Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→hey guyz: new section
Line 1,865: Line 1,865:


It would be useful if an "adult" could step in and try to do... something? Warn actual vandals; welcome new editors while pointing them to some advice on how to edit; maybe semi-protect. Thanks in advance for any input. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It would be useful if an "adult" could step in and try to do... something? Warn actual vandals; welcome new editors while pointing them to some advice on how to edit; maybe semi-protect. Thanks in advance for any input. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 09:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

== hey guyz ==

I'm new 2 Wikipedia and I really need some help

thnx

[[User:Somebodycall911|Somebodycall911]] ([[User talk:Somebodycall911|talk]]) 11:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:20, 8 September 2015

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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)

    Wikicohen, WikiShanwnio, and IP at Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo

    At the talk page of Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo, there has been an ongoing content dispute that has descended into severe incivility, including claims that one editor is the subject of the article themselves as well as a criminal while the other editor is a stalker who has faced charges. I originally reported this to the oversight email yesterday because I saw it as attempted outing, but that was not acted upon, so I assume that the lack of specific names here means this is not a privacy issue. Still, both editors have ignored warnings on the talk page to keep things civil, and I doubt anything short of a block will stop the incivility at this point. Please note that based on both self-identifying as "Shawn", the IP and WikiShawnio are almost certainly the same editor. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob, it is the same person. [redacted per WP:OUTING] He seems to think I am her. He has so many obsessive content all over the internet about her and the cops in a long email told me that it was endless work while Ms Omololu-Olunloyo was in canada. Shawn built blogs, stalked Ms O-O's Youtube videos, duplicated and defaced her content, DCMA filings all day. Im telling you what a detective and a spokesman told me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] Shawn said she's not a Pharmacist, not a Journalist, wanted fugitive which is still not proven, says her name is not Kemi, says he has her birth certificate, says he's her non official biographer, says her pharmacy license was revoked 10 yrs ago. All these have been proven wrong and I cannot keep editing his page for libel and slander. This guy outed himself and should be blocked from editing this page but of course he'll create another profile. I am a new wiki writer and just fed up! When you start editing pages of hated ppl, these wikistalkers arrive and something must be done

    Wikicohen (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The way to settle this is at AfD. I predict it will be deleted, but nobody can accurately predict afd. DGG ( talk ) 12:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you Rob for taking the time to enter me into this discussion, I resent the fact you believe I am being uncivil, I have been more than such, you can see by Wikicohens rhetoric that she is upset that someone is adding sourced information to her own authored biography page, I don't think I have anything more to add to this, the fact you believe that I might be concealing my identity as the IP user is uncalled for, I was told to register, I did so. This issue was looked over by the admin because I believe you might not understand the whole picture here, one glance at the Talk page on the Kemi Olunloyo page and you can see what is going on, please don't pool me into what ever facade the user Wikicohen is doing. thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Unfortunate combination in this article of blatant promotionalism and overstatement along with excessive detail of no encyclopedic interest on the one side, along with some relatively minor alleged criminal activity reported with similar over-detail on the other. I suggest AfD, or possibly G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with DGG in that this article looks to have been created with a promotional or self-promotional point of view - either way, It isn't neutral. This article has been the subject of uncivil discussion between editors on it's talk page. I think it should also be known that, looking at the contributions of Wikicohen, WikiShawnio, and 70.26.73.164 - the majority of of their edits have been to either the Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo article or its talk page. I highly recommend that these users step away for a bit, cool down, and let others help with the dispute. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first looked at the article, I thought that Ms. Omololu-Olunloyo probably met the general notability guideline, but I'm less convinced now. When you check what's claimed by WikiCohen with the sources, much of it wasn't supported at all and sometimes even contradicted by the sources. AfD might be the best way to settle this. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you on the point of self promotion, I am new to wikipedia and only doing what I have seen others do, I have tried to be as civil as possible, I agree this article is nothing more than a dramatized resume but at the same time I do believe that Olukemi has earned herself enough notoriety online this page might be what Wiki needs, it's hard for me to be unbiased when I am constantly being bumrushed by the subject matter editing and reverting edits, you can plainly see what is going on with this back and forth. WikiShawnio (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shawn you are not new to Wikipedia, you edit with two accounts, you libel and slander Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo under the controversy section. May I remind you that you said she is not a pharmacist nor Journalist and her license to practice pharmacy was revoked 10 yrs ago, you even claimed to have someone you stalked's (according to Toronto police) birth certificate. you lied that you were her unofficial biographer? Wikipedia edits is about the good the bad and the ugly, not the libelous and slanderous. Your sources are not credible. You keep sourcing from Nigerian blogs and not Nigerian media. Blogs in Nigeria copy whatever each other writes. they write based on celebrity and public figure tweets which may be deleted by those figures later. Ms O-O has not bowed out of Journalism, i will take off that edit AGAIN. Look for better sources and stop destroying the article. Certainly you have a COI with this subject and its a huge one. Also pls stop posting primary sources when secondary sources of her criminal case was reported by 3 Toronto papers. nobody knows if those charges are still pending.I will contact that police department on the update of their website if I have to. Stop posting things you are not sure of. DGG this article was created with neutrality but has been edited and altered too many times by Wikishawnio with false information. there is no self promotionalism. It simply describes a person, their career, their activism and controversy in their life. their numerous achievements and awards were taken out because of that very reason before it was approved. Wikicohen (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry but is anyone else reading this drivel, bottom line, you keep editing your own biography, seems every day you come to this article and "buff it up" for the readers, all of wikipedia can see your edits and the patterns of your behaviour, I don't know how to handle this situation, I add credible sources., events that actually transpired and you seem to keep deleting sourced information based on the facts you "feel" it paints yourself in a bad light. one day this section is allowed the next day it isn't, then you make these long winded allegations about the internet is attacking "you" when the whole time you are writing your replies like you are not Kemi Olunloyo, do you even comprehend how your actions are being viewed right now? can someone please resolve this issue? WikiShawnio (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of these editors have continued their personal attacks on the talk page since this thread was started. Both of them are SPAs that aren't here to build an encyclopedia, in my opinion. ~ RobTalk 14:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors or not, both of them have shown that they can't maintain a neutral point of view. Sjö (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    you can see from my contribs that I am adding events that transpired with sourced references, it seems like there is a bit of interest in "breaking up" a fight that is not even happening, you have a new contributor to Wikipedia here trying to complete his first rounds of edits on a topic I am very familiar with, it seems like instead of doing some research and reading the interactions between us you are just injecting your opinions without knowing the full picture, I contribute to an article, she deletes it, I try another avenue, even rewording and doing what the mod asks, she deletes it. I am getting the impression because someone has a wikipedia page and is reverting their edits because they might tell the real story, I am now being ganged up on and roped into what ever the user wikicohen is doing., so let the record state that I am simply trying to paint a picture here of the subject matter backed up with credible sources, apparently to some this is not wikipedia material? I don't get that at all. right now I am watching her use her cell phone to revert edits that have been resolved by 3 different moderators. I would like to know how I am not being unbiased here, I do research, I find events I post them with credible sources, she deletes them, so that means that I am like her now? please elaborate here. thanks WikiShawnio (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    the user wikicohen is now following me around and attempting to slander me with accusations I was arrested. I am requesting that it ceases immediately. she is also roping in another person not associated with wikipedia and I keep having to redact the names from the talk pages, wikicohen has even gone ahead and created me a user page without my permission> I don't know what the angle is here but it's hindering my use of the service here. [1] I don't want to be lumped into wikicohens behavior as I am legitimately trying to help this article here with sourced material. The user wikicohen appears to be deleting large chunks of well referenced material because it doesn't tell the story she wants to tell. can someone please look into this, thank you. WikiShawnio (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:WikiShawnio&curid=47631192&diff=677934043&oldid=677933778
    Both users have now begun edit-warring and have violated WP:3RR. I've warned both. WikiShawnio appears to have backed off the personal attacks, which is appreciated. Wikicohen definitely has not, based on: [1] [2] [3] ~ RobTalk 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let the record state what I am reverting is well sourced material, I believe that wikicohen is attempting to paint the subject in a good light, unfortunately there is alot of controversy to add to the article even yet and I fear we will never come to an impasse on the issues of reverting edits if wikicohen has a COI with the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiShawnio (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody is trying to paint Kemi in a good light, Wikishawnio's edits have no encyclopedic value based on Facebook posts. He needs to stop reverting MY edits and that is why I have been reverting his. The edit war has to stop, you cannot cite Nigerian blogs using non existent Facebook posts on Nigerian blogs. People go back to those posts and if they cannot see them, it presents a source issue. Use sources from legitimate Nigerian newspapers who actually write the stories not hearsay on Facebook posts that is not even valid some times. Stop posting libelous information. I will continue to go after you for that. For example you say that Kemi is not a Dr. Have you heard of a Pharm.D? Its a doctor of Pharmacy. Do your homework. wiki has no say n that. It is her title on every Medical Journalism platform she has. Now I will continue editing this article and pls do not revert my edits either.

    Wikicohen (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Rob, Edit warring is not why Im here, I will not be harassed outside wikipedia by Shawn (redacted by wikishawnio) [redacted per WP:OUTING]. Harrasing me on twitter (which he tracked me to) will not be tolerated. He can do that with Kemi not me. [redacted per WP:OUTING] To edit this articles with facts, I go beyond articles and hearsay. wikishawnio should stop roping me into [redacted per WP:OUTING]. I am requesting page protection and a dispute resolution Enough is enough. I'm not kemi and Im sure she won't be happy reading all this edit war going on because of her. Wikipedia should be about encyclopedic articles backed up with solid relevant sources. Wikicohen (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More personal attacks from Wikicohen: [4]. ~ RobTalk 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have backed off from directly interacting with wikicohen, I have even gone and found additional sources to back up my references, I even use the same sources that wikicohen is using, it's frustrating. I will let the admins/mods come to their own conclusions, the personal attacks and libel needs to cease immediately.I am all for locking the page for review, I don't want it deleted nor do I want to hurt Kemi Olunloyo in any way, the story just needs to be told, this is Wikipedia. I/O (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikishawnio, pls stop reverting my edits. When I added that Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo still writes as a Journalist for her websites and a VIP blogger for Pulse Nigeria, you REMOVED them. They were sourced. You went on to call it a temporary position when the website has an entire section of her profile. Also there is no extradition order for her as of August 2015. Nigeria does not extradite it's citizens according to the united Nations. The only extradition order was when she was in Canada and it failed. I have sourced that from the Toronto Sun so pls do not post false information. I have also moved your Nigerian personal hygiene story to the controversy section as its not a career issue. She did not write it as an article. I am still expect a page protection and a dispute resolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicohen (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • COMMENT These editors are causing great havoc on this page, and action needs to be taken. For me, I would recommend a Topic Ban from the article, and an Interaction Ban with each other. The talk page is a horrendous mess, and the article needs a complete review. It should be locked down, and a couple of uninvolved editors should go through it line by line. Scr★pIronIV 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support a topic ban, but I think an interaction ban is not necessary. They are both SPAs interacting only over this topic, so functionally the topic ban should take care of interaction as well. If it doesn't and personal attacks continue, blocks or an interaction ban can be handed out at that time. ~ RobTalk 14:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely agree with a lockdown. I already requested for a page protection Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all. Wikicohen (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo must be going crazy if she's reading it all." guys, please don't lump me in with wikicohen, please. I/O (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indef-blocked the WikiShawnio (talk · contribs) account. It is easily verified on the web that there has been a long-standing harasmment campaign (or mutual feud?) involving these persons, and the WikiShawnio account is clearly (and barely disguised) part of the same pattern, so I've blocked them for harassment. At the same time, I also consider it quite obvious that the Wikicohen account is indeed the subject of the article – they said here on this board that a Toronto police spokesperson personally gave them information about the case involving that "Shawn" person, "in a long e-mail". I'm pretty sure the Toronto police would not give out such information to somebody who just happens to be a Wikipedia editor interested in Ms Olunloyo, so either that claim is false or the recipient of that communication from Toronto police is Ms Olunloyo herself. Therefore, I warn Wikicohen (talk · contribs) to cease all COI editing on that article immediately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a result of you blocking Wikishawnio, he has started posting comments on Ms O-O's blogs which I read daily and have a right to. Wikishawnio thinks Im Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo. I am not. All Toronto Police records of his arrest and harrasment case is PUBLIC and online. The claim is not false and I am not Ms Olunloyo. Below is what was revealed this morning.

    AI have only one account on Wikipedia and have no time for sockpuppeting. It may be of interest to see a comment left by someone on Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo's Gun violence blog which I read daily. You should be investigating her confirmed stalker Wikishawnio [redacted per WP:OUTING] Pls don't accuse me of false and unwarranted investigations. I appreciate it. I repeat, I do NOT have multiple accounts and have no time for that. The comment written is typical of comments written by Wikishawnio on Kemi's blogs [redacted per WP:OUTING]

    The Writer feels they are talking to Kemi and feel she felt for their "ploy" Unfortunately, I'm not Kemi. I created her page and once again I know the history of Kemi and Shawn McQuaid as told to me by Toronto Police. Never met or spoke to them both but their history is all over the internet. INVESTIGATE Wikishawnio properly. Wikicohen (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You may be misunderstanding the remit of Wikipedia. There's no police force here, and blocking Wikishawnio is the be-all-and-end-all of actions that can be taken against him. If, outside of Wikipedia, you believe that Wikishawnio is harassing you, then your sole recourse is through the legal system. We don't need to "investigate" Wikishawnio worth squat; that editor's already been indeffed. Ravenswing 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I filed an SPI against Wikicohen based on fairly obvious IP edits being used to fake support for their edits and edit-war. As a result, they have threatened me with legal action here: [5]. As per WP:LEGAL, they should be indef'd until the threat is withdrawn. ~ RobTalk 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise as the admin who previously warned Wikicohen[reply]

    Rob, while everyone keeps accusing me of being Kemi or even 4 sockpuppets, you should be watching the comments on this thread on Kemi's blog which I subscribe too. I already notified the administrators of this. Who is posting these sort of messages? They are obviously "talking" to kemi thinking she is Wikicohen (which is me) I cannot prove it is Wikishawnio who was blocked but don't you think when someone posts that they set up someone for a ploy, obsessed about Kemi's tweets which have nothing to do with this page and even more comments like getting dragged out and KILLED? I have a right to seek legal advice when someone else is the sockpuppet. [redacted per WP:OUTING] I need a feedback on this in the investigation. Wikicohen (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm focused on what's occurring on the wiki, not what's occurring off the wiki. If those comments are genuine, then they're certainly deplorable, but that does not allow for legal threats to be made on Wikipedia. You have the right to seek legal action whenever you want, but it is Wikipedia's policy that you cannot make legal threats on the wiki, period. I encourage you to withdraw your threat. ~ RobTalk 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to sound completely dumb, but as an uninvolved user, I'd point out that IPs here on WP (and the blog comments offwiki, for that matter) are both "anonymous." I'm not sure how, without CU (to avoid outing), it is possible to be sure that the IPs in question are definitely one person's or the other's without opening an SPI for both of them (which we haven't). Anybody can copy old reverted text, and I'm going to guess that because these people are known to one another, they're going to geolocate to just about the same place anyway, even though there's a lot of play in "location". Shawnio may be doing it, or Cohen may be fluffing "evidence" on her side, but we can't tell based on the extent of procedures at SPI as they currently stand. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand; the alleged socking is by Cohen, who is claiming Shawnio is "setting him/her up". I'll let the SPI run its course, but the behavioral evidence is strong. When a bunch of IPs appear in an otherwise low traffic article around the time that an edit war breaks out and heavily favor one side of the war, using the same odd turns of phrase that are rarely used, that points to one thing. Either way, that's not the issue I've brought to ANI. The issue that remains unresolved is that Wikicohen has made legal threats toward me at the SPI. ~ RobTalk 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This remains unresolved and the legal threats have not been withdrawn. I just realized, however, that the legal threats have been suppressed due to Wikicohen's outing of another editor, so unfortunately it appears the inaction on this report for a week will leave me with pending legal threats against me from an active editor on the wiki. Joy! Not much that can be done, I suppose. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing

    I have removed several portions of the above discussion because it appeared that the "outing" policy was being violated. Given the quickly changing nature of the WP:AN/I page, it may not be feasible to use suppression (oversighting) or revision deletion here, but at least I can do ordinary deletion on the material. The "outing" policy is taken very seriously — regardless of whether you believe the redacted material is correct or not, do not reinstate or repeat it here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, or you risk being blocked from editing. 03:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

    Telstra, Australia IP vandalism

    The last month or so, there has been a long list of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, Australia, vandalising the Israel/Palestine articles. Look at User talk:McSly, Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, Talk:Judea, Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:German Colony, Jerusalem, Palestinian territories. He reminded me of my old friend, due to edits like this, but, AFAIK, "my old friend" is still in the US.

    However, I wonder, is it possible to block a range of Telstra-Ips? Or would that catch too many innocents? (Btw, he is active as I type) Huldra (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block the entire ISP. If they have a problem, it should remain their problem, not ours. Any decent editor can register an account. Likewise Vodafone DE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another death-threat against me here from the same; please rev-del and protect. Iow: please do full JarlaxleArtemis-routine when dealing with this guy, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys, you *really* have to refuse them the possibility to edit their own talk-page; to avoid death and rape-threaths, Huldra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:Gilliam, for that. (Perhaps rev-del the threats?) Also, the same IP was discussed here a couple of days ago: see here. --Huldra (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, User:NeilN. I have made a list of (some) of the Telstra socks, used in July/ August this year (not a full list):








    The IPs with @@ after them have issued Grawp-like threats, mostly rev-delled. Feel free to add more IPs, as you find them, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like any rangeblock has a lot of collateral, apart from 2-5, which are caught by 60.230.0.0/17. Page protection is the only real solution here from that point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In a case like this that's too easy: we'd have to protect every page in the project where they might show up or where they might follow someone. I don't know what the limit is, what too much collateral damage is, but not rangeblocking also has a lot of collateral damage, and I prefer our own editors not fall in that category. Rangeblock away, I say. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you would also advocate rangeblocking large sections of Comcast in the US or BT in the UK, this is a really stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had to do it before to stem death threats. Not to mention that this is pretty much the only way to slow him to any appreciable degree. Even then, his abuse of open proxies is quite legendary (which is why he's showing up on BT and Telstra). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an alternative. Contact Telstra abuse and tell them that we are considering a range block because of the actions of one Telstra user. They may very well block the user on their end to protect their other users from collateral damage if we do it on our end. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an open proxy (and considering who we're discussing it almost certainly is), then it's not exactly on Telstra, but rather on who owns the TOR node/anonymising service/compromised server. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is my old friend, (who, for sure, knows how to make use of TOR), then why does he *only* appear on Telstra IPs? I´m making some enquiries (off-line), in the mean time, I´ll ask all admins to be very vigilant when it comes to Telstra IPs: remember to block their user-page access too. And could some admin please rev-del 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) death threats? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddy enough I have done this before when I was a Sysadmin, unless Telstra's policies have changed they will file such a request in the nearest bin. It took a court order for me to get them to prevent one of their script-kiddie customers attempting to DDOS one of my domains. The main problem with rangeblocking large sections of Telstra however is that in many parts of Australia it really is the only provider. There is no alternative. Unlike the example above which affected Houston - a city with many other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So logged in editors can still edit, and IP editors get a notice that they can either log in or complain to Telstra for allowing one of their users to abuse Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to block IP edits from Telstra. Not ideal, but not a disaster for the Australian users either. One could also contact a few news outlets in Australia and let them know what is happening. If they choose to run a story or two on this, Telstra is likely to become a lot more cooperative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note that some of these are proxies, not all are in Australia by the looks of things. While blocking Australia may seem a good solution, I don't think this will be productive - partly as there are ways to easily get round this. Now, I can tell you millions of people will be caught up in any rangeblock with this - and it is incredibly hard to tell who is and isn't vandals when it comes to people like ACC dealing with requests like this. Rangeblock is the easy solution, just not the best one here. Depending on what is being inserted, a note to the ISP or police (I haven't seen the edits, but the police are likely to be interested if they are death threats) is likely to be the only solution, unless we want large swaiths of Australia waking up and wondering why they can't fix one typo or suchlike, leading to the problem building up elsewhere. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All the above IPs with @@ at the end have rev-delled rape or death threats, mostly death threats. I have no idea as to how Australian police react to this (I am not in Australia), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I note here that if Telstra is not one of the biggest ISPs in Australia, it would have to be up there. Rangeblocking the entire ISP will result in a whole load of collateral damage. A complaint should probably be made to Telstra first, although I'm not at all confident it'll be actioned. If it's not, perhaps a message in the rangeblock stating that Telstra failed to respond to death threats originating from their network? Nothing like a bit of media coverage to encourage an episode of corporate responsibility. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Range blocking Telstra would definitely attract media coverage in Australia, and probably overseas given how large an ISP it is (it's by far the largest telecommunications company in Australia). Telstra has an online form to report abuse here, though it may not be applicable to this case. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As these IPs are making threats of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be informed, and will hopefully be able to help with a response - the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These IPs seem to be from Victoria, and one appears to be from the town of Warrugal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the info. Also, I believe there is an Australian Wikimedia chapter? I would assume they were closer to dealing with Telstra than WMF? (Yeah, I know: this is a "hot potato", and everyone´s reaction is to pass it on the the next person. Sigh...) Huldra (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimedia Chapters don't handle issues like this (they're essentially clubs of like-minded people) - the WMF is a better point of contact, and seems to take issues like this seriously. I'd suggest that you contact them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I contacted Philippe B, by email last week, as he had been dealing with "my old friend" earlier. However, that was obviously not good timing, so I forwarded it through the "standard channels" earlier today. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a bit of poking about and came across |this site. While it deals with some nasty business with regards to anti- vs pro-vaccination groups not relevant here, but what was relevant was the inclusion of part of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Quick summary of this is that it is an offence in Australia to use a "carriage service", such as phone, mail, but also including electronic services, to make threats to kill or threats to cause serious harm. You could turn such evidence as you have to police in that particular state. Cybercrime reporting is somewhat in its infancy in Australia but police do respond to it. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra comment The IP's largely originate from around Melbourne, Victoria with one geolocating to a town 50km north of Melbourne. This would put it in the jurisdiction of the Victorian State Police, although depending on how they respond to the threats it may escalate to the Australian Federal Police (our version of the FBI) if it is viewed as a Commonwealth crime. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Extra extra comment Range blocking Telstra basically means you block pretty much the whole country. Telstra is the largest telecommunications company here but it used to be government owned till its privatisation. As such, most of the other ISP's here piggy back off their hardware. Far better to report to the abuse team on irt -at- team.telstra.com. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you, User:Blackmane. I will email irt -at- team.telstra.com. I contacted WMF, they could confirm that this was, most likely, *not" my old friend, but some copy-cat. Besides that, they were basically doing nothing; just telling me that I should contact local police. I´m on the other side of the world, I doubt police here would do anything about a threat "down under". Also: if I went to the police, my RL name would get known, and could possibly be leaked. (Yes, I´m a bit paranoid after 5 years with constant death and rape-threaths, I´ll admit!) Lets hope the telstra-team does something; if not, I will be back in a short while asking for you to range-block the whole area: *that* would wake them up, I´m sure! Huldra (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep us informed User:Huldra; while I'm not in Victoria, I'm still interested in seeing that this situation is dealt with, preferably without my own access being blocked! Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    User:Lankiveil : I emailed them a couple of days ago; and I have still not received an answer. It is week-end, though, so I think we should give them a few more days. However, if they totally ignore any request, I seriously would suggest blocking Telstra IPs. And no, that would *not* be of any concern to registered editors, (like Lankiveil), it would just stop any Telstra IPs from editing, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you imply that you would seek to have the administrators here begin blocking, if not range blocking Telstra IPs with the attendant consumer complaints that would inevitably arise? Telstra has a bit of a reputation for somewhat poor customer service. I suggest drawing some hard lines in the sand to give them a prod. I'm not in Melbourne so I am at no risk of being blocked. I suggest waiting no more than till Wednesday, Australian time, that's UTC+9 at this time of year. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. Still not even an answer.. Huldra (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gob Lofa

    Gob Lofa and myself were recently blocked for a 24 hours, with the blocking administrator Callanecc making the following statements at our talk pages [6] and [7], making it clear that they would be looking into a IBAN between us and a TBAN for either one or both of us. Nothing as of yet has come of this and I would like to request that action indeed be taken. I would ask Callanecc directly however I noticed on their talk page that they won't be as active as normal until 14 September, but I will notify them of this AN/I.

