Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive879

Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.

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.

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit: [1]

Wtshymanski revert: [2]

This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit: [3]

Wtshymanski revert: [4]

This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit: [5]

Wtshymanski revert: [6]

The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit: [7]

Wtshymanski revert: [8]

The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit: [9]

Wtshymanski revert: [10]

Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, Andy Dingley independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page. Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [11]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with DieSwartzPunkt The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.

I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – nafSadh did say 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What administrator action is desired here though?

Once upon a time we had WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Neither of them were likely to be effective (WP:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.

WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not proven The accusation is:

"Wtshymanski is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering-based articles that he routinely watches." (typo and punctuation corrected)

and, doubling down, just in case we might have thought the meaning was open to interpretation:

"Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors." (emphasis was in the original)

But a quick perusal of the history of each of the pages diff'd above will show many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski. Therefore the claim of "any" is specious. Some were let stand, some were reverted by others, "others" not excepting Andy Dingly and DieSwartzPunkt. There are also many edits by IPs that were reverted by W. with completely defensible reasons and edit summaries.

Perhaps W. is too quick to assume that IPs' edits are wrong. (From my own experience, given the number of IPs' edits I've corrected that were wrong, this would not be an unreasonable bias on W.'s part.) I believe AD and DSP are similarly too eager to find fault with W.'s edits, and this patently absurd accusation of "any and all" is a result. Jeh (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"many edits by IPs that were not reverted by Wtshymanski."

So because he didn't get all of them, his behaviour over the ones that he did revert should be discounted?

This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits. It's about his assumption that for any anon edit he reverts (frequently a justified revert) he assumes that it's deliberate vandalism, and he assumes this because of who made it, not the quality of the edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"This isn't about Wtshymanski reverting anon edits." That's odd, because that's exactly what you DSP said it was about. If it's really about his over-use of the vandalism charge, then you DSP should have said that from the beginning. And then every one of your DSP's your diffs needs to show an edit summary by W. with a demonstrably unjust accusation of vandalism, or they don't support your position. If it turns out that a clear majority of W's edits to IPs' edits do not include an unjust accusation of vandalism, your case gets rather weak. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, I know that you're just about the only friend Wtshymanski has round here, so it's not surprising that you've rushed to defend him. However please actually read this post first. I didn't raise this. I haven't posted any diffs, so I don't know which diffs you're complaining about. Mind, it would have to be very blinkered to not see the problem with what he's doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct you are. I missed the correct attribution among all the rest of the periodic Wtshymanski pile-on. I have edited my above accordingly. But as for your "I don't know which diffs" claim, there is only one set associated with the complaint. So I think that if you were to hazard a guess as to which diffs in this talk page section I'm referring to, you'd either be correct, or you'd have to pretend to be a complete idiot. And we all know you are not that, so please drop the "I don't know what you're referring to" act. You're smarter than that, and I'd thank you to assume that I'm smart enough to not buy it. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that Wtshymanski had allowed some IP edits to stand, but failed to provide any diffs. In the short discussion that I had on this at Wtshymanski's talk page, he made the same claim. He then obliged with a single diff that supported that position. But he had to go all the way back to 2007 to find it. There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand, but as they are obvious corrections of errors, reverting them would be vandalism in itself (though as in case four above, that is not always an obstacle). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. You took that "2007" bit seriously?

So. "There are examples of IP edits being allowed to stand." Your words. Doesn't that rather contradict your accusation? Do I have to quote it yet again, to remind you of what it was? Do you understand what it takes to disprove a universal claim? It takes one counterexample. One.

The first diff above is from DC motor. From the first page of 50 edits, working from the bottom (I am not counting IP edits that were clearly vandalism, either reverted by W. or otherwise):

[12] IP made stylistic wording changes to picture caption. W. did not revert.

[13] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[14] IP wikilinked Hybrid car. W. did not revert.

[15] IP made minor grammar correction. W. did not revert.

[16] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[17] minor word correction by IP. Nobody reverted.

[18] vandalism by IP. Rv by someone else.

[19] vandalism by IP. Rv by Wtshymanski.

[20] IP added redlinks. Rv by Andy Dingley.

[21] vandalism by IP (added blank lines). Rv by someone else.

[22] vandalism by IP. Rv by ClueBot.

[23] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by ClueBot.

[24] vandalism by IP. rv by someone else.

[25] vandalism by IP. rv by ClueBot.

[26] vandalism by same IP as above. Rv by someone else.

[27] IP removed a blank line (non-rendering edit). Not reverted that I could find.

[28] Wtshymanski edit. Unrelated to previous IP edits.

[29] vandalism by IP (blanking). Fixed by ClueBot.

[30] IP added an ungrammatic sentence: "It has very high starting resistance so that it would use in that kind of equipments which needs a very high starting torque." Wtshymanski reverted with comment "out of place unclear and ungrammatical" (this is the rv DSP complained about).

[31] minor grammatical correction by IP. Wording improved by me.

Counts:

19 edits by IPs total (I am counting successive edits by the same IP, with none intervening, as just one).

11 of these were vandalism. Of those, ONE was reverted by Wtshymanski.

6 were good edits. Of those, W. reverted NONE. Two of them were significant changes to content.

1 was a good faith but erroneous edit, reverted by Andy Dingley.

1 was what I would call "legitimately problematic". Wtshymanski reverted it. Yes, it could have been improved.

It seems clear to me that W., far from reverting "any and all" edits by IPs as you accused, was far more selective. He in fact reverted only one of 11 IPs' vandalism edits, one problematic edit, and none of six good edits. I would say that the evidence from this article, one of those you complained about, refutes your accusation rather soundly. The evidence does not even support a claim of "W. erroneously reverts most IP edits", with or without an accusation of vandalism. (I would also say that it shows there is ample reason to view IP edits with a particularly skeptical eye.)

But you are the one making the claim, so you are the one who should be providing complete summaries of recent diffs. Not just a few cherry-picked examples. Jeh (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The above is non-evidence. 12 edits were reverted by others. That proves nothing except that someone beat Wtshymanski to the punch in each case. Even Wtshymanski presumably sleeps and works from time to time. As already stated, Wtshymanski usually does not revert an edit, if it leaves the article wrong (6 edits). And the last 'legitimately problematic' one, is similar to case 1 of this complaint. 'It could have been improved'. Yes, and Wtshymanski is as capable of improving it as anyone else, but if the edit had been left, someone would have improved it.

I have not 'cherry-picked' evidence as you claim. I have listed every IP address revert since 17th Feb. If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled. But this was stated in the original complaint. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I provided the diffs you asked for, and you moved the goalposts. But then you want to stick by the original complaint? The original complaint was:

"Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. "

That has been disproven (with great ease, just as most generalizations can be). You listed "every IP address revert since 17 Feb"? And you found a grand total of five? W. has made 'prox 700 edits since 17 Feb. So less than 1% of W's edits in the last three weeks were reverts of IP edits that you think were unjustly described as vandalism? You're going to have to find much more compelling evidence than that.

"If I had provided a 'complete' list of sumaries as you suggest, this ANI would still be being compiled." So you can find a few examples out of several hundred edits, not mention that they're picked out of seven hundred edits, and you think that makes your case? This has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt. Makes me wonder if the evidence in W.'s other ANI, etc., cases, at least the ones brought by DSP, AD, and GM was as tenuous? Jeh (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "problematic edit" by the IP (severe grammar problem) was the one you listed. Yes, it could have been improved. The fact remains that W.'s revert of the IP's edit left the article better than it had been after the IP. So we have a justified edit by W., and your complaint is that he should have done more. Got it. Jeh (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy, above you asked (?) what the point is. I think you or someone should ask for something specific. I looked at W's block log and this seems to be an annual affair (that somehow skipped last spring). The first block for this in 2012 was a day; the block for this in 2013 was a week. There is a clear pattern of the same behavior continuing, which is a violation of AGF and is DISRUPTIVE. So you should propose a longer time-limited block (say 2 months?) or perhaps an indef. It would probably take community consensus for either, and this is indeed the place to propose that and get consensus for it. But in the block proposal you should make a good, concise, ANI-ready statement of the case, if you want it to succeed. That is my advice anyway. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have better things to do than to read and memorise Wtshymanski's block log. If he has been formally warned not to behave just like he's doing here, and he's been blocked for doing it previously, then I'd agree that it might be useful for an admin to follow that precedent and act accordingly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You questioned whether this was an incident. With the demise of the RfC/U system, the only avenue now available to address user's behavioural issues is here at ANI (and the defunct RfC/U procedure says so). If nothing happens as a result of this, then I can only assume that the admins are granting open season on reverting other editors' posts. That may not be there intent, but it will certainly be the message. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would only ask that the admins look at the pattern of behavior here:

Please note that some incidents that would no doubt have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so the block log does not tell the whole story.

Also note that when Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". Please don't fall for it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's post above underlines a very major problem. The administrators are (unwittingly) exacerbating the problem. A running feature in the long history of these behavioral disputes and complaints is that whenever the administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his attitude and behavior towards other Wikipedia users. I have lost count of the number of times, that some editor has criticised Wtshymanski on his talk page only for Wtshymanski to respond that his attitude has already been taken to ANI (or wherever) with no action and therefore it is acceptable [to the admins]. This was covered as long ago as the 2012 RfC/U. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Found it!

[In response to a complaint on his talk page] "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[32] - Wtshymanski

• again, DieSwartzPunkt and Andy Dingley you have presented a bunch of evidence, which is great. But just coming here and making a complaint about a pattern of behavior generally leads no where here; the discussion will just go on and on and will eventually peter out as everyone gets exhausted. If you want something done you should make a concrete proposal for action Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's DieSwartzPunkt who posted this, not me. I have no expectations of ANI ever acting usefully, so wouldn't have wasted the ink. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

well there is self-fulfilling prophecy if i ever saw one. OK I will do it, just so I don't have to watch this follow the sad pattern. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As for what action is required? Wtshymanski's battleground attitude to other editors (both registered and anonymous) has been going on for several years. Guy Macon's very comprehensive listing above is testament to that. What is required is some action to force Wtshymanski to co-operate with other editors in the manner that Wikipedia intend. This means either a series of escallating blocks until he falls into line (though this has not worked so far). Alternatively, I would suggest the proposal that was made at the 2012 RfC/U, where a set of rigourously enforced sanctions be applied against Wtshymanski. There was a good list discussed here which would be a good starting point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

Proposal 1: 3 month block on Wtshymanski

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

• Support - as proposer. W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits. Demonstrated by block log and diffs above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as complainant. Previous block for this behaviour was one week and achieved nothing. A longer block is needed to try and get the message across. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Heres a better idea: block or interaction ban Dingley from bringing Wtshymanski to ANI again. Hes the one who has the problem. There are just three editors here who keep complaining about Wtshymanski: DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley. Theyre the ones who are causing this. Wtshymanski reverts bad edits - whats even wrong with that? To find things to complain about they dragged up a RFCU case from three years ago. No one else has trouble with Wtshymanski so leave the guy alone. 82.132.234.182 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Re: "DieSwarzPunkt, GuyMacon and Dingley": ...and Binksternet, and Bratland, and Deucharman, and Dicklyon, and EdJohnston, and Floydian, and Hasteur, and Jytdog, and N5iln, and NellieBly, and North8000, and Northamerica1000, and P-Tronics, and Rdengler, and RichardOSmith, and too many IP editors to count... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. As Wtshymanski himself said, "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[33] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC) The new proposal 2 is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. The evidence speaks for itself. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The complaint states that "W has a well documented, long term pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing by indiscriminately reverting IP edits." But the "evidence" posted by DSP shows only five such incidents "in the last three weeks". That's five edits out of over 700 made by Wtshymanski in that time. That's quite a standard W. is being held to. Regarding the list of previous incidents so painstakingly compiled by GuyMacon, many of those were closed without action. Since the current proposal is unsupported by sufficient evidence, this turns into "let's punish him more for the past 'pattern of behavior', even though we've provided no evidence that it's continuing." That's not how AN/I works. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that you are prepared to cite 700 more or less mechanical edits adding a "no" to the "living=" parameter on biographical talk pages (that do not actually seem to change anything), as justification that Wtshymanski can revert IP address editors, contributions. Unless, the is, that you yourself do not approve of IP address editors editing. Guy answered the conclusions in his missive. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I won't comment on past history, but those 5 diffs at the beginning of this section are problematic as evidence. For example, the Feb 25 edit does not refer to the IP edit just before it, but to an earlier IP edit. The Mar 2 edit was clearly subtle vandalism from an IP whose only edits have been vandalism. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This point was addressed. The IP resolves to a whole college in India. These have been problematic for a long time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per difs provided by Jeh which refute the accusation. Edison (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And have been shown to be non- evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see the case as clearly proven. I see Jeh's posting of diffs of other peoples' edits as not proving anything about Wtshymanski's behaviour at all (How was that even supposed to work?).

However I don't want to see Wtshymanski long-term blocked (or Alan Liefting, where something similar and equally counter-productive happened). We have several clear policies, one of which is AGF, others are about crediting merges, discussion with others etc. and Wtshymanski has a long, long history of ignoring any of them he feels like. However what I want to see happen instead is for him to just start bloody well behaving himself, same as the rest of us have to. I don't want this to be at the cost of excluding him altogether (if at all possible). Maybe over-optimistic, but I hope something is possible.

As an imposed action today, I'd be much more keen on some narrowly worded restriction. "Not describing non-vandalism as vandalism" would be a start. Simply not reverting IPs at all, if that's the smallest that can stick. I can't support a three month block on an editor though, even Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Andy above. Just because Wtshymanski does not assume good faith doesn't mean that we should not give him a chance to correct himself. A temporary ban from reverting any IP edits may even be better than this. Epic Genius (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, I proposed this as an alternative to the 3 month block, but got shouted down. (See edit history for more). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reasonable. I advised you to withdraw a competing recommendation; you freely agreed without protest and suggested I delete the whole 2nd proposal; which I did. You just lost all credibility with me. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2015 (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.

@Jytdog: Since I neither reproposed the option 2 nor added a vote of support for it, what exactly is your problem? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2: revert restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from reverting an edit without a content based edit summary. In addition, they are prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status in the summary.

• Support addresses the specific concern without unduly interfering with editing of the encyclopedia. NE Ent 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support. As I indicated with the examples I gave in User talk:Wtshymanski#rv V ?, it can be very difficult to figure out who was reverted and why from Wtshymanski's edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a completely valid concern, and goes with the "content-based edit summary" requirement, but I don't see how it's related to "can't refer to anon status". Will the WP default edit summary for reverting an IP edit be changed for Wtshymanski? Or will he be required to remove it? That would seem to me to make it even harder to figure out who was reverted. Jeh (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • He is (often but not always) removing the standard "Undid revision X by Y" (which does not refer to a users registration status, although you can infer it if it list an IP) now, and instead using edit summaries such as "rv anon v" that do refer to a users registration status. Leaving in the default edit summary would not violate this proposed restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. First, this proposal is not matched by a specific complaint that the proposal will address. (Which btw is why the following lengthy screed is here under my vote, instead of in the "discussion after complaint" section where it belongs.) DSP's original complaint was that W. reverts "any and all" IP edits; that is obviously false. Subsequent discussion was all over the place, but I don't see any specific complaints that are complementary to this proposal.

I suppose we can infer that the goalposts have now been moved the complaint has been changed to "W. frequently does not provide content-based edit summaries, and refers to IP edits disparagingly in edit summaries." But no evidence has been presented to support those complaints. A report of an "incident" here is supposed to be supported by diffs that are clear illustrations of the problem behavior. The only clear evidence here is DieSwartzPunkt (talk · contribs)'s five diffs, but those were originally compiled to support the "W. reverts any and all IP edits" complaint, not this. But those are all we have. So, taking them in order:

• 17 Feb: Edit summary of W.'s revert was content-based ("out of place unclear and ungrammatical") and did not mention "lack of registration status" outside of WP's default summary for a revert of an IP edit. (Re the quality of the revert, though that does not seem to be anything being addressed by this proposal: I would note that "high starting resistance" does not sound like a positive attribute for any electric motor under any circumstances. Granted that W. could have reworded instead of reverting, W's revert nevertheless left the article better than the IP's edit did.) Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 18 Feb: This is the "not visible so it's not light" revert. I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake, but the edit summary was content-based ("IR not visible") and only used the WP default wording for a revert of an IP edit. Score: Zero support for the supposed complaint.
• 25 Feb: This is the "restored deleted PROD" case. In this case W. did write "rv anon". But the WP default summary text was also present, and it also shows that the edit being reverted was by an IP. Score: one for "edit summary not content-based" but I cannot see that this unduly refers to an "anon" editor, not when WP's default message does the same.
• 25 Feb: This is the "unijunction transistor" case. W.'s edit summary is "rv anon v". Granted that this is not "content-based", but how much do we have to "content-base" a summary to defend a rv v?

DSP writes "The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism'".

But the "no evidence to the contrary" part of that assertion is absurd. Changing "unijunction" to "junction" in one place in an article titled "Unijunction transistor", and which has the word "unijunction" all over it, is pretty tough to assume to be an honest mistake. It is, rather, sadly typical of IP drive-by petty vandalism. If the IP thought the correct word was "junction" then ie should have made the change everywhere. Hence "rv v" is justified, and no further "content-based summary" is required. Score: No support for either supposed complaint. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't think you can say that I have no case at all. At worst, it's arguable.

n.b.: I have adopted the pronoun "ie" as a parallel to "he" or "she", to be used to refer to IPs of unknown gender.

• 02 Mar: This is the "two phase electric power" edit. Edit summary: rv v with WP standard rv of IP text. The IP changed "90" to "180". On first glance this too could be seen to be an honest mistake, since the very common split phase power used in the US has a 180 degree phase difference. But this edit was in the "this article about" section of a SeeAlso, contrasting the 90-degree "two phase electric power" with split phase power. Moreover, there's a nice diagram in the lede, which clearly shows a 90 degree phase shift; and 90 degrees is also mentioned in the lede text. The IP didn't change any of that. Further, the IP's edit history shows a clear pattern of petty changes, nearly all of which were reverted. DSP says that the IP locates to a college in India, so there might be several different people using it and no conclusion can be drawn. I would agree if there was a pattern of mostly good edits. But not here. If the IP is being used by a group of people, then it's a group of people who collectively are vandals. I would also argue that expecting an editor to do a geolocate on an IP is an unreasonable length to expect anyone to go to. It looks more to me like a desperate quest for a reason to AGF, despite evidence to the contrary. No, "rv v" is appropriate and sufficient. Score: No support for supposed complaint.

So in my opinion, only one of those diffs clearly supports the complaint that I'm assuming this proposal addresses, with one or at most two more arguable.

But even if all of them supported the complaint, do not, by themselves, demonstrate a general pattern of problem edit summaries by W. They show five edits, for which DSP apparently had to scour W.'s edit history for the last three weeks, a period during which W. made over 700 edits. Proposers need to provide evidence showing that these are more than isolated cases.

Furthermore, I really wonder how many other editors' history would stand up to this level of nitpicking? I also wonder how many of W's past AN/I and other cases were made on equally flimsy grounds?

Lastly, regarding "prohibited from referencing the original editors lack of registration status" part: When you revert an IP edit, WP automatically supplies a default summary of "Undid revision (number) by (IP address)". Are we going to require that W. change that? If not, how does the word "anon" call any undue or disparaging attention to the anonymous nature of the edit being reverted? If you do, do you really want to require W.'s reverts to not reflect the IP of the edit being reverted? That would only make it more difficult to figure out who was reverted and why, a result Guy Macon (talk · contribs) could be expected to object to, based on his statements above. Jeh (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal above is too broad given the context. I am about to support the proposal, but with a scope restriction. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh - so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?

Both of these edits (unijunction transistor and two phase power) were (to agree with Wtshymanski) ignorant and careless. They were obviously contradicted by the articles themselves, so any "careful" editor, not even a subject expert, should have had cause to question them. However a vast number of our IP editors on electrical topics are Indian college students with the confident ignorance of undergrads worldwide and an oddly (but obvious) Indian fixation on somewhat obsolescent electrical topics (I don't know what their biomedical students are learning, but their electrical engineers are taught about what the West tends to regard as museum pieces). I would lay money that these edits came from either an Indian technical college, or a bulk ISP such as BSNL. Look at synchronous motor and the perennial factor-of-two numerical errors introduced over "poles" and "pole pairs". We are waist-deep in this garbage and as someone who reverts far more poor edits to electrical topics than even Wtshymanski, I'm sick of it.

However ignorance and piss-poor teaching still isn't vandalism. Per AGF, none of us are allowed to treat it as such. As WP editors we are required to display infinite patience with clueless edits against basic common sense. Wtshymanski is no longer doing this. To be honest, I can't blame him for it. We should forgive it. However we shouldn't (as you're doing here) construct convoluted excuses for why it's "correct" to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"so your thesis here is that Wtshymanski's categorisation of these reverted edits as "vandalism" was correct?" Yes. I said so. I don't think I was at all unclear. Personally I am often a little more hesitant to use the "v" in an edit summary for an IP's first edit and first mistake (e.g. the "unijunction" edit). But with the pattern seen in the history of the IP of the "two phase electric power" edit? That seems very clear to me.

Your thesis is that I'm supposed to AGF even when an edit is of a pattern very commonly used by petty vandals, even when it's from an IP with multiple previous similar edits. I think that, and your requirement of "infinite patience", is absurd. That is an absolute, a universal, and I see no support for such in WP:AGF. Please note that WP:AGF begins with a disclaimer: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A requirement of "infinite patience" is not at all "common sense", particularly not when the encyclopedia is being damaged repeatedly from the same IP.

I don't think I used "convoluted excuses" either. I think that was done by the apologist who noted that the IP locates to a school and therefore the IP's history of other erroneous edits is irrelevant. How is that idea consistent with WP's use of schoolblocks? Hey, in our effort to bend over backwards while touching our toes to AGF, why don't we just always assume that even if an IP goes to a private home, different family members might be using it, therefore an IP's history is always irrelevant? r-i-g-h-t.

Assuming I agree with your position here (I don't, particularly the "infinite patience" part): How do you reconcile "I can't blame him for it - we should forgive it" with your support for DSP's "reworded" proposal below?

Even if we accept that both of those edits were not v., there still is no evidence for a pattern of problematic edits. DSP says he went back three weeks in W's history and found two AGF failures. Oh my ghod, the sky will fall. Again, I ask: How many other editors' histories would stand up against this level of nitpicking? I think DSP is just a little too eager to bring ANI cases against W. Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"with the pattern seen in the history of the IP"

What "pattern"? They've made a dozen edits in total. This year they've made the two phase edit and a self-reverted. Neither of these are vandalism and there is no pattern of vandalism from them. Even Checkuser regards IP data as stale after three months, but you're seeing a pattern of confirmed vandalism from it.

Do you believe in some form of demonic possession? Do you think this router has become inherently evil, and so any editor connecting via it is now forced to turn into some sort of vandal?!

Your failure to accept AGF as applying to IPs is as bad as Wtshymanski's. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Feel free to bring an ANI case if you think you can make it stick. Jeh (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

More constructively: If incorrect use of the "vandalism" charge by W. is what you're really concerned about, why not make a Proposal 3: "Wtshymanski is forbidden from using 'v.', 'vand.', 'vandalism', or other similar accusations of vandalism in edit summaries"? Now, as I said, even if I accept those two IP edits as not-vandalism, there is still a failure to make a case that these are anything but isolated incidents. And I think that, although a few incidents of of AGFFailure could be worthy of a warning from an admin, any long-term restriction on editing behavior needs far more proof. But at least this is a nice clean proposal with clear boundaries for what is and isn't being proposed. If you do this, be sure to make the new proposal separate from the others, unlike what DSP did. Jeh (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reword : The scope is too broad as it apparently attempting to address issues not raised here as Jeh observes. My support would be for a sanction worded, "A prohibition on reverting any edit from an IP address editor. This includes any that are vandalism". The latter because Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism. Any genuine vandalism will get swept up by others in the usual way. To be enforced by escallating blocks if breached. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment : One, I call a procedure violation. This is not a "support with reword"; in particular, this is not a "reword". It is a different proposal completely. You need to make a new proposal for this. (Should the closing admin assume that the previous "support"s apply to your new proposal? Why? They're for a different proposal, one that still allows W. to revert IP edits, among other differences.)

Two, I guess now the "problem" has morphed into "Wtshymanski's reverts of IPs' edits are bad, and Wtshymanski labels good faith edits as vandalism". Let's see: Out of the five diffs you posted, only two showed W. accusing of "vandalism". Re the article content, those were completely justified reverts. And in each case there is completely sufficient reason to not AGF.

That leaves two actual problem reverts by W.: One was a revert against policy (restore PROD after IP deleted it). In talk page discussion W. made clear that he was surprised that IPs were allowed to block PRODs. The first time I ran into that, I was surprised too. The other was the "IR not visible so it isn't 'light'" revert, which is a factual error on W's part, not related to reverting of an IP nor to any accusations of vandalism.

But even if we accept those, that is still only two problem edits in three weeks. You haven't shown that such problems only occur when W. reverts IPs, you haven't shown any unjustifiable charges of vandalism, and you haven't shown that any problems that are demonstrated by these edits are anything but isolated incidents.

And your attempt to cast it as a "reword", attempting to roll "support"s for the original proposal 2 into "support"s for this, is particularly egregious. Jeh (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - but don't these "restrictions" apply to every editor anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What are you supporting? The original Proposal 2, or DSP's so-called "reword"? Jeh (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In concept. Decent edit summaries are a "best practice," not something that's generally enforced; this would make them enforceable. That's why it's not an unreasonable measure. NE Ent 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the reworded (and it is re-worded) restriction. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support but take to ArbCom - User:Wtshymanski is seem to not understand WP:IPHUMAN, which concerns a lot of new users who decide to make some edits logged out before making an account. However, I don't think ANI is the place for this, consider taking this to WP:ARBCOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the reworded restriction. This kind of wholesale reversion is the worst kind of WP:BITEy behavior. @NE Ent and Guy Macon: could you two please weigh in and indicate if you support the reworded restriction as well, or exclusively what was originally proposed? HiDrNick! 20:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question What "wholesale reversion"? Five reported reverts in three weeks? Only two of them factually invalid? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support the original (not reworded) proposal. I wanted to stay completely uninvolved, but the user convinced me at their talk page that the topic ban is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I nee no proposal for a "topic ban". What "topics" is W. to be banned from editing? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    You are right, I did not word it in a good way. I support the proposal to restrict W from reverting edits without a content-based summary. This is indeed not a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fully agree with Jeh's analysis of the diffs submitted as evidence, I was about to write something very similar myself. WTS is a problematic editor and has demonstrated a prejudice against IPs in the past, but there is no justification on the evidence given here for any kind of adminstrative action against WTS. The last two diffs in particular, I would likely have reverted them myself without comment. They are obviously wrong and very possibly deliberately disruptive (and by the way, the last one is precisely WTS's area of expertise and is thus certainly not blind reversion). I wouldn't be opposed to a ban on WTS making any edit with any kind of sarcasm in the edit summary (where it cannot easily be replied to), but that would be a different thread altogether to the one here. SpinningSpark 15:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The community is entitled to be fed up of this behaviour. This member is fed up. How much longer does the community have to wait for something to be done? Op47 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose While I agree that edit summaries should indicate a reason for any edit, this proposal is a solution without a sufficient problem. Suggest the editor be told that "best practice" includes a reasonable statement of the reason for a revert other than simply being an edit from an IP (which is how I read the qualified support !votes above as well) . Collect (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of action it continues...

IP edit: [34]

Wtshymanski revert: [35]

This was a challenge of provided information by asking for a supporting reference. The IP editor did not use the correct {{citation needed}} template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual. He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template, but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see. A proposal with only one oppose !vote, and that one from someone who appears to be OK with siding with Wtshymanski in a content dispute where there are zero citations supporting Wtshymanski and where the chairman of that IEEE 1159.1 Power Quality Measurements wrote a paper specifically to correct Wtshymanski‎'s claim.[36] This should be interesting. I will make some popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What? I didn't side with anybody in that content dispute. I watched it, but I didn't express an opinion either way. Recently, I just asked a question, a considerable amount of time after the dispute at the article page (unless it's still going on; I haven't looked for a while). But either way, the question was just for my information, not meant to "side" with anyone—if I'd wanted to do that I'd have done it at the article talk page. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything here? Does the fact that I was unclear on how PF is calculated and what negative values would mean make my arguments here less valid? Come on, Guy, you're better than that. Jeh (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You spent the entire thread attempting to rubbish everyone else's observations on the matter and attempting to justify what Wtshymanski was doing. You even tried to claim that Wtshymanski's actions in some cases were due to his ignorance of the subject in question. Like when you tried to claim that Wtshymanski might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light. Wtshymanski is sufficiently familiar with the technology to know that 'LED' stands for "Light Emitting Diode" and that 'infra-red light is as much light as any other variety. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, DSP, posting carelessly is completely within your rights. But when you do so, you should keep in mind that everything I posted is right here for everyone to see. When it is so ridiculously easy to show that you're off base, I really have to wonder what your motivation is.

There is no support here for a blanket charge of my attempting to "justify what W. was doing". (You have a real problem with speaking in generalities; do you realize that? Do you understand what the problem is with making such claims?) I pointed out that in a couple of the whopping total of five diffs you'd provided, W's. reverts were justified. I pointed out that the five diffs you posted did not support your accusations, that the behavior they did show would not be countered by the various proposals, and that the proposals did not match up with the accusations. Nor did I try "to claim that W. might have believed that Infra-red light wasn't light." I wrote "I agree that W.'s revert was a mistake". I later wrote, referring to the same edit, "which is a factual error on W's part". Get your facts right.

I even suggested a proposal that actually would fit the complaint - W. would be forbidden from referring to "vandalism" in edit summaries. Did you miss that?

You may be thinking of my comment re. the revert of the IP's deletion of a PROD. I was thinking of this comment by W.: [37] Now, maybe I am naive for interpreting that as honest unawareness of the rules—I don't think so, since W. rarely lifts a finger to answer critics; I can't imagine him lying to do so, that would be too much trouble—but it wasn't something I just dreamed up. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeh, with all due respect, I believe that the record shows that I have been bending over backwards to give Wtshymanski the benefit of the doubt, convince him to engage in a serious discussion about his behavior, and to recommend the minimum level of sanctions that I think will reduce the ongoing disruption to the engineering articles. My perception of your approach is that your are a staunch defender of Wtshymanski, that whenever anyone posts a criticism that is flawed in any way you dissect it analyze it in great detail (which is good), but when a criticism hits home (my response Wtshymanski's continued snarky comments about how right he is about negative power factor despite the reams of citations showing him that he is wrong, for example), you go silent and move on to your next talking point. In my opinion, you are an advocate, not someone who tries to support Wtshymanski when he is right (as he often is) and criticize him when he is wrong. Nothing wrong with that, of course. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I am glad you posted that. I was working on a lengthy reply to the thread over at W.'s talk page when he blanked it (as he is wont to do). Now I have another place, a better place, to put it. But I have real work to do today, so I'll get back to this later. For a short answer, though: I see many things wrong with W.'s behavior; it is just that there are so many people eager to bring AN/I cases against him that it seems superfluous for me to mention them. Meanwhile, it is puzzling to me that you read me as an "advocate" when I don't think I've done much if anything beyond calling for hewing to the standard you called for. Jeh (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You make good point, and looking back at my comment I see that I was too harsh and aggressive. We are clearly both here to improve the encyclopedia, and I apologize for my tone. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:: Ok, here's the long version. First: I pretty much agree with what you wrote here. Same with Dennis Bratland's "outside view" in this old RFC case.

Personally, I do think he has mellowed some in the last year or so. Still, whenever an edit of mine conflicts with one of W's I groan a little, because I'm expecting a fight. The times I haven't gotten one, I've been pleasantly surprised—and that isn't how it's supposed to be here; as was pointed out to me rather firmly in my first months, "AGF! This isn't USENET!" So even I wish he could be persuaded to take the attitude down a few notches, not to mention interact more on his talk page. It would be better for the encyclopedia, and it would be better for him: some positions he takes that I agree with (like this) would have a better chance of being heard if there wasn't such a crusty curmudgeon behind them.

But I don't like dogpiles, and I don't like witch-hunts. More specifically: I don't like zealous efforts to dig through piles of old evidence to find actionable edits, followed by trying one proposal after another to see if something sticks... even though the evidence doesn't support the complaints and the proposals don't address the real problems.

Look at DSP's flip-flopping: from his first paragraphs, which included obviously-wrong universals like "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs"; then switching from one proposal to another when the first collects objections... and branding his own as a "reword" when its intended results had very little in common with what it was supposedly a reword of. ~"We found five problem edits (out of 700) in the last three weeks! Surely there's enough here to get him blocked, or banned from doing SOMEthing!" It really makes DSP look desperate, and since DSP, AD, and GM almost never disagree with each other where W. is concerned, the appearance of desperation is shared around.

And look at some of the reactions to my objections. AD dismisses me with an ad hom: ~"Well, you're W.'s friend, so of course you rush in to defend him." (Dare I suggest AGF, in a complaint thread that's about AGF?) DSP accuses me of saying the exact opposite of what I actually said re the "IR not visible" edit. (I notice that he's "gone silent" on that point.) Similarly, over at W's talk page, an admin claims I said that all of W's reverts were justified! Just how un-carefully do you have to read to conclude such things? Perhaps something that could be called "Wtshymanski derangement syndrome" is involved. I'm partly serious there. I suggest that Wtshymanski's generally... let's call it brusque attitude leads those who are most offended by him to scrutinize his edits far more closely, and find fault far more often, than they would with most other editors.

I see it again in DSP's jumping on W's rv of an IP's edit to the BASIC article. Yes, at first glance it looks like the IP was correct and that W was wrong to revert. Another bogus revert of an IP by Wtshymanski! Throw another log on the pyre! Oh wait. At second glance it looks very much otherwise; see talk:BASIC for further discussion. Editors there have carefully examined the refs and decided for now at least that W's revert was correct. There is still more evidence to be looked at, but the point here is that it looks to me as if DSP jumped too easily to the conclusion that W.'s revert was wrong, motivated as he was to add more weight to this complaint.

In short, I raised objections to this complaint/series of complaints/series of proposals against W. not because I think W. is beyond reproach, nor because I'm his "friend", but because I don't think the complaints or proposals are justified by the evidence, and I don't think the proposals address the real issues (those being a pattern of general, but generally mild, incivility, and near-complete refusal to engage in discussion). And I don't think anybody should be the target of the sorts of tag-teaming, lets-get-him-on-something campaign I see here.

Yes, of course "Everybody knows" W. is hasty to revert IPs. That's what the complaint was here, and he's been taken to ANI a lot before (though not for a pattern of being hasty to revert IPs), so of course it must be true. But a few point examples don't prove it. Nevertheless an admin showed up and seemed only too eager to take up the banner. That admin even claimed that it was legitimate to conclude that any given revert of W's was likely erroneous just because W. has been taken to ANI, etc., more often than most. ("This guy's had three tickets this year; let's write him for speeding again even though we haven't so much as clocked him!") This is the same revert I mentioned DSP jumping on above, and the sources show that W.'s revert was correct. The admin mentioned "statistics," but cited no numbers, only personal impressions. As Guy Macon said here, a lot of things that "everybody knows" turn out to be not true. Bottom line: If we're supposed to take it as proven that Wtshymanski is overly revertful of IP edits, then let's see some numbers that prove that charge. I don't agree that general impressions shared by the hive mind are sufficient, particularly for someone who edits as much as Wtshymanski does. And especially when someone is calling for a three-week block.

The current complaint started out with "not even wrong" universal claims ("W. reverts any and all edits by IPs") and did not improve after that. What we're left with is "W. has misbehaved a lot in the past, and here are a tiny handful of problem edits; let's make up some proposals that address some very specific issues with these edits." That's not the way to bring an AN/I case, and the proposals made here are not going to do anything for the real problems.

That is all. I've spent way too much time on this. Last words are everyone else's. I'm banning myself from the next three W.-related ANI threads, at least. Jeh (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jeh. In particular, the "W. reverts any and all edits by IPs" claim was stupid, and we all -- myself included -- need to work harder on only supporting claims where there is solid evidence, and objecting whenever claims are overreaching. Jeh, I still feel bad about going off half cocked in my first reply to you. That was wrong, and again I apologize.

This is my final comment here, so in closing I am going to repost something I wrote to Wtshymanski[38] in response to his writing "Suddenly I'm the biggest threat to Wikipedia since Essjay", and which he deleted without response.

"No, you are not the biggest threat to Wikipedia since Essjay. What you are is someone who refuses to simply engage in a dialog about your behavior, forcing multiple frustrated editors to take to to ANI in the hope that an admin will intervene. Your every interaction drips with sarcasm and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you, and you never admit defeat, even in cases such as negative power factor where you have never, ever been able to produce a single cite supporting your position after it became clear (the author himself told you so) that the IEEE standard had an error in it. You piss people off, and not just a few of them. Some withdraw in frustration, some misbehave in retaliation, and a few keep trying to reduce the disruption to the encyclopedia. Your actual level of disruption is actually rather mild compared to most cases, but it drives people crazy when they cannot get you to simply talk over your differences like adults. But of course you know all of this." --Posted by Guy Macon (talk) to Wtshymanski's talk page on 20:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I can only hope that Wtshymanski decides to be more cooperative and collegial with other editors, realizing that at least some of us have the same goals of improving the Encyclopedia that he has. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to break my self-imposed exile here because I'm not replying to an argument (I honestly think I've said all I will ever have to say in this thread). Rather I'm just saying "thank you". Guy, you had apologized previously and I was completely satisfied with that. My missive above was not intended to elicit more of the same, simply to explain further why I've been following the path I've been following. In any case, thank you again for stopping to "listen" to my POV. Jeh (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Still no action and the problem continues

13th Mar

1st IP edit: [39]: 2nd IP edit: [40]

Wtshymanski revert: [41]

This was a case of two for the price of one. Wtshymanski got to revert two good faith edits from two different IP editors at the same time. The first IP added a co-creator of BASIC to the article. A definitely good faith addition because it was entirely correct. The second IP linked the added name to the Wikipedia article (so also good faith). Wtshymanski, in less than an hour, reverted both edits. He was more interested in reverting the IP edits than whether what they had added was correct. Had Wtshymanski, followed the added link to the Wikipedia article, he whould have discovered than not only that Mary Kenneth Keller indeed had co-created BASIC but that it was reliably and verifiably referenced. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a fairly strong warning and I feel that the next revert should result in a block. Since I am not involved (in fact, did not hear about this user until today), I will have no hesitation to block them myself, but of course any uninvolved administrator can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Now someone objected me at the talk page, got me involved in the discussion, and I can not be considered as uninvolved any more.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Related: Info on Sister Mary Kenneth Keller (PDF). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Some action at last. I have taken the liberty of copying the reference from the Mary Kenneth Keller article to the BASIC article so it is unreferenced no longer. It should not have been necessary for someone else to do this, as Wtshymanski could easily have been helpful to the newbie IP editors and done the same. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just found yet another reversion of a good faith edit that was perfectly valid. But since the edit was made before the warning was posted to Wtshymanski's talk page, I shall demonstrate some good faith and let it go. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We have admin eyes on the issue, so I think it is time for me to stop commenting and let this either be closed or time out and be archived. I still think that some admin should look at the totality of Wtshymanski's behavior (ANI was touted as the replacement for RFC/U, after all) instead of playing Whac-A-Mole as a slow but steady stream of ANI complaints are filed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"Working on" some project under the direction of the two acknowledged inventors did not make Sister Keller the "co-inventor." Kemeny and Kurtz are stated to be the inventors /developers of Basic in countless reliable sources, which say they supervised a team of students who did the implementation. Apparently Keller was one of those students, probably a graduate student. The refs provided only show her to have been one of the worker-bees. It is O.R to list her as a third, co-equal developer of Basic. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article on the Basic language as to Keller's role. Edison (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This does not belong here. This is a discussion of the editing habits of one editor. Regardless of whether Mary Kenneth Keller co-invented BASIC or not, this is a discussion on whether Wtshymanski was correct or not to revert the edits adding her to the inventors of the article. He may (or may not) be factually correct, but the IP address that added the information can definitely be assumed to have acted in good faith because the Mary Kenneth Keller article contains the very claim supported by a reference where it has stood unchallenged since the article was created back in June 2012. I am not in a position to say if Wtshymanski has any knowledge of the inventors of BASIC, but he certainly provided no evidence to support his reversion of the edits. His edit comment acompanying the revert of, "no, not really", is, at best, nothing more than a statement of personal knowledge or possibly original research.

Looking at this as an uninvolved user, who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point. Two IP address based editors made what must be regarded as good faith edits from the points made above. Their edits were reverted based on nothing more than personal knowledge or original research. To my outside view, that means that this example fits with the general thrust of this ANI complaint. If the good faith edit was wrong, then it requires correction, but that requires supporting references and evidence. A reversion without such evidence, given the referencing at the linked article, is wrong - and that is exactly what happened. I grant that several editors are now questioning the reliability of the referencing, but that discussion was not available to the two IP address editors at the time of their good faith edits so that is entirely moot. –LiveRail < Talk > 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to make exactly the same point at the user's talk page, without much success: My opponents think that per WP:V these edits MUST be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So WTS was wrong to revert unsourced information on the basis that the same claim is made in another Wikipedia article? Come on, we repeatedly tell newbies they can't use Wikipedia articles as references. And whatever happened to WP:V and the principle that it is the responsibility of the challenged editor to provide a source? I cannot agree that "who is right and who is wrong about Mary Keller is entirely beside the point". The entire complaint here about WTS is that he is alleged to revert IPs without regard to the quality of their edits. An example where he is shown to be right, or at least knowledgable editors in the subject believe him to be right, absolutley does not count as evidence towards that behaviour. Nor should it be taken as a breach of any previous warning. SpinningSpark 19:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. This is not about one reversion of an IP edit. This is about a policy that Wtshymanski has toward all IP address editors and their edits. Wtshymanski has freely admitted in the course of this ANI that he does routinely revert all edits from IP editors with the exception of one per year. It would seem that the one per year is solely so that any claim that he revets all IP edits can be refuted - which in fact he has tried on. However, it seems to not be impressing many people except the gullible. The admin who posted the statement to Wtshymanski's talk page telling him that he will be blocked if he does it again has apparently researched the history and found that it is true. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not missing the point at all and I take exception to the implication that I am gullible. I realise this thread is not just about one IP edit, but you have utterly failed to provide the evidence by way of multiple credible diffs that there is a current and ongoing problem. The claim that Shymanski has admitted to reverting all IP edits is preposterous. You are referring to this which is proof by counterexample with a heavy dollop of typical WTS sarcasm. The one per year are counterexamples to the claim that all IP edits are reverted, not an admission of it. SpinningSpark 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been researched. You certainly are gullible if you believe that Wtshymanski's 'one-per-year' list are 'counter-examples'. Not one (none, zip, zilch) of the examples given in that post are counter-examples of routine reversion of IP edits in any shape or form - it's a standard Wtshymanski smoke-screen. All of the edits provided are just routine addition of information; copy-editing the article to make it clearer or correction of grammar and usage - all of which are legitimate edits (even if originally introduced by an IP editor) and are not the subject of this ANI. As said: not one is an example of a failure to revert a good faith edit (or any immediately preceeding edit) by an IP editor.

A counter-example (for the purposes of this ANI) has to be a good faith edit made by an IP editor to an article that Wtshymanski regularly watches (basically all the engineering articles), that was not reverted. You can go through Wtshymanski's edit history but you won't find one - it's already been done.

