Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Large number of potentially incorrect edits

The problem has been described at the Teahouse questions forum by Aloha27 as follows:

"There currently is a stub article [General Service Area] which is wikilinked to by every town, village and community in Nova Scotia, Canada. One editor in particular has taken it upon his/her self to change over 1600 articles to use this obscure stub as the definition for each and every community in this Province rather than the usual wikilinks (town, village, community etc.) used by the rest of Wikipedia. Seeing as how NS is apparently the only region in the world that uses this definition and the definition could be eliminated at any time by the stroke of a pen by the NS Government, I would wonder if the project would be better served if we simply deleted this article under WP:N as a Google search using the phrase gives few (if any) reliable sources?"

This made me look at the contributions record of Moka Mo to confirm a large number of edits have been made, many of which add this link.

I checked their talk page to see a notice at User_talk:Moka_Mo#May_2015 by Cmr08 requesting that they enter into discussion.

The reason I am bringing this here is because admins have tools to perform any necessary mass roll backs of edits by an editor that are proven to be incorrect. I am making no judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the edits. This is to alert wiser heads than mine to a potential problem. I do not see this as a content dispute, more as something that will require some poor admin to pick up the baton and undo a large swathe of changes. I am about to notify the editor in question on their talk page. I will also notify the other editors I have mentioned in order that they may make a decision about participating in this discussion. For clarity, I am uninvolved in and have no interest in the articles concerned. I doubt I have ever edited in that arena. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the stub article above, and don't really care if it's used or not, or even if it's removed. The concern I had was that a large number of Nova Scotia articles were being changed to say they are regions and not communities but the editor making the changes was providing no reason for the change. After editor made these changes a second time, I left the talk page message hoping that the editor would prevent this from getting out of hand by explaining why the change was being made. By providing no explaination, I felt the editor was insisting on making the changes regardless of what other editors were saying. Had only the stub article been removed, I wouldn't have even bothered, it was labeling the communities as regions with no proof that bothered me. I didn't think asking an editor to explain changes would lead here, but I am more than willing to retract the statement if it would prevent this from going any further. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To clear up some confusion above, Moka Mo doesn't appear to be the editor adding the link to the stub article as was stated in the notice above. A check of history shows that 19960401 is the editor who added the link to a large number of articles. Moka Mo had only made a couple of edits total to Nova Scotia articles until a few days ago. That being said, I still have no opinion on the stub article, but thought the info should be clarified. The only additions of the article by Moka Mo appear to be a couple of articles where he/she re-added it after removing it in an earlier edit. Cmr08 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Moka Mo whose opinion here is valuable in any case. I Must have picked up the sole edits where this was the case. I shall notify 19960401 on their talk page of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to make mistakes, especially with a lot of confusing edits going back and forth. I only picked up on it when I went back a second time to re-read this. At first I actually thought this was over the message I left him on talk page, I now see it has nothing really to do with it. Cmr08 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to adjust the title of this thread as it is obvious that it isn't Moka Mo who has made the edits in question. Blackmane (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although there is a 1-in-365.24 chance that it is a coincidence, I point out that 19960401 is a date code for April Fool's Day, 1996. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on this edit by the editor in question, it looks like a coincidence. Seems it has something to do with Halifax Nova Scotia's boundaries changing on that date. However, i'll take your 1-in-365.24 odds that the similarity with User:20060706 is a coincidence. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthvm/Archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whether or not these edits are being performed by a sock of an indeffed editor, according to the stub article in question, the GSA is a very narrowly defined term relating to E911 services. The first ref is to a pilot project final report and its recommendation: "In place of the E-911 reference to "community" it is recommended, for at least the purpose of the NSCAF initiative, that the areas be renamed as General Service Areas (GSA)." I've only glanced at the refs, but was the recommendation of the pilot program even adopted? Anyway, based on the narrow definition of community in the sense of E911 services, unless someone can show otherwise, it seems that these mass replacements are improper and should be reverted. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis

Administrator TParis, closing a WP:ANI incident last year related to calling a BLP subject a "denier" or "skeptic", said:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014

TParis has retired so we cannot turn to him for confirmation or retraction. The issue has resurfaced for another BLP subject, Anthony Watts (blogger). TParis's instructions have been questioned, for example on the talk page. The majority of recent editors of the article are upholding a quote of "denial" in the lead (for example here referring to Watts's blog), and some editors are insisting on keeping sentences containing "skeptic*" in the body (for example here). Currently we know of more "skeptic" than "denier" sources but that could change. I am asking for a statement now equal to "TParis was right" and the statement was meant to apply to BLPs where future skeptic-versus-denier fights arise. I will put a note that I have asked for confirmation, on the article's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Watts is a very prominent source of climate denial propaganda, he is associated with the engine of climate denial, the Heartland Institute. There is a great deal of motivated reasoning on that talk page, all of which boils down to people trying to neuter the fact that climate denialism is bullshit and Watts' blog is probably the most visited source of climate denialist talking points.

For the avoidance of doubt: TParis was right. This is not remotely controversial as a statement of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a skeptic. "Denial" is a smear term (calculated to bring up equivalence to Holocaust-denial). It is dishearening to see pretenses to neutrality so cavalierly thrown over the side. Pax 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he's not a skeptic, any more than the Australian Vaccine Skeptics Network are skeptics. He is not skeptical about material that supports his agenda, and he is engaged in a peudoscientific attempt to prove a pre-defined conclusion. At best this is peudoskepticism, but in fact his activities are part of the cottage industry of climate change denialism.

Meryl Dorey is not a vaccine skeptic, she is a vaccine denier. Vincent Reynouard is not a holocaust skeptic, he is a holocaust denier. Anthony Watts is not a climate change skeptic, he is a climate change denier. The fact that sources historically permitted the self-applied label "skeptic" does not change this.

As Christoff noted: "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Whether he is retired or not, TParis should have been notified about this thread, so I have done so. As it turns out, he has been around a bit since his retirement. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• TParis might not be around any more (alas), but WP:V and WP:NPOV haven't much changed in the meantime. It seems tendentious to pretend that this article's wording was the result of one admin's whim rather than core wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Watt's is a classic climate change denier, i.e. http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/ More on the topic see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• This looks like a content dispute. It would be better resolved at WP:BLPN. ANI is not the place to hold a vote on whether someone is skeptic or denier. If someone is editing disruptively or hurling personal attacks, then it would become a matter for ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, though TParis is disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, the editor is still paying attention. I had a nice chat with TP on their talk page just a couple of days ago. Friendly words might help motivate them to return. Just a hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• This thread is not about the content dispute. It is about whether TParis was right to say that such a dispute should be settled by counting the sources, and TParis said it on WP:ANI. It was brought up on WP:BLPN long ago and went nowhere. Actually I believe edit war is happening (a sign is that the article's revision history for the last month has "rv" or "Revert*" or "Undid" in 68 edit summaries), but maybe some editors will be pacified if it's stated firmly whether the majority of sources matters. I'm reading in: reliable sources that wouldn't violate wp:blp. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, it went "nowhere" at BLP/N, because consensus is against you, and only activist editors support the BLP claim. You forgot to mention the there was (still open) a related thread at the FRINGE noticeboard as well, and that the attempts to appeal to WP:WTW has not worked, and has resulted in a move to rewrite the Guideline.

That would seem to raise the question of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because the opinion an admin stated in a previous close is not a legal precedent, for starters, so maybe this is also a bit of [[WP:WL|lawyering], too.

Accordingly, if anything, a BOOMERANG would be in order here, but it bears mentioning that the fact that some editors think you are flirting with AE has already been raised, on your talk page as well, I believe.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit is wrong about wp:blpn (there was no consensus), half-right about wp:ae (I was threatened but the canvassing against me went nowhere), wrong about wp:forumshopping (if it were true then everybody who goes to wp:ani would be guilty). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle a content dispute, which should be done by going through dispute resolution. It's one thing for someone to be blatantly violating BLP, but in this case it's a difference of opinion between calling him "skeptic" and "denier." I would vote "denier," as that is clear from the sources. But administrators don't run one-person tribunals adjudicating such disputes, so it doesn't matter if the admin in question is here or not. They are not super-users with superior powers of judgment. Sometimes quite the opposite is the case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When an admin closes an AN/I thread, s/he does not create some kind of binding principle. Cardamon (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. S/he may, however, articulate a settled consensus interpretation of policy, as TParis did here. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As may any editor. Admins don't have any special role in terms of deciding what is the proper way to apply policy. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, but my own opinion is that we should have firm policy against that sort of descriptor in the infobox of lead sentence. Even if the person calls himself such, it shouldn't be in the first sentence. That we permit otherwise is in my opinion of perversion of the policy of WP:NPOV, and the two supporting guidelines on WP:OR and WP:SYN. We'll still have to argue about how to say it, but it won't have the same focus. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed use of "skeptic" is a case of quote mining, neglecting the context.

The first sentence of the lead of the Wikpedia article on climate change denial reads (underlining added)

Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

The second sentence of the Watts BLP reads

He operates Watts Up With That?, a weather and climate change blog that focuses on the global warming controversy and his opinion that the human role in global warming is insignificant.

This sentence has a citation with the quote, "One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis".

The Wikipedia article on environmental skepticism clearly distinguishing it as not being scientific skepticism, and there are other sources for that. Non-specialist mass media cites that use "skeptic" are not as reliable as a notable climatologist published in book for by an academic press.

Mann's opinion represents the scientific consensus on Watt's blog, as he appears to be the only RS scientist bothering to publish a comment; there isn't any SYNTH or OR involved in citing his statement in the lead as representative of the mainstream view. The only point of contention is whether or not Mann's view is the mainstream view.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• In most cases we should refrain from descriptive hotbutton terms unless virtually all sources use such a descriptor and then we must attribute it exhaustively. I would prefer that in the case of Watts, we not follow the lead of news sources and instead say that he (his blog) disagrees with or contests the scientific consensus on climate change.--MONGO 12:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I endorse completely what MONGO said above, and I meant to include this point in my comment. Cherry-picky descriptors of this sort is very common, and illegitimate. For anyone sufficiently controversial, you can pretty much find a short quotation or phrase that says alsmost anything. It's another reason for graat caution and for avoiding such characterizing phrases. Complex positions on issues cannot be fairly reduce d to one word, and anyone who tries however good their intentions is likely to be inaccurate. As for the question in the headline here, if the quote given is representative, then I (and MoNGO) would definitely not endorse the 4th sentence of what TParis said as being proper NPOV policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• MONGO is correct. "Denier" is a known pejorative with no other purpose than to link him to holocaust denial. We have an alternative term that is widely used in sources called "skeptic" which avoids the BLP violation of linking Watts to the Holocaust (any link, no matter how slight is unacceptable). --DHeyward (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would wish to clarify that my amateur opinion of the blog whatsupwiththat is that it has presented inaccurate data to support the premise that the scientific consensus on climate change is not fully accurate. I do not think that that blog is always wrong as some information posted there is accurate, but not enough that it could be used ever as a source to discredit the scientific consensus. Even given that, the bottom line is that in a BIO and especially a BLP, hotbutton descriptors are not needed to convey the appropriate message that the blog is not a reliable source, regardless of what other sources say about that blog or the blogger himself.--MONGO 13:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward It is patently false that editors characterizing Watts' blog as a "climate change denialism" blog are trying to "link him to holocaust denial". WP:NPA

Making recourse to "holocaust denial" in this context is WP:OR, at best, as not a single RS that characterizes him as a "(climate change) denier" engaged in "(climate change) denialism", or running a "(climate change) denialst blog", etc., does so. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is the use of the term is not needed to convey the knowledge needed to have an informed opinion on the blog.--MONGO 21:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I am quite willing to AGF that you are unaware of the connection that is made between the two. Now that you are aware, however, it is with complete disregard to BLP to continue endorsing "denier." It is well established that there is intent to link the two whether or not that is your intent. "Skeptic" is just as valid a description as "denier." After being told that it is offensive to both climate change sceptics and Holocaust survivors to use that term, you should stop. It's like using the term "National Socialist" to describe a political position. No matter how strong your case is that the two words are accurate, it will never escape the stigma and will never pass the BLP test unless they self describe as that. Sorry, but that's reality. Please stop calling living people "deniers" now that you are aware of its pejorative context. And here's just one of many sources [1]. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the name for this rhetorical maneuver? Not Godwin's Law, but the assertion that if your opponent uses a particular word, *they* will violate Godwin's Law, so they'd better stop? Whatever it's called, it's stupid. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is Godwin's law and the people that started using "denier" lost when they invoked holocaust language to describe their political opponents. That's how stupid it is. There is no doubt where "denier" began and what its purpose was. Why cling to the word if it didn't bring such visceral emotions? This tactic is common in politics, not so common in pure science and academia unless they are politicized. At least in the last Arbcom when editors used the word "septic" instead of "sceptic" we didn't have ideologues trying to feed us a shit sandwich as if it were chocolate cake. It's a shit sandwich. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[2][3] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the statement he made " I`d rather not comment too much on Hijiri`s comments or edits as I personally find them to be problematic." Nowhere in there is a statement about specific edits. As to your thoughts on the 50 to 100 edits, you do realize that if there is no limit in the past, that you are going to have to look at every edit ever made before changing anything to make sure your edit does not revert something he did right? So if he changed a few words here or there, your going to have to check if a word you want change was changed by him in the entire history of the article. AlbinoFerret 12:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He was answering another user's (User:Snow Rise's) query about the specific edits he would later revert. He referred to these as "Hijiri's edits". What is the question here? Additionally, Catflap does not need to go back and look at every single edit to know that the edit he is specifically going out of his way to revert is mine. I do not need to be concerned about being accused of violating the IBAN in the same way because (as much as it would benefit the project as a whole) I am not interested in going around tracking down Catflap's old edits and reverting them. And in this case the edits aren't even that old! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... hello? Feels like I'm shouting into an echo chamber here. User:Sturmgewehr88 pointed out to Catflap on the article talk page that his edits constitute IBAN violations and User:Black Kite agreed but asked for more objective input. So far the only two other users who have weighed in have either (a) apparently not recognized that Catflap went back through my edits to the article in order to revert specific portions of them and reinsert the exact text that was there previously (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident) or (b) failed to recognize that Catflap specifically acknowledged that the edits he was reverting were made by me before he reverted them, and was also directly reminded that they were mine afterward, before re-reverting them (and therefore couldn't possibly have done so by accident).

Anyone else wanna weigh in? Maybe warn or block Catflap? Revert to the better version of the article before the IBAN-violating/OR-infested edits? If this thread gets archived with no result I'm just going to have to un-archive or reopen it, so...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Umm, no, you're not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. You have brought something here that you felt was an incident requiring community (in general) and administrator (in particular) attention. During the three days since there has been all sorts of activity on this board, so you can be sure that administrators and editors within the community have looked over your issue and have, fairly clearly, decided that currently it does not warrant their attention. You may not be happy with that decision by the community; it may be a poor outcome for you; it may even be a poor outcome for the community; none of those points, however, mean that you "have to un-archive or reopen it". That would, in mine opinion, be close to a disruptive action, ignoring the consensus that you don't agree with.

I suggest you scrupulously adhere to the IBAN, work with others in the community to improve the article and as many others of the two million (or whatever it is now that there are) that you feel like and wait. If this Catflap is as evil and Machiavellian as you seem to think, we'll discover it soon enough; if not, yay! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:LindsayH: Please read the note at the top: I did not post anything here three days ago. I posted this thread on the much less active WP:AN (on the specific advice of an admin). In several days of the thread being open there was not a single response (presumably because that page is not as active as this one); I posted more as Catflap continued violating the IBAN again and again. After several days, confused, I asked what had happened and if I had misplaced the thread, and apparently I had. Another user moved it here for me, but I suspect that by then it had already passed the IDHT threshold. That, presumably, is what confused both BMK and AlbinoFerret, and AlbinoFerret's further questioning and my answering pushed this thread even further into IDHT territory. So far one admin has unambiguously stated that they believe the IBAN was violated and some others have found holes in my complaint that I have readily filled for them. Prematurely-archived threads do not count as "consensus to do nothing", and de-archiving or reopening them is quite common practice. Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted); the thread was prematurely archived, so I posted on the talk page of one of the admins who had posted and they de-archived it for me.

I would be happy to continue to comply by the mutual IBAN -- I have been doing so for close to a month now. But by letting this direct reverting of my edits fly you are now telling me that you think the IBAN is not mutual, because Catflap08 is allowed directly revert my edits and I am apparently still not allowed revert his. It's not "Machiavellian", though -- Catflap has been quite flagrant about his reverting my edits, even continuing to do so after being told by a third party to stop. I suspect what happened was that two weeks into the IBAN he showed up and joined a talk page discussion I had started, and evaded sanctions for that, which emboldened him do go and directly revert my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't believe I was "confused" about anything, as I read both AN and AN/I. BMK (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can echo your post BMK, I am not confused and also watch AN/I and AN. AlbinoFerret 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, who could have ever predicted this? I'll get to agreeing adamantly with those who have already responded here with regard to how inappropriately Hijiri approaches these situations and to detailing how the "boy who cried wolf" effect might explain, at least in part, why he is not getting the response he is seeking. But let's start by recognizing another fact: the reignition of this drama represents a failure on the part of those of us who took part in the last discussion. This IBAN was never going to work; both editors work in overlapping and fairly niche areas with little buffer between them and neither showed the least suggestion of backing down from any of the content disputes between them that were the proximal cause of the ANI discussion that lead to the IBAN. Add into that battleground attitudes and personalization (to some extent two way but increasingly represented by the inability of one party to just let things go) and its clear this approach was nothing a but guarantee to rubber-band this issue back at the noticeboards in short order. It's pretty silly to recommend as a resolution to an issue that the two incolved editors simply disengage from one-another when the matter in question was that they could not be disengaged. The truth is, after years of watching it in operation, I'm increasingly dubious that an IBAN ever does anything but prolong disruption connected to grudges between editors, but it certainly needs to stop being used in cases like this where the deeper issues are not addressed first.

Now, as to your complaints, Hijiri, I can form that what was suggested to you by others here is true with regard to at least one would-be contributor; I just couldn't see this thread or the matters you raised as urgent, or even necessarily and community oversight, being all to familiar with the context and particulars of your feud. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors saw the names involved and just skipped over it, and I certainly wouldn't blame them. As it happens, I saw both new threads well before you pinged me, and was about to reply several times before being distracted by other issues (on-wiki and off) that undeniably warranted the attention more. It's not the first time you've pinged me into this feud and it's surprising each time because I've been increasingly clear with each iteration of the battle that I view your behaviours to generally be more problematic and disruptive than those of Catflap, especially with regard to seeking out the fight, but at this point I take these actions as part and parcel of your WP:IDHT way of selectively reading what others have tried to tell you about this contest of wills. I've seen so much of it with regard to how your view (and represent) the comments of others who have tried to separate you two that when I see you say something like "Last time I had an IBAN discussion about 20 people agreed the other user had violated it and deserved to be further-sanctioned (and my IBAN should be lifted)" I don't for a second suspect that I am getting the full story there. Because I have seen you distort the positions of other commenting parties before (my own included) to suggest thorough support for yourself where it did not really exist or was limited to just a minor point. And for the record, I'm not even saying that you're lying; in most of these cases, you seem to genuinely believe the spin that you put on these events and the perspectives of those involved, which is part of what is making this ongoing battle such a particularly intractable mess.

Whether Catflap pushed the edges of the IBAN with any edit, I don't know, though I do know that the particular edits I looked at did not violate it outright. Contrary to your assumption, the IBAN does not guarantee that he can not edit that page in a direction that is contrary to your vision for it, nor is the reverse true. Otherwise IBANs could be gamed to try to force preferred version. All of which is exactly why this IBAN was such a foolish notion in this case, because clearly neither of you wanted to give way on this article and related content, so it was inevitable that you would be lobbing broadsides at eachother in one manner or another. For this reason I'm going to propose that the IBAN be dissolved, that we ask you two gentlemen one last time to try to find a reasonable compromise path forward and, if you fail and the issue becomes disruptive between the two of you, we look at which of the two of you is more deserving of a page or topic ban regarding this subject the two of you cannot let go. Whether or not I am successful in convincing others to follow that approach though, I highly recommend that you let this issue go for now, before you get smacked with the biggest WP:BOOMERANG this side of the Blue Mountains. Because the situation doesn't even warrant discussion of whether you or anyone thinks Catflap is Machiavellian; he wouldn't nearly need to be when all he has to do is what he's doing now -- hang back, say absolutely nothing and let you torpedo yourself. But look on the bright side here, you've got at least one detailed response now. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, all but one user (the only admin, and the only one who didn't previously express support for Catflap's position, I might add) seems to here be ignoring the fact that I presented specific evidence that Catflap reverted my edits after explicitly acknowledging that they were my edits. It has nothing to do with "editing the article away from ny preferred vision". The fact that a single previous AN thread (not two) got archived with no result after one user agreed that Catflap had violated the IBAN and one disagreed is not evidence that I have been "crying wolf"; if anything, it is evidence that the latest, more serious violation should be taken more seriously. Why is Catflap allowed revert my edits but not I his? Can someone please explain to me how this IBAN is mutual if one of the parties is refusing to abide by it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An IBAN does not just mean that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward. Even if that were the case, it's clear (as could be seen at the time) that neither of you were really going to back down on this issue. Those are two of several reasons why it was ill-advised to have instituted an IBAN without those issues first being resolved and it locked us with certainty into a new thread AN thread in short order. As to the "crying wolf" comment, you seem to have misread it -- I was referencing your past battleground behaviour in these matters as the reason why you were not getting the overwhelming flood of interest in this drama you clearly think it deserves. Despite the repeated direct efforts of (and warnings from) both an admin ([4][5]) and the community broadly about following Catflap from page to page looking to re-engage with him and other generally tendentious, combative, and disruptive behaviours, you persisted well past any sense -- and often while citing the "shared" perspectives of other editors who were themselves surprised to learn of their unwavering support for you. Frankly, you more than earned the block Silk Tork had implied was forthcoming if you didn't back off, and if it had been dolled out, likely we'd never have gotten as far as the poorly-considered IBAN.

Look, I'm not even sure how much I disagree with you that Catflap violated at least the spirit of the IBAN and should be called out for it. But these are your chickens come home to roost, my friend. You courted sanction and then only avoided a block for continuing down the path you were on (which you surely would have, as you always have on this issue and with regard to this "opponent") because we instead got steered into this IBAN which was certain to impose itself on the rest of us as soon as you two (inevitably) refused to edit in collaborative fashion on one of the issues neither of you can just let go of. And then you want to cry foul when enough editors don't flock to this nonsense and immediately agree that he should be blocked? Well, I can only say that I think you need to look at this situation again from the perspective of the community volunteers here and in the context of your past behaviour. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think "an IBAN just means that who ever got the last version in before it went into effect can therefore force their preferred version from that date forward": I think that WP:IBAN means what it says, that Catflap08 is "not permitted to ... undo [my] edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". I provided clear and concise evidence that several of my edits (specifically, removing the Stone article as a reference for a piece of information she actually contradicts and stating in the text that Miyazawa Kenji rejected the group's nationalism) were directly undone by Catflap (here and here, respectively). The other edits are all problematic in their own ways, for reasons I painstakingly explained to Catflap on the talk page months ago, and completely undermine my earlier hard work on the article (hard work which you earlier praised and for which Catflap earlier expressed a dislike), but those problems are secondary to the direct reverts. So far every user who has checked these diffs has acknowledged that they are reverts and constitute an IBAN violation by Catflap. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Alright then. Catflap08, apparently you violated the iBan between you and Hijiri. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into this circular argument with you for a third time. Several community members here have already explained why the IBAN can't just be a rubber stamp on the last version of an article put forth in a dispute before an IBAN, and I explained that is exactly why the IBAN should not have been insittuted in the first place and have suggested a path forward to resolving that conflict of principles (which you have since !voted in favour of). But even if we take it for granted that Catflap violated the IBAN, you are still missing the larger picture that others have tried at length to impart to you. Because you can argue (and even be completely right about) the technicalities of a particular action taken by another contributor you are in conflict with, but if you bring the matter to AN/ANI, the community members here are going to look at the whole context of the dispute, consider how the IBAN came into effect and why it was deemed necessary and finally ask whether the contributions of either of you are presently worth the disruption you create between you.

