might have complaints about me, and invite them here. I'd actually like to hear what they have to say. But when we get all done with that, possibly we can get back to the reason I am here:

• Here's the incident link: [212]. Just look for the word “troll.”
• Here's my complaint: I asked Wdford to take his trolling accusations to my talk page. He called my request “more trolling.” I've had previous problems with him, including false narratives, policy misuse, and incivility, but am only addressing this last incident here.
• Wdford is a very experienced editor, who is well aware of WP policies and guidelines. He is always careful to stop short of blockable or sanctionable behaviour.
• Wdford does not respond well to polite warnings or reminders of WP policies or guidelines unless they come from someone he respects. e.g., an administrator.
• The action I am requesting is a reminder to Wdford, from an administrator, that he should not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence... and if accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Just as WP:ASPERSIONS says.
• Finally, if you want to examine the question of whether I was actually trolling or not, I'd suggest asking Wdford, as he's the one that accused me of it (whatever he meant.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fine, but do you agree that if you participate in a discussion that you will engage with the issues raised in a manner that has a hope of furthering the discussion? For example, at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC, your first comment is "What is my preferred definition? Please do tell me, I'm interested to know." and that kind of comment serves only to derail discussion and ensure that everyone is on edge and ready to argue over anything except the text in the article. Wdford then suggested "...you would state your preferred definition openly, and allow it to be debated...". Your reply was an in-your-face and unhelpful mini-rant. After that, Wdford responds "This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll." What Wdford said was perfectly correct. Collaboration requires more than avoiding naughty words. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq - You're asking "do you agree that if you participate in a discussion that you will engage with the issues raised in a manner that has a hope of furthering the discussion?" That's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question, and I'm not going to dignify it with an answer. My contributions stand on their own.

I'm not going to create a wall of text here, just to answer your accusations. If any administrators want me to provide a detailed response to what you've presented, I will. But otherwise, either raise actual violations of WP:Policy, along with real evidence, or please drop it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Well, I 'involved' myself because I was trying to help. Specifically, to help you understand how ANI works and that harping on the pernicious behaviour of another editor is a good way to get your own behaviour looked at closely. If you are not interested in my advice then you are very welcome to ignore it. It was offered in a generous spirit and I did not intend any offence. GoldenRing (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not offended at all, just frustrated. When Johnuniq and Mangoe added their comments, they did more to obfuscate the situation than to clarify it. I have no aversion to having my behavior scrutinized, but it makes no sense for me to respond to random drive-by users who lob grenades (and aspersions) after maybe 1 minute of research. I came here to find someone with both the responsibility and the authority to resolve a straightforward conduct issue. In other words, an administrator. And, if an administrator wanted to examine my behaviour, I'd have the confidence that they'd at least have a grasp of WP policy and guidelines.

In any event, this ANI has become a waste of energy, as it's unlikely to result in any useful outcome. (Thank you, though, for taking the time to explain that you were trying to help.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)