However, this is all academic as sentence has been pronounced. This ANI is ready for archiving. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's funny that you can't actually provide diffs of this alleged routine reversion. And I don't see any "sentence" having been pronounced. SpinningSpark 18:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not following this are you? I provided all the diffs since 17th Feb - seven of them (this ignores one that occured before admin intervention because I discovered it afterwards). The examples go back years, but as I explained in the original complaint, I would still be typing them in if I documented all that occured here. A snapshot looking back one month was adequate to the task. All the diffs are fully documented here and you can search for them yourself. There is no example of any edit from an IP editor (good faith or otherwise) being allowed to remain in any article routinely watched by Wtshymanski. An admin took action here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who is not following, or else has a bad case of IDHT. I said above that I do not accept that your seven diffs adequately demonstrate the alleged behaviour and I fully support Jeh's analysis of them. Most of them are perfectly reasonable reverts that any of us could have done. As I also said, Shymanski is a problematic editor, but let's not take action in the spirit of a witch hunt on the basis of flimsy evidence. SpinningSpark 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to disagree with you. But never mind ... DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It still continues...

Despite Ymblanter's warning on his talk page.

19th Mar

IP edit: [42]

Wtshymanski revert: [43]

This is an identical revert to the 8th Mar one above but against a different IP editor. This was a challenge of information by asking for a supporting reference. It is fairly clear that it was the magnitude of the unreferenced numbers that was being challenged. The IP editor did not use the correct template - most likely due to inexperience as this is the IP editor's first edit. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the IP edit as usual . He could easily have been helpful and inserted the correct template (or better still a reference - which I was easily able to do), but driving away IP address editors is more important than being helpful. New and inexperienced editors often need to be assisted to become good editors and this is a classic case where this needs to be done.

19th Mar

IP edit: [44]

IP edit self revert: [45]

Wtshymanski revert: [46]

The first IP edit is where he made an uncited change to the century in which arc welding was developed and added some nonsense text. The second IP edit is where he self reverted his change back to what the article read before he edited (I have no problem where someone self reverts things that are not right - good faith demands that I have to assume it was a mistake). However Wtshymanski, as usual, sees the IP editor's second edit and mechanically reverts it - without even bothering to check that a reversion is even warranted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ouch, yeah that revert they did clearly shows no thought or investigation into what the user is actually reverting. 129.9.75.248 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. That last revert has to be considered as proof positive that the basis of this ANI complaint is completely sound. In view of the fact that Wtshymanski has made two more unwarranted reverts of IP edits despite being specifically warned not to do so must be regarded as blatant defiance. Because Wtshymanski is making it abundantly clear that he is not even prepared to heed a specific warning given to him by an administrator, I would call upon the warning administrator (or any administrator) to implement the block that was threatened. Because this is a specific vendetta directed at potential future editors of Wikipedia, that block cannot be anything other than an indefinite block as it is clear that Wtshymanski is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with others on building an encyclopedia. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

They managed to involve me to the discussion, so that I can not be considered uninvolved anymore, and will not block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we really to believe that an IP that writes "fack information about this" has made a good faith mistake. Shymanski's error was not that the IP did not deserve reverting, but rather, that he did not revert far enough. That is an argument for giving Shymanski rollback so he can more easily avoid that mistake in the future rather than blocking him for what was actually a good faith mistake on his part. SpinningSpark 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could just AGF, and assume the IP meant to type "lack information about this" at the end of an unsourced paragraph, unaware of {{cn}}. That would make a certain amount of sense for an inexperienced "newbie" edit, unfamiliar with how to add or challenge material. Just saying. Worth at least trying to ascertain the intent, maybe, or ask for a source, rather than an incorrect partial revert with the summary "not really", showing no attempt to examine the overall change before undoing it. Especially in the current circumstances. Begoon ^talk 09:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you have completely missed the point. I suggest you re-read the summary of what Wtshymanski did. It is not a question that he did not revert back far enough. The IP editor had already reverted his own incorrect edit and removed the nonsense phrase that he had added. The article was thus in exactly the same state as it was before he made any edits. There was nothing to roll back. Wtshymanski simply reverted the last edit (the revert) without actually checking to see what it did and as a result, effectively vandalised the article albeit probably unwittingly - but that is not the point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the ANI I'm being asked to respond to. I see I have accidentally reverted good edits as well as vandalism. Often if I only see the vandalism edit in the diff I go back to the previous version without checking if it, too is valid. I often check the edit history before reverting to make sure I'm going back to a good version; I have neglected that in some cases where the vandalism was small. I will check the edit history more carefully before reverting. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I move that this be closed as "no action required". I consider Wtshymanski to be completely honest and trustworthy (our disagreements lie elsewhere) and if he says he will be more careful that should be the end of it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As I stated aove, I can accept someone making a (or several similar) mistake(s). The real art in making a mistake is to learn from them and not to repeat them. I agree this can be closed on the basis of Wtshymanski's statement above. I have little doubt that if he does err again, we will get to know about it. As a user who is uninvolved in the complaint made here, I shall be bold and close this case. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reopened - Not resolved

I have taken the liberty of re-opening this ANI because the matter does not seem to have been resolved. An anonymous editor has made this edit to MOS Technology 6502. Another unrelated user has removed an unsourced and frankly unencyclopeadic sentence.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) has reverted the good faith addition made by the anonymous editor. I do not feel that this is the place to debate whether the intended reversion was right ot wrong (that belongs elsewhere). But what does belong here is that Wtshymanski in reverting the anonymous edit has reintroduced the unsourced and unencyclopeadic content. Wtshymanski, has therefore not checked the edit history or what he was reverting as he promissed to do in his statement above. It is my belief that he was just routinely and mechanically reverting the anonymous edit because it was an anonymous edit as he has done so frequently in the past. 86.145.211.167 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Can and ANI be re-opened once closed? As the closer: If it can then I concur and support the re-opening on the grounds given. The IP edit has to be regarded as good faith edit (adding more trivia to a pre-existing trivia section). I am not convinced that articles benifit from lists of trivia, but as noted that is whole different debate. This was a good faith edit whose reversion is questionable. The matter at point here is that the reversion carelessly re-introduced material that had already been deleted by another user. That should not have happened if Wtshymanski had learnt from this experience. –LiveRail < Talk > 15:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This has gotten a lot of attention already, no need to re-open. Chillum 15:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This has got a lot of attention and for very good reasons. There is a serious problem here and it it would seem to require some action. As things stand, it would appear that Wtshymanski is taking absolutely no notice whatsoever of any of the comments that have been made here, the warning placed on his talk page or his own proposal in the previous section. If the examples provided here really are examples of routine reversion of IP editor's edits as has been suggested more than once, then that is totally unacceptable. This ANI now documents ten examples of reverts to IP edits (over a period of just five weeks). While some are more obvious than others, I think that if all ten are viewed together, there is a clear case. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just driving by here, I agree that this is far from resolved. Wtshymanski's indiscriminate reverting of anonymous contributions is extremely WP:BITEy and WP:OWNy, and needs to stop immediately. There was a proposal above that I read as prohibiting the user from reverting any anonymous contributions, and I think that is the absolute minimum required. They either cannot tell the difference between good-faith contributions and intentional vandalism, or they don't care. The evidence presented above suggests the latter, but regardless of which it actually is, W's indiscriminate reverting is causing a whole lot more disruption than if they just left IP edits for someone else to judge. They should also read WP:IPs are human too, which in the lede has this to say about indiscriminately reverting IPs: "This practice is against the philosophy of Wikipedia and founding principles of all Wikimedia projects." Continued violation should result in blocks. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

While I think that ANI discussions are rarely productive once they get this old I am happy to let the discussion continue. Chillum 15:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably right, but usually because the issue either resolves itself or makes its way to Arbcom or something. Neither is the case here, at least not yet. I was working on making a new thread when this was reopened. Ivanvector (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of a clue as to what was going to be in it? –LiveRail < Talk > 16:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just what I posted above, with reference to this thread and the fact that I had started a new one because an administrator enforced closing the unresolved one. Procedural nonsense, basically. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion, but I am not an administrator. I am a relatively uninvolved ordinary editor who has had minimal interaction with Wtshymanski, and whose only real knowledge of this matter is what is here and in the editing history. It is not uncommon for ANI complaints to be closed with a statement of intent to do things differently from the complainee. Wtshymanski made such a statement above and I did what we all aspire to do and assumed it was made in good faith. It would seem that, on this ocassion, I was wrong. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the sake of completeness, by "an administrator enforced..." I was referring to Chillum reinstating your close after 86.145.x.x reopened. I hadn't actually looked at your userrights, and also am not an administrator myself. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposal above (proposal 2) was not a restriction on reverting IP edits (I had to read it again because I thought you were right). It was a more wide ranging restriction on reversions that some other users had issues with. But: I like your thinking and accordingly, I shall propose ... –LiveRail < Talk > 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've gone and reverted the change on MOS Technology 6502 by Wtshymanski and put the page on my watchlist. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Revert restriction

That Wtshymanski be banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address, broadly construed. This to include not only a direct reversion of such an edit (using the (undo) feature) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of any article.

• Support: This has to be any edit, because although I am aware that Wtshymanski does sweep up vandalism and 'undesireable' edits but, as Ivanvector states above, they would soon be swept up by others. A ban on reverting vandalism is warranted because the examples in the ANI reveal a tendency to revert good faith edits as vandalism when they are not. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support (as co-proposer?) per my comments above. Wtshymanski's contributions are highly appreciated, however apparent repeated failures to distinguish others' highly appreciated contributions from clear vandalism have led to behaviour against the spirit of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and their pledge to discontinue such behaviour was moot given this lack of awareness. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those with accounts. Wtshymanski needs to be put under 0RR with regard to anonymous edits. This kind of WP:BITEy behaviour should not be tolerated. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough's enough. Wtshymanski clearly has no respect for IP editors, no competence to check that he's reverting correctly and no intention of even complying with the feeble restrictions previously agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I think more people are starting to see what I am on about here. This is basically the reword I proposed of Option 2 above, so I have to support it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Good proposal and well worth doing, but I don't think it will solve the underlying problem, which is why I posted proposal 5 below while still supporting this proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Even better idea than option 2 above. Op47 (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as my general position on Draconian solutions. I suggest the position that he be asked to give better summaries is reasonable, but bans in such a case do not "solve" much at all. The seeing multiple IP edits problem and "reverting the wrong one" is not rare on Wikipedia, alas, but singling out one editor is not the solution - one should propose on an appropriate policy page language on the order of "reverting any edit made by an IP primarily on the basis that the edit was made by an IP, is improper" or the like. Where it is the policy or guideline one has a problem with, that is what should be emended. Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support If you want Wtshymanski to change for the better, this is what needs to be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing example from above

For the sake of completeness of the history of this routine reversion of IP edits, there is one example of a revert to an IP edit that I left out because it was made before Ymblanter posted his warning to Wtshymanski's talk page. I feel it would be apposite to now include it - as I say for completeness.

13th Mar

IP edit: [47]

Wtshymanski revert: [48]

This was a good faith edit adding the 'Ω' symbol to the text of the article. Wtshymanski just mechanically reverted the edit with a the edit summary, "already in the lead (sic)". Whilst it is true that it was in the lede, the lede is meant to be a summary of the main part of the article (per WP:LEAD). Thus it was quite proper for the IP editor to add it. I note that someone else objected and restored it after Wtshymanski reverted my restoration. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

More reversion of good faith

23rd Mar

IP edit: [49]

Wtshymanski revert: [50]

Once again a good faith edit from an IP editor where he has added a 'see also' that links to an article that is a valid application of the subject of the article. Wtshymanski has just routinely reverted the edit claiming 'low relevance'. It is not of low relevance, SCSI was a mainstream application of the D-subminiature connector. Indeed: I have several SCSI drives that use the connectors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference showing relevance: [51] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 5: A well-crafted set of restrictions

Consider this a mini-test of the theory that ANI can handle the function formerly handled by RFC/U.

Proposal 4, while good, only covers one aspect of Wtshymanski's behavior, leaving ANI in the position of playing Whac-A-Mole forever with Wtshymanski and with a series of new editors who are goaded into serious misbehavior after interacting with Wtshymanski. I would ask that a close look be given to the patterns of behavior shown here:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive866#Wtshymanski hammering his personal knowledge into articles again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User Wtshymanski refusing to follow the merge procedure when merging articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Unilateral redirects without merging as stated in edit summaries - User:Wtshymanski
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request for admin attention re: proposed deletion of multiple electronics components articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski failing to work collaboratively
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Floydian .28Result: Stale.29
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Power factor
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive172#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: declined, semi-protected)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski reported by User:24.177.120.74 (Result: page protected)
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive103#Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs

I propose that Wtshymanski be given a carefully crafted set of community restrictions that will allow him to do good work without doing those things that the community finds disruptive.

I further propose that the community restrictions be enforced in the following manner, and not according to our traditional "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, drop a piano on him" custom.

1st failure to follow a community restriction: warning. 2nd: warning. 3rd: 24 hour block. 4th: 2-day block. 5th: 4-day block, then 8 and so on, escalating to at least 64 days before considering an indefinite block.

This does not imply immunity from other blocks -- this only applies to this specific set of community restrictions. Also, it must be the same specific restriction; no combining. In other words, he can fail to follow each individual restriction twice without any blocks.

Specific restrictions

This is my idea of what specific restrictions will work, but I am completely open to a revised or even completely different list. The core of my proposal is that there be a well-crafted set of restrictions enforced with the escalating warnings/sanctions detailed above, not the specific set of restrictions chosen.

• No sarcasm or personal comments in edit summaries. All edit summaries must be a neutrally-worded and accurate description of the edit. No misleading edit summaries.

• No activities that delete articles without discussion. In other words, WP:AFD is allowed, WP:PROD or WP:MERGE without prior discussion on the article talk page is not.

• Three or perhaps five minutes between edits in article space except for minor typo corrections. This will give him time to be more careful and to make better use of the preview feature.

• Normal 3RR restriction reduced to 2RR.

I would also encourage more administrators to warn Wtshymanski when he violates WP:CIVIL. He is usually responsive to warnings from admins and tones it down for a while when he gets one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd go as far as suggest 1RR or even 0RR. But otherwise, I support this and I'd say first choice over prop 4. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember, we have a really, really long history of various editors coming to ANI about Wtshymanski and nothing being done. A lot of this is because the cases were filed by newbies who ended up behaving worse than Wtshymanski, but a lot of it is because each individual case shows Wtshymanski being somewhat disruptive but not as bad as most of the other disruptive editors we see reported here. I think we should ask for the bare minimum amount of restrictions that will get the job done. Otherwise we risk yet another ANI case that confirms Wtshymanski's observation: "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[52] 2RR can always be changed to 1RR or 0RR if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. They can probably be left with 3RR, even, with a 1RR or 0RR restriction only with regard to IP edits. In any case, better to just get this out the door than dicker about everything and let Wtshymanski's disruptive reverts continue. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you have always stated (and I have always agreed) that we should be scrupulously fair and equitable with how we treat Wtshymanski. This ANI deals with a specific trait of Wtshymanski's attitude towards other users of Wikipedia. Whilst I cannot help but agree that there are other aspects of that behaviour that require addressing, they have not been the subject of this ANI. Any sanctions should be limited to addressing the specific complaint(s) made which are those that Wtshymanski has been given the opportunity of answering and/or making his own proposals as to the way forward. That Wtshymanski has chosen not to adequately answer those points is neither here nor there and entirely his choice but I believe that we are entitled to assume that he has no intention of co-operating. I have addressed this again below.

On the other hand, if you wish to raise a suplementary ANI and link it to this one, that might be a different matter, but we do seem to be heading toward a world record on the length of an ANI (both temporally and spatially). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 6: indefinite block

I have no prior interaction with Wtshymanski (that I know of) but I have seen the thread above and the threads which Guy Macon linked, and I see an editor who has wasted an inordinate amount of the community's time in trying to correct their behaviour. Whatever useful contributions they may have (and they do, unquestionably) they are shrouded by being repeatedly dragged before the drama courts for the same behavioural transgressions over and over and over and over again. Their block log, while short, shows that they're not getting the message that this behaviour is intolerable.

With respect to Guy Macon, who based on reading the threads posted above has a long history of interactions with this editor, a "well-crafted set of restrictions" can only waste more of the community's time dealing with this editor who in Guy's own words "figures out exactly where the line is that will get him blocked and stands with his toes over the line" ([53]). Here are some things that other users have had to say about Wtshymanski over the years:

• "It seesm [sic] to me that Wtshymanski actually welcomes such a complaint, because when the decision comes down in his favour, it underwrites his offensive and offhand attitude." --DieSwartzPunkt [54]
• "His negative effects _on_others_ far outweigh any positive contribution. His effects on articles aren't great either, but it's his _toxic_ effect on other editors that's the worst of it." --Andy Dingley, emphasis in original [55]
• "In my opinion, many of these newbie editors could grow into very productive editors if they don't leave in disgust after tangling with Wtshymanski." --Guy Macon [56]
• "Wtshymanski needs to be given a substantive motivation to change his demeanor, and if his behavior does not improve, then stronger remedies should be used." --Dennis Bratland [57]
• "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." --attributed to Wtshymanski but I have not found the actual diff

This is a tendentious editor who has been warned time and time again about their behaviour, and who each time backs off just enough to escape admin action and formal sanction, then returns to the same tendentious behaviours. Accordingly, each time the administrators fail to act, even more of the community's time is wasted. Enough of this. Although it may be in good faith, editors like this do not improve the encyclopedia, they hinder and obstruct (and drive away) other editors who do improve it. Thus I propose that Wtshymanski be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia, with consideration for the WP:STANDARDOFFER after six months. Ivanvector (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Diff for "And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest.":[58] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Option of last resort. Wtshymanski does contribute some good edits in various technical topics, but their reverts and incivil edit summaries leaves much to be desired. I'd rather see the editor banned from further reverting edits, but allow them to continue adding content -- with the warning that further incivil behaviour will lead to an indefinite block. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided. Support. While I agree with everything Ivanvector says, as I mentioned before I strongly dislike the standard ANI "do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, drop a piano on him" practice. At what point does continued refusal to act become de-facto permission to keep acting that way? And is it really fair to suddenly decide that this time we really mean it after leading him to believe that there would never be any consequences as long as he only stuck his toes over the line? Then again, surely he has seen it happen to others, and maybe, just maybe, a block then a return under the standard offer will finally convince Wtshymanski to work collaboratively. I really don't know the answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Upon careful consideration, I have concluded that the disruption outweighs the contributions and thus I support an indefinite community block (as well as supporting the other, weaker remedies). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose see past comments. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Stongly Support: I speak as an editor who edits from an IP address. I don't claim to be Wikipedia's greatest editor, but I certainly do not vandalise articles or add meaningless content (or at least not intentionally - we all make mistakes from time to time). All edits that I have made to engineering related articles have been reverted by Wtshymanski, always for some frivolous reason, and sometimes with an uncivil edit summary making it clear that I am not wanted. I do not edit anywhere near as frequently as I used to because of the hostile environment created by Wtshymanski. As an affected contributor, and in view of the minimal genuine contribution supplied by Wtshymanski, it is very clear to me that Wikipedia would be a far better environment without Wtshymanski. Indef block him. He has never been here to colaborate on building an encyclopedia. When I do find an article area that is not regularly patroled by Wtshymanski, I have no difficulty in making positive contribution without the continual reverts ([59] - under a previous dynamic IP). 86.149.139.47 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We should not indef an editor because it will make WP better, just if that's the only way to make it better. How do you feel about a ban on IP reverts (and only a ban on IP reverts)? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This post is of considerable import bearing in mind that it does come from an editor directly affected by the issue being discussed. What he says is of the greatest relevance and has nailed perfectly the points that I have been endeavouring to make. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support We should definitely be indeffing people who are wasting the community's time with the same crap over and over and over again. Perhaps if this was done more often, there'd be fewer repeat offenders like this guy. Jtrainor (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Really Draconian = really poor idea. Collect (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's try and wrap this up

From the discussion above on the complaint and the various proposals made, it seems that there is a general consensus that there is a problem with Wtshymanski routinely reverting edits made by IP editors against the general policy of Wikipedia (noting that there was a groundswell of consensus as more examples became available).

Also of great relevance is that Wtshymanski has declined to answer or comment on the points raised in this ANI beyond a statement he made above that he would exercise more care in reverting edits. A statement which he promptly ignored on his very next editing session with two such reverts.

There is also a broad consensus that action of some sort should be taken with opinions varying as to what.

The greatest support is for Proposal 4 the restriction on reverting any IP based edits (7 8 support 1 oppose).

There is a lesser consensus for Option 6 - Indefinite block. (3 4 support 2 oppose 2 1 abstention).

There is a lesser consensus for Option 5 - a broader range of restrictions (2 support 1 oppose).

Unless anyone has anything to add, I move that Option 4, the restriction on reverting any edits for IP address editors be implemented. Enforcement to be via a series of escalating blocks. I note that the last block for unco-operative editing was for one week, so the first block for the first deviation from the restriction should be for one month escalating as required (3 and then 6 months?). Upon the third deviation from the restriction, an indefinite block should be considered as it will be clear by this point that nothing is going to change.

I commend this to the community. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for wrapping this up, and I endorse any restriction imposed here, even an imperfect one, as one that will make the editing environment less hostile to IP editors, per WP:IAR. Please ping me when (not if) this ends up at Arbcom. Ivanvector (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with wrapping this up now with any of the proposed community restrictions. I strongly oppose closing this or letting this go to archive with no action at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Question Could someone who thinks WTS makes good content contributions, give a brief summary of those contributions? "Content contribution" for purpose for purpose of this question specifically means new informative material added to the encyclopedia. This doesn't count reversions and removals of any sort, since those (some good, some bad) have already been discussed. A content contribution assessment separate from any reversions, deletions, and spelling corrections would be helpful in understanding the big picture. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't discussed reversions and removals of any sort. just the subset that is problematical, and I caution against the common "content creation is king, error fixers are second-class editors" attitute. That being said, less than two minutes of searching (I timed it) found these two:

• Taking a picture that most editors wouldn't know to take or how to describe the significance of and adding it to an aricle:[60][61]

• Copyediting an article and adding content that most editors would not be able to create: [62]

If anyone wants me to I will take a half an hour and find dozens more. The engineering articles need editors with engineering knowledge. I really don't want to lose Wtshymanski's productive contributions if we can find a way to stop him from constantly finding new ways to be disruptive and driving away other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 Wtshymanski does some good work on tech and EE articles, but continually demonstrates why standard rollback/revert isn't something handed out to everyone (TW notwithstanding). Something needs to be done, but without losing them altogether unless that's the only option left. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy, thanks. Yes we have discussed WTS's reversions across the various threads and the RFC. I wouldn't say error fixers are second class editors, but when someone reverts a non-vandalistic content addition, they are saying they know better than the contributor how to contribute content. So if they get into a bunch of ANI's about those reverts, I like to see some evidence that they know how to contribute content themselves before telling others how to do it. I'm satisfied with the examples you gave and your judgment on WTS's additions. If he hadn't made any significant ones, I'd support the indef block proposal. As it is, I defer to you. I'm pessimistic about the other proposals but one can always hope. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus to close this. Could we have an uninvolved admin write up a summary, take whatever action is required (if any), and close the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The broad opinion is that this should be closed with the option 4 sanction. Could an administrator now do the honours. Or are we to believe that raising a problem at this noticeboard is a waste of time and resources? If the administrators are not going to take action then could they at least have the courtesy to leave a note here why and tell us what we should have done, or need to do, to resolve this problem? –LiveRail < Talk > 08:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have enacted proposal 4 and recorded it on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 25 March 2015 (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.

What's the point of being allowed 6 accounts per address per day if...?

WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify 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. Why does the system even let a single IP address set up 6 accounts in a single day if you admins are just gonna forget that that allowance exists and shut them down anyway? What's the point of having rules if you're just gonna ignore them? When Are We Gonna...? (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) As this is your very first edit, it really isn't clear what you're talking about. If you provide a link to a specific alleged abuse of Wikipedia policy, I'm sure you'll stand a much better chance of getting a satisfactory answer. Squinge (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC) what's the point of having rules if you're just gonna ignore them' Ignore all rules' is one of our core policies, didn't you know? Seriously though, I think the high limit's mostly meant so that people who share the same IP don't run into issues, and it's also useful for beginning wp:acc helpers who don't yet have account creator rights. Needless to say, the "allowance" only exists as long as you don't abuse the system. 77.56.43.252 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (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 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. How about you give the poster a chance to respond before you jump on the "close" template so fast? And then even now, I'll be gone for a few hours. Can't you leave this here and open long enough for me to have a follow-up response to it? Gessh. Well, how can you tell if someone is supposedly "abusing" the 6-per-IP-per-day rule if you see 6 of them coming in from the same IP address in a given day and that's allowed? And if it still is "abuse" somehow, then why can't I be left with even ONE account that isn't blocked? How can it be "abuse" for me to even have ONE? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Ahhh.... if all your accounts are blocked, then your posting here using an IP is block evasion, isn't it? BMK (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC) 6 accounts per address per day? Why and why not? @DoRD: Will you guys please not close this so fast? I hardly got any chance to respond to it. Can't you wait until the poster of the problem or question has had a chance or few to follow up before you just jump on the "close" template? Geesh. And then will you please actually continue to respond to it instead of just acting like I "don't count" and am "garbage" just because I supposedly "broke one of your rules"? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Quoted from before:) "I think the high limit's mostly meant so that people who share the same IP don't run into issues, and it's also useful for beginning wp:acc helpers who don't yet have account creator rights. Needless to say, the "allowance" only exists as long as you don't abuse the system." 77.56.43.252 (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC) So then how can admins tell if someone's supposedly "abusing the system" or using it legitimately if they check that the IP address is the same either way? How should they be able to tell if the 6 created by that IP in the same day might not be "abuse"? And if it never happens, then why not just get rid of that (lower it to 1-2) so that it doesn't give someone a false sense that it's okay? And even then, if it ends up still being considered "abuse," why shouldn't even one account from that group be left unblocked (maybe the first one in a series or something like that), which would then certainly put the number within reasonability so as not to be considered so-called "abusive"? Will you guys please leave this open for a while so I can follow up a few times rather than just closing it so fast? As the question's poster, I'd really like to think I should be given a chance to have some words back and forth with you before I just get shut down. Fair enough? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC) How about you answer my question from above? If all the accounts you created are blocked, why shouldn't you be blocked as well for block evasion? And, no, if you're blocked, then you should not be given a chance to discuss this until after you're unblocked. BMK (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I didn't answer your question before, "ken," because I didn't see it before. Where is it? How do you suppose, "ken" (@Beyond My Ken:), that a given user would ever be able to take care of their problem here if every time they try to say anything, they're immediately blocked indefinitely without warning? I'm not blocked (obviously), but whenever I try to create an account, it gets blocked. When I created 6 accounts in the same day, they all were blocked, as if I had been "abusing" the system, even though the system allows the 6 per address per day. That's just it! Why should all the accounts have been blocked if the system allows that? If that's just gonna be considered "abuse" anyway, then why don't they make the system not allow it? And how can you tell if it is so-called "abuse" or not? And if they are considered so-called "abuse," then why block all of them instead of leaving one--whichever one you guys would consider to be the "okay" one (like first one or whatever)--unblocked, because it would be the one that wasn't "violating"? So then I tried just 2, and they got blocked. So then when I just try one after that, should that one be blocked too? Why shouldn't even one stay unblocked because it's not "violating"? 75.162.237.213 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2015 (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.

Alleged personal attack from admin-impersonator

WP:DFTT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify 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. Okay, what is user:Beyond My Ken doing acting like an admin by moving my ANI posts on me and telling me what I "can't" do there, and then even answering things as if an admin? Also, this same NON-admin has resorted to incivility against me by calling me an idiot: "I'm not an admin.... Go away, you're an idiot. BMK (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)" 75.162.237.213 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC) This likely isn't the place to discuss this, but you are required to notify all reported parties of discussions here. I will be doing that now. - Amaury (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I have removed the transclusion of BMK's user page in the IP's question. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC) It looks like I used the wrong formatting symbols--{{}} instead of [[]]--to make a link out of someone's name. I thought I had already fixed those. 75.162.237.213 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) The IP is an IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift. This sort of tantrum following WP:Trolling is typical JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Any chance of getting a block against this block-evading, incompetent, trolling, probable sockpuppet? WP:NOTHERE seems like a reasonable ground for blocking. BMK (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I've created a report here. - Amaury (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Blocked for one month per WP:DUCK as prima facie evidence of block evasion.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:31, 25 March 2015 (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.

Serial copyright violator

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:Rick570 is a serial copyright violator. Most recently, Scholasticate [63].
Older examples:

Martin Reyners. [64] and [65]. notice on talk page.

Stephen A. Parke notice on talk page.

Russell Haley, Bob Orr (poet) and Murray Edmond. notice on talk page.

[66] [67]. notice on talk page.

User:Rick570/Francis Douglas. notice on talk page.

Even when copying is allowed by Creative Commons he fails to provide attribution. eg [User:Rick570/Michel Bouillot] [68].
See also: Sections of Sam Hunt (poet) (Icon) are taken from The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Literature (text available here). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since we have well over five instances of copyright violation, I have posted a request for a CCI investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. User has been notified. Thank you for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2015 (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.

personal attacks by Longtone

Longtone has been engaging in personal attacks against me on the trajan vuia page for some time now. most recently calling me an obsessive monomaniac [69] and accusing me of sockpuppetry [70], and going all the way back to his insulting me in edit sumaries [71]. This seems to be his way of trying to rectify a content dispute, but my concern here today is his personal attacks.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you mean TheLongTone, but at any rate...calling you a POV pusher isn't really a personal attack. And s/he even stated that s/he didn't call you a sock (although this is close). Both of y'all maybe need to cool off for a bit, but I don't really see anything warranting admin intervention here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} that no administrative action is necessary at this point. I think you would need to show a more severe pattern of name-calling, and un-civil behavior, etc. Before going to this forum, I think you should post an uncivil tag on the user's talk page, list the incident diffs and say you plan to take them to ANI if they continue along this line. As to the content dispute, you might try asking for a Third Opinion WP:THIRD. (revised) David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Nemes is an SPA solely concerned with pushing his POV re Train Vuia: this is in the face of a num,ber of editors opposing his edits. He does not engage with arguments on the talk page, merely acts hysterically. As he is doing here.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And I admit my deralings with Nemes have got snippy, but this is in the face of persistent failure to engage with issues on his part: he has also made accusations of improper behaviour agains me and other users, notably User:Binksternet.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is you and your fellow vandals(that's what stonewalling and tendentious editing are defined as) Binsternet and donfb who refuse to engage with arguments. And whining about content disputes is not the purpose of this page. you're a veteram editor, you should know that.Ion G Nemes (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's for the talk page, where you have made an obnoxious fool of yourself. Incidentally the IP who you claim is my sock is in Montreal. I think it's fairly obvious that I am not.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• To both of you: Please stop with the Ad_hominems. Calling each other names in this back and forth is not going to solve anything. Each of you should please review Wiki-Incivility and WP:ETIQ. You both need to provide diffs of the behavior you are accusing the other of.
• To TheLongTone (talk): You accused Ion G Nemes (talk) of being a SPA. However, I looked at Nemes's user contributions [here], and that is not correct. Please do not WP:BITE new users (to the page). This lends credibility to Nemes's accusations against you. Please review this policy guideline from WP:BITE:

Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so. For example, if a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade).

(revised) David Tornheim (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Read and understood. I admit that I have at times been uncivil in my reactions to the situation I find myself in. And although I do believe that gaming the system has occurred at times, I will not bring it up as an epithet, and restrict all mention of it to situations where it is actually necessary, and in such hopefully rare situations try to do so with tact. It is not my intention to bring allegations of tendentiousness against TheLongTone for any acts he has performed up to this time, I got mad and mentioned something which I honestly believe, but did and do not intend to pursue in his case. I have no idea how to 'strike out' a line of text, but anyone reading this should feel free to strike the word Vandals, and the parenthetical phrase after it(perhaps to be replaced by 'editors'), and to strike the word whining. And I am sorry for that post's tenor.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: However I do not believe I have ever called Thelongtone a sockpuppet at any time. And Since I have no Idea who he is, or where he's from, the whole Montreal thing is, frankly, confusing to me. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To Ion G Nemes (talk): Thank you for taking responsibility for your behavior. To strike out a section, add <s> immediately before the text and </s> at the end of the text as I did with this text which you can look at if you edit this page. See also Strikethrough.

-David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand by everything I have said. Nemes is to all effects a SPA, very few of his edits are anywhere else. And my other comments are fully justified by his conduct on Talk:Train Vuia. Why provide diffs: almost everythin posted is evidence of his foolish behaviour. Notably the familiar POV that an editor is upholding truth in the face of a cabal of POV pushers.TheLongTone (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I also do not understand why I am accused of biting a newcomer: Nemes has been editing since December 2010. Concetrating on Vuia and Henri Coanda, a very similar topic. This is slightly longer than I have been active on Wikipedia. TheLongTone (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother commenting on this matter, except that it involves an editor I've begun to notice and respect and I hate to see such editors getting themselves into trouble. Longtone, it's not a matter of what you think about the other editor, it's a matter of how you express it. You might think s/he is an SPA, a sock or any number of other things, but it's unproductive to start (or continue) an argument based on those views. That approach never works (I know, I've tried it). Deb (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I have never said anything about Nemes as a person: away from the topic he may very well be delightful. I have, I think, restricted my comments to his editing behaviour, which is I believe another matter. Iand I may have expressed myself robustly: I have not ever been abusive. Anyway, the whole thing is all too silly for words. Incidentally the person who said something about ad hominum comments clearly does not know what the term means.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For examples of Nemes' intemperate behaviour, see [72]. For evidence that his attitude towards Vuia is highly biased and refusal to back this opinion with sources, see [73].TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

TneLongTone, Exactly how can you say that calling me a fool, and insisting that I will definitely return under a number of sick personalities (a clearly unfounded attack, which I assert is an accusation of being a sock, after all if I were to post that an editor would just go home and molest his children if he wasn't banned I would certainly have accused him of being a child molestor. (this is not an accusation against any editor, but merely an example.) As to the diff you just supplied, I was attempting to get some action against the posting of alleged personal information on wikipedia, a practice which is supposedly taken quite seriously here (the results of my complaint would seem to belie this), and you showed up to make attacks upon me which were totally unrelated to the issue at hand. You did not address the issue in any way other than to say you knew nothing about it. This appears to be false, since you were at that time, and still probably are, watching that page quite closely and after the attack you immediately started echoing the allegations of my being a sock puppet that were contained therein. I don't think I need to post a diff for THIS since the diff you just supplied is an example, but I believe i can supply others if that is deemed necessary. As to my suggestion that it was wikistalking, are you saying that you just happened to stumble upon this by accident and decide to post abuse unrelated to the subject at hand? This does not just strain credulity, but actually ruptures it. I announced yesterday that I intended to take a wikibreak and return to the vuia page at some later date, but was informed that you seemed to be taking this as an opportunity to post allegations here of a questionable nature without having to worry about my questioning their veracity. So I'm back. Furthermore, as to the third diff I posted when opening this thread, I feel that calling an editor 'sweetie' when deleting his post is clearly abuse. I would like to know if it is the opinion of the editors here that calling a person 'sweetie' during a contentious disagreement is or is not abusive.Ion G Nemes (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

To LongTone: Nemes owned up to his/her behavior. You have not. Your continued accusation against Nemes as a SPA and POV pusher is not substantiated by evidence and is unproductive. Suggesting you need not provide diffs is equally unhelpful. As for the POV issues, that should go to the NPOV forum WITH EVIDENCE (diffs). With that said...

• support some admin. action againstwarning for TheLongTone -- Some message needs to be given to TheLongTone that his/her behavior is unproductive. I don't have a problem with TheLongTone continuing to edit at the page in question, but I think the uncivil behavior needs to be addressed , possibly with a stern warning and/or short term (1 day?) block.David Tornheim (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Çomment I'm sure that TheLongTone will reflect on choice of words when making points in future. There is nothing here which supports action against TheLongTone unless that action is a gentle encouragement to choose words more carefully. I see that Ion G Nemes is taking a break which IMHO is a good move. I will follow up on their talk page with some friendly advice. Please all take a deep breath and move on to edit with consensus. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

^Okay by me. I have toned down my recommendation accordingly.David Tornheim (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anybody here actually looked at Talk:Traian Vuia?? If they have, why has no account been taken of Nemes's long history of unproductive contribution to this page: I started off being extremely civil to him, and the admitted deterioration in my language has been a response to his intransigent failure to engage rationally with me or any other editor on the page. incidentally I don't think calling an editor 'sweetie' is abuse: I'll admit it's condescending and not the apogee of civility, but calling it abuse is pushing it. TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The essential point is that my admitted bad behaviour has been a response to Nemess behaviour, which has been bad from the start. Basically I have been provoked to the point where my patience has worn through.14:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I read over a bunch of Talk:Traian Vuia. It looks to me like the main problem is a recurring strong disagreement over what the secondary sources have to say about a "hop" or "flight" with increasing frustration over the disagreement of how the reliable sources describe it. Nemes gives the impression of more competence in the subject matter than others, but could have a bias that is not reflected in the sources. Rather than focus on behavior (this kind of arguing between you all is so common on Wikipedia unfortunately), the dispute might be resolved possibly with an RfC, where all the Reliable Sources for the statement in question are spelled out and the arguments for the two versions are clear? (possibly one from you; one from Blinkersnet; one from Nemes}. I would give my opinion now, but I did not feel like trying to figure out what source(s) you all were referring to and find the relevant quotes: that's your job. If you do that third parties can look at what you are arguing about and decide if one position makes significantly more sense. That would be done as an RfC on the page. But there might be another way to address it, such as bringing it to the NPOV notice board, or if there is a question of whether sources proposed should be used, bring it to the RS notice board. Are you willing to do any of these, @TheLongTone:? -David Tornheim (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See post below. Nemes's beef is solely with including the exact words used by a single OK but not particularly authoritative source. I have set forth my objection to this wording innumerable times. And I think that all the editors involved have a fair knowledge of early aviation, I see no reason to single out Nemes as particlarly 'competant'. Although he possibly knows morw about Romanian aviation.TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I read it also and I have posted advice to Ion G Nemes that they consider a self ban. I'm not sure there's any progress to be made arguing the issue here and suggest involved editors move on with good faith. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

First, TheLongTone was abusive from the start. It is convenient for him that this cannot be easily shown in diffs, so I'm not surprised that he is taking this tack. I'm not surprised that it appears to be a disagreement over 'hop' versus flight, because instead of making any posts over the last few weeks addressing the actual question being discussed, Binksternet has been posting unrelated statements about whether vuia ever flew(this is in part what I referred too as 'tendentious editing': It gives the superficial appearance of discussion, when it is in fact no such thing, just how can there be a consensus without discussion?). The debate is over whether the reference saying that 'according to some sources' Vuia flew on march 18, 1906 should be reflected in the article, or if it should be ignored. I am unaccustomed to cases where the references already sited on the article page are ignored in writing the article. And TheLongTone's assertion that in order to say this, I must personally find and show him references which say he didn't fly on March 18, 1906, seems to be a case of his refusing to accept an article in Air and Space Magazine by an aviation historian as a reliable source unless I do independent research to prove that he is in fact reliable. This cant is all the more difficult to understand since his original argument for changing the lede to remove all doubt that vuia flew on that date was that, "as far as I know, everybody accepts it." This seems to be a selective standard for references of the most pronounced sort. And Yes, I have certainly called vuia a liar, since he spent the last years of his life making claims so silly and at odds with reality that they can be characterized as nothing else: That he was the third man to ever build an aircraft engine, that he was the father of flight and after his hop of march 18 nothing was left to do in the development of flight but a few trivial details, that The wrights never flew without a catapult, That no one else ever achieved liftoff from level ground before March 18, 1906,And that a boiler he invented was being used in all existing thermal power stations (some sources say all Nuclear power stations)in the 1950s. I don't see why realizing that someone was a habitual liar should preclude editing his article. If other better know liars had their articles edited exclusively by those who chose to pretend he was of an honest nature, then those articles would be very different indeed. It should also be pointed out that the lying scumbag line appears so often on that board because TheLongTone keeps bringing it up rather than addressing the actual posts. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My final point is that you can look for justice or look for a solution. Personally, I find that agreeing on solutions is the better way to go. The suggestion to go to the NPOV forum is how I would proceed if you can't reach agreement here. Good luck to you all. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, posts on my talk page such as this do not argue for Nemes's good faith. Secondly, the wording and source that Nemes insists on, "some sources claim" is essentially weasel wording. It implies that "some sources deny", which Nemes resolutely fails to understand, and thinks is addressable by citing sources that fail to mention rather than deny. It's all too lame for words, since nobody is attempting to maintain anything other than that these claims rest on Vuia's own accounts. As said, all Nemes is battling about is the phrase "some sources claim" citing a website that uses those words. I could argue that using this words therefore constitutes copyvio, but really can't be bothered. TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

'According to some accounts' is the wording of the source. Perhaps if you feel that his article is 'weasel wording' you should explain to him why exactly why he is wrong, and why the magazine that this aviation historian writes for is actually a website (I am sure he would be glad to know that). As to your argument that quoting three words from the magazine in question constitutes copyright violation, if the administrators assembled here have even a cursory knowledge of copyright law, (I assume that they must have much more than that), then you're not gonna get too far with that one. I would assert that I am not required to do any vetting on a reliable source just because you don't like what it has to say. I would further assert that since we are not trained aviation historians we do not have access to the sources and means an aviation historian might use for research. There is more to research than 'just googling it' which in the case of vuia leads you to hundreds of reprints of the same basic claims on blogs and websites which are of dubious reliability. Furthermore, you are, in fact trying to suggest that these claims rest on something other than vuia's own accounts. That's why you asked sleeppillow to remove 'he said' from the lede in the first place. (based on your assertion that "as far as I know everybody accepts it"). This, ironically enough, was DonFB's earlier edit. In addition, you ask for proof, but when I pointed out that there is already a reference posted on the page which lists vuia's first flight as oct 8, 1906, your reply is that it doesn't say he didn't fly on March 18. So apparently you are demanding an article that lists all days when vuia didn't achieve a hop. It should be obvious that this is unlikely at best.

.......................................................................................................... I am sorry to have to waste so much time on this. I thought it would be possible to address the name calling and rudeness which started as soon as I tried to edit the page without making this an argument about the edits. But LongTone seems bound to bring up anything and everything, including his own personal views on copyright law. And does anyone know what's wrong with flat out? His constantly referring to me as a plural is strange.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a great deal of not assuming good faith in the above. Rferrring to nemes as 'they' is common usage where the gender of someone is not known. Not realising this makes me think that although Neme's command of English is very good, he/she may miss some nuances: this could explain why he/she does not see my onjection to his/her preferred wording. I don't like the allegation that I am canvassing or whatever. (That's why you asked sleeppillow to remove 'he said' from the lede in the first place. (based on your assertion that "as far as I know everybody accepts it" I assume you mean User:Steelpillow) And I have never tried to maintain that Vuia's claims rest on anything other than his accounts given to l'Aerophile. As far as research goes I don't just google it: I generally prefer print sources, of which I have a decent library and access to others. As for wasting time.....TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This request was brought to my attention when I got namechecked. It seems to me that the article history and talk pages show that the plaintiff, Ion G Nemes (talk · contribs), has been warring against consensus, making tendentious edit comments and seeking to promote their own beliefs over verifiable sources. Others in this spat probably ought to have been politer, but there is no doubt who is driving it. This request appears equally tendentious. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

EditorAliShah

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've been encouraged to take my vandalism report here:

• EditorAliShah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Longterm disruptive account, ignoring warnings and adding unsourced and erroneous content for months in numerous biographical articles--these are alternated with constructive edits, but the percentage is abysmal. I've reverted some of this user's edits, but the list of disruption is long. Requesting a block, and more eyes on this account's history with assistance in cleaning up the damage will be appreciated. Thank you, 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried filing a report on the vandalism noticeboard (WP:AIV)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that was my first choice of venue, and it was suggested I come here. 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  Just to confirm, this is the correct venue, despite Liz's question. AIV is inappropriate for this, because this editor's behavior is not vandalism per se. There's no evidence that the user in question is clearly trying to harm Wikipedia. Their edits may have that effect, but if it isn't intended as harm, it isn't vandalism. Other disruptive behavior should be discussed in other venues, such as this one. I have no comments on the merits of this case, except to state that Liz's idea to go to AIV would be incorrect. --Jayron32 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(2602, under different #) Some of the edits were plainly deceptive, as erroneous birth and death dates, sometimes decades off, were added. Others evidenced constructive intent, but a roughly fifty/fifty split is unacceptable. We've probably all seen this sort of edit history before, which I think is about adding something to the article, whether or not it's factual. In the end, if none of the edits are sourced, and the user has been advised of this several times over several months, then the conclusion is that it's not a productive account. 2602:302:D89:C79:65DF:E4AE:52AA:D9F0 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Iskander Mirza was my great grand father and in the history, children = Mirza Kaleech and 5 more , Kaleech means prick in Urdu, Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AliTheHacker his alternative account most likely . Danger^Mouse (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the observations, which help to confirm that this is not solely a well-meaning account. Also not surprised by the possibility that this user would have taken on multiple accounts for this purpose. 2602:302:D89:C79:A4B8:894A:89B7:5639 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing after he created another hoax page despite having been given sufficient advice and warnings.  —SMALLJIM  12:34, 25 March 2015 (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.