Frankly, the truth is that you owe Catflap a huge debt of gratitude for proposing the IBAN. Because without it, you would certainly have been blocked for blatantly ignoring the warnings of an admin (and the recommendation of the community broadly in multiple spaces) to back away from him. If all he wanted was truly to win that content dispute, then he went about it in about the worst way possible, since all he had to do was wait for you to recieve your well-earned block, revert you, and then have the procedural high-ground once/if you were unblocked. Instead, he pushed for an IBAN, seeming to genuinely want to just be through with you. And yeah, you know what, having made that decision and set us down that path, he should have lived with the consequences and not pushed for his version in that article again, if it meant undercutting your edits. And the editors here will probably find cause to see disruption in those actions. But his poor behaviour does not absolve you of your past disruption and WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook that helped set all of this in motion, especially if you are going to keep insisting we put this situation under a microscope...

You keep re-presenting the technicalities of Catflaps edits and whether the constitute reversion, putting up the same evidence again and again and taking any lack of resulting and immediate support for you as evidence that other editors here are either "confused" about these points or that they just aren't looking closely enough. But I assure you, a greater number of us have looked through the edits you keep reposting than you seem to think. Actually, it was while looking through those edits that something occurred to me, something concerning the fact that that you now have explicitly stated that you think it is unacceptable for Catflap to revert your edits on articles with content contested between the two of you. I remembered how you opposed the IBAN at first but then suddenly embraced it, and I can't now help but suspect that the reason is that you recognized that (at least by your own interpretation of the rules) that your version of the disputed content would be the one that would exist in perpetuum. So it seems to me that you believed in the IBAN to the extent that it protected your edits, but you didn't believe in the overall goal it was meant to serve (reducing disruption) enough to abide by the spirit of the community decision and just let this one go past.

But now we have an opportunity to take things in a different direction. If we get a consensus to dissolve the IBAN, and if both you and Catflap still view me as neutral in your content dispute, I will volunteer some time on that talk page to provide a third opinion and hopefully try to bridge the differences of perspective between you two over the sources, to find a compromise solution that is also consistent with policy. If you don't like me in that role, then I recommend WP:DRN, or you could try another RfC. But whatever you do, you're going to have to find a radically different way to approach one-another in the spaces you share in common. Because the only sanctions we have left are blocks and article/topic bans, which I don't think anyone is going to hesitate to consider next time these issues come back here and one or both of you has not been mindful of the amount of rope you have left. And aside from the possible consequences of failing to finally get along and collaborate, it's worth noting that it is just so much easier to reach a middle ground solution that to conduct a months-long campaign of policy battles that draw in and consume the editorial/project energy of your fellow contributors. And yet in addition to being easier, the collaborative approach is also vastly more rewarding.

Please consider what I am saying to you. Having taken an absurd number of paragraphs to make one last effort at making these points explicit, and to draw a distinction between A) what you view as unimpeachable evidence that Catflap is in the wrong in this one instance and B) the whole context that the community will consider when trying to decide what is the most practical and realistic way to stop this disruption once and for all, I know have exceeded the amount of time I was determined not to expend here by a factor of about twenty. But we can all consider our energy well-spent if, when the IBAN is dissolved (if indeed it is), both sides come to the table prepared to compromise and embrace the kind of collaborative approach that serves the encyclopedia best. You two are not meant to be opponents -- you're partners in a project here, and partners of the rest of us, as well. Keep that in mind and you will hopefully never have to worry about the word "ban" coming up in the course of your editorial work again. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: dissolve IBAN, find a more realistic solution to this conflict

See my last posting in this thread (as well as the previous comments diffed at its beginning) to see exactly why an IBAN can accomplish nothing here except to recycle this feud through the noticeboards endlessly. Neither editor has every voiced any interest in letting go of the content issues which brought about the acrimony between them and there is insufficient third party oversight (or even involvement) in the affected pages to keep them from stumbling over eachother's edits and directly butting heads immediately. This was an ill-thought-out community solution (to which I admittedly took part, despite reservations) that needs to be recognized as untenable here, given the circumstances and attitudes of the involved parties. As a first step to finding an actual solution to this conflict, I think the IBAN needs to be dissolved. After that, the best (if still quite underwhelming) suggestion I can give on the next course of action would be to give basic dispute resolution processes one more try. I believe WP:DRN has not yet been explored, for example. If uncivil, non-collaborative, and disruptive behaviours persists, one or both editors should be page/topic banned from the relevant articles/subjects. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Megasupport (as nom) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support First off, @Snow Rise: there is no evidence that I am trying to continue the underlying content dispute; I just don't a user with whom I am mutually IBANned reverting my edits. The only reason I initially agreed to the IBAN was because no one ever told me how hard it was to report IBAN violations. I can choose to assume that if I reverted a bunch of Catflap's edits and he reported me he would het just as poor a hearing as I have. But I have no interest in reverting Catflap's edits. So as is this is a de facto one-way IBAN, which no one agreed to.

I would, though, like to hear back from @Sturmgewehr88: and @Black Kite: first, since they appear to have taken the time to go through all the diffs and recognized that Catflap reverted me, not the other way round.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I honestly think Catflap violated the IBAN when he manually reverted Hijiri88's edits. If he's not going to face any consequences, then the IBAN seems pointless. The IBAN should be lifted and both editors given WP:ROPE awaiting further disruption, at which point TBANs will be in order. As an aside, @Snow Rise: I've heard of "strongest support possible" but "megasupport" is a new one :) ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I did just mean it as a one-off effort to combine humor, exasperation, and emphasis, but now I'm thinking it could be a thing; it could certainly get some mileage in this space! ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Removal of the IBAN, and may I suggest a path forward, instead placing them both under a 1RR rule. That should end edit warring at least. AlbinoFerret 07:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the best idea I've seen since this discussion began, AF. Of course, it requires they have a third party editing the page, since otherwise they will each really only be able to add content to the page -- meaning that with an inability to remove content there is a risk of it getting glutted with large amounts of often contradictory information as each party tries to drown out the other's message. But then, my impression is that these two could use some outside perspective and a buffer for the present time anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will need an outside editor, one who has some idea of the topic other than a quick read (like me). Should we start a section on it? AlbinoFerret 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Umm... could I ask if either of you know what exactly the "underlying content dispute" between me and Catflap actually is? Because as far as I am aware, the dispute is solely about whether a source should be attached to a statement it doesn't directly support; not a content dispute, but an issue of one user simply not understanding WP:V and WP:NOR. Before asserting that both Catflap and I (rather than just one of us) are incapable of talk-page discussion without an intermediary some recognition of this point would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, though, I'm not opposed to an intermediary. @Shii: would be great: he knows a lot about Japanese religion, is diligent with sourcing problems, and he and I have rarely agreed about stuff in the past, so there would likely be no cause to call him biased (contrary to popular opinion, I don't follow Catflap around, so I don't know if they have any kind of history of interaction, though). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with both Catflap and Hijiri and consider them both valuable to the project, although that hardly means I agree with them a lot. I also hate IBANs and would happily mediate if some kind of arbitration will take place. But I'm not going to be online 24/7 these days. Shii (tock) 10:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm refuses to discuss anything

Eaglestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be entirely unwilling to discuss any changes to any articles, or to even glance at their Talk pages, preferring instead to repeatedly revert against clear consensus. This is evident, for instance, in both the Talk page and the edit history of Ace Combat, where he has repeatedly completely disregarded both. Multiple good-faith requests for collaboration on his own Talk page have been answered by removing the comments with edit summaries like, “my talk page my rules, get lost.” He’s already been blocked more than once for edit warring, which seems completely ineffective at altering his conduct, so I humbly request a conditional block. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a full protection at WP:RPP because of the edit warring. As for the user's actions, a little unnecessary if you ask me. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I really think the pattern of behavior should be addressed rather than a single instance… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree there needs to be an assessment of a pattern of behaviour. I'm just wondering if it is not the anon IP here that should be investigated however. Looking over the recent edit history for this IP, they seem to be doing nothing but attempting to be the wiki policy police and seem to have flawed understanding of the policies they are suggesting should be enforced. If I wasn't the kind of person that exclusively follows WP:AGF as if it was some sort of suicide WP:PACT, then I might be led to believe this IP is a WP:SOCK that attempting to prove some WP:POINT by editing as an IP to WP:EVADE a block or something. I'm sure that the IP would love a little more WP:ROPE and I'm sure we should probably give it to them. I've responded on the talk page for the article that needed request from Callmemirela for protection, that redlinking to a page that doesn't exist whose topic fails GNG so it can never be an article per REDNOT. I've also declined the request for an article by the IP on the WP:WPVG/R page for the same reason, after an intense search the topic fails to meet the GNG (and honestly fails to show any indication of importance at all).

I'm also disappointed that this IP editor that is so keen on requesting others be blocked was not blocked themselves for being disruptive for the following chain of events: made a BOLD edit to the page, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, insisted it was right, was reverted, re-reverted by Drmies (who simply reverted on the grounds that Eaglestorm wasn't discussing, not because they are incorrect that REDNOT says these kinds of redlinks are not appropriate), reverted, then some more stuff happens until the IP admits in Special:Diff/659620279 that the thing they wanted to be a redlink in the first place has no sources and as such fails GNG and redlinks are not allowed per REDNOT. At this point, I believe this IP should have been blocked for their disruptive behavior for initiating an editwar with another user without researching why it was inappropriate for that redlink to exist. I also think that between being forced into an edit war and being harassed by an IP who insisted on continuing to post on their talk page despite being asked not to multiple times (per WP:DENY through calling it a "desperate anon post"), Eaglestorm appeared to be extremely frustrated and of the mindset that this IP is a WP:VANDAL who's WP:NOTHERE and I can't say that I blame him, nor can I blame them for not wanting to come and discuss it because they are likely struggling to stay WP:CALM, and I've honestly been wondering the same thing about this IP. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Barely veiled assumptions of bad faith aside, I made every attempt to calmly and reasonably discuss the matter in good faith, both on the article Talk page and the user’s own, and my edits were in line with the clear consensus among the editors who did discuss. If this user had offered an explanation, whether on the Talk page or in an edit summary, you would have a point. But he didn’t. And unless I have a flawed misunderstanding of blocking policy (namely that blocks should be preventative and not punitive), a block against me is unwarranted at this time. If there’s a problem with my own conduct on Ace Combat, no one has bothered to inform me until now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't know, desperation play, my talk page my rules. get lost, and my talk page my rules get lost. desperate anon make it pretty clear to me that this editor did not want you posting on their talk page (yet you continued to do so). I'd say that goes against WP:HARASS (I'd almost go so far as to say that it appears to me that you were WP:HOUNDING this registered editor) and is indicative of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior which is damaging to the encyclopedia in which case a block to prevent you from continuing that behavior might be warranted if an admin felt so inclined. Anyways, it appears to me that the administrators aren't particularly interested in this complaint, and I've not interest in continuing this discussion any further at this point either. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, yes, that's an interesting set of diffs that clearly allow for two very different interpretations. I wouldn't go as far as to see possible harassment in here, though, and some of the stuff that was removed included notifications and stuff. If Eaglestorm would clearly and unequivocally say "editor X, do not post here anymore" it'd be a different matter. Thanks Technical, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've already indicated that to them, hopefully I can break the barrier and get some kind of discussion (I'm tempted to go to email if needed). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

More to the point: As best I can tell, this user never discusses anything. That’s the issue that brought me here—not that he won’t talk to me, but to anyone. This encyclopedia is a collaborative project, but it’s arguably impossible to effectively collaborate with someone who never communicates, especially when going against consensus. I never wanted him blocked out of malice or spite; it’s a stretch to say I want him blocked at all, but I only want him blocked until he shows a willingness to communicate with other editors (especially when making reversions). If I’m wrong in any of this, then, again, please let me know. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fine, they don't communicate on talk pages (perhaps they're not English speaking or have some other reason they avoid discussion). I realize discussion is important, but who are you to demand that this user communicate and who are you to initiate an edit war with an editor who has been around over a decade and has 12,536 local edits to back up their experience. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Technical 13: I haven’t gone through his edit history enough to know how many of those edits were reverted as being against consensus or otherwise improper, but if I ever have the time and inclination to do so, I’ll be able to better answer your question. But for the time being: I’m a more communicative user who has been frustrated by silent reverts seemingly made per WP:ABF, and I’m clearly not the only one. Now, if you wouldn’t mind explaining, why are you being so defensive of him and aggressive toward me? If that answer doesn’t require administrative attention, please post it to my Talk page rather than here. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, editors who refuse to discuss tirritate the hell out of me, and Eaglestorm is one of those. There's nice, healthy talk page discussion in which they are not participating. I don't see how the IP is so disruptive: their edit summaries are much better than Eaglestorm's and they're participating in talk page discussion (as is Technical). It's hard for me to judge the content of the edits since it's all just fan stuff on a completely trivial topic that a real encyclopedia ought to be embarrassed about, but hey. (I mean, what on earth is this about, what is its content, what are its sources--we're citing this as a reference?) Anyway, as far as I'm concerned Eaglestorm looks the worst of them, and we have blocked editors for being incommunicado; it might well be that this one is next. They could, of course, start talking here in this thread, and sound like an adult. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand Drmies, and I don't disagree that Eaglestorm should respond to someone, someplace. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see what the IP might've done to deserve Technical 13's unabated and bitter criticism. Some of the comments he's made are especially worrying: where he appears to look down on the IP for no other reason than their being an IP, and where he - seemingly - questions the importance of communication. With respect, Technical 13, you're not making the situation here any better. Alakzi (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "unabated and bitter criticism"? Interesting take on it, I simply don't see it that way. I don't begrudge constructive editors for not wanting to create an account (and actually I've campaigned for their rights to edit as IPs in the past and continue to do so). However, when an IP editor who has no verifiable background takes it upon themselves to be disruptive to discussions and pages by edit warring without justification and insists that the changes they made must be applied quoting a policy that they apparently hadn't read. If they had actually read the policy, they'd know they need to check that what they want to redlink actually could be an article. Then that IP refuses to WP:DROP the stick when an editor tells them that such redlinks aren't allowed and ignores repeatedly being asked to stop posting on said editor's talk page about such silliness as a redlink to a topic that would be quickly deleted if it was created as an article about a topic that isn't encyclopedic in the first place... Then that IP editor has the nerve to drag a well established editor to ANI because they wouldn't state the obvious (for whatever reason, such as maybe it being obvious), then I suspect that some investigation as to why this IP editor is hitting dozens of pages deprecating template uses, insisting policy pages be changed because of some flawed perception of some law that pages must follow with no exceptions and attempting to wikilaywer their will to be done then that reeks to me as a fairly wikiyoung editor evading a block and attempting to cause as much disruption as they can. I'd expect that an SPI investigation of said IP isn't out of the question, although I suspect that I'll have to spend a day digging through archives and whatnot and try to duck duck goose this IP for anything to be done about it if they don't hang themselves in the meantime. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If they have been doing something wrong, calmly explain what it is. You don't need to go off on a prolix, character-smearing investigation of their hypothetical motives and motivations. Your style of argument is simply counterproductive and does nothing to ease tensions or to resolve any of the issues. Alakzi (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe I gave justification. And the other editor pretty much refused to. As for the rest, I’m not going to defend myself here for unrelated events unless you wish to start a thread about me, but feel free to request a WP:CheckUser if you wish. I’ve explained my other actions elsewhere already. Now please stop assuming bad faith of me; I got quite enough of that from Eaglestorm, and that was mostly unspoken. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Replied to the rest on Tech’s Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • The very beginning of my post here says that I exclusively WP:AGF, and now you're accusing me of ABF. Yet, I am going to choose to not get upset about that WP:PA, and instead am going to encourage you to read WP:AOBF. I've also responded to your second post to my talk page, but I (edit conflict)ed with it and don't have the energy to respond to the "additions" you made since it is almost 1AM. Good night. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Accusing me of being here to cause disruption, for one. AOBF: “The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part” should explain my ABF accusation. But hopefully we’re both done with that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm simply commenting my observations. I view your actions as disruptive. This simply falls under WP:Call a spade a spade. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I have reviewed the recent contributions of Eaglestorm and find that there are valid grounds for this complaint. For the number of reverts he/she performs, they hardly ever takes part in talk page discussions. (The last contribution to the article talk namespace was 2 December 2014.) This behaviour is not compatible with collaborative editing. I have watchlisted the user talk page and will likely block for a fortnight if this recurs, on consideration of the number of previous blocks for similar behaviour. I find Technical 13's steadfast defence of this behaviour strange and unhelpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have not defended and am not defending Eaglestorm's lack of participation in discussion. I've personally attempted to reach out and get this editor to participate in discussions. To me it was just a matter of pointing out that this user was right that the redlink trying to be forced into the article was inappropriate. I appreciate your criticism of my behaviour, as evidently the reason I first commented here was missed. My point was that this IP needs to be watched as well because I've found their insistance on pushing changes against consensus and against policy and refusing to drop the stick after being told "no, that's not how it works here" and given an explicit reason as to why with links to whatever may be appropriate they still push forward with their insistence. I equate this IP to my child in the backseat asking "but whhhyyyyyy can't I have it" after I've told them they can't have an ice cream sundae at 9pm just before bed and explained how it will keep them awake and cause them discomfort when they wake up in the middle of the night after finally getting to sleep because they are a little lactose intolerant and it doesn't get processed quickly enough when they are asleep. Anyways, I've stated my case (and responded to too many "but whyy" from the IP here in this discussion as it is). Need to get back to school work. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You've had the timeline explained to you: nobody at the time considered the possibility that an article on the topic would not be notable; Eaglestorm was not "right". The IP got a little impatient, but we all do sometimes. Your characterisation of the IP as a child is unwarranted. If you continue down this path, the thread concerning your behaviour should be unarchived. Alakzi (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
      • So, you are claiming that because no-one else had thought to check if the topic was even notable, that Eaglestorm was wrong and the redlink should have been allowed against long-standing policy and consensus because an IP and a couple of editors said it seemed reasonable without doing any checking? Really? Then, you are going to back up your claim that despite being backed with WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG, it didn't matter that Eaglestorm was right that such redlinks are not permitted. Finally, you're going to suggest that a new thread about my behaviour for defending WP:REDNOT and the WP:GNG should occur (because unarchiving the last thread to talk about this entirely different topic wouldn't be appropriate)? Do what you will, if you want to start a new thread on me for that, go for it, I won't be particularly offended. Anyways, this thread has gotten completely off-topic and should probably be left to fade away and die... If you think a new thread is appropriate, by all means feel free to create it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Eaglestorm did not cite WP:REDNOT or WP:GNG. The first time, he said "makes sense NOT to link to nonexistent article", which does not address the possibility of it being notable, or not; the second time, he accused the IP of a COI. You're conflating their being right with the outcome being right; the two are quite distinct. I'm not sure if you appreciate the offence you've caused - why would you jauntily invite me to start a new thread on your behaviour? It would be better for everybody if you were to simply apologise for comparing the IP with a baby, or for insinuating that they might be evading a block, or for any of the rest, really. Alakzi (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Alakzi: Thank you for that. @Technical 13: I don’t know whether you’re trying to bait me in a public setting (you’ve been much more civil toward me on your own Talk page), or you’re just failing to filter yourself, but please just stop it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue with large-scale changing of terminology...

Dan Koehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently Dan began a widespread replacement of the term "Viking" with the "Norsemen" across many articles. This follows various debates over the last year or so (if memory serves) about when, where and how it is most appropriate to use these terms in articles, which carry subtly different meanings among scholars and non-scholars, and which translate differently (I believe) between English and Scandinavian languages.

There have been various interventions about these changes, including: Talk:Vikings#Former_viking; Talk:Battle of the Conwy#Norsemen; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture#Campaign to replace "viking" by "Norsemen". Among the points raised by @Mutt Lunker:, @Johnbod:, @CambridgeBayWeather: and @PatHadley: and myself on Dan's talk page have been the perceived lack of consensus for these changes, and the apparent technical errors made in the process (e.g. renaming the titles of cited works, changing the content of direct quotes etc.). During the course of today, Johnbod, @Dudley Miles: and @Ealdgyth: have raised the issue on my talk page, User talk:Hchc2009#Vikings, variously proposing and expressing support that an administrator be asked to intervene.

I am convinced that Dan is acting in good faith but there is a lack of community consensus for his changes, which appear to be causing some irritation to many editors. Administrator assistance in calming and bringing this episode to a productive conclusion. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the dispute resolution policy for ways to deal with a content dispute. Moderated discussion at the dispute

resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments would be two possibilities. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Super-unhelpful! It's well gone beyond that. He has had the usage of "Viking" in English carefully explained to him by several editors over weeks if not months but takes nothing in, perhaps partly because of his iffy English, but mainly because he won't accept that the meaning of terms in English will often differ from their meaning in other languages. Of course he is acting in "good faith" but these edits to several hundred articles, many producing grossly incorrect English, impose a huge burden on other editors who need to revert them. An immediate block is required. A few examples I've reverted, from hundreds that I haven't: "The town has Norsemen roots in common with..." at Crosby, Merseyside; "Ormen Stutte (Short Serpent) was a Norsemen longship...", at Ormen Stutte (longship); "Later it saw the influence of the Norsemens as seen in the name of Carlingford Lough." at County Louth. All these basic errors are repeated many, many times. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I agree. This is something that an admin needs to address. GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that explains that change of "Viking" to "Norsemen" on Brooklyn Historical Society. I guarantee that when George B. Post desihned the building in the late 19th century, it was a statue of a Viking he called for, not a Norseman, which is why I reverted the edit. This sounds like another political correctness argument, which, or course, is essentially a POV argument, which eventually leads to the euphemism treadmill: "Viking" is all of a sudden considered to be insulting, so it is replaced by "Norseman", until that becomes insulting and is replaced by something else: "Scandians", maybe.