    This editors problems have not been altered by their recent block and warnings of further action being taken, and it seems to me that they are intent on going back over previous "flashpoints" and trying to elicit a reaction from me, and whilst I have performed a few reverts I have kept them to the most contentious edits and have done my best to remain civil, however I am coming here hoping to get this nipped in the bud before it escalates further with either an IBAN, and a TBAN on Gob Lofa or both of us or whatever action is deemed merited. It needs to stop.

    Callanecc makes it clear that such a decision will be based on mine and Gob Lofa's actions, for example about civility and usage of sources [8]. Callanecc also requested in his block notice to me (linked above) that I remain civil and leave Gob Lofa's talk page alone, and for my part I feel that I have done that except to place an AN/I notice on their page to notify them of this. Unfortunately Gob Lofa seems to have reverted back to the issues I had originally raised here before deciding to close it and go to ArbCom Enforcement instead, and seems to be intent on carrying on before as well as trying to provoke some form of response from me by revisiting previous debates/flashpoints, starting here (23rd August) and most recently today here (30th August) and here.

    I deem a TBAN on Gob Lofa in regards to Troubles related articles is more than justified going by their actions I raised previously and the following recent edits:

    • Despite previously being informed [9] of the problems with their attempt to add a "Terrorism" category to the article, they decided [10] to put it into the start of the second sentence of the lede in a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (talk page discussion makes it clear why). I reverted [11], asking Gob Lofa to go to talk about it, to which they did and this was the result. Note the incivility from Gob Lofa towards Snowded [12].
    • They are also still at the inaccurate edit summaries. Here they state "NPOV, link, reword etc", however what they actually did was reword a more NPOV sourced statement and changed the entire context of it and made it more POV. They also reworded another sourced statement (at the end of the edit) that was inaccurate as my reversion edit summary makes clear. They made the same edit and misleading summary at this article as well.
    • This is another contentious edit. The government was not involved in the violence, and it is highly contentious and inaccurate to state such.
    • This talk page however clearly reveals the real level of bias with their arguments for their edit, an argument that is clearly at odds with the facts, which I make clear with responses of block quotations from several verifiable and reliable sources by respected academics. Most notably Gob Lofa explicitly stated on 15th July: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970" [13] however this direct quote from one of those sources I provided on 25th August [14] states "On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.". There is some difference between Gob Lofa's version of events and what actually happened, and from an editor who frequently states that they are making things more NPOV.

    They also now seem to be trying to provoke/hound me:

    • [15]. An IP was trying to enforce a word change, and after a few reverts I had asked an admin to semi-protect the page, however a completely new IP appears to change it again. Upon reverting, Gob Lofa appears out of the blue, stating I "Take it to talk", even though there is no basis for such a statement or revert considering I was reverting an IPs edit to the stable version. This new IP and Gob Lofa also both edited this article on the 28th August leading me to wonder are they linked.
    • The following (ab)use [16] of their rollback privilege yesterday (not the first time) to make another inaccurate edit summary and what is clear incivility directed at me with "Undo convoluted POV replacement for Britain". That is in regards to me reverting an edit of theirs back on the 1st May [17]. How that edit summary was merited is beyond me. Notified that it is actually misuse of undo and twinkle, not the rollback feature itself Mabuska (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mabuska (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also in regards to the Dromore, County Down article, a clear attempt at provocation by highly dubious admonishment [18], though my response to it shows the holes in it. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having failed to elicit some form of uncivil response from me at Talk:Dromore,_County_Down they decide to do it instead [19]. They have also decided to follow me to the Ulaid article in an attempt to find something to argue with me over to see if they can get a reaction out of me, in this case removing a WikiProject tag I added [20], though my response discounts their reasoning in their edit summary for it [21]. Mabuska (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuing to revisit past "flashpoints" to push either their viewpoint or attempt to antagonise by restoring challenged edits:
    • 5 September pushing an edit that was challenged back on 8 July, and continuing with misleading edit summaries, cites the talk page as if there is a consensus for their edit when none exists.
    • 5 September, undoing a revert I made back on 6 July. Once again they restored their inaccurate and unsourced opinion whilst at the same time removing sourced information. Another editor has since reverting them [22].
    Examples will keep being posted until something is done and as Gob Lofa is willing to keep providing them then this issue won't go away. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of times action just doesn't occur at ANI for various reasons. I'm sure in this case, people either feel they don't want to step on Callanecc's purview or it's difficult to dig into the long-term history of the dispute. I think you're going to need to wait for Callanecc on this one as they are going to be the best person for deciding what to do.
    That being said, the one thing I checked quick was the interaction tool for these two.[23] Gob Lufa's only post to Ulaid was 35 minutes after Mabuska. Unless there's more to the story, it can be relatively reasonable to assume Gob Lufa was following Mabuska around in this one instance. The rest really needs someone who's followed the issues (or has a lot of time to catch up). Unless someone has more to add, I think it might be best to close this and let it be sorted out when Callanecc gets back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the response. So your suggesting I let this archive and when Callanecc returns post him a direct link to here? That I can do. Mabuska (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E.M.Gregory again

    Coming here to avoid 3RR. As a result of a dispute on Matthew C. Whitaker, I have been keeping an eye on User:E.M.Gregory's contribs. He started 2015 Ikea murders for political reasons only per the edit comment). He supported this political view with sources from Breitbart. I knew these were not RS, but tried to stay uninvolved - I notified the Sweden Wikiproject to keep an eye on the article here. They did so, and some cleanup was done, including the addition of failed verification templates on all the sources in the Impact section (the "political part" which is the article creator's claimed focus) at the time. EM Gregory has removed those templates twice and left the sources they are tied to in the article. I restored the templates once, but I'm not going to editwar about it.

    In the interests of disclosure, substantial errors were found and corrected on the aforementioned Whitaker article by myself and others, as evidenced by the Talk page, where I and others have documented several and I would note that there was no engagement by E.M.Gregory on the article talk until the initial matter was brought to ANI as the the result of a PA towards me. There is also a pattern: aside from the massive puffery removed on the Whitaker article, another sourcing error was found on another article, apparently due to a typo (because "Whitney" and "Bingham" are very close together on the keyboard, I guess). These "mistakes" seem to be far too prevalent, including what the initial PA was claimed to be. I'd note that I have also been accused of POV-pushing on illegal immigration, which is an issue I don't even edit. The intermediate diff showing the strikeout of a comment disregarding consensus is pretty interesting, too.

    However, if that is, instead, the focus of EM Gregory's editing (aside from combating supposed "academic injustice" via Whitaker), that is a problem if not done fairly. The editing pattern is damaging to the encyclopedia (like moving an article during AfD), and the unwillingness to assume responsibility for the "mistakes" and errors (instead claiming "accidents", "wikihounding" and "SPAs") is a detriment to collegial editing. I'd take an interaction ban if this were indeed a personal issue on my part, but it isn't; EMG's editing pattern (and the IDIDNTHEARTHAT associated with it) is damaging to the encyclopedia, and it's simply not an isolated problem anymore, because it's cropping up on every article he edits. MSJapan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Frankly I am fed up with User:MSJapan's persistent WIKIHOUNDING. This editor has been WIKIHOUNDING me since I made a simple editing error the week before last, for which I swiftly apologized, and has repeatedly stated that s/he would be glad if I left Wikipedia. I believe that her/his goal is to chase me off Wikipedia. At first, I thought the WIKIHOUNDING was a mere overreaction and have refrained form bringing this to ANI. I hate the aggression on Wikipedia. Today the editor's language leads me to suspect a POV motive. Or, perhaps, a nervous breakdown. Whatever MSJapan's editor's motives, his/her behavior is an overreaction to any actual errors I have committed. Certainly, however, MSJapan's approach is an excellent way to convince rational people to avoid editing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then stop editing contrary to policy. You keep adding sources to articles that do not support the statements you want to make. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research, and you don't understand that. Nobody should have go around cleaning up your messes because you didn't do youe due diligence. You don't start a bio article to do nothing but write about scandals, and you don't start an event article to talk about politics. You especially don't remove "verification failed" templates from sources. Respond to issues instead of making ad hominem attacks. Actually, when someone disputes your sources, you need to engage in discussion, not just revert "because it's sourced." Your problem is that you think your opinions trump policies and procedures, and they don't. In short, act like a good contributor, and perhaps people will treat you like one. Until that time, you need to deal with the consequences of your editing behavior. On another note to the admins, have I not provided enough diffs to show the pattern of behavior and lack of engagement to resolve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If more diffs are needed, this was my removal for clear synth, the talk diff where I explained such, and a wholesale reversion of the edit, despite the talk thread being opened. That's the behavioral point - I made an edit in accordance with policy, explained why on talk in accordance with policy, and was reverted rather than engaged on talk. The substance of the edit is not at question here in this thread.
    I'd also note that this AfD diff on an article EMG is a good indicator as well; the user thinks that writing a BLP focusing on a perpetrator is OK even when it is substantially about the event, and feels that following policies in such cases is "against consensus." The same went for the substantive version of Matthew C. Whitaker before any other editors got involved - a BLP with little to no BLP. There is a similar sourcing discussion on EMG's page here, and prod after prod after prod. EMG has refactored comments at least twice, and has a copyvio notice. I would note that a university bio was OK as a source for David_Mikics (who "automatically passed PROF" on that source), thought a "self-referenced description was OK" on Susya for an NGO, but a uni bio was "unsourced hagiography" on Matthew C. Whitaker. Again, this isn't content, it's editing conduct. When the source suits his purpose, it's OK, and when it doesn't, it isn't, no matter what.
    Wikihounding seems to be a common fallback when someone disagrees with his editing and he can't get his way. He did that to Auslondoner after previously having falsely accused him of abusing SPEEDY and canvassing. He also goes after editors who tag his work as if they're in the wrong for tagging unsourced and single source articles. No one is responsible for the EMG's lack of competence other than him, and he's clearly not willing to accept that. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This series of edits by E.M.Gregory violates NPOV by exaggerating the connection between the IKEA murders and the rise of Sweden's anti-immigration politics. E.M.Gregory's sentence, "The attack is said to have contributed to producing a major uptick in support for the Sweden Democrats Party, which pledges to limit immigration," falsely portrays the two sources, both of which only mention the IKEA murders as a recent element rather than as a major influence. Challenged on this point, E.M.Gregory expanded the problem, adding a source written before the murders (!!) as well as an opinion piece from the UK which fails to describe the IKEA murders as having a major influence on the popularity of the Sweden Democrats Party. This looks like political advocacy to me, not encyclopedic writing. I'm seeing poor work by E.M.Gregory, not hounding by MSJapan. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, if a problem has been identified, can we please have some actual disciplinary action on top of the problem identification? The user's behavior is getting ridiculous, to the point of effectively inventing things to change. It's actually a minor improvement for once, but the behavior around it negates the whole thing, as the change was made only as a way to attack me (not to improve the content). This should not be the level that it takes to get a minor positive contribution out of the user, either. Said user, by the way, despite being notified of the ANI, hasn't actually addressed anything stated herein (of which there is a substantial pattern illustrated by diffs in several articles, talk pages, and AfDs) other than to accuse me of POV editing and mental instability. I consistently address content, and he consistently addresses me, not the content. Maybe I simply haven't been clear in what I wish to be done, so here it is: The shoddy disruptive POV editing all over Wikipedia and the personal attacks in response to content edits from this user need to stop, by sanction if necessary. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And some NPA [26]. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    which the user attempted to refactor out of the discussion, removing another editor's comment as well: [27] MSJapan (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Still more disruptive behavior:

    It is becoming apparent that when E.M.Gregory does not get his way, he edits disruptively, pushes back against editors who do not agree with him, and generally causes a problem. For that reason, I'm retitling this ANI, as this has really gone well beyond one article. There are too many issues across the contribs at this point to call this isolated or personal. I've found at least three other editors he has caused problems with at this point. By ignoring this, his behavior is being validated. MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note — As a heads up, I've added {{Ds/alert}}s to editors involved with the BLPs and warned E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) about a clear personal attack. To be fair, I do understand why he would feel he was being followed around, but clearly random accusations on talk pages or AfDs is not the proper place to go about dealing with the issue. --slakr\ talk / 08:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User interactions with AusLondonder

    I've mentioned these before, but I'm going to drop them into a subsection to see if Auslondonder wishes to participate in this discussion, because there's a lot of interaction between them, too.

    • [29] - where EMG falsely accuses AusLondonder of CSDing
    • [30] - where EMG goes from lightly reprimanding AusLondonder to notify editors from the previous AfD, and then accuses AusLondonder of violating canvassing by doing so
    • [31] - EMG then returns with the wikihounding accusation MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment having had a brief look at some of the articles created/edited by EMG, over and above the quality/misuse of sources, tag removing and general uncooperativeness referred to above. The articles seem to be written in a very WP:Coatrack manner, in which the main purpose of the article is to link immigration and criminality. Some of the articles currently at AfD, might well pass, but need major cleanups. If MSJapan and others have been obliged to follow this editor to ensure reasonable standards of sourcing and neutrality, they are doing us all a favour, not 'wikihounding'. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Firstly, I am perplexed why no admin is replying to this matter or addressing the concerns. I have had some difficult experiences with E. M. Gregory in the past. My perspective is that this editor seems to seek to seek to pursue a political agenda on Wikipedia to a significant extent. This relates mostly to Islam/immigration and related topics (and in the past LGBT issues). This includes misuse and misinterpretation of sources and continual false allegations against other editors. While E. M. Gregory has made some helpful contributions, they also fail to follow some behavioural and editing guidelines. My response to his false allegations against me was fairly robust, as we have clashed in the past when I nominated an article relating to a book about gay "conversion therapy", resulting in false accusations of bad faith and agenda-pushing. AusLondonder (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Auslondoner's record of bring articles the political implications of which he does not like to AFD is remarkable. Trying to remember ever "tangling" or even editing an article on LGBT issues, I came upon his AFD for a book: The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Cannot find/recall what LGBT -related AFD I might have met him on. More recently, he simultaneously attempted to speedy SeaGlass Carousel and brought to AFD 2012 Paros (Greece) rape and 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush. The problem is that he does not seem to perform WP:BEFORE, before he nominated articles. Moreover, the sort of reasons he gives for deletion "An encyclopaedia cannot cover every rape committed even if it is *gasp* committed by an "illegal" immigrant." are not exactly policy driven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel, as I have felt since MSJapan started this, that while it is true that I have made mistakes since I began editing regularly earlier this year, I have in general been a responsible editor. I also suppose that all editors make mistakes. What is intense and inappropriate about MSJapan is not only combing thorough months of edits to fine errors, but saving them up like a magpie to bring here, why not just fix the things? the intensity comes in articles like Douglas Al-Bazi, an article I found at AFD and sourced. I'm not saying that it's perfect, merely that MSJapan's description of it both at the AFD and, particularly, at the [[User talk:slakrs talk page to be almost inexplicable. Unless, of course, his goal is to drive me form Wikipedia, and the only reason for trying to drive me away that I can imagine is that she does not want articles about Christian refugees from ISIS on wikipedia. Perhaps this is not political, whatever the motivation, I do feel that I am undeserving of the language and animosity directed at me by MSJapan, and that both MSJapan (who repeatedly has expressed a desire to drive me off Wikipedia) and AusLondne To me, it feels as though they are working in combination to drive me away form Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in fact never stated such a position, and I see that EMG has not provided diffs to illustrate that. Meanwhile, I have provided plenty of diffs illustrating that EMG is not a responsible editor. Too many of his articles are written with an agenda in mind, and when confronted, he attacks the editor. The reason EMG finds my explanation "inexplicable" is dumbfounding to me, because I read every source EMG added to the article to try to find the statement he was citing to the source. In no case were those statements there; period. Therefore, it is likely that COATRACKing via Google is what is happening - Google the subject, add every source that his name is in - there's no other way that we could get to the situation that material clearly from a BBC radio program only was being sourced elsewhere. That is not responsible editing.
    A similar thing happened here, where my source-based explanation was met with personal response, and in fact has nothing to do with the article's topic. The same thing happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen - the pushback against the editors, not the sources: "the nom didn't do BEFORE", "Assertion is false" etc, not "the source says." MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the personal pushback seems to be an agenda of wanting these articles on Wikipedia, often for what appears to be ulterior motives. 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush was created on August 16, and then he basically walked away from the article. It was prodded two weeks later, and that's when the issues started. Every time someone said something in the AfD, EMG went an COATRACKed a bunch of sources in to the article. This is the same thing he did with Matthew C. Whitaker, and several creation edit summaries illustrates this creation/expansion pattern:
    2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush - edit summary on creation diff "article on 2003 Hamas terror shooting, back in the news due to successful lawsuit against bank that transferred funds to Hamas" - CLEARLY not notable as a standalone event, but being written as such. Created the article in one edit, left it alone until it was prodded two weeks later
    Matthew C. Whitaker - Started the article July 14 during coverage, worked on it for about 2 days, then went away from it until it was tagged as undue August 2. EMG removed tags without discussion, and then didn't touch the article again until it was edited August 19.
    [Seaglass Carousel creation diff https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=SeaGlass_Carousel&action=history] - "new article on new carousel, sourcing goes back yrs. , coverage likely to be intense when it opens next week - let them source it to Wikipedia" This is simply inappropriate use of the encyclopedia
    There wouldn't be so much evidence if this wasn't such a widespread problem, and I have probably not gone back more than a month or so of editing (maybe six weeks by now?), except in a few cases, because the point is that this is a long-term problem iwith this editor, not a personal issue limited to interactions with one or two editors. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for my levity at SeaGlass Carousel. The carousel is a big deal, artistically and in terms of coverage. I made a joke because I started the article just before the official opening. I happened to see it at night when the lights were on, the crew was running trials. I was totally take by it. So I wrote the little article. I write when something moves me. My first edit was about a terrorist attack. Mateu Morral. I find these things appalling, what ever the politics of the perpetrator. I suspect that a great many more of the old-time old anarchist and communist terror attacks could support articles than have them now. Often I am moved by a book, or an artist. I recently began several articles (mere stubs) about the cast of a show I saw: ((Hamilton (musical)]] and loved. I was not aware that there was a rule against starting an article and leaving it brief, in the assumption that it will grow. I have been under the impression that this is how Wikipedia functions. I often add just a bit to an article. Say, a reference, or a small fact. Sometimes I start an article in the belief that others, who know more about the topic, will sooner or later come and add to it. this seems to happen. But I have certainly been under the impression that if an incident of terrorism is widely covered by major media outlets, then an article is appropriate. This is true even of a great many such incidents where noone dies. (for example, 2014 Dijon attack, 2006 UNC SUV attack. I remember these incidents vividly, perhaps because I am familiar with the locations where they took place, but I heard about them on the national news at the time they ocurred. To me, MSJapan appears to be setting up a set of requirements for keeping an article on the 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush that don't exist and/or are not applied to other, somewhat parallel incidents in which civilians are targeted by terrorists. In a broader sense, I do not find his descriptions of my work accurate, or his attitude constructive. I had, as I have stated elsewhere, decided that if I ignored him instead of engaging with him, that he would forget me. Since he has not, I respond here and throw myself on the fairmindedness of editors reading this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You "ignore me" insofar as you revert edits out of hand, and refuse to engage in discussion until I bring things here, despite my posting on talk pages and AfDs consistently, documenting all my changes for the record. Meanwhile, you very much don't ignore me when your reversion edit summaries are all some form of "MSJapan is wrong/untruthful/makes unsupported statements", and yet you can't point to where the information you say is in the source, is actually in the source. I would also point out that I have never once made a personal attack against you, and have confined my statements entirely to dealing with sources. You, on the other hand, have accused me (so far) of: being an article topic, POV editing, having a COI, being "mentally unstable", and "having a nervous breakdown." It takes several other editors making the same changes I make and document for them to stick. Three other editors have indicated problems just in this thread, and two of them have never interacted with you. How big does the problem need to get? MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature

    This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [32] and [33]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..
    Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..
    And all this when
    (a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,
    (b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,
    (c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,
    (d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

    "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: (...)