Ongoing irrelevant personal attacks by Hijiri88, time for sanctions?

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.

---

Enough is enough. User:Hijiri88 has seemingly developed some sort of grossly counterproductive insistence on grossly misusing article talk pages to continue to engage in attacks on another editor, specifically, User:Catflap08. The most recent act of this insistence on using article talk pages for the purpose of impugning and insulting others can be seen here. There has been discussion with him, still present on his article talk page, as well as other comments about misuse of the article talk page on the Daisaku Ikeda talk page, about his insistent attempts to belittle others for seemingly no purpose but belittling them. I think the time may well have come to impose an interaction ban on that editor and Catflagp08. I honestly have no reason to believe that Hijiri88 is capable of recognizing his insistence off-topic attempts at bullying are unacceptable here, and think that the time has probably come for outside input to stop his insistent attacks. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Calling a spade a spade has never been a personal attack. I'm finding it hard to work out how much you follow Hijiri around, and how much you just happen to have already edited the article/talk pages in question. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Although I note the obvious assumption of bad faith in the above, I think I should note that any article I edit is added to my watch list, and that when I see an editor who has shown repeated inability to abide by basic rules of civility, and seemingly be proud of that, it is not unresonable to see if the individual has continued in the same behavior. Ignoring the unstated but obvious insinuations in the above comment regarding my own motives, and the fact that somehow there seems to be an implicit view that I am in someway actively stalking Hijiri, which I categorically deny, I would appreciate it if further comments actually in some way directly dealt with the questions raised here. If others wish to raise further quetions in separate threads or subthreads, of course, they are free to do so. But I do think that Hijiri has displayed enough lack of recognition of his own inability to abide by basic TPG or general behavioral rules in this case justify consideration of an interaction ban, possibly in this case a mutual interaction ban. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't "insinuating" anything - I was calling you out on what appears to be a series of stalkerish behaviour. I'm losing count of the number of times I see an ANI notification come up in my watchlist from either you or Catflap08, but the fact that no action has ever been taken should give you a hint as to how little of a case you really have. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• And, frankly, I am losing count of the number of times you have been the first responder as well. I also note that your attempt to "call me out" seems to itself perhaps qualify as stalking. Also, honestly, your own comment seems to show that you perhaps do not understand that when behavior continues despite repeated warnings, it is generally accepted as reasonable to take action to prevent it, and that every continuation of such behavior is in fact grounds for potentially further continuation. So, while noting your own behavior in this instance, which could itself perhaps be seen as "stalking" of a sort, implicit in your comment above, I once again ask, as I did above, if you believe you have grounds for criticism, please have the good grace to start them in a separate section. Also, please note that in most instances, when repeated warnings have been given and ignored, as is very obviously the case here, consideration of sanctions to end the disruption is, in general, considered reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• So you're descending into trolling now? Good job. I've commented on a grand total of two of these threads, and I was clearly not the first person to comment last time. I also happened to be browsing ANI (against my better judgement) when this thread was opened, as I have done a few times today - my contribution history also shows this. So, in other words; cut the crap, please. I'm not the one, after all, who keeps filing ANI threads over and over again on the same user, even when their previous threads have found nothing actionable. Methinks you should go and find something better to do with your time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I only note that your "excuses" are really no better than my own, which you have summarily rejected. I also note the immediate escalation into rather unfounded personal attacks by the rather laughable addition of the obviously PA "trolling" word above. To paraphrase your own rather obnoxious language, cut the crap and either file a real complaint or please act in accord with conduct guidelines and refrain from descending into personal attacks and unfounded judgments on others in what are rather straw man arguments against them. And I note, despite your claims to not doing things "over and over," not one of the comments you have already made here "over and over" actually directly relate the questions being raised. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• "And, frankly, I am losing count of the number of times you have been the first responder as well." - this was the first time I had done so. So, yeah, you're clearly trolling. Again, calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my error, if it is true, although I do note the frequency and rapidity with which you jump to conclusions about others, and although I notice that you have still refused to make any sort of direct response to the questions made, and that on that basis there is every reason to think that calling you by any number of comments which might otherwise qualify as personal attacks would be just calling a spade a spade as well. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wish my semi-retirement was that active!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I also note what might be seen as reasonable that according to the article history page here Hijiri88 himself may have edited the article only once recently, while Catflap08 has edited it repeatedly, so, if there are to be accusations against me for not attempting to improve the article directly, so the same statement might be made about Hijiri88 and his commenting on an article he has rarely if ever directly attempted to improve as well. And, FWIW, it is also generally considered reasonable to watch controversial articles more closely, and the topic of Soka Gakkai is obviously a controversial one. And other recent discussion, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive218#Daisaku Ikeda, seems to have perhaps done a better job of vindicating Catflap08 than at least some others involved, possibly including Hijiri88. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So... what's this about again? Preferably in short sentences/clauses which those of us who have no idea what you're going on about might have a chance of following? Speak to the audience, not each other. Begoon ^talk 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the history of derogatory comments on both sides, as indicated by the comments at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa, Talk:Daisaku Ikeda, and multiple warnings on user talk pages, including at least one specific warning from me to Hijiri88 that if the attacks continued I would seek an i-ban, I am requesting consideration of whether there are sufficient grounds to a mutual interaction ban between Catflap08 and Hijiri88. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I understood that. I endorse Swarm's action below. Begoon ^talk 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Let's stay on topic...I don't find Hijiri's comments on in the discussion you linked to to be quite as severe as you're making them out to be. Yeah, you're supposed to focus on content, not contributors, and he's clearly accusing Catflap of inappropriate behavior regarding article content. I don't see it as an outright spiteful personal attack in need of sanctions. Regardless, I will message this user on their talk page explaining our behavioral expectations. Swarm ^X 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question is although regarding his continuing to be involved at the Ikeda page, which he himself has not made any particularly visible contributions to, and his ongoing insistance on making attacks for no apparent reason other than wanting to make attacks. He has, as said, never shown any particular interest in that article other than to impugn Catflap08, and that is perhaps worth taking some sort of action to change. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

John, I love you, but is that even English? Begoon ^talk 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is English of a grossly repetitive, redundant, sort, particular for those of us who are more used to speaking in Martian languages for the past few centuries. ;) John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I've been exposed to English, Martian and Bollocks in one day. Who said this wasn't a multilingual project? Begoon ^talk

• I left him a very clear message regarding this, if he continues despite an administrative warning it'll be a different story, but I think we should AGF for now—he's within his rights to comment and we should assume he's doing so in good faith. However I made it clear that he's expected to refrain from commenting on contributors and pursue good faith concerns about other editors' behavior through proper channels, not on talk pages. Swarm ^X 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. The thread can probably be closed. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (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:Rowdyjewellery

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 was banned for being promotion-only account on 16 March, however they are continuing to user talk page for promotion here. Please can you revoke talkpage access? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2015 (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.

Afrikaansftw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Afrikaansftw --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've warned the editor and will monitor their contributions. If an admin wants to go on ahead and block them as a vandalism-only account, that's one less tab for me to refresh. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mlpearc disruptive editing

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.

---

Mlpearc reverting edits which contain proper citation and good faith without reason simply to facilitate personal Point of View. Violations Include the following:

• [74]
• [75]
• [76]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencegoriel (talk • contribs) 19:09, March 25, 2015‎ (UTC)

You are clearly still pushing your POV, We (other editors and myself) spent most of yesterday trying to point out that, you can not just show up and change things to your liking, with that editing method you're going to need community consensus for 95% of the edits you are making. Note the open report above Mlpearc (open channel) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As well as building up a 'case file' against other editors on his TP, insulting them, and not accepting his own lack of good faith of course. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrencegoriel, you seem to exhibit battleground behavior. When there is a difference of opinion about article edits, you go to the article talk page and discuss it with other editors to reach a consensus. If you find yourself in an edit war, stop reverting and, if appropriate, file a complaint at WP:AN3. If there are debates about your sources, go to WP:RSN and get an outside opinion. But content disputes are not settled at WP:ANI. You need to work it out amongst all editors involved or, if you can't reach a consensus to make the edits, you need to learn to live with the article the way it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

My talk page is mine to do with as I please, as written in the guidelines. The purpose of my talk page, at the moment, is to document all of the research that shows that my contributions are made strictly on factual basis, whereas, the use of the Assyrian name is Point of View editing. My sources come from non-Chaldean, non-biased and educated writers who have no personal interests in making a claim for one thing or another. The citations used on most Assyrian claims are made by Assyrians, for Assyrians. If you are going to argue with me, please take the time to research your statements before you make them. In the meantime, I expect the same amount of respect any seasoned editor would receive when makes changes based on credible sources. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• "My talk page is mine to do with as I please, as written in the guidelines." Which guideline says that? Could you quote it for us, we'd love to be edumukat'd.--198.201.2diff=5658518503.10 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. Compared to article talk pages, there aren't a lot of guidelines about user talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of that guideline. No where in it does it say anything about 'My talk page is mine'. I asked Lawrence to quote the line he believe says this. The line he quoted is about user pages, not user talk pages.--198.201.23.10 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Tide sums it up quite nicely. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you can't defend your actions so you want to talk about what I'm doing on my talk page. Cool --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's just a boomerang...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fortuna, please stop adding your disruptive and unproductive comments to all of my talk page discussions. I never had any dealings with you and don't know who you are or why you are ruthlessly harassing me multiple times a day. Please remove yourself from my discussions. Thank you. --Lawrencegoriel (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2015 (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.

Paid editor, editing warring

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.

---

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

OK, Pmesiti is an actual paid editor, as revealed by an angry comment on another editor's talk page. - a PR rep for a politician, Bernie Finn.

Is slowburn edit warring at the article (blanking section on his Views)

• 16 June 2014 dif
• 1 September 2014 dif
• 1 September 2014 dif
• 23 March 2015 dif
• 23 March 2015 dif
• 25 March 2015dif
• 26 March 2015 dif

• Has never used their own Talk page User_talk:Pmesiti nor the article Talk page - has not responded to nor acknowledged COI notices nor edit warring notices. Nothing.

• Has not responded at the COIN posting either.

• In my view, this is a disruptive, paid editor who has not actually declared per the ToU. Please indeff. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban (or at the very least a topic ban) for repeated deletion of sourced content achieved by consensus, and failure to engage. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban and per above least a topic ban, this isn't a place to push your own views. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, not a site ban. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I added userlinks to Pmesti above. I forgot to note that the account is a SPA. All it does, is Bernie Finn. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• This message says all. I was going to (temporarily) block this user, but users have suggested to ban him. Don't know what they meant by " if I am banned I will take it further" --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indeffinite block - per WP:SPA. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block. Send him to the outback. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. He either doesn't know or doesn't care what Wikipedia is all about, but at any rate, the diff Tito posted indeed says it all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Obvious WP:NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block, to be lifted only on the editors clearly demonstrating having a clue and promising not editing his clients' page.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely. --John (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2015 (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:Lawrencegoriel personally attacking User:Kathovo

Lawrencegoriel's blatant attack on Kathovo here: [77]. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawrencegoriel is using his talk page to create, well, it's more than an article, it is basically mustering a defense against those he disagrees with ("The above information serves as documentation of instances where Assyrian Nationalists have used unjustified and unethical methods to remove the Chaldean name from history. Do not delete it, alter it or edit it in any way, shape or form. Please feel free to start topics in Open Discussion section below.").

I deleted the content and posted some information regarding user talk page guidelines (here) where I recommend he move this to a Sandbox but he reverted my edits and keeps adding more material. I realize that editors are allowed a lot of leeway on their user pages (WP:OWNTALK) but I think this conduct should be discouraged and it's clear my words went unheeded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What we have here is a new editor not familiar with our process (has passed 3rv just today on one article). I have gotten the editor to the article talk page...lets see what happens. My main concern here is POV editing...not sure why they keep removing mention of Assyrians from the population of Mosul. I have no problem with listing Chaldean but not ok with blanking mention of Assyrians when it comes to the population of the city. My main concern is the editor is not familiar with the topic at hand...as he mentions hes trying to find the truth on his user page. The editor has a clear problem with Assyrians again this is mentioned on his user page. .Will just move forward slowly showing them sources as we go. -Moxy (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole topic area of everything touching on the so-called "Assyrian" ethnicity and the ethnic in-fighting between the expatriate offshoots of its various subgroups has been a cesspit of tendentious editing for years, and unfortunately this has been escalating in recent months (probably because expatriate communities have become ever more thin-skinned in view of the terrible events afflicting their countries of origin). I strongly favour a zero-tolerance approach to every form of disruption in the area, be it from new editors or established ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Mlpearc; "Aren't we full of ourselves" did nothing but fan the flames. I strongly suggest you reconsider making similar comments in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure of talk-page discussion

Would someone be willing to close Talk:Laurence Olivier#Infobox to put this argument to rest? Alakzi (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need closing, it just needs you to hit the road and it will cease to exist.Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This article's Talk page makes it clear that there's a long-running content dispute going on at Laurence Olivier. I suggest ANI steer well clear of this. --IJBall (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is "long-running" but it is still an active discussion. I know a couple admins are checking in on it and it is probably better that someone who has been following this dispute close the question about hidden text. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit warriors on that page, on such a trivial matter as an infobox, fer cryin' out loud, should be put on ice for a suitable interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't quite get the battle over infoboxes, ←Baseball Bugs, but this dispute is actually about placing hidden text on an article forbidding editors from placing an infobox on the page. It's the wording (and the all caps) of the text that needs changing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And that debate is even sillier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No close, the article's been unprotected and the usual suspects are back to edit warring. What can I say? Alakzi (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The "usual suspects" are a cadre of malcontents who band together to defend each other's behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Creator of article repeatedly removes WP:SPEEDY tag even though he is specifically instructed not to on the tag.

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.

---

Table-lookup synthesis was created about a month ago by User:Clusternote as a content fork. The editor wants to establish, using Wikipedia, his own spin on terminology that does not exist in the discipline. No one else had made substantive contributions to the article. It is OR. It is worthy of a discussion regarding whether or not the article should exist at all. But, rather than have the discussion, the editor is doing everything he can to quash it. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the one trying to avoid discussion is you, since you keep battling to have the page speedy-deleted. This page does not qualify for WP:A11 speedy deletion: it is neither obviously invented by Clusternote (despite your unfounded allegation) nor does it fail to make a credible claim of significance. I have sent it to AfD - feel free to discuss there. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2015 (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.

Requested mass rollback

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 mistakenly unlinked (using Twinkle) all backlinks to WP:Sandbox. I'm sorry. Request a mass rollback. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's done. May need to be checked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It managed to trip quite a few edit filters so attracted quite a bit of attention. Edits to templates have been reverted (manually). Amortias (T)(C) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• With your permission, may I add you to the Village stocks? KonveyorBelt 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like a trout is in order. Maybe not village stocks, but no one has offered our favorite seafood yet? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Konveyor Belt: Yes, you may! SD0001 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (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.

Copyright violations by User:Tjmayerinsf

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

I haven't looked at this too thoroughly, but it appears User:Tjmayerinsf is a non-communicative serial copyright infringer. Most recently [78] was copied from [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2287170]. I'm seeing a string of copyright warnings e.g. [79][80] dating as far back as 2007, with some of them possibly contested. MER-C 12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a couple more things: a copy vio plot on The Satin Woman, and material in Mikhail Petrenko (bass) copied from here (this one is not certain, as the Wayback Machine archived it on the same date the content was added here). That's with spot checks back to the beginning of January. I don't think there's enough to warrant opening a case. I will post on the user talk page and will monitor his contribs. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding user space page

Is it really appropriate to compile diffs for presentation to ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated is being done at User:Tgeairn/NPA diffs, or considering the fact that the content is under DS, should any such complaints be raised at the appropriate locations as the concerns are raised, and could such a collection of material be seen as being a form of WP:ATTACKPAGE? John Carter (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:USER, but so long as the compilation intends to be used before any of the diffs go stale, I'm pretty sure it's allowed. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think your second sentence might be the more relevant one here. As it's purported purpose is to raise concerns at AE and ANI, which are more or less intended for immediate response, isn't it some what inherently dubious to basically collect grievances which one is apparently not willing to act on, or which perhaps are not worthy of being acted on? Collecting evidence for ArbCom is certainly well-precedented and acceptable, but I don't know that I've ever seen a collection specifically intended for ANI or AE, as is explicitly stated here. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb is a week or two before a diff goes stale, so the timeline remaining on this is running out (oldest diff I noticed is from 10 days ago). It could possibly get WP:CSD'd or WP:MfD'd once any of the diffs on the page go past 14 days, despite the 90-day notice on the page. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 22:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:POLEMIC The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. ANI and AE are part of the dispute resolution process (albeit the tail end), so it's OK for that. "Timely" is subject to interpretation, but if you believe it's been around too long without being used, or unlikely to be used soon, bringing it to MfD would allow a consensus to determine whether the "timeliness" factor had been breached. BMK (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note that Arbcom frequently simply blanks userspace evidence pages after closing the case. For instance, User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence (at this revision) contains some diffs that are years old. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just curious, BMK, what do you think about User:DHeyward/My Fan Club? If the information is not actually used for the DR process, should it be proposed for deletion in two weeks? Right now, it seems like an enemies list even though the wording is exceedingly polite so it can't be seen as an attack page even if that is its purpose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: It looks to me like an "enemies list" which are strictly forbidden. It should go to MfD after DHeyward is asked on his talk page to delete it himself, which I will do now. BMK (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left DHeyward a message asking him to delete the page. [81]. BMK (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not optimistic that he'll choose to delete the page but I appreciate you assessing the situation and offering your perspective on it, BMK. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward deleted my request without comment, so I've nominated the page for deletion here. BMK (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The evidence page under discussion here is a list of diffs and quotes with little or no interpretation, has a clear intent, and has a deletion date (with a clearly stated request for any admin to delete after that date). --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the Ebionites 2 page for deletion if you so see fit, but I think it is also true that user pages which are actively used in arbitration cases, such as the one you link to, are different as they contain some of the evidence used in the arbitration. I also note that your comments do not address the matter of the use of the word "timely", even though you seem to have perhaps somewhat arbitrarily decided 90 days qualifies as timely, and I think, under the circumstances, as the person collecting the material, you are probably not the best person to determine how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely (although I'd suggest a better title e.g. "sandbox3"). . There's a falsehood on the page: The page is not linked elsewhere by its creator; see link on WP:EW. NE Ent 22:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NE Ent. I have corrected the (already closed) ANEW filing and notified the closing admin of the mistaken link, with a recommendation that they reconsider the outcome of the filing if appropriate. Given that the ANEW report considered an editor that was edit warring on my user page and on the subpage we are discussing here, it is likely that the closing admin would have seen the page anyway. That does not change that it was an entirely inappropriate mistake on my part to link to it as evidence in the ANEW filing. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean at WP:EWN, right? John Carter (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct - WP:ANEW and WP:EWN are both shortcuts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks for making sure. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor making a series of personal attacks

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:Marcos12 appears to be not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to make various personal comments and attacks against other editors, namely myself. They have edit-warred on other user talk pages to repeatedly insert said personal attacks. They have falsely edited my talk page posts in a juvenile and disparaging manner. This appears to stem from a disagreement as to sourcing in the Violet Blue article, but I am at a loss to explain their overtly-hostile response and their immediate resort to personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion. I have repeatedly requested that the user refrain from making these personal attacks, but they have thus far refused. I request appropriate administrative action be taken against the user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe one of the particular insults in this is a reference to contents this suppressed edit. I might be mistaken though, as I'm working from memory. — Strongjam (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am Latino, and I am PROUD of that fact. It has no basis in what we are talking about here. Just to put things i perspective, I have a six year old son, and a twelve year old son. From time to time, they look at wikipedia. Today I was met by my 12 year old, Jeff, with tears in his eyes asking me "Dad, why does this man hate you so much?" and pointing to the latest comment NBSB made on my page. Furthermore I have NEVER edited NBSB talk page in a juvenile manner, and when I edited MY OWN TALK PAGE, I IMMEDIATELY realized my mistake and self-reverted. The level of hate being directed toward me is unbelievable. NBSB claims I have edit warred on other users talk pages to disparage him - RUBBISH. I was very clear that the situation I had outlined (trouser-fouling) had NO basis in real life. NONE. The disclaimer was in BOLD PRINT at the top and bottom of said comment. Can someone please gie me the benefit of the doubt here??? I STOPPED editing Gamergate in an effort to do the right thing and was met with immediate hostility.

Furthermore, User:strongjam lied and accused me of making personal attacks (exclusive of anything dealing with NBSB) [82]. Why is he allowed to call me a liar with NO BASIS in fact for his accusations???? Marcos12 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Marcos12: That statement is referring to the comments you wrote about NBSB. — Strongjam (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Ok, I understand that. But Strongjam, please! I went to NBSB talk page and (I'm paraphrasing here) said "I am truly sorry for offending you in any way. I am going through a personal crisis, and sometimes y emotions bleed through to wikipedia. There is no excuse, however I would ask for your forgiveness as until last night, we have had eseentially zero interaction". I know of no other way to apologize for an argument that became too heated. I have stepped away from Gamergate. I have listened to your suggestions. And yet, this morning I had to have another talk with my 12 year old son about how hate still exists in this world, and that hate is magnified for people of color like us. Let's try to BUILD an encyclopedia here. I'm game! I will listen to anyone's suggestions provided they arent threats and intimidation. Marcos12 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be a shining example of the Chewbacca defense by an obvious troll, and I trust that responding administrators will detect its transparent nature. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that Marcos12 is here to improve the encyclopedia. --Jorm (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to assume frustration from most of the diffs in isolation, but this one screams WP:NOTHERE if someone doesn't presents some evidence of that editor's usefulness. Looking through on my own, I'm seeing an almost singular focus on attempting to legitimize Gamergate (continuing up to yesterday), and BLP violations (one of them revdel'd) on an article about a female author who focuses on sexuality. That makes me suspect that we need to at least topic ban the editor from any pages relating to feminism, female sexuality, and any living women (even both transwomen and transmen, simply because they have become or were identified as women at some point). Given how broad such a ban is, and the personal attacks, a block would be less trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed with Ian.thomson, I think that he should be blocked for [83] VandVictory (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jorm for your opinion. NBSB - is it not true that I made FOUR separate attempts to apologize to you ON YOUR USER PAGE? All were reverted and ridiculed. Every single time I attempt to make a civilized overture I am met with scorn and contempt. Yes, I went to a community college - does that make me LESS of an editor???? I am the first man in our family to graduate from college. Yes, again, I am PROUD of that fact. Even if I could have gotten into to U Penn, I would not have been able to afford the tuition, but the point is this is all window dressing and distraction. There is NO" Chewbacka defense". I have been ridiculed regularly both on-wiki and more importantly OFF WIKI [84].

My final request is this - find someone who is vehemently ANTI gamergate and ask them if ANY of my edits EVER have been in bad faith. Ask them! I trust my fellow editors will tell the truth. Yes, we have had robust discussions, but they never denegrated to hatred until NBSB waded into the fray. Marcos12 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between other editors showing patience and your behavior being acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian, I TOTALLY agree about this one, except that you are missing the fact that I IMMEDIATELY self-reverted literally 3 seconds later. It was done in frustration. I agreed to walk away from GG and I DID. Blocking me from all these other topics makes no sense man! I've been above-board the whole time, albeit my opinions go against the mainstream. Can I humbly ask for a week long block and then let me come back as a full user??? Marcos12 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the purpose of blocks is prevention, not punishment. You've demonstrated little interest in anything except pushing a chauvinist POV, and a week long block would not fix that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with User:VandVictory - [85] is well over the line of appropriate conduct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Simom223: Simom, please, did you read the BOLD PRINT disclaimer I made at the bottom of the edit. I was very clear my statements did not refer to anyone in particular and that they were fiction. Also, did you see the off-wiki collaboration where I have been threatened, doxed, ridiculed, and accused of abuse?? http://sealionsofwikipedia.com/?p=335 Marcos12 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious case. I have not idea what invoking "Latino" or "community college" has to do with anything, so many red herrings here it starts to make a shoal.Jeppiz (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

May I make one humble request? May I be allowed to resign? Marcos12 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as resignation here. You could have stopped editing at any point, but you didn't. Even if you quit now, I still support a block of your account so you can't just waltz back here once you think we've forgotten about you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake then PLEASE block me for a few weeks rather than indefinitely. PLEASE. Marcos12 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A new diff. Refactoring NBSB comment. — Strongjam (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam, I can't stop other people from EDITING MY TALK PAGE. Marcos12 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a problem if you weren't a chauvinist troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, that means obvious troll is obvious. I think we've got a clear consensus to indefinitely block Marcos12. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Resignation per se is always possible. You can put up a retired banner on your page. My view is that indef blocks and bans should be a last resort. That said there is no doubt that marcos has crossed the line and we need to address this. To which end I...

...support a 30 day block with a warning to stay clear of subjects that are likely to provoke intemperate responses and a very clear further warning that if this subject has to be revisited ever again, that he will be blocked indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support finite block so the user can take the dog for a walk. The most recently posted diff, in which the user edited a no personal attacks warning template to insert a new personal attack, shows a shocking lack of self-awareness, and then claims it wasn't them (it was - anyone can read the diff). I do strongly suspect that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia but I have to grant that this tantrum seems to be an isolated incident. However, they're on the path to a ban if they keep this up. Ivanvector (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd be more open to that if he had demonstrated any interests outside of Gamergate and Violet Blue, or if his edits there weren't full of serious POV problems; and if he hadn't engaged in this sort of behavior after this thread started. The begging sounds like every other troll I've heard in the past who does that to lull us into thinking they won't come back under that account (and others) right.

As it is, since he's been of little (if any) use to the site, and his behavior since this thread started indicates either trolling or terminal WP:CIR issues. Support block, preferably indefinite. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• In light of this diff, I strongly support indefinite block. Already showed to have a bad attitude, the user deliberately vandalise while this discussion is ongoing, and then even have the nerve to come up with this [86]. The user is clearly not here to build a Wikipedia, and the last diff shows that the user has no intention of being honest with us. If there's a finite ban, I'd suggest six months.Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Your second link should be this [87] I think. — Strongjam (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Of course, thanks for spotting it! Now corrected.Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, tusks, tusks, everywhere. Hear me out, I Oppose any sanctions if the user is genuinely sorry for their previous actions and promises they will not repeat their actions. From what I hear, the user is genuinely sorry for their actions, and they have stated they will make constructive edits if they are not blocked. Remember, Sanctions are preventive, not punitive. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Given the ArbCom's recent re-affirmation that they want their sanctions applied ridiculously broadly, and that NBSB has been widely covered in the sources as someone being targeted by gg trolls and therefore within a broad application of the sanctions, and given Marcos12's fixation on GG topics, and given that Marcos12 JUST GOT BACK from a gg related block, the "genuinely sorry" seems not applicable - a strong application of the tools available for minimizing disruption should be applied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Where was NBSB covered in the sources? Just curious. Other than that, I am going to go the fuck away, as I feel I have just done something horribly wrong. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2015 (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.

Personal attack by Nagakura shin8

Whilst I am not afraid of robust debate, I was shocked by the vitriol in this edit by Nagakura shin8 (talk}. I have seen editors receive lengthy blocks for far less. I would think a 24 hour block might be appropriate as a shot across the bows. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that's pretty nasty, but it's hardly unprovoked. As to the dispute, the Australian pronunciation of "emu" may be dominant (as a Canadian, I pronounce it as you describe - even though I say "jaguar" with two syllables and otherwise agree with American pronunciation in many respects), but I don't think I can support calling any pronunciation "incorrect" if it's the established pronunciation of a major body of speakers. It's just variant pronunciation, just like variant spelling. And heaven knows Wikipedia has seen enough arguments over that. It hardly surprises me that another editor might take exception to that, even if the response is disproportionate. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not bring this matter here to resolve the content dispute. If I have over stepped the line on conduct, I will take my licks, but I at least tried to keep my comments civil. However, Ns8's response is way out of proportion to anything I said and is disparaging and deeply offensive. That is the matter I brought here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of civility in your comment, Nick, I see anti-American insults. If you attack Americans (or any other nationality) in that way, you should not be surprised to see them fight back. And you shouldn't come complaining if you can't take what you dish out. Squinge (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare the two editors' remarks. While neither is civil, Nagakura shin8's second comment is a completely over-the-top response. Additionally, it was he/she that first brought up the American vs. Australian comparison that Nick Thorne then responded to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy IRL. I apologise unreservedly for for any offence caused by my comments. BTW, the content issue is largely resolved, I think. However, I am disturbed by this. I am not perfect but I have heard and heed the advice given here and on my talkpage, I will strike the offending words. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gotta love the social norms around here. WP:NPA is policy, but has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. Just go on your merry ways. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• No one said NPA has no bearing if both parties are insulting each other. But we have to remember that there are living, breathing people behind every account. Disputes can get heated. Most people will get offended if they feel insulted, and many will respond by returning fire. It just happens. In this case, both parties provoked each other with very serious and cutting insults. While Nick's comments were certainly more passive-agressive reserved I don't think they were any less offensive to Nagakura, and he has no grounds to come here and ask for a one-way block when he's equally at fault for escalating the dispute. I recognize and appreciate him redacting his comments and apologizing, that's the civil thing to do and the correct course of action. But it doesn't change the fact that he's partially at fault for the situation blowing up to begin with. We could certainly dish out blocks here in terms of severe personal attacks, but I think both editors have already cooled off and the actual dispute seems to already be resolved. I don't think a block would serve as a preventative measure in this case. Swarm ^X 18:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• While this level-headed approach seems wisdom on the surface, I've been here long enough to know it's a failed way of handling such disputes. It simply doesn't work. A polite tap on the wrist saying "please don't do that again" doesn't work. If someone is able to be riled up by what a completely unknown person (to them) says about them or something they care about, they've got serious problems with being able to hold their tongue. The behavior exhibited in such cases will happen again; the characters in question will have too quick of a trigger finger. In this particular case, we're seeing it continue right before our eyes. With this edit we're seeing not only continued gross incivility after this thread here on AN/I had begun, but a threat to continue in the future; "don't include insults to other countries ... and your country won't be insulted. It's not really very difficult" Meanwhile, just the mere beginnings of a cursory review of Nagakura shin8's edits show other incivility [88]. I'm finding other evidence of incivility on his part as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC:)

Agree with Nick Thorne on this one. I don't think that kind of nastiness is acceptable, no matter what was said before. I do not agree with the above response by the IP user that it was "hardly unprovoked." I saw what Nick wrote and, as an American, was not offended in the least. Additionally, responding this way makes Americans look a lot worse than anything Nick Thorne said. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest IAC meatpuppet

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.

---

122.162.28.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:Nakon. Might be worth revoking tp access if its anything like the rest of them. Amortias (T)(C) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (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.

Legal threats by MitchOssimPants

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 may be minor, but User:MitchOssimPants' user page says "...or you will be sued". An IP blanked/modified the page twice, and I reverted it with huggle until I saw it was a threat. This is from three years ago, I don't know the statue of limitations of the matter. Kharkiv07^Talk 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the page as WP:CSD#U5 and left a message on their talk page. Apparently the account was created merely to stake a claim to the name, which is problematic enough if they're not otherwise editing, plus the legal threat was just too much. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:51, 26 March 2015 (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.

Wikipedia:Rita Sullivan

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, Can someone with a mop move this back to Rita Sullivan. I think i've tagged all the other unnessecary redirects but i cant move it back. Amortias (T)(C) 23:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• User:EurekaLott did it. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2015 (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:86.145.107.226

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.

---

Please block 86.145.107.226 (talk · contribs) whom I met edit warring on Promised land and according to his talkpage is involved in numerous other edit wars. His most recent edits seem to be the useless additions of spaces. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please use WP:ANEW for reports like this. --Jayron32 01:36, 27 March 2015 (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.

Removal of incident

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.

---

Would an administrator kindly mark an issue as "Resolved" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:GeorgeLouis_reported_by_User:Purplebackpack89_.28Result:_.29? I removed myself from the discussion about the contested issue for a period of one week, and it has now been eight days. Thank you? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Former name George Louis)

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.

Where is this user copy/pasting this from?

User:Apismell2015 is copy/pasting information into the European dark bee article [89] given the way it has clear attempts at in-line citation and speaks from the point of view "we" ("We have information also about the large populations of this bee in the Altai Region of the Republic of Udmurtia."), however, my Google-fu can't find it. How should I handle this? [90] --DawnDusk (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me add that now WP:3RR should be fully enforced (him reverting both myself and ClueBot, God bless), and that I've left several messages on the man's talk page before this, but he's bent on making edits to this article with no summary whatsoever. Judging by the username and style, he's definitely an eastern poster; I have a bit of experience with them already [91] so don't think I'm ignorant here... DawnDusk (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find they are one of the authors from the sources they cite. If 3RR is exceeded report at AN3. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

From the username (Apis mellifera?), it seems like this is probably an SPA. I agree that the user is probably a researcher citing his or her own work, which would probably make this person a Russian scientist – but who knows. The lack of communication, poor formatting, and undue weight on Russian history are all problematic, but I don't see any evidence that this is a copyright violation. It's a pain to deal with these kinds of situations because you can never truly know what's going on. You could try DRN if you think the additions are undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Alleasynet

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.

---

Abuse of talk page after block. Please revoke talk page access. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh... I can't see any edits made to the talk page after the block was put in place, the only edit I can see is the one before the block. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No edits after the one you reverted, just my block notice. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:02, 26 March 2015 (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.

Close? Not close?

With reference to this proposal. I feel like it needs more votes, but it's been open most of a month already...not sure the bot's not about to archive it. ResMar 15:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there hasn't been any substantive debate since 19 March, so keeping it open would just drag it out for no reason. I think the bot will archive it but only when it's been inactive for (is it 2 weeks?) - you could request a close at WP:AN to at least get an evaluation of the discussion. The result looks fairly clear to me but I'm neither an admin nor an experienced closer. Ivanvector (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking and original research

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

IP user User:123.100.149.51 (Talk) has repeatedly made edits of unexplained blanking and original research with an apparent right-wing viewpoint over a period of several months in at least the following recent examples:

10 February: Unexplained blanking: Christianity and politics (diff here)

10 February: Unexplained blanking: Jehovah's Witnesses and governments (diff here)

March 22: Original research: Christian right (diff here) Then repeated same edits after being reverted: (diff here)

March 26: Unexplained blanking and Original research: Capitalism (diff here)

March 26: Unexplained removal of image: Organized crime (diff here) Then original research: (diff here) Then unexplained removal of category: (diff here)

The IP user has repeatedly ignored warnings posted to their talk page after each of these cases; then they blank their talk page after each warning (see their Talk page history), causing editors who provide further warnings to usually make only a level 1 warning. Let me know if I can do anything more to help. Prhartcom (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to actually discuss the matter by actually writing a personalized, targeted message that explains the issues in detail? Templated warnings are basically useless in communicating with users, which is why they are ignored. If you want someone to change their behavior, being personal with them, and showing a willingness to ask about and listen to their explanations for their motivations is a good way to do so. Slapping a templated warning on a talk page does not cause changes of behavior. --Jayron32 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for your suggestion. Yes, I had placed a personalized, targeted message today, the same day as this report. Perhaps we should wait a day or so to see if the IP editor responds to it, per your suggestion. I am uninvolved otherwise; I simply noticed that I had warned this user before and then noticed others had been warning them also, then saw the the pattern of ignored warnings and the continued POV-pushing behavior. I have been going through their edits and see several other similar POV edits that others reverted but did not warn. Prhartcom (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP's first warning was by Cluebot on March 8th last year. About 11 editors have left further warnings. Looking at the talk page blankings, most if not all would have encountered an empty talk page. I blocked the IP last May with the message ":Ignored warnings. Deletion and changing sourced text at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 May 24[92] shows this editor has some sort of agenda. I'm not arguing against it, but these sorts of edits don't belong here." Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IP Range 62.128.211.2XX

• 62.128.211.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.128.211.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 62.128.211.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Over the last week, this IP range has been following me around randomly undoing my edits on unconnected articles i.e. just to be annoying with no other apparent reason for the revert. It's happened on three IPs in the same dynamic range (see history on each of the above - undoing my edits is pretty much all that's in the contribs). It's obviously someone socking who I upset at some point. It's quite trivial but it is annoying. Any suggestions on what can be done? (It's a dynamic IP so only notified last one) DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The range (62.128.211.192/26) is tiny, with only 64 IP addresses, but even so there's unrelated edits coming from the range. Not inclined to do a range block. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok - I guess I'll just have to put up with it then. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to have unfair block reviewed

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.

---

• Enchev EG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Germanwings Flight 9525 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Whilst contributing to the Germanwings_Flight_9525 article I became aware of a closed discussion opened by Enchev EG headed, "It was suicide" but later renamed, "Latest reports point to suicide" on the Talk page. The author of the discussion had provided reasons why he felt suicide was the reason for the disaster. I observed that English might not be his/her first language and that he/she was finding resistance to his points made with the help of historical and technical data. I personally found this quite worrying as he/she was effectively being bullied. He was accused of pushing his agenda and later, further down the page he was called a troll and told to go away...how charming!

It was my understanding that anyone is entitled to contribute to Wikipedia as long as it is done in a manner which adds to the article content. I feel this user was not given a proper opportunity to develop his argument which ironically as it turns out would appear to be the reason for the crash. He was in fact spot on!

This morning I discovered Enchev EG had been handed a two week block and all because he/she had made an unacceptable comment out of pure frustration. I can empathize with him/her because I can see he/she genuinely wanted to add to the article but other users with their own clear agenda weren't having it.

Please review this matter. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your editing histories are really remarkably similar. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made any contributions to Wikipedia for well over a year so how on earth can our editing histories be similiar? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Apart from 35 since yesterday on the German wings crash!!! lol _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And that constitutes the basis of your editing history claim? An admin with the appropriate permissions can verify that we probably aren't even on the same continent. Irrespective, I await with interest the blocking admin Mjroots justification for his/her actions. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - The registered editor's history shows a history of showing up at articles about air crashes and being disruptive. This is irrelevant to the unregistered editor, whose edits can be reviewed on their own merits. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:NPA - entirely unacceptable comment, entirely justified block. No comment on the IP. Ivanvector (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment partly involved, I hatted the section. My opinion is to avoid drama and not to feed the trolls. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously support block —they weren't blocked for their unproductive comments on the talk page, they were blocked for an explicit personal attack against another editor.[93] Swarm ^X 19:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block although I am involved in that I blocked the user for a week for disruptive behaviour on another accident article recently, no evidence that the user is here to build an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User was blocked today for abuse that occurred over three weeks ago. This may have been the easy option but I don't think it was correct and/or in line with policies. User has had a final warning for using talk pages as a discussion forum and arguably was involved in similar on germanwings talk page but a two week block without a further warning seems harsh. Some useful stuff was being added. 95.151.99.246 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Seems to have done nothing wrong at best, not enough wrong to be punished like that at worst. An examination of some of the things written during this exchange proves at times unsettling and much of this is not from Enchev EG (who themselves wrote at least once: "I was not rude", perhaps in response to accusations of the same).

• Enchev EG, the person blocked, was told "You have a better chance of being listened to if you make a rational argument" (which it seems s/he was doing).
• Enchev EG was told what s/he was saying was "outlandish" (it wasn't).
• A not untypical response received by Enchev EG (capitals included): "THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT!"
• A particularly outrageous and immature quote from this whole sorry affair (given that 150 people are dead and untold numbers of family members are dealing with the aftermath) was even written partially in bold (needless to say, this was not the blocked user themselves): "So you in fact mean: IT WAS SUICIDE OR HIJACKING BECAUSE PILOTS BOTH WENT TO THE TOILET BECAUSE OF AN AIRLINE STRIKE! Great." I presume the last word to be sarcasm. Either way it reflects atrociously on the attitude of this User:Martinevans123, who in my opinion should be penalised given the seriousness of the situation.