I'd say definitely needs a consensus arrived at in a centralized discussion. BMK (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just want to clearify, I have changed from viking (activity pirate related) to Norse, in such instances when its clear that the text related to Nnorse people of Scandinavian ancestry. While the term viking is a controversial term, (will not go into details with that) Norse, and Norsemen is certainly not. Therefore I see no harm or dramatic in this, a visitor to Wwikipedia will through the link come to the article about Nnorse people with background to Sscandinavian as an ethnic Nnorse speaking group, rather than to a page with emphasis in pirate activities. My hope is to reduce confusion with this. There is a reason why the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture is not called Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viking history and culture, and since the Nnorse culture were not sleeping or sent away throughout the viking age (800-1066) its perfectly normal to relate to the Nnorse as ethnic group before, during and after the viking age. In cases of raiding s, plunder etc, I have not changed the word viking, only when it replaced the correct for the people, Nnorse. Please don't forget, that even if Eenglish speaking books relates to Scandinavianscnadinavin as pirates and vikings during this period, there was a vital and fruitful Sscandinavian culture, before during an dafter the viking age, and its called Nnorse, and the people Norsemennorsement, they spoke Nnorse. There was no people called viking and no language called vikingish.... Comments regarding large scale; well, some users obviously made large scale links to viking, instead of Norse, when they related to ethnic group, and culture, it was here the error was made, not by me. I hope this clearances. Theres nothing controversial with the term Norsemen, like with viking, not until toady, anyhow. The term Viking is popular among laymen and people moved by the 1800 century romantic stories, but Norse is the term historians and archaeologists use for the ethnic groups in Scandinavia during iron age. clearifies. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(restoring link above) Dan, I'd be grateful if you didn't delete the links that I posted above. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In the instance I cited above, the source said "Viking", so that's what the article should say. You should not presume to think you know the intent of the source, whether it meant "pirate", "raider", "perfectly nice people from the Northlands" or whatever. Here in the U.S, there is generally no negative connotation to "Viking". All of this is why your mass change is in need of a consensus. BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And "clarify", the word is "clarify", not "clearify". BMK (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no use trying to explain English language usages to him, he knows better, which is the whole problem. Regardless of terminology issues, most of his edits are straight ungrammatical - he cannot grasp that, unlike "Viking", "Norsemen" is only a plural noun in English. There is already a very clear and wide consensus against these mass changes, far larger than the average RFC picks up. He needs to be told very firmly to stop making them, or ideally blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan's bizarrely mistyped and unfocused post above is perhaps an extreme example of his talk postings, to the extent that it may possibly be due to a temporary factor, but it demonstrates that at the very least he does not have sufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to be editing on the English Wikipedia, and particularly not regarding the usage of a term which in English has significant differences to its usage in his language. Is such demonstrable incompetence not clear cut grounds to put a temporary block on him as he is resolutely intransigent in acceptance of efforts to explain his misunderstandings regarding both definition of the term and grammar? He's causing mayhem. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's already a consensus about this, then is is allowable for some one with one of the automated program to just undo his edits? I could do it, but my finger would get chafed from all the button pushing. (I don't use automated tools except HotCat). BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, unless something has changed, I thought AWB was only supposed to be used for non-controversial edits? These seem controversial to me, which would suggest that perhaps his right to use AWB should be revoked. BMK (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've asked that question at WP:AWB. BMK (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say, that I find it not polite to try to make this discussion a personal issue, rather than focus on the subject.
• When YOU accuse me of making large-scale changing of terminology, I wish to remind you, that someone did this before, but the other way around, linked everything Norse to the article viking, which is such an amateur porridge of non-science that it will never be a real article, until someone gets the bright idea and start to write about vikings on the article vikings, and let the article Norsemen be an article about the Norse people in general
• The term Norsemen is over 1 000 years old, and I find it amusing that you ask for a consensus for its existence.
• Norsemen were so much more than the trapped comic strip archetype you have made them to in the article viking.
• I ask you please stop this crusade and accept that when speaking about language, culture, ethnicity, the word viking is hopelessly wrong to use, while the old word Norse is natural and correct.
• I believe we all want a better Wikipedia. My suggestion is that we put some faith to the members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. Just repeat prestigious claims of "traditions" isn't enough to develop this, you need to to think outside your box.
• Like the Norse did.
• I guess and hope that no one wants to remove our history, culture and ethnical ancestry, and remove the pages Norsemen and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture? And if you don't want to remove those pages, I hope you don't want to remove links to the pages either.
• And I hope you will not remove all the written sources on Wikipedia, that makes it clear for a 7 year old child, that Norse and Viking was not the same thing:

1. The first documented use of the word viking is made by Orosius, written in latin, and translated into old english. There is to read about Alexander the Great´s father, Philip II of Macedonia: Philippus vero post longam obsidionem, ut pecuniam quam obsidendo exhauserat, praedando repararet, piraticam adgressus est. translated into:ac he scipa gegaderade, and i vicingas wurdon. In this time the word pirat was not used in the english language, the latin piraticamwas directly translated to vicingus.

- You complain about my english, I hope you can read your own (old-english) language above, and what it says? (I can...)

-No, Macedonia is not in Scandinavia... And in the Icelandic sagas even arabs are described with the word Viking, when they are attacking the Norse ships...

2. King Harald the Hairfair heard that the vikings, who were in the West sea in winter, plundered far and wide in the middle part of Norway; and therefore every summer he made an expedition to search the isles and out-skerries (1) on the coast. Wheresoever the vikings heard of him they all took to flight, and most of them out into the open ocean. At last the king grew weary of this work, and therefore one summer he sailed with his fleet right out into the West sea. First he came to Hjaltland (Shetland), and he slew all the vikings who could not save themselves by flight. Then King Harald sailed southwards, to the Orkney Islands, and cleared them all of vikings. Thereafter he proceeded to the Sudreys (Hebrides), plundered there, and slew many vikings who formerly had had men-at-arms under them.

-King Harald would never agree that he was a viking-king, he was, like probably 99% of Scandinavian Norsemen were, fighting vikings.

3. Egil Skallagrimsson about Bjørn Farmann: Björn var farmaður mikill, var stundum í víking, en stundum í kaupferðum; Björn var hinn gervilegasti maður. (english: Björn was a great traveller; sometimes as viking, sometimes as tradesman.)

Only with those three examples (and theres hundreds) you will have extremely difficult to explain what a viking is, and what difference there is between vikings and normal people from Scandinavia, if you stubbornly use the same word for two different meanings.

For over 1 000 years viking was just a translation of the word pirat until the fifties, when Americans wanted to call everything Scandinavian viking. And very MUCH simplifying thing with that, and later making it complicated.

This is probably the reason why the article viking is still on start level after 13 years on Wikipedia. Because in order to get the stories there OK; a lot of facts and sources must be excluded. With this concept you will never reach a good article, it will remain pubertal comic strip "information", and people have to translate the German article about vikings to get some scientific substance.

But Im not telling you what to do, Im just saying that there is no need for a consensus that I am from Sweden, and have blue eyes, there is no need for a consensus that the sky is blue, and there is no need for a consensus, that the correct term in English for my people, their culture, and medieval language is Norse. You can't change this by voting.

So why, did you revert my links to the the page Norsemen, when I only did the links in text where it was clear that there was reference to people and a culture, and not to raiding pirates?

And please remember, its not me who use my language to call you things which is not true, so could you please give a little respect to my ancestors, and stop calling them pirates? You have stopped calling other people with different skin colors for names you used for hundreds of years, it must be possible to quit this game of "all Scandinavians ARE vikings" game?

Vikings could be arabs practising piracy, and vikings could be macedonian kings practising piracy, but peaceful Norse farmers, and their wife's, were never, ever, described as vikings before 1900!

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Dan Koehl should be blocked for disruptive editing unless he will agree to stop making these changes. And his access to WP:AWB should be immediately withdrawn. See his contributions for all the usage of AWB to change Vikings to Norsemen. AWB must not be used to make controversial edits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1. I stopped over 24 hours ago. 2. Can you please explain to me, what is controversial by making a link to Norsemen from a chapter that tells about Norsemen? If Im from Sweden, would you also forbid me to make a link to Swedish, and block me, if I don't make a link from my person to Viking? Whay shall everything Norse be linked to Viking, and not to Norse?

Or, put it the other way around, what can, according to your opinion, be linked to Norsemen?

Dan Koehl (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't see why this is controversial I wonder if we should take seriously any promises from you to behave better. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

When multiple other editors object to your mass edits, they are, by definition "controversial", especially when you do not have a consensus to back them up. Therefore, I second EdJohnston's suggestions. Dan Koehl should be blocked until he agrees not to change "Vikings" or "Viking" to "Norsemen" (in whatever form), and his AWB rights should be removed immediately, unless and until he can show that he will not use the program to make non-consensus edits. BMK (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of a block, or a topic ban, or not, the AWB rights do need to be revoked immediately – only editors that demonstrate competence with special tools should be allowed to maintain them, and that has definitely not been the case in this instance. --IJBall (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarize: you claim that Norsemen and Vikings are the same? But when I make a link to Norsemen from an article where its easy, from the text to define that the text is about Norsemen, this is controversial? Is it only controversial if I link to Norsemen, but not to viking, is this the logic? And, making links from text about Norsemen, to the article Norsemen is such a crime, that you speak about blocking me, remove rights to AWB etc, this almost sounds like what happened some hundreds years ago with the guy who claimed that earth is not flat...

Where is the will of cooperation, where is the will of making both articles better, where is the will of making this all understandable for the website visitor, where is the will to improve Wikipedia? I only see politics here?

I must ask again, why don't you delete everything written with the word Nors, or Norsemen, if its not OK to make links to the article?

I think I need to remind you what is written in Norsemen:

Norsemen refers to the group of people who spoke what is now called the Old Norse language between the 8th and 11th centuries. The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages, and is the earlier form of modern Scandinavian languages.

Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in England, Scotland, Iceland, Wales, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Ireland, Russia, Greenland, France, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, and Poland, as well as outposts in Sicily and North America.

All the links I did to the article where from text where it was relevant to link to Norsemen, why do you speak like if I have made a crime? If I would have made links from 100% of the text I could understand, but like I said, I didn't make links from text where it was about raiding and piracy, I made links where the norse people where discussed. If Norsemen are not banned on Wikipedia, what is wrong with making a link to them?

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

OR, if anyone here claims that Viking and Norse are synonymous, can you please point me to a consensus about hat? And if they are the same, what is wrong with links between them? Why must 100% of the links be to viking?? But if they are not synonymous, can anyone here explain you position, what is according to you the difference between Norsemen and vikings, making it a crime to link text about Norsemen to Norsemen, and good if text about Norsemen is linked to article viking? Where are the discussions, the decisions, the consensus for all this?

You are speaking to me as if I have made a crime, and I want to tell you, I'm a user on Wikipedia since 2002, Im admin on 2 Wikimedia projects, I fight vandalism almost every day (see my log) and I'm not a criminal, and I can't see that anyone can logically even explain what I have done wrong, except for coming up with opinions, that a certain text should be linked to article viking, and not to Norsemen, but without a valid reason or explanation? All I want is to improve Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have "made a crime" - in your twisted English idiom - and that is that you have made major changes to the encyclopedia without having the approval of the community to do so. This is not the place to get approval for doing so; here, admins can only sanction you; for not getting approval, because this board only deals with aberrant behavior. Approval has to come (and I believe this is the fourth time I'm saying this) from a centralized discussion of the entire Wikipedia community and not just from the approval of a mere Wiki{Project. I believe that the senze of this discussion is that you must stop making those edits until that consensus is determined. If you do not stop, it appears to me that there are a number of Admins who are willing to make you stop by blocking you. If that is what you want, to be blocked from editing, keep on doing what you're doing -- knowing that there are a number of editors who will revert your edits as being non-consenual, and you will end up being blocked. If, instead, you wish to deal with this in the Wikipedian way, you need to begin the centralized discussion I mentioned above, and produce straightforward and understandable' evidence to support your position. Really, the choice is yours. BMK (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I stated yesterday above, I havnt made any edits since two days now. You most probably know that, but try politically to make it look like Im breaking rules etc. Sad. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try again. I'm not sure how it's still possible that there are still misunderstandings in this thread but, since Dan Koehl is using lots of bulleted lists: here's my attempt to reframe the terms of the issue:

1. The issue is not whether Norsemen is either:
   1. A useful or accurate historical term
   2. Referred to a real people (ethnically or linguistically) from Scandinavia in the 8th-13th centuries
   3. More politically neutral than Viking
   4. What such people might have used as a term to refer to themselves
   5. A more frequently used term before the C20th

All these issues are real, interesting and deserve well-referenced coverage on the (already pretty good) etymology section of the Vikings article and possibly elsewhere. Dan, you have continued to make points (many of which have been conceded by others) on these issues but have failed to address the points of others:

1. The issue is when Norsemen is a more appropriate and idiomatic term than Vikings on English Wikipedia. This depends on:
   1. The terms used in the scholarly literature - Viking is used extensively and CANNOT be changed when being referred to or quoted
   2. Whether Norsemen makes grammatical sense on articles. In many of Dan's replacements it does not
   3. The terms that are most frequently used by the wider public (in the 21st century!). Vikings is far more popular and relevant. Compare: Google search for Vikings with Google search for Norsemen. Also see the explanation Who were the Vikings? on the web page of the UK's most popular Viking museum.

There may be a few articles where, despite the above points, Norsemen is more appropriate. These should be sought out and changed individually, not with AWB.

Dan, are there any of these points you're prepared to address? If not, might I suggest that a discussion is begun on Swedish Wikipedia's village pump (there's no embassy). Perhaps another fluent, bilingual editor could help explain that the use of Vikings on English Wikipedia is neither inaccurate or an linguistic slur. There must be terms in Swedish that have similarly changed meaning in the last few hundred years. Let's hope we can get through this! PatHadley (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an intellectual problem here. You are discussing the term Viking, Im discussing the term Norsemen. I made links to Norsemen. There is no available consensus, that I can find, that making links to Norsemen, should be a poor choice. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And now I'm supporting a block on the basis of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --IJBall (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan Koehl, we are not here at ANI to have a content discussion about Vikings. Since almost everyone agrees that your edits pose a problem, we want to know if you are willing to stop these changes. If you continue with the vague statements (all of which assume the correctness of your own position) a block would appear to be the simplest solution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This has gone to far now. I did a normal Wikipedia action, making links about Norsemen to the article Norsemen. Since there were so many, I used AWB. Now theres allegations against me that I have abused AWB, and should be blocked, with the motivation that, linking to the article Norsemen is some sort of crime, however not specified why. Although I stopped making the links the same day, (several days ago) there's repeated "threats" written above, that if I don't stop (which I already did) I will be blocked from Wikipedia etc. I can see no other reason for this, apart from that for a reader it should look as if Im daily, repeatedly, vandalizing Wikipedia, which is for sure not the case, contrary, Im active daily as patroller. The use of "everyone" (against my links) made me suspicious, and after reading through this thread, as all as making a second analyze of the entire issue, as well noticing how personal the critics against my person are, instead of focusing on the subject, and the efforts to try make it look like I have vandalized Wikipedia, (when all I dd was making links to article Norsemen I now see:

• The article Viking is for some reason preferred by a group of users
• There is less than 100 links to article Norsemen.
• There is less than 100 links to article Norse, and most of them from talk pages.
• But there is thousands of links to article Viking.

Someone, or group of people, have a POV campaign going on, changing all links Norsemen, into links to Viking. Its like they want to kill and remove the article Norsemen?and they are now upset, when I interrupted this. Im not particularly focusing on the controversial term Viking, but on the absence of use of the terms Norse and Norsemen, and the reasons behind this. Those two articles are the natural names pace to tell about Scandinavian culture and history, but for some reason the article is more or less getting censored by a limited, but strong group of people, against logical arguments.

This issue is much more serious than I though, and for sure needs attention from admins and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture. This is against how Wikipedia should work, and against the NPOV rule.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And, again, we get WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, now with a side of not assuming good faith. There is nothing to suggest this editor even realizes their editing is a problem, let along acknowledging it as such. Again, support loss of AWB privileges at a minimum, and support a block if they start up on their previous course of action of changing "Viking" to "Norsemen" against Consensus. --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the editor's continued focus here on content, despite being told that the matter being discussed here is behaviour, shows that they either refuse to take heed or have an inability to comprehend the issue. Either way they are not suitable to hold AWB privileges. The editor did finally stop their editing campaign but only after repeated notifications that the edits were both ungrammatical and controversial, points they have still not conceded apparently. A topic ban is also required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but note that having started his campaign at "A", he only stopped when he had reached "Y", ie probably when he had run out of articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Aha, no extenuating circumstances then. I wondered what had prompted the abrupt stop as it clearly wasn't acceptance of the points being made. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In my view if he understood the issues with grammar and context and promised to do any changes slowly and manually, with discussion on an article by article basis, that might be the best outcome in terms of improving the encyclopedia. But I definitely agree he needs to be prevented from making any kind of automated edits in this area. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 16:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How much more can possibly done to help him understand? He's impervious. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here of both communication and willing to compromise. Eventually, you five users share the opinion that Norsemen is an article that should not be used, or at least not linked to, while you prefer to make links to the article viking. As a consequence, you want other users to do the same, and if they don't, you change the links from Norsemen to Vikings. Then after my edits, you want to force me to follow your opinion, by threats of blocking and removal og AWB, but all this without a valid motivation, except that your opinion. You don't accept the validity of the article Norsemen or that links to this article is perfectly accepted by Wikipedia community. Then you think that you can change the world, and the existence and use of article Norsemen, by calling five peoples opinion a consensus?

By all means, I never saw a more direct case of a limited group of people who want to push the majority to follow their POV opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and consensus (or your type of "consensus") can never replace verified sources. The term Norsemen exists, weather you like it or not. If I make links to that article, you can't just say that Im breaking Wikipedia rules, should be blocked and have my AWB removed. The rule of NPOV is always the most important, and should be followed. My suggestion is that you take active part in discussions about those two terms, and consider being more willing to compromise and see other users point of view. With a reasonable willing of tolerating other people views, we can together build up an even better Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

QED Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but it's unlikely at this point that Dan Koehl will be blocked unless he starts uo again making changes without a consensus to do so. If he does, a new AN/I should be open (assuming that this one will have scrolled off the board by them), with specific reference to this report, and the consensus among commenters here that a block is warranted. BMK (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dan, NONE of the opinions you attribute to me are at all correct, & I doubt the other (many more than) 5 hold them either. But why should I waste my time explaining in detail how and why this is so, when you take in nothing that is said to you? Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hcobb & BLP's

User:Hcobb continues to make inflammatory edits to BLP's that either mischaracterize the source(s) provided or are completely unsupported by the sources. Given the editor's experience and the long-term duration of the edits, in my opinion the edits could possibly be characterized as WP:vandalism. I attempted to warn him off a year ago. However, the following edits have been made since then:

1. Political Positions of Jeb Bush Mischaracterization of source. (According to the source, Bush didn't say the Iraq invasion was necessary and didn't characterize post-invasion security as a "blunder".)
2. Mike Huckabee Presidential Campaign Statement unsupported by source.
3. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
4. Marco Rubio Statement unsupported by source.
5. Ronald Reagan Mischaracterization of source.
6. Scott Walker Mischaracterization of source.
7. Rick Scott Mischaracterization of source.
8. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
9. Lindsey Graham Mischaracterization of source.
10. Political Positions of Rand Paul Mischaracterization of source.
11. Bobby Jindal Statement unsupported by source.
12. Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
13. John Boehner Statement unsupported by source.
14. Political Positions of Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
15. Ted Cruz Mischaracterization of source.
16. Rand Paul Statement unsupported by source.
17. Political Positions of Mitt Romney Statement unsupported by source.
18. Jeff Sessions Statement unsupported by source.
19. Chris Christie Original research.

CFredkin (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that "blunder" is exactly the word that reliable sources state that Jeb used. What exactly was the problem? Hcobb (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Bush—Which impartial sources? The one cited attributes the characterization to George W. and NOT as a quote, so someone needs a solid source if they want to use the word, put it in quotes and attribute it to Jeb.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Huckabee—Your Huckabee statement is grossly wrong. While I'm having trouble tracking down his exact claim, and it may well have been a dumb statement, the source you cited doesn't remotely support your claim. I've only looked at two so far, so I'm not yet ready to recommend what action should be taken. I see someone else has removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Cruz—Given the discussion of sodomy, it should be handled very carefully. I haven't done enough research to see whether your claim is supportable or not, but it may be.
• Rubio—I have no idea whether Rubio supports privatization of the VHA, but the cited source does not make that claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, this is not the right place to debate content. I checked a few, to see if the allegations had merit. They do, but there are better places to debate content.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hcobb, can you please cut/paste the relevant text from the corresponding sources to support the following claims <emphases mine> in your edits:

2. "In his announcement he promised to put the 37.3 million retired Americans to work."

4. "Rubio has endorsed a proposal to privatize the Veterans Health Administration."

11. "In 2015 Jindal traveled to the UK to speak out against the 'no-go zones' he imagined to be there."

12. "In November 2014 Paul moved to recognize the government of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."

13. "The third law firm selected finally filed the suit in November 2014, after Boehner criticized Obama's unilateral moves on immigration policy, taken after Boehner had scheduled no votes on the Senate bill for over 500 days."

14. "Paul claims that the government is lying to the American people and that he alone knows how "incredibly contagious" Ebola is.

16. "Paul then welcomed what he called unconstitutional airstrikes against ISIL.

17. "In September 2014, Romney faulted "Washington politicians" for cutting defense instead of raising taxes."

18. "Sessions said that more federal revenue may be needed for defense."CFredkin (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are these good faith efforts to improve the project?CFredkin (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are we discussing content disputes at AN/I? Are these not better handled in talk page discussions? For example the Jeb Bush source says The mistakes, [Jeb Ed.] Bush argued, were in the decisions made in the aftermath: “Once we invaded and took out Saddam Hussein, we didn’t focus on security first.” He said George W. Bush agrees that this was a blunder, "so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of thos.”, so one can assume from that the Jeb Bush agrees with George W that it was a blunder. Granted, there is a bit of WP:SYNTH there, but that can be hashed out in talk, and Hcobb may need to exercise some caution. Shall we move on then? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: makes a good point, this is not the place for an indepth discussion of content. Some of the edits have already been reversed, the remaining should be handled on a cases-by-case basis following discussion on the respective talk pages, while this is a place to discuss whatever sancations, if any, should accrue to the editor. So far, none have been proposed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here's the exact text from Hcobb's edit for #1 above, which Cwobeel is referencing: "Bush agrees with his brother George W. Bush that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was necessary, and that the lack of focus on post-invasion security was a "blunder"."CFredkin (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC) In any case, this isn't the most egregious edit by any means. I just listed the edits in reverse chronological (not priority) order.CFredkin (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Has this been posted to the BLP noticeboard? Each detail you mention is either a SYNTH violation or an outright BLP violation.--MONGO 07:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to go to the BLP noticeboard? I would think that would be a venue for broad discussion of issues that cannot be settled on the talk pages of the respective articles. Step 1 is reversion of errors. Step 2 is discussion on the talk page if the editor continues to insist on the error after reversion and step 3 is a noticeboard if the discussion at the talk page doesn't attract enough input. Separately, the editors actions can be addressed here if they persist after being corrected. Sounds like we are ahead of ourselves.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the editor has a history of misrepresenting sources, and was warned about it in the past, then the discussion on behavior belongs here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And here it is exactly in the source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/10/jeb-bush-says-he-would-have-invaded-iraq/ “I would have [authorized the invasion], ... He said George W. Bush agrees that this was a blunder, "so just for the news flash to the world, if they’re trying to find places where there’s big space between me and my brother, this might not be one of those.”