    1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
    2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)
    Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are wrong. This is from the WP:NPA.
    "Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution and third opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required." (my emphasis). And the bold is what you don't try to do but you bring editors in this board - avoiding an attempt to reply to specific arguments as regards the entry's content in the entry's Talk Page and above.Panlis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from uninvolved editor I see an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards. Miniapolis 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could I read a reasoning for the conclusion that you see "an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards." ?Panlis (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very easy (and convenient too!) for somebody to declare himself ‘uninvolved editor’ and then to go on slandering other editors like me as sockpuppets etc mainly because I am an IP address editor. However, I thought that according to WP rules “the treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is unacceptable”. If this rule is not valid anymore please let me know and I will stop immediately taking part in the discussion. I think that good or bad faith should be assessed on the basis of the arguments offered not on the basis of suspicions and offering no arguments at all does not help anybody in drawing conclusions about the good faith of other editors. Quite the opposite.165.120.27.172 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty accused me and an editor using an IP address (read first two posts of this thread), of claiming political bias against him in which which he assumes the IP editor is me and thus he reported me to “the editor”. I told him he is assuming wrong. It is not my IP address. Thus by notifying the editor he harassed me for no real reason, because he does not show evidence that it is my IP address and he never first tried to resolve the issue on my talk page, but bypassed that wiki rule to file a grievance against me. I do not see how you can claim bad faith on my part, when it was Randykitty who harassed and threatened me. He replies that there is “no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page” (where personal issues are resolved). And “apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules.” Thus there is proof that he uses the wiki rules when it is convenient for him, and yet he accuses me that I want wiki rules to be used only for some situations. But if you look at my replies, I said that I want the wiki rules “evenly applied”, which is obvious by reading the thread above. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias. This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide. Sargis, as a former contributor to this journal, obviously has a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't hold them back spouting a stream of accusations in my direction. And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Everybody and everything you don't like has to be banned. This is direct democracy in action. Particularly so if some people are 'more equal' than others in imposing their own view of what a neutral encyclopedia should all be about and are able to dictate who is allowed to speak and who is not. Personally I refuse to take part anymore in any further 'discussions' of this kind.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say
    "I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias."
    a)You still throw accusations and mud against me and others without even getting into trouble to support your case the way you should do according to WP:AOBF,-as I tried to do-, but you assumed bad faith from the beginning, and this was not accidental as you had attempted to delete the entry as non-notable in the recent past, something that was unanimously rejected with the active participation of other editors as well. And pardon me but..who talks about wikilawyering when you drop rows over rows of Wiki rules which some of them contain significant passages as I tried to show above in my replies that serve the opposite case to what you want to demonstrate! (see the passages from the WP:ANI above, WP:AOBF etc.)
    b)As usually you bypass the argument. What you did and this is why you were criticized in the first place was mostly that you added citation demands repeatedly and in a row despite the clear no-need for them in a significant dialogue to which you decided not to take part and reply, while at the same time I and others tried consistently to address your own demands so as to improve the entry, something that demonstrates a reasonably bona fide approach and clearly undermines your accusations for WP:NPA and doesn't explain at all the initiative for beginning this debate in here!.
    "This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide."
    c)Yes, and the editors replied with documented argumentation, passages, examples etc. to your edits in the page's Talk Page; To their answers you did not get into trouble to answer but you brought me and the rest in here when you saw that not all your demands would be fulfilled.
    d)Calling a journal borderline notable needs proof which should be given in the entry's Talk Page and not through aphorisms here. A clear decision that the journal is notable was formed just a year ago after extensive discussion and documentation with the participation of other editors too, when you first raised the non-notability factor. Your insistence to show how not notable the journal is, is just another indication of your obvious bias against it and that you just like to pull at straws in this case.
    "And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. "
    e)This is simply not to say when clear effort to improve the entry was made as a reply to your own dictations. On the other hand your bias is a pattern shown repeatedly, beginning from your attempt to delete the entry a year ago (based on the supposed non-notability of it), which was rejected, by your call still for non-notability of the journal despite the decision last year, by the fact that you proceeded in a spree of cite-tagging that you didn't like to address in the major medium to do it: In the entry's Talk Page.
    g)From the above, the case to my mind is simply pulling at straws and should be archived. Moreover no reasoning at all was given by the non-involved editor who appeared yesterday. Panlis (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I think you misread things. The previous AfD was not unanimous at all (despite a host of SPA editors creeping out of the woodwork), which is probably why you didn't link to it directly. (The fact that it was taken to AfD no less than 4 times shows that its notability is not as clear as you try to make it seem). And from the moment that I dared voice some critical remarks of the article on this journal, my motivations have been put into doubt, so it's a bit rich that you now call upon AGF, something you have never done yourself. The references "for which there is no clear need" that I requested are clearly needed. The journal article writing guide, based on a wide consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals, explicitly states that lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." The appropriate sources should be provided or the list should be removed. Now lest somebody thinks that this is a simple content dispute that does not belong at ANI, please have a look at the talk page of the article and the blatant personal attacks there (continued for all to see in the postings above). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, it was not unanimous, you were the only one who didn't agree as far as I recall among a variety of editors. But the documents and dialogue back then demonstrated for good the notability of the article, with dozens of 3rd party references that I digged out, if you remember, which further showed its significance. Secondly, this is not a forum for solving the possible issues of an article but this should be done in its Talk Page to which you decided not to answer. Particularly when the issues raised above were replied in that Talk Page by using relevant examples from many important Journal entries to which for peculiar reasons this rule for Journals you mention doesn't abide, and for which entries you did not make any further fuss e.g. raising respective complaints for their having a simple and direct listing of contributors. And this is mainly because of your bias against the Democracy and Nature entry that has been more than evident from all dialogue in that Talk Page and here, that you disguise as WP:NPA. This is then to my mind clearly a pulling at straws case you continue raising in this Board as it is not intended of course for Dispute Resolution over the content of an article and you very well know it. As per your "critical remarks", you insist on bypassing the fact that the editors of the entry replied to all of them concretely and with evidence in the appropriate page to do this, something that you just did not like and chose arbitrarily to bring the issue of WP:NPA in here instead. But this is also a case of turning a blind eye to the edits of the entry because as I repeatedly demonstrated (but you prefer to ignore), all your sensible demands according to the editors of the entry -older and newer as well-, were met.- Panlis (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read again. There were several delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate, just as you're doing here. You obviously have read WP:TLDR and are trying to use it to your advantage here. The arguments that you brought forward on the talk page to counter my legitimate concerns were 1/ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and 2/ "you're biased". That kind of arguments always crop up when a cabal of POV/COI editors are faced with somebody insisting on getting things done in a neutral and encyclopedic way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please use concrete evidence as passages, diffs etc., like I have been persistently doing inhere, so as to justify your "conclusions"? I just read the dialogue in the Democracy and Nature entry's Talk Page and I don't see any other user who had taken part in that discussion (Cwobeel, WallabieJoey, KosMal, Arran Gare and a couple of IP editors) who was in favour of deleting the entry back then except for you.! Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me by bringing here specific links, diffs etc. and not with aphorisms. My final take on this irrelevant and disorientating debate is that this is not the arena to solve the possible issues of an entry, and the other issues (Personal Attacking etc.) that you raised were addressed in painstaking detail above. I hope this has become clear and I plead you to stop raising repeatedly humiliating and aggressive cases against me by calling me part of a sect etc. and by pulling at straws inhere, as it could be taken for Harassment. You may have plenty of time to do tens of thousands of edits and to jump to conclusions in dialogues and debates, without getting into trouble to offer specific evidence as per WP:AOBF, but unfortunately I have not when it is not justified, as clearly happens in this pulling-at-straws case. And in addition to the fact that I try to be very precise and documented in my interventions these are the two main reasons for which I cannot contribute in the frequency and to the extent I would like to the Wikipedia project. Thank you! Panlis (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice try, but as my previous comment should have made clear, we're not here to discuss what happened in an AfD a year ago (even though that debate was marred by the same lack of good faith and personal attacks, and, yes, there were other editors !voting "delete", too), nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute. We are here because of the refusal to AGF and the personal attacks at Talk:Democracy & Nature (at the misnamed section Randy Kitty's recurring deletion attempt). The "discussion" there clearly shows that my efforts to explain why something needs to be done were met with scorn, personal attacks (throwing doubt on my integrity), and bullshit arguments that other articles should be cleaned up first. Diffs are not necessary here, a 5 min perusal of the section I just linked do will do the job just fine. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you using foul and abusive language such as "bullshit"? Is not that a wiki "no no"? We are proving your bias, since there is a history to your attempt to delete D&N. So how can that not be evidence, because it happened in the past? Randykitty you dis other editors in the previous AfD of D&N as “creeping out of the woodwork” and as "your friends". If that is not an assault or name calling or personal attack or breaking of some wiki rule, or suggesting that bona fide editors are our "friends"let me know what is. Actually, if I were vengeful, I could say the same about the “univolved” editor as "your friend" “creeping out of the woodwork” at this late stage, but I will not because I have no proof. Four times D&N withstood deletion. Is this perpetual attempt to delete not part of something about journal writing? Notable is notable whether weak or strong is it not? Why are you beating a dead horse? Yes, maybe eventually, Randykitty, you will be able to put D&N under your belt, because at sometime you will be able to garner enough support, which speaks volumes of wiki objectivity (notable is notable whether weak or strong). Also you state “lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." We had this discussion about Chomsky who has published in many journals at Wikipedia, but with no reliable sources discussing his involvement with those journals in more than an in-passing way. That is why I demanded evenly applied wiki rules. You came with a ferocity of edits at (as you have tried in the past) the D&N article, and as well as placing tags immediately at Inclusive Democracy & Takis Fotopopulos. As an editor who wants to improve articles, your approach has the opposite effect and can be assumed to be not neutral. You say concerning delete votes on the last attempt to delete D&N, "delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate." A debate is a debate where there is discussion. The "delete" votes and "keep" votes were counted and there were more votes to “keep” as in the other attempts to delete D&N. Why are you accusing editors who help D&N as our "friends"? What proof do you have? Just because they help improve the article you think they are our friends? It is absurd. Furthermore, if you were bona fide and your problem is the quality of the article and not to get rid of the editors because you do not care for their replies, you could have proceeded to a Dispute Resolution procedure and why not open a new thread in the Administrators' Noticeboard with a relevant title. But what you did was to bring me and others to this board by calling us a "sect" and with accusations of WP:COI, WP:NPA etc. etc.. When you found out that your accusations do not have good basis, you came back to the purported problem of the content of the entry, which should be solved with the presence of informed editors about the content of the entry, and not within the context of an accusations thread, as you have just tried to cover over-"nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute" John sargis (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And hop! Yet another wall of text. The issue here is not the previous AfD, nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted. And the fact that I took this article to AfD and has been kept does not mean that I am now barred from improving the article where necessary, because I would somehow be biased. Hardly anybody who participated in the AfD has ever tried to improve the article as you claimed. Please stay to the point, which is your aspersions on my integrity. Could an admin please look at the above evidence and, if found to be correct, block me for disruptive editing so that we can put an end to this nonsense? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hyrdlak

    A story as old as time. On 19 September 2009 User:Hyrdlak (a single purpose account with 204 edits since: 2009-09-19) created an entry called Tomasz Kamusella and by the next day increased its size to 18,780 bytes (most of it unreferenced), with a few quotes from filfak.ni.ac.yu (Server not found). By 8 July 2012 Hyrdlak increased the same bio to 26,744 bytes at which point it became glaringly obvious to me I began to suspect that Hyrdlak writes about himself. By 26 February 2014 Hyrdlak expanded the entry to 29,467 bytes with a bunch of junk from his own filing cabinet (no third party assessment).[38]

    I tried to help him write a better article about himself his single purpose, but ... no can do. He reverted me twice without addressing my concerns, and instead, by 10 February 2015 expanded his the bio to 31,960 bytes. This is where the whole thing went through the roof. Please, check out his aggressive and dismissive outbursts when other Wikipedians (i.e. Voluneer Marek) began reacting to his silly game. Hyrdlak pasted the same series of rants on several talk pages including Talk:Tomasz Kamusella: I suspect that Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent may be the very same user. --Hyrdlak 14:41, 23 August 2015. Meanwhile, Hyrdlak also created an entry about his work called Polsko-angielsko-niemiecki Glosariusz regionalny Województwa Opolskiego, a fringe glossary in the Polish language which sparked outrage by his Kamusella's own employer. See: "The university distanced itself from the author of a glossary" in Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper. What Hyrdlak does not understand is that we do acknowledge his academic accomplishments of one Tomasz Kamusella, but treating others like shit is not going to get him Hyrdlak anywhere around here. Poeticbent talk 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant diffs
    Reply to Poeticebnt: Regarding your claim that I 'revenge-edited' the entry on Per Anders Rudling. How about I applied your own medicine of 'expert edit,' as formulated by you here:

    "18 May 2015, Poeticbent reinstated Volunteer Marek’s version of this entry {on T Kamusella} and remarked: “restored expert edit by Volunteer Marek → you have been advised against writing about yourself User:Hyrdlak and if you persist, I will personally report you to AN/I for the breach of Wikipedia core policy/guidelines which can result in serious remedies.”

    By 'expert edit,' here you mean removing information on most of T Kamusella's books and on all of Kamusella's journal articles and book chapters. Basically in my edit of the entry on Rudling, I removed the scholar's journal articles and book chapters, in line with what you endorse. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 8:59, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)

    He's probably notable. 6 books by major English language publishers, include Palgrave Macmillan, an important publisher for this subject. I cannot see the article on the fringe dictionary, but I suspect that it may be a disagreement over the status of a particular dialect. I would redirect the article on it--I cannot imagine that would be sufficiently important by itself, unless it stirred up a very major controversy. (As a general rule, trying to write an article on an author & also one on a minor book does indicate a tendency to promotionalism (which is why we discourage autobiographies) , but the bio article in its present state seems acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kamusella is probably notable. The glossary is not. DGG, you edited one of these articles at some point (I recall seeing your name in the page history), and put in a POV tag on one of them, which was then removed ... by Hyrdlak.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it: here and here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about Kamusella (maybe he is notable), but I'm also for deleting the article about the glossary. It's not even sourced now... Peter238 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether Kamusella is notable. Quite probably, given the books with major publishers as remarked upon by DGG, although the long post on the article's talk page about how Kamusella meets many of the criteria of WP:PROF mainly betrays inexperience with how this guideline usually is applied. I don't think the fellowship of the Royal Historical Society confers notability, given the large number of fellows listed on that organization's homepage. In this case, notability most probably will come from multiple book reviews of his books (positive or negative, that doesn't really matter). I don't think his citation record is strong enough to indicate a pass of PROF#1. Below mention is made about "crazies vs non-crazies", with Kamusella in the former category. However, given the readership at St. Andrews, apparently obtained after the controversy in Poland, I'd actually be surprised if he really were a fringe/crazy. The article needs a lot of work, though... --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There is indeed some excitement to be had here. But strictly speaking it's a (regional) glossary not a dictionary. Anyway, the excitement... this is actually about a manufactured controversy which has been used as a way of self-promotion by one Tomasz Kamusella, which started off in the "real world" and then, thanks to the efforts of User:Hyrdlak made its way onto Wikipedia. Some serious BLP violations and slander of several individuals included along the way.
    I started writing it up but then realized it'd end up being TL;DR. So here's the run down: Tomasz Kamusella = fringe "Silesian Nationalist" activist of borderline notability (this version). Publishes this glossary in 2004. The glossary has some wacky ideas in it (Opole's not really part of Poland, Polish-German border is illegal, eastern regions of Poland are really "Germany under temporary Polish occupation" etc). Kamusella in the glossary claims that it was published with backing and financial support from some local politicians and government institutions. When the book comes out these politicians freak out because they don't want to be associated with these loony ideas and apparently they neither gave money to Kamusella nor "supported" him in anyway. They want the passage which mentions them removed. Minor controversy of local regional significance ensues ... for like a week or so. Publisher also says "oh shit, I didn't realize the kind of crap that was in there". One of the said politicians makes an off-hand comment to the local town newspaper to the effect that he wouldn't mind seeing copies of the book burned. Publisher pulls the book, I'm guessing cuz they didn't want to get their ass sued.
    Kamusella then runs around yelling about censorship, about how his book was burned and claims it was the "first book banned in post-Communist Poland". Which is all kinds of nonsense. He writes numerous letters to big name politicians who studiously ignore him. Kamusella publishes these letters himself on various websites and tries to make as much noise as possible. Like I said, a manufactured controversy designed to sell copies of the glossary and give him name recognition.
    Volunteer Marek, have a look at the screenshot from the catalog of the Polish National Library, which you removed from the entry on Kamusella. It is quite a tangible proof censorship. You can also read about the matter in this newspaper article: http://www.nto.pl/wiadomosci/opole/art/4475287,glosariusz-bedzie-dostepny-marszalek-nie-chce-byc-cenzorem,id,t.html. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 9:10 Sept 4, 2015 (GMT)
    On Wikipedia User:Hyrdlak, who is a single purpose account dedicated to promoting Kamusella (see Poeticbent's links above - all articles created and edited by them promote Kamusella in some way or another), brings this whole sorry situation to Wikipedia. This version of the article basically gives you the flavor. There's a ton of misrepresentation of essentially the single source ([39]) on the topic in there and host of BLP violations. There's a bunch similar in related articles started/edited by Hyrdlak. To keep this at least a bit short I'll let you figure out what those are, but I'll be happy to elaborate upon request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, if someone gets the idea that this is some kind of Polish-vs-German thing, think again. One of the people being slandered in Hyrdlak's version of the article is Ryszard Galla, probably the most notable member of the German Minority Party in Poland. It's not Pole vs. German, it's rather crazy vs. non-crazy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that Volunteer Marek believes I am R Galla. Perhaps he did not read the references. I realize R Galla is a respected politician and leader of Poland's German minority. Nevertheless, it was him who appealed for burning the Glossary by saying 'Ogromne oczy zrobił wicemarszałek Galla z MN oglądając zapisy w książeczce, w której wydawca (Oficyna Piastowska) dziękuje mu za sponsoring. - Spalić to' see: http://opole.gazeta.pl/opole/1,35114,2062655.html#ixzz3koOJCw4U. If we don't like an unappealing reality, should we deny it? Is it the principle of objectivity in action as Voluneer Marek and Poeticbent see it. Is this interpretation of the principle of objectivity upheld by the majority of Wikipedia users? --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 11:44, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    I obviously DON'T believe you're R Galla, since I said above that you're using Wikipedia to slander R Galla in violation of WP:BLP. Not that hard to sort out is it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said, Volunteer Marek. I was just wondering. Would it be possible that User:Hyrdlak created User:Franek K. on 2012-08-06 to beef up the ethno-nationalist fight for Silesia already known from the "glossary" article? Franek K. was featured on this AN/I page in October 2014. He said about himself: I live in Poland, I am a teacher at school (bingo!) and I know - most of informations by POlish authors about Silesians and Kashubians is propaganda. – On 22 October 2014 Sandstein blocked Franek K. with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) - with a rationale: (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: Ethno-nationalist battleground editing, see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WP:AE&oldid=630623388#Franek_K. (not an AE block)). -- Poeticbent talk 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anybody aware of WP:OUTING?

    "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. ... Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia.
    ..attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block"

    Poeticbent's claim that in 2009 "User:Hyrdlak (...) created an entry about himself" clearly violates these basic rules of privacy. Poeticbent is very well aware of this policy because his own identity was disclosed some years ago in the context of WP:EEML. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for reminding Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek about some basic principles of courtesy and objectivity in discussion as confirmed by the Wikipedia regulations. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 11:47 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    It's just your claim, it's just your conclusion of what you think might be the real identity of Hyrdlak. If you just could tell us where and when did he admit to be Kamusella. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: In the Polish Wikipedia there's a page called pl:Wikipedysta:Hyrdlak/Dariusz Jerczyński with a wall of text (13,017 bytes) of pure, resourceless promo about one pl:Dariusz Jerczyński, article deleted twice (in November 2013, and February 2015) and nominated for deletion for the third time on 30 August 2015.[41] – If we were to believe what we read, Tomasz Kamusella and Dariusz Jerczyński are writing friends from the ethno-nationalist publishing venue called Wydawnictwo: Narodowa Oficyna Śląska,[42] citing each other as experts wherever they can.[43] – In the linked paper Kamusella demands that the Council of Europe send a fact-finding mission to study the situation of the Silesians in Poland, similar to Morgenthau mission to Poland in 1919. Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was sent in to investigate allegations of pogroms against Jews, not ethno-nationalist writings of a few local ideologues who believe that: "policies in Czechoslovakia and Poland convinced the majority of the Slavophones [sic] ... to be Germans, rather than Czechs or Poles (Jerczyński, 2006: 83-233).(page 51 and 66, or 10-25/33 in Kamusella) Poeticbent talk 19:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I wonder why the entry on D Jerczynski in the Polish Wikipedia must be removed and vilified like that. He is the author of the single and quite extensive (however imperfect) on the history of Silesia and the Sliesians written from the Silesian point of view. This national/ethnic group with is Poland's largest national minority (see Polish censuses of 2002 and 2011) continues not to be recognzied by the state, their organizations are refused registration, and the same happens to the Silesian language. Fortunately, the Silesian Wikipedia is well and active. But if Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent have such a negative approach to matters Silesian, I won't be surprised when they propose the Silesian Wikipedia be phased out, as well. Is it not a symptom of having difficulties to see beyond the ideologica perimeter of Polish antionalism? --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:12, Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    May I just quote WP:SELFPROMOTION:
    "==How to handle conflicts of interest==
    ===Avoid outing===
    Further information: Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information
    Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser. In asking an editor if they have COI, the request should clearly indicate that it is entirely optional for them to answer."
    WP:COI explicitly warns not to disclose an editor's real life identity. WP:OUTING is a serious harassment and you should really stop your personal attacks against me. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HerkusMonte looks to be right here, Hyrdlak never appears to say anywhere on Wikipedia that he actually is Tomasz Kamusella, so, stating that Hyrdlak is Tomasz Kamusella is indeed an act of outing , as such , the claim made by Poeticbent needs to be removed and oversighted as outing is flat not allowed on Wikipedia. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for reminding Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek about some basic principles of courtesy and objectivity in discussion as confirmed by the Wikipedia regulations. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:15 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    • You're not being serious. No-one in Wikipedia ever admits to writing an article about themselves, but that's not the point. I did the digging myself (not you, not anybody) and posted the results above for all to see proving WP:conflict of interest based on readily available external sources. That's it. I admit that after my investigation I can no longer say who is who ... and so I redacted my opening statement above. The only conclusive proof is edit warring by a WP:SPA with probable WP:COI, as well as suspicion of sock-puppetry. Everything else stays. Poeticbent talk 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Poeticbent, but rules are rules and they should be observed by all, unless I am mistaken. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:17 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    The problem is that one cannot say "this person is obviously engaging in shameless self-promotion, is slandering people they've had real-life disputes with on Wikipedia and is obviously editing with a serious conflict of interest" without at least suggesting that that person is... actually doing that. In other words, that they are that person.
    Anyway, you can oversight any claims about Hyrdlak's supposed identity, but the fact remains that Hyrdlak is a single purpose account which is engaged in masivvely promoting Tomasz Kamusella and who uses Wikipedia as a platform to attack people who've had disagreements with Kamusella in real life in a way which slanders them and which involves some very serious BLP violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek Since you chimed in, are you going to answer Drmies's question a. Poeticbent, are you in fact Volunteer Marek,? I ignored it the first time, but now, since you've responded to something PoeticBent said, it would be a pertinent question (not just that one instance, but that and the other instances Drmies mentioned ) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh.... I don't think that was a serious question, just Drmies joking around (he's feeling insecure about Bama's upcoming season so he's getting his kicks in while he still can). But for your edification I'll answer it: no, I am not, in fact, or in otherwise, Poeticbent. I did write a poem once. Wanna hear it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Spare us! Poeticbent's writing style is eloquent and elegant. Let me guess... Your poem goes a little bit like this: "Freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', freakin', you are out of your freakin' mind." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek are not the same person, but for sure they do work as team. They keep removing my edits and references in tandem. One cuts, and the other confirms that such a cut is legit. When, as an example, I apply the same medicine (that is, no book chapter or journal articles in an entry on an academic) as in the case of Per Anders Rudling (an entry created by Poeticbent), they take offense and revert my edits --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:21 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    What you are doing at the Per Anders Rudling article is plain ol' revenge editing aimed at making a WP:POINT. I actually had no idea why you decided this particular academic to pick on until now, when you stated that this article was created by Poeticbent. So you went in and started fucking up that article to get even. Nice. So on top of violating WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and most likely WP:COI you've now taken to making disruptive revenge edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear All, I have no time for that. I wanted to add to the Wikipedia on matters Silesian, as the corner is a tad neglected. I started my discussion with Volunteer Marek and Poeticbent in March. They never replied to my questions and concerns, apart from Poeticbent threatening to report me to the Wikipedian powers that be. Fine, now the discussion has run its course. But when I have some I will go around removing my account. I guess many entries on matters Silesian will be free game. Unfortunately so. --User:Hyrdlak (talk) 12:20 Sept 5, 2015 (GMT)
    • Please stop your self centered self agrandazing User:Hyrdlak. You are not, and have never been interested in improving the Wikipedia coverage of Silesia, only promoting Kamusella. You made 68 edits to his bio (30% of your entire Wikipedia contributions). And you lied on the page List of books banned by governments claiming that his book is banned by government,[44] while slandering respected Silesian politicians who were disturbed by absurdities featured in Kamusella's infamous 128 page glossary ... such as this little gem (quote): "Śląsk częścią wschodnich ziem niemieckich pod tymczasową administracją Polski i ZSRR, 1945-1991." Translation: "Silesia is part of Eastern territories of Germany, under temporary administration of Poland and the Soviet Union in 1945-1991.[45] Emphasis mine. The glossary was printed with the money from Voivodeship executive board hoping for a guide in English they could use in their official business. Once the owner of the publishing house learned what's in the glossary, he withdrew its short run as first.[46] Poeticbent talk 01:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis and page creation problems

    Apologies for the length of this report. The tl;dr version is that I believe Dolovis (talk · contribs)' page creation habits routinely ignore policy, guidelines and past consensus, and represent a drain on community time that far outweighs what little value they provide. I recommend this be stopped. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis is an editor with whom myself and a few other editors have had a long and contentious history with regarding article creation. He first came to ANI back in 2011 in which he was creating and/or moving pages and gaming the system as part of a diacritics war that was brewing at the time. He was briefly banned from moving pages, and later re-banned from moving any pages related to diacritics after immediately breaching a promise to reform his behaviour in that area. To the best of my knowledge, that ban remains active. (He is also under a BASC imposed one-way interaction ban with Djsasso, whom Dolovis has targeted more than once, and most recently with scrutiny-evading sockpuppet - that condition placed as part of an unblock request that a clearly divided ArbCom reluctantly granted.)