What penalty would you suggest? Would you like to inform this User:Martinevans123 that you are discussing a penalty? I thought (and still think) that was a fair summary of what had been posted and what would have made a more accurate heading for that thread (later carefully "adjusted" by someone). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Unless this editor had some kind of "special access" to the as yet undisclosed analysis of the CVR, or of the pilot's motives, (both of which possibilities seem extremely unlikely), I would regard the accusation that a pilot had deliberately flown an aircraft into a mountain, killing 150 people, as a wholly unreasonable defamation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• As for the general standard of some other replies (examples include "Blah blah blah" and "Go troll somewhere else" and "I'll not answer you again, don't have the time") and the goading ("can't see him lasting that long") of Enchev EG as "the problem" and his/her words as "grammatically incorrect" (we're not all blessed with good grammar and those who see fit only to mock might examine their manners) I am led to conclude that it is the most dignified person who has been punished here. --Greykit (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, my sentiments exactly. Enchev EG made one silly comment, which he/she has since apologised for, after being harangued yet others get away with calling him/her names and making derogatory comments. I would go further and say he/she was ridiculed and made fun of because of his pigeon English. If he had an agenda it was to get to the truth, the agenda of those who taunted him might be somewhat more difficult to determine but I have my own thoughts on that. 87.114.172.97 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You think that almost incomprehensible and (at the time) wholly unjustified contribution was "one silly comment"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This was Enchev EG's post that started the current situation. It matters not that the claim has turned out to be correct. My reply was that an extraordinary claim required an extraordinary source, which was not provided. There was no way that such a claim was going to get into the article without one. I first came across Enchev EG at the talk page of the TransAsia Airways Flight 235 article. You will note the similarity of the post, an extraordinary claim not backed up by a RS, and also SHOUTING! The block was for this reply in response to this final warning. I've never had occasion to deal with Escape Orbit so have no dog in the fight there, so to speak. My impression is that Enchev EG is a SPA here to push an agenda. Unless there is a rapid improvement in their behaviour, I forsee the community losing patience with him before too long. Sorry for the delay in replying, but I'm a bit under the waether atm. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that the PA went undetected for 23 days is immaterial IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I should have said yesterday that I went to Enchev EG's talk page to see what warnings had been issued in respect of WP:NOTFORUM, with the possibility of a block in mind. I didn't realise that the PA was as old as it was, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be allowed to go without any consequences. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block - At TransAsia Airways Flight 235, Enchev EG repeatedly engaged in WP:FORUM on the talk page and ignored repeated warnings about it. Here is a typical comment from them, from the archives of that talk page: For example, my comments are closely monitored by the CIA and each of them is interpreted by their analyst. Then their lies are coordinated in such a way with my comments, that they do not contradict with them - before being sent to the media. They received a one-week block and, thankfully, did not return after the block expired. They reappeared for this Germanwings article and started doing the same things again. They don't get the point of NOTFORUM and no amount of explaining can get through to them. The fact that they may have turned out to be correct on some things is completely beside the point, and it doesn't come close to justifying the disruption they cause. If the block reason is a problem, then by all means correct it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block - I think the community should show some good grace and acknowledge that blocking for personal abuse over three weeks ago was not appropriate. Blocking policy forbids retrospective blocking. There may have been other good reasons for blocking him but not for the reason cited. He should be unblocked and given another chance. His behaviour is not particularly disruptive. Mattojgb (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

But don't you think maybe "Escape_Orbit you are fucking moron:))" sends out "slightly the wrong signal"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If he was to be blocked for that he should have been blocked at the time.Mattojgb (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly should have been. But it's tricky to hand out a retrospective block, isn't it? Or is three-week old abuse somehow less offensive? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The "another chance" began when the first block expired. I think we've seen what this user does with "another chance". They will get a third chance beginning in about 13 days, and I have no doubt they will be at it again; if not immediately, then after another rest period. The question is how many chances they get before an indeff. As for "his behaviour is not particularly disruptive", you have not been involved in either of the articles in question, so it is not particularly disruptive to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The unsourced accusation that was made against the pilots is extremely nasty and probably would fall under BLP issues. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Just to point out it was this remark on his TP that he was actually blocked for- not specifically any remarks about the crash: diff... 'fucking moron', anyone?!?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On edit: sorry Martinevans123 didn't notice you'd just said that already. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the editor in question has not protested his block or offered any reasons why it should be reversed. And to his great credit he has posted ".. I wish you all a nice day and I apologize if I have offended anyone". In my book that counts for a lot. But then I am just "outrageous and immature", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn block per WP:NOTPUNITIVE - apologies for not noticing earlier that 23 days went by between the user's posting and the block being set. I'm having a hard time seeing how that was meant to prevent disruption rather than to punish the user. Blocking a user for a transgression that occurred three weeks ago, which wasn't repeated or ongoing, and for which they later apologized, is extremely inappropriate. That looks like hunting for an excuse to block. Now, if we want to talk about whether or not the user should be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE well then fine, but that should be a different block. Ivanvector (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support overturn, new block 23 days is a long time, but I don't think that a technicality should allow what seems to be a pattern of disruption to continue. Geogene (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block. Clear breach of WP:NPA. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support block, although WP:Forum would have been the more appropriate reason. Still, even the PA was not entirely singular, questioning the mental health of a user as recently as yesterday. Moreover, the user persistently failed to grasp the principles of Wikipedia and his contributions are explicitly not aimed at improving the articles. Whether his theorycrafting is correct or not is irrelevant. This is not the place. That being said a good part of his claims were 'outlandinsh', e.g. that the plane was hacked by someone with MS Flight Simulator, that it certainly must have been the pilot, or that the CIA is after him. And even if he was correct in all of that, does not matter this is Wikipedia, including the talk pages. A humble contributor (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour? Since when is it a breach of the rules to put forward some well thought out and well researched information? This member was attacked from the off by a group of established users who frankly should know better. I personally was appalled at the comments made towards him some of which are noted above. So tell me, what action is to be taken against the abusive bullies? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Since when is it a breach of the rules to put forward some well thought out and well researched information?" No original research has been a principle of Wikipedia since 2003. A humble contributor (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. While the comment may have violated our NPA guideline, blocks aren't meant to be punitive, and should not be placed over 3 weeks after the offending comment. Besides, they apologized.
  Giving them a new, indefinitely long block would be another issue altogether. Epic Genius (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Block Right result, wrong reason. Enchev EG should have been blocked after their attempts to add OR onto Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525, as a repeat of behaviour they had been repeatedly warned about (and blocked) before on other articles. Regardless of whether this latest theory turned out to be right, it doesn't change the fact that it was, and is, original research and there has been no indication that Enchev EG won't continue this behaviour. Otherwise we may as well say that OR guesswork is OK on talk pages, just as long as you can be shown at a later date to have guessed right once in a while.

I didn't report this abuse because I hoped it was just frustration, and that Enchev EG was finally getting the message. It resulted in he/she removing some other stuff from talk pages, so I hoped this indicated he/she understood exactly why he/she had been warned, and was slowly learning. But the same actions on Talk:Germanwings Flight 9525 just a few weeks later suggest that Enchev EG just can't help herself/himself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So Enchev made a mistake by lashing out at his abusers. Now, what action is going to be taken against them or do they get off Scott Free being part of the 'gang'? 87.114.172.97 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2015 (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.

Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates

Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IP editing userspace pages

198.102.153.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently edited several userspace pages of different editors, the edits don't appear to be vandalism but s/he doesn't leave any edit summaries. I reverted three of his edits which were made to users' main userpages, it seemed like the right thing to do. I tried asking but it looks like the IP doesn't like my tone. Can anyone else confirm if we have a problem here or not? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They've started leaving edit summaries. Looks like they're chasing down and fixing broken redirects due to userboxes being migrated to user space. I don't see any problems with what they are doing. Do you have specific edits that look disruptive? --Jayron32 19:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's most of the sandbox edits that look like a problem, people can have their own reasons for using invalid templates and whatever in their tests, also newbies can get confused when their version of their sandbox suddenly looks different and they won't know why; one user has directly complained to the IP for editing his sandbox; also it's absolutely unclear here where the IP got that content from since the template they substed didn't exist. I think he should generally stay out of sandboxes/test pages and always provide an (understandable) explanation when editing others' userpages. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour of Walter Görlitz

The user Walter Görlitz (talk) has been involved in various edit wars and ignorant reversions/discussions on articles of and related to Adam Young. This user refuses to accept fact as grounds to edit the article and has taken it upon himself to "preside" over the article and undo any new edit that he deems unworthy. Perhaps worse than this is he will then post "warning" messages on other users' talk pages not to start edit wars (which he has begun by serially reverting).

I completely understand Wikipedia policy referring to edits/sources, but this user is instantly deleting anything that doesn't comply with his literal translation of policy - completely undermining the spirit of a community edited encyclopaedia. Instead, I am left with no choice but to raise this as an official incident in the hope that he will be told to, in so many words, "let others play".

I hope I haven't come off as disrespectful, but when a user is as persistent in making other editors' time on Wikipedia totally non-enjoyable, I feel a strong approach is needed.

--Samcooke343 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samcooke343: You must notify the person you are starting a discussion about on their Talk page. I have notified Walter Görlitz about this thread for you, but in future please notify them. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samcooke343: My apologies, I see you've done this already but it was removed from the Talk page. JMHamo (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This interpretation of events is novel at best.

First, let's look at his current issue. Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument, says

Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used.

He was reverted by two separate editors: I was the first and this was the second.

Also, I did let him play. He made multiple genre changes that I saw and didn't revert. I'm not sure why he thinks that Wikipedia is a playground though and why he, as a musician, is more capable of recognizing a genre than other editors. See WP:GWAR.

Second, "facts" are not the ground for Wikiedpia edits, WP:V is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Third, I spend multiple hours on Wikiedpedia and know various policies and guidelines and come into contact with casual editors. My goal is to educate them on those policies and guidelines. It's clear not all of them appreciate being told that they're not editing according community consensus. That brings me into conflict with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

On the instrument issue, this is more or less as difficult as genres and associated acts. But yeah, only most well-known instruments. I don't know Adam Young very well, so I wouldn't know. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Samcooke343: As Walter Görlitz said, "fact" alone is not a justification for anything on Wikipedia. It's one of the more counter-intuitive but fundamental principles guiding the project: Verifiability, not truth or what an editor declares truth, is what matters. In other words, if you want to add something, just add a source. On the talk page it looks like you included a couple sources, but they're just videos that include Young playing the instruments you said he's "known for" playing. That's not sufficient. It's a primary source and it's original research to say that he's "known for" playing them just because there are videos of him playing those instruments. Again, all that's needed is to support your claim with reliable sources. WP:BURDEN is a particularly relevant part of the Verifiability policy here. The other issue is stylistic. You added the word "sophomore" to refer to his second album. Walter pointed you to MOS:SOPHOMORE in his edit summary, but then you restored it. I understand the frustration of being reverted, and I don't know that I agree or disagree with Walter's revert here, but restoring the word that's even included in the link MOS:SOPHOMORE suggests learning about best practices for writing might not be a priority -- or rather, I could see how it could give someone that impression. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites, which is not an uncommon situation in which to find myself. I understand that it's frustrating to be reverted, but both combatants should probably try to communicate a bit better. Maybe we could try to deescalate the conflict and take the debate to the talk page. There hasn't been a post there in six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can add a page to their watchlist, without claiming ownership of an article. I wonder why this was even being discussed. Elohim55 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user. BMK (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor with recent breaches of policy

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:Royalmate1's recent history has some concerning edits that are, at best, bitey but could be an indication of a general disregard for Wikipedia's policies as indicated by this edit's edit summary [94]. Some of the recent problematic edits starting with the most recent: personal attack, personal attack, accusing editor of vandalism in a content dispute, and personal attack. The user is currently in several permission groups that involve frequent user interaction, specifically rollback and pending changes reviewer, and because of what is at best a lack of understanding of policies that apply to user interaction I think these rights should be removed. Note that the user was recently blocked for the first personal attack. PhantomTech (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably deserving of an indef imo. Another gem. Blackmane (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have increased the block to indef, as the user either does not understand copyright law, or has no intention of obeying it. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (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 user in question here clearly understands Wikipedia policy. Have you even looked at his userpage? I think the problem here was with the admins' refusal to be intelligent about the incident here because of some supposed personal attacks. Increased blocks here is really just stupid, seeing as he is a rollbacker with thousands of extremely helpful edits and article creations. Shame on the admins, honestly. Elohim55 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Royalmate1. BMK (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody just got accused of being a liar and a felon right here at ANI

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.

---

Alleged in this diff: [95]. I'm shocked. The (unnamed) miscreants should be found and punished, or else the accuser should be punished. Would this fall under NLT or NPA? Geogene (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you will notice, the subject is COI and COI-like editing. It is a general discussion. Chill out. petrarchan47tc 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (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.

Archival of Deleted Material

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. Editor DHeyward (talk · contribs) recently created a page he used to store diffs of people he believed were hounding or otherwise attacking him. This came under discussion for deletion as a potential WP:ATTACKPAGE. While this discussion was ongoing, DHeyward blanked the page and then requested that it be deleted, which it was. However, he has archived the page here. Despite polite requests from myself and an attempt by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) to remove this material, he has edited to preserve it. I would request that the material be deleted. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I archived what I no longer needed and didn't need wikidrama on a separate page so the page was deleted at my request. There is nothing negative and there is nothing unsourced and no policy violations. I would hope that PeterTheFourth (who argued at deletion that it should be kept, which is quite the opposite of claiming it's an attack page here - it can't magically become an attack page through archiving). PeterTheFourth needs to stop hounding me around Wikipedia. I don't know what his issue is. --DHeyward (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I stated that it should be kept if it were to be used in dispute resolutions, per policy (WP:POLEMIC). Apparently you weren't aiming to use it in dispute resolution, so I don't believe this material should be stored on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC isn't a policy. And since you brought it to ANI, it's now DR. Congrats. How petty a request.--DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. How should I refer to WP:User_pages and its contents? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

From his first edits he is an obvious GamerGate SPA (WP:DUCK) well aware of WP editing. As long as he was editing GamerGate articles, a SPA might be appropriate. Since then he has branched out to articles that I have edited [96] as well as admin space and arbcom space. I'd prefer he use his primary account if he is going to continue to WIKIHOUND me all these drama areas. His branching from GamerGate is a violation of our multiple-account polices. --DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just recreate the page and add PeterTheFourth to it since if anybody is, they are hounding and attacking you.--MONGO 03:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If DHeyward blanked the page User talk:DHeyward/My Fan Club after archiving its contents in his Archive 7, while the page was a subject of an active discussion at MfD, that's a pretty good example of WP:Gaming the system. BMK (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I requested to speedy delete a page in my own user space to end pointless drama. MfD actually says you shouldn't have even brought it for deletion but I did you a favor[97]. There's nothing wrong with the content. It's diffs. I can post them here if you like, but I'd rather let them archive away. I could put it on my main talk page or any admins talk page to ask for input too. I had hoped the hounding had stopped. --DHeyward (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The subpage was not deleted as an attack, but as a user request. However, had that request not brought the discussion to a close I would have deleted the page in any case as the definition of WP:ATP: "...keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." DR issues need to be raised in a timely way, or the material stored off-wiki. Not the end of the world either way, but have deleted the material from the archive - in effect what would have occurred had the user requested deletion not proceeded. Happy to email a copy across if/when the stated DR process is due to begin. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What part about the page being a week old did you miss? Diffs showing attacks and snide comments against DHeyward are not attack pages!--MONGO 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus And MONGO's point is why it was failing at MfD. It was neither a list of enemies nor a list of everything bad. It was diffs of Wikihounding just in the last week. I can make it an RfC on my talk page if the diffs are examples of wikihounding. Why are you tolerating a WP:DUCK troll whose first edit was to GamerGate arbcom and only topic being GamerGate continue to stalk and harass me? --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh well....it's not hounding until he files a sockpuppet claim against you to compliment his stupid AE complaint and this latest escapade and article stalking he did.--MONGO 06:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to start a dispute resolution process (or an SPI) against any or all of the people in your list, please do so. It's been ten days since you started compiling the list - not an infinite period but not a particularly short one either. To avoid falling foul of ATP, I suggest if you are compiling a DR case you maintain your diff list off-wiki until its ready. And per the above - its not the end of the world either way, but people on "the list" do have policy backing in asking that it be removed and it doesn't seem like much to ask. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe DHeyward was going to do that. I had a page onsite for two months linking diffs to prepare for an arbcom case...now if he wanted to take that to DR he has to start all over. There are users that have had links up to diffs of comments made by those they disagree with for years.--MONGO 06:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus Help! I've been attacked on a user page for over four years! [98]--MONGO 07:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Umm... isn't WP:MFD the place for this? If the page in question was deleted because the user requested it, then it doesn't necessarily count as a "consensus", and he/she is free to restore it at his/her will. I'm not saying the page shouldn't be deleted (haven't looked into it enough either way), but I don't think this is the right forum for this request. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus revdeled it before saying I should save it offsite or before anyone discussed it. Had I let it complete, the consensus was "keep" as there is no specific time limit and it's reasonable to keep diffs of harassing and wikistalking for DR. And as we are at ANI, the harassment continues. --DHeyward (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As above, if you need a copy of these diffs for an imminent DR matter please let me know and I'll send you an email of the deleted material. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Sorry, missed that. Yes, please email a copy of the deleted page. --DHeyward (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, your definition of harassment is so broad that even me just pointing out here that you have a broad definition of harassment constitutes, in your eyes, harassment (even though it is not a threat, an intimidation or a personal attack). If you still had your list, I'm sure this is a diff that would be added to it. Considering that your enemies list could serve to intimidate other editors, it could constitute harassment (see WP:HARASS). Enough, let's move on and return to editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I'm sure you thought it was helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2015 (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.

92.41.108.109 harassment

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.

---

92.41.108.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) harasses me on my talk and user page. Sjö (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a mobile IP, so perphaps WP:RFPP would be effective. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP. Would you like your pages semi'd as well, Sjö? Bishonen | talk 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC).

No, but thanks. Seems like he/she has stopped now. Sjö (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (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.

Personal Attacks by Poeticbent

I appreciate that Admins are busy people and this is not a case if disruptive editing rather of personal attack, but to save an admin time Poeticbent continues the attack below, writing

"In a frenzy of manipulations and lies he also vehemently objects to having a stake in the sales of this publication."

I could just ignore this and hope it goes away but surely there is supposed to be civility on Wikipedia.Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are other specific instances where he implies that I and another editor may have COI

Poeticbent’s insinuations

[[99]]

To Lightshow. If you happen to have a wp:conflict of interest, please state it upfront,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Man_who_Broke_into_Auschwitz#Edit_war

To me. I would like to encourage editors with possible interest in improving the online sales of this book, based on our Wikipedia article, to please reveal your identity, and refrain from any further revisions to this entry with the aim of silencing dissent and independent critical thought. Thank you,

Edit summary when reverting my edit on this article 26th March

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Man_who_Broke_into_Auschwitz&action=history

(removal of sourced info based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, possibleWP:COI → back to referenced wp:lede)

I don’t think he should make such insinuations without very good evidence. He provides none. The article concerns a book ‘The Man who Broke into Auschwitz’. written by a living person Denis Avey. We are both trying to ensure that the lead sentence is conservatively written, that is all. I can’t think that Lightshow has any connection with the publishers, I certainly don’t. Poeticbent needs to be at very least warned about his behaviour Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please would someone review the behaviour of Poeticbent on his/her edits today on 'The Man who Broke into Auschwitz' and his talk page. It is very strange. He has got it into his head that I have a COI, reverts edits without discussing on talkpage even though when requested to do so, and rather rudely deleted my comment on his talk page re his allegations of COI. Perhaps a warning rather than a block would be appropriate. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you neglected to notify Poeticbent of this discussion, but I did that for you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I did notify him on his talk [ape] page, he removed the notification.Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it now. My apologies. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

---

This is a frivolous report by a user who is up to his neck in WP:POV, deleting reliable sources based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In a frenzy of manipulations and lies he also vehemently objects to having a stake in the sales of this publication. Nevertheless, you can see him making a Freudian slip at least once, and admitting to the following when the truth about the fabrication was discovered and made public in England first (quote): "we are likely to get a retraction"... "We"? What "we"? Poeticbent talk 04:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: There's only one thing I can add to this unprecedented wave of new attacks and refactoring of all posts by User:Sceptic1954. He's been fighting tooth-and-nail since 25 September 2012 to have all references removed pointing out to the fact that the Auschwitz superhero story, fabricated in England, was refuted by Auschwitz Museum director already, on top of the leading Jewish organizations around the world. Poeticbent talk 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Even after I raise the matter here Poetic bent continues his insinuation that I am COI despite me doing my level best to put him right. "We" simply means the general public, perhaps in particular, as I am a British citizen, the British public. It's now got to the stage where I think he should be blocked for a while for making a personal attack. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like another example of a seemingly evidence-less COI accusation being used as a WP:Stick in a content dispute. I request a warning +/- a short block on @Poeticbent:. Geogene (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Diffs showing this is a repeating dynamic in a content dispute: [100], [101], [102]. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC) it' not even evidence less it in fact I'd contradicted by the evidence if Poeticbent were to examine my record on this and the Denis Avey page. That's the strange thing. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Gleekified repeated unsourced material

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 been repeatedly adding unsourced material to various articles, such as List of Melissa & Joey episodes and List of Young & Hungry episodes. Warnings have not stopped the disruptive editing. Callmemirela (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) S/he hasn't edited since the last warning; let's see what happens. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The user has continued their behavior. Please help. They aren't listening. Callmemirela (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Again]. Please help. Callmemirela (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Listed at WP:AIV. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In the last hour, they've posted unsourced content 6 times. Think it's definitely time for a block. I've reported at WP:AIV as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (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.

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

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.

---

There is a conflict among a number of editors, which is becoming quite heated among at least two of them, of them at Talk:Foie gras; sections restoration of duplicate content, detailed Legislation section and RfC. The underlying issue is whether a passage should be placed in Foie gras or in Foie gras controversy. It's morphed from a discussion of that point into an additional argument about how the conflict should proceed, and has now gotten to the name-calling stage.

I don't see any sign that the more vocal editors will calm down any time soon. As I mention above, the discussion involves two pages, and my concern is that in the crossfire, the information may be inadvertently removed from both and made difficult to restore as further edits are made to the pages.

I do have a position in the underlying issue and have stated it on that talk page, and am otherwise now staying out of the discussion, because I don't have anything further to add and don't want to fan the flames.

The two most vocal editors are DrChrissy (talk · contribs) and Jytdog (talk · contribs). I am placing a notification of this discussion on the Talk:Foie gras in addition to the individual talk pages of the above-named editors, due to the number of editors involved. TJRC (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

i haven't edited the page since March 19 (last dif), so there is nothing to do worry about me from me with regard to article content. i am frustrated with drchrissy's behavior, but i know how to use ANI and other boards and have not chosen to bring this anywhere, at this time. i do wish he would withdraw the flawed RfC that he pre-emptively launched (he had never done one before), and have asked him several times to do so, but he has so far not chosen to. I see no need for admin action at this time. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I find the launching of this ANI extremely curious to say the least. TJRC launched the ANI but was also the editor that removed the disputed content within 48 hours of my instigating an RfC [here] - way, way too early for any consensus to be reached.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not edited the article page since March 20, 2015 [here], so I am also not actively aditing the article page. Again, what is the motivation behind this ANI being launched?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy the motivation, i reckon, is to get you and i to start working together instead of fighting, which is disrupting the Talk page and making us both look like assholes. a good first step would be for you to stop publicizing the RfC and to withdraw it, so we can frame one together that we both find acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are free to describe yourself as you believe others are perceiving you, but please do not include me in that sort of description. I launched an RfC because it became apparent that you and I are unable to work together at the moment. I launched the RfC for outside comments, not for bonding. Instead, this RfC is being hijacked by inflammatory remarks, moving/changing other peoples' edits, removing the material under discussion, questioning the faith of edits and so on and so on. It is as if someone is deliberatly trying to sabbotage the RfC with unnecessary, unwanted and distracting edits.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If conditions at this RfC are as disruptive as you describe, DrChrissy, perhaps admin intervention is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so again instead of just making this simple, drchrissy, and withdrawing the RfC, you are making drama. (just like with the content you too-closely paraphrased despite 4 editors, including MoonRiddenGirl, telling you it was problematic as discussed here). In the case of this RfC:

• after you edit-warred the content back in while Alexbrn was temp blocked, i opened a new section on Talk, referring to the two prior sections where we had been discussing this
• the next day you opened a duplicate section, ignoring the one i had opened
• after some unproductive back and forth between us, on March 20 I said i would draft an RfC for us to discuss
• you acknowledged that here and here and here
• all the sudden on March 22 you launched a malformed, non-neutral RfC without discussion
• which i noted and asked you to withdraw it (and did again several times e.g here).
• instead you made it more malformed by adding your opinion on the matter to the question and blah blah blah just more bad behavior from there including even further publicizing it instead of withdrawing it.
• for the second time, instead of doing the simple, community-oriented thing of acknowledging a mistake, you have doubled down. please just do the simple thing and withdraw the RfC, so we can discuss a neutral, well-formed RfC that can guide discussion going forward. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussions and arguments on the talk page are layered, splintered, and in some cases, it seems, even recursive. It's not only difficult for an outside party to get involved, but also has not shown to produce even basic agreements on which to build upon (at least not recently). Stripping away the specifics and the behavioral issues, the crux of the matter seems to be to what extent information about the critical aspects of foie gras should be covered in the foie gras article, and to what extent they should be covered at foie gras controversy (and only summarized in the main article). DrChrissy has stated that he does not believe they should be separate articles, which to me explains some of his edits and arguments others have taken issue with.

It seems like the first and foremost question should be whether foie gras controversy is a viable and appropriate fork.

If the answer is yes, then next we'd have to determine what is considered "controversy" such that it should primarily be covered at the controversy article. And furthermore what topics relate to the controversy but should be weighted similarly (if covered differently) at the main article. ---- (The latter comes from DrChrissy's point -- and please correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly -- that legislation concerning foie gras is central enough to the subject of foie gras that even if it's covered in the controversy article, it should not merely be summarized in the main article).

Once we've determined the domains of each page, the scope and venue for each of the arguments becomes a bit simpler. It's not a fix for everything, but it seems like a good place to start. As of now, the controversy article is all but neglected while these heated disputes take place in the main article, which doesn't make sense to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

that is well said. this is some of the stuff i was considering with regard to framing the RfC, before drchrissy launched his RfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Soon after you started to request I withdraw the RfC, I invited you to post an alternative RfC [[103]] so that we could discuss this. You declined to take up this opportunity of a collegiate approach to resolving this dispute.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

you don't run 2 RfCs at the same time on the same topic. i will ask you again, just like i did in reply to that: Please withdraw the RfC already. Why will you not just withdraw it? Please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

• Comment: There may have been dueling threads on the Talk page, but there is only one RfC there now, so no actionable items exist at this time that I can see. There's no prohibition in creating an RfC (a public discussion to engage more outside opinions than the current page-watchers), and that seems to be what was done. Some folks claim the RfC is not neutrally worded, but I don't see that it isn't as it merely asks a brief question and states how long the material in question was previously in the article. I think the presence of the RfC should give a forum to the discussions under way, and also invite outside input, which should calm the situation down. Again, at this very minute I don't see anything actionable. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i agree there is nothing actionable. the RfC is not neutral and doesn't capture the debate, nor the larger issue of moving. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_process drchrissy should have discussed it before launching it. that is what i had said i was going to do; i had just not gotten to it yet when he jumped the gun and launched his, without discussion. I keep asking him to withdraw it ( and now, why he will not withdraw it) and he doesn't respond. what i want is to work together to frame a useful RfC that will provide helpful guidance going forward. the current one, does not do that. i don't think his launching of the RfC is actionable, nor is his refusal to withdraw it, nor is his refusal to say why he will not withdraw it. it is just ugly behavior. i am about ready to give up trying and just let the damn thing run. waste of a month. you know, i will give up trying to get him to withdraw it, or to say why he won't. so.. done with that. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I gave an explanation why I will not withdraw the RfC. This explanation is under a thread which Jytdog created themselves. It is not up to me to do thread-watching or research for another editor.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i already asked you twice (here and here[ to provide a dif because i looked for something that looked like an answer and i couldn't find it anywhere. but don't bother now. i am done with this. it is a complete waste of time. (btw i suspect that drchrissy doesn't know how to provide a dif and is afraid to ask how. i run into this sometimes with academicish editors who just cannot say "i don't know" and cannot back down, ever) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (mistaken per below. striking Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

well I am wrong about that and have struck. drchrissy does know how to make a diff! see here where he is building up a nice record on me. so, he has skill and time to put diffs there, but not here. OK. priorities are very clear. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog's message makes it clear that they are monitoring my sandbox where I am preparing an ANI. I appreciate this type of monitoring is not illegal, but to then make negative comments about me on here does rather smack of harrassment.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

i find drchrissy's behavior to be incomprehensible. he goes from being very on point and seemingly knowing what he is doing, to being completely lost on Wikipedia basics (from the launching of the RfC and subsequent refusal to discuss it per above, to stuff like this and [[104]] and especially here and other stuff, and i have no hope of working through controversial content to reach consensus with this editor - their behavior is just baffling to me. I am unwatching Foie gras and walking away.. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (striking. since I was drawn back against my wishes, I am sticking around. Will do my best to avoid dealing directly with drchrissy but will do if needed.) Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2015 (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.

WP:COMPETENCE editor

I strongly suspect some WP:COMPETENCE issues with Mavsfan123 (talk · contribs). I have warned the user at least twice that they are putting way too little content into their articles, but six days after their last warning, they created an article as lacking in content as their previous efforts. Other articles of theirs have been nominated for deletion for similar reasons, and they removed a deletion tag at least twice. The user has been here since last July, and yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to improve their article creation (compare this edit). They have also made no attempt to communicate on talk pages. I'm tired of cleaning up this editor's half-assed attempts, and I really want to get through to them, because it's obvious they're not listening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in particular wrong with this user's contributions, they're just short. A quick scan of their contribs shows that many of the short articles they've created have been kept and improved by other editors, and we wouldn't have these articles if not for this user having created them (even though they're stubs). Perfection is not required. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's starting again (harrassment by banned IP)

• 104.173.225.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I hope I am not premature about this, but here goes. Starting in 2009, I began to be harassed by an IP editor (under my previous username, Yworo). This continued through 2012. To make a long story short, the user behind the IPs was community banned (see User:Skyerise/IP incident record which has links to the discussions and result). The IP's MO was to revert perfectly good edits I made, or to remove legitimate sourced content from articles repeatedly, falsely claiming that the source was not reliable. So, it's started again. Here are some diffs: [105], [106]. So yeah, it's only happened once so far, but I believe I recognize this user from long past experience. Personally, I am happy to give them another chance to continue editing as long as the leave me and the articles listed on my user page alone. In any case, the IP needs additional eyes on their activities. Skyerise (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, It is premature, you've got the wrong person/IP. If you check the records this IP 104.173.225.10 got started on October 22, 2014 and has never made an edit connected to you (until yesterday). The edit you are disputing on Appalachia Rising was from a different editor -- so it's not connected to you at all.

In addition, I'll re-post what I wrote to you on your talk page today, I sincerely believe it because Wikipedia like our society at large should be free from any harrasement: "Skyerise, Sorry if you feel that way seriously, I'm only curious about the source of the edit from a different user on Rising Appalachia. It's not personal. I discovered this band from the edits over at Game of Thrones. It looks very interesting. I hope we can keep Wikipedia from anything that's not professional or civil-minded. It should be fun. In all sincerity, thank you for listening". 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you don't know Wikipedia sourcing requirements and you Wikilawyer. And you've followed me from one article to another simply to revert my edits. Please read WP:BLOG - only personal self-published blogs are a no-no. A multi-contributor news source is fine. So I ask you to just stay away from me and the articles I am currently working on: I've been here for ten years and I know what I'm doing. It's clear you are retaliating for my reporting you for edit-warring on an article which I was not editing myself. Just leave me alone. Got it? Skyerise (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

First I will answer your accusation(s). I edited something on Appalachia Rising from a different user today at the beginning of this discussion. How is that connected to you? The point of Wikipedia is discovery. Discovery of music, art, and culture etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about discovering a new artist through whatever means on the site. For someone who has contributed so much to Wikipedia please, why not let others do the same? Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Skyerise: I think you may be right that this is premature, but certainly worth pointing out. Other than the WP:ANEW posting and your talk exchanges, I don't see much evidence that this IP is hounding you. It seems quite possible you've simply crossed paths with a new-ish user who doesn't understand the WP:RS guideline nor the WP:EDITWAR policy.
• However, 104.173.225.10, having been brought to an enforcement noticeboard by a user and then showing up in an article that that user edits to revert their contributions smells bad, if you catch my meaning. Please make sure you understand our harassment policy (especially what we call wikihounding) which explicitly forbids following a user from topic to topic just to interject in their discussions and cause annoyance. Skyerise has requested that you leave her alone; you are very strongly advised to respect that. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I appreciate your expertise in this matter. Could you do me a favor and officially request that Skyerise do the same? Specifically, on the Game of Thrones page. I want to thank you all for keeping the site civil and a place where we can all reach for consensus.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to jump in to give a friendly reminder to Skyerise about WP:CIVILITY. Right now you seem paranoid and are assuming an inordinate amount of bad faith. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you ever been stalked for three years because that's how long it takes to get anyone here to take it seriously? I was nearly driven off Wikipedia and I'd rather jump the gun that ever submit to that level of harassment again. Skyerise (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Point taken. I believe you - your reaction certainly is justified. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @DawnDusk: Please stop sprinkling CIVIL links around. Either produce some text that breaches CIVIL or withdraw per WP:ASPERSIONS. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • While I don't mind you attempting to nitpick me, I already did withdraw that (if you read the conversation), and this was the text to which I was referring. DawnDusk (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Guys, we're making a chain of meta-civility notices here. May I suggest we close this? Ivanvector (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass genre changes

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.

---

@Masterclopedia2015: has been changing music genres, without any references, or even edit summaries, to their liking [107], [108] and [109] Wednesday and again today, [110] this is causing a lot of un-necessary work for editors who monitor music articles. Maybe a short block will get their attention. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The three examples cited here strike me as examples of making shit up... This is an editor that needs to be watched closely. Calling Metallica "groove metal" and coining the subgenre "progressive pop punk" (sic.) from whole cloth are very concerning. Carrite (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor is clearly willing to engaged in an edit war on a number of articles:

• Angels & Airwaves[111][112][113]
• Box Car Racer (album):[114][115]
• Hell Awaits:[116][117]
• Reign in Blood:[118][119]

Because of this and the unwillingness to discuss the widespread genre changes, I suggest that Masterclopedia2015 (talk · contribs) be blocked for 72 hours with progressively lengthier blocks if the disruptive behavior continues. —Farix (t | c) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a short block is necessary to stop the disruption and get the user to communicate. - MrX 13:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful it will be, but I left a message explaining the situation to him. Maybe wait to see what happens now. If he keeps messing with genres, I think a block would be warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Masterclopedia2015 for 72 hours for disruptive editing. He has been pinged and informed about this discussion, ignored it and continued to edit without involving himself in the sort of discussions and collegial editing we expect for all of us, really. Nick (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2015 (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.

Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment

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 wish to raise an ANI about Jytdog. This is in regard to their protracted uncivility towards me and their harassment of me.

After several postings which I considered to be uncivil, I reminded Jytdog on 16th March here[125] to be civil in discussions. However, this uncivility has continued. I further reminded Jytdog on March 23rd here[126] and March 24th here[127] that I was finding their behaviour unacceptable, but this has persisted.

Jytdog is a well established editor. Given their considerable experience on here, they should not need to be reminded about being civil and not harrassing other editors. Neither should they be using a highly suspect tactic of making fleeting accusations, inflammatory remarks or uncivility in postings so that editors currently involved in the discussion briefly see it, and then quickly removing the edit before others comment so that it does not remain on the page or is later struck out here[128] and here[129] compare with [130] These are only 2 examples of this behaviour. The harm to the project and the taunting of me has been done before the striking out.

Wikihounding:

• Jytdog is following me so that negative comments about me can be left on pages to which I am contributing or using. I asked a question at the WP:Teahouse here[131] about an editor's talk page that was edited by Jytdog but which did not attribute the edit to Jytdog. In my initial posting, I was careful not to name editors or indicate the location of the problem. Within 50 mins of my posting the question, Jytdog had posted an edit on the thread I initiated[132]. The only way Jytdog could have known about my posting this question was if they were monitoring my postings. Jytdog soon after posted that I was "inexperienced"[133] in an attempt to belittle me.

Prophanities:

• Jytdog left prophanities on my Talk page here[134] to belittle my editing.
• Jytdog used prophanities on other pages in messages directed at me, e.g. "I made a motherfucking mistake by editing a comment when I thought no one had replied yet - when you pointed out that you had replied I went back and struck it properly and acknowledged my mistake. That is not "uncivil", it is called being a fucking human being who can make mistakes and is capable of fucking admitting them and even fucking fixing them"[135]
• Jytdog used further prophanaties in messages directed at me here.[136]

Personal attacks:

• Jytdog was aware of my being an academic here[137]. They subsequently made a personal attack (and veiled attack on my career competence which I find extremely unpleasant and totally unacceptable) by writing "i run into this sometimes with academicish editors who just cannot say "i don't know" and cannot back down, ever" here[138]
• Jytdog described my edit as "slimey varmint behavior".[139]

Belittling a fellow editor:

• Jytdog described me as "inexperienced" here[140]
• Jytdog stated that my RfC was "wasting time" here.[141]
• Jytdog made a comment disrespecting my editing abilities here[142]
• Jytdog made comments that suggested/stated I have "fucked up",[143] "screw[ed] it up,[144] and an RfC I initiated was described as "...a flawed fucked up waste of time...".[145]
• Jytdog made a comment that I should "get around more"[146], clearly in a way to belittle me

Inappropriate use of warning templates:

• Jytdog left a warning template on my Talk page [147] that was not warranted and unjustified even after a request.

Admission of yelling at me

• Jytdog admitted telling at me here.[148]
• Jytdog admitted yelling at me here.[149]

Other editor's independent and unrequested comments support my concerns: Independent editors have noted Jytdog's uncivil attitude toward me.

• An independent editor left a message on Jytdog's Talk page stating Jytdog should "watch your tone" in messages directed at me.[150]] Jytdog apologised at their own Talk page but not at the original posting or at my Talk page.
• An independent editor left a message on my Talk page stating that postings by Jytdog were "...intended to inflame".[151]

It seems clear to me that Jytdog has breached the principles of civility and non-harassment of other editors repeatedly, despite being warned. Some of these have been extremely upestting to myself and have caused me to think about stopping working on the project. I truly believe this editor needs to learn that there are consequences to this extremely uncivil behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC) __DrChrissy (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I got angry with drchrissy and that i expressed that anger. that was not good of me. i am not sorry for cursing; that is not a problem in WP. but some of my remarks were uncivil, and for that i do apologize, and i will be use more restraint going forward. I am sorry for that, drchrissy. None of what you write is actionable and much of it is nonsense (which should make it clear why i described you inexperienced). But i am sorry for being uncivil. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be sorry, because you've just responded in the same way to me. I don't know why you think cursing isn't a problem on WP. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

and you know what slimvirgin, i never understand why people think it is such a great "gotcha" to link to a comment that someone overwrote. i never do that. here is where that comment ended up. of course i wrote what you linked to and of course i regret what i wrote originally; that's why i changed it. (which per TPG I can do, before someone else responds. after that i have to redact) i don't like what i originally wrote there. i have always wondered if there is some specific policy or guideline that calls linking to an overwritten comment "slimey behavior." Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And has also written about my notice that "..much of it is nonsense"! It never stops!... __DrChrissy (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I do regret losing my temper with drchrissy. that is on me. and i do apoligize for that. I do get it that cursing is ~probably~ uncivil. cursing at someone (like, "Jytdog you are a stupid fucking asshole") would be uncivil and a personal attack to boot. but saying "that is fucking wrong" is not cursing at somebody. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

oh drchirssy much of what you object to (like the edit war notice) was totally appropriate on my part. you didn't understand then and you still don't understand. i tried in the past to explain to you some of these sorts of things Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The beam sticking out of your eye is rather large. AlbinoFerret 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if an editor talks like a low-life, they shouldn't be surprised if they get treated like one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Two wrongs never make a right, civility is required, even if there is a perceived problem. Article talk pages and user pages are also the last place that it should be allowed. If there is a problem, bring it to one of the noticeboards. As experienced as Jytdog is, and his activity here pointing out issues, he should have known that. In his own words "it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done". AlbinoFerret 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Taken as a whole, Jytdog's behavior towards DrChrissy does appear to constitute a systematic pattern of harassment and incivility. Many of the worst comments have been struck by Jytdog, but there appears to be a pattern emerging in which Jytdog makes uncivil or unfounded remarks about an editor and then strikes them. Repeatedly making comments that have to be struck is itself a pattern of incivility. The edit warning also appears to be harassment. Jytdog attempted to justify the warning with this reply but notice that the third diff is not a revert. @Jytdog, I suggest dropping the stick rather than engaging in less than WP:CIVIL behavior and giving the appearance of being a disruptive user. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and quite strongly. The edit war warning arose after drchrissy tried 3 times to change a comment on a talk page that I had responded to, without redacting (showing the change):

• here with inaccurate edit note: " I have simply added my vote in bold to help editors who might wish to collate information quickly. The content in the message has not been changed."
• i reverted with edit note: "yes this changes the context very much, and makes my remark nonsense. strike if you with to redact it"
• he restored his change
• at 22:55, 25 March 2015 i reverted again, explaining again "this violates TPG, you must WP:REDACT, not simply edit, comments others have responded to"
• at 23:02, 25 March 2015 i gave edit war notice on his Talk page (which I often give in this kind of situation, at this point. it is fine under policy to do so - the point of the notice is to prevent 3RR and spur discussion; you get an edit war noticeboard notice after you break 3RR and are actually brought to the edit warring notice board)
• at 23:04, 25 March 2015 drchrissy stopped edit warring and intead commented on the Talk page: "@Jytdog. How do I redact information that is no longer there - you have already deleted it?" which is just baffling.
• later drchrissy asks on his talk page, "Why have you put this notice on my Talk page: Where am I supposed to be edit-warring?"

so...I give an edit warring notice and he stops edit warring, writes a bizzare comment, and then later on his Talk page asks why the edit war notice. the whole things shows either WP:CIR or just deliberately off-throwing behavior. I can't decide which but in either case, frustrating. I admit that I let myself express my frustration over this baffling behavior, which arises in the midst of a content dispute. Yes, I own that and have apologized for it. But my actions have been solid. There is no harassment. I have tried to talk through things with him, and almost every conversation goes off into bizarro world, exactly like that interaction did. I can give plenty more examples. Again, I acknowledge that I let myself express my frustration, which I should have not have done. That is as far as this goes. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Warning - Jytdog for incivility. Profanity-laden personal attacks like these 1, 2, 3 have no place in wikipedia. These are from the past 2 months and are only the worst examples. Removing or striking such comments, as Jytdog has done, does not unsay them. An experienced editor should not be making comments like this in the first place, and when such comments are made and deleted repeatedly it raises questions of potential baiting other editors and gaming the system.Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll accept a warning; I acknowledge that i allowed my frustration to get to me. I have absolutely not gamed anything.