So how exactly did I invent "blunder"? Hcobb (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue to debate a content question. Please post to the talk page of the article, and I'll respond there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hcobb's mode of operation is to periodically add inaccurate content to Republican BLP's. When the edits are challenged, he rarely defends them. This allows him to fly under the radar in the hopes that at least some of his edits will remain undiscovered and stick. It seems to be effective since it's been going on for several years. Since we've established here that this behavior is ok, I may adopt this approach myself for articles on Democratic politicians and issues moving forward. I'll refer back to this discussion if I'm challenged on it. (User:Cwobeel since you stalk my edits, I'll be sure to create a new alias for this purpose.) We can call this mode of editing "catch me, if you can", and it will be a race to the bottom. Cheers.CFredkin (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I may adopt this approach myself for articles on Democratic politicians and issues moving forward. ... That would be very unwise and pointy. And BTW, I don't "stalk" your edits. I have your user page on my watchlist and we tend to edit same type of articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel said: "Do I check once in a while on your contrib list? Sure I do." at [6] And it continues...[7]CFredkin (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not "stalking", my friend. And I think that my intervention at Hcobb's talk page was useful. Maybe you need to re-consider your attitude, and be more collegial? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, you did not include my second message to Hcobb [8]]. Why? Uh? Uh? - Cwobeel (talk)

In any case, this User_talk:Hcobb#The ANI issue may be the better way to handle it. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the contention is Hcobb is editing political bios but only misrepresenting sources on bios of politicians belonging to a certain ideology then I don't think AGF will wash. I've asked an initial question on their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI post is about a long-term pattern of behavior involving the posting of false and inaccurate content to BLP's. My understanding is that BLP's in particular have a higher level of risk of legal action as a result of slanderous and inaccurate content. He was warned at least once a year ago and continued his behavior. (In fact, judging from the posts immediately following the warning, his behavior got worse in terms of posting completely false content.) I believe persistent vandalism is generally dealt with through some sort of block. Instead, you and some other editors here are attempting to position the issue as a misunderstanding over content. I've noticed that you've focused on a single edit involving mischaracterization of the source in particular and completely ignored the multiple edits involving content that is completely false. Personally I have no idea how the post you refer to above to Hcobb's talk page, which appears to primarily reassure him that my ANI post was premature and that he must have been acting in good faith in any way is a reasonable response to his behavior.CFredkin (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No really. My post in Hcobb page was that you may have a point on your assessment of his edits, and that we all needs to be careful to stay close to the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to this User_talk:Hcobb#The ANI issue .CFredkin (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The attention that you have brought to this issue, has brought this to the attention of two very experienced editors, and I would be inclined to say that Hcobb will be in real trouble if he/she does not respond to their questions, or if the behavior re-occurs. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're suggesting that Hcobb is on some kind of double-secret probation. That sounds ominous indeed. Hcobb must be quaking, particularly since he hasn't even acknowledged wrongdoing much less offered to change his behavior.CFredkin (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Before signing off I'll note the following for the record: This thread documents that User:Hcobb has inserted potentially libelous content into the biographies of living Republican politicians on Wikipedia on multiple occasions over the last year. Since User:Hcobb has been editing since October 21, 2008, it is probable that additional libelous content has been inserted into the biographies of living Republican politicians that has not been identified and corrected. Collectively the admin community of Wikipedia is taking no preventative or punitive measure to address the situation.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried asking on the article talk page what exactly the error was without response. I will try again. Hcobb (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous statement CFredkin. Do you really believe that libel can remain in bios without any eyes noticing? You grossly underestimate how Wikipedia works. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cwobeel Whoops. Here's another one. Two years old. Who's being ridiculous?CFredkin (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Cwobeel: It's interesting to me that you've inserted yourself so strenuously into this post. Why is that, do you think? Is it because you have a long-standing habit of following me and contesting my edits? Is it because the BLP's being vandalized are exclusively for Republicans? Is it because you don't believe persistent vandalism involving the insertion of libelous content into BLP's should be sanctioned?CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to help here. The Paul Ryan edit is a an obvious content dispute and does not raise to the level of libel. Take it to talk, for Pete's sake and move on. This is my last post in this thread. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm staying off of BLPs and will restrict myself to noting in the talk pages when there are updates to topics I've edited on in the past. For example: Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush which has new material today on the first item on the list above. Hcobb (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Fraudulent misrepresentation.

• Users with accounts: JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek. Intentionally misleading, unproven entering data in the article Buk missile system, as the official investigation is not over, and the commission's findings have not been published, they introduced changes into the hands of one of the parties to the conflict. At the same time, deliberately removed the audited data for 2013.
• Users with accounts: JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek, violate the rule of neutrality of Wikipedia articles. Please take immediate action.--Mega775 ~(talk) 10:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinged the other two parties as you were supposed to... also, wowie zowie, already on ANI within your first 10 edits? BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to slow down and discuss your edits on the article's talk page. This is a content dispute, not something for admin action. You are already at three reverts with your account and it appears an additional one with an IP address. -- GB fan 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also accusing others of fraudulent misrepresentation is getting very close to violating WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 11:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that vydavanie unconfirmed information as fact, it is a violation. This is Wikipedia, but not with CNN BBC.--Mega775 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you do not believe the sources provided with the information verifies the information, then you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page, not edit war. -- GB fan 12:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• My brief response - unfortunately, there's a history of edit warring to remove reliably sourced information regarding the use of the Buk missile system in the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 incident. Often these edits, e.g., [9], are from IPs (check geolocate information for further insight), other times from newly registered accounts, such as the complainant. In the past, I and others have taken the time to request temporary page protection from new accounts and IPs. I was too busy to do so this most recent burst of such edits. I recommend that now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, this page should be permanently semi-protected.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Sooner or later the truth will emerge on the surface, and you will realize that you are (JoeSperrazza, Volunteer Marek) a disinformation accomplices, I hope this time you will remember about me, unless of course you do not do it intentionally.--Mega775 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

New editor (Mega775 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) with under 5 edits immediately comes here to "report" two long-standing editors? Something seems "off" here... --IJBall (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This has gone stale. User Mega775 went AWOL after filing this 'report'. I'm keeping his/her user pages on my watchlist in case it's only hibernation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat at Gerald Fredrick Töben, possible BLP issues

See[10]. "Corrected date: not 1998 but 1999 - I shall be submitting a detailed new version of this flawed and truncated biographical sketch - and seek legal advice if the paid trolls tamper with ityou tamper with it" The IP is apparently Toben himself. As I've been involved in editing the article I'll leave it for others to deal with this. Ah, just realised that isn't the only legal threat, see[11]. As he's not using a stable IP, perhaps protection should be applied. To be fair, it probably needs more eyes, it is a BLP after all. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's OK -- if he sues we'll just deny there's an English Wikipedia or that he's one of its six million articles. EEng (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the article to my watchlist - hopefully others will as well. Given the possibility of a dynamic IP, page protection may be necessary should the behavior persist. The date had a source pointing to the 1998 date, so I reverted. If they dispute the date another source will be necessary. I've also done some minor formatting cleanup and removed an unsourced claim. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I find the subject's views abhorrent but that's neither here nor there. If the subject of a BLP thinks a correction is necessary then we should take that request seriously no matter who it is. Right now the 1998 date is sourced to the Daily Mail, which is not an appropriate source for anything remotely important or controversial.

It's easy to give BLP protection to "good" people. The test of our commitment to BLP is when we apply the same standards to everyone, whether the Dalai Lama or someone considerably less noble. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao and AWB abuse

Ser Amantio di Nicolao with AWB privileges is adding questionable gender categorisations to thousands of biography pages. It first came to my attention at Omar Khalidi page : diff, which I reverted citing policy WP:CATGRS. He repeated the edits the next day. I explained the issue in detail on his talk page: diff. More discussion on my talk page User_talk:Kautilya3#Gender_categorization, after which he self-reverted. So far so good. But he has been continuing to do the same questionable categorisation on thousands of pages using AWB, as evident from his Contributions list [12]. More and more articles on my watch list are popping up with "male" added to their categories. This needs to be stopped.

I also think all these edits need to be undone, because they set bad examples for others to do the same thing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the issue as stated. I believe that Category:Male historians and other such categories are valid because of the past creation of such categories as Category:American male writers and some of its subcats, and Category:British male writers and some of its subcats. (I would note, incidentally, that a number of these categories have been brought up before CFD, a couple of years ago, and were all designated as to be kept.) They are proving to be as useful as the subcats of Category:Women writers. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sure Ser Amantio feels as if he is doing a service by adding these categories. But, it can't be right. The categorisation should be done using a defining characteristic principle as per WP:DEFINING. WP:CATGRS says that gender and other characteristics should not be used to subdivide the category unless there are reliable sources that do it. Nobody thinks of writers, scholars, historians etc. as male and female. They are just writers, scholars and historians. He cites the example of Category:Women writers as justification. But that is a category that has been created after extensive discussion in the CfD process. There are reliable sources as well as justifiable reasons for that category. However, women-writers are not the same as "female writers" and it doesn't warrant a parallel "male writers" category. It should also be noted that Women writers is a non-diffusing subcategory. Women writers don't stop being "writers" by virtue of being women writers. There is an undercurrent of unfortunate gender battle, and a fundamental lack of understanding of categorisation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ser Amantio is one of the most productive AWB operators on here. Far from "abuse", he's been of enormous assistance over the years and has done a massive amount of work organizing categories. While you might have a point about splitting some of the occupations by gender, unless you can prove there's a significant consensus against what he's doing this remains largely a case of I DON'T LIKE IT. That he ignored what you said seems to have angered you and prompted a rude message to him and this here. And knowing Ser Amantio, if there was significant consensus against what he's been doing I know that he wouldn't be continuing. He's not that sort of editor. My only concern, and I've said this previously, is that if you're going to split a main category you really need to have a hatnote at the top explaining that it's been split by gender and main category links to them emboldened at the top. Especially if there's loads of sub categories finding "male" and "female" can be particular difficult and not convenient for a reader in browsing. But please don't post here as if he's some abusive vandal who needs to banned asap. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't personalise the issue. I am not "angered" by anybody. The AWB privilege comes with the responsibility to follow Wikipedia policies. Ser Amantio should not be doing mass changes without a proper understanding of the concerned policies. When we point out the relevant policies, it is doubly contingent upon him to do so. The very first principle of categorisation under CATGRS states: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. He has not said single word about how maleness is relevant to being historian or a writer. His only justification seems to be that people "like it." This is not the way to build Wikipedia. In the ARBIPA domain where I edit, there are a lot of things that people write that other people like and equally other people hate. Policies exist for a reason. He needs to follow them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, at one time there was a rule against splitting actors and actresses. Now there is official consensus to split as there was a lengthy RFC in some place and I believe it was decided to split them. Writers I supposed the split has to do with the WP:Women's writer group and rooting out how many articles on women we have and what needs work. as well as improving navigation for those interested. You do have a point about how far we should go with the gender splitting. If you do think he's violating consensus or some policy then request an RFC and decide on how far the gender split should go. But please assume good faith from him on this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus comes into picture only when there is genuine disagreement within policy. We don't need "consensus" to decide whether to follow policies or not. If he stated a policy-based rationale for his categorisations, I would have been glad to take it to a CfD. He hasn't done so. He hasn't produced a single reliable source that justifies any of his categorisations. So, this is a meaningless debate at this point. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with your interpretation of gender not being a defining characteristic, I understand your sense of urgency. It is quite easy to make sweeping changes with categories and have them go unnoticed because they are often edits of small size at a lot of different articles. And, unfortunately, the category page itself has no record of what subcategories, articles or pages have been added to or deleted from it. It's quite easy to do a lot of damage in just a few hours which can be difficult to undo or which goes unnoticed for months or years. But, in this case, I think Ser Amantio di Nicolao is making a valid interpretation. Gender categories come up frequently at CfD and they have a mixed success, sometimes they are kept, sometimes they are deleted or merged. But the folks at CfD are familiar with the categorization rules and, as Xezbeth says, you should probably take this discussion there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to note, for the record, that I came to the creation of these categories after long consideration...the fact that a number of the "male writers" categories had been up at CfD a couple of years ago, had been accepted, and have remained in use led me to feel that perhaps it was time to expand on that beginning somewhat. Women writers categories I am using mainly to find categories to mirror with male-only categories. E.g. - I created Category:Male essayists because there's a category Category:Women essayists. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If Category:Male essayists or whatever is a problem, then nominate it for deletion. If it isn't a problem, then adding the category to a suitable article cannot be considered abuse. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see any abuse here. What I do see is an editorial dispute. If you don't want the category, send it to CfD, or open a discussion about it. Epic Genius (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Whether a category/subcategory should exist or not is a matter for CfD. That is not AWB abuse. Rather, AWB abuse is in adding thousands of articles to these categories without obtaining reliable sources. WP:CATGRS says: As to the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources. This was the very first point I made to him: diff. While he accepted my point for that page and self-reverted, he kept on doing it for thousands of other pages using AWB. Am I expected to chase after him and block him at each and every page that he adds by automation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose where I, personally, am having a problem is with the question of reliable source: what constitutes a reliable source on the question of gender? Use of the pronoun "he" in a discussion? Mention of the word "male"? I don't know how deep to take it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I told you in the above diff that somebody being a male and a historian doesn't make him a "male historian." If you looked at any of the old CfD's on gender-related categories, you would have seen such reliable sources being mentioned, but only for the categories that make sense. The WP:CATGRS itself gives the example of "female Heads of State" as a category that exists. There are plenty of reliable sources for it. Since you are creating categories that don't make sense, you are not able to find reliable sources. If there is indeed a category called "male historian" in the real world then you would find it being mentioned in a reliable source. But there isn't. It is just something you pulled out of your own hat. So, obviously you can't find sources. Your inability to find sources should tell you that you are trying to do the wrong thing! Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But the point is if you take your argument to CfD and persuade other editors with your argument, the category will be deleted. You won't have to go to each individual article and remove it. It's clear from the discussion so far that no one but you is stepping forward to propose sanctioning Ser Amantio di Nicolao so your best bet (which I don't even agree with!) is to present your case at CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place. CfD is the place. There is no ground for enforcing any sanction to remedy what is a regular editorial dispute. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Suppose the category is valid, and there are indeed a handful of individuals that are characterised as "male historians" or "male essayists" in reliable sources. That doesn't change the fact that Ser Amantio has categorised thousands of other articles without reliable sources. CfD has nothing to do with the problem being stated here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is fundamentally a content dispute and not fit for ANI. I see no abuse taking place here. As you have received no consensus for your view (and neither has he) the best and only thing to do now is get consensus at CfD. KonveyorBelt 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kautilya3, but I also agree that the matter should be discussed elsewhere. Let's go there. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to everybody for comments. There are now two CfD's: for Male historians and Women historians. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by User:DanJazzy on Kenny G article

User:DanJazzy continues to remove smooth jazz from the list of genres on the Kenny G article, and keeps on adding a criticism section to the article, giving it undue weight. I tried to discuss the issue with him, but he refuses to comply, accusing me of disruptive editing. He is clearly gaming the system to try to get his way, when all reliable sources state that Kenny G is a smooth jazz musician. Looking at his edit history, this isn't the first time he has attempted to game the system to enforce his POV on specific issues. User is clearly a genre warrior. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, I say you didn't really have consensus to classify him as a smooth jazz artist, but technically there hasn't really been recent discussion of the matter, and the rationale of those opposing it in this section is some truly uuuuuuurgh-inducing sourgraping with no factual evidence by way of RS to back it up. So it comes down to what reliable sources say-- is he a smooth jazz artist, or no, and do the RSes say so? Per this piece in the Washington Post, smooth jazz appears to be described as a jazz-sounding song with no improvisation component-- however much of an authority this holds on the definition of smooth jazz remains to be seen-- and is also quick to mention Kenny G's work as part of that genre.

Anyway, this is a very content-dispute-flavored kettle of fish and you two ought to talk on the relevant article talkpage for it, but... My take on it is you're not giving the RSes you're saying prove he's a smooth jazz musician, and the onus is on you to prove it to attain consensus. Same onus is on Dan for the adult contemporary thing. As for the Criticism thing Dan wants to put in, WP:CRITICISM is an essay, so it can't be taken as the hard-and-fast rule for Criticism sections. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, AllMusic includes smooth jazz in his list of styles [13]. Amazon also categorizes his albums as smooth jazz. Any sources that state otherwise (nearly exclusively from jazz purists) are not reliable sources, because they are in a perspective of a jazz purist rather than a neutral point of view. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I guess Amazon's perspective is that of a company that wants to sell people things and not a reliable source on categorization of jazz musicians. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh... so there are no "appropriate" sources for the categorization of musicians by genre?! (That's why I'm getting out of this thread!) I'm thinking this is going to lead to problems... Is there a guideline specifically on this topic – genres for musicians, and what qualifies as a "reliable source" for such? --IJBall (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

agree with Liz. As far as WP:RSN has covered it before, to answer IJ, Allmusic has been considered reliable for music topics, but Andros is going to have to dig up more than one source to sway consensus in their favour since it's evidently contentious among editors what to classify his music. Additionally, taking the stance that anyone who disagrees with the smooth jazz POV (that's a statement I never thought I'd have to use, heh) must be a jazz purist, or worse unreliable, is not going to help matters-- you're verging on combative, genre warrior behaviour yourself by doing that. Take their analysis with a grain of salt, and focus on those with considerable academic merit or expertise in music, of course, but don't immediately discount their stance just because it's not yours. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 01:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

to clarify, by "anyone" I mean that you shouldn't discount stances taken by RSes just because they disagree with you/yours; if editors DONTLIKEIT and can't counter it with RSes of their own, obviously they'll have to muster the strength to deal with it. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll comment here only because I was asked. There was some reversion back and forth, but it hadn't reached 3RR, and truly seems to be a content dispute. I would invite @Andros 1337: to join the discussion on the relevant talk page, where I think some productive conversation is now taking place. Many reliable sources do in fact support his position, but the details aren't relevant here. I think that unless real edit-warring breaks out immediately, this one can be closed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the libelous allegations byANDROS¹³³⁷, please allow me to clarify as follows:-

1. Editors should visit this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenny_G and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanJazzy. The disruptive editing is evident. It only stopped when I clarified Wiki policy on editing pages without consensus.

2. Th same editor accused me of gaming the system on "specific issues". I urge him to substantiate or withdraw the allegation.DanJazzy (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I see an exchange between two editors who have a content dispute and are not very civil, but I see nothing that can reasonably be categorized as "libelous". Because I see nothing that can reasonably be categorized as libelous, I do see a personal attack by User:DanJazzy against User:Andros 1337. I would suggest the use of a dispute resolution procedure, except that the editors will have to learn to comment on content rather than contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki

This was moved from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests Sorry for starting in the wrong place. Not easy to get your footing where the right place is. Thanks to User:TransporterMan for pointing out my error.

I would like to draw your attention to [[14]]. The editors that proposed this deletion have been running their own personal vendetta.

This deletion request is, in my opinion, a vendetta against my arguments to keep the article NIM. [[15]] by Padenton|✉  and Msnicki (talk) who have tried to retaliate by deleting a slew of articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by Padention and Msnicki. Notice from a comment in the comment in the Nim deletion discussion how many articles are now missing.(Written by Itsmeront 23:06, May 11, 2015‎)

• Keep. There are Wikipedia articles about hundreds of programming languages. Many of them don't have any secondary sources. So why do you think Nim is not notable, but the following languages are? Obol (programming language), Picky (programming language), Little Interpreted Language, Seph (programming language), Halide (programming language), Roy (programming language), Plaid (programming language), Join-calculus (programming language), Objeck (programming language), Nemo (programming language), Ooc, Cl4 (programming language), Slave Programming Language, PureScript, Hope (programming language), MX Language, MCTRL, SmilScript, Wigzy, Mobl, Napier88 (I have just picked some random articles) --Trustable (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• That argument is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ― Padenton|✉   00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note in [[16]] when the vote when against them Pandenton 'Msnicki' decided to inappropriately push the issue [17] "Sorry, I really hate when people blackmail me. Please take it to DRV if you think it has any merit.--Ymblanter (talk)"

This is just another long run of actions that should have wikipedia editors to consider the modivations of these editors.

Itsmeront (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Time for a WP:BOOMERANG.

1. The article you made as a memorial for your friend does not establish his notability and his notability is in question, which makes it perfectly fair game to be nominated at AfD, especially since searches do not establish his notability either.
2. Those were all deleted fairly, you're welcome to talk to the closers and seek deletion review. Otherwise, get over it and stop re-posting this everywhere hoping someone will care, because they won't. I doubt even Trustable cares. You're welcome to ask him/her.
3. I have NEVER edited on Ymblanter's talk page, and the history proves it, so don't accuse me of stuff I have never done. The vote also didn't "go against me", it was no consensus for both the AfD and the deletion review.
4. It's nice that you notified Ymblanter on his talk page. But you failed to do so for myself and Msnicki as you are required to do in any editor dispute.

Can someone close this as there isn't a single honest thing Itsmeront has said and this isn't even close to being the correct venue? Though he's been forum shopping on this already a fair bit. ― Padenton|✉   04:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the reference above and attributed the blackmail to Msnicki. I also added a notice on both of your talk pages. Dr. Raab was was notable on his own, he was the heart and soul of a very large open source community, the deletion request is a tatic and harrassment. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese for previous warning and collusion and the following on Msnicki (talk) page:

Please stay as far away from me as you can. If I do something wrong, surely somebody else will notice and take care of it. You do not need to try to police my activities or to make frivolous accusations that I started an attack page. Really? The nerve!

[diff] Content was deleted after I pointed to it.

Itsmeront (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to ( Trustable Talk) I do think that the comments from Caroliano are very useful and should also be reviewed.

@Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Itsmeront (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Itsmeront: Not sure why you're linking the Roscelese enforcement request I brought to ArbCom, it doesn't support or serve as an example of a single claim you've made. All it shows is I'm a responsible Wikipedia editor that seeks admin assistance when an editor with previous restrictions reverts 1 1/2 weeks of a new editor's changes, possibly providing insufficient explanation. But here's an idea: how about you stay out of discussions you know nothing about? It seems more likely that you are the one with a grudge here, if you're digging through my history looking at every discussion I'm involved in. Is your goal to link to random discussions involving responsible acts by those you've accused in the hope that the reviewer of your claims will not read it and judge us guilty based on our being in those discussions? I said ask Trustable if he/she cares, not ask Caroliano. ― Padenton|✉   14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

section deleted by request of EdJohnston. Itsmeront (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Everything above copied and pasted by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) (this line written by Padenton)

Statement by Padenton

Once again, I'm not sure why Itsmeront has chosen to stalk me to unrelated discussions about which he knows nothing and then claim that I am the one harassing him. I am certain that EdJohnston would be happy to comment on taking his words so wildly out of context. My statement on Itsmeront's complaints regarding me and Msnicki can be found here: [18]. I don't have the time nor interest in making sure Itsmeront has accurately quoted everything I said above (given the proof shown that he has made false accusations towards me before), but you can read my statement at that link. Once again, I am requesting this be closed with a boomerang of some kind for Itsmeront for the reasons I have already mentioned in my responses at that link. ― Padenton|✉   18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Padenton. It makes no sense that User:Itsmeront has done a cut-and-paste from an unrelated posting about ARBGG at WP:AE#Roscelese and brought it here. Unless Itsmeront is willing to revert his copying from AE, my suggestion is that an uninvolved editor should collapse that material. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. Thank you for your comment. I have removed the material you found non-sensical. The point I was trying to make by including it was that Msnicki and Padenton attack people that disagree with them with an "I'll show them", attitude that I find harmful to Wikipedia. One would NOT reasonably expect reprisals after making a successful argument in support of an article. Attacks against articles that have been adjudicated previously and found to be notable are now brought up for deletion, by the same two people. Other articles mentioned in an arguemnt that were notable, see: WP:N#TEMP are being recommended for deletion on mass. And in my opinion, deleted while nobody is looking, out of spite, or lust for reputation or power without proper research or consideration. I was hoping to show a pattern of this behavior with other users experiences, but I understand your point and hope that others with similar experiences will speak up. I doubt that Wikipedia would want to discourage argument by allowing over zealous editors to fight people that disagree with them with personal vendettas. Itsmeront (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's funny that despite everything you've done, you still seem to think that Msnicki and myself are the ones with the vendetta. This "I'll show them" attitude you claim I have is baseless. And far more harmful to wikipedia is your lack of integrity and repeated attempts to falsely accuse me of things I haven't done, your dishonesty in cherry-picking and taking comments out of context, and your attempt to canvas editors you see disagreeing with me in order to start a lynchmob:

1. Such as claiming I blackmailed Ymblanter on his talk page when I have never even said anything on his talk page
2. Cherry-picking comments of a completely unrelated discussion you know nothing about that I am participating in and copying and pasting them in here (especially without making it clear that they are excerpts from a completely different discussion)
3. Failing to notify editors who you are complaining about which I had to remind you of at Editor assistance.
4. Canvassing of editors I am in completely irrelevant disputes with in the hopes that they support your inane claim based on some issue they have with me elsewhere (This is called a vendetta, you hypocrite) as you did here: User_talk:Sonicyouth86#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents.23Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki.