    I have long been an extreme critic of Dolovis' habits of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs of marginally notable or completely non-notable hockey players, often relying on the bare minimum allowed by the WP:NHOCKEY SNG (recent example: Simon Suoranta; literally a couple thousand more examples available) - inevitably using just a stats sheet or player profile page from a league site as the sole source. His other big habit is to create redirects for non-notable players to any random article that might kind of fit, pretty much just on speculation that said player might become notable someday. I have long felt that these creations are ego-driven efforts to simply grab the first edit for as many new pages as he can, and not done out of a true desire to improve the project. Or, as Ravenswing recently put it: "This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article 'creation.'" Dolovis' only real goal with Wikipedia is to create as many new pages as he can, and he has shown complete and utter contempt for virtually every policy or guideline that stands in his way. The result is that editors who also monitor in this space have to spend an inordinate amount of time curating and reviewing these articles, while his contempt for policies has caused a great deal of wasted time for editors and admins at WP:AFD, WP:REFUND, WP:RFD - By my count, Dolovis has had over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone; Ravenswing targeted about 75 articles of his for AFD in January 2014. Only ONE ended up as a keep. Four others were no consensus closes, the rest deleted. This represented a massive waste of time for those of us who had to do the research after creation because Dolovis clearly and obviously did not do any research before creation.

    The problems with his creations go far deeper than just a disregard for notability criteria. He has created two speculative articles on NHL teams that don't exist - Quebec NHL team and Las Vegas NHL team - that, aside from being failures of WP:CRYSTAL, I have realized are unattributed copy-paste jobs from Potential National Hockey League expansion. In short, Dolovis is creating copyright violations because it is easier to rip off someone else's work to try and grab that first edit for any future NHL team. Another of his recent creation, 2014 KHL Junior Draft, is likewise an unattributed copy of someone else's article (in this case, 2013 KHL Junior Draft). He has also previously tried to speculate on future NHL teams as well - in this case, ironically, one of the few examples of his putting real work into something (assuming it wasn't likewise just ripped off from someone else's work).

    Dolovis has deliberately created articles on non-notable players and failed to defend them when PRODded (most recent example: Pavel Karnaukhov), because he knows he can just run to WP:REFUND and request a history undeletion to get that first edit back if the player later becomes notable and someone else recreates the article. This is something that has been picked up on by others. This only wastes the time of three separate editors: whomever reviews the article, who deletes it at PROD, and who restores the article later. This is blatant gaming the system. In that thread, Ravenswing also shows numerous links of Dolovis misrepresenting sources to try and claim a player meets an easier criteria of NHOCKEY or misrepresenting NHOCKEY itself to try and justify these creations.

    Dolovis is even worse when it comes to redirect creation. When he knows there is no chance of an article surviving more than a few hours, he just redirects pages to random, somewhat related targets with no regard for the fact that his actions actively hinder the search function. In fact, despite having these redirects deleted at least five times in the past two years, I STILL had to take two more to RFD this week, which are again heading to a delete. As of right now, he has 17 redirects listed at RFD, and every single one is leaning delete. And I am preparing to RFD dozens more for the exact same reason.

    His non-hockey creations are no better, This article was clearly created as a synthesis of Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) - Dolovis obviously does not have those sources and never read them. He simply copied them from the latter article and reworded a couple passages to "create" his version. And then there is this. That might be the laziest article creation in Wikipedia history. He only expanded it (likely a cleaned up version of Google Translate) after someone else reviewed and prodded it.

    All of this is just a long winded way of saying that Dolovis' page creations are of such a low value, that his continual disregard for policy and guidelines - including policies on copyright violations - and that the time wasted in cleaning up, PRODding, AFDing and RFDing is so high, that allowing Dolovis to continue creating pages like this represents such a drain on the community that I believe it needs to be stopped. This has been going on for years. As such, I would like to propose that Dolovis be indefinitely banned from creating any new pages in Wikipedia main space. Given he brags that he has started over 5800 pages, I would suggest that he could direct his future time into expanding those 5800 two sentence sub stubs. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah yes, Dolovis. Indef-blocked after a drawer full of socks and unblocked with a minor edit restriction--see this note by Thryduulf. That seems to have come about quite easily. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely endorse all Resolute has said and support an indef ban on new article creation by Dolovis. Dolovis is not only a disruptive presence, who's created an appalling amount of work for those who've had to clean up his messes, but he's been extremely tendentious over the years, filibustering at great length to keep his edit count high ... often at times in complete contradiction to arguments he made the week before. As you can see yourself from his edit history, he's far less interested in improving the encyclopedia as in racking up his new creation count, and has found the creation of implausible, desperately obscure redirects an easy way to do it.

      Honestly, I would really appreciate hearing from those in the BASC process who felt that Dolovis' well-merited indef block ought to be reversed. Leaving aside the minor edit restriction to which he agreed (and which he just last week sought to overturn), what led them to believe that he had changed his ways, what assurances did they receive that he would do so, and what monitoring did they undertake to ensure that he did? Ravenswing 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone give some background here? The block log only says that it was a block evasion block (which seems odd to create new accounts since they wouldn't inflate your edit count) since the 2012 block and thus the standard offer that was the main basis for the unblock was for sock evasion and this doesn't seem to be the problem here. Is there a discussion about a redirect or article-creation ban (I think there's at least one other user with an ARBCOM ban with that kind of wording)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the sockpuppet investigation, you can see that another account was being used to request deletion of articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, using the same rationale used in requests for deletion of articles created by Dolovis. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so still nothing related to this specific problem (ignoring that the only response seemed to be "look at my edit count, I couldn't have done this"). Again, I'm not seeing a history of the new article abuse problem so examples of recent antics (there isn't a huge deleted edit history so there actually aren't a lot of editing articles that became deleted) would be helpful and then we're back to potential solutions: a proposal that Dolovis be banned from six months from creating a new article or redirect without the approval of an admin? (I'd suggest AFC but requiring admins would be a higher standard and one I've seen here before). Is so, suggest that and see if there's a consensus supporting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to go too far into his SPI stuff since it is tangental to his article creation problem, and this was long enough as it is. But that was a hypocritical example of Dolovis using a sock in bad hand fashion to revenge target some of DJSasso and Ravenswing's oldest articles created using the exact same rationale as Ravenswing presented in nominating seven dozen of Dolovis' pages for deletion. Part of the reason why his deleted contributions list is deceptive is the fact that he knowningly creates articles that won't pass a PROD or AFD, but wants the first edit in history so he can request a history restore at WP:REFUND when someone else re-creates an article after the subject does become notable. But in short, he's had over 100 articles deleted at AFD, he's got about 100 redirects at RFD right now - he continues to create redirects of the type that have been consistently deleted at RFD for a few years now even though he is well aware of the consensus against them - and god only knows how many have been deleted through PROD, only to be restored later at REFUND. The long and the short of it is that we are at several hundred pages deleted or about to go, and what does stick, sticks only because they meet NHOCKEY or other SNGs by the skin of their teeth. Even then, those sub stubs themselves offer no value. Given his history of misrepresenting sources, it would honestly take more time than what any of us has to investigate and verify all of those pages as well. Ravenswing spent close to a month last year reviewing and AFDing less than 20% of his creations, at that time. And Dolovis is now getting into creating copyvios, which was the final impetus for this report. He's damned lucky I only picked up on those after his ill-advised request to have one edit restriction removed was archived, otherwise I would have presented this to arbcom in that process. As it is, it wastes our time to have to review this junk, it wastes an admin's time to deal with PROD requests on articles he knows won't stick, it wastes an admin's time at REFUND and it waste's everyone's time at AFD and RFD. Resolute 13:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    as well as
    Anton Karlsson is archetypal of the page creation problem. Dolovis created this as an empty redirect to a page with no information about the player on 20 February 2014. It was prodded; Dolovis removed the prod; it was listed and then deleted at Rfd. Another editor created a page about this player some time later, when they became notable. Subsequently, Dolovis requested the history of their redirect be merged with this page, and is now credited as the creator of this content, even though they contributed exactly nothing to it. This is an WP:EDITCOUNTITIS problem, but a problem nonetheless.
    The bigger problem, of course, is that of the 111 pages listed above, none have survived a deletion discussion (counting the 103 currently listed which are very likely to be deleted shortly, their discussions are really formalities at this point) and this wastes the community's time (it takes, by my count, 312 edits to list the 103 currently listed, not counting the actual discussion, plus subsequently taking up admins' time closing those discussions and deleting the redirects, plus time wasted when Dolovis requests history merges when someone else creates an article). Banning Dolovis from creating pages will not harm the encyclopedia at all, and will give other editors the opportunity to be given appropriate credit when they create pages about notable hockey players, which will further encourage the creation of those articles, which greatly benefits the project.
    Thus (tl;dr) I support banning Dolovis from creating pages in any space, because I'm sure they'll just find a way to game a more limited ban. I have no comment on the socking issue as it seems unrelated to the page creation issue, and doesn't seem to be a current issue anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I am going to keep this pretty brief because Resolute has done a very good job of summing up the issue. Dolovis continually creates articles he know will be almost instantly deleted. And when he can't even remotely argue an article is valid he creates a redirect to some random remotely related page that often has no information on the subject. He has been an extremely disruptive editor in all manner of ways from his ban on diacritics editing to the sockpuppeting to the creation of clearly non-notable pages that are a waste to the communities time. I actually support a full site ban. But I am happy to accept a page creation ban as a first step to see if that helps the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a six-month topic ban against Dolovis creating articles or redirects without having it approved by an administrator. Proposing a dozens redirects will just annoy someone but if there's a new article, there's a chance to get it approved. I'm going to give a bit of leeway to see if Dolovis can propose articles of any worth to be created which would give us support to remove the ban in the future. Otherwise, there's no way to tell if the problems have been resolved or not. If there's no examples or new articles of the right quality to base this on, we can evaluate extending this in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very reasonable response; certainly Dolovis should be allowed to create articles if they are worth creating, and not just redirects or stubs on players which they admit are non-notable. However, I propose that this restriction be placed for 14 months. Why 14? Because this will actually prevent Dolovis from creating the mass of redirects from players drafted in the next year's draft. Otherwise, it's not really a sanction, they will pretty much automatically wait it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In six months, Dolovis can either show that this restriction is no longer needed (by pointing to actual articles created after approval by an admin) or we'll see that Dolovis has done nothing in that way because Dolovis only wants to create stubs and redirects. If there are literally zero edits because this topic ban is essentially a de facto ban for that person (for a lot of editors, a minor topic ban causes a complete meltdown, but we'll see here), then we'll all better off I guess. The personality type that sockpuppets that much and argues that much just after agreeing to restrictions tells me it won't take six months for another problem to surface that this restriction won't matter much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. My worry, however, is that at no stage in his Wikipedia career has Dolovis embraced the premise of "You're right. I'm wrong. I recognize that I broke the rules, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." Over and over again, he argues for delay -- that some other appeals process be brought into play, that he'll agree to an entirely voluntary, short-term (and unenforceable) moratorium on objectionable behavior, that deadlines be extended for further comment. What would a six-month restriction solve that his nine-month block didn't?

    Beyond that, who's the poor bastard admin who's going to get saddled with doing all the notability research on dozens of new articles, an area in which Dolovis is notoriously indifferent? Ravenswing 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • No one's advocating "destroying" anyone. Nor is any editor prevented from being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia by being enjoined from new article creation. Not counting redirects, I've created fewer than a half-dozen articles a year, and I've only created two in the last three years. Over 40,000 edits in, I figure I've found other ways to contribute. Ravenswing 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for butting into such an important discussion — I followed user:Resolute here. So this is where all the editors on Wikipedia are spending their time? Wow!
    Anyway, I won’t stay around long (don’t want to get in trouble), but the opening statement by Resolute got me worried, because I also create a fair number of wp:stubs that end up in the wiki-garbage-can, but did not realize that this could put me on the wrong side of the wiki-law. I hope I am taking things out of context, but sorry, I don't have the time to investigate. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Dolovis

    • Response by Dolovis: When I joined Wikipedia in 2010, I came across thousands one line stub articles about professional ice hockey articles. I found these articles helpful as they encouraged me to become active as an editor to work to improve such articles. One editor in particular, User:Patken4, had created thousands of stub articles about hockey players, (see Roy Mitchell (ice hockey), Randy Murray (ice hockey), and Darrell May (ice hockey) for just three of such examples) and I could see that much more such work was needed in this area. Following the example of Patken4, I volunteered myself into the IceHockey Project to create and improve articles about notable hockey players pursuant to WP:NHOCKEY. Working diligently as a GOOD FAITH editor, I created starter articles for not only NHL players, but also for other major and “Top level” leagues as defined by WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, including Swedish Hockey League, the Finnish Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League, Czech Extraliga. I dedicated myself to creating articles for all 808 major league players who played in the now defunct World Hockey Association, completing this task on June 4, 2014 (see talk page “thanks” for my efforts). Along the way I have also made many thousands of edits to improve other existing articles.
    I believe in and have remained loyal to the Wikipedia Project, despite what I have perceived as bullying from some editors, including Resolute and DJSasso, who I feel have been harassing me since first joining the IceHockey Project. I have certainly made mistakes. I used to be involved in discussions, and often found myself disagreeing with Resolute and DJSasso – but following such discussions, I always tried to follow the consensus - whether I agreed with it or not. I now try to avoid such discussions.
    I firmly believe that creating stub articles encourages others to add, build, improve, and work collaboratively on on this never ending project called Wikipedia, and yes, I am proud that I have contributed over 5,800 new articles to Wikipedia. I am not concerned if some have been since deleted, because I do not own them and I welcome the efforts of others to contribute to Wikipedia. The harsh welcome felt by most new editors discourages the creation of new articles, but I believe that new articles are the life-blood of Wikipedia. If one takes a look at my edit history, you will find no disruptive editing (yes, I have made mistakes, but I have never tried to disrupt Wikipedia). Despite Resolute's numerous and loud claims that I am a bad faith editor, I am not. Following Resolute's criticism that I was making one line “stub-stub” articles, I tried to take his criticism constructively to improve my stubs to be better. A look at my recent creations will show a pattern of making stub articles for notable subject pursuant to WP:IDEALSTUB, as a starting point for other editors to build upon. Resolute is trying to make the claim that I am disruptive because I am creating too many articles, so therefore I am creating work for the other editors. Following Resolute's thinking, if there were nothing there, there would be nothing to complain about. Look at his uncivil comment following my creating an article for CalgaryNEXT where he writes “As usual, someone else is left to clean up a lazy mess created only as an ego trip” [47]. This was not created as an "ego-trip". It was created because it is a notable subject pursuant to WP:GNG and deserves to have an article. That is but one example of the incivility that I have been forced to accept from Resolute for many years.
    Concerning the redirects I have created: The redirects under discussion here were created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith. If there is a new consensus and guideline stating that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then I would happily follow it. Dolovis (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, stating that you have created 5800 new articles doesn't do much to tamp down on the concerns that you are game-playing everyone by creating nonsense stubs that get deleted and trying to jump back in when someone else eventually does create the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just addressing the issue of “5800 articles” as raised above by Resolute above. These are not “nonsense stubs”. These are deserving articles created pursuant to WP:Stub. Resolute claims that I have had “over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone”, but what he doesn't say is most of those were AfD'd only after the IceHockey Project lowered its WP:NHOCKEY bar and then targeted such articles for deletion (only articles created by me, not the hundreds created by others). He also doesn't say that these articles were brought directly to AfD where they were summarily deleted pursuant to the new standards for inclusion (when a PROD likely would have been more efficient and less time consuming). I do not create article knowing they will be deleted. I create articles so others can build upon them. Dolovis (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They were AfD'd because they lacked any substantive coverage so as to pass GNG. We raised the bar on that one section of NHOCKEY because you were abusing the hell out of it and trying to use it as a shield to justify creation of articles on non-notable subjects. If you actually looked for sources to ensure a GNG pass before creation - rather than make the rest of us do it for you - the number of games a minor league player had in his career would never have entered the equation. Resolute 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Dolovis, not buying it for a second. It is hilarious for you to claim there is no bad faith editing in your history given you have two active edit restrictions already, one for bad faith editing in the realm of diacritics, and the other for bad faith use of sockpuppets.
    You claiming now that you will suddenly follow any "new consensus" about not redirecting to draft articles now is curious given I hauled you to RFD FIVE TIMES in the last 18 months or so with such redirects deleted every single time, only to have you come back with yet another run of such creations afterward. This promise today is only being made because you are staring down a page creation ban, not because you respect a consensus that has existed for a long time.
    You have failed to address your cut and paste copyvios. You have failed to address your history of misrepresenting sources. You have failed to address the problem of you creating articles on subjects you know are not notable so you can have history restored later via REFUND. You have failed to address the fact that you will always do the absolute minimum per NHOCKEY - and in most cases, how you never even make the barest effort to look for sources beyond a website that is nothing but a stats page. I haven't mentioned it yet in this complaint, but in the cases where more stringent criteria has forced you to put bare effort in, I would also like you to address your habit of using blogs and other unreliable sources, WP:ROUTINE sources and sources with obviously trivial mentions while making little to no effort to find substantive coverage. This goes well beyond your habit of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs that are of no value, virtually never even bothering to look for sources that cover players in non-trivial, substantive fashion that WP:GNG requires. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you started here and offered to work with you. And even though you were creating conflicts with others right out of the gate, I still tried to offer constructive advice - the very same advice you are being given four and a half years later and still ignoring four and a half years later. If my attitude towards you is negative today, it is because I have five years of bad faith actions to judge you by. In the end, the ultimate question is still to ask why the community should be forced to spend so much time cleaning up after you. Don't you think five years of having to fix the messes you create is more than enough? Resolute 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolute's argument is false deductive reasoning. He argues that because he has taken my edits to RfD, therefore I have made disruptive edits. Again, what Resolute fails to mention is that out of the hundreds of existing redirect edits, he targeted only my edits for deletion - even going so far as to apologize to another editor[48] who he inadvertently RfD'd with my edits. If there are any copyvios, they would inadvertent and minor, and should properly be be addressed through copy editing or appropriate attribution. Clearly, his RfD campaign is a personal vendetta against me and not against my editing, which falls within the standards of what other editors are doing. Dolovis (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I apologized for Alaney for failing to notify him that one of his redirects was taken to RFD. My error there was simply assuming that they were all yours. As to the rest, you're just lashing out in desperation - much like you did the last time you were hauled to SPI and tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet that voted against myself in deletion discussions to try and distract the discussion. I will once again note that you have failed to address any of the points I raised above, and you failed to answer the questions at the end. So I once again ask: how long should we be expected to fix the messes you leave behind? Resolute 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis, can we resolve the current issue here now? Would you be willing to agree to even a temporary ban on creating articles and redirects? Resolute's argument is that he has taken your edits to RFD which has deleted the redirects in the hundreds, you have an incorrect version of policy. The point is that the redirects and articles you created before (even years before) have been brought to RFD and a number have been deleted. My proposal is simply that you get an admin to approve of it which isn't a terrible chore if you've completed a decent drafts. If the issues with hockey redirects have resolved with your acknowledgment of the current policies, then I see zero issues at all here with my proposal. Else, you currently came back from an block for sockpuppetry, with an edit restriction, which I see that you're currently arguing to remove already and for which the few ARBCOM members who allowed you to return have said you either need to follow or you can retract the agreement and go back to the ban. So if you want people to think that you've seriously reformed, it would be a good idea for you to pre-emptively agree to resolving the problems that got you in trouble before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a rather gross oversimplification of my argument, actually. His redirects are only one part of the overall problem which, in short, is to do as little work as possible while trying to gain a "high score" for article creation, and leaving behind a morass of sloppy work that achieves so little value that it cannot hope to make up for the time spent cleaning up after him in multiple venues. Resolute 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person who appears to be concerned with my edit count is Resolute, and I will be happy to remove the “Userboxes” from my user page if they are annoying to Resolute or any other editors. Until now, my understanding was that editors should be aware of WP:REDDEAL when creating redirects, and that RDs to draft lists were otherwise acceptable for nn players. But if this is no longer the consensus, then I will refrain from redirects to NHL draft lists, and even help to start tagging other such redirects for deletion.
    As for article creation, I have long since demonstrated the ability to create sourced articles on notable topics (which is the benchmark for article creation). Viewing my edit history will confirm this. If there are exceptions, then please PROD them or otherwise bring them to my attention so the shortcomings can be addressed. Expecting me, or any editor, to create WP:Good articles on the first draft is not reasonable. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As discussed at WP:Article development, creating sourced Stub articles is an encouraged activity. If the notability of a subject is disputed, then it should be properly PRODed, or otherwise dealt with pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Requiring Admins to move my drafts to main space will just create extra work for everyone. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is all pure BS. You know damn well that his argument isn't about the edit count on your page. It is the actions you are taking to boost it that are the issue. Creating articles that you know don't meet the notability requirement. That you have been told time and again don't meet the notability requirement. That are sourced to stat pages and blogs, which don't meet WP:GNG. All of this has been pointed out to you by a number of editors, your standard response to most people when they point it out is "Its not my job, its up to other people to come along and do it later". Except that it is your job, if you are creating an article you are expected to source it with reliable sources and to make sure they meet the WP:GNG. You have not demonstrated the ability to create sourced stub articles, a quick look through your created pages show that the vast majority are sourced to non-reliable sources. Then when the articles are inevitably deleted for non-notability you wait until you can ask at refund to restore your edit history once the person meets notability. I have even seen cases where you copy and pasted the content of deleted at afd articles (created by other people) where you then pasted the exact copy a month or two later as a "new creation". -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolute, I agree that it's a simplification of the concerns but given that ARBCOM very recently unblocked Dolovis and the little evidence that the actions are ongoing now, you'll be unlikely to find any admin will to block on that basis so I'm focusing on a resolution as to what can be shown now. Otherwise, Dolovis doesn't believe it's a problem at all. Just want everyone to be clear. We'll see from others but I still support the proposal as it provides the least amount of disruption to the project overall in exchange for resolving the largest number of concerns at the moment. And Dolovis, are you actually checking these sources in your hurry to create these articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very easy to see it going on right now. Here is one he created within the last month. Only added to it (weeks later) when notified of a prod. [49]. Resolute also showed current examples of his lack of attribution on copy pastes which are current copyvio issues. You can't just focus on the here and now, because that is what the problem has been, here and now we issue a new minor restriction of some sort and he goes on and finds a way to circumvent it or some other policy to flaunt. Perhaps its at the point where it needs to go to Arbcom for a full case. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No pulling cross-wiki is fine. But his creation of the article consisted solely of "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer." with the only reference being his staff profile. Fine if that is the first edit in a series of edits. But he didn't go back to it until weeks later and it was about to be deleted. Either way I was just using that particular one as an example of its on-going nature. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marek Sikora (astronomer) was a listed as a hat note on the Marek Sikora article. Given that he appeared to be notable per WP:NACADEMICS, and had a Polish Wiki article, I chose to create the article rather than just wash the hat note (as I first thought to do). I agree it was a very weak start, and I have since expanded the article with text translated from the corresponding article in Polish. It is currently facing a PROD, and will be deleted unless another editor takes an interest in keeping it. Dolovis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah so that's basically you guessing that there's enough notability, copying the Polish wiki text (without you independently verifying if it's true at all) and then leaving the really hard work for others, which is why I support the temporary six month topic ban from creating new articles at the moment. Do something else rather than create new stubs as it does sound disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, and that therein is the problem. Guessing at notability without going to the effort of actually providing the sources necessary to prove it. Wasting other editors time who have to prod it, then admins who have to do their own research to see if it is notable and then them deleting it. Even worse if it ends up at Afd where then multiple editors have to do that. If you can't source it to reliable sources then you shouldn't be creating it, if you don't know its notable then you definitely shouldn't be creating it. -DJSasso (talk)
    • @Ricky81682:. I'm not asking for a block - though I believe Ravenswing did. I am asking for an end to the time wasting caused by his mass creation of negative value pages. Due to his history, we already have to routinely check for both the existence of sources to meet a GNG pass, and to check that he isn't misrepresenting the paltry sources he does use. And now, given his cavalier response to the copyvio issue, we will have to check for that as well. And this rabbit hole still goes deeper than I have presented here. He routinely creates WP:CRYSTAL articles on potential draft picks a month or two before each year's NHL Entry Draft even though most of those players are not yet notable. For me, that is one instance where I just don't bother because I hate wasting the time of admins and editors at PROD and AFD when some of those articles would just be re-created a month later when notability IS achieved, but it is just another example of Dolovis looking for page creation high scores. In my view, the solution here is an indef ban from creating pages, to be lifted only when he demonstrates - via expanding a good number of his past creations - his willingness to (1) look for and accurately use sources that meet GNG before creation - meaning no more one-reference substubs relying exclusively on a stat sheet or blog ans (2) stop gaming the system via deliberate creation of bad redirects and of topics he knows aren't notable. Ravenswing, DJSasso and myself have been trying for years to hammer home the fact that GNG means non-trivial, substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Perhaps once he demonstrates that he will no longer ignore that via expansion and referencing of his past articles, and perhaps once he commits to follow that process going forward, such a ban could be lifted. Resolute 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a six-month topic ban of Dolovis creating articles or redirects (uninvolved non admin) This is insane. It creates tons of work for others. Its inconsiderate and is simply gaming the system. I would also Support an indef ban on history merge requests of deleted pages more than a month old to stop the disruption in the future. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pursuant to WP:Notability a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (i.e WP:NHOCKEY or WP:ACADEMIC). Once created, an article may still face deletion pursuant to the deletion policy. This is how Wikipedia works. The Marek Sikora article is the exception to the majority of the work I do on Wikipedia. That article was well-intentioned, and I did verify the sources used in the Polish article, and I still believe he is notable. I fully intended to go back to build the article, which I have done. I believe that my good work far outweighs the weak, and in the interest of resolving this issue I will make a proposition; I will take a voluntary one month break from creating articles, with the hope that Resolute and DJSasso will stop their uncivil comments and harassment towards me. I am a good faith editor who is doing my best to build and improve Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You need more than a month off for those games. Your denail of a problem and trying to lessen the ban time is just IDHT. I think anyone who reads this section will support the bans. You are making work for editors and disrupting the project. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Dolovis -- you are admitting to doing nothing wrong, and you make no stipulations that you won't start the same behavior all over again 32 days from now ... nor does anything enjoin you from doing so 32 hours from now. What leads you to believe this would be an attractive offer? Ravenswing 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per AlbinoFerret, I likewise support an indef ban from the WP:REFUND process. For anyone following this discussion seeking evidence concerning Dolovis' motives, he doesn't have merely several dozen requests at WP:REFUND, he's featured in several dozen archives. [50] I am very hard put to find an unselfish reason for such Wikilawyering, nor one justifying the time and energy spent by those active in that area to go through his requests. Ravenswing 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a possible contribution history problem? I mean, that's assuming there is actually is a connected history, a refund request would have to required. Isn't the issue that WP:REFUND policy be so liberal (just any request) rather than asking if the request is actually related on a separate editor from the current history which is a different problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a article that had some long term editing that was recreated maybe. But whats being merged is redirects and tiny subs. It takes away the incentive to create them in the first place. To make sure that he is creating articles likely to survive an afd. If it looks like a problem the exception can be added that he ask an admin and point to this section as the reason for asking and an admin can decide if its a real article or just more "Im first" games before asking for a merge. AlbinoFerret 07:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary article creation ban, also endorse indef REFUND ban. It looks like Dolovis has a long history of creating articles that have some serious issues with notability, so I think that a temporary ban from creating any new articles in any space (draft, mainspace, redirects, etc) is reasonable. Dolovis, I see you trying to justify your article creation but at no point do I actually see you really owning up to the fact that you've made several articles that had a lot of major issues with them. I feel that giving you a temporary ban will give you the incentive to go over policy and learn how to properly source articles for notability giving purposes. I'll be extremely blunt with this: this has been a long running problem and if things don't change after the temporary ban, you'll likely be facing a permanent ban from creating new articles - if not from editing altogether. I also endorse a permanent ban from requesting article history from REFUND, as I do think that the others make a good case showing that you're really only requesting the article history so you can have the article creation credit - not so you can improve the article. The thing is, numbers mean absolutely squat on Wikipedia. You can make a lot of pages but that doesn't necessarily make you a good editor or even really an asset to Wikipedia if the article quality is poor and others have to run behind you in a struggle to prove notability or delete the articles. Case in point: I remember a user named User:MoonMetropolis that created multiple pages that had serious notability issues. While they were ultimately blocked for sockpuppetry, their poor article creation history definitely gave people another reason to indef them. This is not your first time at ANI, as you've been reported multiple times in the past - and you've already been banned from moving pages. Heck in in 2013 you tried to ask for a topic ban to be removed but everyone successfully argued against giving you these permissions back. You really need to shape up because right now all you're doing is giving yourself enough WP:ROPE to justify someone arguing for you to be indefinitely blocked from editing. To be honest, I'm actually mildly surprised that they aren't asking for an indefinite ban, considering that you've repeatedly been reported at ANI and other boards since you signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd actually endorse a longer article creation ban than six months. I'd actually endorse a year, followed by a year's probation where he's only able to create articles via AfC. Considering that this has been an ongoing problem for years now, I'd actually also support an indef ban on mainspace creation and then after a year, he can create articles via AfC. As far as REFUND goes, that's still an indef since it looks like he's only doing this to grandstand, not to actually improve the article - a process that I think could really, really be disheartening to the people who took the time to create a newer version of the article that did pass notability guidelines. If someone other than him requests restoration then that's fine, but I don't think that Dolovis should be allowed to request article restorations any longer. But yeah... the more I think about this the more I support an indef on mainspace creation until he can prove via AfC that he can make a quality article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like he was unblocked from an indefinite block, but I don't think that this would prevent us from giving him an indefinite block from creating articles in the mainspace. From just what I've seen here, it looks like there's plenty reason to justify restricting Dolovis to AfC for the time being (after the year's block is up), until he proves that he can responsibly create articles. The way he's going, if he keeps getting reported at ANI like this then I'd like to think that ARBCOM would likely approve a new block. (BTW, do they need to approve any future blocks on this user? I always got the impression that if the user kept causing trouble and refused to play nice, they could always be re-blocked.) But seriously though, we've restricted other editors to AfC for far less than this and I think that an AfC restriction and a block from REFUND is a reasonable outcome here. He's abused the system and now we need to make sure that he can edit responsibly before giving him the keys to the car/mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tokyogirl79 Keeping in mind that a previous editor we referred over to AfC for remedial page creation scrutiny eventually gave up the topic space that they were precieved to be disruptive in and give up new article creation entirely because AfC didn't review the submissions fast enough for their taste. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that this might be a problem, but I'm not sure what else will really be beneficial overall. I think that they need to have their work scrutinized before it goes into the mainspace and a temporary ban from mainspace article creation might not solve the issue. I think that turning him to AfC is probably one of the best case scenarios here. On a side note, if he wanted to ask for people to review his submissions (and anyone would be willing to volunteer for that), I have no problem with him asking qualified editors to review his work after he completes an AfC article. The way he's going, I think that a little one on one will likely be quite helpful. I'm willing to volunteer to shoulder part of this load, if he's limited to AfC only for the time being. I'm just worried that if he's allowed back into the mainspace he might do this without actually having learned anything, given that he doesn't seem to really understand why people find his editing habits problematic and even in violation of part of the spirit of Wikipedia. (IE, the landgrab nature that you referred to below, since Dolovis seems to feel that there's a contest for who gets the most entries created.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to Delovis: Basically while I know that you're trying to say that you're operating in good faith, if a large amount of people believe that you're doing this for your own personal glory, then that should be a sign that you should stop, pause, and look to check to see if maybe you're doing something wrong. You've been on ANI a lot for various things, all of which tend to center around the same things: creating poor articles and potentially unnecessary redirects and the general consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that you're creating these because you want your article creation numbers to shoot up, not because you're here to edit in a beneficial manner. At some point you really just need to take a look at your editing pattern and ask yourself "maybe it's not them - maybe it's actually me?" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support If we're going to be shunting this editor over to AfC, we probably should make sure they're aware of the influx they're about to get. Also I'd like to see some way of allowing editors reviewing this to have a pre-approved "This submission is not qualified for inclusion" deletion process to deal with these in a more rapid timeframe than CSD:G13 (6 months unedited) or many WP:MFD nominations. If we're going to put pressure on the editor to change their behavior with respect to these creations, we need to not allow the editor to keep the crystal ball collection and then make the land grab of "created the article" once someone else did the work of properly creating the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AFC allows pretty much any autoconfirmed user to move articles and numerous articles have been accepted with very questionable results. As such, I propose that Dolovis be restricted to six months unless an admin approves of any drafts in the user's draftspace. It's a higher restriction and a greater burden but it then creates a single point of accountability after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfair and punitive to ban me from using WP:REFUND when I was only following the lead of Admin Djsasso who demonstrated to me that such was the encouraged practice when he undeleted the histories of several recreated articles including Anthony Nigro (he now argues such practice is gaming the system). I have never been warned against using WP:REFUND to restore edit histories, and in fact I was under the impression that it should be done for proper attribution. Dolovis (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restoring an edit history, and creating articles you know will be deleted only to just so you can have the history undeleted to claim the first edit are two very different things. If nothing on the page is from the old version of the page then there is no attribution necessary as I am sure you know. If you are not copying anything why would you need to attribute to authors who didn't contribute to that version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond that, Dolovis, I'll bite: why would you care? What is the benefit, to the encyclopedia, for one name over another to be cited as creator of an article? Our interest should be in complete articles, not in the original one- or two-sentence sub-stub that might have been there in the beginning, right? We're not in this for the glory, after all. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you sought to restore an article history that wouldn't wind up having your name listed as the first edit?