• the first dif is not fair, as I overwrote that (final comment was here and then i deleted it altogether
• the second diff is not fair, as i overwrote that -the final comment was here and i apologized to that user here, which was accepted.
• third dif, same thing. I overwrote is so it ended up here and then deleted it altogether. it is not reasonable to link to earlier versions of comments. it has been a frustrating time for me, and i have been intemperate, but have fixed thing as I have gone. But i do accept a warning. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Support warning, and wash out his mouth, too. "i am not sorry for cursing; that is not a problem in WP." That is a ridiculous statement by Jytdog. Of course it is a problem. If this is the sum of the editor's opinion about WP:Civility, the that editor should not be editing here. Why does he think that folks don't stick around? We don't need him unless he can maintain civil discourse. Just my opinion, but I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment As the initiator of this ANI, I'm not entirely sure I am allowed to comment on punitive action. If I am not, I apologise. As the recipient of the protracted mis-behaviour of Jytdog this has reduced my Wiki-experience to being one of dreading opening up the site, and extreme stress and frustration whilst trying to get on with constructive editing. I have just looked at the examples offered by Dialectric above - it appears I got off lightly. Surely any punitive action should be more than a warning. Other editors will see this ANI and if they see that such uncivility results in just a few harsh words, I am sure they will not be impressed. Jytdog indicated here [[152]] that they believed their mis-behaviour was not actionable. This indicates that with their considerable experience of such behaviour they have carefully considered their actions and decided to stick two fingers up to the admins considering this (I hope this translates to other languages...it essentially means "****-off you lot"__DrChrissy (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not what i said at all, and your response again demonstrates WP:CIR. I am sorry that I upset you drchrissy but you don't understand what you are doing here. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am hearing the community feedback on cursing. I'll cut that out. (it's not something I ~generally~ do, and of course i recognize that it isn't civil with a small c) Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply You were warned by me here[153] and here[154] that your use of prophanity was objectionable - but you continued. I have not searched for others warning you of this (life is too short), but I would be amazed if similar warnings did not exist.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question to admins Jytdog has now questioned my competence suggesting WP:CIR twice, here[155] and here[156]. This is further evidence of the harassment I am receiving from this editor. Do I edit my original ANI to include these, or do I (regretably) start a new ANI?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi DrChrissy, it's best just to leave the diffs here. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support short block - I would normally support the warning, but Jytdog frequently argues WP:BLOCKDETERRENT with respect to others, which suggests a block might deter this sort of thing from recurring. The issue is beyond profanity. Jytdog badgered DrChrissy over minor seeming issues. DrChrissy exhibited remarkable civility and ability to remain focused on content while a battleground environment was created. Less level headed editors would have probably snapped, or else just walked away from the article in frustration.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I support BLOCKDETERRENT when the subject is WP:IDHT. I am hearing the valid criticism here. With regard to most of what drchrissy links above, most of it is due to his lack of understanding of how WP works. Really, look at them. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• My Own 2 Cents - I am not commenting on this incident specifically, but have had problems with Jytdog in the past. I have to admit, I find it a bit outrageous that he recently tried to quote/wikilawyer another editor using a conflict of interest policy he wrote himself. He becomes very aggressive when people question whether he has a conflict of interest (appropriately or otherwise). However, he recently tried to inappropriately suggest there was a conflict on interest in an article I was working on when it was entirely baseless, which he later admitted. It appears to me he has formed some kind of an alliance with Formerly98, who has been more problematic, as they have an unusually large amount of posts on overlapping articles and disputes. I am not familiar with how to handle conflict of interest editors and what kind of evidence is required to prove such, but many editors have raised issues with him and Formerly98 recently which doesn't seem to be coincidental. I am glad an administrator has taken notice of this and will hopefully be able to resolve whatever has been going on. Doors22 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• furthermore There is also an alliance with Alexbrn - diffs can be provided if required.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

all my "fans" are coming out to play. lovely. Doors22, your description of the COI issue you and I discussed is not accurate. That had to do with Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation, a cause for which Doors22 advocates here. The one reliable source about that foundation says: ""The men have formed a foundation and have commenced legal action." I pointed out that if the article would be created, we might run into trouble with COI per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Legal and Doors22 freaked out over that. And still is. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are deflecting from the issue of the thread, which is your mis-behaviour. Perhaps you should focus and defend your personal attacks on me.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, I responded directly to a new complaint about my behavior. It was on-point. This is one of the things about ANI. People jump in and bring all kinds of peripheral issues. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your "defense" is taken out of context and also off-topic. Other users can visit Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation if they would like to see the whole context for your nonconstructive exchange. I'm not really sure a short-term block would be productive, especially since Jytdog himself is asking for such a response. Both he and Formerly98 have used this tactic to evade escalation in the past. A 48-block is really a slap on the wrist, especially since he is an experienced editor. Doors22 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Frankly, this is much bigger than cussing. This editor behaves like a dictator and a tyrant, stirs up drama seemingly everywhere he goes, has an ownership attitude with regard to any article he works on as well as the encyclopedia in general, and this noticeboard in particular. He clearly works in a gang, which includes Alexbrn as DrChrissy noted, and Formerly98 as Doors22 pointed out, yet screams "Canvassing" when one who has questioned his edits seeks guidance from another. On GMO pages, one finds themselves taking on Jytdog and KingofAces as if they are the same person. He is perhaps the most disruptive editor I have come across on WP, and if you don't have a clear picture of that from this noticeboard, take a gander at how he treats an RfC that he wasn't allowed to control. Further, I would highly recommend reviewing what Atsme said in yet another Jytdog ANI. I hope it isn't true that WP is run mainly by 22 year old gamer dudes, but it seems like it would help to explain why no one has stood up to Jytdog and put an end to his bullying on behalf of the volunteers who have yet to be turned away. He called two editors "crazy" at the COIN talk page today, so I assume it's OK for me to be very honest - Jytdog seems... imbalanced at best, and IMO needs a long break from his volunteer work here. It is not making him happy, which is affecting good, hard-working editors. Please do something. petrarchan47tc 22:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Jytdog is an experienced editor, seems very intelligent, and when I look at his edits I think he can be an asset to the project overall, but I ran into his ownership behavior at GMO where he would play what seemed to be a game of revert/tell me to discuss my edit on talk when I already did and he didn't/then dismiss valid concerns on talk, and deviate into edit warring. Recently, I noticed he accused another user of canvassing all because he posted a required notification on my talk page. This kind of battleground behavior really needs to be dealt with in some way. And I see that I'm not the only one with an experience like this. If our passion for a subject ever causes us to lose sight of the rules, out of preservation for the project-at-large, something has to be done. I do think this editor is smart and enthusiastic but needs to be accountable for his behavior, as we all should. LesVegas (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:DrChrissy wrote "There is also an alliance with Alexbrn - diffs can be provided if required."[157] The offensive comment is counterproductive to contributing to an encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply to QuackGuru Why would this be considered offensive?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Without supporting diffs you accused Alexbrn of having an alliance.[158] QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, the quackery shills are looking to chase off yet another intelligent and hard-working proponent of the reality-based view. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like a number of editors who have had content conflicts with Jytdog have come out of the woodwork to try to run them off. Jytdog should tone it down with the cussing, but is by and large a policy and guideline based editor who is one of the few to tackle the POV pushing that occurs on controversial articles, and in general should be commended for dealing with the issues that arise from working these areas. Trout for Jytdog for the unnecessary cussing, and trout for the original poster for the overboard accusation of "wikihounding" based on one edit. Yobol (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reply to QuackGuru This is one example here[159] which provides yet further evidence of Jytdog's harassment of me that I did not include previously - would you like me to provide more evidence of the affiliation with Alexbrn because it is only likely to reveal more of Jytdog's harrassment of me.? It is not "offensive" to make such postings...I indicated I was willing to post examples. Please return to the focus of this discussion which is the mis-behaviour of Jytdog. (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol Are you really arguing that because so many editors are agreeing about the disruptive and uncivil behaviour of another editor, there must be a conspiracy? Please read through my list of concerns that for this ADI rather than just focussing on one, and tell me that the editor's behaviour is acceptable.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that a number of editors who are commenting here and seeking sanctions against Jytdog are those who have been in editorial conflict with him in the past; I see no "conspiracy" in it, other than an attempt to get a sanction against an editor they have been in a content dispute in the past. When the first item in the list is so flimsy, I usually do not check the other ones. From what you posted, I can see that they have been cussing (and noted in my first response they should cut it out), and the other issues I suspect they are harsh but I don't think get near my reading of WP:NPA. Jytdog should tone it down, but I don't see any need for administrative sanctions. Yobol (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so what you are saying is that if you think the first point I raise is "flimsy, I usually do not check the other ones". I feel this makes you totally uninformed to make any cogent argument on this ADI. Making your remark without fully reading the content I have prepared is unprofessional and potentially disruptive. I suggest to readers of this discussion that your remark should be ignored. I suggest you redact it.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your opinion carries any value if you admit you didn't review the original issues. An administrator, SlimVirgin, has also expressed concerns and I'm curious to hear how she advises proceeding. Doors22 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

SV is WP:INVOLVED in this. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because SV has interacted with you in this past does not mean she is involved in this general dispute. In any case, she will hopefully have a good suggestion on how to handle the situation whether she does it herself or recommends a proper venue. Doors22 (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

And yet more piling on. I already said I read through your concerns, and don't see a lot of issues that needs administrative action besides a trout. I'm sure you want everyone to ignore any information that doesn't lead to some sanction against Jytdog; that is the ANI way, and the reason why I tend to avoid places like this. Piling on by content dispute opponents and trumped up charges are par for the course here. Saying my contributions here are "potentially disruptive" pretty much says it all. Yobol (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC).

A "trout" for the continued harassment, insults, inflammatory, derogatory and personal insults? Imagine if I discussed this outside of Wikipedia. "This bloke stated or implied publicly that I was not an academic, I was incompetent, he agreed with an alliance that I was committing plagiarism, he made continual derogatory remarks...they want to send a picture of a trout to him". This would make Wikipedia a laughing stock. The continued outrageous behaviour of this editor towards me and so many other editors needs substantial punitive action...not a cartoon of a fish.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2015 (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.

Suggest more eyes at Jesús "Chuy" García

The article is about a main primary contender against the incumbent mayor of Chicago. We've had unexplained deletions Diazmr.90 and 24.13.117.243. The IP's edits overlap with Diazmr's entirely, and the IP user geolocates to Chicago. This seems like a POV edit with an IP used to avoid the appearance of an edit war by a single party. Given the highly contentious primary and the unexplained deletions I suggest an admin at least watch the page, if not semi-protect it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Those two are no doubt the same person. The question the IP just asked here below this post is the same that Diazmr asked on Articles for Creation. --DawnDusk (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Section title changed, as this is a request for "oversight" in its usual, everyday meaning, not its obscure, wacky, Wikpedeia jargon meaning.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's also Draft:Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, created by Diazmr.90, who created the article Rafael Yañez referred to in the subthread below called "Page Vandalized then deleted" posted by 24.13.117.243, who is indeed the same person. They need to be warned about WP:MULTIPLE and/or have the IP blocked. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Vandalized then deleted

The Wikipedia page Rafael Yañezas vandalized in the past before it was restored promptly. The page is now entirely off the Wikipedia and redirects to a different page. Where did the page go? Was it taken down by administrators or was it vandalized again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.117.243 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The article was boldly redirected to Chicago aldermanic elections, 2015. If you click on Rafael Yañez it will take you to the election page. You will see a note at the top saying you were redirected and the article name. If you click on that link it will take you to the redirect page. As for why this was done, I took a look at the last version of the article before it was redirected and it was clearly little more than a piece of political advertising. With rare exceptions, candidates for political office are not usually considered notable until they actually win election to a major office. See WP:POL. The community has consistently set the bar fairly high and taken a dim view of efforts by candidates to use Wikipedia as a platform for free advertising. The article in question was an unambiguous puff piece that likely would have qualified for speedy deletion under CSD G-11. I hope this helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping Tiller54 -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What Ad Orientem. Unless an unelected candidate receives significant media coverage (eg Christine O'Donnell), Wikipedia doesn't consider them notable enough for their own article. Tiller54 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved observer, I think the bold redirect of the Yañez piece is arguably okay — although the best practice for something that well developed would be to take it to AfD rather than to unilaterally make a decision. In no case should there be an edit war over that although at a glance there is about a 98% chance that the outcome at AfD would be "Redirect" (unelected politician). As for the Jesús "Chuy" García piece, that's an elected Chicago alderman and thus almost certain to be regarded as a keep at AfD. 24.13...... should be sure to sign in and to identify any potential Conflict of Interest on the talk pages of any articles being edited. I don't see any need for administrative action here one way or the other. Carrite (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of combining this with the preceding thread, since they are related articles by the same author. Carrite (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this thread is the functional equivalent of a "Contested PROD" and this needs to be restored and taken to AfD. I will do that. Carrite (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that's just well-meant busywork, User:Carrite. I wonder how likely your "courtesy AfD" is to get enough input for any sort of consensus. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

The content creator put the work into it, we should treat this as we would any other Contested PROD. He should have his 7 days to make a case for a GNG pass — I'll do the rewrite for tone myself if he can do that... The AfD appears HERE, by the way. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The election is April 7 [160] (15th Ward), and is a run-off between Yañez and someone who does not have a wiki article, so this article needs to go away fast. @Carrite: I know you meant well un-redirecting this article, but it shouldn't stand for a full week's AfD in my opinion, due to the promotional nature of it and due to the fact that the election is only nine days away right now. Softlavender (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur. The article is an obvious CSD candidate (G-11). I just posted a more detailed response on the AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD; the article was already re-redirected. ansh666 06:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Arctic Kangaroo (alt) block request

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.

---

By the account owners own admission this is an alternate account of a now banned user so it will require an indefinite block with talk page and email access revoked. PennJilletteFan (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This account has made a grand total of one (1) edit, and this was in 2013. But just now I blocked him anyway. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (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.

Concerns with user 174.3.213.121

Over a period of months, user 174.3.213.121 has been making inflammatory edit summaries on reverts, sometimes with anti-Hinduism tones. Examples involving Hinduism are:

• "removing previous editor's unwarranted insertions; mods: please handle further changes, as i suspect this individual is hindu and will 'go down swinging' for this edit. thanks"[161]
• "nothing on talk. please rebut before saying you did, it makes you a liar. alhazen sucks. archimedes pwns your wallah bro)"[162]
• "stop it you hindu fundamentalist. make your arguments under newly-created talk page section or revert again at your own peril"[163]

Other generally aggressive edit summaries include:

• " rv vandalism. what the hell do you think you're doing?i'll slap you, punk."[164]
• "Undid revision 641954597 by Rgdboer (talk) see talk, lorentz loving loser. his transformation is garbage, and you've yet to rebut wcherowi's args in talk)"[165]

He was warned by Materialscientist about edit warring on January 2. On Feb 14, I told him non-threateningly that he should be careful in his edit summaries, so as not to get blocked. Brirush (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have issued a clear and final warning, and any further such posts or edit summaries will lead to a block. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is Amanda Knox page?

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 page 'Amanda Knox' seems to have disappeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8h3d0kg (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope: Amanda Knox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange Bug: "The revision #0 of the page named "Amanda Knox" does not exist.". History and Talk are there. 80.132.65.8 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And now it is working again... 80.132.65.8 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's working now, but for a while, I got this message:

The revision #0 of the page named "Amanda Knox" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8h3d0kg (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it's needed to purge your cache. I know that's standard advice but it can resolve problems like this. Or reload the page, Cntrl-Alt-F5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is already over at the village pump. No admin action needed. Amortias (T)(C) 20:00, 28 March 2015 (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.

Multiple slow burning edit wars by IP.

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:86.145.107.226 is having fun with multiple slow burning edit wars at the same time. Almost straight after a block for edit warring] at "Promised land", he continued his behaviour at other articles, like The Emergency (Ireland), Naval Service (Ireland), Irish Army, 2nd Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment and Louise, Princess Royal. His talkpage is one collection of warnings, including a warning about sockpuppetry and block evasion (not checked by me). This IP is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction, It are now full blown edits wars on the first three articles... The Banner talk 17:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a week for edit warring. Davewild (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Links: 86.145.107.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2015 (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.

CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

no administrator action required Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

---

User:Green Cardamom has been convassed here by User:Mhhossein to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Woman's War: Da (Mother). After that, Green Cardamom did a personal attack, he has several edits unrelated to the AfD and makes it digress. But this is not the end of story, recently he made another edit completely irrelevant to the AfD and repeated it in 3 other AfDs: [166][167][168][169]. These edits are another convassing and a kind of disrupting the AfDs. Please tell me if I am wrong. Thanks ●Mehran ^Debate● 11:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I never asked User:Green Cardamom to support me at the AFD. In fact it was an appropriate notification. He seemed expert to me in this field and he had participated closely related topics in previous discussions. By the way, Mehran's serial AFD nominations of my articles also seems odd to me. After 50 days of absence in English Wikipedia, he began nominating my articles just after I had opposed in one of the discussions in Farsi project (where he is an admin). His Clumsy nominations makes me even more doubtful; One may refer to those AFD pages and follow the discussions to get my point. Mhhossein (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@

This is the first time I see this user and I really do not understand what is the relationship between the above link and me. The link is really not my concern, this is another personal attack to me, the user tries to relate all the things together and make them personal. This is my right to nominate every article I feel is not proper for Wikipedia, that is why you can see there are lots of discussion about them in the AfDs. Such edits make the users disappointed from editing in Wikipedia, I would like to wait for an admin here. ●Mehran ^Debate● 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The "personal attack" to which the OP refers appears to be an expression of suspicion of off-wiki canvassing, sockpuppetry, or something to that effect. The OP posted several times on the AFD between this supposed "personal attack" (which followed the "canvassing") and opening this thread. Clearly this is just a user who is angry that their AFD isn't going the way they want. I'd say close this thread, and I'd strongly advice User:Mehran to agree with me on this point lest their be a WP:BOOMERANG headed their way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I also find the "personal attack" not to be one. It appears to be questioning why something appears to be happening and not an attack. I also think a boomerang may be appropriate. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

First we are talking about a convassing here and second personal attack. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as the canvasing, its a pretty neutral post to an expert on the topic. That they participated in some discussions on the topic also negates the canvasing. Its just one person, if they had notified multiple people and only those that they knew would side with them, that would be canvassing. But in this case it doesnt appear to be the case when the edit is looked at is looked at in view of the specific requirements of canvassing and what is allowed and negates it. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You can now see the result of this canvassing in the mentioned AfDs, some users came to the AfDs simultaneously and wrote on them. I still wait for an admin here. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed that. Cardamon posted the same, perfectly reasonable, critique of your strange practice on all of the relevant forums. "Canvassing" can only have taken place if the person doing the canvassing was anticipating specific support for their position on the AFD. But none of the above diffs show Cardamon !voting in favour of keeping the pages. If you are trying to get Cardamon blocked in order to prevent him/her from revealing you have been hounding another user, then posting on ANI was the worst idea you could have possibly had. If you believe that you have not been the hounder but the houndee, then please specify that. Your canvassing accusation is clearly bogus. The wording of the "canvassing" message was fairly neutral all things considered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, your statements are not neutral. I posted here to talk with an admin and will explain everything required for him, so please do not digress my edits with your theories. ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious Mhossein has been hounded for a while now for his religious and political beliefs ("degenerate religious thinking"). Now the articles he created are being systematically targeted for deletion. Clearly there is a wider battleground spillover and it's sucking in myself and other editors. I worked with Mhhossein on some of these articles in the past and found him to be courteous and professional. I have never encountered Mehran before this (that I know of). In terms of the canvassing allegations others have addressed that (thank you), but I'd be happy to respond if requested by an admin. -- GreenC 15:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Fawiki RfA overspill

This AfD has very obviously become a battleground for a fawiki RfA dispute, on the nomination of Sahehco User:Mehran, and User:Ladsgroup, both of whom support Sahehco's nomination, voted to delete an article by Mhossein who opposed the nomination (Mehran also nominated all other articles Mhossein has created for deletion, and Ladsgroup had voted to delete "per nom" on all of these AfDs). Meanwhile User:Sa.vakilian who opposed the nomination, voted to keep the article created by his fellow opposer. I know this is an extreme accusation to make, but there is no way the votes can line up like this merely from coincidence. Bosstopher (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This was an Iranian-related AfD and it is not strange to see Fawiki users. Anyway your theory was cool! ●Mehran ^Debate● 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments on my theory. I dont think this is merely an everday occurrence of fawiki editors commenting on AfDs however. Prior to the Mhosseins AfD's, Ladsgroup had not commented on an AfD since 23rd of August, and Seyyed had not commented on an AfD since 18th July. You yourself, had not edited enwiki since 5 February, before returning to nominate Mhossein's articles for deletion. Regardless of actual motives, this comes across incredibly fishy. Bosstopher (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to reply you, someone (or more) here disobeyed the policies and I am waiting for an admin to comment. ●Mehran ^Debate● 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have not had any contact with @User:Green Cardamom and do not know him. @Bosstopher made an strange claim about my vote. My vote does not relate to Persian wikipedia at all and he should provide evidence for his claim. @Mhhossein is my friend. He found me in English wikipedia about one years ago and asked me to help him learn wikipedia guidelines and policies. In my view he is a professional editor. Finally, I hope @Mehran's serial AfDs does not relate to the matters of Persian wikipedia. I do not endorse his action to follow a user and nominate the articles made by him for deletion, however, I do not want to accuse him. I just vote for one of the AfDs, which is deserved to keep based on wiki policies and guidelines, and I have neutral view in the other cases . --Seyyed(t-c) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Several articles of Mhossein were subjects of AfD in fa.wp before Saheco's RfA. All articles of this user regardless of Wiki is highly related to Iranian government propaganda. We also blocked lots of users with similar behavior (fa:ویژه:سیاهه‌ها/block/Ladsgroup) due to WP:SOCK they are blocked also in Wikimedia Commons, it's strange that these users have exact same views and classic tag teaming regardless of Wiki. It's not unreasonable to think of undisclosed paid editing or at least volunteer organized work :)Ladsgroup^overleg 18:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment and Disclaimer - For the record, and since I was/am involved in the AFD discussions being considered here, I have absolutely no Conflict of Interest here and do not know any of the other parties involved beyond this current conversation. I see what looks like to me serious systematic AFDs by several accounts targeting one editor's articles. Beyond that my interest is solely in the AFD process and notability, underrepresented voices, and not the content of this particular set of articles. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Ladsgroup: Mhossein's block log in Persian wikipedia[170] and commons[171] are completely clean. Your false reasoning about WP:SOCK mislead the readers. You are an admin and bureaucrat in Persian wikipedia. So, try to provide facts before accusing and blaming the others. Certainly, You had blocked him there, if there had been any proof against him. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: I never claimed this user is a sockpuppet master. As I said it's a classic tag teaming case and people don't get blocked because of tag and that's why the block log is clean. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 04:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: Sorry for the delay, Could you please make more explanations on the following points:

• You said that several articles of me had been subjects of AfD in fa.wp before Saheco's RfA. This is while I have created no article in fa.wp. What do you mean? could you please clarify your point and name those mentioned articles?
• Could you please explain what you mean by "classic tag teaming"?
• Is there any reasonable reasons behind your accusations? I would like you to see the pattern of my edits most of which are related to military history Wikiproject. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

it's being called tag teaming. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 08:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked you some other questions, too. Btw, how do you call it tag teaming? Mhhossein (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I am also unclear as to who Ladsgroup is accusing of tag-teaming and on what basis that accusation is being made. Please explain in sufficient detail for others to understand. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@HullIntegrity: in fa.wp this user and several other ones (who turned out to be socks and I blocked them as it's mentioned in the block log) had similar view points, used these accounts to POV push, have their articles kept (like the one I exampled), and tried to dispute in the RfA. I call this an obvious tag teaming. Lots of them are blocked in English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia commons. One example is Template:Did you know nominations/Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam which you can see the creator and nominator is blocked. I can give tons of examples like this in several Wikimedia projects :)Ladsgroup^overleg 00:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting. But I am unsure exactly what I am supposed to infer from that link that regards this discussion. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 00:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: Comment There are many wikipedians who have the same position on some issues and act similarly. For example, we will encounter the same position by most of the Iranian users who are active in English wikipedia, if there is a discussion about changing the name of Persian Gulf article to Arabian Gulf. Some of them may violate the policies for example by making sockpuppet and some may obey the policies. It is not reasonable to condemn and accuse those who obey the rules for their positions which is similar to those who break the rules. I think you just make a negative speculation without sufficient evidence. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: you'd better stop this irrelevant issue here and open another topic in this board, if you are enthusiastic to follow it. Btw, what do you mean? should I not participate such discussions? More responses will be presented by admin request. Mhhossein (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

At first it was "accusation" and now it's "irrelevant issue". I think we are making progress. User:Bosstopher made this issues related (btw I didn't vote in the RfA) and I wanted to say this battleground is far older than what this user thought. I don't mind creating another topic for this but I'm busy enough already and don't have time to argue. I said this for the record and admins here should be aware of the matter :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I seem to have jumped the gun with the accusations, I especially regret my use of the word "obviously." I am very very bad at reading farsi (why dont they just write in the vowels!!!). However it does seem, (even if it has nothing to do with the RfA) that this dispute is part of something bigger and has a fawiki context. Still probably wasnt good to charge into a situation I dont understand and start accusing people of stuff, so apologies to User:Mehran, User:Ladsgroup and User:Sa.vakilian.Bosstopher (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A note to any admin who is reluctant to comment here because they dont know any farsi

You're not the only one. None of the other admins know any farsi either, so you shouldnt let it put you off commenting. I've looked through WP:BABEL, and I cant find anyone who is both an admin, and is tagged as knowing any farsi (maybe I just suck at searching through categories though). One of you is probably going to have to comment evenutally (although I guess maybe not necessarily), so it may as well be you. Bosstopher (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) - If I understand correctly, being able to read Farsi should be irrelevant to this discussion since this is the English Wikipedia. What matters is behavior here in the English Wikipedia in English. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WP:COMPETENCE 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 strongly suspect some WP:COMPETENCE issues with Mavsfan123 (talk · contribs). I have warned the user at least twice that they are putting way too little content into their articles, but six days after their last warning, they created an article as lacking in content as their previous efforts. Other articles of theirs have been nominated for deletion for similar reasons, and they removed a deletion tag at least twice. The user has been here since last July, and yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to improve their article creation (compare this edit). They have also made no attempt to communicate on talk pages. I'm tired of cleaning up this editor's half-assed attempts, and I really want to get through to them, because it's obvious they're not listening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bump because no one ever listens to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you titled your thread "WP:COMPETENCE admin" they'd be here like flies to shit. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:34, 28 March 2015 (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.

Violation of her one revert per day restriction by Roscelese

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 honor system does not appear to be working well as a method of enforcing the editing limitations on User:Roscelese instituted earlier this month as evidenced by her recent three reversions in one 24 hour period and failure discuss these reversions on the articles' talk pages. See [172] and [173]. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where has Roscelese made multiple reverts in the same article? Heck, where has she edited the same article more than once in the same day? Why aren't we just closing this as a troll report? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The restriction issued by the arbitrators Doesn't say one revert IN THE SAME ARTICLE. It simply says ONE REVERT a day. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what it says. User_talk:Roscelese#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FChristianity_and_Sexuality_closed says "User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making no more than one revert PER PAGE per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations)" (emphasis added). Restricting someone to a single revert on the whole site per day would be one of the stupidest things I'd've ever heard of (either block or get off the can), and I'm having a hard time imagining that you didn't jump to that conclusion because of some grudge (instead of real good-faith concern for the site). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This IP became active at about the time Badmintonhist was indefinitely blocked for harassment, and edits a bunch of the same articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the one per day per pay issue, but she is has failed to follow her requirement to discuss her reverts on the articles' talk pages. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And that trumps failing to respect a block for harassment how? Also, it's not just any reverts, but reversion of new content. Do you have any WP:DIFFs that demonstrate that she's not just reverting vandalism? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum anyway, if any non block evading editor thinks there has been a violation of the arbitration remedy then it needs to get reported to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, not here. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thompson: She is ROUTINELY NOT using article talk pages to discuss reverts. See her edits made between 14:36 26 March and 13:46 27 March on Palestinian stone-throwing, 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case and Ex-gay movement. None involve vandalism or BLP violations and she discusses none of what she has done on the article talk pages. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Move on. I checked one [174] and that's a content edit, not revert, with a detailed edit summary. The purposes of all sanctions, including arbcom, is to maximize benefit to the encyclopedia while minimizing disruption, not to play "gotcha" with the sanctioned editor. NE Ent 19:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

3 month schoolblock for the IP address. I agree that it is Badmintonhist. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2015 (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.

Formal complaint about User:Bobrayner

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 wish to lodge a complaint and a request for an immediate halt to the destructive, criminal and "bad faith" editing activity of User:Bobrayner, which consists almost exclusively of removing text from articles which he doesn't happen to like, and then giving a spurious justification for it afterwards, or no proper justification at all.

If e.g. an article lacks references, User:Bobrayner will destroy part of it, on the ground that it lacks references, even although there is nothing particularly wrong with the content, and if it is to the contrary carefully referenced, he will destroy part of it on the ground that it is a "quote farm", and so forth. He can always cite some kind of reason for what he wants to do anyway, that seems to justify what he feels like. However, often he doesn't even bother to give any explanation of his edits, and just poses as the natural authority on these things.

If User:Bobrayner's editing track record is examined in detail and as a whole, it consistently shows bias: (1) he attacks and destroys mostly left-wing contributions to wikipedia, and (2) in right-wing contributions, his edits aim consistently to strengthen the right-wing argument! It may be that he gets some pocket-money for his subversion in wikipedia (from the CIA, for example), but I don't know whether that is true, and I am not in a position to verify that. (3) If User:Bobrayner knew what he was talking about, maybe we could accept at least some of his edits, but in reality it turns out he doesn't know what he is talking about. The longrun pattern of his edits shows, that in reality he has no special knowledge or competency to edit the specific articles that he does. He just latches onto articles hthat interest him, then he decides something is inappropriate from his "common sense" perspective, or that he doesn't like it, and then he wipes it out, leaving only a cryptic comment alluding to any kind of wikipedia rule that "seems" or "might" to justify the deletion.

He utilizes ambiguity and vagueness, and very cryptic comments, to provide a seemingly legitimate "cover" for his destructive edits. If he did this only once or twice, it could be forgiven. But he does this routinely and systematically, like a junkie looking for a stone. The objectionable part is that he edits with quite the wrong motivation, and he does not make the articles better, but often worse.

The effect of User:Bobrayner's edits is, that a lot of valuable content is wiped out, and that the constructive effort made by other wikipedians across many hours of work is wasted or misrepresented. If User:Bobrayner is not stopped, I will stop any constructive contributions to wikipedia immediately myself, and I will advise everyone I know, never to contribute anything to wikipedia, on the ground that it turns a blind eye to vandals and frauds. I have commented on User:Bobrayner's a few times on talk pages of articles I worked on, to warn others, but I feel any detailed critique is useless at this point, since my experience is that User:Bobrayner will arbitrarily invoke any rule or principle to suit himself, and ignores any criticism of his activity anyway - he is not open to reason or to modifying his behaviour. At most he will use some scam tactic to con people into thinking that what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. Jurriaan (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jurriaan's outburst seems to have been triggered by this edit, where I reverted a Jurriaan sock; I maintain a stance that WP:V and WP:NPOV apply to all articles, even the ones owned by Jurriaan and his socks, a stance which has led to Jurriaan calling me a vandal, criminal, incompetent &c. The accusations that I'm getting paid off by the CIA are nothing new, but say more about Jurriaan than me. Can somebody put a stop to this, please? We've tried a few talkpages and a couple of noticeboards before this, but Jurriaan has ignored all suggestions from other editors. Possibly because everyone else who tries to apply policy to Jurriaan's articles is part of my criminal conspiracy. Jurriaan didn't notify me of this thread, but hey, it seems that Jurriaan is exempt from all our policies. (WP:NPA, WP:NPOV. WP:V, WP:Ew etc.) I am only disappointed that Jurriaan failed to follow through on his previous promise to stop editing. bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jurriaan: You've offered no diffs to demonstrate your claims against Bobrayner, but you do seem to be casting aspersions and seem to have a definite attitude towards their edits. Not to mention that if you open an AN/I discussion about another editor, you must notify them on their talk page. @Bobrayner: From your diffs I can see some support for your defense against Jurriaan's claims, but the sock discussion is stale (that was 2011, years ago) and the one that triggered all of this would probably have been better with simply throwing on {{Citation needed}} instead of just deleting. I'm not entirely sure of your innocence in this matter, to be honest.

To admins: I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG on Jurriaan, and a bit of trout for Bobrayner for hit-and-run editing. I don't think either of them are coming here with clean hands, but a bit of corrective action is probably better than going heavy-handed. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hit and run? I was unaware that I was required to stand around and listen to Jurriaan's regular, venomous personal attacks after I prune quotefarms and even remove content that is demonstrably false. Nonetheless, I've tried talkpages in the past, tried pointing out what sources say, and Jurriaan has made the same attacks as now. I've tried noticeboards, to the same effect. I have no other options because, no matter what policies the content fails, Jurriaan will automatically revert. Now Jurriaan tries the same attacks on a new noticeboard and you accuse me of having "Unclean hands"? That may not be entirely helpful. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: Jurriaan's behaviour is certainly something that needs to be dealt with, but your edits still fan the flames of the issue here. I don't have the sense that you're entirely innocent here, since unsourced yet potentially useful content should be given the opportunity for people to find sources first, rather than just simply removed with a terse remark. I'd strongly advise you to mark unsourced content as such using {{Citation needed}} especially in topic areas where Jurriaan is active, at least as a good-faith effort to limit the need for discussions like these. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I see zero evidence of Bobrayner having unclean hands or deserving a trout. coldacid, do you have any diffs? I may have missed something.

I see every reason to not reply to Jurriaan or engage with him in any way, considering the content of his recent comments:[175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I went through the history for a few revision of the first page that Bobrayner linked to, and while I no longer believe that Bobrayner comes to this with "unclean hands" per se, I still have the sense that their editing habits in this space encourages this kind of issue to come up. Given further review of what's going on here, I've struck my original suggestion, and instead suggest a temporary block (48h–a week) on Jurriaan followed by a mutual IBAN between Jurriaan and Bobrayner and further restrictions on Jurriaan: 1RR and no opening noticeboard discussions relating to Bobrayner. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

With those further diffs provided by Guy Macon, maybe even a longer block may be warranted? // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a longer block would be warranted. bobrayner (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Accusing someone of "scamming and frauding", engaging in "criminal, corrupt activity" and the like is absolutely beyond the pale. I am at a loss to understand why this individual remains free to participate in this project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP for his repeated, eggregious personal attacks including accusations of others being "criminals." Such behavior is not to be tolerated at Wikipedia. If the blocked user makes suitable contrition anyone may unblock them. --Jayron32 01:47, 29 March 2015 (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.

Abhiguru Pandey again

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.

---

Abhiguru Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The editor has repeatedly recreated pages that were deleted, and has not once responded to anything on their page. @Samsara: and I have both attempted to contact the person to see if they need help learning. The pages they recreate are the same content each time. I've watched the editor since I first ran across them through Check Wikipedia, and I've seen very little that could be construed as constructive, and a decent amount that is disruptive. So I am bringing the editor to the admin's notice again, to see if there is some sort of restraint that needs to be used. Jerodlycett (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. No point in going on like this. Indefinitely blocked. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Re-opening since I was pinged and have a relevant comment. The user has not been entirely unresponsive - I received thanks from them via the inbuilt thanking mechanism, for hoisting some previously contributed content from deleted versions of the secondary school article they created. With sources emerging, the AfD currently looks set to pass. The user's activities are exclusively focused on the Hindaun region, creating content where we previously had no coverage. As such, they are creating resources that we have obviously not previously been able to obtain (recently, articles on two reservoirs). However, for reasons not known to me, the user does often start with posting bare infobox parameters into a page, which has the effect that speedy deletion templates are applied in quick order. Experience suggests that if the user is given two days, they will create a more typical stub article. Clearly, they are still working out the fundamentals of the syntax. Given their interest in a school article, it cannot be ruled out that we're dealing with a youngster. I don't know that we have the technical means to automatically redirect their page creations to draft or user space, but this would imo be an ideal remedy for this user. Blocking would be a disappointing recourse, as it ultimately limits our growth and theirs. I also think we're blocking a user that may be just about to get the hang of things, and it seems that recent changes patrol is adequately dealing with the loose ends from their limited activity (active about every two to three days, about a dozen max. edits on active days involving 2 to 4 articles). A shorter block might be useful if it makes them figure out how to communicate with us, or that they need to do this. An indef block runs the risk of sending the wrong signal to a user who has shown intention to contribute positively. Samsara 14:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

They've never edited a talkpage, including their own, but sending thanks is a sign of life, certainly, Samsara. Please feel free to shorten or undo the block with further advice, if you think there's hope. I don't know of any way to automatically redirect their creations to draft space, but we've given article creation topic bans before, with the user only permitted to go via WP:AFC. If you think there's any chance of that working, you could offer an unblock on such a condition. Please handle it as you think best. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 29 March 2015 (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.

Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy

Report by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs)

Party reported Chiayi77 (talk · contribs)

Other party involved in big way LynnS79 (talk · contribs)

Article Climate fiction

DIFFS

• KEY DIFF
  

Reported party admits they should be topic banned from the article saying

"Read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Banning policy . Both Chiayi77 and LynnS79 had major conflicts of interests I see now, and I feel we both should be banned for life -- and just allowed to lurk and read"

Note - At this time I do not endorse Chiayi77's call also to topic ban LynnS79. See "discussion section" below. At this time I am only asking that Chiayi77 be banned from the article, due to his own statement

• SUPPORTING DIFF
  

Reported party admits (or at least claimed) he uses the article as an advocacy tool, to support what he describes as his climate fiction outreach to journalists across the globe.

• SUPPORTING DIFF

This is just one of many examples of claims of page ownership. Seat belt on?

"Her M.0.? to undermine my work with cli fi, why the eff does she care what I am doing? Do i critizsne or mitigate her academic papers? No, i let her be. She should let me be. the soltuion is give me my page back..."

— typos in original but bold added

DISCUSSION

At the article talk page Chiayi77 argues with explosively disruptive walls of text, rife with aspersions and personal attacks on the other editor. I'm not going to provide DIFFs about that because I'm a bystander, and I have already urged the other party to come here on their own behalf. Her joining us is moot, however, becuase this complaint is not about their mutual antagonism. Rather, DIFFS having nothing to do with LynnS79 show Chiayi77 should be banned from the article due to a massively disruptive COI, claim of ownership, and his own admission such a ban should be implemented

Just a note in anticipation of Chiayi77's response here - I have no opinion, good or bad, about LynnS79 at this time. The verbal vomit from Chiayi77 is so extensive I have been unable to get a feel for Lynn's efforts at the article, though if future diffs warrant, I'll complain or thank her in due course. Of course I have no objection to a review of her contribs if some ADMINISTRATOR can make heads or tails of the page history.

CONCLUSION
Chiayi77's own statements are as clear a statement of disruptive COI as I've ever run across. Since that editor now says he should be topic banned from Climate fiction, would some admin please implement such a topic ban?

PS Named users notified at these diffs

• Chiayi77
• LynnS79

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) The editor in question does have an apparent COI. But the editing account is only 10 days old, and it is impossible to understand all of the policies and guidelines in 10 days. The editor should be warned about directly editing articles they are involved with and follow WP:COIADVICE. AlbinoFerret 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment (non admin observation) Notwithstanding the CoI, it would probably be wise for Chiayi77 to get a feel for appropriate conduct on some Wikipedia pages he isn't so personally invested in. Although I do have concerns with the... I think it was an attempted doxxing, but honestly I'm not quite sure because I find it hard to read Chiayi77's comments, I think the crux of this matter is that he's involving himself in something that he has personally expressed a conflict of interest in, and his interaction with everyone involved stands as a testament to why we have CoI rules. I'll use a diff from my talk page - [186] - this was after I posted one comment on what was then the Cli-Fi page suggesting that the article be stubbed and renamed. Simonm223 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Add vague legal threat Addition from complaining party While the above comments are good points, the user in question has added vague legal threats to the littany of problems.

• First diff in enthusiastic series hinting at litigation

00:37, March 30, 2015

• Last Diff in series (so far)

09:35, March 30, 2015

Notice that the last DIFF is dated after the excellent advice from Simon above. The lawyers among us would argue that the NO LEGAL THREAT policy does not apply because Chiayi77 only told us about advice he received from his own atorney, regarding the possibility that he would be sued. A strict reading of the policy seems to require that he threaten to sue one or all of us. That reading is gamesmanship, though, because it defeats the purpose of the NO LEGAL THREAT policy. We are a community of collaboration. Posting on a talk page that you are consulting with an attorney about your posting to a talk page is antithetical to the trust on which this project depends. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported again for repeated talk page harassment

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 again reporting User:Mabelina for repeated harassment on my talk page and repeated reversion of my removal of her comments. She has already been told by myself to keep away from my talk page and advised by administrators to do so. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Administrators should also note User:Mabelina's incivility and other unhelpful behaviours towards various editors on the Order of Saint John article's talk page and her own talk page. There is a pattern of unconstructive and disruptive behaviour as she seems to think that whatever she thinks trumps anything in the MoS. Afterwriting (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes please do note all of Afterwriting's allegations and please find a lasting resolution this time. For further info please refer: User talk:Mabelina. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Further I now see Afterwriting is pursuing this issue with added vigour by pointing you to alleged incivility on my part on my own Talk page. It all boils down to (or emanates from - howsoever you wish to put it) lack of understanding of history & massive arguments over the Order of Saint John which I am afraid I was outnumbered by a gang of ...... please see User talk:Qexigator for an educated and informed viewpoint - how can I get out of this vicious circle of abuse without Wiki high authority's intervention (other than by disappearing)? This type of activity is doing nothing to further Wiki's aims & and is appalling to witness frankly - HELP! M Mabelina (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I should also be most interested to contact whoever devised & adjudicated on Wiki's MOS to see if it is being applied properly in historical matters.

• I have blocked Mabelina for 24 hours for harassment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't dealt with Mabelina enough to be able to say she's been harassing me at my talk page (though, she's certainly been posting there enough in the last few days). However, I can attest to the comment about her style of editing and interacting with other users. She habitually breaks from the Manual of Style. After her edits are corrected (each with an edit summary explaining what the correction is), she reverts back to her sloppiness. She removes maintenance tags without fixing the issue the tag is drawing attention to. She uses misleading edit summaries. She creates misleading pipes. She undoes neutral edits with consensus to favour her biased edit (lede). She demonstrates even a total unawareness of WP:V and WP:RS.

When critiqued on a talk page for any particular action, rather than own up to the problem, listen, learn, and self-improve, she offers only straw men: criticism of her poor editing habits is met with her assertion she provides historical accuracy and everyone is missing that point by focusing too much on the MoS; criticism of the lack of needed information in a citiation is met with her assertion the source is valid. It's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT if I ever saw one. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 29 March 2015 (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.

Page protection and accusation of vandalism without explanation

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 tried to edit the lead-in and the section on underreporting of rape in the Rape in India article. After repeated accusations of vandalism with absolutely no explanation other than reference to a "consensus" that I cannot see any evidence of, User:Bgwhite has now moved the page up to full protection level and disallowed any editing of the page until 12th of April. I've posted twice to the Talk page, but received no responses on the Talk page and am feeling quite ignored at the moment. This is a matter that's important, not just for the international community, but for women in India, who deserve to receive accurate information about the state of violence in India. Please, is there a way we can have a civil discussion about this instead of just blocking each other? Bargolus (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You can request that an admin make the edit for you. See WP:RFED. JodyB _talk 11:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

To all of you, just read User:OccultZone/sandbox#29 March, I am too sure that Zhanzhao is trying hard to sock but he is still leaving too many similarities. After making fake wikibreak,[187] he returned for seeking protection of his favorite version,[188] before other editor could return to revert his version,[189] interestingly Bgwhite just removed any non-discussed edits. Now he whines with other account that his version wasn't protected. Above post reads "posted twice to the Talk page" and "no responses on the Talk page and am feeling..", right? Zhanzhao also treats "talk" as a proper noun.[190][191][192] Consider closing this sock complaint without any action. I am already dealing with this issue up there.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea who user:Zhanzhao is, but interestingly on User:bgwhite's talk page I'm also accused of being User:occultZone's sock. You know, it is possible for there to be more than two editors involved here? If anyone disputes the fact that I'm not identified with either of these two send me your Skype ID and I'll personally speak to you over the phone. Bargolus (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

While ZhanZhao has already emailed me a "link to a photo on my facebook".[193] for proving that he is not a sock. However, it is not really proving any of his point or providing him exemption from sock puppetry, now your Skype calls are not going to do anything. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, while don't we get ZhanZhao to join the Skype as well? Or do you think his powers of sockpuppetry are to the point that he can simulate an entire face on Skype while simultenaously talking to you? Bargolus (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Only if there is any mention of Skype at WP:SOCK and if it is going to provide any exemption from sock puppetry. Same policy that you/Zhanzhao had claimed to have thoroughly read after getting blocked for block evasion.[194] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:32, 29 March 2015 (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.

Editor enters unsourced info about subjects' profession

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:Mrgoth is making a big deal of changing or adding to the occupations of various people profiled in Wikipedia, as for example adding "soldier" to the infobox of John F. Kennedy. Special:Contributions/Mrgoth. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Mrgoth was not notified about this discussion; I have done that now. It looks like nobody has made much of an effort to discuss this issue with the user, you should try that first. Ivanvector (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2015 (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.

Victor Talking Machine Company

User talk:Gramophone Man is inserting wrong info regarding the Victor Talking Machine Company. A new unrelated entity calling itself the Victor Talking Machine Company was formed last year and the problem editor keeps treating the two companies as one and the same. Please monitor the Victor Talking Machine article and revert erroneous postings. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about that, but I can say that Gramophone Man has added promotional content to Graham Alexander (musician) and seems intent on promoting Graham Alexander's entrepreneurial activities in Victor Talking Machine Company. Could just be an enthusiastic fan, but it seems a bit fishy to me. I get suspicious whenever I see the phrase "rave critical reviews" added to an article, especially when it's sourced to what looks like some guy's blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with a user making cut-and-paste moves and screwing up categories

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.

---

GreekGreenAnarchist100 (talk · contribs) is making a real mess. Please assist me in cleaning it up, and tell him to use the RM process. RGloucester — ☎ 14:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• GGA is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• RG - probably best to go do something else for a bit while they go on their rampage. They'll be indeffed and mass-rollbacked whenever the admins wake up this morning. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Previous accounts (after the SPI): GreekAnarchist100 (talk · contribs); GreekLeft100 (talk · contribs); Jets100 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jets100 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jets100. Alakzi (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked by Bbb23, still needs edits undoing if that's standard practice for this editor. Sam Walton (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Other than the master, Jets100, I have indefinitely blocked all of the accounts listed above as suspected sock puppets, as well as GreekSocialist100 (talk · contribs).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (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.