The deletions of the articles on the list Trustable made in the Nim AfD. Let's discuss that for a minute.

1. You brought up the complaint that I nominated several of the articles Trustable mentioned for deletion in the Nim AfD.
2. You brought it up in the AfD here: [19]
3. You brought it up here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki
4. You are now bringing it up here in ANI.

And all this time you fail to realize that Trustable fully supported my taking those articles to AfD. I notice you didn't notify Trustable of the new discussion.

That almost all of the ones I nominated ended up with a consensus to delete proves that other editors were unable to find evidence they met the notability guidelines, and that the AfD was warranted. The only articles that I nominated and remain from that list are:

• Halide (programming language) - Closed no consensus. Unsurprisingly, still has little evidence of its notability.
• Join-calculus (programming language) - Closed merge. Essentially a duplicate article of Join-calculus. Pretty much the equivalent of delete, as it will remain merely a redirect after that's done.
• Hope (programming language) - I never took this to AfD.
• Napier88 - I never took this to AfD either.

Clearly, based on the above, people didn't agree with you that slashdot, reddit, ycombinator, and github are reliable sources nor that they establish notability.

Newsflash: Just because you want to give your friend a WP:MEMORIAL, doesn't mean he's notable enough for Wikipedia, and any editor on Wikipedia is fully within their rights to dispute the notability. ― Padenton|✉   22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Response From Itsmeront (talk)

My numbering doesn't match yours. Where there is a direct answer I have quoted your comment.

1. "Such as claiming I blackmailed Ymblanter on his talk page when I have never even said anything on his talk page "

• I have already corrected the record that it was Msnicki and not you that was accused of attacking an editor. I know you have read it, and seen the correction but even after it was corrected you mentioned it 3 times.

2. "Canvassing of editors I am in completely irrelevant disputes with in the hopes that they support your inane claim based on some issue they have with me elsewhere"

• Notifying users and editors is what you told me to do. I don't see this as canvasing.

3. Your actions to delete the articles were in retaliation to users that disagreed with you. I see no real research. Having other editors not want to take you on, I've seen other editors say you are constantly doing blanket, not properly researched, delete requests but I didn't mention them here, is exactly what I mean by deleting content when nobody is looking. complaints were ignored by you:

@Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Wikipedia is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

and instead you attacked people that dared to disagree with you. See: User_talk:Caroliano Canvasing warning.

4. Not knowing where to air these issues is not the same as an attack against you. You have been citing quick close because this is not the right venue for this complaint. You could have pointed me to the right place instead of letting me flounder around. TransporterMan was nice enough to let me know.

Your words:

@Caroliano:Trustable did nothing. I'm the one who nominated them, as anyone should for any article that does not meet notability guidelines. The only reason these articles have not been nominated before is because no experienced editors had come across them, which is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a notability fallacy. If the article can stand up to scrutiny, it will remain. If not, it never deserved to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Stop acting like someone is being hurt over this. ― Padenton|✉ 19:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This to me is an attack against someone making a claim that blanket delete requests are not in Wikipedia best interest, both in terms of a hostile response, but also hostile actions in your warning, and deletion requests.

About Andreas Raab, he is and was extremely notable. I hope that you will be also be defeated in this AFD by editors that are more reasonable and less hostile then you. Your arguments against NIM are not the same as the augments here. Claiming number of citations on published articles, or position in naming on papers, is just nuts. Your argument for the deletions of Nim didn't hold water, and your argument against Andreas Raab even less. My biggest complaint is not about these two articles Nim and Andreas Raab. My complaint is your attack against people that argue against you. Wikipedia needs to be open to volunteers, and free of these types of attacks so that reasonable discussion can take place to improve the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia. This is not about protecting your Turf, and I hope that you will be properly punished for your actions. Itsmeront (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to these in the order you presented them.

• The correction doesn't change the fact that you attempted to do it without checking your facts, which still seems to be a problem for you as you have continued.
• Read WP:CANVASSING. Notifying editors you have accused is required by WP:ANI policy. Notifying editors involved in a specific dispute is allowed by WP:CANVASSING. What you did was notify editors not involved in any way with this dispute, solely because you thought they would rally behind your attacks on me. This is called WP:Votestacking and is inappropriate canvassing.
• I've seen other editors say you are constantly doing blanket, not properly researched, delete requests but I didn't mention them here, is exactly what I mean by deleting content when nobody is looking. Those "other editors" have trouble understanding wikipedia policy. You have yet to show a single AfD where I did not properly research. You didn't mention them here because you know that they do not support your claim. Otherwise you would have no need to dig through in-progress discussions of no relevance to this dispute.
• Once again you have provided no evidence but your incessant whining. I don't care that you don't see "real research", as far as I have seen you will lie or use any fraudulent information you can to malign any who disagree with you. Anyone with common sense can guess that it would be wrong to pick and choose comments from disputes elsewhere, and paste them in here without even knowing what the dispute was about.
• Caroliano deserved the canvassing warning, again, read the policy here and get over it.
• Forgive me if I don't have the time to help you whine about me to every person on Wikipedia that you can. Especially when reading the top of Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests could have easily told you where to go.
• When you went to Trustable's talk page looking for anything you could dig up to attack me on, did you happen to notice the discussion before that post? Yeah....funny you don't mention that.
• Sadly, the say-so of a "friend of 10 years" isn't enough to support the claim that "About Andreas Raab, he is and was extremely notable."
• Claiming number of citations on published articles, or position in naming on papers, is just nuts. This is how it works in academia. Anyone can write a paper and papers are not enough to grant notability, especially when they have low citation counts. You can read more about it at the policy link I provided at the AfD, WP:ACADEMIC.
• Your argument for the deletions of Nim didn't hold water, My argument for the deletion of nim was that it wasn't notable. I'm sorry that you assumed every single person disagreeing with you wasn't a programmer (false) and therefore shouldn't have a say in the AfD (also false), and that github, slashdot, reddit, and ycombinator are reliable sources (yet again, false); but your inaccurate assumptions are not my problem.
• I am normally sympathetic towards new users, it was not too long ago that I was one myself. But my patience runs out when those new users refuse to read policy, make false claims against other editors, and bring up cherry picked discussions from another editor's history(which they know absolutely nothing about) in the hopes it will prejudice others against someone they disagree with. Wikipedia needs to be free of editors like that, you add absolutely nothing to the site and you have no interest in working with others when they disagree with you. Plenty of new wikipedia editors have little trouble reading about wikipedia policy when they're informed of it.
• This is not about protecting your Turf, and I hope that you will be properly punished for your actions. I have no turf. I'm just not going to sit here and take false accusations from you. Shocker. ― Padenton|✉   23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommended close

Anyone is free to browse through the Nim, Andreas Raab and MX Language AfDs or the Nim DRV that Itsmeront complains about (I wasn't in any of the other cited discussions) and confirm that I've been consistently respectful, that my arguments have been consistently policy-based and that I've dutifully avoided responding to any of Itsmeront's silly taunts of vendettas and other nonsense. I've argued in good faith for deletion based on lack of reliable independent secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Itsmeront has argued for keep based on primary and self-published sources and popularity in social media and claimed without any plausible basis that the reason Padenton and I don't accept that as evidence of notability must be because we have it in for them.

I think this silliness has gone on long enough and recommend that this complaint be closed with no action beyond a warning to Itsmeront that making unsupported allegations of vendettas and repeatedly questioning other editors' good faith constitutes a pattern of WP:Personal attacks. It's not helpful and it's not allowed. If it happens again, Itsmeront should face a block.

Here at Wikipedia, we settle questions of whether, what and how to report based on WP:CONSENSUS. It is normal for people to disagree and that's why we've created everything from talk pages to deletion reviews where editors can present their evidence, explain how that satisfies the guidelines, argue for their position and seek support. It's also normal that even after an outcome has been decided, that not everyone will agree. Consensus does not require unanimity and we are all entitled to our opinions disagreeing with an outcome. All we ask is that you assume good faith and that you focus on the arguments and the evidence, not what you dislike about the other editors you may disagree with. You're entitled to your opinions about other editors; you're just not entitled to post every one of them.

Without clear evidence in the form of actual diffs, it is never helpful to speculate about the secret nefarious motives you suspect someone might have for their position, especially when their stated reasons are in fact all clearly guidelines and evidence-based and the real issue is that you just don't agree with the guidelines. It's also not helpful to cite irrelevant nasty things that others have said about someone. Who cares that someone else said something disrespectful? Itsmeront needs to find something that I said that was disrespectful. Itsmeront can't because it's not there. I behave myself and it's time Itsmeront started to do the same.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Msnicki (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Resposne by ItsMeRonT

Both Msnicki and Padenton have been using Wikipedia editorial policy as a stick to poke people. I understand that Wikipedia editors are very important and I agree with the fact that deletions are a very necessary fact of life, lest Wikipedia turn into a garbage dump. The evidence is clear that the two editors that went after NIM is a way that seemed entirely unprofessional, then even took the close to Deletion Review, then took their show on the road against the person that argued against them. I thought there attitude so unprofessional I asked that:

• I would also ask that if Nim is going to be recommended for deletion in the future that Msnicki and Padenton refrain from submitting the article for deletion or participating in the discussions going forward Itsmeront (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_26#Nim_.28programming_language.29 Nim Deletion Review

Again I would like to state that it should be against Wikipedia policy to aggressively use Wikipedia rules to stifle argument, and then to retaliate by going after other submissions of people that argue against you is just plain wrong. That is not a good example of being a good Wikipedia editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs)

WP:FORUMSHOP. Also, anyone who wants to look at this deletion review or the AfD will clearly see that it is Itsmeront with the vendetta. If you look at the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nim_(programming_language) Itsmeront repeatedly insisted that slashdot was a reliable source, and that anyone who disagreed wasn't a programmer, here is one such diff where he did so. [20] Anyone who disagrees with Itsmeront must either be unqualified or bullying him. Anyone who shows him policies, consensus, guidelines, they all interfere too much for him, they must be wrong, or the person showing them to him is retaliating against him. ― Padenton|✉   21:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Resolution by ItsMeRonT

I've reviewed some of the comments and work of both Padenton and Msnicki and I find their work to be in general quite useful. I wouldn't want to ban them or stop them from working on Wikipedia since volunteers that dedicate so much time are quite valuable.

I ask for the following:

• A sincere apology on my talk page from both.
• A sincere apology to User_talk:Caroliano from Padenton
• That neither editor be allowed to submit NIM for deletion or participate in the augment against it in the future. There is another user I think he is named Trac that was quite against NIM so I suspect there will be no dearth of editors that can submit it and argue against it in a month or so.
• That the retaliation AfD Andreas Raab be removed. Again I'm sure that these editors have friends that will take up the cause for them. I don't mind arguing the facts, but it should not be done, or condoned by Wikipedia, in this manner. When emotions flare there is no reasonable arguemnt.

I hope I've presented my case in a calm an thoughful way. Thank you for your consideration. Itsmeront (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sigh. Once again: the Andreas Raab AfD wasn't in retaliation, you are not the center of my world, neither is the WP:MEMORIAL you made for your friend 2 days after his death. I don't apologize when I've done nothing wrong. Your inability to understand the notability policies after being informed of them several times and your clear vendetta against anyone who disagrees with you, do not deserve an apology. It is not my fault or problem that Nim and your friend Andreas Raab are both of questionable notability, and you can't just have people barred from an AfD because they disagree with you. ― Padenton|✉   20:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management

Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions.

I first attempted to resolve this with User:Smalljim on my talk page. I guess we did not see eye to eye. I then referred it to DRN and COI. Neither of them felt it belonged on those pages.

Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the DRN page and it seemed like the discussion was getting started. I don't know why the page was archived but I didn't see anyone saying that this was the wrong forum. Maybe @TransporterMan: can explain?

In general though, I think it is a bad idea to copy whole articles into your sandbox and replace the actual article with your new version of it. For one thing, other editors can make changes between the time you've copied the article and the time you replace it with your new version and while those edits would be recorded in the page history, they wouldn't exist in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The DRN thread was closed by TransporterMan, not because it was the wrong forum, but because it was filed manually, rather than using the template for the purpose. The editors can refile using the template, or can continue discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but the discussion at COIN should be closed if DRN is started, to avoid conflicting discussions and forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have 2 things to say on the matter, both of which aren't key to the actual issue.

Firstly, I felt it wasn't appropriate for WP:COIN because they said they didn't have a COI- so the issue didn't appear to be COI.

Secondly, when you report someone to noticeboards, you are obliged to inform them- in this instance, I informed User:Smalljim about this thread, and the other ones at DRN and COI too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I did notify him on his talk page at 22:10, 12 May 2015, prior to your posting this. You must have missed it. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was drafting the following, but I see I've been pre-empted. Posting now without full check, so E&OE !  —SMALLJIM 

Emmanuel Lemelson is a hedge fund manager and, unexpectedly, also a Greek Orthodox priest. We have two articles: one on the person (EL), and one on his company, Lemelson Capital Management (LCM). Both have been extensively edited by Orthodox2014 (talk · contribs), whose only other edits have been to an AfD on the company, an AfD nomination of another fund manager, and a few edits to some related articles (example) and some other Greek Orthodox religious figures (example). This narrow focus has continued despite my suggestion in July last year that he could do something else to avoid the appearance of only being here to promote Lemelson.

In the two articles he has employed promotional wording designed to puff up the subjects (see this version for example), and has packed them with excessive references, on which he has been called out several times (see User_talk:Orthodox2014#Failed_verifications, Talk:Lemelson Capital Management, Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Too_many_references and the LCM AfD). In July 2014 the LCM article was trimmed down to under 10kB in accordance with these opinions [21]. But on 8 Oct, after working on a pre-trimmed version in his sandbox, Orthodox2014 pumped it up again to 23kB with the edit summary "update new references/developments, remove a category", which in fact added only a little new info, and substantially reinstated the removed references.[22]

On 29 April this year, I got round to cleaning up both pages again – a task that had been on my back burner for some time. Soon after, Orthodox2014 started editing a copy of his last version of the EL article in his sandbox,[23] suggesting that he intended to replace the live version with his preferred version again. His response to my enquiry indicates a strong sense of ownership. This is not the behaviour of someone who has WP's best interest as his first priority.

Orthodox2014 has firmly stated that he does not have a COI. Four editors have expressed concerns that he does, as I set out on his talk page, and I think the minimum we need is a topic ban on these articles. He has at least recently expressed a willingness to edit some other articles.[24]  —SMALLJIM  22:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should have stayed at COIN. The heading for the noticeboard states This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline . The question here is covered by the first part of that, whether the denial of COI by an editor who has only substantially worked on these two very closely related subjects should be accepted as settling the matter. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally, DGG, in 2013 you deleted an earlier version of one of the pages. I don't suppose this could be connected?  —SMALLJIM  16:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Chemonics COI

208.70.228.138 appears to be a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest engaged in blatant self-promotion. The IP is registered to Chemonics and just about all of the edits are promoting Chemonics. Examples: [25], [26], [27], [28] Jon335 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Diff of the IP's edits altogether: [29]. WP:COI allows (though often discourages) edits by an editor who is connected to the subject. I'm not seeing too much blatant self-promotion by the IP. Some, perhaps, wouldn't go to blatant though. The article has been around 2 years, so there does not seem to be any evidence the IP made the article themselves to promote the company. Most business articles do discuss that business's sectors of work, though perhaps a paragraph would have been better. The global presence list was kinda pointless and redundant in my opinion. In the criticism section, 'frequent' is a violation of WP:NPOV, especially with such a small list of incidents and few references. (I've gone and removed that one myself). I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the other removals, so I'll agree the rest do appear to be a COI violation. ― Padenton|✉   01:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ordinarily I'd warn you about the dangers of investigating undisclosed COI, but for an IP it's a little different. Several of the IP's edits are things that someone with a COI probably should refrain from doing; e.g., deleting a maintenance tag, adding PR-speak. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI does allow for non-controversial edits, including the removal of maintenance tags that are no longer needed. At the time of removal the article was no longer an advertisement, though I suppose one might argue that the IP made it one after with adding the locations list and the business sector list. Whether that has merit, I don't know. The one source maintenance tag was rightfully removed, it was no longer accurate (the article was significantly expanded by Jon335 the day after it was tagged for one source by someone else [30]), and it doesn't have any explanation for the tag on the talk page. The primary sources tag is appropriate now though, so I added that. I think you're right on the PR-speak though. ― Padenton|✉   02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian POV pushing

MykhayloNaumenko has been deleting Russian names from many Ukrainian articles, primarily involving the Luhansk Oblast. Targeted articles include Sievierodonetsk, Lysychansk, and the Luhansk Oblast article itself. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

I came across him when I noticed that the Russian name of Luhansk Oblast suddenly disappeared, and then I rv'd that when I found the diff.

He also has edit warred with Toddy1 for months over the Russian names being on enwiki. Ymblanter had blocked him for a day once for this. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Luhansk was affected too: [36] Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 02:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Mykhaylo admits to be Ukrainian on his userpage." I didn't realize being Ukrainian was an offense one had to "admit to", but then I'm just a science geek. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In the context of Ru-Uk war, a person starts erasing references to Russia in quite ridiculous ways, you suspect he is a Russia-hater, you check his user page and you see he is Ukrainian, you say "Gotcha!" someone is HOTHERE, naturally, the tongue slips: you identify ethnic hypernationalism which caused misbehavior with misbehavior itself. I forgot the name of the psychological phenomenon/logical blunder (something opposite to the halo effect, I believe). -M.Altenmann >t 06:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hillcrest98: Both articles have been subject to POV-pushing... and it cuts both ways. Toddy1 and I have a lot of articles covered for this form of naming convention warring, and MykhayloNaumenko is but one such user (who has also made a few constructive contributions). If blocking were intended to be punitive, I dare say most editors would be long, long gone. As for this latest round, it should have been taken to 3RR as being edit warring. After that, we know the cycle: if the user doesn't genuinely learn from AGF errors, leave it to being an enough rope issue as the user is displaying NOTHERE tendencies. As noted by SBHB above, however, you know that using a user's ethnicity is the bottom of the barrel of the personal attacks stakes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that at this moment a respected admin must try and convince this person that wikipedia is not a political battleground. It appears that this user was not engaged in any talk page discussions beyond template slapping. -M.Altenmann >t 06:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That is because Toddy had reminded him many times and he didn't respond/listen. He didn't post on any talk pages except doing pagemoves. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 11:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I blocked that user for disruptive editing earlier this year. Since they claim their knowledge of English is en-0, I do not see what is the benefit of them editing English Wikipedia. We have enough Ukrainian power pushers here who at least speak some English.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment and question Is Russian an official language in those communities? I seem to remember reading Ukraine had made Ukrainian the only official language, or am I mistaken? If Russian is not official, it's not immediately obvious that it is vandalism to remove it. I understand that removing it can be a Ukrainian WP:POV and keeping it can be a Russian WP:POV, but as someone completely uninvolved, I don't necessarily see how one version is more POV-pushing than the other. Perhaps a more fruitful solution would be to have an established practice for the whole of Ukraine (personal view: Russian should be included in any municipality with a substantial Russian-speaking population, but that's a persona view and this is not the place for that discussion).Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  This is indeed not vandalism but POV-pushing and edit warring (I think he overstepped 3RR on a couple of occasions). Since the population of these areas is exclusively Russian-speaking, the consensus is that names in two languages can be cited in the lede. Removals would need discussion, which the user was not interested in initiating.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good day. I am Ukrainian. I removed Russian names not through RU-UA war! This is Ukrainian cities! I want in order the world to know that Ukraine is not Russian Federation. I understand your position. I will not to remove Russian names. Thank you for your consideration. P.S. Sorry for my English. --MykhayloNaumenko (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2015 (+3 UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a large bunch of recognized Russian-speakers around Donbass, who are quite influential in the region. Since these Russian-speakers form a notable part of Donbass' people, Russian names of their places are included. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Heavy sockpuppetry to sway AfD and repeted personal attacks

Yesterday I came across Margaret Varnell Clark as DMRRT, the WP:SPA behind the article added promotion for her self-published book to articles on my watch-list [37], [38], [39], [40]. I found no hint of notability beyond that enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people who have publish something and launched an WP:AFD. Since then, DMRRT has tried a number of efforts to stop the AfD. First by trying to delete it [41]. Next by engaging heavily in the discussion in a very emotional way with a large number of claims, not one of which stood up to scrutiny (this alleged "world leading researcher" has virtually no cites on Google Scholar, and no verifiable notability has been established.) The only other long-term user who commented on the Afd (at the demand of the SPA [42] also recommended delete [43]. Having tried to delete the AfD, appeal to emotions, launch personal attacks against me [44], the next step is now some very obvious sockpuppetry (either through direct socks or meatsocks) as the AfD has been joined by two "new" users. One is another WP:SPA-account that had not been active for one year [45], and then a new account whose only activity is to comment on the AfD [46]. The duckiest of ducks in a long time. I've tried to explain and show to DMRRT how to show that an academic really is notable [47] but the DMRRT just continues in the same way, which raises both WP:HEAR and WP:COMPETENCE issues. This is starting to turn a bit ugly and has implications beyond the AfD, so some admin input would be helpful.Jeppiz (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Apart from your accusations of puppetry this seems like a pretty run of the mill WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT AfD. May I suggest you file a Sockpuppetry report so that this can be investigated? Twinkle makes this simple to do.