      That being said, "unfair?" It is not "unfair" for us to check your abuse of a process. No one gets gets a free pass to abuse a process just because someone else suggested it to us, in good faith, and expecting us to employ it in good faith. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose a ban on creation of new articles, based on my random look at five creations: 1. Stig-Göran Johansson is a Swedish hockey player in the national hall of fame [51]. Nice find. 2. Sergei Yemelin is a young fully professional Russian hockey player. That's an auto-keep at AfD, no problems. Single sourced but there are two links that could have been made into sources as easily. 3. Dallas W. Anderson is a medical devices entrepreneur. The piece has a bit of the gross paid editing smell and would be less than 50-50 at AfD, in my estimation. 4. Mikael Saha is a fully professional Finnish hockey player. Another auto-keep at AfD. 5. Lukáš Jašek is a fully professional Czech hockey player. It was created without diacritical marks, and I suppose therein lies the rub with some people.. Still, this looks like a legitimate content person who is helping Wikipedia and I see no issues either with the creations or the sourcing, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • His mass creation of two sentence sub-stubs of European elite players is annoying, but ultimately not at the root of my complaint. Also, given he has created thousands of these two sentence sub stubs, the odds of you finding many of them at random are high. To give you a good idea of my complaints, and perhaps the scope of what you need to look for should your offer to mentor come to be, I would point you to his most recent creations:
    1. Santeri Vuoti - Source does not explicitly support the statement it references. Probably would be WP:ROUTINE anyway. (Player is barely presumed notable for having played 15 Liiga games last year, however. No indication a search was done for substantive coverage in reliable third party sources though).
    2. Vladimir Eminger - Source is basically the hockey team's main page. In short, source does not support the statement it references.
    3. Quebec NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
    4. Las Vegas NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
    5. Chris Durand (ice hockey) - WP:XY-violating redirect of a non-notable player, created to get a first edit, and despite having links of this exact type deleted multiple times at RFD. This is routine.
    6. Pier-Olivier Pelletier - Same as above; 100 more at RFD now, and I'll be nominating 33 more later today (Mostly, but not entirely, created by Dolovis)
    7. NHL coach of the year and NHL Coach of the Year - not a great concern as they are marginally plausible search terms. He may not be aware that the search engine ignores capitalization, so didn't realize he didn't need to create both.
    8. 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs - Unnecessary redirect created massively prematurely and only to score a first edit. This is routine.
    9. Self-portrait without beard - WP:SYNTH as he clearly has not read or used the sources, and only copied from another article while rewording statements from that one.
    10. Flower Beds in Holland - Standard redirect to an alternative title. No issues there.
    • Going a little farther back, we have the one-sentence, CSD A1 eligible creation of the astronomer that he was shamed into expanding via a PROD tag. Without people there to PROD him into putting bare effort into things, he does things like this, where he simply throws an {{Update}} tag on one of his own articles because he can hardly be bothered to update his thousands of creations himself. And given he creates articles on not-yet-notable players (like Pavel Karnaukhov) and then fails to defend them at PROD because he knows he can just abuse WP:REFUND later, I would say that bans from various processes, including and especially REFUND and redirect creation, are strictly necessary. But as demonstrated above, even when he creates articles on players that strictly pass SNGs, he misrepresents sources and makes no effort to find substantive coverage. That is something I would like to see him demonstrate he is capable of without being watched before I would back down from requesting a page creation ban entirely. Resolute 16:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to spend my whole day on this, #2 above (a clear SNG Keep) could have the fact of first season documented from one of the external links showing just as easily. #3 above (and presumably #4) could be de-crystal-balled with a retitling to 2015 Quebec City NHL bid, which would be a GNG pass. Agreed that the "2017 Stanley Cup playoffs" is massively premature, but all this all smacks of gross exaggeration of the actual problem presented by what seems to be a good-faith editor... Carrite (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing a SNG does not automatically mean a keep. If they fail to prove the notability when challenged (and a player that close to the bare minimum likely would be) they still can end up getting deleted. It specifically lays this out in the SNG. Not to mention the external links to stats pages are not reliable sources to proove notability. But as Resolute points out he creates thousands of articles so its not surprise you would find some two sentence ones, no one is claiming every single article is bad, just that a significant percentage to the point of being disruptive are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be entertained if you could show me a couple times when a bio of a hockey player in a fully professional league has ended in deletion at AfD. It simply does not happen. If he was doing stubs of professional croquet players, those might be close. But hockey? Uh, no. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure I will look some up. Dolovis, himself has had a number deleted. Non-North American professionals are very frequently deleted due to the varying coverage of fully professional players in different countries. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that you wish to AGF, Carrite, but I've been seeing these for years. These mistakes are not new, and they are not going away because Dolovis does not care. He is not here to improve the project, he is here to get his high scores and leave the clean-up to others. And that has been his MO for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian. And for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian, the only times his behaviour has been altered is through either community imposed restrictions, or a block for sockpuppetry. Six separate RFDs were not enough to cause Dolovis to stop creating bad redirects. It was only after this report and the risk of shutting his game down entirely became apparent to him that he suddenly decided that he would honour "a new consensus" - which is actually a year and a half old, at least. Ravenswing, DJSasso and I have been dealing with the mess he makes for years, and we'll all tell you the same thing: He will abuse any process he can as far as he can abuse it. And I think Arbcom recognizes this as well, given his attempt to have one of his restrictions lifted ended with a blunt "you can be restricted, or you can be blocked" response. To respond to your comments above: #1 and #2 above could be fixed by finding non-trivial sources that properly cite his claims and then properly inserting those sources, but he won't do that. #3 and #4, could have just waited until teams were actually announced - but that risks his not getting the first edit (and the expansion bid stuff is already covered at Potential National Hockey League expansion). They are also plagiarism. And his massively premature examples are ongoing and annual. It's all about getting first edits. Always has been. Resolute 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carrite, you're missing the forest in favor of picking out a handful of stumps. Quite aside from that notability is a dynamic process -- someone who hasn't achieved notability might well do so years down the road -- of course Dolovis has created some articles that pass notability muster. It would be astonishing if, with the several thousand articles and redirects he's made, he hadn't scored the occasional hit. And I know this as well as anyone; when I filed those 75 AfDs on sub-stubs he'd created a year or so back, there were several stubs I didn't file on, because I judged they passed notability muster.

      That's not the point. You've been around the block, and you know that any number of banned or indeffed editors made some productive edits along the line. Some have had many thousands of productive edits -- people like Betacommand and Mick McNee come to mind. They were sanctioned because the disruption their antics caused not only outweighed the productive edits they made, but caused good editors to quit the project out of frustration.

      Never mind the effect they have on editors who don't quit. Take a look at my contribution history from January of 2014 [52]. I made over 500 edits that month, and easily two-thirds of them involved AfDing non-notable sub-stubs Dolovis created. That time spent didn't count, of course, research I did to ensure the ones I AfDed weren't notable. That time spent constituted time I didn't spend building the encyclopedia; it was time spent cleaning up after messes. Frankly, I don't consider the occasional sound contribution Dolovis makes worth that much time. I don't consider it worth your time as a "mentor," or worth the time it's going to take you to review a subject's notability, not when it takes away from article creation you could be doing. I don't consider it worth the time it sucks from the likes of JohnCD at REFUND. I don't consider it worth the time we've had to spend tightening the NHOCKEY guidelines you cited because despite overwhelming and frequent consensus in a number of discussions, Dolovis routinely ignores consensus where there isn't an explicit black-letter rule.

      I'm unhappy enough at a six-month ban, because just like every other time, we're going to have this all to do over again seven months from now. I think he's had too many chances as it is, over too many years. Ravenswing 05:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support ban on article creation, unless pre-vetted for notability as Carrite has helpfully offered below. From working at WP:REFUND, I am aware of much time wasted on the following often-repeated cycle: (1) Dolovis creates an article about a hockey-player, (2) it is discussed at AfD and deleted as non-notable, (3) months or years later the player becomes notable and an article is created, (4) Dolovis comes to REFUND to ask for his deleted edits to be restored to the history beneath the new article. Steps 1,2 and 4 of this cycle are pure waste motion and do nothing for the encyclopedia. Examples here (3 instances) and here (another 4) on just one archive page. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've been through the ropes at AfD and if it is judged that Dolovis needs a pre-check on notability of new creations from a mentor before being able to launch them, I hereby offer to serve that role for a six month period. I will report back at the end of that period with the results. Ping me if you wish to go this route. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Quick reference to the Special Notability Guideline for hockey might be of use for this debate:

    Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
    [1] Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
    [2] Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
    [3] Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;
    [4] Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
    [5] Were a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
    [6] Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or

    [7] Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.

    A large percentage of the recent work by this editor has involved the creation of stub bios of young professional players and prospects. There seems to me to be good faith, given how low the SNG bar is set (just one game played in a fully pro league is a Speedy Keep at AfD). Carrite (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you understand how SNGs work. They do not cause a "Speedy Keep". It lays out right at the top of them that meeting these does not mean an article must be kept. Not to mention these particular ones don't mention "fully pro" as a number of fully pro leagues do not meet them as explained in the note below the list which you didn't copy over. Some fully pro leagues require 200 games, other fully pro leagues require a first-all star award win etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, that's not reality. SNGs are special "low bars" to inclusion (or "high bars" in the case of politicians) to be considered in conjunction with GNG. And trust me when I say that a nomination which clearly passes a SNG criterion is almost invariably shut down at once with a Speedy Keep. One NHL game played and the debate is shut down, regardless of what it says at the top of the page. This is also true for baseball, soccer, American football, and basketball — one game in a top professional league and we're done... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I'm unsure as to the relevance of the point. We're not talking about sub-stubs that Dolovis has created for players who've played in top-level professional leagues -- although I grit my teeth that he seldom, if ever, bothers with anything more than the two sentences of fact and the bare reference or two that's the irreducible minimum required to clear WP:BLP. We're talking about articles he creates of players who do NOT qualify, over which there's been many a tussle over the years, followed by the inevitable PROD, followed by Dolovis' inevitable removal of the PROD with a bald "Is notable" (if he bothers with an edit summary at all), followed by the inevitable AfD, followed by Dolovis going straight to DRV or REFUND should the subject achieve notability down the road.

    And here's the effect on our workload: in the last two years, judging solely from the edit summaries on his talk page history, he's received notification of seven CSDs, seven copyvios, nine prods, 81 RFDs, 131 AfDs ... and despite his suggestion that the fuss is due to a vendetta a couple editors have against him, these have been filed by over two dozen different editors. After five years, over 50K edits, six blocks, multiple topic bans and edit restrictions, and several hundred articles going through deletion processes, at what point do we admit that this isn't a case of him not knowing any better as opposed to a massive IDHT? Ravenswing 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been pointed out on my talk page that I inadvertently omitted the word "top." We are speaking of TOP fully professional leagues: NHL, not AHL, for example. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that there is general agreement that there is a problem. I do think that a process of "pre-approval" of new starts for notability which does not tax the bogged down Articles for Creation queue should be sufficient rather than destroying the editor's usefulness to the project, which is making sure that our hockey coverage is as complete as it can be. There is a pretty clear consensus that his redirects of drafted players with no biographies needs to stop. The inclusion rules are fairly definite for specific hockey biographies and AfD outcome can be projected with great accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested he get an admin's approval so it's not just one person and it's not just a giant slog at AFC (which lets some problematic things though anyways). I can't recall where but that's been done before. It's mostly been redirects being created anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure?

    Discussion seems to have reached an end point. Is there perhaps an uninvolved admin that might close this one way or another? Resolute 12:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dolovis has accepted mentorship, so hopefully an administrator will close this report on that note. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think consensus has clearly gone to some sort of restriction. But yes, an uninvolved admin will make the call. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That an admin has offered to mentor Dolovis, and that he has accepted the offer, is very well and good. For my part, I'm not mollified -- an offer of mentorship is scarcely grounds to say "Well, that's alright then" and forget about the whole thing -- and stand on my support of an unconditional six month (or, if possible, indef) ban on new article creation and a permanent ban on using the REFUND process, which I believe remains the consensus opinion. Ravenswing 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and he's only jumping at mentorship to try and skate by any sanctions. Resolute 18:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Dolovis were to ignore or go against his mentor's advice? a ban on article creation can always be imposed. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the ban on article creation can happen now, and he can work with his mentor to improve his editing overall. Personally, I think his interest in having a mentor would rapidly diminish if his games were ended against his will. Resolute 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, beat me to it, Resolute. Honestly, GoodDay, if this was just a matter of him needing to be trout-slapped in order to edit in an unselfish and productive manner, this would be an entirely different proceeding. But Dolovis is a smart guy who's been around for years. I'm firmly convinced, through years of seeing his interactions and how these conflicts spin out, that it's not a matter of him not knowing any better; I give him more credit than that. It's that he doesn't care, when consensus, guidelines or the spirit of the law conflict with his goals. Do you really think he's going to be any better six months from now, when he's still up to the same gamesmanship just a couple months after coming off of an indef block? When he's already operating under two topic bans, an interaction ban and an edit restriction? Ravenswing 05:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The mentorship is fine but I still believe Dolovis should still be banned from creating any articles without the approval of any administrator. Since his mentor is an admin, good that's works out but I don't want to hear in six months that the mentor took a break or didn't say "NO" and there was nothing else Dolovis could do as an excuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Restoring history of deleted articles

    This discussion has made me think about our practice of restoring the history of deleted articles on request when they are re-created. That is clearly necessary when the new article is based on the old one, but different author(s) of the old one need to be attributed; but where the new article is not based on the old one, or where its author is the same as the only author of the old one, it seems pointless.