Possible single purpose account editing the Jeff Martin article

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

seems to have a conflict of interest with the above article, and has made no edits to other pages. I have left a COI warning on the talk page, but I'm not sure what else can or should be done, or if his edits should be reverted. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Their edits have been reverted, as they were replacing the content of a disambiguation page with an article for one person with that name; I've warned them about their inappropriate disambiguation page behaviour. And yes, it seems like they're a single-purpose account, and right now the person that they're writing about doesn't seem too notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Should it then be CSD'ed? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the page needs to be kept as a disambiguation page. This user keeps replacing the Jeff Martin disambiguation page with an article about their person. We need to keep reverting Jeff Martin back to a disambiguation page. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, you protected the article , but it's currently on the wrong version of the page (the singer/songwriter person version, not the disambiguation page version). Please can you correct this? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Sorry about that, it was an edit conflict of sorts. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am conversing with OJM on my talk page and trying to convince him to edit other articles. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have posted some advice on his user talk as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Death threat by IP

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.

---

Here it is. 'Nuff said. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 18:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked them for vandalism and the threat has been reverted (and supressed). Davewild (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding: the Wikimedia Foundation emergency response team has been advised. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2015 (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.

Thestarborn1028 continues to wikilink non-notable cast member after block

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.

---

Thestarborn1028 (talk · contribs) continues to wikilink Russo, a cast member of the Bad Girls Club again, and again after being blocked for 60 hours the same reason. Best, jona^(talk) 21:24, 29 March 2015 (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.

Concerning Talk:Mother Jones (magazine)

I'm requesting a look-see by an administrator at Talk:Mother Jones (magazine) on behavioral matters. My own editing behavior has been called into question, with a section of the talk page dedicated to suggesting I'm behaving inappropriately. I concede that over the last couple of days, I may have been rather heavy handed and "lost my shit" somewhat. Rather than defending myself here, I would prefer if an administrator could just take a look at the last couple of weeks of editing (article and talk page) and make up their own mind. If it is decided that the claims against me are legit, I will be happy to receive any trouting I deserve. I have indicated on the talk page that I would be seeking advice here. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"lost your shit" is stronger language than I'd have used. Don't mess with other users' talk page comments to remove personal attacks against yourself...that's always an invitation to further drama. Let someone uninvolved do it. What the talk page needs is more eyes, and you will certainly get those by coming here. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Help, please

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 left my home state to help a friend who has been hospitalized. I have Internet access, but yesterday I fell down and broke my elbow. Now, my dominant hand is in a sling.

Scalhotrod and I were having some disputes on Silicon Valley gender, race, and sexism material before I left home. After he warned me about edit warring (which I have since deleted[195]), I warned him about DS resulting from the Gamergate ArbCom. (He deleted it.[196]) I thought our disputes were resolved, but he is once again reverting material that I added - plus added material of his own. I don't mind what he's added, but do think his deletions are uncalled for. I reverted them yesterday, and explained my situation to him,[197] but he deleted the material again.

Usually, I give lots of diffs, but this typing one-handed - on someone else's computer - is slow going.

He did this exact same thing to me last May when I was on vacation, with limited computer access. When one editor is in such situations, is it fair-game for another editor to press their advantage? Especially over material that was recently discussed? Could an uninvolved admin please intervene? Lightbreather (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE Choor monster (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, my best friend (two weeks now) is in the hospital with a serious illness, my arm is in a sling and I have a fair amount of pain, I express a concern about an editor's behavior and ask for help - and this is how you "help"?

Could some other uninvolved admin review this? GorillaWarfare, SlimVirgin: Can you weigh in? Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Tbh it sounds like you've got far more important things to be concerned with. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "I broke my arm" can in any way be used as an argument as to what an article should contain. Sorry. Even though it may make arguing with Scalhotrod harder. Looking at an editing dispute as a game in which one may "press one's advantage" isn't really the best perspective; we're each trying to write the best articles possible. It's better to concentrate on the end result, not the process. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2015 (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 repeatedly adding unsourced lists of samples to album articles

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.

---

Madvillain2009 (talk · contribs), the user I have reported here a couple weeks ago, started adding unsoured lists of samples to album articles again. Can someone please stop him doing things like this? 180.12.61.239 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You should go through WP:AIV to report this, you will probably get a faster response. For admins here: user has been lv4-warned three times this month to not do this. Ivanvector (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2015 (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.

Mishandling of an 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.

---

An SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao has been mishandled two times now.

About 20 days ago, I had figured some objectionable edits on an article,[198] that would be exceptionally backed by other account[199] in order to avoid previous account from breaking 3rr. Though this account(DanS76) hadn't made any edits in last few months. After seeing the similar attempts to WP:RGW, I would find a lot of similarities between these two accounts. I went to open an SPI.[200]

Evidence was so strong that Zhanzhao,(the puppeteer) claimed that it was his brother, similar to some people claiming that their account was operated by their little brother. Salvidrim! took his words and let him go, despite he was blocked back in 2009 for evading his block, and he had affirmed to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In his own words:

"I just hope I'm following the right procedure regarding WP:SOCK#LEGIT : "openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks" when doing so."[201]

Even after that, he had been socking since 2010 with this account(DanS76) for influencing many articles, discussions, and other procedures including accepting the own article submission, raising same votes in deletion review, AfD, ANI, etc.

Question: Such a violation of WP:ILLEGIT wasn't enough for blocking him indefinitely?

It took him hardly 7 days and he returned to violate WP:ILLEGIT. Now he was more prepared, I would report[202] again and he was sure that CU wouldn't confirm, despite he continued to admin-shop with these 2 accounts.[203][204] He attempted to reply every single word that he would see against him for confirming that he should avoid every single chance of getting caught.

Now recently, after he made a long list of absurd explanations,[205] comparing himself with many others editors including Jimbo Wales, his explanations also included a personal attack and claims such as the creation of "3 words userpages" is not isolated, because I(me) have also created three words userpage, and he linked to this sandbox that has over 150 words. He actually affirmed it by saying "that is indeed a 3-word page, the rest of the words were formed from a template box".[206] DoRD closed the SPI saying that "this is getting out of hand". One day earlier he had found these accounts to be unrelated. However, I find the evidence to be just too big to ignore.

There is another interesting thing behind these accounts that I have recently discovered. Same way Zhanzhao was reblocked for evading his block[207], other suspected sock was also blocked for evading 3rr with an IP in 2013.[208] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Two things: One, I said that the page was getting out of hand due to the numerous large additions of weak evidence to the case[209]. Two, the CU results are unambiguous, and I invite any CU to double check my finding that the accounts are technically unrelated. That doesn't rule out WP:MEAT, of course, but I don't see how the three accounts could be related, otherwise. Now, I'm going to be traveling for a few days, so I doubt that I'll have much else to say in this matter. —DoRD (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member. I am more concerned about the mishandling of this SPI, including the first time. They are related because I cannot find even 2 of the listed similarities with any other account on here, while these accounts have relatively small amount of edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment He had to be blocked after it was confirmed that he has socked his way for over 4 5 years. He must have retired DanS76 so that he could make way for new socks. VandVictory (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• : Since everyone's an admin here, I assume everyone here can run their own CheckUser on the suspected accounts. I have no idea exactly how CU works beyond the fact that it checks one's IP, but I am sure there are other checks as well. My confidence in me being vindicated can be simply explained by the fact that I know I am innocent of all charges, therefore whatever process/tech is involved in the CU, will find that I was not socking, even without me having to know exactly how it works. I had been willing to put this past me, and made that very clear to OccultZone on his talk page[210], even though he chose to remove my "olive leaf" twice. I have even asked JamesBWatson to ask him to cool down [211], since he seemed to hold JamesBWatson in high esteem, to stop what I sensed was a slow-motion-trainwreck, without any success.

I know not the actions of my fellow accused (I'm frankly too tired to bother at the moment to see their contributions page), but the "admin shopping" OccultZone said I was doing, were mostly to ask how I could get CU expedited, and also what remedies I can pursue for being continually harassed by OccultZone. He can keep taking popshots for free at me, while keeping his hands busy but clean, while I am getting an SPI, and now an ANI against me. Since this has escalated to ANI, I welcome any and all to run an CU on me against TCKTKtool, Resaltador and Resaltador. I already volunteered that DanS was by brother in the same household so I am told that CU would not reveal anything other than show that we lived in the same household, so I don't know how helpful that is, but go ahead if you feel that is useful for your conclusions. Because either I am the world's greatest hacker, I hired an army of scary socks, OR, I am simply innocent of the claims OccultZone has yet again thrown at me.

And since we're at ANI, I would seriously welcome any suggestions on how to stop OccultZone from harassing me further. My socking infraction came early in my editing career, and even then, I signed off on the edit with "Zhanzhao" as I had no intention of hiding my identity, and was merely trying to get an answer at one of the boards before the thread went dead[212]. His actions are clearly now running the gamut of incivility, personal attacks and harrassment. Cos what next, when this goes against him yet again? Am I to be continually subject to this misguided vendetta against me? Or whoever happens to have different opinion and edit against OccultZone? Please. Run the CU against me again. Let the evidence speak for itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As for OccultZone not finding anything similar from any other account other than me and my fellow accused, let me present this [213]. Which basically refutes his claim that he could not find anything similar. Its because he didn't want to, while, I have been pushed to the corner to prove him wrong.Zhanzhao (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that even when DoRD pointed out the evidence was weak, OccultZone promtly removed [214] DoRD's comment with his collapse. So I am not even allowed to have someone else speak up for me. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that you have just thrown yourself into the territory of WP:TROLL? First one you had lied to be your bro. Now history of these pointed socks explicits that you are abusing them occasionally. Whenever there be an edit war over the content of that article you will produce a new "army" of sock puppets. If that's wrong, why they are not coming to defend themselves the way you just did? Or you will just go now and log into each? VandVictory (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That would only be true if the accusations are true. But try to imagine if the accusations were false. As I said. Run CU on me before making judgement. Whatever DoRD sees must be pretty compelling, even though I don't know what that is. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Why you are shouting the same absurd every time? There was firstly no need of a CU. You have clearly abused the multiple accounts for pushing your POV on a specific article, same way you were abusing DanS76. That is seriously enough for considering that only you can do it. That is also backed by great amount of similarities, that you share with these obvious socks. There are hundreds of SPIs where even new editors could evade CU.[215] That way you are still more experienced, already spending so many years in sock puppetry.

If you are not a sock, why you even bother to bludgeon the SPI and bludgeon this ANI with baseless commentaries? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We have to first make sure that what actually convinced Salvidrim that you both were brothers and not one person, when evidence was enough to consider you as one. Also we have to make sure that you weren't aware of the policy, even though you have clearly stated to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT after you were blocked for socking.[216] Furthermore you were opening and contributing to SPIs.[217][218] It was a poor judgement of Salvidrim which is now up for review. Also reading the above editors comments that you intentionally retired DanS76,[219] because it was no more of use, you couldn't use it anymore on same articles, it is simply obvious that you are socking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine. As Dan had suggested previously, point me to a high-level admin. I can email him a scan of me and my brother's identification which shows us living in the same address, and the email will also explain beyond doubt why thats our identification and not something I borrowed off 2 real brothers off the street. I will also furnish supporting evidence why I use StongVPN in the first place - Its not to sock - which will be very clear in my mail. Note, however, that I do this VERY RELUCTANTLY, as this is obviously leaving me to higher chances of identity theft which Dan had already pointed out I am very paranoid about, but I am sick and tired of these string of accusations. I had though that spending (wasting) my time showing why OccultZone's evidence was laughable (which DoRD already also mentioned was weak and circumstantial) would have been enough, but apparently this is not so. If I am really a sock, I wouldn't even need to resort to this, I can just retire this account as well, and start afresh from a new account. But I'll be very pissed (a very strong understatement) if OccultZone gets off scott free now, since there's nothing to prevent him from continuing to harass me and keep attacking the integrity of my account. And hence, I will now insist that some punitive action be taken against my harasser. Is that fair?

The reason why OccultZone is out to get me is because he mistakenly blames me for getting him blocked since he's under the assumption that I was socking as the one/more of the accounts that here. Which was why he opened the 2nd SPI. And when the 2nd SPI showed that there were no relationships between the accounts through CU and otherwise, which means I was not the cause of him getting blocked, OccultZone refused to believe it and attempts to link it back to the first SPI which was totally unrelated and involved totally different accounts, to find any way he can in a misguided attempt to get back at me. You'll note that one thing OccultZone has not done up to now, which he very actively did in the 2nd SPI, was to report any overlaps of article editing in the accounts of the 1st(DanS76) and 2nd SPIs(Resaltador and TCKTKtool). The only single convergent point, was the article that got him blocked. Beyond that, he's rambling evidence like "Oh look, they capitalizing the "T"s for Talk in 2 edit summaries, they must berelated." Look at the evidence in the 2nd SPI he pulled out. Then what DoRD thought about it. (Unfortunatelty you have to check the history of the page because OccultZone removed DoRD's comments). Then my pointing out that the supposed common behavioral traits he identified between the socks, OccultZone was doing the same thing as well. Is OccultZone my sock as well? Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with confirming your identities as you propose (as I'm sure DoRD would), however I am afraid there is some likelihood that OccultZone would take our word for it anyways! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim! He will show the identity card of his father and present him like his brother, and we will believe it? How come such fairytales don't fall under the violation of WP:ILLEGIT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We're both out at work now (Its morning now here), I'll scan and send them over via email to you ASAP. (I'll wait for DoRD's confirmation - as I said, I'll only send it out when absolutely necessary). I'll trust you to keep the information confidential, thanks. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a matter how much you can fake DanS76 to be your brother or not. You cannot show a video of both of you edit warring on same articles for one, forget it. You switched accounts, that's what we know. If you can show both of the accounts editing together at the same minute, that would really work. But you cannot. Even if you did,(which is impossible) that was still the violation of WP:ILLEGIT. It is not an assumption that you weren't socking. It is a fact that you are socking. If you are not a sock, then why you are bludgeoning this ANI with your garbage? Just like you had recently bludgeoned that SPI. It is also correct that I am investigating in this matter because we don't want any sort of trouble because you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one heaping wildaccusations after wild accusations at me, first at the 2nd SPI, and now here. The only thing I did was to defend myself, and you call that bludgeoning? Is that your ideal vision of wikipedia, slamming anyone you dont't like and just expect them to take it lying down? Cos I noticed that you did not even bother to notify me that there was an ANI here. A video of 2 guys editing in front of the computer would not mean anything. If I were really socking, it could just be a guy I got off the street to pass off as what you assume to be my fake brother. Our identity cards are issued by the country's authorities, which has info like name, address, birthdate, and other info which I will explain to the admin how they helped us decide our editor names, hence proving conclusively that there are indeed 2 of us. I will not scan my dad's card, because just revealing our 2 cards is more than I am comfortable with. But the birthdates shown on the cards are more than conclusive proof that its my brother, not father. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

These fairytales don't support any policy or even an essay that can be used for exempting you from socking, especially when you had admitted to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT,[220] right when you were blocked for evasion. Similar to other sock, Resaltador.[221] Kindly stop trolling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IF I was really socking as Resaltador, and allegedly had alternate accounts of TCKTKtool, DanS and of course Zhanzhao, wouldn't it have been smarter of me to use one of these and pretend to be an uninvolved editor, instead of using an IP while posting in a manner that readily identifies me, even, as you pointed out, that would get it banned since I had that happen to me before? Unless you think I purposely want it to get banned? And you're claiming I'm spinning fairytales? Are you even thinking through what you are posting? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Resaltador also don't know the difference between banned and block, just like you don't know.[222] That's how it cannot be anyone else other than you. You socked with that account for supporting yourself,[223] and also socked with TCKTKtool[224] and IP[225] for edit warring, just like you were socking with DanS76.[226][227] There is a huge list of similarities. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I know the difference. I am just getting fed up from being harassed and victimized and am DEFINITELY not calm now, so pardon me if I make the mistake of mixing up block and ban. I was typing off a freaking ipad1 during lunch that crashes on me cos the thread is so long, and had to retype that 3 times. For me, in my mind, the 2 words might as well be the same thing now, because I am being hounded and not even allowed to defend myself, since any defense isbeing labeled as "bludgeoning the topic". A check user has already been run against me, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool that proved we were different accounts. And to VandVictory who asked why Resaltafor and TCKTKtool are not responding, only they can answer that. But one BIG reason could be because OccultZone did not bother to tell them about this ANI, which he was supposed to. He didn't even tell me. The only reason I knew is because I have this page on my watchlist. This time, run a Check User against Dan, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool. Check if/how Resaltador and TCKTKtool has ever "helped" me before the article that caused OccultZone to be blocked. Go all the way to when the accounts were started. IF a CU like that still shows that all 3 are distinctly different account, me socking would be the least of the concerns here. It would imply that I have actual inside information on how CU works from way way back, a severe implication that has huge ramifications: that Check User just cannot be trusted anymore at all and you guys should just scrap it, since you guys are unwilling to trust your own tools to tell you the truth and would rather listen to a conspiracy theory that's been noted as being flimsy and countered (or in his word, bludgeoned). I'll send Salvidrim! the info I promised that would show that me and Dan are indeed distinctly different persons, the crux of the first SPI. Any other admin can request the same and as long as I can trust that you will not leak the info back to OccultZone, I should be fine sending it to you as well. The 2nd SPI has already been closed, but anyone here, feel free to rerun the CheckUser to verify. In any case, I wish you all the best dealing with OccultZone the next time this timebomb explodes in the future. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason behind first SPI was to get rid of your disruption, since you shamelessly sock and edit war for your edits. Same with my 2nd SPI, if first SPI was taken seriously none of the 4 editors would've got any malformed blocks that were quickly reversed. We don't need checkuser to confirm that you are socking, nor we need any of your identity proofs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We have real evidence here:-

Apart from abusing accounts on 100 percent same namespaces,[228][229][230][231][232][233] you have also abused them for bigger purposes. It took a few minutes to confirm that how you and DanS76 are not brothers, but one person.

• "TALK",[234][235] "possibly vandalism",[236][237] " already summarized",[238][239] "Removed POV language",[240][241] "my defense"[242][243], "properly attributed",[244][245] "more accurate to", [246][247] "Re-added",[248][249] "overly detailed",[250][251], "my 2 cents".[252][253]
• Same page move war.[254][255] You were page move warring and edit warring with the former admin and indeffed editor, La goutte de pluie, by using multiple accounts.
• Exactly same votes and choices in AfD,([256][257], [258][259], [260][261]) deletion review,([262][[263]) ANI,([264] [265], [266]) RFC/UA ([267][268]) accepting own article submission,[269] etc.

This is when you had made slightly more than 150 edits on other account. One wouldn't be convinced even if you claim that you both are conjoined twins, because there's only one sock puppeteer operating these accounts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan already said that he shadows me to see what/how I am editing, which explains a lot of the similarities, and has retired his account to avoid that again. And considering I was the one who introduced him to Wikipedia, so its unavoidable that he emulates me, what do you expect me to do, travel back in time and ask not to do so? And he already retired his account (willingly since he's so busy these days), so this issue will not resurface again. And the claim that I did not need him anymore since I had new socks does not hold water since the 2nd SPI's CU already proved that those were not my socks.

Mass comparison with other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1) For the 100% talk space bit, the Lui Tuck Yew page history, particularly the April 30 2011 - May 5 2011 since thats the area we both appeared, we were both there, but doing our own stuff which is clear even from the edit summaries. For The interaction with Ahnan, I knew Dan was riling him up and was in fact trying to trcik him into making an error, while I was trying to cool Ahnan down and was in fact sent him a mail what Dan was trying to do. Again clear from the conversation thread. For the [Lim Biow chuan Talk page], although we were both there, I was doing my own stuff, Dan his own, we did not even interact, much less support each other there. 2) I already said I have used every iteration of "TALK", "Talk" and "talk" before. Easily checked. 3) I have used "possible vandalism" as well before. (note the "e"). I checked that Dan never uses that. 4) One was used as "in my defense", the other was "you removing my defense", the wording is same, but the usage is totally different 5) Do you know how commonly used "properly attributed" is? [270] 6) Do you know how commonly used "more accurate to" is? [271] 7) Do you know how commonly used "re-added" is? [272] 8) Do you know how commonly used "overly detailed" is? [273] 9) Do you know how commonly used.... do I even have to get to "my 2 cents"? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) 10) [274] Other than me and my brother, which other accounts are you supposing to be part of the multiple acocunts? I suppose you mean Foxhoud since that looks to be the must likely culprit who has the unfortunate coincidence of being a sock. Again, please run a checkuser to ensure that we are not related. I already said before, due to living in the same house with Dan, there are instances of dinner-table talk so me and Dan edit with the same angle. And Dan already retired his account to avoid that. 11) How the hell do you consider a "Merge" [275] to be similar to a "strong delete" [276] 12) [277][278] My given rationale for these was quite different from DanS, and did you check how many were overwhelmingly voting the same as us? Are the rest all socks then? If I had a sock, I wouldn't even have needed it there. 13) [279][280] For these 2, the vote was already overwhelmingly one sided, even supported by the admin you claim we were ganging up against. If I had a sock, I would not have needed to activate it. And yet you say I unnecessarily put my sock there. 14) [281] I was answering different questions from Dan, and the end result was so lopsided (even Jimbo Wales voted there) that it wasn't even funny. Even if I had a sock, I would not have needed to use it there. In summary, the so called evidence of "similar phrasing used" are not as unique as OccultZone thought. Of Dan and me having worked on the same pages, most of the time we did not interact, we acted behaved differently, or in cases of voting the results were so overwhelmingly one sided that if I were socking, I would not have needed to unnecessarily expose it there. Do go to each and every one of those voting pages to check if everyone that voted similar to me were socks as well. And as OccultZone just admitted, he is blaming me for being blocked, caused by editors he claims to be socks of me. This conspiracy theory was already disproven by the 2nd SPI's CheckUser. OccultZone, You've been barking up the wrong tree all along. Don't you get it? Zhanzhao (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Update to Admins. OccultZone just hatted every single rebuttal I just gave to his raised "evidence". Please open it up to read. I know its a lot to digest, but that's what OccultZone threw at my feet so I had to go through all of them.

Zhanzhao (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that you remember so much of Dan because you operate that account. Examples that I have provided are not all, it is just for confirming that you are a long term sock abuser. You gave same reasons in each of these AfD while no one else had them, with these accounts. You retired that account like it has been pointed here, so that you could use new socks. Exactly that's what you are doing. None of these summaries can be used by two persons that have socked for each other. Why you even have to type out all this garbage if you think that you are not a sock? I have just hatted much of it that you are typing only for killing the environment of this ANI, just like you did on SPI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice. You "hatted" all my explanations just like that. Just like when you took out DoRD's comments at the 2nd SPI that your previous findings were frivolous. I just spent the past few hours looking through YOUR list, and typing that out using all the links YOU gave above, to explain myself. I didn't "need" to be Dan to remember, because its all so obvious by looking at the pages, just by looking at who was posting what according to the signatures to tell there was no interaction, or by counting the votes on the page to tell that the voting was lopsided. But you're discouraging the Admins from looking at it. And yet again, you're shutting people up everytime they say something that would prove you wrong. First DoRD, now me. Good Job. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did you prove anything wrong? These diffs are about you and about your block evading accounts that share similarities, show where they are wrong? You said "you're shutting people up everytime they say something", while Resaltador says that I "seems to attack anyone that disagrees".[282] You have now also capitalized the 'a' of 'admin' just like Resaltador.[283] Looking at some of your self admission[284], you also seem to be expressing that how much you socked when you were hauling an editor to RFC/UA, ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to talk about analysing behaviors, try this. Thanks for bringing that link up, because it reminded me that DanS has a particular habit of using "Just Sayin"/"Just Saying". He used it again recently on talk of Rape in India, so thats at least 2 times used on wikipedia. Considering I have so many more posts than his, if we were the same, you should be able to find me using that phrase as well. You wont, because in real life, I keep telling it is a little presumptious and rude. You also keep assuming that Resaltador is a sock of mine, but despite repeated reminder, have you even notified him or any of my other alleged socks about this ANI? Isn't that what you are supposed to do when you file this? Or am I reading the notification at the top of this page wrong, that "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."[To the extent that another admin has already assumed that they are staying quiet because of guilt]. I don't blame that admin, I blame YOU for mishandling this complaint about me. You just keep shutting every avenue of of defense (CU, comments from other admins, real-life identity verification) that could prove my innocence, because you are so fanatically wanting me to be guilty. I'm sick and tired of this. I just emailed you a link to a photo on A website, posted a while ago long before all this started, which has clear inference to my name and is clearly described as a picture of me and my brothers, with no edit history on the picture so it could not have been changed just for this. You can send me a message via facebook to verify that it is me. You forced my hand. I haven't had time to send the ID card scans to Salvidrim! because this has disturbed me so much that it distracted me from work in real life that I need to catch up on my work over the weekend. SATISFIED? If my real identity is revealed or if this is used against me anywhere else, I will now also know who to blame. So. I have a brother in real life who used to edit and retired, there's been people other than me pointing out that the so called "similar" behavior is actually circumstantial, and CheckUser had already exonerated me from all the other socks. Please, I'm begging you, stop directing your anger at me for being blocked, I WASN'T EVEN INVOLVED IN THAT CASE! Zhanzhao (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't notified them about SPI either, they just jumped in the same fashion like DanS76, it also confirms that these socks are either told off-wiki or their operator(you) just know where to abuse them. A dubious photo cannot be used for permitting sock puppetry. Your socking has been damaging for en.wiki, you are socking since 2010 and it must not be ignored. If you were not a sock then why you are bothering to bludgeon ANI, SPI with your garbage? You do because you are a sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Again you describe defense against your accusations as bludgeoning, when all I have done is a point by point rebuttal of your accusations. Its not about the photo, its about me having posted about having brothers, somewhere else long before this. The timing, the subject, and the discussion thread about the picture from long time ago explicitly demonstrates that. People have been jumping into SPI randomly as well all the time. I have randomly participated in SPIs as well. So its supposed to be exclusive? Anything you start, you only allow invited guests to participate? You don't own wikipedia. You cannot NOT allow people to defend themselves. You cannot NOT ignore CU just because it does not justify your accusation. You still have to follow the rules, regardless your assumptions. Like following instructions about ANI notification. Even as you accuse me of breaking the rules, you break them on a whim. And you say I am damaging wikipedia. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Have added a lot of newly discovered evidence to this sandbox. We will see. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for confirmed sock puppetry

DoRD has today  Confirmed that DanS76 (talk · contribs) and Zhanzhao (talk · contribs) are technically related to each other. Though Salvidrim was convinced per Zhanzhao's claim that they are brothers and weren't aware, I always disagreed with that. Now today I have discovered this comment by one of these accounts, where he is warning others of meat puppetry in correct words. It becomes evident that he was aware of every bit of policy re: multiple accounts and he always abused them. Even if his unbelievable notion has to be taken in account, that his brother helped him in wiki matters, he has intentionally violated WP:ILLEGIT for more than 5 years. Despite he was blocked for edit warring and block evasion with IP in 2009, he had admitted to have read WP:SOCK#LEGIT,[285] however he would his then self admitted IP address[286] to vandalize and spam grossly offensive content against opponents.[287][288][289][290] I had to ask for revdel before I even came to show them here.

Sock puppetry with these 2 accounts since 2010
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remember that DanS76 has only 190 edits. Page move war,[291][292] and edit war[293][294] on a specific article at the same time. Same votes and choices; AfD,([295][296], [297][298] Deletion review,([299][[300]) Topic ban discussion of La goutte de pluie.[301][302] ANI,([303] [304], [305],[306], specific weight to "COATRACK"[307][308]) RFC/UA ([309][310]) Accepting own article for submission.[311] Examples of edit warring, evading 3RR. Signed in Wikipedia after 58 days[312] for evading 3rr. Zhanzhao,[313][314] DanS76.[315] Zhanzhao [316][317][318] DanS76 [319], previous edit was 45 days ago. Zhanzhao [320], DanS76 [321] Contributions in 100 percent same namespaces.[322][323][324][325][326][327][328] Edit summaries: "TALK",[329][330] "possibly vandalism",[331][332] " already summarized",[333][334] "Removed POV language",[335][336] "my 2 cents",[337][338] "properly attributed",[339][340] "more accurate to", [341][342] "Re-added",[343][344] "overly detailed",[345][346], "my defense".[347][348]

None of the policies or essays say anything like "Regardless of their previous offenses, if a sock master insists that their sock was used by somebody from their household, they should be vindicated from sock puppetry."

Such exemptions from sock puppetry further encourages a sock master to sock more and use better ways. That happened here and amount of socking is now higher. Today we see throwaway socks acting like experienced user(WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY), for a name, Bargolus (talk · contribs), having only 2 edits and signed in after 8 years(!) for retrieving the preferred version of Zhanzhao.[349] IP hopping is evidently too frequent. The account himself claimed that he was 49.244.254.146,[350](he edited the comment of 49.244.. as well), and soon he edited accounts comment with 124.41.243.167.[351] More clear example of IP switching can be seen in this edit war : account[352], IP[353], IP.[354]

It further strengthens the ongoing discussion, that many of the editors are currently having at this policy page, that how easy it is for others to defeat CU results.[355][356] Though one of these throwaway is currently blocked recently by DoRD for editing warring with IP.[357] Must have forgot to switch for an edit.

Further sock puppetry with other small/throwaway accounts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bargolus, TCKTKtool, Resaltador. Bargolus says "the article is about Rape in India".[358] TCKTKtool says "This article is about Rape in India".[359] Zhanzhao says "it is about rape in india".[360] Zhanzhao pushes an unreliable "article from WSJ"[361] Bargolus pushes same unreliable "link to a WSJ article"[362] TCKTKtool says "major news around the world".[363] Zhanzhao says "news agencies around the world".[364] Creation of 3 words userpage.[365][366] Same style of copy pasting title as summary.[367][368] and [369][370] Mention only username in edit summaries.[371][372][373], like Zhanzhao[374] Attempts to create wikilink([[ ]]) of URLs.([[http://www.example.com/]])[375][376][377][378][379] Edit summaries: "forgot to sign"[380][381], "TALK"[382][383][384][385], "This is Wikipedia not.."[386][387], "to make it clear"[388][389], "Please do not remove",[390][391] and other "Please do not"s[392][393] More can be found, here and here.

Thus I am proposing an indefinite block on Zhanzhao and these socks,(DanS76, TCKTKtool, Bargolus, Resaltador) for their long term and ongoing violation of WP:ILLEGIT.

• Support as proposer. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Only true if you believe that those other accounts alleged by OccultZone to be my socks, were me. As I pointed out in my page [394], even after OccultZone admin-shopped with his evidence, he's been told repeatedly that his evidence regarding these other accounts were weak/circumstantial. But I respect your vote. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That was much before your sock evasion on 29 March, and by next days there was least 2 times more evidence concerning your already suspected socks. What happened to your break?[395] That you had taken before you asked for the protection of your preferred version?[396] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block for OccultZone if he doesn't agree to drop the fucking stick immediately, as per DoRD, Callanecc and myself agreeing there was nothing actionable sockpuppetry-wise, involving Zhanzhao, DanS76, or the other alleged socks. OccultZone has been warned repeatedly about letting go of this issue and has repeatedly and desperately refused to accept that he is wrong and he's made this his battleground, calling into question the competence of myself and both CUs who assisted with this case. I apologize to the community that we have allowed this to progress thus far and failed to put a definitive stop to it earlier because we believed OccultZone would show enough sense to heed our repeated warnings. This is the exact opposite of constructive behaviour and I am sorry that we allowed OccultZone to waste even more of the community's time. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is due to your bad decision that we are having this all trouble. I had asked that which policy allows a sock to exempt from sock puppetry just because if they say that their relative helped them? And you are always speechless. You claim that showing a photo of 2 people standing along gives exemption from sock puppetry,[397] but you don't show even a single policy that allows it. In fact you archived the whole case re: these throwaway socks without even analyzing the behavioral evidence,[398] thus leading people to stop reporting about obvious sock puppets, because in order to protect your decision that you had made first you ignore every instance of sock puppetry without even observing it. Proof is that you have no comments about the sock puppetry from 29 March. Neither you have any comments on Zhanzhao making personal attacks around. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• My closure of this case with no action has been endorsed explicitely by two CUs and another admin. You're the only one that has shown a complete inability or unwillingness to understand this. You're closing your eyes and putting your hands over your ears yelling "HE'S SOCKING!! HE'S SOCKING!!! OMG BLOCK HIM!!" while the ones actually chosen by the community to decide whether to block or not, and those with specific tools and experience in investigating sockpuppetry claims, have repeatedly told you that you're wrong, to shut up, drop it, and move on. Right now I don't believe anything will change your mind and I'm sorry that you are too stubborn to move on without being physically restrained by a block. Believe me, I really wish you would just move on -- it's a better outcome for you, for me, and for the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree this is very much into WP:STICK and WP:IDHT territory and bordering on harassment my hope was that after explaining the reasons why a block isn't necessary OccultZone would move on but that doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately. I made some comments on my talk page in reply to OccultZone regarding the merits of blocking, which was centered around the fact that really the last time there was meatpuppetry between Zhanzhao and DanS76 was in the middle of last means that blocking would no longer be preventative. I'm looking into the latest one on my talk page now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• Salvidrim, your closure wasn't archived by an admin. Was it? None of your queries have answered my above questions, lets see what is the outcome, because it is a  Confirmed sock puppetry and on going since 2010. Zhanzhao stopped using that account only when he was caught, not that he came himself for telling you. I am not in violation of any policy, I am just asking for a review of a case that is being ignored and actually suppressed by you from being checked. If you believe that your actions were correct, then you don't have to follow me on other talk pages at all, and you ignore to discuss any of the matter on your own talk page. Now let the community decide. It is a case of 5 years of confirmed sock puppetry that remains on going. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• ... I only followed your pings. If you adminshop it's on you, not me. I don't need to reply to you on my talkpage when many others have already replied to you on every talk page across the project where you have dragged your Crusade. You asked for a review of the case by two admins, including one CU, who have all repeated what me and DoRD have already told you, and since it didn't suit you, you decided to try ANI -- maybe they'll be stupid enough to believe your falsehoods, right? Right? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• You talk about falsehood, yet you cannot back up even one accusation with diff or answer the questions. Find me a single message on any other TP re: this case before this message. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Defense and Reply to OccultZone I already stopped editing articles. I only give advice to my fellow editors now. But then you started attacking the admins who were only trying to help on the article. From what I read, you've already raised Arbcom/complaints/admin-shopped against them when things didn't go your way, and their only crime was that they chanced on the article to try to diffuse the situation, and acted as what any other reasonable admin would. Especially Bgwhite, whom I feel responsible cos I was the one who asked him to re-protect the article to force a discussion in the talk page, only for you to twist it into yet another part of your conspiracy against me. They all got dragged in because of your assumption that all those other editors you were warring against were me, even though its been pointed out to you that they were not. You don't care what harm your conspiracy theory has caused. Call it a sense of injustice, but the way I see it going, you're just going to use the outcome of this against them. If you are aiming to indef me, this is the last chance I have to set the record straight about their action and yours.

Yes, per the 1st SPI, I am guilty of WP:FAMILY with my brother, I readily admitted it when asked. To prevent any possible reoccurance, my brother already retired his account (he's an irregular anyway). OccultZone's accusation and anger at me stems from the fact that he was blocked for warring for all those other accounts he assumed were me. I understand why he would be angry at me and the blocking admins who were only doing their job. Doesn't make it right. I welcome OccultZone to re-send every single admin that you've shopped to so far with your new evidence. Balance that with a brand new CU on every other accused account raised against me. OccultZone claimed that DanS's account's CU matches mine cos I was unsure of how to circumvent CU. Dan only joined in 2010. OccultZone also said that Bargolus, the focus of his new "evidence", was created much earlier in 2007. So it should be easy to prove any correlation since according to him, I was still a noob at avoiding CU. AND this time, properly notify the other people you are accusing of being my sock. You've harmed enough people as it is. Don't give them a bad surprise when they return. You seem to be a stickler for rules. Follow them. And see what you come back with. And regardless of the result of this, I urge the other admins here to please protect Swarm and Bgwhite from continued harassment from OccultZone. Cos after he's done with me, he's gonna have more time to harass them. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion goes off-topic. The question is whether a CU mishandled a SPI. Since OccultZone stated for DoRD that "don't need double check really because you are a very trusted member" the discussion is over since no one asks for double checking the case. I'll close the discussion in a while. Any evidence for claimed sock-pupperty should go to a new SPI if this is desired. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2015 (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.

use of COI as a weapon in content dispute

Am seeking 24 hour block for DePiep for violating WP:NPA in which he used claims of COI as a cudgel in a content dispute. Admins may find this trivial - it is not a death threat or calling someone "fucking stupid" or the like, but this stuff is very ugly to me and should not stand.

• this comment and
• this comment,
  • which I redacted and
    • he reverted, and
    • a third editor redacted again
  • I left a warning on his Talk page, which
  • he read when he deleted it

• he asked me on my Talk page and I answered that this behavior is not OK

• DePiep made a new NPA comment
  • which I redacted, and
  • left him a stronger warning
    • which he reverted with edit note "You are supposed to TALK when you have an issue, instead ot threatening by template. Don't ever visit my userspace again."

• and immediately went back to Talk and made another personal attack, here, and after I redacted it, he restored it he restored it with edit note: "lol fix"

It is not "lol". As I said, I am seeking a 24 hour block for NPA. User was well-warned. Using COI as a cudgel is not OK in WP. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (fix bad dif, sorry)

Distorted approach. Telling detail: my "lol fix" edit summary was with a minor sp correction -- bad faith by Jytdog here. Jytdog did not engage in talk, instead added opinion-by-template from their edit 01. Etcetera. Is what I said. Of course someone template-threatening without talking is not welcome in my userspace. -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what I was expecting. No insight, no remorse. Wikilawyer tactic. Flinging charges of COI is not OK... period end of story. (and thanks for pointing out that my dif was bad - will fix that removal of my strike by you, pronto. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

I'm the user primarily involved with DePiep here (of course my first version fails to send and is deleted). Here's a summary of what's happened so far. Essentially, they began an edit war attempting to insert new content into the lede. Diffs:

1. [399] DePiep added new content to the lede
2. [400] I remove it due to WP:RECENTISM and weight issues to explore in the body of the article first expecting more discussion to occur on the talk page. Instead followed by a revert from DePiep.
3. [401] I revert reminding DiPiep to come to the talk page per WP:BRD to discuss the new content they want to (while avoiding additional reverts). They in return revert saying "No: you are to talk first"

They then posted on my talk page the 3RR template while also including the text I added as well referring to BRD.[402] This seems to indicate the editor lashes out when called out on problem behavior with edit warring. Within that template, they also included, "Fuck off and don't think your "warning" has meaning. You did not talk. " After finally getting some discussion out of them on the talk page, they instead lash out by casting aspersions accusing me of COI [403] and another user for paid editing [404]. Another user removed the personal attacks which DePiep reinstated, [405]. Another accusation occurred that was also removed by another user. [406]

The point isn't getting across from anyone at the article that edit warring and personal discussions are not ok, and that if your newly proposed edit is reverted, that's the time to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page rather than edit war the content back in. Hopefully a warning would get the point across, but judging by the comments here and at the article, I don't think a temp block (i.e. 24 hours) is a bad idea either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So Jytdog says: 1. this es: "strike, ANI", and 2. this edit says: "agree", about the very same source added. Safe always. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this, by Jytdog: [407]? coordinating action? -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

absolutely - his post was way too long. you are not a genius to see that. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem intended. I can get a little wordy sometimes trying to lay these cases out, but my diffs are largely different instances of the edit warring and behavior problems laid out relatively concisely.

(edit conflict)One more note and then I'll log off: I find the introduction of weapon by Jytdog aggressive. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your behavior is very "internetz", DiPeip. We are not about "lulz" here. I am looking for a swift, simple block here from an admin. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think an I-ban would do better here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll note I've never interacted with this editor before a few hours ago. I'm not interested in an ban this early on if the behavior will just stop now and in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to act unilaterally and block just to punish anyone. But I see a clear battleground mentality from DePiep here. I do not see any desire or effort to work with others, to reach consensus or to compromise position, to discuss to work out what is best for the article, or any of that. I see someone who only wants to "win" the battle, and isn't interested in collaboration. Whatever anyone wants to do with this is fine by me, I would support any sanction (interaction ban, topic ban, etc.) which will prevent this behavior in this venue. The requested 24 hour block is not a method to stop the problematic behavior, and would be purely punitive, and thus not a useful means to stop the problem behavior here. Some sort of indefinite ban which will curb the behavior is needed. DePiep does good work in many areas (chemistry, for example), but this kind of toxic behavior is not useful in building up the encyclopedia, and something should be done to see that it stops. --Jayron32 02:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 the point of the short block is not punitive - it is educational, to make it clear that the behavior is not OK. If Depiep continues, the next one can be longer, etc, until they end up at an indef. I would not support an indef now - it is way too much. I would appreciate it if you or another admin would do this simple, clear thing. I think the evidence is solid and I have no interest in this turning into a drama-fest. That is the worst thing that can happen, as there is no lesson offered, much less learned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying it's educational is the same as saying "I hope he learns from his punishment." That's not why we issue blocks. We issue blocks to stop imminent harm to the encyclopedia. The issue is, will a 24 hour block have any effect on stopping the behavior once the block stops. Unequivocally no. If the user is contrite and also understands what they have done wrong, and indicates no intention to commit the same mistakes again, we wouldn't do anything. If the user shows no signs of understanding why their actions are harmful, than an expiring sanction is useless, because they would just restart their disruption again. We need to 1) have a sanction which last the duration of the problem and b) have a sanction which minimally affects the users ability to edit in other areas nondisruptively if we believe them to be capable of that. A full indefinite block is excessive because DePiep shows positive contributions in many other areas. An expiring block is inadequate because it does not stop the problematic behavior once it expires. That means the appropriate tool is a targeted ban: either a topic ban, or interaction ban, which removes the locus of the disruption, and allows DePiep to continue positive contributions in other areas. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jayron. I understand your interpretation of WP:BLOCK and the way you choose to implement your powers, but there is clear justification per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT that other admins may choose to act under. I have no interest in turning this into a semi RfC/U dramafest to examine broader patterns of behavior, which is what it would take to pursue a T-ban and these users have not interacted before as far as I know, so there are no grounds for an I-ban. And an indef is unwarranted, i agree. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef I-ban or T-ban broadly constructed. The problem seems to center around these two but Wikipedia is a big place, lets try one of these first before an outright Indef behavioral block. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A Topic Ban in this instance is a very bad idea, in my estimation. Long-term editors should be given more benefit of the doubt than that... --IJBall (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

completely inappropriate for the evidence presented. no. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• All that has to happen here is a bit of cooling down. Long term bans are not needed as it appears that editors understand how they have offended each other. The editing on Glyphosate seems to be converging to a consensus form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Content isn't really the problem, but behavior. The reason why I went here at least was become it doesn't seem apparent DePiep understands the how problematic their behavior was and attempts to alert that to them were shrugged off. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Kingofaces. It doesn't matter where the content goes. The problem is offensive behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• this is not a content dispute - I am seeking a 24 block for behavior - for violating WP:NPA by making unfounded accusations of COI. User was well-warned and went ahead, flauntingly. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Just clarifying from above. As the person who's been receiving the brunt of this behavior, I just want it to stop and make sure it stays that way. It's too early in the process for an I-ban or T-ban given no previous history. If the behavior stops, all is well. I don't think a warning alone would get the point across that the behavior is inappropriate, so the temp block seems the logical next step. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My fears are reaffirmed DePiep is not taking seriously how disruptive their behavior is given some comments below. Saying the equivalent of just kidding or no big deal with respect to slinging around COI accusations can't be taken seriously in the context of the diffs. I'd ask the community to just look at the diffs provided for behavior problems while avoiding the drama fest below, and at least settle on a warning that gives very little WP:ROPE. Folks can discuss things like the appropriateness of bans as a what-if if it looks like the behavior will continue after that if they really want, but can we at least settle this bare minimum request? This should not have to turn into a stereotypical sprawling ANI post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support 24 hour block or IBANThis sort of thing is deeply offensive and it is far too often ignored as some sort of "boys will be boys" issue that does not need administrative attention. As a result, personal attacks have become an argument of first resort for certain editors, and I think we really need to start enforcing NPA, which in principle is a pillar of wikipedia.