I am not an admin, but I can't quite see what you wish admins to achieve here. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be right, @Timtrent:. It was the additional WP:NPA (though pretty mild) but mostly the rather strong WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE that made me come to ANI. Had it been just the socking, I would have filed a report.Jeppiz (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I did file a sockpuppetry report, but not holding my breath. Reports from April are still not even discussed [48]. Wikipedia is really starting to have a massive problem with these backlogs building up everywhere.Jeppiz (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like there are two reports open at the same time: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ DMRRT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DMRRT. The first report has an extra space in the title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't know there was already one and that I had made a mess of the title. Have asked for my one to be redirected to Jezzip's. Cowlibob (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Another new user has somehow stumbled upon this AFD [49]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The situation is getting unpleasant. The actual AfD looks simple enough, all 10 established users who have commented have said delete. At the same time, the situation that brought me to AN/I yesterday is escalating Even though I no longer take part, there is now an orchestrated WP:SPA (and likely WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT) campaign that largely consists of discussions about me. I already signalled in the diffs above how DMRRT had been joined by two new SPA-accounts (RCP110 and Literarydiva). Since then both those SPA accounts have returned, and been joined by a third, M0302. whose very first sentence on Wiki is to insist they aren't a sock. All three have a go at me and my "ego" [50], [51], [52]. As the diffs show, all three also refer to DMRRT just as "DM", and all four of them (DMRRT and the three others) consistently call me she. I've never revealed my gender on Wikipedia. Quite apart from the effort to sway the AfD, this orchestrated attack on me is not pleasant. I make no claim to being perfect, and I probably should just have nominated the AfD and not discussed it (I've since left it and no longer interact with the users to avoid escalations), but all these rants about my "ego" are disproportionate.Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the closure of the AfD as deletion has removed any need to continue this discussion, one I think was probably better suited to other venues anyway. There is already an SPI which will run its course. The behaviour of the claque of new editors is the behaviour of a claque. May I suggest that those with hurt feelings simply treat it as 'one of those annoying things that happen from time to time' and that a passing friendly person closes this as, requiring, probably, no further action? Fiddle Faddle 07:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

United States Merit Systems Protection Board

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#Editorous_is_on_a_crusade
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#Editorous_at_it_again

Now editing while logged out: 74.92.159.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I've opened an SPI but given stuff like this, can we indef the master and temp block the IP? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Si se puede. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing with the derogatory nicknames. [53] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, if that article is targeted again (I saw three different IPs and blocked one of them), ping me and I'll semi-protect it. This is stupid. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. Will do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war about personal attack

I removed a WP:NPA violation from Talk:Honor Harrington.[54] I admit that I was the victim of the attack, and therefore not the most uninvolved party, but I still though (and think) it was a real WP:NPA violation. The editor who posted it, User:Scjessey, then removed my previous edit, childishly and incorrectly claiming it was also a WP:NPA violation,[55] and when I undid that,[56] he undid my preceding edit.[57] Note that in between, I warned him on his talkpage to stop his childish behavior.[58] Please note that he has since removed that post from his talkpage, and has posted a derisive comment about it on mine. [59]

I'd appreciate your opinions either way. Meaning that if I am exaggerating, and Scjessey's comment is not such as can be removed as a WP:NPA violation, I will desist. Or if it is, then please tell Scjessey so, and he should desist. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That was really rude, I can't fault you for removing it, Debresser. Also, Scjessey's retaliation here was pretty childish (note the edit summary). I haven't gone back in the history of your mutual irritation, but from the recent exchange, certainly Scjessey is more at fault. Nevertheless, on the principle Wikipedia:There is no justice, I suggest the best thing would be for both of you to stay away from Talk:Honor Harrington for at least the next 24 hours, and from each other's talkpages for the foreseeable future. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

The really stupid thing about all this is that I had stepped away from that article, but Debresser kept on poking me with a stick, such as reverting or commenting after two days of silence. If he'd just left me alone, this would've petered out over a week ago. I admit the comment you flagged was rude, but this guy has been all up in my face for days and days and it needed to be said. Debresser, like me, is an experienced editor, but his attitude at that article was amateurish and smacked of ownership. For example, he rejected my idea of an RfC over a content dispute, despite the fact editors were evenly split and deadlocked. Where's the logic in that? Anyway, you can only get a sense of his behavior if you look at the editing history over a couple of weeks, but if I were you I wouldn't bother myself. It's a NothingBurger. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Sirswindon, Rinaldo Paluzzi and Abstract expressionism

• Sirswindon (talk · contribs)
• Rinaldo Paluzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abstract expressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been going on for over a month, and can be embroidered with dozens of diffs, of which a few would suffice. Mostly a perusal of edits at Abstract expressionism and its talk page will tell the story: Sirswindon edit warred to include Paluzzi in the article on Abstract expressionism. Once consensus went against him, he took to its talk page to argue over the inclusion of numerous artists, most of whose affiliations with Ae are easily documented, if not always included in Wiki articles. There are, as far as I can tell, no published sources supporting Paluzzi's connection, formally or stylistically, to Ae, but the WP:POINTY continues. See [60], [61], [62], [63], then removal of argument [64] before starting anew [65] and targeting other bios [66], [67], and returning to Ae [68], lobbying other editors [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], (restoring this awful tripe along the way) [74], removing the cite template without providing the source [75], and reacting now by returning to Ae and moving to other bios, misappropriating my edits as rationale [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. I've tried to be selective in offering diffs here (!); in the end, this is all about being challenged on the Paluzzi attribution, and declaring to do a spring cleaning as retribution. JNW (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

JNW I accept your caution and will attempt to find a reference to his his work being stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. Sirswindon (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To administrators: I've only included diffs to some of Sirswindon's edits. Up to two weeks ago I was still attempting to respond in good faith [82], [83], [84], [85]; please see the last two sections here, which I eventually removed after concluding that the user's motives had not changed [86]. JNW (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is common for editors who are fans of notable but "mid-tier" artists to try to promote them by including them in articles about genres and art movements. These articles should only include the most famous and iconic representatives of those genres. So please desist, Sirswindon. That being said, this seems to be a garden variety content dispute, and I see no need for use of the administrator's toolkit at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know, Cullen--I think this is a bit more. These diffs indicate a fairly large number of potentially disruptive edits, and this is really quite pointy. This goes back at least to April on Talk:Abstract expressionism, and it seems that little headway is made (in terms of a proven understanding of RS, etc.--though in April already Sirswindon said, "Modernist, I do apologize, if the future I will do as you have suggested", which sounds a lot like the comment above. (And they should be glad they didn't run into Postmodernist, who has no mercy since they don't believe in values anymore.)

  Anyways, if we take Sirswindon at their word, that they will find a reliable reference, and if they were to add "and in the meantime I will not make the kind of edits that proved quite disruptive in article space and on the various talk pages", then no admin action is necessary. But, Sirswindon, barring that, an admin may take action since, as far as I can tell, you are just taking up too much valuable time with rather interminable discussions and forum posts. Really, don't cite the dean of any department. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute that is being complicated by commenting on contributors rather than on content, but is basically a content dispute. It appears that it might benefit from moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Are the parties willing to close this thread and take it to DRN? If the discussion there gets into too much commenting on contributors, it will be closed and may have to come back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Drmies gets that this is something other than a standard content dispute, enriched by some gentle aspersions--I've included diffs to that end. The user in question periodically backs off, then continues disruptive behavior for not getting what they want. As might be guessed, I've come here rather than dispute resolution for a reason--I've many times in the last decade removed inappropriate or unsubstantiated names from lists, and this represents an unusual persistence, with a side of retribution. Perhaps nothing here is deemed actionable, but Drmies is correct in noting the great amount of time and energy this has already wasted on several arts pages. My thanks for that. JNW (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sirswindon has left this page to discuss this with the above administrators. Here's the relevant section at Drmie's page [87]. JNW (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't like having content disputes, and this is a content dispute, decided at ANI. However, if two editors both won't agree to moderated dispute resolution, I have to advocate blocking someone. Should the administrators here block User:JNW or User:Sirswindron or both of them, or just decide it later? (I really think that DRN would work, but not if the editors dislike each other that much. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)) I suggest some sort of closure now, but I am not involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm truly dumbstruck; by all means flip a coin and block me. JNW (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my, well anyway, sometimes things just work out the way they should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you for your note here. I didn't realize that the blocking comment was made by someone who is not an administrator; the less I say about it, the better. All the same, that there's any ambiguity as to the circumstances confirms my conclusion of years past, that this isn't the place for me. JNW (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to be blocked, this thread should be closed. Artists are included in that section of the article if their work is widely known, if reliable sources can be found, if they influenced and/or affected American Abstract expressionism. That section of the article contains artists from all over the world whose works were seen in NY or California during the 40s, 50s and 60s and whose works affected and/or influenced that movement. Which is why Wols and Zao Wou-Ki are included. The Italian artist Rinaldo Paluzzi that the above editor wants included in the article simply was not known in the USA during that historical period, nor was the other Romanian artist Romul Nuțiu that this editor also wants to include known in the USA during that historical period. It's time for this editor to drop the stick and let it go - or find reliable sources for those 2 artists inclusion...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW many European and Asian artists working in similar styles to American abstract expressionism are included in the Tachisme article, which is the European equivalent to Abstract expressionism during the 40s, 50s and 60s. Some artists appear in both articles because their work was widely viewed on both continents or they lived and worked on both continents during that era...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor with continuous unconstructive behaviour

The user PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since March 2015 constantly does disruptive edits, or starting loose discussions, currently on the Dulo clan article, previously on the Bulgars article, and recently copy-pasting the same wall of loose (fringe) theories to the Huns article talk page. The user was in this three months several times warned, or his activity and intentions, as well the specific info, sufficiently discussed. I explained him that, for this report most importantly, the info he's bringing to the Dulo clan article is totally unrelated to the topic what ever, or removing sourced considerations by relevant academic scholars (calling their considerations junk), and what's worse, he knows that and admits that his edits are violating the Wikipedia principles. I was tolerating his behaviour for some time, trying to discuss as much as possible, hoping for the best, but he's constantly pushing the same judgmental attitude and unconstructive activity. In the last 24 hours we both broke the 3RR rule on the Dulo clan article.--Crovata (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

History merge needed

Resolved

Fusionem, a relatively inexperienced editor has recently carried out a cut-and-paste move by copying content from Minor characters in Universal Monsters,[88] to List of Universal Monsters characters,[89] and then expanding the new article.[90] Would an admin with a few minutes to spare be able to carry out a history merge on List of Universal Monsters characters to fix the problem cause by the cut-and-paste move, please? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I got your message. I passed the table to List of Universal Monsters characters so user could pay more attention, but this user has been rewriting the characters table back to the previous state, which I know it's very repetitive in some cases. I could pass your message to this guy..., if you let me, or I'll leave it to you. Its name is Rreemmett.Fusionem (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)User:Fusionem

I've performed the history merge and moved the talk page. Graham87 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG

I wish to raise a complaint about repeated misrepresentation of my postings and uncivility toward me by JzG.

JzG made a posting to which I posed a question - the posting and question can be seen here.[91] JzG then posted "@DrChrissy: You have accused me of racism. Some editors would call that a personal attack and report it. Me, I think it's just cluelessness on your part. I really don't think you know very much about this subject, given the naive questions you are asking."[92] This clearly misrepresents my posting. I posed a question - I did not accuse them of racism. Furthermore, JzG's comment is a personal attack about my knowledge of the subject. JzG also said(same diff) "No need to apologise, anyone can make a mistake, but next time perhaps ask rather than flying off the handle?" This further misrepresents my editing as I had posed a question. It also states I made a mistake when I had not. Here[93] I indicated to JzG that I felt their posting was a misrepresentation and requested them to strike the offending comment. JzG then posted "You accuse me of racism, in two venues,..."[94] I repeated my request that JzG should strike their comment.[95]

Here[96] JzG questioned my competence. I replied here[97] stating this was uncivil and requested them to strike their comments. JzG replied with a posting[98] which included "I pointed out the by now obvious fact that you lack an understanding of the medical literature in general. Again, this is a refusal to strike the offending comment, with a further personal attack.

I reminded JzG on their talk page[99] that I had made two requests to strike comments. Their reply included "Says the person who accused me of racism (in two separate venues)..." and "I believe you lack WP:COMPETENCE in this area." Again, this seriously misrepresents my postings and is also a further personal attack. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for DrChrissy

If people look at Talk:Acupuncture#Please leave comments below, you will see that many believe that DrChrissy is incompetent in terms of his evaluation of sources. We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, do you want a series of diffs here to show you why people think you lack competence in this area? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kww That thread is less than 6 hrs old, and I would not call 5 "many".DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ NeilN Thank you for offering diffs showing why people think I am incompetent. I will politely decline at this time. However, if you have diffs showing that 'I am incompetent, I would be interested to see these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Would all other editors considering calling me incompetent please think about this. If I am incompetent, does this mean JzG is allowed to be uncivil to me and misrepresent my postings? I think not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy i hope your deletion of my comment was inadvertent. restoring it: you actually wrote "Wow! Is this racist?" (and even linked to it) in response to a statement of a well-documented fact about Chinese publications on TCM and acupuncture, and you are here claiming personal attacks against you. oy. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It was totally inadvertent - I got caught up in an edit conflict.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

for pete's sake, you also deleted a comment by olive Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The environment on Acupuncture is complex and vitriolic. Topic banning one editor is a simplistic and unfair solution to what has gone on there. I suggest that anyone who wants to make clueful decisions read more than the thread/opinions of the editors who want to remove that editor. By the way if we want to start banning editors because we consider them incompetent, we can sanction a big percentage of WP. Editors have to learn and we all continue to learn here every time we edit. We do that with the help of other editors. (I have made a few cmts on the article but have not edited as far as I can remember this article, and left because of the quality of the environment and discussion there.)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

what a mess. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy makes useful contributions to articles on animal behavior. But when he turns to alternative medicine his histrionic, self-righteous and uncooperative approach is distinctly unhelpful in an area that already is prone to conflict. (Diffs to follow.) A topic ban is overdue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Short Brigade Harvester Boris: No, his edits on animal behavior also show a competence issue. At coprophagia, he dumped in a whole boatload of text lifted from rabbit-- text that was often off-topic to that article, unnecessary, and covered by a link to rabbit,[100] and which I had to trim. [101] I am not familiar with his other editing, but I would not say he shows competence in editing around animal behavior topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply This is a content issue, not competence. Please look at my User page to see the number of animal behaviour articles I have started and contributed to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The edits looked OK to me, but admittedly I'm out of my element regarding that topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris You stated that my approach was "histrionic, self-righteous and uncooperative..." and further said "(Diffs to follow)". Please provide these diffs so that I can rebutt them, otherwise, please strike your comment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me help out here, as I have until now not taken a position on whether you should be topic banned, since I haven't experienced the particular suite of articles where these issues arise, but am watching this unfold.

You provide an example right here in this discussion.

After Bishonen makes this perfectly helpful and neutrally worded post, you respond with: "I'm sure the admins will note the tone you used." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, exactly stuff like that... In another context I'd probably write off Chrissy as a tone troll. Zad68 13:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Per DrChrissy's request. This is the guideline (WP:MEDDATE) you were quoting for these removals: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, with newer being better. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies."

• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Not a review
• Clumsy reading of source (see Talk:Acupuncture#.22Western_Medical_Acupuncture.22)
• Google hits? Really?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Ahhhhhh! I have only just seen what the issue is here. It is the removal of non-review material older than 5 yrs old. I interpreted the word "review" in this guideline with a broader perspective. Most scientific papers contain a review of the literature and I thought the guidelines were referring to this. If I was mis-interpreting this, why was I not told at the time? that would have been the collegiate approach.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't wash. Most references you removed weren't scientific papers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on this, and the persistent misunderstanding or misapplication of WP:MEDRS, would the appropriate topic-ban scope to consider be just alt-med or (human) biomedical content in general? An inability to understand and apply the WP:MEDRS sourcing guideline in general (as opposed to only in the alt-med area) should indicate a commensurate scope for a topic ban. Zad68 15:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good time to discuss a topic ban for DrChrissy, based on tendentiousness and an apparent lack of WP:COMPETENCE in this area. DrChrissy has accused me of racism (in two separate venues) for stating that Chinese studies produce only positive results, proposed Dean Radin's Explore journal as a reliable source and then characterised rejection of it as an attempt to mislead others as to the criteria by which we judge sources. I struggle to think of any criteria by which Explore would be considered a relaibel source for an article on a medical subject.

The problem here is that DrChrissy, who seems to me to be a very knowledgeable editor on the subject of wildfowl, has chosen to pile in to an article whose content is considered contentious by some believers in acupuncture, in that it follows the scientific consensus view rather than the philosophical view founded on vitalism and "other ways of knowing". This happens all the time. What DrChrissy has done, though, is to conduct a dumpster dive through the positive literature, drop a whole bunch of low-quality sources on the talk page with no proposed edits based on them, and then accuse all and sundry of bias and malfeasance when the nebulously proposed sources are rejected.

Instead of picking one or two that might be defensible and proposing edits based on them, DrChrissy has adopted exactly the all-or-nothing approach of which he accuses the reality-based editors, and assumes that every source proposed is equally valid and every objection equally invalid - and the mere existence on this list of a paper published in Explore (SNIP: 0.613; SJR: 0.307; Impact Factor: 0.935) is sufficient to refute that claim in its entirety. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG Do you not have a single word to say to defend your uncivility toward me?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Guy (Help!) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that JzG has been uncivil, DrChrissy. I only see accurate descriptions of your editing and behaviour.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(multiple ec) DrChrissy is shopping for a WP:BOOMERANG, by loudly demonstrating his dedicated, enthusiastic, unapologetic, and incorrigible lack of WP:COMPETENCE. I don't know if he's going to get a topic ban from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) pages from this noticeboard, or if it's going to take an AE filing, but that seems to be the path he's chosen for himself.

Conveniently, DrChrissy has helpfully and proudly summarized his most recent campaign of disruptive IDHT and POINTy (mis)conduct at Talk:Acupuncture, with this edit. Over the course of two or three days, DrChrissy created at least eight new sections on the article talk page; each time, he provided just a URL and a demand for other editors to tell him if the source was "reliable for inclusion in the article", or declaring that a particular link "seems to be reliable for inclusion in the article". Despite multiple pleas from other editors, DrChrissy repeatedly refused to indicate how he proposed using any of the sources, or which statements he might wish to support with them. (You can find the ensuing discussions in the five consecutive threads start with Talk:Acupuncture#Is this a reliable source? and the three consecutive threads starting at Talk:Acupuncture#Reliable source (i). DrChrissy has explicitly admitted that he actually had not read some of the papers and publications that he presented ([102]); I fear he hasn't gotten past the abstract of most or all of them.

While Littleolive oil is correct that we should make allowances for new editors and encourage them to learn about our policies and practices, the patience to educate and tolerate (purportedly unintentional) disruption is not limitless. DrChrissy has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to learn from his experiences so far, and allowing continued disruption seems unlikely to be of benefit to the project.

The whole bit about DrChrissy suggesting that JzG was racist (or was making racist remarks) is part an parcel of a much larger pattern of disruption. This AN/I filing by DrChrissy is just a (poorly-played) attempt at point-scoring to try to punish one of the many editors who have persistently pointed out the problems with his own use of talk pages. DrChrissy's I-was-just-asking-questions excuse is very weak tea, and again he doesn't help his case to draw attention to his own behavior. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Tenofalltrades, you use rather emotive and careless language. First, I did not "demand" anything, rather, I posted a question about the suitability of sources. Any one of the editors that replied could simply have walked away. No editor was under any obligation to comment. Secondly, you stated "DrChrissy has explicitly admitted that he actually had not read some of the papers and publications that he presented." This is misleading. In fact, what I wrote was "The answer is No, I have not yet read the full article."[103] (My emphasis on "full") I only had access to the abstract which is partly why I asked the question "Is it suitable?" I am aware that other editors have different levels of literature access and I was hoping, in a collegiate way, that another editor would be able to help me develop the article. Please note, I did not attempt to enter content into the article. I was using the Talk page for what they are intended - discussion about the content of the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy, your orignal comment "Wow! Is this racist?" looks very much like a rhetorical question. I'm not surprised that User Talk:JzG saw it as an accusation. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And the irony here is that I did not complain about it, I stated that I understood why he might make such an accusation, being ignorant of the field, and the response was to accuse me of incivility. Passive-aggressive, stubborn and thin-skinned are not a good combination... Guy (Help!) 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Based on what I have been able to discern from a rather messy series of disagreements, I'd say that a BOOMERANG is rapidly approaching. A topic ban seems to be a reasonable response to a tendentious editor and abuse of process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply I'm sure the admins looking at this will be aware that it is the quality of comments that are taken into consideration, not the quantity. Diffs would have helped your comment, otherwise, I'm afraid it reads as if you have simply looked at other editors' comments and perhaps joined a band-wagon.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Crissy has a history of complaining that other editors are attacking him during normal discussion, and his editing at times appears to be pointy. On May 8th, NeilN opened discussion of some edits on the article, wherein he said there were "clumsy changes to the lead". Neil's next edit, 8 minutes later, removed the comment. Crissy accused Neil of attacking him, and then went on to complain that Neil had removed the attack without permission. When I approached Crissy about it, he reiterated that his concern was Neil removing (Neil's own) content from the talk page. If Crissy truly felt the comment was a personal attack directed at him, then his objection to it being removed is nothing short of pointy; he doesn't appear to want to act collegially, but instead accuse his "opponents" of treating him unfairly so he can "win" disputes.

He also fails to listen to others and engages in behavior he's been told is disruptive. On May 9th, he created 5 sections asking if a source was "reliable" without providing any content. He has been informed repeatedly by at least 7 editors that his question couldn't be answered without content. ( [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112])

Yet, he refused to provide any, and on May 11th he posted several new sections with the very same question. He was corrected again, but ignored the complaints, saying he was being bullied, and didn't have to comply. He posted a new section with the same problem that evening. On the 12th, he admitted he wasn't even reading the sources he's proposing. After these repeated, incessant requests that Crissy provide content proposals alongside a source, he posted a new section today, wherein he complained other editors were being unfair, and said "However, it appears that some editors dismiss or criticise entire sources without knowing the context of any content to be added." I can't interpret this as anything but Crissy intentionally refusing to provide a content proposal so that he could later complain that editors were shooting down his sources without knowing the content it was to back up.

DrCrissy is not here to collaborate with others on alt med, or he is unable to. He should be topic banned from alt med, so he can focus on contributions to less contentious topics.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note I refactored my own post [113] because I saw Zad68 open a new thread on the same topic [114], probably not seeing mine yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both edits were relatively uncontroversial in my mind. However, that Crissy complained both about your edit, and about your removal of your edit, indicates to me that he is attempting to score points for "abuse", rather than work collaboratively to solve problems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Re: The edit by NeilN. I made the reversion as per WP:TPG which states "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." It appeared to me that NeilN did precisely that to cover-up their personal attack in the thread heading.

Re: My requests about suitability of potential sources. I suggested several potential sources to the Talk page to ascertain their suitability for inclusion in the article. I placed them in separate sections so that editors could make comments about each individual source without the discussion becoming confused. It appears this has irritated some editors. Apologies for causing this irritation - it will not hapen again. The practice of putting up sources for discussion about suitability is common on many article Talk pages. Editors on the page were informed of this by another editor here.[115]

Re: Confused feedback Despite Jess' stating that source suitability can only be judged in context (which I agree with), the article has a history of entire journals being dismissed irrespective of context. To save time in creating article content only to have this reverted because a journal was unacceptable for unforeseen reasons, I chose to put the sources up for discussion. Several of these were dismissed because the entire journal was considered unacceptable, despite there being no context. This is totally confusing for editors. I summarised this concern and others about acceptance/rejection of sources here[116] in a way to offer collegiate discussion about how the article can be improved.

Re: Reading the sources. You stated "...admitted he wasn't even reading the sources he's proposing". You are the second editor who appears to be trying to mislead the admins. I wrote " The answer is No, I have not yet read the full article."[117] Please see my further comments to the other editor above.

Re: Collaboration. You stated "DrCrissy is not here to collaborate with others on alt med..." Please see the following diffs as examples of my collaboration within and outwith this article in alt med.[118] Talk:Acupuncture#A few sentences Talk:Acupuncture#German acupuncture trials my edits on Veterinary acupuncture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs)

The only one seeing my post as a personal attack is you (which is part the problems discussed here). And please stop inserting your replies before existing replies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on alt.med topics after looking at other contribs I am changing this to all biomedical content, widely construed. User is not here to work collaboratively and does not seem to understand, or is not willing to understand, our guidelines. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support action, either the proposed topic ban or broader sanctions such as a general ban or block. WP:COMPETENCE issues, PLUS bad attitude, PLUS allegations against another editor, PLUS apparent general lack of ability to work collaboratively (see this response to a reasonable question) AND all this is happening in a sensitive topic area with medical considerations where a cool head and ability to work with others is even more important than usual? Wow. Just wow. Not sure a simple narrow topic ban is going to suffice here as per SandyGeorgia there appear to be issues outside the altmed topic area too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply It is grossly misleading to have taken that one diff out of context. At the time, I was receiving a barrage of demands to provide the context in which potential sources might be used. The editors had no right to demand that. Furthermore, the tone of some editors was extremely unpleasant, e.g. "Your refusal to provide context when requested is very uncollaborative. If you do this again, anyone here would be correct to collapse your request as a talk page violation until you provide context."[119] As I have indicated above to another editor, the administrators will be looking at the quality of postings, not the quantity. Unfortunately, you did not provide diffs to your competence, attitude, allegations, collaboration concerns. Therefore, your vote is unsupported.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for all biomedical topics. In the encounters I've had with this editor the competence issues have been compounded with an extremely combative approach which leads to nothing but wasted time. Reviewing his edits I also have concerns about COI-tainted editing/advocacy -- though of course Wikipedia being as it is I cannot reveal the nature of this publicly as it woud entail WP:OUTING. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn Per WP:ASPERSIONS You might want to strike that last sentence since you cant prove it. AlbinoFerret 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly prove I have concerns, and would be happy to forward relevant material to an arbitrator or other appropriate party if necessary. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, in this public talk page it cant be proved. Uless you can prove it here, then the claim is an assperation. If you think there is a problem take it to the appropriate place. Since you cant prove it here, its against WP:ASPERSIONS. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find the need not to out people takes priority. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the reason you should strike it. If you have a claim you cant prove in public, take it to the arbcom mailing list. This is not the place to cast aspirations you cant prove in public. AlbinoFerret 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Very naughty Alexbrn...I have absolutuely no COI. Please strike your comments and a posted apology would be much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Alexbrn please strike your message regarding COI editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 08:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per every word by LittleOliveOil above. petrarchan47คุก 18:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for all controversial medical topics. If you check the edit history funny things were happening to the lede because of DrChrissy. The evidence presented by other editors is overwhelming. This is a waste of time. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC

ReplyYour link is to a content discussion. This does not support your vote.