    I suggest that we should restore histories only when necessary for attribution. That would remove the incentive for the practice described above, of writing premature articles about non-notable players in the hope of getting "first-author" credit if the subject eventually becomes notable. Unless there is strong disagreement, I shall propose this at WT:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the challenges there is that Dolovis was abusing a combination of PROD and REFUND. Without changing the policies around the former, I'm not sure how you mitigate issues such as this with the latter. This is one of the reasons why he whined earlier in this thread about Ravenswing's AFDs and said they could have been PRODs instead - PRODs are easier for him to have restored. Resolute 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring PRODs at REFUND is not a problem - they must be restored on request (unless they are speediable as copyvio or attack), but they can be taken to AfD. If one knows the article author is likely to dePROD, the answer is to save time by going direct to AfD. The issue I am raising is about requests to restore the history of deleted premature articles about non-notable persons who later become notable. A discussion has been started at WT:REFUND#Denying refund requests to avoid gamesmanship. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sietecolores

    Sietecolores (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    I strongly dislike coming here, but there's an ongoing issue with an user that needs resolving, and some community input. Sietecolores, presumably a Chilean user, has been, for some days, nominating for deletion several articles related to Pichilemu, a provincial capital of Chile, given that these articles were written by me. I feel the user is harassing me, because we've had different points of view before on other stuff.

    The nominated articles are Marta Urzúa, Radio Entreolas, José Arraño Acevedo, Antonio Saldías and Heredero de tu Amor; all of these but the one about the radio were written long ago, and have stayed here because they pass notability guidelines. There is plenty of material about these individuals, mostly offline, I have pointed out such a thing to Sietecolores, but they have omitted discussing objectively, instead distorting arguments and reasons, prefering to disrupt the project.

    A block (or at least a warning) should be in order. Sietecolores should stop pushing their bias against articles about so-called third-world people and stuff. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're required to provide them with an notice to the ANI discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta Urzúa shows that it's not a clear-cut nonsensical AFDs as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Arraño Acevedo. There are going to be difficulties in finding supporting sources online but at the very least, notify Sietecolores as required above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sietecolores notified. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that notification is great. Thanks. Now to the matter at hand: Ricky81682 already noted what I saw as well. I looked at all of them hoping to find easy bad-faith nominations, so I could close them early and we'd be done. But that's not the case. It may well be so that the nominator is picking on this particular community, but that in itself is not in violation of anything--all the nominator would have to say is the magic word, "walled garden". These AfDs by themselves are valid. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A note of background. All these non-notable Pichilemu-related articles have been around in Wikipedia since 2009-2010 when Diego Grez-Cañete joined the project and begun creating them. Prior to that coverage on Pichilemu was equally bad to the coverage of other Chilean towns. Much good content on Pichilemu has been created but also much that is not notable. The non-notable content has survived not because of notability or a "test of time" as Diego suggests but because nobody has cared about the issue. Pichilemu (pop. 13,000) and Chilean towns of that size in general are not a hot topic that might attract scrutiny. Also, users who don't read Spanish might have felt incompetent to evaluate the "notability" of the content that relies on Spanish language sources. Sietecolores (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks fine to me. When someone finds one, then two articles that need AFD, it isn't uncommon to expect a nest of them and go searching. Maybe by article creator, maybe by Wikilinks or some other method. This isn't picking on someone, this is looking for low hanging fruit. Unless a nefarious motive can be demonstrated, you have to assume it was old fashioned hunting and finding within a group. The AFDs themselves each seem reasonable, the number generated won't put an undue burden on the system, the community can decide just as they do all AFDs. Some of the language below the nom is assuming bad faith, which really should be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominations are reasonable, there is something of a WP:WALLEDGARDEN going on here with Pichilemu content. See Template:Pichilemu for examples. I applaud Diego Grez-Cañete for his efforts but some rationalization through mergers/redirects/deletions is needed to keep this content in line with notability standards. Vrac (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of articles about Pichilemu in Wikipedia, most of them are completely unessential. --Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an strange case of an editor with so much accounts. User Dieggo Grez has following accounts in the English Wikipedia:
    beside these accounts, Diego has created a lot of other user accounts, see User creation log. I don't know whether the user has commited meatpuppetry, but at least one of them has been blocked because of being used only for vandalism. --Keysanger (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But, it isn't all about Diego Grez. Diego Grez created his own article in Wikipedia, for himself: Diego Grez It has been created four times and deleted four times. --Keysanger (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute between BalCoder and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, re: article Proportional representation

    A new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, is being disruptive on the Proportional representation page, pushing an anti-PR view while ignoring sources. His (I assume he) first edits (16-17 Aug) referred to PR as an electoral system, a beginner error (see first sentence of the article), and that these had no districts (or ridings as he prefers) - all voting systems have districts (if sometimes only one). So I reverted it (on Aug 18) with just a comment assuming it to be frivolous. The changes were re-introduced on 18-19 Aug (partly anonymously) so in seven entries on the article's Talk page (on Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25, Aug 26, Aug 27, Aug 28) I tried to explain his errors, some of which are fantastical, reverting his changes four further times (Aug 20, Aug 23, Aug 24, Aug 25). This grudgingly produced some mostly minor corrections but important errors have not been reversed. On Aug 26, wearying, and in the hope of encouraging cooperation, I didn't revert, and instead required him to revert his changes and then integrate them into the article. This was not successful, the serious errors have not been reverted (for example section "Wider benefits to society" remains deleted without a word, closed and open list systems still have no districts, and that remains unsourced). An important sentence in the lead, that MMP "is usually considered a distinct PR method" has been replaced by "is considered a mixed system, which is a distinct voting system", a wrong, pointless statement which misrepresents the sources. This unnecessary and confusing use of "mixed systems" has caused confusion in the past (last autumn, see e.g. Talk Archive 3 - search for tier), and for this reason the term was replaced by me on Dec 11 by "two tier systems", sourced, and entirely uncontroversial. This has now affected the structure of the article (Sep 1), a renamed section "Mixed Electoral Systems" (capitalized) is no longer part of "PR electoral systems" - misleading and confusing - and "List of countries using proportional representation" is now unhelpfully "List of countries using proportional representation or mixed systems". On the Talk page his tone and arguments are not indicative of good faith, throwing my arguments back at me. For example, that I should respect WP:VERIFY, or, when I attempted to invoke WP:BRD, warning me against re-inserting "the same flawed text" and that I should post to the talk page before making any further changes. But I'm not making any changes, I'm only reverting him. When I pointed out that MOS deprecates small sub-sections he replied that they help readers. He changed the Talk section name to read that it is he reverting me, which of course he isn't.

    I don't have the time or energy to continue composing reasoned criticisms of his changes, and no one else is keeping an active watch on the page, so I would like the user blocked from the page. Then I can revert a final time and add some words to the "Link between constituent and representative" section to emphasize that this is an FPTP (first past the post) advantage, his original concern.

    (Full disclosure: I have rewritten most of this article (down to "History"), basically in two chunks on Aug 2 2014 and Dec 11 2014), and have since been trying to preserve the article from the usual decay, from which it has suffered much in its past. Only the section "Party list PR", which User:Ontario has changed, not for the better, remained from before Aug 2014, not because it was good but because I haven't found the energy/enthusiasm to research and re-write it; neither, of course, has any one else). --BalCoder (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you trim it down more - it is rife with "original research", parenthetical observation, and in a few cases actual misstatements. It does not cover "vote weight proportional to the number of voters" (found in some labour unions), seats reserved for specific groups, and a large number of other systems competing with the traditional "first past the post" system so widely found. Take out all the editorial opinion and work with what remains, and be open to understanding that there are many different flavors of "proportional representation" indeed. Collect (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect: Once User Ontario's "original research" and misstatements have been dealt with, if you add a few words to the talk page identifying the other instances, and providing sources demonstrating the relevance to PR of your other points, I'll be happy to make the changes. --BalCoder (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    BalCoder has acted contrary to WP's Wikipedia:Civility policy. Firstly, it states in bold red letters at the top of this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". This was not done by BalCoder. I was notified instead by User:EdJohnston. Secondly, while I attempted to have a civilized discussion with the user about a topic, BalCoder continued to engage in personal insults, intentional rudeness, and belittling behaviour. Specifically, BalCoder has used uncivil tone/language such as "like it or not", "many of your edits are careless", "this is hair raisingly wrong", "most [of your changes] are wrong, confused or confusing, or contain wild claims", and "You finally seem to be getting a grasp on what PR is". I informed the user of the rudeness. However, no apology was given, and no uncivil comments were stricken out. Thirdly, the major point of contention is Balcoder's opinion that mixed (voting) systems do not exist. I have provided a plethora of sources that explain the voting system categories are: PR systems, mixed systems, and plurality systems. [1] [2] [3] [4]: 22 [5] In fact, these categories already existed in the WP article prior to my edits. Additionally, most of the sources that I used to substantiate this fact were also already present in the article, which already identified these different types of voting systems. I simply ensured that, for clarity, the same terms were consistently used throughout the article. Even in the above complaint, BalCoder has admitted to previously altering the original text "mixed system" to "two-tier system" several months prior to my contributions. This was only done in one section of the article, causing unnecessary confusion for readers. Yet BalCoder egregiously characterizes the existence of mixed systems are my unsourced opinion. In truth, not only has the existence of mixed systems been thoroughly sourced, it has been sourced by many other editors prior to my contributions to the WP article!

    Lastly, BalCoder has made several objectively incorrect assertions such as "Ontario has recently chosen MMP; that will not have been because it is not a PR system but because it is" in order promote an anti-plurality voting system agenda. To be clear, Ontario uses FPTP, has never used MMP, and voted against MMP in a referendum in 2007. When I pointed this out to BalCoder, no acknowledgement of being wrong was ever made. I encouraged BalCoder to conduct research to substantiate the assertions he/she made, and post sourced contributions. Unfortunately, BalCoder did not post any sourced research to our discussion. Instead, I had to wade through a combination of sentence fragments, personal insults, and unsourced and often specious personal opinions in order to attempt, in good faith, to conduct a civilized discussion. As thanks for my abundant patience, this user has filed a complaint about me without having the common courtesy (as required) to inform me! I request BalCoder to be blocked from the Proportional Representation article to prevent further vandalism, and for his/her account to be suspended due to incivility, personal attacks, and harassment. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User: springee and Koch Industries

    Complaint regarding Springee and the Koch Industries page:

    I (VeritasVincintUSA) am a new Wikipedia editor, and attempted to make a substantive change to the Koch Industries article, which I believe to have been deliberately whitewashed. Following the complete reversion of my entire edit, springee and others have attempted to completely shut down or delay discussion on the numerous substantive problems identified with the article. Instead, springee filed a frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation against me[6] and posted a spurious accusation on my talk page about association with a conspiracy theory site.[7]

    In the context of the Koch Industries talk page[8], springee has:

    1) analogized my edits to arguing that the "confederate flag isn't racist"
    2) initially repeatedly argued broadly against the entire substantive edit, while refusing to engage on the substantive details (even after a detailed edit summary was posted for each proposed change)
    3) when he did engage with one of the proposals (see the particularly egregious current language under "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and springee's defense), he again would only say broadly that "I do not support the new language as better than the existing entry" and reverted my attempted edit without posting any sensible justification

    It appears that springee has also been active on the talk page for the related Americans For Prosperity[9] where he also analogized criticism of the Kochs with "racism." The discussion, to date, on the Koch Industries talk page, coupled with the text of the page, itself, seems to confirm my belief that the entry has been deliberately whitewashed.

    I hereby request redress both, specifically, regarding springee, and more broadly regarding the integrity of the Wikipedia entries concerning Koch Industries and its affiliates. There were allegations of paid PR firms "airbrushing" these specific entries back in 2011[10], and both the activity and text that I observed seems to suggest that some form of shenanigans is ongoing. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Voting Systems Made Simple". Electoral Reform Society. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
    2. ^ "Electoral Systems". Administration and Cost of Elections (ACE) Project. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
    3. ^ O’Neal, Brian. "Electoral Systems". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved 31 Aug 2015.
    4. ^ "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada" (PDF). Law Commission of Canada. 2004. p. 22.
    5. ^ Forder, James (2011). The case against voting reform. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-825-8.
    6. ^ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kochtruth/Archive". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
    7. ^ "User talk:VeritasVincitUSA". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
    8. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
    9. ^ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 2 September 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
    10. ^ "Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical 'Sock Puppets'". ThinkProgress.org. Think Progress. Retrieved 2 September 2015.

    Springee Initial Reply I don't want to snap at a new user. In this case I think he is misunderstanding things and has filed this in frustration. To address some of his specific points.

    • Sockpuppet investigation: Yes, I did ask for an investigation because VeritasVincitUSA (same user as blocked Kochtruth). I was correct they were the same user but I was wrong in thinking that making a new account was not allowed in that case. Please see Ricky81682's comments on the KochTruth's talk page. Note that I never mentioned the investigation. It was "brought to his attention".[[53]]
    • The user misunderstood my analogy. I was attempting to explain that having a user name like KochTruth suggests a strong POV and thus other editors may be suspicious of claims to a NPOV when a user has such a name. My analogy is here [[54]] and the follow up statement mentioning the confederate flag here [[55]].
    • VVUSA's initial article insertion was 8600 bite [[56]] and reverted by another editor. I have only made one revert of 215 bites [[57]]. VVUSA added a lot of information to the talk page (which I'm OK with) but it's taking myself and others a while to get through it (20,500 bite addition [[58]]). Asking the user to slow down so others can have a proper look seems very reasonable.
    • The question about the KochTruths blog seemed reasonable given the previous user name. I think my phrasing could be better but I think the question was reasonable regardless. Please see VVUSA's talk page for the question and my reply.
    • The implication that I'm no a company payroll is a bad faith claim.

    Overall I think VVUSA may be expressing frustration that things aren't going his way. I believe Ricky81682 was worried that the user might be problematic. I think the user has a clear and strong POV on the subject and clearly wants to make BOLD changes. But I also think he has thus far played by the rules. I would ask that this ANI be closed. Springee (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that a thorough impartial review of the talk page as of the time this entry was filed will tell a different story other than "things not going my way." Specifically, there was a strong-willed reluctance to engage with the facts and sources as presented, coupled with an attempt to circumvent discussion with the frivolous "sockpuppet" investigation and attempt to discredit me by asserting that I was associated with a conspiracy theory site. While I did not mean to assert that springee, specifically, was "on the dole," I continue to believe it is advisable to call the integrity of the articles for Koch Industries and its affiliates into question. The combination of the entries' checkered past, and current presentation, cast down on their integrity.
    springee has repeatedly (on the talk page) tried to cite his belief that I have a "strong POV" to discredit my edits. However, he seems incredibly reluctant to actually engage with the proposed edits and sources, themselves, while the nature of his participation on the Americans For Prosperity and Koch Industries threads demonstrates that he, himself, has a "strong POV." Engagement with the sources would show that the current article suffers from a clear "POV problem." In at least one instance (which I outlined in "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" on the talk page), the text of the existing article is so biased and misleading that it is my contention that the language in question could only have been written by somebody on the company's behalf. It should be noted that springee reverted back to the problematic language without adequate justification or explanation. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    VeritasVincitUSA, not only are things "not going your way", but, when last I checked, no other editor had agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits. As I said before, an editor who actually wants to improve Wikipedia would only introduce one or two of these suggestions at a time, and allow time for discussion before adding controversial material. As for the thinkprogress.org reference, I believe it was considered "disproved" in the actual Wikipedia investigation. I could be wrong, but at least one item from criticism of Wikipedia is without evidence of actual problems with Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin: Your claim that "no other editor has agreed with any of your 10 suggested edits" could just as easily be re-framed to state that, at the time of this ANI, only 3 of the 9 proposed edits had any objections or rebuttals since they were posted days ago. One of the three, to which an objection was raised, was the disputed "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry. As I indicated, I expect an independent, thorough, review of the Koch Industries talk page as of this ANI will refute your assertion that things were "not going [my] way" or challenge the relative strength of the facts, sources, and arguments that I presented to defend my proposed edits.
    Your assertion that I might not "actually want to improve Wikipedia" is unfair and, again, I rest on the specific facts, sources, and supporting arguments that I have cited on the talk page to support my criticism of the existing article and the need for substantive revisions. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI is not appropriate for content disputes. VeritasVincitUSA, you started with the name Kochtruth which made me question whether you are here with a proper purpose or not. Many admins would have blocked you outright and moved on. I'm again presuming that you come here with the intent to create a neutral article and not to create a hit piece. The subject matter, as you are well aware, is extraordinarily controversial, is subject to numerous restrictions at the highest Wikipedia levels due to the behaviors there and as such, sources need to be neutral and reliable. Your starting comments here don't indicate that you are treating the views of others with equal respect as required here. An accusation that someone is "whitewashing" an article is no minor nor laughing matter as it's a direct personal attack on the editors. The article exists as it is exists either due (a) to some massive conspiracy of editors to whitewash the article or (b) because that's the consensus view over the years this has been topic. One allegation is frankly not productive here and is likely to get you topic banned if not blocked. At the moment, you've proposed ten separate edits and have opposition to all which is normal for new content proposed on controversial pages. Accept that opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording to provide a consensus viewpoint that supports the views of those who disagree or otherwise, try one of these other remedies for broader support (this is not one of them). However, I warn you that most people would presume that someone who comes, make a demand for a number of specific wordings, received opposition and only responds by making further and further attacks on their opposition is not the kind of editor wanted here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ricky81682: Your assertion that I have "opposition to all" of my edits is not supported by the discussion (or lack thereof) on the 9 specific edit proposals on the talk page. I just checked again and no specific objections or rebuttals were made to most of the edits as of the time that I started writing this post. "Accept[ing]...opposition with an modicum of respect and try suggesting re-wording" is precisely what I have done on the specific requests where there was opposition. For example, the version of "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" that I attempted to insert (which was promptly reverted by springee without explanation or justification) was not the original proposed revision and reflected the earlier input that I received from other editors. I have not made "demands" for wording as you indicated above. All of this is borne out by the content on the Koch Industries talk page submitted with the ANI request.
    I have also not been the one "attacking." As a new editor, I was immediately met with a "username ban." When I continued the conversation with a new username as directed to by the notice I received, I was met with a "sockpuppet investigation." After posting my detailed edit requests, I was accused of association with a conspiracy theory site. Accusations have been repeatedly made (including in this thread) that I have too "strong a POV" to be an effective editor. And, yet, there is a remarkable lack of engagement from my "opposition" with the specific substance of my edit requests despite all these "attacks" that I have been subject to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVincitUSA (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    VVUSA, you actually are attacking via implication. You just again implied that editors on the article are Koch affiliated. That does not help others assume you are coming with a NPOV. You now have three editors on the article who have asked you to slow down and give people time to read over your proposed edits. Please heed their requests and let the process take it's time. Springee (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I "again impl[y] that editors on the article are Koch affiliated" in the paragraph immediately above? I merely responded to the accusation that I was "attacking" people by illustrating how I, in fact, was the one being "attacked." In fact, I explicitly made clear that I was NOT leveling such an accusation against any individual editor (and you in particular, springee) in a preceding paragraph. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that an admin also address Springee's tendentious editing. On multiple articles and with multiple editors, Springee reverts material or demands a consensus before well sourced information gets added to the article. This is an explicit example of tendentious editing. As per WP:TEND , "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." A cursory search of of the article in question or Springee's contributions supply evidence for this on multiple occasions. I can provide diffs if necessary, just ping me. Scoobydunk (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you were not involved in the recent edits on the page in question. Perhaps you should review them and all of my "changes", all one of them, before accusing me of tendentious editing. If you think there is evidence that I was in the wrong please present it. Springee (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the evidence of Springee's tendentious editing by ways of removing material from articles for the reason of "no consensus":[59][60][61][62] What's even worse is that Springee is not consistent with his barrier of gaining consensus before material gets added into the article. It appears when Springee finds the material agreeable, he's more than happy to keep it in the article without requiring consensus and even reverts others who remove the material. Here [63] Springee commends the adding of material by Rjensen though there was no consensus to add the material. In the first diff above, Springee reverted removal of some of this material while citing "no consensus", though that material never had consensus in the first place. As explained above, WP:TEND specifically identifies that removing material from others with the complaint of "no consensus" as tendentious editing. Springee has applied this barrier of editing to multiple users on multiple articles.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrator to close this ANI Though I think VeritasVinvitUSA was not acting in bad faith, this is an improperly formed ANI. I ask that it be closed. Thanks Springee (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I reiterate my request an impartial review of the referenced Koch Industries talk thread in the context of this ANI thread. The hostility, persistent insinuations and accusations regarding my POV and motives, and absence of meaningful, specific, constructive engagement on the substance of the individual edit requests that I have proposed should be obvious to a detached observer. That said, if Springee and others are willing to cease their "attacks" on me, and similarly work constructively as part of the editing process, I do not object to the ultimate closing of this ANI without sanctions being applied. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee - We're past that, I think. You might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG, however, as it may become relevant. VeritasVincitUSA - OK, let's start over. However you intended your statements, some editors have taken them as attacks. The term "Whitewashing" is taken very seriously around here, and you've got to understand that people take that sort of statement very seriously and, frequently, very personally. They don't know you, they just know that a newer editor is demanding sweeping changes to a very controversial article, and that this new editor seems to be accusing people of shenanigans. I'm not saying this is the case, but look at it from their side - we get a lot of that sort of thing. So you're clearly upset, and they're clearly not agreeing to your edits - whether because of perceived bias on your part or because of flaws in the edits themselves, I don't know. So take a deep breath, acknowledge that there were misunderstandings, and start over - pick one of these edits, propose it, and discuss ways in which the core information (who did what when with whom, etc) can be added to the article. Perhaps the references can be supplemented with sources from other editors, or assertions can be corroborated. Discussion is your path forward, here. We have lots and lots of very new editors who come here to right great wrongs - many end up blocked for reasons best laid out at WP:NOTHERE. If you can work with us, we welcome your input, just as we require you to be open to the input of others. If not, then perhaps this is not the project for you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from the Koch Industries talk thread, I am not only welcoming of input from others but eager to collaborate with other editors to arrive at the fairest and most objective treatment of the facts. In fact, I incorporated feedback from other editors in each revision of language that I proposed. I am still eager for a constructive dialog and very open to new information, such as additional sources that challenge the facts or narrative in the sources that I initially supplied. Per springee's earlier suggestion to start with a single edit, I recommended that we start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" entry, and even he admitted that the language in the existing article "could use improvement". It would be great if we could start there and work collaboratively and constructively on that topic. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I think you do want to discuss and actually I'm pleased that you have elected to put your proposed changes on the talk page rather than on the article. All I, and others are asking is that you slow down and understand that people are going to assume you have a strong POV on the subject. As I've said before, a strong POV is NOT a problem and doesn't mean that you will make bad edits. You just have to understand that people have to be given time to digest the edits you want to make. As I said on the talk page, you should come at this with the assumption that the editors think the current article is fine and thus you must sell them on the idea that your changes will improve things. Often you have claimed a fact is significant but how do we decide that? We have to assume you have a bias towards including those facts based on your strong POV. That means we need something other than your opinion. That's not an attack, just explaining things from the other side of the table. Springee (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All articles that are related to the Koch brothers have seen a fair amount of both whitewashing and blackwashing, but there are also a lot of editors who are working hard to maintain a NPOV. There has been some actual misbehavior on both the whitewashing and blackwashing sides but there are a lot more claims of misbehavior where no misbehavior -- just a content dispute -- exists. Normally I would predict that this was going to end up at arbcom with the result of discretionary sanctions, but the articles in question are already under discretionary sanctions as part of the american politics case. As the US elections grow more heated, I expect we will see a lot more of this. I think the best answer is to be liberal with the admin-issued warnings and with short blocks when we see misbehavior, meanwhile referring content disputes to WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept springee's implicit argument, above, that my own having come on too strong and been too aggressive, coupled with some measure of Status quo bias, is responsible for the current dispute.
    I think it appropriate to apply a metaphor that illustrates what I believe to be the misunderstanding on both sides:
    From my perspective, it was as if I was driving through an unfamiliar neighborhood (Wikipedia) and saw what I believed was a body in the middle of the street (a problematic article). My first instinct was to apply CPR (edit the article), which was completely rebuffed by the local authorities (reverted in its entirety by the existing editors). When I went to file a police report (on the talk page), I was repeatedly reprimanded about the way I was filing the report, asked why I would file a report since it isn't my neighborhood, and repeatedly told there was no body in the street by police officers who had not yet fully read or thoroughly engaged with the police report, itself.
    From the perspective of the local police (existing editors) in a dangerous neighborhood (defending a controversial article), however, my behavior as a proactive and seemingly aggressive newcomer was seen as both against the neighborhood code of conduct, and an implicit "attack" on the quality of service that they had rendered to their local community. Their defensive and skeptical behavior is both understandable and possibly even justified (maybe the newcomer will increase the body count rather than merely help deal with the existing body).
    Given this set of facts, it was inappropriate for me to assume that a murder coverup ("ongoing shenanigans") was being committed. If there is a body in the street (as I contend there still is), it is entirely possible that somebody died of natural causes, and/or that people in the (dangerous) neighborhood are so used to there bodies there that it had not occurred to them to question its presence.
    I look forward to working constructively and collaboratively with the existing editors once they have had a chance to read and digest the proposed edits that I recommended. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting, however, that, since the suggestion that we "start over", another editor (AdventurousSquirrel) has posted yet another personal attack to my talk page[1] and the Koch Industries talk page[2] in an attempt to discredit me. It might be relevant that this user has previously posted long-winded defensive statements from Koch organizations, which are sourced to Koch-owned websites (Kochfacts.com)[3], and replaced independent secondary source citations that cast Koch in an unfavorable light with (again) statements sourced to Koch-owned websites (KochPipeline.com)[4]. The second diff also shows that he is the source of the misleading Koch defense to the EPA 300 oil spill settlement (the "lack of attribution") that is explicitly rebutted by the EPA response (Koch refused to supply maps) in one of my edit requests.
    It is also worth noting that there has been no constructive engagement (or any engagement at all) with the substance of my edit requests since September 3, despite the eagerness of multiple unmentioned editors to pounce on me in this ANI thread.
    I do not mean to make accusations. However, I find the multiple unfounded attacks against me in this thread (which are contradicted by the Koch Industries talk page that I submitted with this ANI request), coupled with the lack of willingness to engage with the underlying edit requests, somewhat suspicious. I hope you will pardon my Shakespeare but they "doth protest too much, methinks." - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (adding reflist-talk) - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi again VeritasVincitUSA. It may also be worth noting that the statements sourced to Kochfacts.com that you've expressed concern for here, are contained in a section called "Koch Industry response", which contains - as you might imagine - responses from Koch Industries. The KochPipeline.com reference, as far as I can tell, was already used in the article, and is used as a reference for one line about the terms of a settlement, along with three other references, including an occupational safety website, and two deadlinks to a newspaper and the EPA website...I'll see if I can recover those two sources. I haven't read about the map thing you mention yet, so I'm not really familiar with what you're talking about. If it's agreed to be an improvement, then it should absolutely be included.
    I'm not sure I can be more clear about what I wrote on your talk page, but I'll give it a go: WP policy says that an account should be operated by one (1) individual. In the English language, individuals don't refer to themselves as "we"/"us"/"our", as I noted you have. I informed you of the policy, and suggested that if you happened to be in violation of it (since you're new and might not be familiar with all the rules), you might want to talk to someone about how to begin editing as prescribed by policy. I don't believe this could be construed as a "personal attack", but I apologize if it was.
    And your "dead body" analogy makes a lot of assumptions that I don't know are true, probably colored by your apparent perception that you are an intrepid savior of some kind, as some of your other comments (and your username) seem to indicate. I think that what actually happened is that some people down the street told you the guy was dead, and you didn't really bother to check his pulse between sprinting up and proceeding to thump on his chest. If you had, maybe you would have found that he just needed to be woken gently, and repositioned slightly - to a bench nearby, perhaps; everyone standing around probably would've been happy to help you walk him over there, or even take him to the hospital to get checked out if need be. And now you're wondering why everyone's upset that you tried to crack the poor guy's ribs.
    But anyhoo, I'm not sure this will get us anywhere - ready to start over when you are. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, and I apologize if I have come on too strong. But, the ball is (and has been) in your court. If we can all agree to start with the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" edit summary, I look forward to a thorough discussion of the relevant events, facts, and sources as we work through the issues identified by that edit summary. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To update, almost a day later and still no engagement with "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" or any of the multiple substantive and detailed edit summaries posted on the Koch Industries talk page. The 9 full edit summaries were posted nearly a week ago and there is still no meaningful engagement from any of the editors who were so quick to level unfounded accusations at me.
    Even a cursory review of the specific details of these proposed edits, in the context of the current article text, would show that the existing Koch Industries article is not merely "a dead body", but already blue and starting to attract maggots. springee's broad criticism (that the facts are not significant) are disputed by the detailed edit summaries and supporting evidence. In addition to the "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" language, which is both biased and intentionally misleading, the detailed edit summaries I posted illustrate multiple very significant errors of omission.
    From a report in Rolling Stone that the company pleaded guilty to five felonies including conspiracy to commit fraud, to a US Senate investigation into the company's theft of oil from tribal lands that culminated in a False Claims Act settlement, it should be clear that these edit proposals all have three things in common: (1) they involve "inconvenient facts" from the company's perspective, (2) they are all material, reliably sourced, and more noteworthy that other information already included on the page, and (3) the editors who have attacked me on this page have tried very hard to shut down and/or delay discussion on all of them without any specific justification or supporting arguments on any of them.
    I would encourage the administrators reading this report to thoroughly review the Koch Industries talk page submitted with this ANI in the context of the behavior in this thread, and also take into account the context of the existing article. In the meantime, I eagerly await the response of the existing editors to "Fatal Pipeline Explosion" and the other detailed edit summaries that I posted. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also ask that Guy Macon's comment above be treated as a comment by a party that is somewhat involved with the underlying issue at hand. He was very vocal against reporting negative information about the Kochs in the same Americans For Prosperity talk thread that is cited at the top of the page (I knew I recognized the name). I count 19 separate instances of his signature in that one thread, alone. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, this just keeps looking worse and worse. I've been playing around with the "Wikiblame" tool, and it looks like, FOR YEARS, anybody who has tried to cite either of these two critical articles[5][6], for any reason, has had their content summarily reverted without explanation. The talk archives for Koch_Industries have multiple angry posts asking why such posts had been taken down, such as this one, which implicates our own Arthur Rubin.[7] In other cases, the same type of behavior that I observed (objecting to the posting of critical content from new users by citing obscure Wikipedia WP: policies while refusing to engage with the content, itself) has been discussed.[8] Not only do I not see myself as a "savior", as AdventurousSquirrel claimed, it appears I was just the first user in all this time that naturally responds to the type of frustration that they attempted to induce with increased (and not decreased) motivation to push through.
    It is also worth mentioning the continued radio silence from the implicated users. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Based on the "Wikiblame" evidence described above (and full history of the Koch Industries talk page and Koch Industries article), the content of the Koch Industries talk page referenced above, the content of this ANI thread, and the content of the Koch Industries article as of 9/6/2015, I would like to level a specific "bad-faith" accusation against the named entity Koch Industries.
    This evidence strongly suggests that, over a period of YEARS, individuals directed by Koch Industries and/or operating on its behalf have:
    1) Systematically removed content containing specific citations that paint the company in a negative light.
    2) Responded to negative content with a "playbook" that consists of objecting on the grounds of various arcane Wikipedia rules and/or making broad sweeping objections while steadfastly refusing to engage with or discuss the specific negative content itself.
    3) Posted company statements, and other astroturf that links to company-owned websites, both in place of and in addition to organic Wikipedia content.
    As evidence of "prior bad acts", I reference the 2011 Koch Industries Wikipedia "airbrushing" scandal that was reported by ThinkProgress and others. I call on the administrators and the Wikimedia Foundation to thoroughly investigate this claim. - VeritasVincitUSA (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "User talk:VeritasVincitUSA". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    2. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    3. ^ "Koch Brothers Exposed: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    4. ^ "Koch Industries: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 5 September 2015.
    5. ^ Mayer, Jane. "Covert Operations". NewYorker.com. New Yorker. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
    6. ^ Dickinson, Tim. "Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire". RollingStone.com. Rolling Stone.
    7. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
    8. ^ "Talk:Koch Industries: Difference between revisions". Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia. Retrieved 7 September 2015.