• "Are you sure you have no WP:COI?"
• "Lucky you get paid for edits here."
• "Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check the COIs"

This is deeply offensive stuff that does not contribute to a collaborative editing environment. I strongly support a 24 hour block. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Boomerang -- Jytdog is using COI allegations that are not even about him to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and control of the article by attempting to block a new editor to the page who has a different POV, no different than the ANI used against me. Unfortunately, the behavior goes unchecked.David Tornheim (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So is your position then that personal attacks and allegations are an appropriate behavior on the article Talk pages? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question Has Jytdog engaged in paid editing? If there is no evidence I support a short block for this edit. --John (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff has nothing to do with Jytdog. -DePiep (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

John I have not edited for pay. Kingofaces, against whom most of the personal attacks were made, is an an academic insect guy who has studied pesticides. Formerly 98, against whom DePiep flung the charge of "paid editing", discloses that he is a former med chemist for pharma and says he abstains from editing where he might have a COI based on his past work. No evidence of paid editing by any of them. Please implement the short block. DePiep was just spewing allegations in the content dispute to discredit those with differing perspectives. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Since it came up, I will reiterate I have absolutely no COI here as I have nothing to do with herbicides from a research perspective. I lay everything out very clearly on my user page to try to prevent exactly the kind of situation we have here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for misreading which editor was being accused of being a paid editor. Regardless of who was being referred to, the use of an unevidenced slur to win a content discussion seems reprehensible to me. I will not block as I have recently been in an unrelated dispute with DePiep, but I have to say that if this was not the case I would consider it. Certainly a warning needs to be given that this behaviour is not acceptable. --John (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI keeps surprising us for its chaotic timelime & logic. Expect discovery of America soon. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC) John did correct their mistake and engaged constructively. -DePiep (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Breeze in a teacup? Kingofaces43 twice reverted an edit [408] [409], and only then started a talk. Then he comes to my talkpage to tell me about edit warring, using 3rd person btw. I just copied (mirrored) this. No reason to be surprised. Pot & kettle, tit & tat, case closed. Then we met on the article's talkpage. So far so good.

Clearly my COI mentionings are tongue in cheek, and a mere reference to POV -- just a sidenote to my argument.

Then Jytdog enters the arena removing my argument [410] (keyword: recenticism; and again later [411]). So I reject the judgements by Jytdog. More: after these misjudgements, Jytdog claimed to know about COI [412]. And he still not corrected their wrong "lol fix" conclusion I mentioned here @01:10. (To spell it out: the fix was a closing strike-tag, the lol was that the whole section was stricken. funny typo = lol to me).

Jytdog applied words like "weapon" (see last diff), and this ANI post was opened (titled even) with "weapon" and "as a cudgel". That is introducing aggressiveness, and not reflecting my posts. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

your behavior was unacceptable. you absolutely used COI as a rhetorical weapon to discredit 2 editors with different perspectives than you, and you mocked our efforts to get you to stop your personal attacks. You continue to do so now, calling it "tongue in cheek". It is not funny, it is destructive and disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are evading my points re your judgements. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the point here is the inappropriateness of personal attacks on article Talk pages. Whether the discussion that went before that was contentious or not is arguing off point.

Do you understand that this is completely inappropriate behavior, and are you willing to apologize and refrain from such attacks in the future? That is what this ANI is about. Yes or No? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Re Formerly 98 (diffs are already in; can be repeated by request). The before-discussion was brought up here by someone else, so I am entitled to respond and correct that one. If it is off point, the original post should be addressed, not me. Also, that discussion has direct effects on the followup topic because Jytdog deleted my talkpage arguments. Next. I repeat that multiple statements here (by John, by Jytdog) are incorrect. For example, Jytdog mis-presented my es "lol fix" and still has not corrected themselves (which makes his statement false). And introducing words like "weapons" and "cudgel" sets the wrong tone, as does Jytdog's canvassing. This attitude might also have mislead other contributors here. I am entitled to correct all errors and wrong music. And I can call that bad judgements. Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

again this is more wikilawyering distraction. You made three personal attacks and ignored two very clear warnings and you show no sign of understanding the problem with your behavior. Again, a short block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is in order here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re Jytdog: Stupid fucking warmongering illiterate. At this point, you are to apologise to me for keep making a beetlefart into a Hisoshima. You still have not addressed your own bad judgeents. I wasn't even responding to you. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It would make more sense to focus on why the edit to the lead about the March 2015 World Health Organization report was reverted. WHO has reported that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." Kingofaces removed it from the lead citing UNDUE, because other sources disagree, but the solution is to add the other sources to the lead, assuming they're as authoritative and reasonably up-to-date. What has happened now is that the WHO report has been restored to the lead, but a 1991 EPA report has been added too – saying that glyphosate displays "evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans" – but without indicating in the text that it's from 1991. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is off-topic and does not address the behavioral issues raised. Flinging charges of COI is not an appropriate response to a content dispute. The issue here is DePiep's behavior, for which he was warned twice, and persisted nonetheless. SlimVirgin if you would like to open a separate thread on Kingoface's behavior, or open a case at COIN on him, if you believe that his edit was driven by COI, please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that they're separate issues. The Monsanto suite of articles is likely to end up at ArbCom, because there have been repeated claims that editors are acting in the company's interests. That needn't be because of COI; it may simply be that they agree with the company. And perhaps editors on the other side are too quick to believe that large corporations try to control content on WP. But there does seem to be unusual editing there. Trying to keep a recent WHO report out of the lead on the grounds of UNDUE, then equating it to an EPA report from 24 years ago (without alerting the reader to the age of the latter), looks odd. I urge all the editors on those articles to double their efforts to "write for the enemy" to head off the inevitable. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Can you explain the last sentence further? Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them? David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David, I've left a question about this for Jytdog in the section below entitled "Close". Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

David this is yet more campaigning by you - you were warned about this at the ANI you cited: "There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules. " and, by the way, SlimVirgin has arguably made herself WP:INVOLVED in these articles by her comments here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear that I didn't think the content was appropriate specifically for the lede quite yet because it was already in the body of the article where it belonged while details were being hashed out there per WP:LEDE. That people resort to drama and insinuating COI rather than hammering out the finer details needed to make the content accurate according to the sources (including the WHO source and other up to date sources) is disruptive both at the article and here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, really. This thread it about DePiep's behavior and your "oppose" doesn't speak to what DePiep did, at all. (On the other matters, I would be surprised if those articles end up at Arbcom anytime soon. They may do, but we are very far from there now, in my view. The articles have generally stayed off ANI and there have been no behavioral blocks for any of the editors who work on them regularly. Outside the occasional campaigners things proceed generally smoothly and we are able to talk through content disputes, generally reasonably. And I don't know any editors, including me, who "agree with the company". I generally do "write for the enemy"; that does not mean that pseudoscience holds sway over WP. There is a difference. What I do above all, is follow the reliable sources. For example, I was the first one to add content to the glyphosate article on cancer when the recent meta-analysis was brought up on Talk by another editor. It was a good source; it came in as did content based on it. ) Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a similar situation here in September when you and Kingofaces43 sought to have an editor topic-banned because she said or implied that there was COI editing at two agriculture-related articles. Kingofaces43 was arguing that the funding of a source didn't matter, when of course it often does. The way forward is for you and Kingofaces43, and everyone else at these contentious agriculture articles, to do everything reasonable to correct the perception of COI or POV editing. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the ellenCt case. What you just said to me is blaming the victim here- "it is your fault you were attacked". Personal attacks based on bias are not OK - not when you have an ax to grind like EllenCT does (who strongly believes that neonics cause CCD and the science be damned (or be blessed only to the extent it supports her POV)) nor when they are used as a sloppy cudgel like DePiep used it - both are ugly and biased attacks. These are personal attacks. Smearing me or anybody else as a corporate zombie whore is not acceptable behavior, period. It is very true that this attack does not have the weight of systemic societal bias that attacks based on race or gender do, but here inside WP there is a very strong anti-corporate bias. We don't shrug when someone is attacked on the basis of their gender; this behavior should not be shrugged off either. I get sick of being spit on and seeing others spit on. I am a good Wikipedian and editor; Kingofaces is better than me in some ways. This behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

But this takes us back full circle to the quality of the editing. Removing the recent WHO report from the lead on the grounds of UNDUE is odd. Arguing that the funding of scientific sources doesn't matter is odd. People see that editing and put two and two together, because of the presumed corporate interest in those articles. They may be wrong to jump to that conclusion, but there does appear (at first glance) to be something amiss. I'm asking that you and Kingofaces43 take those concerns on board, even if they seem unfair, rather than seeking blocks and bans. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), part of the problem is that you are misrepresenting my statements, which I directly explained to you and asked you not to do at the ANI you mentioned. I'm just going to assume you forgot. My comment on funding source was that as editors we need to rely on other scientists in the fields to comment on the reliability of findings. We as editors are not experts who can assess that, nor can we use funding source of peer-reviewed studies as a proxy for that. That is the actual context of what I said. If you want to discuss scientific publishing, this isn't the place. Also, please don't modify other people's threading as you did here [413]. Jytdog did not respond to me, so please restore the threading to how I responded to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin, it does not take us back anywhere. Content disputes happen all the time and they can get worked out calmly. This ANI is about DePiep's behavior in the midst of a content dispute -- and now has broadened to his behavior here. This is about behavior, not content. Again, if you think Kingofaces behavior during that content dispute is actionable, please open a thread on that. I don't see it is as actionable: he didn't break 3RR, he made no personal attacks, etc. Content was getting - and is still getting - worked out. The WHO report is brand new and it is being contextualized and worked into the article even as this ANI drags on. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, it's clear from the indenting who's responding to whom. I don't really want to discuss this further, or the previous case, but as you feel you're being misrepresented, this is what I was referring to. It was in relation to a suggestion that this paper be used as a source in Neonicotinoid, an insecticide. The paper says (just above the references): "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division". Bayer CropScience makes this type of insecticide. You wrote, in response to an objection: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [414] That was one of several posts that the other editor felt were red flags, which led to your request that she be topic-banned for expressing concern. I'm not arguing that people be allowed to make accusations without evidence. I'm asking only that you and Jytdog do more to counter wayward perceptions with good editing before seeking blocks and bans. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I already asked you to refrain from misrepresenting those statements. You've been told multiple times I was not proposing that source for within the article but that is was being used while discussing the many reviews available (all the others did not have such funding). It's well past time to drop the stick. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support warning and 24-48 hour block. Statements like, "I disagree with you, are you sure you don't have COI?" (my paraphrase of a diff given above) are an ad hominem attack and a cheap attempt to "win" a content dispute and should not be tolerated. A 48 hour block is not unreasonable given the damage this sort of thing can do. Geogene (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question – Is the proposed interaction ban here between Jytdog and DePiep or Kingofaces43 and DePiep? It appears the COI concern/allegation was made against Kindofaces43 by DePiep, yet it appears the animosity is mostly between Jytdog and DePiep, so it’s unclear to me what interaction ban has been proposed.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The actual conduct dispute at the article is primarily between myself and Depiep, so those looking for an interaction ban would I imagine mean a one-way one banning DePiep from interacting with me. Jytdog's involvement really only came from warning DePiep and removing the personal attacks on the article, so things definitely can look confounded to an outside editor. Given recent comments by DePiep though [[415]], I'm really not sure what action is best anymore given the scaling up of attacks towards other users than myself now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

there is no proposed interaction ban. not a live option here. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support LONG block. If this statement [416] is tolerated on the noticeboards, and isn't a reason for a block for incivility, then there is no need for the AN/I noticeboards at all. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32, John thoughts on the remark diffed above? Again I am not advocating a long block. What I am advocating is a short block to inform DePiep that this behavior is not OK. If he does this elsewhere, and/or continues after the block, the community can take further action later - and a longer one, to show that yes, we really mean it. I am so, so not interested in drama. I am interested in a clear statement from an admin or the community, that the unrepetent, continued behavior is not OK. Wikipedia is not the internetz where we flame each other for lulz. This is not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree, regarding the inappropriateness of that statement. Honestly, DePiep, if you want people to hear your side of this, whatever that might be, you should really strike that and come back when you can state your issues without profanity etc. Otherwise a block here would seem inevitable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) re BoboMeowCat: I don't need to be "heared" any more. That's useless by now. No one reads, no one listens. It was when this thread started, but is has gone beyond its borders. Everyone can say anything and there is no check. Today I responded carefully to a serious post by User:Formerly 98 (search 16:11). What happened: Formerly 98 restarted their position elsewhere saying 'got no response'. All reset. That is WP:ANI 'discussion' level, this is why I have no confidence in any serious outcome being balanced. That is why I say that arguing here is useless (making an exception for you here ;-) ). And to Jytdog: don't be a dick. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re Jytdog I think I would now recommend a warning as DePiep has stated an intent to stop acting out at this venue. I would hope they have learned their lesson. This is about preventing disruption, not about punishment. --John (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

{[u|John}} About the dif you link to - that is 20:34, 26 March. That was him getting mad and stomping away. He did not stay away, he has come back and had plenty more to say:

• here
• here
• ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=653661444 here]
• here

none of that is clueful, or steps back at all from his behavior. But look, I did not come here for extended drama. To me this is cut and dry shitty behavior in the face of very, very clear warnings. It goes beyond heat of any moment. But if you will give a warning, fine, please give a warning and put this derailed ANI out of its misery. I will be grateful that action was taken. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• In general, I would support some sort of interaction ban, but, in all honesty, the ones given out by ArbCom tend to be more effective than the ones imposed here. That being the case, I think it might make more sense to file a request from ArbCom if an i-ban or topic ban of some sort is being sought. Regarding the repeatedly attested to personal attacks, I can see that there are grounds for a block based on some of the comments such as those linked to by ScrapIron above, possibly longer than 24 hours. So I guess I would support block of 24 hours or more, and also suggest that ArbCom be considered for possible imposition of DS. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for supporting the short term block. no topic ban or interaction ban is being sought - there are not diffs to support that; it was not the goal. We do not need discretionary sanctions. DePiep rarely edits that article - he showed up and made of ass of himself for one gloriour evening, which he continued here. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Doesn't seem necessary. Administrators have too many priviliges here and they just too often love to block people for trivial and vindictive reasons. Elohim55 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of a blocked user. Mike V • Talk 17:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the quality of the edits?

Given that we just had this Newsweek story, would anyone like to look at the quality of the edits made by the various accounts involved here? The above is more reminiscent of WWE theatre than an editorial discussion in an encyclopedia project. Andreas JN466 15:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This thread has nothing to do with content. Personal attacks are destructive to the process of working out good content and in my view flinging charges of COI is an especially pernicious and all too common personal attack in content disputes. And adding that link about a business school is yet more sloppy throwing around of COI. This is a specific issue, well documented. DePiep acknowledges above that he used it "tongue in cheek". COI is a serious issue here, and if people have concerns about it, the way to deal with it - and how not to deal with it, are clearly documented in the COI guideline, here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Jayen if you care about COi then read WP:COI carefully and come help at COIN, where I work every day. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Andreas does have a point though, this is looking more like a "WWE theatre than an editorial discussion" with the (you idiot, re: no you) kind of talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

the discussion above is not an editorial discussion. ANI is for issues about behavior. if you are getting distracted, there is nothing I can do about that. The behavioral issues and difs I raised above are sharp and clear. There is a real problem with COI in WP - see the thread the just below this one for an example. What DePiep did is ugly behavior. I am looking for a short, clear block. The behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What would it solve though? I can see Jayron's point above, once the block is up you are still going to have to deal with each other. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

please read WP:BLOCK and especially WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't know much about people, do you? Sending him to his room for 24 hours to "think about it" doesn't actually generate contrition and understanding. It compounds the problem and causes the punished user to set his heels and become even more intractable. We don't do it, not because we don't feel like it, or because we have some "belief" against it, or because it offends us to do so. We don't do it because it doesn't work. Purely based on empirical evidence, from years of humans being humans on planet earth, this is not how you manage disagreements between adults, because it doesn't produce the results we're after. We're not arguing for no sanctions, per se. We're arguing for action which has been shown to have effective results. 24-hour "cooling off" blocks aren't done because they don't work. People do not cool down when you block them for 24 hours. They don't come back ready to work and cooperate with others. The reason we are offering other options is those options have been shown to reduce the problem. 24-hour blocks don't stop long-term disruptive behavior, so we don't issue them. --Jayron32 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there are a range of possibilities here, the only one that I would strongly oppose is to do nothing, thereby sending the message that this sort of behavior is accepted. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re Formerly 98 all: I did reply to you at 16:11. What's wrong with that? -20:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

re OP User:Jayen466 (Andreas): in a cleaner environment I would like to converse with you and others about this. However, this thread is spoiled, even by the lower ANI standards, so I won't engage. Hope to meet you elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 I replied to you above, and said that I understand your perspective on BLOCK and how you choose to use your powers. I do understand it, really I do. I just don't agree with it. You don't ask me any questions (your first one is rhetorical, not authentic) so I will say nothing further. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is something terribly amiss about the title of this section. How is that so many want to discuss editor behavior on article Talk pages and argue content at ANI?. Lets stay focused on a discussion of behavior here and not try to justify personal attacks based on a content dispute. This is something we have to get right if we are going to work together effectively. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You, for example, could have sticked stayed with 16:11 reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

BLOCK : given the NEWSWEEK story context, too many admins are out of controlFCBayern786 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC).

ecce ANI

Moved here

Arguing is useless by now. Given the unending one-way hammering by Jytdog, what caused multiple more cool editors to get a distorted view, I will not spend time on responding. Plain responses are not read or used, simple questions ignored. That's the way ANI rolls then? If I'm blocked from this 'discussion', I pity wiki. Jytdog: don't be a dick.

I unwatch this page. DePiep (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)/-DePiep (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DePiep since you address me directly. This all goes away if you say "Yeah, i got carried away in the argument and said some stupid things. I get it, it was bad, I won't do it anymore" -- this all goes away. Pushing harder in the middle of it, is ~kind of~ understandable. Everybody (including me) gets hot sometimes. But persisting, the next day, and digging yourself deeper - showing you really do think Wikipedia is the internetz, for lulz and flaming? You dig your own WP:HOLE, man. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DR:TL. duh. When I did not address you, you responded in bold. Ask help, recompose. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

yep, more internetz. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I note that original errors in the OP, which I have pointed out, were not corrected and are still used, even by judging admins. So far about discussion quality on ANI.
• Harassed twice by Jytdog, while admitting it is done knowingly: [417] [418]. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with admin related functions (i.e. unblocking) like that are typically allowed under WP:OWNTALK when a user has imposed such a ban (see here). It's only when there's a very clear case of harassment that it's violating WP:NOBAN. Considering that Jytdog was even arguing for your unblock, it looks like you're continuing the battleground behavior. After a block, it's really best to disengage, so I highly suggest doing so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

• Blocked. I have blocked DePiep for 48 hours for this personal attack right in an ANI report complaining of their personal attacks. This block isn't meant to put a cork in further discussion of topic bans/I-bans; no need to close the thread if people wish to continue to discuss those matters. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC).
• Endorse block I'd have indeffed him, and was about 30 seconds behind you to do so. Still, good block, and I hope he'll prove me wrong and a short block will be an educational experience. Good one. --Jayron32 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 about your revert of my non-admin close. There is no serious discussion of an interaction ban (all the players above said that they had rarely interacted before, and I-bans are for long-term problems). I see no serious discussion of a topic ban (which would essentially be a site ban since pretty much of what DePiep does is chemistry). What other bans are under real discussion here? (real question) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My revert had nothing to do with your not being an admin. Non-admins don't lack any rights that admins do here. Anyone can close any thread when it is ready to be closed, and not being an admin doesn't mean you don't have that right. So that's a non-starter, and has nothing to do with what I did. The reason I reverted was that several people above were discussing responding to behavioral issues with longer-term sanctions. I didn't feel that discussion needed stopping merely because he cussed someone out during the actual discussion of his behavior. --Jayron32 00:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you knew it was non-admin, and I knew it was ok for me to do it. :) i just don't see any real momentum for anything longer and i reckon that what bit there was will die, especially now that a block has been done. Now that you have reverted me i will not try to close this again, but I would appreciate it, if you would mind this and close it if no further momentum for that develops. (in my view, it would be a shame if it did. It would be too much, at this time, on too little evidence of there being a sustained problem. ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You do what you gotta do. It's a free world. --Jayron32 01:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Considering this not even an hour after the block, maybe the block should be extended to indefinite after all? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorse Close, at the very least talk-page access should be revoked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to suggest that too. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Look, this guy's done a lot of good work. There's no question he's a "hot head" (I've seen it personally, on one occasion), and he's lost it here, but I really don't think an Indef block is the way to go this time. Go with a longer block (say, 1–3 months), let DePiep hopefully cool down, and then hopefully he can come back and do good work after a break. But I really don't think an Indef serves the project in this case... --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block and revocation of talk page access if necessary. An otherwise productive editor lost his sh*t but nothing suggests it'll be a long term thing. Give him the weekend to have a couple of beers, mow the lawn and come back on Monday. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Callanecc cleaned up the personal attacks made by DePiep on his Talk page and warned him against more. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, hm, I just pinged him for something chemistry related. Damn. Well, endorse everything Stalwart said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Opportunity Knocks: Now that Jytdog's more successful "cudgel" has taken down his opponent's more pathetic "cudgel", he is free to use his "hatchet" to the article in question unopposed by DiPiep as he pleases (16 edits to Glyphosate since the block), and that pesky mention of cancer can be buried deep in the article, so hopefully no one sees it. David Tornheim (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We deal with one editor making personal attacks, and now another pops up. Really, David. You you were warned about this already by Drmies just a bit over a week ago, and you are stepping right back into it, here at ANI! Not only just above, but here at DePiep's talk page ("Yes, "they". They don't mess around. ") and here and here. You just keep WP:CAMPAIGNING instead of simply editing. And do you really think I am not well aware that the glyphosate article is under increased scrutiny now? For pete's sake. I was so busy with work and this yesterday that I had no time to even deal with the new content that had been added. we are working that through normally, and the cancer stuff is still in the lead, with a good, collegial talk page discussion going on. no drama. no need for drama. just editing Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse this block. The content dispute? Take it somewhere else. ANI is not the place to hash out this kind of issue, which has parallels with the EU's classification of mobile phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" (which in scientific terms means it is unlikely to be carcinogenic, but we can't rule it out, and in crank terms means it definitely causes cancer and therefore so does WiFi and your Apple watch). These arguments involve deeply held beliefs colliding with careful science that, oddly, never says what those with deeply held beliefs would like it to. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I think the block was righteous, but I also have to acknowledge that DePiep, before he went over the top and made the remark that got him blocked, had written. "Now of course I understand that my COI-remarks did not fall well with readers. Even though they were clearly meant as an over the top "POV" note, and added as an aside to the core argument. So I understand that, as you ask, even oblique I better not make them again" I admit that I stopped reading that remark before I got to the end (tl/dr). Hopefully, he meant that. I am sorry that I didn't see that and respond to it. I also supported unblock at his Talk page, here. Bishonen would you please consider unblocking? he is not a clear communicator which has gotten in his own way, but I think he "got it" which was the point of the ANI. Thanks for considering. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is about unblocking the editor who wrote this response to my block notice? No. I do tolerate blocked users venting, more than many admins do; I'm not one to impose extra time for it, or to remove talkpage access in other than extreme cases. But neither will I be extra nice about being told I'm sniffing your farts. If you're prepared to be Patient Griselda, Jytdog, that's up to you; I'm not. I'll leave this block to uninvolved admins. If one of them is willing to unblock the user, I have no objection. Note also that what I gave DePiep was a short block of 48 hours — there are now only a few hours remaining of it — so I'm not sure why you're agitating quite so urgently for an unblock at this time. (You have pinged me on DePiep's page as well.) He was lucky I hit the block button first, placing a 48-hour block just a few seconds before another admin was going to indef him.[419] Bishonen | talk 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

thanks bish. seeing how he just deleted my remarks there, i cannot argue with you. it is just that i realized he did acknowledge the problem, before he created another one. that's all. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd in fact written up a short note for you for DePiep's page as well, for posting immediately after my reply above, just to emphasize that uninvolved admins needn't consult me. But I was too slow; DePiep had already removed your unblock appeal to me as "harassment". I'm not really comfortable posting on that page at all, and now I guess I won't have to. Good. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Close

The editor involved has been blocked for 48 hours, unless there is a clear consensus for an indef here I suggest this be closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

well, now David is almost begging for a block, per his comment just above... Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Split it off into a separate section then if you feel strongly about it so this doesn't turn into confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK to let this sit a bit. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoever closes this, it could be helpful give a summary or warning in closing rather than just saying the editor was blocked. If this does need to be referenced again (I hope not), that helps other readers by not needing to have them read the whole post. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal appropriately with COI concerns?

Jytdog, this is at least the third editor (EllenCT, David Tornheim, DePiep) for whom you and Kingofaces43 have sought topic bans or blocks, after the editor expressed concern about pro-industry COI editing. Yet I know you've been concerned about COI yourself and its impact on WP. We're already hamstrung because of OUTING. It means editors often can't produce the evidence, but if they express concern without evidence, someone will seek a block. What can be done about this? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, someone will seek a block...probably the person being harassed by COI witchhunt. It's unfortunate that an expectation of having some sort of evidence first is too constraining for some. Geogene (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, one reason I have not been keen to participate in policy discussions heretofore is seen in this very thread. There may be a better venue for this discussion, where drama cannot impede the process? petrarchan47tc 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I started it here, Petra, is that it's about the role of AN/I in COI discussions (people seeking sanctions), and there's a degree of momentum. But we can certainly continue it elsewhere. WT:COI and WP:COIN are two possibilities. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Sarah (SV) raises an important question here regarding COI concerns and what can be done about this. It seems one potential way to deal with this would be for ANI to differentiate between COI concerns raised as vicious allegation/personal attack vs civil reasonable COI concerns backed up by diffs. For example, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” vs someone saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”. The former seems block worthy while the later doesn't seem to be block worthy. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobo, I agree with your suggestion. I'm pinging Smallbones, Coretheapple, Gandydancer and Petrarchan47 too, as they've been involved in many discussions about this. We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point. Editors should at least be allowed to say that they believe it is happening, without risk of sanction. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

They should not be able to say it over and over again, over a period of months, without producing evidence. That's harassment intended to suppress opposing views, and should be dealt with the same way that NLT is dealt with, for the same reason (squelching speech). It should absolutely not be "safe" to do that. Geogene (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One question comes to mind, in an incident of which I am aware. I am thinking of an admin who had not previously been involved in the related discussions, who stated here in wikipedia he had "seen evidence" of a COI problem off-site. The editor with the alleged COI has, not surprisingly, vociferously denied it. And, FWIW, having seen the information (I think) myself, I think it, well, reasonably good evidence, but producing it here might involve OUTing. Any ideas on how to deal with cases of that type? John Carter (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that rules should allow someone with CU rights to be shown that evidence and to dispense sanctions based on it as they deem necessary. That doesn't worry me at all, because there's evidence, even if the rest of us can't see it. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter, with an outing concern like that, maybe our existing policies and guidelines such WP:NPOV, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, WP:OWN etc can used in lieu of any evidence which would constitute outing. Outing seems like something we should work to avoid. Also, it seems to me that even if an editor does have a COI, it is still the edits and/or behavior that are the real concern here. With offline evidence like that, looking closer at that user's edits and behavior seems warranted to assess the problem, but if someone who works for Monsanto or who works for a political campaign etc comes here and actually edits neutrally, civilly, and collaboratively, maybe we shouldn’t worry about that.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think COI-tainted participation is a dreadful thing that mucks up the consensus forming process and distorts the encyclopedia, and it needs to be fought. On the other hand as I see it there are a number of problematic editors that starting throwing around COI allegations as soon as an editor makes an edit - be it ever so good - that they personally don't like, particularly in the fields of corporate politics, medicine and fringe science. I've been on the receiving end of it myself. I certainly do not want to see that bad behaviour encouraged. In Jytdog's case, as I recall, the pitchfork brigade previously stirred up such a fuss with regard to Monsanto that Jytdog was effectively forced to subject themselves to vetting at COIN by an independent third party ... and yet even that doesn't seem to have satisfied some people ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, all one has to do here to elicit accusations of COI is to add any favorable statement about a corporation, pesticide, or drug (pharmaceutical that is, its ok to laud the unrecognized curative powers of psychedelics), or remove a negative claim about one of the above topics. The quality of the sourcing does not matter, nor do arguments based on NPOV, the accusation will follow about one such edit in 3. Its rude, tiresome, and I believe it inhibits many editors from even thinking about participating on the more controversial articles. We have a COIN board, and if someone has actual evidence, that is the place for such discussions. Jytdog has shown the effectiveness of dealing with real COIs by this board, which was established for exactly this purpose. There is a clearly enunciated policy against making unsupported accusations on article Talk pages and it needs to be enforced. Unfortunately some editors seem to be unable to get their heads around the idea that others might honestly have a different pov than their own, and such accusations become an argument of first resort. This is completely unproductive and violates the basic principles of Wikipedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would comment here that I have noticed that these accusations are disproportionately aimed at people that have, or appear to have, some technical or scientific understanding in the relevant subject area. In effect, you know too much to be trusted to write this article. I'm not sure if that's the usual experience, but it sure isn't beneficial to this encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I want to start out by noting that per your note above your question to me, is a response to David's request to you: "Working on the articles is hopeless because these same editors rule them with an iron fist and will successfully get one blocked, ibanned, etc. if you stand up to them?"]

• David was warned to stop campaigning. yet he continues. And now you aid him. As I wrote above, you are now arguably WP:INVOLVED and I will look for you to not act in an admin capacity on matters related to GMO or pesticides.
• There are three icky parts of your question that I will address. The long part, I will not.
• The first icky part is that your post is a thinly veiled accusation of COI; in your victim-blaming here (as you did above here and here you are making a claim that editors deserve to have adolescent flamers (DePiep) and POV-pushers (EllentCT and David) attack them.
• The 2nd icky part is your lumping three distinct cases together. Besides the differences I just mentioned, the DePiep thing was one foolish evening, on one article; with EllenCT there were at least two articles where there were extended content disputes in which her personal attacks arose; with David, he has barely edited in the topic at all, but instead has been WP:CAMPAIGNING his personal attacks across WP. Each one is different.
• the 3rd icky part, is your acceptance of this behavior. These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here. I ask you to reflect on your acceptance and support of that.
• The long part is how to deal with conflicted editing; and with its corollary problem, WP:ADVOCACY (which you do not mention, but which is as damaging - maybe more? nobody knows as there is no data). ANI is not the place for this and it is too bad others are taking this venue up with answers; if you want to discuss that please raise it at WT:COI. If you do, I would appreciate it if you would uncouple the question from your continuation of the accusations against me.
• One thing I will tell with you absolutely clarity - acccusations - especially persistent accusations - of COI made without on-wiki evidence of off-wiki interests, are corrosive personal attacks that violate AGF and OUTING; editors who make them should be warned and if they refuse to stop, they should receive a block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT, and if they continue through further, longer blocks, they should be banned.
• Per Drmies's advice to David in her close, he should stop campaigning and start editing - and he should edit better when he does. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to ping It certainly is a continuing problem. Policy doesn't appear to provide a remedy, which presents a vulnerability that can be exploited by special interests and their PR firms, or by editors who just happen to be big fans of some given industry. Perhaps a new category such as "COI-like editing" can be introduced. Sure, it's just another form of POV editing, for which we have guidelines, but on Wikipedia, obvious pro-industry editing is running rampant. When this POV editing is coupled with well-established alliances, a penchant for drama, bullying and downright abusive communication, this activity ends up taking its toll not only on WP's credibility but it is running good editors off the site (and perhaps ridding WP of honest editors is the goal). petrarchan47tc 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) finally, i will add that our COI guidleline has very clear guidance on how to deal with COI concerns, and not a single person here has cited it. Everybody here, please actually read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. If you have issues with that, please raise them on the Talk page of the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You wrote that, as I recall. I think it's very problematic. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, are you saying that Jytdog wrote the COI policy to which he is linking? Can you expand on what you find problematic and how? petrarchan47tc 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, the part I disagree with is in bold: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI ... raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page ..." I recall that Jytdog and Kingofaces used that against EllenCT (they argued for a sanction because she was raising the issue elsewhere, without having approached Kingofaces on his talk). Jytdog added it in July. But in my view it's sometimes important not to interact directly with the editor, and sometimes people simply won't want to; that person might be aggressive, for example, and the editor with the concern might feel intimidated. So I think it's bad advice. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks for clarifying. There are many editors for whom this would be far too confrontational, especially for those who find 'colourful language' distasteful, for that is surely what faces them in some cases. Furthermore, editors who are gaming the system have a lot to loose and will stop at nothing - editing, monitoring, stalking day and night, 24/7 - to win disputes, since the truth alone will not suffice. It does no good to interact with a liar directly. petrarchan47tc 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

so dark, petrarchan. so dark. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, the problem with EllenCT's behavior was that instead of dealing with her "concerns" in any considered way, that would get the community involved and get her concerns addressed, she just hounded and hounded, and tried to use that as a weapon in the content dispute to win her point. She never brought the claim anywhere for the community to act on it. That is ugly, disruptive behavior. The point of that section of the guideline is to guide people away from that. That is not OK behavior. Please tell me at what time in the history of WP that chasing somebody through talk pages with any kind of personal accusation was ever OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

yep i worked on that, and i believe you were working on the page at the same time SlimVirgin - i'm surpsised that you let it stand so long if you long if you find it problematic.. And no one fucking owns any fucking guideline or fucking policy in WP and the claim that it is "mine" is unbefuckinglieavable. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in spite of Jytdog's somewhat colorful language, a search of the history of the guideline shows that his first edits were in June 2014, and mainly dealt with paid editing. The sections requiring civility and instructing editors to bring COI concerns to COIN predate Jytdog's edits. So we should try to keep this rational and lose both the insinuations and the language. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, I am repeating what I wrote above, and I would be interested in a response from you. "These accusations of COI arise when the attackers refuse to accept that people with different perspectives can be acting in good faith and in accordance with WP's mission and PAG, and instead, personalize the dispute and ascribe the difference to corruption. This is intellectually sloppy, mean-spirited, and corrosive. None of that, is what we are about here.". Please explain what you disagree with about that. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• note: I have started a discussion at WT:COI here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Break

• Is it just me, or has this thread gone off-topic? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s off topic. There have been multiple ANI complaints regarding COI concerns as personal attacks, with users requesting blocks. I think ANI needs to make an attempt to differentiate between concerns which are PA vs reasonable concerns as I stated above. To reiterate, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” seems to be block worthy, but saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”, that seems reasonable. Other editors have also brought up good points. Having a different POV is not COI-style-POV; however, I’d say having a different POV while bullying others off the page and engaging in WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH etc and violating NPOV to keep stuff you don’t like off that page might be. Having scientific knowledge is definitely not COI-style-POV. Additionally, refusing to let WP:ADVOCACY editors “balance” WP:MEDRS sources with blogs is not COI-style-POV, but when editors remove WP:MEDRS sources that do not support their POV, for a laundry list of questionable reasons, that might be COI-style-POV. I think Andreas brought up a good point above when he asked “what about the quality of the edits” [420]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

On your very last note, I don't think anyone was removing MEDRS sources in this specific case. I get the vibe Andreas might have been asking that question towards my edits though. For those that didn't follow the diff summaries, I only removed the single sourced content from the lede because it and other competing sources were still being hashed out in the body. There seems to be some insinuation I was wanting to remove the WHO source (probably from skimming the first diff) so I just wanted to clarify that wasn't the case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• BoboMeowCat has suggested that we take more of a DUCK-like approach to COI, as we do with socks. We don't (always) agonize over socking when it's obvious, but with COI we not only require strong evidence, but we often don't allow people to post it because of OUTING.
  I understand the desire to AGF, but the result is the situation described by Newsweek on 24 March, which is heart-breaking. The claim is that 15,000 students in India signed up to a bogus course, because Wikipedia was allowing the college to be promoted by a COI editor. One of the student's parents re-mortgaged their farm to pay for it. This happened even though lots of people on WP knew there was a problem with the editor.
  We have to make it easier to express concern about COI, and impose topic bans when a sufficient number of editors in good standing have a COI concern, particularly where money is involved. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is very easy to post at COIN. People do it every day. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• "What about the quality of the edits?" is certainly, or should be, the most important question here. Is anyone willing to spend hours surveying these edits? I quit editing here in June '14 after coming across Formerly98, and nearly loosing my lunch as a result of glancing at just two days' worth of his work. In that time he had thoroughly spun three articles about different pharmaceutical pills. No one was watching, no one confronted him, and he worked in complete peace. Wikipedia provided an environment perfectly suited for such activity. That's when I knew that fighting special interests here is a lost cause, and I told him as much here, just prior to leaving. For an example of this 'spin', I surveyed his work on the Antidepressant article, which you can peruse here (note the comments from Doors22 as well - apparently multiple editors have left the project because of F98). This took at least four hours, and it is far from exhaustive, but it may shed more light on the activity some are complaining about. I really don't care about why this person has a POV towards pharmaceuticals - the reader doesn't either. The point is, WP's articles are being decimated because no one is standing up to this gang and this POV editing. Those who do end up paying dearly for it.

Also worth a look, Atsme assessed problematic behaviour with regard to Jytdog here. petrarchan47tc 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There have been many other complaints in addition to what Petrarchan47 mentioned. I am tired of bringing this up and have found that the ANI board has not been responsive. Now that Sarah (SV) has taken notice, hopefully she will be able to provide suggestions/advice on how to properly handle these issues. Doors22 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• "I have here in my hand, a list of editors who are corporate shills or paid editors, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of Wikipedia.” Mildly adapted from here. You all are going so, so the wrong way on this, and you cannot even see it. Santayana turns in his grave. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn said, In Jytdog's case, as I recall, the pitchfork brigade previously stirred up such a fuss with regard to Monsanto that Jytdog was effectively forced to subject themselves to vetting at COIN by an independent third party ... and yet even that doesn't seem to have satisfied some people ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC). Since the time that Jytdog was declared to be free of COI he has brought it up numerous times, as have others in defense of him. It has been brought out every time that anyone suggested that he may seem to have a COI. Now today I have learned that the vetting process that declared him free of COI was pretty much just a nice chat without the question of COI ever even brought up by either party. What kind of a system is that anyway? If that's the way this place works, any editor with a COI would welcome a chat in which they would disclose their name and place of work, or I suppose address if they were retired. And then they could have the perfect comeback if they were ever accused of having a COI. This system needs to be changed because it's worse than no system at all. Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hah! Anybody not satsified with being cleared by an oversighter is not going to be satisfied with anything, short of a police-level forensic investigation (and even then, how would we know that wasn't controlled by Big Pharma or something? Whooo!) Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gandy:

1) Here is the actual thread where the disclosure happened. It is completely obvious that the disclosure I made was taking in place in the context of a COI inquiry, in order to determine if I had a COI.

2) Today you asked me what happened in that context

3) i honored your request and described what happened and went further.

You misrepresented all that. Remarkable. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Now that there seems to be an effort to re-interpret seeking oversighter attention as positive evidence of COI, I think it's time to consider whether an unfounded COI accusation isn't a non-falsifiable construct, akin to religious beliefs. Except this you can use as a rhetorical weapon to get your way in a content dispute. Geogene (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comments 1) The diff SlimVirgin posted, saying "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed" reflects poor editing judgment even if it doesn't point to COI per se. Journals have taken to requiring those funding disclosures and printing them precisely because they are relevant. Wikipedia's RS guideline for similar reasons says the best sources are those independent of the subject. In scientific publications some independence is injected by the referee process but the point of the funding disclosure is that even afterwards it's still not fully independent. So that should be taken into account during the Wikipedia editing process. I'd urge Kingofaces43 and others take this to heart. I can understand why it comes across as suspicious when someone argues against following what's become established scientific practice. (As an illustration of why peer review by itself isn't enough, consider the now-required registration of drug studies with the NIH at an early stage of the study, to decrease the effect of publication bias on the reliability of the results. Discarding unsuccessful studies and publishing only the successful ones is a form of p-hacking that refereeing individual papers can't detect. I'm not aware of any measures against this in agriculture.) 2) Jytdog's combative style (repeatedly requesting that someone be blocked) didn't come across well in the early part of that thread. My suggestion is that people bringing disputes to ANI shouldn't call for specific remedies if they are involved. Instead just describe the dispute as neutrally as possible, and let uninvolved editors figure out remedies. 3) These are agriculture articles we're talking about, right? MEDRS doesn't apply except in some possible specific situations involving medical info. Don't overdo it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone cite a policy on this? (I mean on rejecting peer-reviewed literature reviews because you don't like the author).Geogene (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of liking/disliking the author but rather of accounting for COI. Per WP:RS#Overview, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources...". The linked page WP:THIRDPARTY says "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered..." and the idea of independence is basically freedom from COI. The reason the journal prints those notices about the funding source is to alert the reader to potential COI affecting the research being published, i.e. that the particular article is not entirely independent. Sensible content judgment has to say independence isn't binary in situations like this. Since the article is still in an independent journal and passed peer review, we shouldn't reject it outright, but per the COI notification we can consider it as shaded for purposes of assessing WP:WEIGHT. E.g. if one refereed paper says smoking causes cancer and another (funded by the tobacco industry) says it doesn't, we should still cite both per WP:NPOV, but not equally.

We should also consider that the AGF principle towards Wikipedia editors doesn't necessarily apply to external publications, viz. this famous essay by Paul Graham. Just because no COI is disclosed doesn't mean we should always assume that none exists. That's probably less of an issue for academic papers than in topic areas where public relations agents operate more. Overall this is a matter of editorial judgment and there is not an algorithm for it. Wikipedia content editing should in general run on the good sense of editors and not by algorithms. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff in question is here [421]. I'm not involved in that article and I haven't read the source, but according to the editor being criticized it was selected because (1) "it's one of the more recent reviews" and (2) it has "a pretty standard commentary on what other literature is also saying". Assuming those statements are true, and they don't seem to be under challenge, I think it's a stretch to impugn someone's judgement over this at AN/I. Geogene (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for actually reading what I wrote. Folks seem to have a tendency to misrepresent what I've said even when I tell them exactly what you just described, so seeing that is refreshing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Geogene, I looked at that diff too, and SV's reading of it seemed fine to me. Re "pretty standard commentary" not being under challenge, look at EllenCT's post immediately above Kingofaces43's, and also further down on the talk page. She contested the source's neutrality rather vociferously in both places, and got into a disagreement with Kingofaces43 about whether the authors' funding sources were relevant. That's where the diff came from. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was pinged on this a few days ago and just waded through the lengthy discussion. I've seen similar issues raised before, involving this and other articles, in particular BP in which there was indeed acknowledged paid editing, as well as concerns by some editors regarding possible unacknowledged paid editing. My problem is that this drama has obscured what appears to be the central problem, which is coordinated POV editing that has resulted in a a significant report being removed from the article. We had a similar problem at BP. Outrage over paid editing and its enablers distracted attention with real problems in the article, such as a misstatement that gave excessive and inaccurate emphasis to BP's "green" initiatives.

In most such situations, what was suspected to be unacknowledged paid editing was probably not paid, probably just ordinary POV-pushing, but the offended editors said things they shouldn't have said and gotten in trouble. The end result was that, until the BP article received outside publicity, it was pretty much written by BP. In this case I don't believe there has been acknowledged or unacknowledged COI editing, just POV editing that has resulted in a counterproductive backlash. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim's behavior, redux

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

David Tornheim, just over a week ago, was warned to stop campaigning just a bit over a week ago, with Drmies writing a close that "There is also some agreement that Tornheim seems to regard Wikipedia as a battleground where there's always a pro and a con side, and partisanship rules.".