• Oppose topic ban (uninvolved non admin) At the heart this is a content dispute on a contentious article. Removing DrChrissy would remove an editor that has a different viewpoint than the editors of the article calling for the ban. Articles are always better when they have multiple viewpoints. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't always true, sometimes the unproductive behavior of an editor can waste so much time or interfere with consensus-building that article quality will suffer while Talk page discussions get sidetracked. This can happen no matter what the editor's viewpoint is. Zad68 19:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Also AlbinoFerret you describe yourself as "uninvolved," but just in the past 3 months, you and JzG were involved together in an ARBCOM case request here, you and DrChrissy !voted together against JzG at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks; you, DrChrissy and JzG all commented in the discussion here User_talk:Atsme/Archive_9#Discretionary_sanctions_notification_-_CAM. Also a bit earlier than that, you, myself, QuackGuru, Jytdog and Formerly 98 all edited at Electronic cigarette, before you took a voluntary topic-ban. You may not have been editing at Acupuncture in particular but you appear to have have recent history with DrChrissy and JzG, plus many editors in this discussion. Zad68 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing for or against any of the editors involved in this discussion and I am uninvolved with the article this took place on. I consider myself uninvolved. AlbinoFerret 20:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor closing this discussion would do well to read through the diffs I provided first. Zad68 20:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The link, comment on Atsme's page is in response to a joke she made, I was watching here page because of the article essay we were working on and saw the post. This section isnt about Atsme though, and I did not address anything of substance or interact with any of the posters in that section other than Atsme's joke. as for the diff to the long ago arbcom case, I dont remember mentioning JzG. AlbinoFerret 20:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Also, per WP:FRINGE, there's lots of articles which would not be better if they had multiple viewpoints. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban: Per olive and AlbinoFerret. DrChrissy can be many of the things mentioned here, and I have had conflicts with this editor, but on the other hand, I think this editor does a good job of raising the right questions to be asked in any area. It may be unconfortable, but I have seen this editor able to drop the stick when treated with civility and respect. DrChrissy IS capable of collaboration and cooperation. In contrast, some of the folks here asking for a topic ban (not all) are often quick to go from zero to vicious attack at the slightest hint that their viewpoint is being challenged. The comments about toxic environment are well taken and I think it is important that opposing views not be suppressed. My thought is to focus on behavior only on a case-by-case basis and perhaps instead institute a 1RR restriction on copyedits across the board. Also, perhaps all of these articles should have EVERYONE restricted to two comments at talk per topic, one statement and one reply/rebuttal. This crowd takes no prisoners, it seems, and someone needs to ratchet it down a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DrChrissy did not understand at the time that the text was blatant SYN/OR. See WP:CIR. AlbinoFerret thinks this is a content dispute? Whaat? QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw that really seems like poor judgment. You're saying DrChrissy is capable of collaboration and cooperation. But DrChrissy is pretty clearly not demonstrating that skill here. Isn't that exactly the kind of situation that calls for a topic ban? Have you looked through the diffs? Zad68 19:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • • Zad68, trust me, I've had disputes with DrChrissy, but I don't think their behavior rises to the level of getting out the pitchforks and torches. I have to say that the hardcore anti-pseudoscience crowd is VERY difficult - there is only one right answer and it's theirs. There is no room for questions, discussion or debate. Disagreement with them means you can only be an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet who is a homopath and wears a tinfoil helmet. I really think that we need to consider the source and look at this page - dozens of comments, multiple times from certain parties, it is a bully-fest of epic proportions.

@QG At the heart it is a content dispute, its an argument over sources. I also noticed when asked to show what OR you were referring to , you didnt. AlbinoFerret 19:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I previously explained that the text was OR. This was WP:IDHTing behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret, you previously wrote "I think I want to add another article to my list of ones I want to edit, perhaps acupuncture would be nice." Did your acupuncture comment threaten to WP:HOUND me in this context? What are you doing now? Why did you claim you are uninvolved? QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently? That diff is 8 months old, and at that time I was unaware of WP:HOUND. It may surprise you, but I am quite active on this page QG, I havent followed you. Neither have I edited Acupuncture. I suggest you strike that comment, because its a false accusation. What am I doing now? I am doing what I normally do on this page, objectively look at the section and comment like lots of other community members do. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, per my comment above. Repeated efforts to educate DrChrissy regarding constructive use and discussion of sources for biomedical topics have made no progress. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply I have already dealt with the comment here[120] I would add that the feedback I was being given was totally confused. Despite statements that source suitability can only be judged in context (which I agree with), the article has a history of entire journals being dismissed irrespective of context. To save time in creating article content only to have this reverted because a journal was unacceptable for unforeseen reasons, I chose to put the sources up for discussion. Several of these were dismissed because the entire journal was considered unacceptable, despite there being no context. This is totally confusing for editors. I summarised this concern and others about acceptance/rejection of sources here[121] in a way to offer collegiate discussion about how the article can be improved.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Impose 1RR/ 2 cmt article discussion control. Zad. Your words are telling Think about it. Dr Christien edits pretty normally according to someone who has worked with him/her but here you say he doesn't demonstrate that skill. What's different? Any chance the other editors on this article with personal attacks and pretty vicious cmts about a topic area are partly at fault. I agree with a cmt above. This is about content, and removing one party in such a dispoute is a strategy I am very familair with. I suggest we try restrictions on the article which implies responsibility and remedies rest with all editors and see what happens before we inpose such far reaching sanctions on a single person.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
  • Olive the main issue is the persistent, WP:POINT-y lack of understanding of WP:MEDRS, exacerbated by their combative style. Whether they're doing this on purpose or not I can't really tell, but the result is the same, disruptive misuse of the article Talk page which interferes with article development. Zad68 20:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I couldn't disagree more.You are placing blame for the dysfunction on that talk page on one editor. The problem is much larger than that and includes multiple editors not just one. I will never support sanctions on one editor given what I've seen. If you want to sanction do it across the board. Since that won't happen; I suggest imposing restrictions on the discussion and article itself which means all editors have to behave.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC))
      • Olive, I'm placing some of the blame for the dysfunction on one editor, yes. It happens to be the most obvious and disruptive dysfunction at the moment. One philosophy is, Go for the low-hanging fruit: remove the most disruptive elements one-by-one until the level of dysfunction (there's always some) is manageable, then get back to work. However, let's be honest here: Nobody in these areas is ever going to get topic-banned like this at AN or ANI, really. Barring CheesyAppleFlake-like behavior, each perceived "side" has enough wiki-friends that will line up in defense of their "own" (even if they'll admit to themselves that the behavior actually is bad) to prevent a clear enough consensus for a topic-ban from forming. And that's what's happening here, even those opposing a topic ban (including yourself) aren't saying Chrissy's behavior is exemplary, but rather they don't want to lose an editor with their content perspective. OK, let's accept that reality. So you're offering Level the playing field. Let's explore those options, I don't think "Impose 1RR/ 2 cmt article discussion control" is right but willing to see what else we can come up with... but I have to step away. Zad68 21:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I actually find the low hanging fruit metaphor frightening. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, what appears to be low hanging and what is low hanging can be two different things. You can push on someone long enough so that they become upset, frustrated and behaviour changes. In the meantime the pushing isn't apparent just the resultant behaviour. We've lost some outstanding editors because they were thought to be low hanging and then only years later was the rest of the fruit discovered. :O) I respect your position just from my experience cannot agree. IRR works very well for editors who aren't pushing a POV. But I've said enough.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

To the admins There is obviously a wide range of issues here. It would be impossible for any human to address these all in just a few hours, and it seems this has developed into a feeding frenzy where immediate comment on my part is expected. Could I respectfully request that an admin or admins identifies which of these issues should be dealt with first. I am happy to deal with all of them if that is your request, but that will clearly require some time.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Strongly per Littleolive oil. It is clear that this is a heated content dispute, but using a club to resolve this dispute is not the way to go. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on biomedicine (#1) or alt med (#2). This is absolutely not a content dispute, despite DrCrissy's framing of it. Crissy consistently engages in disruptive behavior, consistently ignores requests, consistently poisons the well to polarize the discussion, consistently refuses to engage in collaborative or productive behavior (like explaining his edits or proposing content), and so on. Sure, behind his disruptive behavior are edits that are always pro acupuncture by removing (or marginalizing) any criticism, but that's not the issue editors are raising here. Crissy's advocacy could be addressed if he worked collaboratively, but with his refusal to listen to or coorporate with others, that isn't possible. Consistent disruption on this level isn't "providing alternate viewpoints", it's disrupting other editors' ability to work collaboratively and make improvements.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: Acupuncture may be utter bunkum. Yet brains scans (which are not influenced by belief, dogma, or anything else) -objectivity show an affect of changing brain function. Until that is explained, this practice can not be put in the bin of pseudo science. There are things that may be learnt from this research (eg in the field of neurology). DrChrissy is has been including research that adds to the total body of knowledge without favour. Even back in the days of printed encyclopedias they included unproven theorems because they conducted themselves as encyclopedias. i.e., a synopsis, font and cornucopia of all that has been recorded on the subjects included – in an objective manner. Which -as students- we all benefited from having that wider- field-of-view. Some of the comments above are attempts to put blinkers on readers. Scientists don't need blinkers. We are naturally sceptical by nature, which lead us into to occupations (with low salaries) where we endeavour to disprove old ideas – and thus gain new insights for the benefit of all mankind. So we don't need a few 'WP article owners' which think they own this article, to tell us how to think, behave and conduct ourselves. If there is to be a topic ban, then let it fall upon those editors that are thwarting WP's spirit of free knowledge.--Aspro (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Littleolive oil and Montanabw.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I've been half-assedly following along on the discussions related to this topic, without getting involved myself. This looks like yet another example of the Wikipedia community's chronic inability to say no. This editor's participation in the topic is tendentious and uncollegial and has not changed in response to feedback. Time to decline his offer of further participation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Then get more involved. DrChrissy is doing the very opposite of being biased. Also, he is not supporting any received dogma. --Aspro (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• comment Hi Opabinia reglis. I don't think we have been in contact before. Do you really think it is appropriate for you to be supporting sanctions on an editor when you have only been following the discussions "half-assedly". This is a serious matter which affects my life - and I would lke to suggest you treat it in that manner.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You misread. @Opabinia regalis: is not saying they have been half-assedly following the discussion here. They have half-assedly followed the discussions related to this discussion. This makes the implication that they have been half-assedly following prior conversations related to this one. For you to take such issue with JzG to allegedly be misrepresenting you, I find it odd you don't take more care not to misrepresent others.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you run all that by us again. Your grammar does not make sense when object, subject, subjective case ,etc., gets all mixed up like that in your post witch ewe rote. --Aspro (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure! The above is a misrepresentation of what Opabinia regalis has said. To quote them, "I've been half-assedly following along on the discussions related to this topic, without getting involved myself." This discussion we are having here on ANI is the topic they allude to. Discussions (plural) alludes to discussions prior to this one here on ANI. I'm unsure if this misrepresentation is a sign of incompetence or if it was on purpose. It seems to me though that if someone comes to ANI to bitch about others misrepresenting them then they should take care not to do the same to others.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho is correct. Sorry for the confusion. Incidentally, I've only been half-assedly following the prior conversations because they're so long and tedious and repetitive and filled with WP:IDHT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - please don't tell me we have now resorted to topic banning editors because they expect civility and politeness. --Atsme^☎️📧 22:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support due to concerns that they are unable to apply MEDRS appropriately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Rude and uncollaborative. I don't follow alt.med articles closely enough to assess DrChrissy's competence off my own bat, but I see many well-reasoned arguments above that it's weak or lacking. Also I'd call him rude and uncollaborative. Boris called his attitude on alt med "histrionic and self-righteous" above,[122] and that was exactly my impression when I went to his page recently because I'd noticed something odd on my watchlist. This conversation followed, which I invite you to form your own opinion of, and then he promptly "banned" me from his page, along with two other good-faith editors (NeilN and BullRangifer).[123] As far as I've seen, DrChrissy edits alt med discussions in a combative way, with an extreme readiness to take offense — same as is illustrated in the userpage thread I link to above, and in his frivolous complaint against JzG above. And indeed both these things apparently flowed from heated discussions on Talk:Acupuncture. A topic ban from these articles would surely be good for the atmosphere on them, and let many good editors focus their energies more productively. It might even help DrChrissy himself to regroup. PS, after edit conflict: I'm amazed at Atsme's comment just above that we're 'resorting to topic banning editors because they expect civility and politeness'. It's true that DrChrissy is extremely interested in "incivility", but only in perceived incivility from others. He'll frame criticism as incivility, and such touchiness is uncivil in itself IMO, no matter how many "please" and "thankyou" he injects into his discourse. Please read my diff: would you say it was because he "expected civility and politeness" that he refused to let anybody fix Neil's typo, or banned me from his page? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC).
• Support Having looked at everything presented here, there's really no option but to topic ban DrChrissy, honestly. Their behavior is WP:CPUSH to an extreme level. None of the oppose votes so far have even begun to address some of the egregious diffs presented, which is troubling as well. Parabolist (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban - It appears from the discussion on Talk:Acupuncture many users attempted to cooperate with Chrissy, to which he refused to meet them half way. Since it has been shown not only here (excellent points made by Bishonen by the way) that Chrissy has a history with these situations, a topic ban could possibly help him understand what "civility" and "politeness" actually are. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Change of venue Given that the subject area is under discretionary sanctions this would be more properly handled at WP:AE. An advantage of AE is that proceedings there are more structured, and follow other constraints that tend to lead to more thoughtful consideration of the arguments than ANI. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The request for ban was open on basis other than DS. A request that is in ANI's wheelhouse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from human biomedical content (first choice) or, failing that, alt-med subject matter. The core is the persistent failure to understand or apply WP:MEDRS, despite many many patient explanations by many experienced editors--this indicates they shouldn't be editing in content relevant to WP:MEDRS, which is human biomedical content. Certainly their behavior at Acupunture has been a flashpoint, and unfortunately I expect that behavior to get carried over to the next subject area they go to, but at least an alt-med TBAN would relieve (to some degree) the most urgent issue. Zad68 00:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out/emphasize that asking only for a topic-ban is being very generous. A TBAN only addresses the issues related to their inability to grasp WP:MEDRS, it totally ignores the behavior issues evident most clearly in the diffs Bishonen provides--those kinds of behavior issues can really only handled with a block. Zad68 00:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban One example was on 27 April 2015 when DrChrissy asked Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (permalink). I replied half an hour later with the standard answer that mundane statements do not need a top-quality source, and WP:PARITY means top-quality sources are not needed to refute fringe claims. DrChrissy's responses show they looking for reasons to knock out opposition to acupuncture's claims in order to promote the efficacy of acupuncture as a medical treatment. After the massive discussion there and elsewhere, DrChrissy recently posted an enormous set of claims at Talk:Acupuncture to re-open past rejections of dubious sources. DrChrissy now switches to trying to knock out an editor with the above report based on the "Wow! Is this racist?" comment by DrChrissy here at acupuncture talk. Asking "is your comment racist?" (that is, "are you racist?") is not available as a backdoor method of asserting that someone is racist, and bringing the matter to ANI shows a severe lack of judgment, and at least a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (uninvolved) per Zad68 definitely from alt-med, though I see a pretty good case being made here for biomedical in general. The case is laid out pretty well above that this behavior is problematic. I've run into DrChrissy a few times at some agriculture articles and didn't really see any problems with their behavior. However, often where MEDRS applies though, especially more fringe type stuff, they seem to act like a bull in a china shop in terms of combative behavior and lashing out at other editors whenever I've glanced at the conversations. DrChrissy came close to administrative action at this ANI, so since it doesn't look like their behavior has been improving in this general topic area, a topic ban seems like the next logical step. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban Per WP:CIR competence is required but it is lacking here as it relates to MEDRS. You could also question the competence of coming to ANI with unclean hands. You can try to WP:CRUSH them with kindness but this to often is a cause for incivility. It's time for this to stop. Honestly, it is very generous if this only ends with a Topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban both on the basis of CIR, and also on the basis of their WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards other editors. BMK (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of this editor who appears to be a fringe combat soldier determined to push pseudoscience on the Wikipedia battleground. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on biomedical and alternative medicine topics, widely construed. This is a generous offer, since a complete ban would be the only other helpful alternative left, and I don't think that is necessary, unless the topic ban is rejected. Then a total ban should be used. Allowing DrChrissy to continue to edit animal topics would allow them to develop competence in those areas. The major problems I've seen are lack of COMPETENCE, massive IDHT behavior, rudeness, uncollaborative, failures to AGF, and gross failures to understand MEDRS and sourcing requirements. They have gone so far as to repeatedly claim that Quackwatch is not peer reviewed (and should therefore not be used), when websites are not expected to be peer reviewed. We use non peer reviewed websites and sources all the time, especially when they cover topics from angles not dealt with in peer reviewed research, such as controversies. The desire to exclude sources which deal with controversies is unwikipedian. We need them. In this case DrChrissy is consistent in seeking to eliminate those which don't support their position. This is far from a content dispute. Behavior and competence are major factors. A "fringe combat soldier" (very well put, Cullen328!) about sums it up. We don't need tendentious editors creating disruption on sensitive subjects they don't understand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply Here is an example of the way BullRangifer talks to me in discussions, ". It's a website, and not a "blog" type website. NEVER call it a "blog" again, got that?! Learn what that term means,..."[124]...and they accuse me of being rude!DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy this is just another example of you being combative with another user, who may have lost his/her cool for that reason, so why would you give this as a diff for people to read?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Doc James above. Behavior seems to be another major problem. He seems very quick to take offense and to create mountains from minor percieved slights. The editing style just seems very combative. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 09:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support I was one of the two targets of the last ANI that DrChrissy brought against someone, which also turned to boomerang quickly. I recommended that ANi be closed with just a trout, and it was. The (to use the going phrase) "fringe combat soldier" behavior seems to have only gotten worse, based on DrChrissy's behavior as described here, and demonstrated here, and from reviewing Talk:Acupuncture. Since nothing was learned from the trout, I will support a topic ban from biomedical in general here. Note - DrChrissy seems to have contributed productively to content related to non-human animal health topics in the past, and even received endorsement from someone I respect very much -- Tryptofish (who still has not returned) -- back in Oct 2013 (see here). It is hard to understand what has happened to DrChrissy to go so far astray. So the topic ban should perhaps be limited to biomedical (which includes alt-med) content about humans (including content about non-human animals if it relates to humans (e.g. toxicity tests). DrChrissy should perhaps be free to edit content about animal biomedical content that is not contextually related to human biomedical content -- content like this: Pain in invertebrates. I know that nuance at ANI is not a good thing... but I will add that other editors may have something to say about his behavior on non-human animal content and thus "biomedical" should perhaps be more broadly construed. I was subject of a past ANI for being uncivil to DrChrissy, during which I apologized and was warned. That was me losing it, over the kinds of behavior described in this thread, at the article on Foie gras, where i became exasperated. That is not an excuse for my behavior that led to the ANI, of course. But I am trying to say that I have experienced the poor behavior at non-human animal health articles. All I am endorsing here is a topic ban on human biomedical content, however. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding proposed topic ban for DrChrissy

Clarity please It appears that User:Zad68 formed this secondary topic here[125]. Am I correct to assume this means Zad68 is the user who initiated sanctions against me?DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

May I know why you ask, DrChrissy, before I type up a whole thing, just to save us both some time? Because if it's because you're wondering if Zad68 is an "involved admin" who shouldn't "initiate sanctions", I think I can clear that up for you. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

My request is really for a very general reason - I believe if you are being accused of something, you should be aware of who is the accuser.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case just look at the diff you yourself give: Zad merely added a header to a proposal floated by Neil, namely "We were considering going to Arbitration Enforcement to request a topic ban relative to CAM articles, but I'd be just as happy to get one from ANI". So Neil, not Zac, was the first to propose a community sanction. Many other people have accused you of specific things above. Nobody has initiated sanctions", by the way — no sanctions have been initiated yet. But I seem to be telling you very obvious things; I'm still not sure what's unclear. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for that - I'm sure the admins will note the tone you used.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, it was Kww who floated the proposal, not me. But really, all this because a header was added? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• A comment by Formerly 98 was added in this diff. I have moved it above this discussion so it is not lost. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have chosen to question this elsewhere. My concern about Bishonen's edit is the use of "Many other people have accused you of specific things above" and "But I seem to be telling you very obvious things". These were totally unnecessary for the answer to be provided - just another attempt to taunt me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• @User talk:Formerly 98Please separate my comment from yours.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since it seems to be of concern to you. I've adjusted the formattingt on Formeraip's comment to differentiate it from yours, but I also feel compelled to say that that the request you made is of a piece with your misapprehension of the importance of form versus content. It was clear to pretty much everyone except the most extremely literal-minded editor where your edit ended and FormeraIP's began. Such extremes of literalness is a problem I've noted in s number of Wikipedia editors in the past, and, in fact, continues to be a problem with many of them. BMK (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass bio creation without establishing notability by Philafrenzy

It all started innocently enough.

1. On 15 April, Philafrenzy linked Romie Tager to a BLP I created on a autism researcher, Helen Tager-Flusberg. [126]
2. The first version I viewed [127] looked like a political hit job (those are going around these days in UK bios) or WP:BLP1E issue based on sources that did not rise to the level required for a BLP. It used sources like:
   • Gordon Ramsay: I was a performing monkey while father-in-law had a cushy office job, that had a passing mention of Romie Tager.
3. Not being familiar with UK law, I asked Bencherlite to look in. [128]
4. On 24 April, Bencherlite submitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romie Tager, and the article was deleted on 8 May.
5. On 8 May, Philafrenzy submitted it to Deletion review, where the discussion is now about four times as long as the article and twice as long as the AFD.

   Now, where my concern about WP:POINTy mass creation of bios begins:

6. On 9 May, in that Deletion review and in response to a statement that Romie Tager was as notable as Helen Tager-Flusberg, I pointed out PROF, the notability guideline for academics. [129] (It is a mystery to me why some editors can spend so much bandwidth arguing notability for a lawyer, when lawyers so frequently get passing mention in newspapers, rather than developing a guideline for notability for the legal profession. The equivalent for academics would be to claim a researcher is notable because they have ten articles published in PubMed. They aren't. We have a standard for academics.)
7. Today, 14 May, since I still have Philafrenzy's talk watched, I noticed another editor querying him about notability for academics, which led to me discovering that:
8. In the last few days, Philafrenzy has been mass creating bios on academics where no notability is apparent, nor is it established in the articles.[130]

   Just a few samples can be seen at:

   1. John H. Arnold (historian)
   2. Judith Colton ‎
   3. Catharine Edwards (historian)
   4. David Feldman (historian) ‎
   5. Vanessa Harding (historian)
   6. Julian Swann ‎
   7. Frank Trentmann ‎
   8. Sonya Rose ‎
   9. Dominic Rathbone ... and there are more.