    WP:BURO bullshit

    A procedural question, really. Somebody about whom there's a thread closes it. (And does so neatly and cleanly, though without signing.) Someone else reverts this. A third editor reverts the second editor (re-closing the thread), with the comment "It doesn't fucking matter who does it." Question: Does it fucking matter who closes threads? -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Was the thread going to result in an admin using the tools? Had it played out to its conclusion? Who needs to be blocked as a direct result of the discussion therein? The thread was ended. We don't demand that rules are followed just to follow rules, where there is no future action required. Let me make it blunt. Should the named editor in that thread be blocked? If not, there's no point in keeping the thread open anymore. Nor is there any reason to have this thread, unless you want someone else blocked. Name some names and give some reasons if that is the case. --Jayron32 02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't matter. It is unwise but very understandable to close a thread on oneself, becasue people will assume that the close is suspect, and either revert it, or waste time checking that it isn't.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree with Rich – "self-closing" ANI threads is probably not advisable, but is acceptable in certain cases (e.g. the equivalent of a WP:SNOW close when the odds of no Admin action are near 100%, or when the OP "withdraws" the ANI complaint). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayron32, my intention was to spend some time checking that all the problems had been undone, and whether there were other issues, and if everything was fine, then to close it later this evening. If you wanted to close it, that's fine. But it isn't fine to close it by scolding me and cursing at me. People ought not to close threads about themselves, especially not over an objection. That's particularly true of an editor who has been asked to respect consensus and procedure. Your close didn't send a helpful message in that regard. I was shocked to see your response, so I'd prefer to say no more about it. Sarah (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SlimVirgin: I apologize. It was rude of me to be so gruff, and also to cut you short in what you were trying to do. I should have probably investigated more fully. I have no excuse, and you are of course, entirely correct in being upset at my rash actions. I apologize for them, and will try better next time to hold my tongue and also to be more cautious in stepping on toes. --Jayron32 16:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back to my original, general question: I think that only Rich Farmbrough has given it a direct answer. This answer surprises me: If it's so clear that a thread can be closed, then surely somebody else can close it. Can we have this compromise: If somebody closes a thread about themself, they should at least avoid any ambiguity about who closed it. (This is as simply done as typing "~~~~".) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC) ..... PS I missed IJBall's comment. Sorry: I blame caffeine deficiency. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When a user tries to close a thread about themselves, they can be seen to avoid sanctions and it is right to revert those sorts of closes and just get on with the business that ANI handles. In this case, there was an acknowledgement of the problem, a commitment to do better and everyone can move on amiably. Isn't it moments like this that WP:IAR was written for? Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Talk:History of Japan

    Despite warnings to stop [64][65][66], User:Signedzzz continues to add and re-add an unsigned and unhelpful message to an already bitter talk page discussion at Talk:History of Japan.[67][68][69]

    Before this I'd already already declared I'm giving up copyediting the article as there are too many serious problems and—more frustratingly—too many editors who are unwilling to work in good faith on improving the problems—rather, they'd rather attack me when I even bring them up. Discussion and cooperation are impossible, and this hostility will clearly continue without me. Signedzzz isn't the only problem, but the editwarring to keep a message designed to bait and avoid working toward article improvement is a concrete issue that needs to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied to "warning" on my talk page. This is ludicrous. zzz (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is apparently disagreement on that area. I have had my ANI reports altered for not having "neutral" headings in the past, and certainly a heading that gives the impression that Signedzzz is either the only culprit or the principal culprit in this case is not neutral. I frankly don't care about 90% of the stuff you, Nishidani and Signedzzz have been arguing over one way or the other, but implying this dispute is the fault of anyone but CurtisNaito and TH1980 is basically a misrepresentation in my opinion. Another user recently tried to alter a heading in an ANI discussion to make it about me when it clearly was not just about me, and I reverted them; their response was to say the same thing you just did, claiming that I alone, and not the other user, was the "subject of the report" and so should not be allowed delete my own name. I thought he should have just dropped it then, and I think you should just drop it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You would be right, of course. But, again, if someone felt policy was on Signedzzz's side (and a lot of people think WP:TALKNEW applies to ANI as well as article talk pages) then you would be the one engaged in disruptive edit-warring while Signedzzz is just trying to enforce policy. Again, I frankly agree with the point of view that ANI headers don't have to be neutral, but I think in this case a neutral header would have been more constructive. And I've had just about enough of both users both edit-warring to change ANI headers and inserting non-neutral headers against consensus of late. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from peripherally involved but basically neutral observer It is not clear what sanction is being called for here. This is essentially a content dispute that has been exacerbated by the toxic atmosphere on the talk page, which was primarily the work of User:CurtisNaito and two other users he brought in to be the "bad cop" to his "good cop" and help him fight his battles. The users in question (User:Nishidani was also involved for a time, and both he and Signedzzz have been accused of trolling by Curly Turkey as a result) have done a pretty poor job of discussing the dispute. Again, I must emphasize that it is not, in my opinion, the fault of Curly Turkey, Signedzzz or Nishidani that constructive talk page discussion is near-impossible in this case. Nishidani briefly brought the dispute into the article space by inserting a bad ref to verify not the factual claim in question but the use of a grammatical structure Curly Turkey disagreed with. This was an unnecessary and somewhat pointy edit, but was also extremely minor. Nishidani and Signedzzz opposed some proposals from Curly Turkey on the talk page, and their comments were collapsed with the heading "Political horseshit not focused on improving the article". I know Curly Turkey has a reputation for not being as polite as he perhaps could be, but in this case all parties on the talk page except for CurtisNaito and TH1980 (including myself) have been uncharacteristically aggressive. The reason I say except CurtisNaito and TH1980 is because CurtisNaito is engaged in his usual passive-aggressive, ignore-every-dissenting-opinion, slow-motion-revert-war, never-ever-use-foul-language but constantly-accuse-others-of-not-being-constructive behaviour, and TH1980 is engaged in his usual "CurtisNaito is right and Hijiri88 is wrong" and "everything I don't agree with is a personal attack, despite what the policy says" rambling. If anyone is to be sanctioned in this dispute, it should not be Curly Turkey or Signedzzz, or for that matter Nishidani, me, Sturmgewehr88, Rjensen, Phoenix7777 or Vivexdino. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably the main issue is that some editors are spending an excessive amount of time making personal attacks on other users instead of actually commenting on article content. When I post anything about article content, too many other users ignore the issues at question and instead rely exclusively on personal attacks. Curly Turkey apparently has been having the same problem, though he said it was Signedzzz and Nishidani who were derailing the discussion.

    I don't think the off-topic commentary that Hijiri has been making about me personally on the talk page has contributed much to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, what Curtis calls "off-topic commentary" by me is my asserting that his recent edits to the article have been disruptive and overall unhelpful (something everyone else, including Signdzzz, Nishidani and Curly Turkey agree), that his edits have a tendency to introduce OR and misrepresentation of sources into the article (again, something everyone agrees), and that this pattern is consistent with CurtisNaito's edits to other articles in the past (something everyone agrees now, and agreed in the past on those articles as well). Pointing out where the problems with talk page discussion and the article content originate is not a personal attack, despite what CurtisNaito wants to claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If my edits were disruptive to the article, I would not have succeeded at bringing it to good article status before you or any other editor did. You keep on making accusations and personal attacks against me on the talk page, but the problem is that you have no evidence to support your claims. I am reminded about what John Carter said recently about you, "taking recourse to irrational, probably unsupportable, insults and obscenities directed against those with whom you are in disagreement". You apparently disagree with me (while still so often declining to discuss actual content), but that's no reason to make false accusations against me.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What "false accusations" have I made against you??? Wikipedia policy clearly defines accusations of bad behaviour made without evidence as personal attacks. You have been asked several times to provide evidence of the above "false accusations" you keep claiming I made -- when is the evidence getting here, Curtis? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already requested a few times that Hijiri lay off on the personal attacks and discuss article content instead, but he will not listen.TH1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have requested the same thing of TH1980, who has contributed nothing to the discussion except to claim that I am making personal attacks. In fact, TH1980 appears to have followed me to the article, having never shown any interest in either that article or Japanese prehistory and early history before this. Let's be clear: as long as one has evidence it is not a personal attack to say "User X has been adding OR and misrepresentation of sources to the article. User X has previously added similar OR and misrepresentation of sources to other articles." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request move to temporarily block user Ritsaiph for personal attacks

    Hello Wiki admins, am I coming to the right place? I hereby wish to make a request to you all to take action against User:Ritsaiph for making threats, personal attacks, insults, harassment, and using derogatory language against other users while discussing on a thread.

    The case issue can be read at here. This user, who has never made any single contribution to this template, came onto the thread went on whacking another user rudely, who has been contributing to this template for many months, out of sudden just because consensus has reached a deadlock. I hope the Wiki admins consider looking into this manner properly and take further appropriate action against him. We only want to continue our civil discussions but he had to keep attacking and issue threats somehow. Thank you. Myronbeg (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As it clearly states at the top of every edit block for this page, “When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user page.” I have done this for you. Now please provide specific offs of what you need help with. --Adam in MO Talk 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was upset that no one shared its POV in the article talk page which concerned making changes to the article. Many other editors have disagreed with the user, so the user had a Wikipedia tantrum and began accusing me of harassment and personal attacks. I do admit to criticizing the users ability to type coherent sentences while ranting on the talk page "If by "personal attacks, harassment and making threats" you mean correcting your poorly typed-grammar, then I fully agree, I am being a terrible person for doing something your grade 2 teacher should have taught you a long time ago... or maybe not so long ago. " and that, in light of the multitude of editors who disagree with Myronbeg, that we could make the edits whether he agrees or not i.e Regardless if he was on board or not, we would simply ignore the user. "We could ride roughshod over you and you can't really do anything about it." I am not apologetic for either of these statements.

    I did state firmly that I would launch an WP:AN or WP:ANI against Myronbeg if the user kept reverting any future edits which had been agreed upon on the talk page, which would constitute as vandalism, "If your intransigence still kept the coloring from being implemented, I could always file a WP:AN or WP:ANI against you for disruptive edits. " diff here [70]. The user implied that he would revert any edits made without his consent, "I did not made any vandalism to this template as the original color was always black for AQAP, red for government forces, and yellow for Houthis (later I requested changing to green, but at least at that time no one objected it unlike I do for AQAP-grey)... I can argue that people are vandalizing this page by imposing their own opinion...You are not in a position to challenge me." diff here [71].

    Because consensus had been reached by an absolute majority of 5 editors to 1, and followed consistency with other articles, I thought it was appropriate to use a heavy-handed response to Myronbeg's continued whinging about no one sharing the users POV. Furthermore, I was the one who actually recommended Myronbeg to file an WP:ANI against me, "Of course, you can file an WP:AN or WP:ANI against me, and I would support it if you did" diff here [72]. I wanted admins to see what kind of an editor he is. One who believes that his opinion weighs more than the opinions of others, and whose attitude has caused editors to divert their energy to argue against him on the talk page rather than improving the map that the article is based on. I am aware that some of the statements I have made were crude and inappropriate and may come under scrutiny. But when all you want to do is to actually make an article better with an improvement seen on many other maps, (Libyan Civil War map and Syrian Civil War map) you get tired of nuisances that impede the progress. --Ritsaiph (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk page abuse by blocked school IP

    24.186.147.139 is currently school-blocked for 2 years. As soon as the IP was blocked, the IP said that they were crying, violating WP:NOTFACEBOOK and WP:NOTFORUM (and maybe WP:PRAM). Then the IP removed the {{anonblock}} template disruptively. Also, before the block, there was a personal attack by the IP and some other abuse so this already warranted a talk page revokal already, but talk access was not revoked. --TL22 (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    How long did you allow the tantrum for? Did they return after several days to continue? Or would it be best to just leave them alone for 24 hours, with no response from us, until they go away for the day, never to return, and then we can clean up their mess? --Jayron32 03:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Jytdog's none neutral GMO edits

    Editor Jytdog frequently removes content from pages related to GMOs which doesn't seem to fit his personal opinion. He is also the most frequent editor on GMO pages. Most of the time he acts like he would own these pages, as a recent example: Jytdog removes most of other editors contributions, ignoring existing talk page discussions. Jytdog insists on framing organisations (or here) like Union of Concerned Scientists or Greenpeace as advocacy groups. However, this kind of framing doesn't extend to other entities, and presents a very narrow view.

    Many editors have problems with Jytdog's frequent accusations, as is evident from this discussion where several editors (Jusdafax,Tsavage,DrChrissy,SageRad) wonder about claims by Jytdog that i broke 3RR. He later redacted his claim in that discussion. However, then later eventually reported me, but then withdraws his request (time stamp Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)).

    • In his report he states: I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. Apparently his words are in stark contrast to reality. Hence, this editor is creating a lot of drama, wasting time with his unclear actions.

    When i challenged the editor about his claim that my edit is advocacy he responded: And I told you - look at every single edit you made in the past day or two. Every one emphasizes negatives of GM or promotes the goodness of organic. Every. Single. One. And cited this dif for his claims. That was the only dif Jytdog provided.

    Yesterday Jytdog filed an AfD on a page i created, and then begun to remove reliable sources from that page. In his AfD he states, Group advocates for FRINGE science. However, Jytdog again ignores questions in the AfD discussion to explain his accusations.

    Maybe even more concerning, Jytdog added or maintained on around 6 articles original research for several years, claiming that there exists a scientific consensus. Recently after several editors objections and a RFC, he begun to accept different wordings in that matter, even though it can still pretty much be regarded as to much synthesis. None of his cites actually supports his synthesis.

    Jytdog was recently reported for edit warring (here), and uncivility (here). Jytdog wrote in response to Mann_jess, just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck. I know what NPOV is and I spent about 90% of my editing keeping FRINGE and quackery out of Wikipedia.

    That was in March this year, apparently Jytdog's edit history, and frequent problems with other editors, his disruptive style, are evidence that the editor is not able to understand what NPOV edits means, and is not able to work in a community environment or to contribute in a neutral way. I therefore ask the community to topic ban Jytdog from everything which is related to GMOs. Wikipedia does not require a special self proclaimed steward for GMO topics, but maybe the attention of Arbcom. Thanks.