Since then David has continued campaigning, even in this thread:

• here
• here
• here (a beauty)
• and here (a real beauty)

Since he has completely blown off the warning, please provide a 24 hour block, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. David is making it more and more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE so I will not oppose an indef, but all I am asking for is a 24 hour block. Thanks.

I am sorry to keep cluttering up this board, but these personal attacks of corruption and COI are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note, fixed dif per note below. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• Witness Intimidation for testimony on this ANI. This accusation against me shows just how impossible it is to speak about a problem. David Tornheim (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what we mean with WP:CIR. just bizarre. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The "don't be a dick/gravedancing" diff you linked as evidence against David Thorheim isn't from David Thorheim, it is from DePiep [[422] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i fixed it. sorry. god i sick of this drama. i have articles i want to work on. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (note - made this a separate new incident. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

• I moved this section back here, because it's part of the same incident; whoever looks at it has to see it in context. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that when I wrote "here," I was referring to the section above that this report is part of. Jytdog has moved it again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

David's behavior has nothing to do with DePiep's. David is responsible for what he does. This belongs in its own section, and so i moved it back. too much drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, I'm surprised to see you seek sanctions for posts like this, given your interactions recently with DrChrissy. You were cursing at her with practically every post at one point, but no one reported you (and I'm glad they didn't, because it meant that it eventually stopped without fuss). Shouldn't you extend a similar attitude to others? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

drchrissy is a guy, for what its worth. you really cannot sort out a personal attack from someone fucking cursing in frustration? And in any case, if you want to bring a case against me for that, please do so. This thread is about David's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, even to a casual observer, you bring an awful lot of cases to WP:ANI. You seem to be involved in a lot of confrontational encounters. Again, just an observation. And you failed to notify the editor about bringing this case to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Liz this has been a really crappy couple of weeks, i grant you that. i work on controversial subject matter and in general manage to keep things calm enough that we don't end up here; david's campaigning has been stirring the pot for sure. Depiep's thing was random. and i apologize for not giving notice to David. doing that now. thanks for the reminder. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think its been more than a crappy week. You have 563 edits to this page, in only two article do you have more. That is an amazing number for someone who has a bad week. AlbinoFerret 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: this thread is about David Tornheim's behavior. It is what it is. Each editor in Wikipedia is responsible for his or her behavior. Period. David is hounding me with personal attacks across WP; this is a violation of WP:CAMPAIGNING. He has been warned, and persisted. Please give him a block per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At WP:RSN David Tornheim has:

• cited a Reiki site to make an Argumentum ad populum that Reiki isn't WP:FRINGE medicine
• argued that Reiki shouldn't be compared to "Western" Medicine (because it'd fail that comparison horribly) and so somehow shouldn't be treated as a fringe topic
• made a slippery slope argument that dismissing Reiki as pseudoscience would lead to dismissing Eastern culture as fringe (non sequitur)
• admitting that Reiki is not scientific while still arguing that it should not be treated as WP:FRINGE because it supposedly doesn't make scientifically testable claims (despite previously citing an article titled "The Greatest Healing The World Has Ever Known")
• arguing against the idea that Reiki claims to basically be the force (able to heal at a distance), even though the article he cited says "Reiki can be sent at a distance."
• arguing that Reiki should be defined by its advocates, instead of by skeptical sources (in the absence of WP:MEDRSs supporting it)
• asked for a pro-Reiki citation for Reiki's founder referring to it as medicine, only to try to dismiss the argument with a strawman when his challenge was met.

For those not in the know, Reiki is a form of "Energy medicine" where the "healer" can "cure" Peptic ulcers, Anemia, Nephritis, Measles, and Ty-fucking-phoid through energies that science says do not exist, across time and space. No WP:MEDRSs were ever presented in support of Reiki, despite repeated requests for them. To argue in defense of Reiki the way Tornheim has requires at least one of the following: gross incompetence, a personal crusade on behalf of WP:Lunatic charlatans, or Reiki-based profits. Given his other behavior, I think that a topic-ban may be in order, probably against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

^I will address misrepresentations made above. Please give me time to respond. I am not an advocate for Reiki. And I am definitely no advocate (and have little respect) for "quack" or "snake oil" medicine that deceives patients with false promises or pseudo-scientific claims. My discussion at the RS forum about Reiki had to do with appropriate use of RS, which was being misapplied and against policy and included the use of circular, contradictory logic. Please note that I have never edited the Reiki article or talk page. Nor have I edited any article or talk page related to Alternative Medicine or mainstream Western Medicine as far as I can remember. I don't think GMO food is medicine, is it? David Tornheim (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You kept citing a Reiki website in place of a WP:MEDRS, and made arguments that went against the source you cited and arguments that demonstrated you had not read anything about Reiki (except pro-Reiki sources), to try and keep Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force) away from WP:FRINGE and open the door to presenting it as a legitimate "healing" distinct from "western" medicine. If WP:COI is not at play here, then WP:CIR or WP:RGW definitely is. The topic ban is necessary because either you like to argue in defense of quackery out of either gullible ignorance or actual belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson says "Reiki (which is basically healing by praying to the Force)". This is incorrect. I have read numerous sources on Reiki and NONE of them (including the current wiki article Reiki)), even the skeptics, say that it relies primarily on praying--all of them say Reiki is about touch and many say it is more like massage. (Yes, it does use Qi). Ian.thomson is clearly confused about Reiki, and now is trying to ban me for pointing out his/her confusions like these about Reiki.

I do regret I tried to help the people at that forum understand the major differences between Eastern Practices viz-a-viz Western Medicine which are entirely different systems. Obviously, a waste of time. I should have focused only on the RS issue. Although that seems like a waste of time too which is why I have not said anything on that forum for a few days. David Tornheim (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with reiki will know practitioners claim it can be used at distance (in that respect it is like prayer or Christian Science healing). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't object to the Star Wars reference? The indication that I was clearly making a joking comparison? Please read the article on metaphors. If you've read plenty of sources on Reiki, and you're capable of tutoring students on physics, then you should have known better it was essentially magical in nature. It isn't an east vs west thing, it is a science vs pseudoscience thing. Reiki makes scientifically testable claims, but provides no evidence. As I said at RSN, its western parallel is not "western" medicine, Reiki's western twin would be something like Radionics or crystal healing.

I I totally get and appreciate respect for other cultures, but that respect does not require gullibility. If someone makes a scientifically testable claim, we demand evidence in proportion to those claims]. If they do not present it, we treat their claims as WP:FRINGE. It's that simple.

And how have you read numerous sources on Reiki, but somehow supposedly don't have an opinion on it one way or another? Either you're a stealth advocate, or you're in denial about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• couple of links to comments from david with comments in reply from some admins:
  • dif (see especially comments at the end of that thread)
  • dif

Per those comments there, WP:CIR is at play here. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

^Now he is going here saying I am "incompetent". The criticism from Jytdog just never ends! David Tornheim (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

yep, and you are proving the case with almost every post you make here. See WP:HOLE Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - to Ian.thomson - calling for a topic ban based on subject-related comments on the RSN is bizarre, particularly given that David states he never edited the Reiki article. While the Reiki article should certainly avoid overweighing fringe viewpoints, the notion of undue weight does not apply to talk page and discussion board comments, and these are reasonable places to bring up non-mainstream viewpoints and discuss how they relate to wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did I attempt to apply WP:UNDUE to RSN? On undue weight, however, Tornheim's actions at RSN would have had the effect of allowing undue weight on fringe viewpoints in the article. "These sources are reliable information on Reiki from the perspective of the practitioner" would have been a fine argument and relevant to the discussion -- but his actions there specifically pushed the idea that Reiki should not be treated as a fringe pseudoscience because pro-Reiki authors do not characterize it that way. By that standard, there is no such thing as pseudoscience.

His other actions have resulted in arguments at GMOs, Glyphosate, and Genetic engineering, and Jytdog has come to ANI and other places because of Tornheim's actions there. Those other actions, in the light of his behavior at RSN, demonstrates serious problems with either WP:CIR or WP:ADVOCACY (via mostly WP:Civil POV pushing) when it comes to health sciences. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You raised WP:FRINGE in your initial comment, which is closely related to WP:UNDUE. Showing interest in a fringe or minority viewpoint is not in itself a bannable offense. Do you have diffs showing clear disruptive behavior?Dialectric (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

At what point did I say that he should be banned for simply showing interest? Having overhauled the Lesser Key of Solomon, I have to say there's nothing wrong with interest. What I have already linked to shows a POV-problem.

As for Tornheim's behavior, see the previous ANI thread, which was closed with the comment "There is a measure of agreement that David Tornheim's editing is problematic; individual edits (such as this one, cited by a number of editors) are incredibly problematic and the removal of them is warranted by all kinds of policies." Tornheim edit warred to keep that edit in, and has previously canvassed to change articles relating to GMOs to suit his POV. He also encouraged others to edit war to support his POV.

Has Jytdog been perfect in his interactions? No, but even in isolation, Tornheim and science do not mix. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreciate your striking out the ad hominem that questions my competence in Science. I happen to have a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering (from University of Cincinnati) Magna Cum Lum Laude, where I excelled in numerous college level science classes, and a Masters of Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (U.S.C.) and was top in my high school class in math and science. I also have tutored students in math, including advanced Calculus and Statistics, as well as Physics. So I would really appreciate your striking out the ad hominem allegations that I do not know much about Science. -David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. Then you should have known better to try and give equal validity to Reiki. But wait, you've also read numerous sources on it, and all of them pro-Reiki. You may be in denial about it, and pretend that you just don't know, but your behavior screams that you believe in it and advocate it's use to others. Believe what you want, but it's unacceptable to try to reshape Wikipedia to fit those beliefs when they conflict with science. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The two problematic edits you spoke of were already raised in the closed AN/I. Why are you raising them again? Is there no Double Jeopardy on Wikipedia? As for the edit in question (dated 18:40, 2 March 2015) mentioned in the closing comments, that issue was resolved less than two hours later here (dated 20:32, 2 March 2015) and again here (dated 21:35, 2 March 2015). I relinquished all interest in the material, as soon as those who had done the reverts (mostly Jytdog) explained on the talk page here (dated 19:52, 2 March 2015) (rather than in vague edit summary here) why he believed a normally reliable source like the BBC had made a very serious mistake in its reporting. His explanation on the talk page made sense, I accepted it without further comment--so I thought--that would be the end of it. But it seems never to go away. I saw I made a mistake and never showed the least interest in adding the problematic material again. Yet this edit which I have long divorced myself from apparently I am still married to? Where do I get a Wiki divorce? Admitting you made a mistake by sleeping with the wrong "edit" more than once, apparently is just not enough.

And all of this was before the first AN/I Jytdog used against me (01:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)). I admitted in the AN/I that I misunderstood the WP:BRD rule:

I have done some more research and learned some more things. I carefully read the WP:BRD, and see that I misunderstood it and that Kingofaces43 (talk) interpretation is more correct than mine, that it is indeed okay to revert without going to the talk page. 10:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC) here

And I have made hardly any edits to the GMO articles since Jytdog's first ANI against me, knowing that doing so, no matter how reasonable, will land me here. But I guess you still need me banned from the GMO articles even though I have made no more controversial edits you can point to? -David Tornheim (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The double jeopardy comparison, and the prior mention of witness intimidation is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. The Reiki advocacy was mentioned, and evidence of prior problematic behavior was asked for, which is why that thread was mentioned. This isn't simply bringing up that thread again without new points. Even if you have changed how you're peddling an anti-scientific POV onto articles into a more indirect fashion, you're still peddling a POV that gives equal validity to pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: So are you really saying that if I raise an issue and someone disagrees, then I "caused an argument" and that is a good reason to have me banned from the article or topics related to that topic? Are you saying that dissenting opinions are impermissible because they cause arguments? It is hard for me to imagine Wikipedia where everyone agreed all the time. Are you still saying that you want me banned from GMO and the Glyphosphate articles because they are primarily articles having to do with medicine and medical advice? David Tornheim (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You're twisting my words, as you did at RSN. Like I said, it would have been one thing to support the use of those sources for the perspective of a Reiki practitioner, but you repeatedly argued for not classifying Reiki as a fringe pseudoscience because that's not how its practitioners classify it. Your edits to Glyphosate and on articles relating to GMOs concern their effects on human health, and therefore fall under health science. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• The topic ban discussion is closed for now, so unless someone wants to direct where this conversation is going relevant to ANI, it might be best to close this. I will chime in though that I am concerned about David's behavior continuing after being specifically being warned in the previous ANI for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. A recent post indicates they are convinced editors have a COI without any evidence to back that up: "I have been looking for cases of [COI], but can't find them, but they exist." [423]That post seems telling they are WP:NOTHERE entirely and plan to continue further drama, but it might be best to take a WP:ROPE approach with their warning at this point. If outside editors want to comment, that would be welcome. Otherwise, I'd suggest letting this post go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for the cases I was already aware of where the named users were punished for alleging COI without providing evidence. I wanted DePiep--who appeared to lack adequate Wiki-legal counsel--to know the case law and the plaintiffs, so he understood he would be next, which he was. I believe the cases happened in 2013 or 2014. Unfortunately, I did not know how to efficiently look up Plaintiffs and Defendants in past closed Wiki-legal cases. Searching the archives for those users brings up not just every case they were Plaintiff or Defendant, but also every case they commented on--which for one or both of them exceeded 100. If you can think of a good way to search the database to quickly find a particular case you know of, please let me know how that is done. It is much much easier to do at a typical county or federal court house for real world legal cases.

I explained this all to Bishonen here. David Tornheim (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Now that we have cleared up that I was not "looking for cases of COI", let me ask you a question. In the WifiOne case, the lead Plaintiff said on Jimbo's Talk page:

Three years ago I noticed this thread on your talk page and I wrote: "...this issue should be properly investigated/clarified." Later, I notified you and others watching this page repeatedly about my concerns regarding Wifione's editing, but I was largely ignored. Now I'm letting you know that the case has come to an end, see this. There is a good off-site summary and broader context described in the current issue of the Newsweek magazine. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Was Vejvančický's behavior prior to the successful prosecution of the case WP:canvassing, WP:Nothere, WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:CAMPAIGNING and WP:Stalking? Should Vejvančický's work be lauded or decried? Would it be better if users who see what they believe to be COI edits ignore them and WP:AGF? Should they attempt to report the problem or pretend that it does not exist? -David Tornheim (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice: @Vejvančický: FYI. And I think your work should be lauded. Good job.David Tornheim (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The point here is that Vejvančický did a good job by assembling solid evidence. For sure, there is a problem with COI editing on WP, but there is also a problem with conspiracist-minded editors who will "cry COI" in advance of their (often less than neutral) objectives. In my own case, there was a particularly rich incident in which an editor took me to COIN and was then found themslves to have a COI in the very topic which was in dispute![424] In this case the editor "crying COI" was a not a brave seeker-after-truth; quite the opposite. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. The whole heart of WP:COI is that we bring actual strong evidence to the proper channels, but we do not sling COI, shill, etc. around without proper evidence in content disputes or otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see, the quoted text can be a little ambiguous when you consider that perspective. Sorry about the misinterpret. However, action should come the way of people who engage in WP:HOUNDING, so pursuing that really shouldn't be characterized as "causing trouble". My sentiments in my above post remain the same because alleging COI in the manner these folks have is plain inappropriate, so in the future you should just be telling someone mirroring DePiep's actions that the way they approach COI is inappropriate and point them to the guidance we have at WP:COI for handling things. Focusing on the editors being improperly accused and saying they are going to cause trouble is improper as well.

As for the plaintiff, etc. comment, we don't use that kind of system here. Things are already sloppy when you have editors sniping on scattered talk pages. Here things should be condensed into single posts at least, though there's still no real framework. Your best bet to find posts associated with more than one user is to enter their usernames into archive search box. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Response to Ian.thomson's allegations:

General Observations / Questions My knowledge of Reiki is pretty limited. I did some Google searches and learned a little about it. Are the sites I looked at WP:RS? I honestly do not know. However, some of the information I did find varied quite substantially with the characterization of Reiki on the RS board and I thought it was worth pointing out, asking quesitons and making observations based on my discoveries. I found that there were more questions than answers, although many people seemed to think they knew the answers a priori:

(1) What field is Reiki in?

(1a) Is it Medicine?

NO?

Many in the forum immediately identified Reiki as "medicine", but that really does not sound right to me. Everything I read made it sound more like massage, psychotherapy, yoga or Tai Chi (part of Eastern healing practices and martial arts, etc.) (and possibly spiritual) than as part of Western Medicine's emphasis on highly trained doctors and on over-the-counter or prescription drugs. And these Eastern practices as far as I know are hardly scientific. Others have made similar comments at an RS noticeboard:

First, does Reiki at all make a claim to be medicine? To the best of my knowledge, they only talk about healing which is definitely not the same as "treating", as any cultural anthropologist will explain. They are not the only ones to "heal" - for example, clinical psychology also talks about healing. Yet, medical practitiones are usually not authoritative with respect to psychology, so I don't understand why they should be considered authority on healing or other "para" type things? Moreover, among doctors, you will find ones who support "alternative therapies" and those who oppose them, and both these categories do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why should we take a medical doctor as an authority on Reiki, that fails my understanding..... kashmiri ^TALK 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but my understanding is that some people claim reiki to be an effective medical treatment while others see it more as a spiritual practice. There is certainly a debate out there about whether it's an effective medical treatment, and to that extent the question of whether it should be labeled a pseudoscience is an important one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015

...I see it this way: Some people swear by treating cancer with carrot juice. There is no clinical evidence, for whatever reasons. But should we then go to carrot article and quickly label eating carrots as pseudoscience? I am no expert, either, but I see a lot of people using Reiki simply as a relaxation technique (which is absolutely valid in light of contemporary psychology). Moreover, medical scientists tend to be cautious in formulating their conclusions (see here: doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x) and I see no reason why us Wikipedia editors should not follow this example. I've seen that a few editors here feel that Wikipedia should bring enlightenment to the dark masses, not noticing that science has evolved since 1960s and the former black-white categorisation of medical theories and treatments is now giving way to postmodernist approaches. kashmiri ^TALK 23:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

...Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't. Some people say reiki is a spiritual practice, some people say it's just comforting, and some people say it may have some limited medical benefit. What I'm saying is you have to look at the specific claim. To say reiki is categorically fringe is going too far. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri:, @DrFleischman: Your quotes referenced above.

YES? (To question: Is it Medicine?)

However, numerous universities in the West have accepted it as a kind of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and/or Integrative Health (e.g. Harvard, Penn Medicine, University Hospitals--Cleveland, University of Maryland, etc.) or Holistic Medicine. But my research (and the current Reiki Wiki article) say the Western version of Reiki is more limited and may comport with Western Medicine for something like relaxation. The problem now becomes: Which one is the "real" Reiki? I do not think there is an easy answer to that question either, a similar sentiment to what was expressed by others above.

(1b) Is it Science?

From what I read it sure does not sound like a science, but more like craft, like massage. Possibly the CAM is more scientific than Reiki outside the university. My tenative answer is mostly No.

(1c) Is it Pseudo-Science?

I already argue above it is not Science. It certainly does not make the pseudo-scientific theorizing like Astrology or Acupuncture as far as I can tell. Again it is more like massage where knowledge is craft, not academic theory. See also comments from others is Section (1a) above.

(2) Is it just "quackary" run by "charlatans"?

There are "kooks" and shysters everywhere and in every profession. If the writing about Reiki is by "kooks", then it is not WP:RS. Dr. Fleischman identifies the problem with using writing by Reiki practitioners who make extraordinary claims that defy reason:

This may be a bit of a straw man argument. Some people claim reiki has these sorts of magical powers, some don't...[remainder of quote found in (1a)]--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(3) What are the Reliable Sources in this field?

That I honestly do not know. I did not go to the RS forum with the intention to say I knew. But I felt that many of those who were writing in the RS forum did not know either, but they acted as if they did. And that is why I wanted to challenge some of their preconceived notions about Reiki that appear to me to be incorrect based on what I found on-line.

I do know that the correct policy is to use experts in the field. However, there is a problem with identifying the appropriate field (as noted above in (1)). I asked about experts in the field of Reiki. But I got the impression that those at the RS forum had already decided that anyone in Reiki a priori is a charlatan and unreliable, so then you have a problem, because then anyone and everyone in the field of Reiki who writes about their profession is by definition unreliable, even before you look at their writing. So how can you even know what Reiki is, if it is unacceptable to even consider what someone in the field has to say about it, because by definition what they say is not RS? This is where the circular logic comes in.

I did find one source that looked reasonably balanced: Reiki, Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3d

This appears to have the same material: Free Dictionary from Farlex

There were also numerous medical studies in peer viewed journals about Reiki claims and much of that is likely RS as far as they relate to Reiki health claims, but not to the craft itself, such as how it is done.

(4) Is Reiki—in its entirety—Fringe?

If one cannot answer (3), then how can we say? And there is the circularity problem in defining something like Reiki as WP:fringe.

(5) WP:NPOV

I am not some pro-Reiki person who thinks Reiki is great and all criticism should be alleviated. Not at all. I think Reiki should be presented descriptively and objectively according to Wiki guidelines for WP:NPOV, and that if the subject matter makes health claims that can be construed as medical, then yes, the appropriate RS regarding health WP:MEDRS should apply, and that if a claim that is scientific is made (such as the earth being created X years ago), then the relevant science RS rules should apply to describing scientific claims. But with regard to the non-health, non-science aspects of Reiki, those should be reported according to experts in the field. It appears this last part is not going to be adhered to, and that instead the non-academic field of skepticism will be used as RS to decide what Reiki is about, rather than a more appropriate field it should be in.

Anyway, I was trying to inject some sanity into the discussion at RS. I can see I failed at getting anyone to take my questions seriously. But are you really going to shoot the messenger for asking intelligent questions and pointing out problems?

As to specific allegations by Ian.thomson (talk) of 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC):

(Please review/refer to Section above titled "General Observations / Questions".)

Allegations in italics. Responses in regular type.

At WP:RSN David Tornheim has:

• cited a Reiki site to make an Argumentum ad populum that Reiki isn't WP:FRINGE medicine

No. See answer to Question 1 in the above Section "General Observations / Questions: (1) What field is Reiki in?" I did not agree Reiki's field is medicine, which on Wikipedia is Western Medicine. That is your assertion.

Wikipedia Guideline WP:Fringe states in the first paragraph:

Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.

I believe the words "prominence" and "mainstream" do refer to numbers within the field. And within the field of Eastern Healing practice, there appear to be a significant number of Reiki practitioners; but I do not know the proportion, but I do not believe that Reiki is considered "fringe" within that field. How much scholarship and what is the mainstream scholarship in the field I do not know. It might be found in some of the publishers that were rejected a priori because they published books on Eastern Healing practices. Perhaps there are sources in another language, such as Japanese or Chinese that are considered the most important scholarship. Again I do not know. Perhaps, this is something that could be pursued rather than completely ignored because a skeptic declared it "fringe"? Can we trust that skeptics who reject Reiki read all relevant Chinese and Japanese scholarship on the matter and fully appreciated it? And that all of this is cited in their findings and conclusions?

• argued that Reiki shouldn't be compared to "Western" Medicine (because it'd fail that comparison horribly) and so somehow shouldn't be treated as a fringe topic

No. I did not say that. I did not say it should not be compared to a Western Medical practice. I said: "Reiki is not a Western Medical Practice. It is an Eastern Healing Practice..." See answer to Question 1 in the above Section "General Observations / Questions: (1) What field is Reiki in?"

• made a slippery slope argument that dismissing Reiki as pseudoscience would lead to dismissing Eastern culture as fringe (non sequitur)

The easiest way to understand what I was getting at by the question I asked Ian.Thomson is by looking what the concept of "Orientalism" explained succinctly in this quote and imagine the same thing happening if all healing and other practices, thought, etc. from the "East" are treated as is explained here:

"Orientalism” is a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S. It often involves seeing Arab culture as exotic, backward, uncivilized, and at times dangerous. Edward W. Said, in his groundbreaking book, Orientalism, defined it as the acceptance in the West of “the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, ‘mind,’ destiny and so on.”

A similar quote from Orientalism:

Since the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism in 1978, much academic discourse has begun to use the term "Orientalism" to refer to a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies. In Said's analysis, the West essentializes these societies as static and undeveloped—thereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture that can be studied, depicted, and reproduced. Implicit in this fabrication, writes Said, is the idea that Western society is developed, rational, flexible, and superior.

I think these quotes illustrate some of the attitude of Wikipedia towards many Eastern practices related to health, such as Reiki, which were evident at the two RS Noticeboards on Reiki--the with the exception of the two users I quote in Question (1) above. I have not seen it in other fields, but I think it is a legitimate concern that Eastern Healing Practices are so looked down upon to be called "fringe" and "pseudo-science", and I hoped those in the RS noticeboard could see the concern. Obviously, I failed to raise awareness of it, and now apparently it is time to shoot the messenger for suggesting there might be a problem?

• admitting that Reiki is not scientific

Yes. I do not think it is "scientific". See Question (1b) above.

• admitting that Reiki is not scientific while still arguing that it should not be treated as WP:FRINGE because it supposedly doesn't make scientifically testable claims (despite previously citing an article titled "The Greatest Healing The World Has Ever Known")
• arguing against the idea that Reiki claims to basically be the force (able to heal at a distance), even though the article he cited says "Reiki can be sent at a distance."

I apologize for having cited that source for anything. I was looking for number of practitioners (for reasons stated in response to your first allegation). That was I believe the first or second site that came up, and I only read/skimmed a few pages and did not see any claims that were so grandiose as that essay you found on the site. I have found many others that do not make such outlandish claims--but I am not sure which ones should be RS without further investigation, so I will not cite them here. So no, I do not think that was RS, and I was not really sure at the time I used it, and regret now that I had chosen it.

• arguing that Reiki should be defined by its advocates, instead of by skeptical sources (in the absence of WP:MEDRSs supporting it)

No I never used the word "advocate". I said that experts in the field should define Reiki per Wiki Guideline. There is a difficulty assigning the correct field. See question (1) above. The Skeptic Movement (e.g. this group) is a set of advocacy groups that advocates for a specific kind of Epistemology. Skepticism is not an academic field but a kind of philosophy. Asking the Skeptic Movement to define Reiki is like asking Republicans to write the Democrat page.

• asked for a pro-Reiki citation for Reiki's founder referring to it as medicine, only to try to dismiss the argument with a strawman when his challenge was met.

I never used the word "pro-Reiki". I said that experts in the field of Reiki (assuming that is the appropriate field) should define what it is rather than those whose only goal is to discredit it. Should those skeptical of science have the final word about what science is? Imagine that. I seriously doubt that standard would be used to decide an RS on science, right? I am showing you there are some problems with circular logic in the use of fringe.

The relevant part of my post there was:

...All four publishers [one included Lotus Press] look as reliable as a mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble (which publishes things like these and these) or Random House (that publishes these and these)...David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

My main point here was that mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble and Random House also publish "self-help" and "spiritual awakening" books (and similar topics) that make grandiose claims of guarantees for "success", getting rich, better relationships, etc. Should we dismiss everything from a publisher, if they publish anything or many things that have highly suspect claims? I hope not. So the same standard should be applied to Lotus Press. One has to look at the book in question, the author, the reputation, the editor(s), etc. before summarily dismissing the publisher for publishing other books one believes to be fringe, such as the "self-help" books.

• ...No WP:MEDRSs were ever presented in support of Reiki, despite repeated requests for them.

Please See Answers to Question "(3) What are the Reliable Sources in this field?". I do not know. It is still up for debate. The reason I did not respond is that it seems like a waste of time. No one was taking what I said seriously, so what was the point of continuing to talk about it?

To argue in defense of Reiki the way Tornheim has requires at least one of the following: gross incompetence, a personal crusade on behalf of WP:Lunatic charlatans, or Reiki-based profits. Given his other behavior, I think that a topic-ban may be in order, probably against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose -- for reasons stated above and

Note: this part of the action was dismissed below.

I notice above that I have been accused of COI and making profits from Reiki with no evidence to support it. I also believe the allegation of COI is leveled in the wrong place. Please refer to the ANI on DiPiep above, who was dragged through an ANI for making such allegations of COI/paid editing in the wrong place and without evidence by a user (not the user that was accused of the COI paid editing incidentally) who was able to obtain the relief--a short block--successfully. It appears the incident here might be of a similar level of accusation of paid editing without any evidence in the wrong forum. It seems I could assert boomerang. But, instead, could a request attorney fees for all the time I had to defend this crazy lawsuit (the part from ian.thomson that is) on a topic I stopped commenting on because no one was listening? Just kidding on Attorney Fees, of course.

And yes, I have learned my lesson. Talking about Reiki (and probably about any other Eastern Healing practice) with people on the Noticeboard was a grand waste of time and I really regret it. I have no real interest in going there again unless users there take what I say more seriously. Unfortunately, that problem was solved before ian.thomson came here. He could have just asked me on my talk page: "Are you coming back?" But I guess this response by trying to get me banned from every health article gives me a good sense of how open he and the others were to what I had to say. Such a pleasant place Wikipedia is for having a healthy intellectual discussion. @BoboMeowCat: Thank you for noticing the concern below. David Tornheim (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Mikao Usui, the founder of Reiki, claimed that it could cure Typhoid (Usui, Dr. Mikao; Frank Arjava Petter (31 March 2000). The Original Reiki Handbook of Dr. Mikao Usui: The Traditional Usui Reiki Ryoho Treatment Positions and Numerous Reiki Techniques for Health and Well-being. Lotus Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-914955-57-8.). That is a scientifically testable claim, and there are no MEDRSs backing it up. That is different from a generic, feel-good, wishy-washy, untestable and nonspecific "healing," that is a medical claim, plain and simple. To pretend that Reiki does not make medical claims is deceptive.

Advanced Reiki teachings involve the use of symbols said to increase the efficacy of Reiki at a distance (Ellyard, Lawrence (2004). Reiki Healer: A Complete Guide to the Path and Practice of Reiki. Dorset, England: Lotus Press. p. 81. ISBN 0-940985-64-0.). There is no scientific basis for this claim.

Reiki does make claims of manipulating Qi through chakras or tandens (Usui, Dr. Mikao; Frank Arjava Petter (31 March 2000). The Original Reiki Handbook of Dr. Mikao Usui: The Traditional Usui Reiki Ryoho Treatment Positions and Numerous Reiki Techniques for Health and Well-being. Lotus Press. p. 22. ISBN 0-914955-57-8.). The existence of Qi, chakras, and dantiens/tandens is not recognized by scientific medicine.

Masseuses may not study science, but there is still a scientific mechanism behind what it can accomplish.

2) The founder of Reiki made magical claims about it. This isn't like trying to discredit modern chemistry because Paracelsus had some strange ideas, the root and basis of Reiki is magical.

3, 4) Because Reiki does make medical claims, it must have MEDRSs to support it. Until MEDRSs supporting Reiki are presented, it can be easily dismissed as pseudoscientific quackery easily. There is no circular logic. One can consult a pro-Reiki source to see that it makes medical claims (because potentially fringe sources can be used to learn about the believer's perspective), and upon finding that there are no MEDRSs, skeptical sources may be used. Accusations of circular logic are a strawman, as has been pointed out to you before.

5) Then shit or get off the can: present MEDRSs supporting Reiki or acknowledge that there are none and let skeptical sources be used (instead of repeating the same arguments that require sources you can't/won't present, as if others are going to do that for you).

Re Fringe and argumentum ad populum: The very guideline you cited says "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." Reiki.org is obviously not independent. Whether or not Reiki is fringe within "Eastern Healing" does not matter: it is whether or not Reiki is fringe within medicine. Mainstream science determines what is fringe for scientifically testable claims, not the most popular form of pseudoscience. Otherwise, Intelligent Design (rather than skepticism) would dominate the Young Earth Creationism article.

Re "Western" Medicine orientalism: Science-based medicine is practiced around the world, not just the west. To give pseudoscientific quackery a pass because it's non-western is to romanticize it, which is the root of orientalism. You are the one orientalizing here.

Re Reiki and science: If it makes scientifically testable claims, but is not scientific, and those scientifically testable claims lack evidence, it is by definition pseudoscience.

Re experts and advocates: The Gale citation above is the first time you've entertained the notion of an "expert" that wasn't also an advocate. Before that, you opposed any skeptical sources, no matter how qualified they were.

Re asking for a pro-Reiki citation: again, you had made it clear that you did not consider skeptics (no matter how qualified) to be experts, and had treated Reiki.org as an "expert" source.

Re MEDRSs: As has been explained to you over and over, Reiki makes scientifically testable medical claims, and so requires evidence to support them.

Re the trilemma of WP:COI, WP:CIR, or WP:RGW: those are the only conclusions for why someone would continually try to prevent skeptical sources from being used, attempt to hide the obvious pseudoscience of Reiki, and stick their head head in the sand when proof of Reiki's pseudoscience is presented.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This shows exactly the problem. What I was saying is not being heard. I said I learned my lesson: Talking to others about Eastern Healing practices on Wikipedia is a waste of my time. I will use extreme caution before doing it again. -David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Punishment Sought Does Not Reflect Allegations

Timeline

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC): Action brought against me in retaliation for testying in DePiep's ANI.

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC): Piles on with concerns about Reiki.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC): notifies me of this ANI

Jytdog 01:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC): apology for failure to serve me with proper notice

Ian.thomson asked that I be topic banned: "against all topics relating to health sciences (which would definitely cover GMOs, Glyphosate, Reiki, and Genetic engineering)"

However, I have never encountered this user at: Any of the multiple GMO pages, Glyphosate or Genetic engineering (see user interaction). In fact, the only place I encountered that user is at the RS forum on Reiki.

In Ian.thomson's initial complaint seeking this relief, he did not mention at any time any problems with my behavior at GMOs, Glyphosate or Genetic engineering. The relief of having me banned at those articles does match the allegations about Reiki. When asked, he was unable to show any new problems since the last ANI Jytdog brought against me. -David Tornheim (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is mentioning something on a talk page or noticeboard that other editors consider “fringe” a sanctionable offense?

This is a serious question that I think ANI needs to attempt to address. I’ve seen cases where “fringe” appeared to be used as a witch-hunt of sorts. In my observation, this seems to occur most often on pages related to health, medicine, philosophy or spirituality. While I understand the need to require high quality sources for all article text, I fear the anti-fringe sentiment may be creating a NPOV issue on WP. There are legitimate debates in medicine, religion, philosophy, etc, and if editors fear sanctions for mentioning such debates in a neutral way, even such debates they may not personally agree with, I fear our articles might suffer in terms of NPOV. I've never even heard of Reiki before, so I cannot comment on how "fringey" it is, but I was struck by Dialectric's observation that David Tornheim never made any edits to article space regarding Reiki, but only apparently discussed it on talk pages/noticeboards [425]. However, I did not start this subsection to specifically debate Reiki, but rather to discuss the appropriateness of ANI complaints/sanction requests related to making talk page edits that seem to support something like Reiki, or alternately attempting to topic ban someone from evolution or philosophy if they say something on talk that might seems too pro inteligent design, etc. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Perhaps before entering Wikipedia we should be asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United Statesreceived a treatment in some Oriental 'Medicine' or practiced it or thought it was 'okay'?" McCarthyism :-) David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

See also: Orientalism -David Tornheim (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just a question of WP:FRINGE. If an editor continually contributes to a Talk page in a way that advocates content counter to any of our WP:PAGs, despite being aware of them, and this becomes a time-sink for productive editors, then this pretty soon starts entering territory where sanctions may be desirable for the good of the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It really depends on if it's disruptive or not. If someone just says they think climate change is a hoax or something similar in passing, there's not really an actionable issue there. If they repeat that throughout a conversation on the article talk page and are trying to further a fringe viewpoint, that can become disruptive. If we're dealing with a non-problematic editor, they just don't get consensus on the talk page for fringe viewpoints everyone moves on. If it's more problematic, we'd focus on disruptive or advocacy-like behavior associated with the fringe viewpoints here at ANI. ArbCom has ruled on such topics a few times now that sanctions are fine for editors who are really here to push fringe views rather than write a serious encyclopedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

IF someone outright says that their goal for editing is to promote a specific view, they ought to be blocked or topic banned for a while to help them acquire a clue. If they repeat it later the blocks out to be progressively longer. The problem is, though, that it's easy for someone else to make an accusation and for that to be either in bad faith or wrong for whatever reason. For example, a number of people have turned to using "fringe" for things that are in no way fringe just to try to advance their bias in an article... I've seen it in science articles, history, recent news and elsewhere. But the blatant examples where it is admitted should be an immediate block so it doesn't waste the time of valued editors to undo what they are up to. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Re distinction between WP:RSN and talk page: both determine article content, so the distinction is only in theory, not practice. Tornheim wasn't simply expressing belief in a fringe perspective on his userpage (as is anyone's right), he argued at length in multiple threads on a page that determines article content, in ways that would allow pro-Reiki sources to be presented as experts while preventing skeptical sources from being used. While the discussion was about Reiki, previous discussions at RSN are cited as precedent both there and on article talk pages for similar topics.

Re blocking promotionalism: Few people are stupid enough to admit that that's why they're here, but there are plenty of folks who come here with that intention but lie about it, and there are more people who are only capable of pushing a POV even if they do not admit so to themselves.

Also, Tornheim, your accusations of Orientalism and McCarthyism need evidence. You are the one who is pretending that anyone from outside the west doesn't use science-based medicine, so you are the one orientalizing. As for McCarthyism, I am not going after someone because they happen to hold a different view point, I'm pointing out to everyone that you've argued at length in a way that would skew articles toward a fringe perspective. I am opposed to your behavior, and if you want to accuse me of attacking you for having different beliefs, you'd have to admit that you do believe in Reiki. Notice that I didn't bring up Dr. Fleischman. Heck, if you want to accuse me of persecuting anyone for their beliefs, you'd have an easier time arguing I persecute my co-religionists than anyone else. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban from agriculture and health-related topics

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.

---

Ian proposed a topic ban due to David's behavior. I will get the ball rolling here.Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. per demonstrated lack of competence and violations of WP:PSCI, WP:BATTLEFIELD, and WP:CAMPAIGNING; not to mention WP:IDHT after having been warned at last ANI. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Given the extraordinary editing at the Reiki Talk page (in the diffs above), this is certainly warranted for health-related topics. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC); edited 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: What would be the length of that topic ban? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• As discussed above, David cannot have done 'extraordinary editing at Reiki' as he has made no edits to that article page.Dialectric (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @OccultZone: long enough to have a chance of getting to know the on-point policies; a month maybe. @Dialectric: have clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs)

He has tried to shift the direction of the article on other pages, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Classic content dispute. Where we see Jytdog yet again at the AN/I to get an editor blocked on an article he is editing where the other editor disagrees with the direction the article is going. The diff's are all on AN/I where we are pointed to diff's that question Jytdog's motives. But AN/I is the place to raise such issues. AlbinoFerret 12:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the Reiki advocacy? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is also a content dispute. You have collected talk page diff's showing that someone disagrees with the direction of the article. The talk page is exactly the place where those discussions should happen. This whole section appears to be an attempt to win a content dispute by removing the opposing view. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Albinoferret, you just ducked a topic ban by voluntarily agreeing to stay away, per thread above. I don't think you understand the difference between behavioral issues and content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Time to Respond to Complaint? -- I said earlier that I had planned to write a response to ian.thomson's allegations and that I needed more time here (on 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)). I have put hours into writing that response. I have not edited on any of the articles in question since DiPiep's ANI--only here on the AN/I board and on one user's talk page. It has been less than 24 hours. What is this rush to judgment that Jytdog is pushing to have me topic banned based on allegations I have not had a chance to respond to yet? Are we assumed guilty until proven innocent? David Tornheim (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

it is a behavior thing. it doesn't matter why. you have done what you have done. you were warned to stop the battleground behavior and you went right ahead with it. you have advocated for pseudoscience all over the place. you have demonstrated lack of competence, all over the place, and although made a move to get mentored, you have blown that off. those are all demonstrated behaviors. this is about behavior. it is really simple. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with AlbinoFerret. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many - what should the community do about David's continued campaigning and attacks against me? I can respect you not !voting for this answer, but I would like the community to stop this behavior. He has already been warned and he blew right past that. I am not asking you to change your !vote, I am asking for your thoughts on the problem. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

and please see my note to Albino above. Not a good !vote to pin yours onto. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: Shouldn't we be asking those same question about your behavior? The reason I am here at this ANI is because I warned DiPiep to stand down because you would take him to ANI and cause serious drama for him--which you did--and because I made correct observations at that ANI about your behavior, isn't it? Let's talk about how to deal with your behavior, shall we? My comments about you are about your behavior and are not personal. Did I ever insult you? Others, like the dispute immediately below mine observe it too. And your apologies ring hollow. What are you doing to do about it? And again, isn't the reason I am here because I pointed out problems with your behavior--not because of content? David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to be happening only because David tried to help DiPiep. Jytdog, please take a break from proposing sanctions. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (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.

MOS issues

2602:306:BD44:2300:21D0:5163:1F7F:3DE4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP user is making mass changes against template MOS, not heeding warnings, not discussing their changes. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the editor made one change to each of the current members of Def Leppard, adding instruments, you reverted, they stopped. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

POV tag pushing by Tobby72

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.

---

• Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reported user: Tobby72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above mentioned user continues to push to put POV tags on the Donetsk People's Republic article. It includes this, this, and this. These are just a few examples (there are several more shown in the article's history). There has been many attempts to resolve the issue on the article's talk page, but no consensus has been reached. This has been going on since February, and I and several others feel that this is not behavior other than his own DONTLIKEIT and pointy behavior. It shows some abuse of editing priveleges, and therefore, this needs to stop. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of editing behaviors I find more tiresome than the repeated and tendentious use of "shame tags" by editors with extreme minority opinions/POVs who can't or won't come to any sort of consensus. It's a cheap way for certain "contributors" to the project to mar and discredit sourced and otherwise unobjectionable content because they just don't like it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What you said that was "tiresome" is exactly what the editor reported in this report is doing. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:04, 31 March 2015 (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.

Clickhole

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 article has just gone out on Clickhole. Can anybody who knows about bots or blacklists or whatever add "and them's the facts" as something new editors are not allowed to save? Is that even possible? Thank you. Trey Maturin (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it actually tue though? I did a search which only brought up one article (here) with the phrase. Although only a very cursory search I admit; but I don't think Clickhole is to be taken that seriously??? Well spotted though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I just searched (Wikipedia search and Google advanced search limited to Wikipedia) and found nothing significant. Does anyone have a username for this editor who supposedly vandalized over 50,000 Wikipedia articles without being blocked? Until I see an edit history, I refuse to believe that such an unlikely thing ever happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• On edit: It's got to be a wind up. It's certainly not in the articles they list, and as for "doozy" etc-! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've found this, although CB appears to be catching them. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WT:EF may be a better place to add this - maybe a hoax, but we want to prevent this happening. Mdann52 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's this user User:12.125.161.162; obviously just those few for the purpose of evidencing a spoof article. All got reverted sharpish. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is clearly a joke (it is Clickhole, after all), but it'll likely spawn some puerile copycat stupidity, so an edit filter is probably a good idea. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Well, it's an Onion piece, so most likely the editor doesn't really exist, but this is still fairly likely to attract vandals. Ivanvector (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also Grantkirkhope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The issue isn't "this article documented someone doing a thing", because it's Clickhole, but rather "people might do the thing after reading this article." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter has already been updated to catch (most of) this silliness. —DoRD (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, should've been clearer - my point was the same as made by Roscelese (talk · contribs), not that it was already happening. Apologies for the vagueness. Trey Maturin (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And we have the first taker Yourbamf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Amortias (T)(C) 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Instant block? The edit filter needs a kick too!!!_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC

Will throw an editing test warning as I'll AGF and assume he saw this and wanted to test the edit filter. Amortias (T)(C) 18:43, 30 March 2015 (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.

Abuse of talk page despite block

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: MovieMax Media was blocked for spam and advertising. He has continued to post adverts on his talk page despite his block. Could an admin please revoke his talk page access and delete the promotional crap. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:22, 30 March 2015 (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.