9. WP:POINT-- Here is the conversation about the matter on Philafrenzy's talk: [131]

So, he appears to understand PROF and is creating mass numbers of bios of academics that don't seem to be notable anyway. Reviewing my past discussions with him, it is unlikely that any further attempt by me to converse with him will yield anything productive. If he is creating these bios to make a point, there are an awful lot of them that need to be dealt with-- I have tagged only some of them, and another editor has indicated they won't likely survive speedy deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mad conspiracy theory to be honest. There is absolutely NO connection between the creation of bios for professors of history at the University of London and the Tager article. Tager is a lawyer, not an academic. I do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. What point would I be trying to make exactly? Each of these historians would survive an AFD in my opinion. They are stubs that need to be expanded. What's wrong with that? Every article has to start somewhere. Sandy has never forgiven me for using the Daily Mail in the Tager BLP and I seem to have earned Sandy's eternal enmity for it. This has overtones of stalking. And what is a "political hit job"? Just to be absolutely clear, I have never had the slightest doubt that Helen Tager-Flusberg as a professor at Boston University is notable, nor have I ever suggested she isn't. The matter has never even been discussed as far as I can recall. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. of the linked articles one is a full professor at Yale, another the director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism and another president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. I see the Colton article has just been expanded by another editor (not at my prompting), she won a prize for a book apparently. It will be interesting to see what other expansions are made. Stubs are not spam, they are a gift to the editing community. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue with most of the articles is not whether or not the subject is notable, but whether the article makes any claim of notability. Most did not. X is a professor of Y at the university of Z is not a claim of notability. WP:CSD#A7 is relevant here. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

At least two noted that criteria 6 of WP:PROF was met. I could easily have revised them to make the claim stronger but they have been deleted overnight it seems when I was not around to comment further. Can they be restored to my user space and I will work on them a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

These were:

Dominic Rathbone, president of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Carlo Monticelli has also been deleted (who wasn't even mentioned above) and is a director of the European Investment Bank and one of the lead negotiators in the Greek debt crisis (stated to be such in the article with coverage in third party RSs). Could that one be restored too please? (see Sky News article "The Men Who Hold The Euro's Fate In Their Hands" Philafrenzy (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Carlo Monticelli could have gone through an AFD process. It makes no sense to delete articles overnight--there needs to be a basic discussion, even with one-liners. We don't want to discourage article creators, just make them more discriminating.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see the misunderstanding. Notability is not inherited. Holding an office ina notable institution does nto confer notability, and is not even a credible claim of notability. Perhaps if the articles were longer than a single sentence there might be less of an issue. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What about Rathbone, Feldman (WP:PROF 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society") and Monticelli? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED (and indeed WP:NOTDIR). You need an actual claim of individual notability. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:PROF clearly says "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." See point 6. And you haven't commented on the random deletion of Monticelli. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocks needed?

Today seems to have been a day where an editor has been blocked, and has gone beserk, persistently IP hopping and posting various pieces of rubbish on User:Smalljim's talkpage (as well as other places). Although the ranges are generally all over the place, a large proportion of them seem to come from either the 81.135 series of IPs, or 86.165 range. Are these going to be too big to consider a rangeblock? All of the IPs are BT ones, although there has been another vandal (possibly, doesn't fit the pattern of the main one) who has hopped across three countries (let alone ISPs). Evidently Smalljim doesn't want to semi-protect their talkpage, but the vandalism is spread across other places as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP has made clear an intent to edit war, a complete disregard for any Wikipedia content policies, stated having no interest in discussion or mediation (per this edit).

The IP added some external links and is upset about their removal from Pharmacy automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by @Charlesdrakew:. Of the nine links they are adding, six are broken. Of the remaining three, one requires registration so should be omitted per WP:ELREG. The remaining two links are 1) Google abstract of a patent and 2) about page of a parent company which is no longer connected to the company mentioned in the article, which is now a separate legal entity.

The IP has posted rants on talk pages of anyone who reverts or blocks them, and vandalized additional pages while ranting against their dynamic IPs being temp-blocked by @Smalljim: and myself. Given the user's comments and actions, it would be useful to have additional admins monitoring the disruptions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

By repeatedly forcing vandals like this to get new addresses we can gain a better idea of what range(s) we can block. Bishonen has put one limited rangeblock in place already. I'll see if there's enough info for more - someone who's better at calculating rangeblocks than me could try to beat me to it (not hard!).  —SMALLJIM  20:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just done a quick calculation: edits from the whole of BT are running at about 60 per hour at the moment. In the hour to 21:00 (GMT) about 20 of them were reverted. So a block of the whole of BT for an hour would have affected about 40 (assumed) good edits. We can be much more accurate than blocking the whole ISP, so when a vandal is particularly lively, short blocks (under an hour) of part of this huge ISP doesn't cause as much collateral damage as I assumed it would. I'm not suggesting we actually do this now, but am putting it up as something to consider.  —SMALLJIM  21:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is really difficult to prevent abuse from ISPs such as BT, and rangeblocks cause quite a bit of collateral damage, so semiprotection is probably the way to go, unfortunately. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that short, targetted blocks won't cause as much CD as one might think.  —SMALLJIM  22:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with BT is that you can't target the rangeblocks. As you've seen above, a single vandal has hopped all over two separate /16 ranges which are also on two different /8s. When we had a problem a while back I experimented with it myself (I am on BT) and in ten resets, I ended up on three different /8s (81, 86 and 109 - and BT has three others) and only once did I hit the same /16 twice running. It does seem to matter where you are (certain parts of the UK do seem to hit the same ranges all the time), but in other cases it's incredibly difficult to stop a determined range-hopper. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting info thanks. I've collated the addresses that the vandal was good enough to provide us with yesterday and although as you say they jump about a fair bit, the evidence indicates we could have slowed him down a lot with just a few /22s, and/or a short term /16 or two.  —SMALLJIM  10:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editor threatens editors with mentioning them on external attack site

AnnalesSchool is a long-term tendentious editor who is chronically attacking his perceived opponents. In his latest outburst he mentions that an external website which is probably connected to him is going to mention us and is calling his opponents "nuts" and "off our rocker": You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The last thread on Talk:Greco-Italian War is littered with his attacks and crass sarcasm and I have given him level 4 NPA warnings on his talkpage in the past and in the latest thread at Talk:Greco-Italian War. His incivilities are too numerous to mention. The project is littered with the his widespread atacks. But I will provide another example of his vile attacks: He had told editor Cplakidas at Talk:Greco-Italian War: Sounds like you actually admire the Germans a lot more because they were more brutal and efficient. Do you happen to have a masochistic bent?. I ask that this editor be blocked for serially violating NPA, CIV, AGF and being tendentious as well as threatening other editors with mentioning them on external attack sites. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Details about the external attack site

The external attack website AnnalesSchool maintains and uses to attack Wikipedia editors is called www.comandosupremo.com and his attack article is here: What is wrong with many Wikipedia articles dealing with war-time Italy? in which he mentions: This particular article is held hostage by a small clique of Grecophiles with Greek-sounding usernames who have simply confiscated the entire article and laid claim to all editorial rights to it (which is against Wiki policy) so that it is well nigh impossible to actually improve and cleanse it of its many defects. It would better to delete such articles entirely and start again. But what is really sad is that these so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way, are not even aware of the damage they are doing to Wikipedia’s reputation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I've seen AnnalesSchool's editing in Military history of Italy during World War II (e.g. [132] , [133]). He is very set on focusing on the specific school in history that "rehabilitates" Italy's military reputation. He does use sources, and it is a historical school that deserves to be mentioned and discussed on Wikipedia, but it's also a school that self-admittedly portrays itself as the "underdog" against the "established history", which implies that Wikipedia should still focus on the mainstream historical assessment, which all sides can agree is less kind to evaluating the effectiveness of the Italian military. I think AnnalesSchool is still potentially a valuable editor so long as he or she is reminded that the "revisionist" claims are not necessarily right and shouldn't be included as a new revealed gospel truth, but merely as a notable alternate view. SnowFire (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• But this report is not about AnnalesSchool's adherence to a particular school of historical thought. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This report also shouldn't be about what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website. The only time I've seen off-Wikipedia posting considered is if the editor outs another editor on their blog or website but that is not the case here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So an editor is allowed to threaten other Wikipedia editors with on-wiki comments like this: Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. which use an external attack site as the threat? And this report is not only about the external attack site but also about the serial incivility of AnnalesSchool. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Before looking at the comandosupremo page, I questioned your conclusions — why would you allege a connection? Without a connection, this kind of statement is basically "look what an idiot they think you are, and what idiots they think the Wikipedia community is". But when the article's written by someone called "Annales" who, from his first sentence, is obviously involved as a Wikipedia editor, I see no reason to doubt the connection. It's not an attack page, or anything else prohibited by our policies, but I see this as playing into a general pattern of disruption. I see one clearly bad edit (the diff immediately after "AnnalesSchool's editing in") and lots of warnings on his talk page, but what about other problems? Given the warnings, if he's really being disruptive, there's no reason not to block if he keeps on going, but I don't want to block unless you can show me that this really is a pattern of behavior, either long-term or just recently. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted User:TomStar81 to this post: he's followed up on previous problems with AnnalesSchool's editing. As a comment, the problems with this editor's POV pushing, personal attacks and misrepresentation of sources have been long running. Liz is mistaken in saying that conduct such as what's being reported here isn't actionable: using off-Wikipedia websites to attack other editors, and threaten those editors personally, has a significant chilling effect and any number of previous instances have been treated as the harassment for which it is. This has included arbitration cases and bans. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd welcome his input. I don't see this as harassment, per se, but simply as a significant example of disruptive, non-collegial behavior. If this statement had instead been posted here on Wikipedia, we wouldn't sanction him for that alone: we'd give him a stern WP:NOTFORUM warning (not applicable for anything off-wiki), but we wouldn't block him unless it was part of a pattern of problematic editing. Why should his careful and repeated use of his off-wiki webpage be treated any differently? It's not something that needs to be considered especially bad or considered irrelevant, since he's repeatedly referring to it as part of his arguments. If Tom (or someone else) can establish a pattern of Annales having been uncoöperative and causing general problems, the use of the external website will be an example of why a block for general disruption will be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The comments on the external site are disparaging for the Wikipedia editors describing them as ...so-called “editors”, who are obviously amateurs with little idea how historical articles should be structured and presented in a balanced way. He also mentioned on-wiki that ...there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon.. If that's not harassment and intimidation I don't know what is. He also called Cplakidas a "masochist" for not agreeing with his POV. His pattern of abuse, harassment and incivility is very loud and long. Also if an editor kept a similar page on wiki disparaging editors that way the page would have been deleted as an attack page and the editor warned or blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So, should every editor who posts disparaging comments on Wikipediocracy forums about users also face a block? WP:ANI doesn't police the internet and block editors based on critical comments they make about Wikipedia unless they "out" other editors. Such conduct might be considered in an ArbCom cases which examines a wider variety of evidence among involved parties in a case but it shouldn't be considered here. This blog entry that is linked to doesn't even identify editors by name! It should be considered free speech or else WP is going down a rabbit hole that would allow sanctioning many editors and admins here for comments made off-Wikipedia about Wikipedia matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How many editors have you witnessed here where they threaten another editor on-wiki that they will go to Wikipediocracy to attack them? Plus he is describing editors' usernames in such detail (Greek-sounding etc.) and also the article involved which makes it easy to identify the users involved. Also don't forget he has directly threatened us that he will mention us by name. Again, I don't know of any Wikipediocracy member who has directly threatened someone on-wiki that he will be mentioned on their website externally and after calling them "nuts" and "off their rocker". Do you not see his use of that website in addition to his personal attacks as a means of intimidating his perceived opponents? Because for sure he does. I remind you of what he said: You two are off your rocker! You are both nuts! I suggest you visit www.comandosupremo.com/. Your article is mentioned there and there may be a few comments about you two pretty soon. The bolded part is an unmistakable threat and he uses his website as part of that threat during a discussion on an article talkpage as a form of intimidation. He knows that and that's why he uses it. Can you not see it? The website and his connection to him are also relevant because he has used a sockpuppet to promote it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• The editor should be indeffed until the threat is withdrawn and an understanding of the need for collaboration is shown. The above comment about "what an editor says on an off-Wikipedia website" is totally invalid because a glance at the first link above shows that AnnalesSchool was making an on-wiki threat that certain editors would be attacked off-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• <sigh> @AnnalesSchool:, we discussed this issue before, have we not? That there is, and there ever shall be, two sides to the coin that we call "truth": the truth as you see it (or I see it, or any of the above editors see it), and the facts as they are. Did I not caution that adherence to the truth as you saw it would cause more problems for you in the long run? We are here because you heard what was being said, but you did not listen to what has been said. Despite the fact that you are editing the encyclopedia and doing so on a cluster of articles concerning Italy in World War II you have not absorbed the message left by Benito Mussolini's fascist party: any group that attempts to impose an iron will without regard for the traditions of the people or the system they come from will eventually be ousted by the will of the people. Consequently, for the second time in recent history, we are left the issue of isolationist edits to the articles and declarations by you of a small group of editors who will not permit your edits in the article, but such a declaration, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that justice favors the strongest of the two parties in a conflict. Just as I had prophesied, your own edits are now causing the public opinion here to turn against you.

In you hands, my dissatisfied editor, and not our, is the momentous issue of an edit war. Wikipedia and Wikipedians will not support you. You have no warrant issued by any school of historical thought to rewrite our articles for the sake of correcting a perceived slight against your subject on our serves, while I as an administrator am called to meet the challenge of a most solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the material on this site that others may share in and learn from the knowledge gathered here over these last fourteen years. I am burdened by the weight of the summons to this forum. We are not enemies, but editors. We must no be enemies. Though our approaches to a common problem may differ, anger and resentment must not replace discussion and consensus. Maturity on Wikipedia is therefore reached at the moment when one can recognize this system and work with it to achieve the goals they set for themselves. End this immature behavior here, before others taken action to end it on your behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the website in question really an "attack site"? Well, this is how the editor in question criticizes a fellow academic at that website, who writes an article about the performance of the Italian military in a specific World War II battle: "Oh how I wish I could have tied this boy-wonder naked to a mule and promenaded him through the mountain passes for mine-clearing duties with the Italian troops laughing behind!" AnnalesSchool is an editor who openly yearns for the death of those he disagrees with, and threatens Wikipedia editors with comparable online attacks. Not cool for either the victim or the mule. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Omg. Can we indef this creep now? There is no doubt in my mind that if I took this to WP:AE (as Greco-Italian War) falls under WP:ARBMAC, thisuser would be indef topic banned in short order. The problem with that is that it would only cover Greco-Italian War and he would continue his crusae to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in other topic areas, such as the North African campaign. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Er... um... ouch! I'm compelled to !vote indef. There's something very wrong with the 'contributor' in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Annales is, sadly, a missed opportunity. There is no question that the basis of his argument has merit: there is a bias against WWII-era Italy, and it should be corrected so that a fuller and more accurate picture can emerge. The problem is, he is not interested in simply adjusting the historical narrative, he is interested in overturning it altogether and make the Italians victors and victims at the same time, absolving them of any mistake or guilt. In his period of activity here, he has been engaged solely on this one topic, and has come into conflict with pretty much every other editor involved in these articles; he has used sarcasm, thinly-veiled insults, baited other editors with offensive remarks, used self-published sources, distorted the basic chronology of events, etc ad nauseam. And now it is shown that he is an active member of a website that suspiciously tends to emphasize the Fascist element in WWII-era Italy (I happen to know the site before its redesign, and its pro-Fascist tendency is much clearer when one looks at older versions, e.g. March 2006), and where he engages in heaping pejorative adjectives on any scholar who disagrees with his POV. His comment at the diff given above by Dr.K really sums up his attitude: "better to be occupied by a more humane and honorable enemy like the Italian Army". Ergo Italians=good, all others either bad or stupid for not surrendering to them first rather than the Germans, who were worse. The myth of the "good Italian" driven to its extreme conclusion, mixed with not a little nostalgia for Mussolini and his regime... Whatever good might come out of his contributions is not worth the drama it generates. Constantine ✍ 08:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"THere is a bias against World War II Italy" - You mean that we are deteremined to call Mussoulini a facaist dictator? .... or what? If Italy didn't want "negative" articles in Wikipedial perhaps it shoudn[t have put Fascist into power and then, just as thing were going as badely as they possibly go, convenientloy switched sides to the Allies. Unfortunately for the consciences of the Italilian people, yhey're decisions were at eevery instance a day late and a dolar short, and their motivations werr about as base as tey ouuls be BMK (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear pattern by AnnalesSchool to try to attack the "psychology" of his opponents cf. the quote above where he calls us "off our rocker" and "nuts" and also consider this attack from 23 January 2015:

What were his motives, and the motives of wiki editors like himself who feel it to be their moral duty to denigrate and belittle the Italian war effort at every turn?; who continue to cherry-pick quotes and information designed to put the Italians in a bad light, come what may? The psychology of such people is interesting, to say the least.

Please see also the link above where he asks Cplakidas "if he has a masochistic bent". It is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. In no collaborative project that I know of, editors engage in deliberate and longterm campaigns of psychological warfare against those they perceive as their opponents. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Here he is modifying straight quotes from inside RS citations with edit-summary: toning down some of the gratuitous rhetoric. While here he is the exponent of WP:TRUTH: Please put aside your strident Greek nationalism and start to accept reality and historical truth for a change. and also here: What in heaven's name are you actually objecting to? The truth?. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The bias is that a large chunk of literature portrays the Italians as blundering, incompetent fools, and that this portrayal often descends to stereotyping and even caricature. The problem with Annales is that instead of taking an opportunity to rectify such cases with reference to more nuanced sources, he uses the prevalence of this portrayal as an excuse to dismiss everyone who dares to suggest that Italy's war effort was more than somewhat mismanaged at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, and that they had to be carried to victory by the Germans in France, Greece and North Africa. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppet

• Here sockpuppet Csupremo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) promotes links to , you guessed it, AnnalesSchool's website "commando supremo.com". He does the same here with edit-summary: An extensive well researched article on the operation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Persistent violation of policies

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

---

Ambitiouscj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored notices and warnings on their talk page regarding the addition of unsourced content, occasional vandalism in the form of "hidden vandalism", and forms of edit-warring. Because the primary issue is general conduct and not vandalism or edit-warring, I've posted this discussion here. The user thanked me for this edit and followed it up immediately with this hidden comment, revealing that they in fact read the notice. From there, the user continued to ignore further notices regarding disruptive editing and higher-level uw-unsourced warnings. Ambitiouscj then proceeded to leave a personal attack (diff) on my talk page deleting content on the page in the process. These edits further reveal that they were well aware of their actions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User also just personally attacked me 1, 2, 3, changing my sexuality box from "Gay" to "FAG", religion from "Atheist" to "DEVIL WORSHIPER", and my gender from "Male" to "Shemale", simply because I reverted a poorly sourced edit they made after being given four warnings, I'll actually be quite disgusted if they're not blocked indefinitely, that isn't acceptable. Azealia911 _talk 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Reliable sources for a birthdate?

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

---

Hi, if this is the right place i would appreciate some support, if not please let me know where i can ask for advice.

Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Alexander&diff=prev&oldid=662421919) i removed several blogs purporting to report on a person's birthdate but I don't think any of them are reliable. If there is a reliable source then wonderful, i just haven't seen one yet. Or maybe my standards are wrong here? Any advice? Georgeivs vid (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Georgeivs vid: At a glance, I'd say you made the right move - a blogspot source, really? - but since this is a board mainly for reporting behavioral issues with other editors, not content issues, you might be better off taking your inquiry to the Teahouse or the Reliable sources noticeboard. A proper source for something like a birthdate would be more official documentation like a publically available birth certificate, or publication in a newspaper or notable book, or something to that effect. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Edit warring by Roe.ese

Articles New Romanization of Korean was made by User Roe.ese. But there are no appropriate sources (AFD), and User Roe.ese ignored a warning in the user own talk page. [134] Also User Roe.ese made a personal attack on my ability in English. [135] I think User Roe.ese should desist from those actions. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also at SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roe.ese --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

AFD's article moved to Draft Namespace

I was patrolling CAT:CSD and I came across Modestas Mankus. It appears that the article was nominated for AFD, after which, the author moved it to the draft namespace. Any thoughts/precedent on how to handle this? It seems pretty circumvential, especially on an article that may very likely have been deleted otherwise. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say this is a variation on "the only significant contributor blanking the page" and hence the mainspace version could be deleted via G7 (though I see it has gone via R2). Technically, that makes the AfD invalid (you need an MfD to delete a draft). I have !voted on the AfD as I believe the subject is completely non-notable but following proper procedure the AfD should be withdrawn so the creator can work on it in draft space. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That then opens the door for any article that is taken to WP:AFD. move it to the draft space and voila, the AFD does not count. I think the AFD should run its course on the original content (as long as there is a note clearly explaining what happened at the WP:AFD) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That's correct, but looking at the longer term view I don't see that as being too much different to the following scenario : 1) User creates unsourced article in mainspace, 2) Article is tagged A7 and deleted, 3) User is told to use the Article Wizard and use drafts 4) User instead copypastes the original into draft space 5) You wait. Time passes..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) And, if it had been created as a draft, it would have never showed up at AFD to begin with. Remember, AFD is not a contest, and you don't "win" if the article is deleted, so it isn't like the person moving the article to the Draft: namespace (or self-userfying the article, or whatever else they do) is "cheating". That's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and one we discourage at Wikipedia. If it isn't in the article mainspace, it isn't an article, and users are intentionally given more leeway (not infinite leeway, just more) for articles which are in draft form. Think about it: Had the article been created as a draft in the first place, no one would have ever proposed deletion, at least not at this stage. So why should we a) care that it was moved or b) seek to delete the draft, since as a recently created draft, it should be given some time to be developed. This sounds like a total non-issue. --Jayron32 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with that, but one thing that is different is that the AFD had already generated a Delete vote. If the article were moved to draft, and then, moved back into the mainspace again in a month the record of it's AFD may be lost. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Who cares if it generated a delete vote? Again, it isn't a contest. We aren't here to "win" battles, and if this had been created as a draft to begin with, no one would have even had the opportunity to vote one way or the other, so why bother? --Jayron32 13:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not being viewed as a competition, or a "win"/"lost" scenario, but more of a "this is a potential way to circumvent the system" that needs to be examined. For the sake of argument, lets say that an article goes to WP:AFD, and generates some amount of discussion with a likely outcome of "Delete", and the AFD runs its course. If that article were to be re-created in the future, it would be easy to delete it via WP:G4 if the AFD ran its course. So, instead of having that precedent hanging over the articles head, the author moves it into the draft space, the AFD disappears, and in a week or two, they bring the article back. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia, and this fails the WP:DUCK test of being encyclopedically notable; this content is NEVER going to be encyclopedic (do a google search). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, here is the link to the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modestas Mankus

Olympiacos B.C. disruptive edits by 141.237.149.158

This ip user is trying to impose his version (which is completely wrong). I explained in the summary twice as you can see here: [136], [137]. He wrote an argument in his first revertion, but after my second revertion and because of his obvious lack of arguments, he made yet another revertion writing: "vandalism" as you can see here: [138]. I sent him a final warning and I am looking forward to your intervention. Thank you so much for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)