    These pages all contain talk page discussions with Jytdog, where he defends his reverts against various editors. Not a single discussion can be considered resolved, not even after months.

    prokaryotes (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgot to mention that GregJackP has a grudge against me as well, and continues steering into me although we were advised to steer away from each other. I have been honoring that, he has not. Both editors continue their pattern of bias, which only brings disrepute upon them. Unhappy, but not a surprise.Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban/Send to ArbCom. That Jytdog is willing to spend his time and effort in this topic area so fraught with POV pushing by agenda editors is a reason to commend them, not sanction. I see the bandwagon of editors who have been been in editorial conflict with Jytdog has started to show up above. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yobo is an involved editor, as he reports in his comment below.Minor4th 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban (uninvolved editor) - I have not edited in the GMO area, but I have looked at all the diffs from the OP and from Jytdog and have found a clear attitude of ownership by Jytdog in GMO related articles, as well as NPOV edit patterns, edit warring, forum shopping, and tendentious editing. I believe this set of issues is probably too much for ANI and should be addressed at Arbcom. Minor4th 18:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not uninvolved. Fellow traveller with GregJackP and edits and !votes in lockstep with him. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am uninvolved, as I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior.Minor4th 18:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but you are in lockstep with GregJackP, who is exercising a grudge against me. I have never seen you disagree with him on any discussion where the three of have been involved, and there have been about 4 of those. Not uninvolved - not even close. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would appear to be incorrect; you reverted Jytdog's edit here on a page regarding Monsanto to return the page to a version that GregJackP had previously worked on; you also have clearly "participated in...noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior": in this ANI report you agreed with GregJackP's position and call Jytdog "one of the most battleground editors I have come across on WP" and then !voted to have him topic banned, you also participated in this ANI thread, where you came to the defense of GregJackP and again commented on Jytdog, and then you showed up at another thread where GregJackP had tried to get Jytdog sanctioned. In fact, the only threads you have ever showed up at ANI this year have been in threads where Jytdog have been involved as a participant. You might want to correct your misstatement above. Yobol (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Yobol, you may want to look at your statement again. Minor4th stated she did not edit in the GMO area. The diff you provided was on a legal article, Bowman v. Monsanto Co., not a GMO article. The ANI diffs you linked also did not have anything to do with GMO. In the first diff you point at, Minor4th is reverting J-dog's incorrect evaluation of a legal source, where all of the other editors, mostly lawyers, agreed with her, but J-dog continued to be disruptive about the issue. On the shopping mall notability diff, numerous other editors also chastised J-dog for gutting articles for supposed COI problems, that had minimal to no COI editing. These editors included former Arbcom members who tried to point out to him that mass-deletions were not appropriate nor needed to protect WP. Most of the interactions I have had with J-dog deal with his repeated and constant harassment of PraeceptorIP, a subject matter expert on intellectual property law, and many of the other lawyer-editors of the project have seen the same problem, including Minor4th. In any event, Minor4th's statement was correct, as she has not been involved in GMO articles or discussions. I would suggest you strike you misstatement. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I refer you back to Minor4th's original statement, "I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior." Note the bolded portion, and read my text again. I find it a remarkable coincidence that Minor4th has no interest in Jytdog, but every time they have posted on ANI in the last year, they comment in a thread involving Jytdog, often following a comment by you in that thread. Yobol (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I refer you back to her original statement, "I have not edited in the topic area, nor have I participated in the GM RfC'z and noticeboard discussions about Jytdog's editing behavior." Note the bolded portion. GM is a modifier for both RfCs and noticeboards, there is no comma to separate the two. You are reading it incorrectly, probably due to the loss of formal comma-use in popular usage. However, Minor4th is a lawyer, and her language was precise. She can't help it that you do not read it with precision. I know Minor4th IRL and she has exactly zero interest in GMOs. GregJackP Boomer! 02:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban of Jytog from all GM related articles, as I have been saying since roughly 2012. His edits to pharmaceutical articles are equally non-neutral. If the true story of his edit history and interactions with the community was viewed, including his recent doxxing of Atsme, a ban from this site altogether would be the only proper response. This case should ultimately go to ArbCom in my opinion, where the edits of his supporters and the larger picture can be considered (see Yobol's recent work at Seralini Affair rejecting addition of good science, and assisting Jytdog with reverts without interacting on the TP at Genetically modified foods as an example). [Diffs forthcoming, forgive me, I am stuck on iPad for now.] What he is trying to pull in the sections below is actually shocking, when I didn't think that was still possible with this user. petrarchan47คุก 18:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In many ways, I find the old article MUCH more comprehensive, readable and informative than the current version, it just needs some editing.. --Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015
    Tsavage then compares the before and after articles here, calling into question the claims by Jytdog that his work on the GMO suite has been beneficial. petrarchan47คุก 21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Some of the complaint has nothing to do with the topic area. For instance, the warning about incivility (directed at me) was months ago and concerned climate change. I don't edit the GMO topic, so I'm unfamiliar with these issues, but I'm getting a very strong sense that several editors are pushing an anti-GMO stance (in opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment) and they are attempting to pile on to remove an editor who supports the mainstream pov. Topics like this one encourage a lot of advocacy and coordinated bad behavior, and we should not sanction editors for having the patience to uphold our policies against fringe theories, if indeed that is what is going on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mann_jess, there is no fringe pushing whatsoever going on. If you look at the actual content discussed it is most of the time via authorities or related to statements of organisations, which are relevant in the discussions. Please ask for evidence in regards to fringe, don't accept empty claims or framing as such. Also look at the articles if you are not sure, there are many issues of NPOV.prokaryotes (talk) 1:49 pm, Today (UTC−6)
    • Support topic ban and possibly a short block to send the point home. I'm mostly uninvolved on the GMO issue, but have noticed on a number of articles that this editor has been getting very aggressive and would benefit from a break. Calling anyone an "ignorant fuck" for any reason is absolutely unacceptable. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support I am completely removed from this topic area, but the behavior of Jytdog suggests that at the very least a cooling-off period is required, and a separation from the topic is likely to make their editing more productive. Which is not to say that the behavior of the editors bringing this here is completely clean, either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for Jytdog, in the strongest possible terms, but there is clearly a deadlocked content dispute here. And the accusers have some competency issues (take a close look at the header of this section). For that matter, take a look at WP:EWN, where there are multiple threads of WP:IDHT. At this point, the conflict is ready to be taken up by ArbCom, and that's the only place where it can reasonably be sorted out. We've gone through enough rounds of failed community discussion that I am confident that ArbCom will accept a case titled about GMOs. I suggest that the first involved editor who is willing to put his or her money where his or her mouth is go ahead and file the request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions in favor of taking this to arbitration. Or, alternately, I suppose, we might be able to get a ruling from ArbCom that some aspect of GMO is pseudoscience, which would allow the topic to fall under the existing pseudoscience sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To date we haven't really had a focused GMO case at ANI (just tangential ones here and there), but I think after this ANI whether we get partial resolution or not, we might be at a place where ArbCom would consider all other options exhausted in order to take it up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and boomerang. Being another science editor in this topic, It would be silly to topic ban one of the few editors who try to stick to NPOV with scientific sources as opposed to others who have clear behavioral or advocacy problems in the topic. There is a systemic problem in the topic of people invoking the shill gambit or engaging in POV advocacy by invoking a corporate boogeyman to make neutral approaches seen extremely POV in contrast. When you get a rare person who's critical of all viewpoints in a controversial topic (as I've seen of Jytdog across many topics besides this as my editing interests overlap with his in agriculture), it seems common for the editor to be marked pretty quickly as an adversary by editors pushing a certain point of view claiming the critical editor has a certain polarized point of view in a topic like this. Unfortunately, we see a lot of the latter from people pushing hard for anti-GMO content in the articles, and I have seen that from a lot of editors pushing for a topic ban on Jytdog now. Part of it is trying to remove someone as part of a content dispute, and the other side is part of editor behavior issues we can hopefully shed a bit more light on here.
    I've seen Jytdog approaching various editors coming in with behavior problems about as civilly as one can within reason. This appears to be another case of Jytdog trying to work with the person despite the behavior issues instead of bringing it to ANI right away. Meanwhile, the editor with the original behavior problem tries to call attention to attempts to deal with that as problematic itself; rinse and repeat and you get the buildup of problems we have here. I'll comment more on Prokaryotes in their own section specifically, but there doesn't appear to be anything actionable when one looks at the full context of edits and other editors behavior with respect to Jytdog. When people behave crappily like we see at GMO articles, there's no clean way to deal with it, so we can't really fault people for trying within our policies and guidelines at least. ArbCom might be the end result, but I'd like to see if ANI can get some cleanup done first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For context it should be noted that KingofAces' views pertaining to this subject are quite fringe when compared with the community, and can muddy his understanding of how guidelines apply. See this RfC for example. He was one of 3 opposes against 16 support votes - and as you can see his reasoning is nothing more than pro GMO POV. petrarchan47คุก 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is part of the vitriol that has become disruptive at the topics. It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black here with respect to fringe considering I cited the fringe guideline almost verbatim on what we should do in that RfC. Not exactly off-base from the community since I was explaining how it should be included. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Look at some of the evidence. The comment "Jytdog removes most of other editors contributions" with dif [73] means they removed the openers contributions.
    This appears to be the ref that was removed by Jyt [74]. The organization is an advocacy group [75]. Not a reliable source so why did Prok add it [76]?
    The opener added unreffed content [77] and [78]
    In this diff you are claiming their is some consensus to ignore [79] am not see any.
    Further issues include User:DrChrissy who has had his tiptoeing around his topic ban described here [80] here[81]
    Agree that the issue we have here is a group of editors opposing main stream scientific opinion and sources and attempting to use altmed / non main stream sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you take again a look at the article history of Séralini affair and a look at the talk page there. But since you made up your mind already ...prokaryotes (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at your evidence and it was not very good, sorry. And those supporting the ban raise further concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, above you cherry pick an example, but then somehow falsely conclude that he removed my contributions, or that i added content from what you suggest above is not a RS. I've added a word there, readded content from another editor, added a lede sentence based on article, and content which was part of the article since over a year. And then you fast forward through everything else (like the remaining 99%) and conclude that editors who support the topic ban of Jytdog do not accept main stream science opinion.prokaryotes (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I just took your first difs and if you are re adding poorly supported content than you take responsibility for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You cherry pick a dif from me in an ANI about another editor, then claim that all people oppose main stream scientific opinion who are involved here, but ignore everything else. And then you call for a topic ban based on your opinion.prokaryotes (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose and boomerang - The same old FRINGE crowd trying to silence a diligent editor. Shame on them, and maybe blocks as well. BMK (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from GMO articles, which Jytdog fails to edit neutrally in any way. He whitewashes everything in sight on these topics and neutral editing seems like a foreign concept to him, here and elsewhere. He also berates editors with differing opinions on the talk pages and quickly resorts to making personal attacks when his opinions are challenged. Politely asking Jytdog policy based questions, yields responses like "I'm not going into the weeds with you" or "don't Wikilawyer me". I see no other option for this editor. LesVegas (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. Jytdog insists on use of the highest quality reliable sources in these articles and stands as a needed bulwark against transforming them into little more than brochures for advocacy organizations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen that is simply not true; it's not clear what this assessment is based on, but truth on the ground is much different. He has been using an anti-GMO labeling position paper by the board of the AAAS to claim that there is a scientific consensus among scientists that GMOs are safe. He has also used the WHO to support this claim, as did the AAAS. We recently had a RfC about this SC statement and found there was no support for it. This is profound knowing that WP has touted this claim for quite some time and has been called out for it by large numbers of scientists. As Sarah SV pointed out in the RfC, and as Grist also notes, the WHO actually says that claiming all GMO foods are safe is not possible, as each much be assessed on an individual basis. Knowing this, he continues to support use of this source. petrarchan47คุก 03:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So User:Petrarchan47 are you stating that the American Association for the Advancement of Science founded in 1848 and being the world's largest general scientific society is some fringe group? This organization has 262 scientific affiliates that represent 10 million members. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a serious question? Doc, I understand if you are too busy to really look at these diffs and arguments, but if that is the case your comments here should be limited. I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but I have noticed that none of your remarks here seem well thought out. petrarchan47คุก 08:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for Jytdog. I suggest it go to Arbcom, where the actions of all involved can be examined by a third party. I oppose any community sanctions on Jytdog. Jytdog is no saint, but I'd rather he be active in that area than the editors who have brought this action. Since this Arbcom is not shy about handing out topic bans, I'd advise Jytdog to be on his best behavior from now on. He's also probably close to an incivility block for some of these diffs. Regardless, I don't trust the community to hand out a neutral result from this; Jytdog has made too many enemies, and there are too any POV-pushers who disagree with his attempts to clean up problematic articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Jytdog on GM-related articles (broadly construed) and including those articles listed above by the OP. This should be an indefinite ban, with no appeal allowed for 6 months. Given that Jytdog's disruptive editing has not been limited to only GM-related articles (I can provide diffs if these are needed but I suspect they are not), I agree with Montanabw that there should be a relatively brief site block for 30 to 60 days giving time for Jytdog to reflect on his behaviour.DrChrissy (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Nothing of merit in this case. More generally Jytdog does a lot of good work in a number of areas of WP (not just working to maintain neutrality in the vexed GMO space) and for his pains has attracted a number of persistent opponents who are becoming increasingly disruptive (not least on this N/B) in their daft attempt to remove what they no doubt perceive as a thorn in their sides. Here we go again. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Jytdog is the subject of a gang attack from a group of crusaders who seem to be convinced their opinions over-ride wikipolicy. I commend Jytdog for his knowledgeable and tireless work in this area. Maybe this should go to ArbCom, where I predict a strong boomerang once behaviours are eximined in detail. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per my comments in Kingofaces section below. This is ripe for ArbCom and this ANI is nothing but an uncontrolled circus. At least ArbCom will be more controlled and the issues brought up can be addressed without all of the banter. JbhTalk 22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick note Several people in the subsections below have called for sanctions on Jytdog or actively opposed such sanctions. The closing admin will need to consider more than just the votes-and-comments in this part of the section. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- the back and forth calls for bans have reached an absurd level, with Quackguru's call to ban everyone supporting a ban for Jytdog standing out as particularly over the top. With this much noise, and this many experienced, involved, and opposed editors, the community is unlikely to come to a resolution on any of this, and Arbcom is a necessary next step. This dispute is more complex than science-based editors vs. fringe advocates, and involves long term patterns of behavioral issues. Hopefully this distinction will be made clear in the Arbcom filing.Dialectric (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    So, this kind of case is not going to work very well at ANI. Analyzing my edits for a pattern of POV editing is going to take a lot of careful work, and ANI too easily turns into a circus.

    Complicating that, there are longterm anti-GMO advocates Petrarchan47 chief among them, Jusdafax (who recently, in discussion with Petrarchan, said that I am "a boil that must be lanced"), David Tornheim who showed up more recently, and generally pro-altmed/anti-WP:MED editors like AlbinoFerret and others who will reliably show up on the other side of whatever drama board action is filed against me. Likewise, DrChrissy, whom I was rude to a while ago and apologized too, has carried a grudge and will surely show up here too.

    I have been contemplating an ANI myself, but it is too messy so I haven't filed it -- there are too many separate issues/agendas here and this is going to devolve into a mess. But since it is started, here we go. I am putting these in separate subsections, which I will post in a bit, one by one. Things have come to an ugly head of late, so this is going to look like Saint Valentine's Day Massacre or something. I have been putting up with a lot of crap for a long time, and since Prokaryotes has brought this to a head, I will go ahead and lay out all the bad behavior and abuse that has been going on of late - some of it a continuation of things that have been going for a long, long time. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The story is not so complicated. You have a clear case of ownership and have been bullying other editors, whilst twisting the most basic guidelines and disallowing normal edits on any article to which you've laid claim. The result will ultimately be that you find yourself here almost weekly, if not more often. But go ahead, convince us that everyone else is wrong. petrarchan47คุก 19:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to add to my overall response that I posed above. The issue here, is an intense rush of not-so-civil WP:CRUSH - I provide a bunch of diffs below showing that these editors have come with a single POV - namely that pesticides and GMOs are scary and bad and that Jytdog a shill. The behavior issues are the aggressive editing (things must be fixed now!) and refusal to actually take the time to work things out on the article Talk pages in good faith discussion. That is what we have done for several years now. We are at this ugly place primarily because of Prokaryotes' reckless editing, but supported by the others I have discussed below. Of course there is a related content dispute. That is actually not a problem. We can work that out if people settled in and worked.
    We actually had a pretty important breakthough last week. We have a tentative consensus on the "food safety" statement, namely: "There is a general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food." That is taken verbatim from the first ballpark-acceptable language offered by anybody who opposed the former language and I implemented it at the GM food article. Consensus is very possible on all the content issues, if people just slow down and talk and work. The editors I name below are not interested in doing that work. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I take issue with your comments that the editors are not interested in consensus. When PraeceptorIP added some material to a GMO article, you blew up and threw a tantrum. At this edit, you made a personal attack on Praeceptor, calling him incompetent, and you said that you were "too angry to write more," hardly the sign of someone looking for consensus. The rest of the editors stayed and worked on it until we agreed. This has been your habit, in my experience. You don't like it when, at legal articles, everyone tells you that you are wrong; nor did you like it at Pharming (genetics). The one who seems not to be interested in consensus is you. GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter with PraceptorIP is entirely different and one that you, in your battleground behavior, have made much worse. It is your behavior there that exasperated me: I think I could actually work with him as he has been reasonable when we could talk without your interference. I think b/c you don't understand patent law you have no idea of the systematic way he is damaging Wikipedia with POV editing. But that is something I will need to deal with later. My hands are quite overfull here. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, I guess you don't know how he really feels about you. I am sure of one thing. I understand law a whole lot better than you do, how many times have your positions been shot down in legal articles? I can think of four or five, and can't recall a single one where your view prevailed. And after you called him incompetent, I doubt that you'll have much luck with him in the future. But feel free to believe what you want. GregJackP Boomer! 05:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Prokaryotes

    The GMO articles have been very roiled as of late, as Prokaryotes, who wikignomes these articles, showed up again recently and started editing very aggressively. This started on August 26 with this dif, and if you look at their last 525 edits, you will see that they have very almost all been on GMO-related articles, and every single one of those edits was adding negative content. (the "spark" for this, seemed to be that they just learned about a WHO committee report released in March that classified glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen", which was the subject of their first few edits; we incorporated that when it came out). And yes, I do serve as a steward on these articles, and push back on pro-industry and anti-GMO advocates, on both sides.

    These articles are very controversial, and Prokaryotes' aggressive editing has destabilized them. And rather than slowing down and discussing things on Talk, as I urged them many times (e.g. here on their talk page and elsewhere, they just barrel ahead. When they do write on talk, it is ... nonsense, like this: "Greenpeace is not just an advocacy group, yes it advocates for stuff but it is also a campaigner etc." and misrepresentations/insults like this. Controversial articles require patience and an ability to talk through things, which Prokaryotes has demonstrated none of. The behavioral issue here is aggressive POV-pushing on controversial articles. Per the useful essay, WP:Controversial articles, it is best to go slow, use great sources, and talk things through. Prokayrotes barely talks and makes many poor quality edits

    Prokaryotes should be topic banned from GMO-related content. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (clarify the behavior issues Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    As an involved editor, I would support a topic ban on prokaryotes, who has previously been blocked and indefinitely topic banned from vaccine related topics (see ANI thread here) for disruptive editing, given their similar behavior here in this topic area. However, I predict that there will be a pile-on from editors who have historically supported prokaryotes' position in this content dispute to show up (especially since they specifically pinged them in the original post), which will likely lead to a large, meandering ANI thread consisting of accusations and counter-accusations. Yobol (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes your very involved. It also appears your involved with Jytdog quite a bit. Looking at the Intersect Contribs you have edited 319 of the same articles and the Editor Interaction Analyser shows 49 articles that you edited an hour or less from Jytdog. How many of these do you have an opposite view than his? AlbinoFerret 15:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't the slightest idea, as I don't compare notes with Jytdog about his views on topics (he probably didn't appreciate I reverted him only a few days ago, though). For true transparency, AlbinoFerret, you should probably have noted your own previous conflict with Jytdog in a topic of area now at ArbCom, given your own previous experience at ANI, which Jytdog was involved in. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I was uninvolved. But my involvement in the specific pages under discussion here is limited. I was involved in 1 RFC on 1 of the pages. In that RFC I focused on PAG which were not being followed. AlbinoFerret 19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have clearly been involved in significant editorial dispute with Jytdog in the past, as have most of the those !voting to sanction him, as I predicted. Yobol (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had disagreements on some topics with him. But that doesnt indicate that I am wrong here. Its about long term behaviour issues on his part, in areas that for the most part I have had limited involvement with him. What your suggesting is that there is some vast conspiracy against him and that everyone takes the past on a personal level. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. AlbinoFerret 1:42 pm, Today (UTC−6)
    Again, it is a fact that most of the editors !voting to sanction Jytdog have been in significant editorial conflict with them in the recent past. It is not a "conspiracy", it is the way of ANI that editors who hold grudges against those who have opposed them editorially in the past will try to get them sanctioned in the future. Happens everyday at ANI, especially with editors like Jytdog who dares to edit in areas that are controversial. Yobol (talk) 1:55 pm, Today (UTC−6)
    • Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This goes to all three editors reported by Jytdog. To me, this just looks like Jytdog trying to block anyone who happens to disagree with him. Disagreeing is the whole point of talk pages, but when consensus is not in your favor, it's time to move on, which Jytdog repeatedly failed to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGracefulSlick to be frank, I don't believe that you reviewed everything. All of the editors I mention here, edit with one - one - POV on these topics. I have added all kinds of content, both positive, negative, and neutral, to these articles and do my best to uphold NPOV in the face of advocacy from industry as well as anti-GMO advocates. If you are overwhelmed by the amount of stuff to work over, that is one thing. But your vote is not helpful and doesn't reflect what has actually gone on. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Jytdog "to be frank", whether you think I reviewed everything or not is just your opinion, with absolutely nothing to back it. I looked over every diff you brought up and the fact is you have a content disagreement and this was your "solution" to it. I'm more than capable in concluding this so don't try to undermine my vote again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you taking a second look. I am sorry that you cannot see the POV pushing and campaigning across this whole set of articles. The claim that "there is absolutely nothing to back it up" is not true. I meant what I said about his last 550 diffs. If you go there and click randomly, you will find that every single one adds some kind of negative information. Here I will do it and provide ten diffs - this will literally be random and selected from edits to articles, not Talk or drama boards:
    1. adds content to article about a FRINGE-POV pushing article he created based on two WP:SPS sources and a meeting agenda. Padding to try to add credibility to a FRINGE group.
    2. dif adds content about how humans use glyphosate to kill weeds, and lack of weeds means that butterfies starve, to article on GM food controversies. This has nothing to do with GM food (the weed stands are along roads and the edges of fields, not in the fields) Glyphosate could be used for these purposes regardless of what is growing in the field.
    3. puffing up credibility of anti-GMO groups.
    4. removes content about impact of Seralini's glitzy and manipulated press conference on his rat study, which the journal ended up retracting. Deleted text is a quote, yet the edit note says "too much SYN".
    5. adds content making Seralini's support seem stronger than it was
    6. dif modifying "Consensus statement" on relative safety of GM food, reflecting a tentative consensus on the the talk page of the GM food article. This is kind of OK.
    7. dif add content about an advocacy group suing the EPA over regulation of glyphosate
    8. removed statement that per WP:PSCI gave the science-based reality where FRINGE claims are presented.
    9. dif adds content to Golden rice article about Tufts study that was retracted due to investigators not getting appropriate consents for testing with people
    10. dif adds content trying to discredit the Science Media Centre
    there you go. Exactly one POV. One. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog I was refering to the fact that you said I never reviewed your diffs. I don't need these other ones but I will look through them as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here about content disputes - I do not bring content disputes to ANI. Everything I have written here is about behavior. The behavioral issue is aggressive POV-pushing on a controversial set of articles - sorry if I didn't make that more clear. Will redact to make that more clear. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose In case my comments above are unclear. This is a content dispute. Jytdog is to involved and sees dark shadows around ever corner. This appears to be the case of trying to remove an active editor who disagrees with him. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose boomerang per GregJackP. Jytdog is not a neutral editor, he has a very aggressive POV that is less about accuracy and more about bullying; it's his tone far more than his viewpoint. He could say the same thing with far more grace and fewer attacks. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would lean towards support, but this won't be the place to resolve it. Clear evidence of POV-pushing, and some competence issues. This can best be discussed at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish there are some aspects of this Monster case that may be useful to bring to Arbcom (it may be the only way to get the longterm hounding stopped, for example, and I am sure that some editors would like my overall edits on this subject scrutinized) but Prokaryotes' editing is classic ANI-handleable disruption, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if this ANI complaint had started as a simple complaint against Prokaryotes, but no way, the way that it actually has progressed. And I am far from sure that anything less than a full ArbCom case will end up being where this goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per nom. BMK (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is one case that I think ANI could potentially deal with succinctly as this was a very acute problem. Looking at the actual behavior of Prokaryotes shows their edit warring has locked down a couple articles in about the last week or so. It looks like they cannot competently handle editing in controversial topics as they continue edit warring when asked to discuss on the talk page[82],[83], [84],[85]. That last diff was a case where they were edit warring quite a bit that day and got the page locked down before finally coming to the talk page to specifically mention where consensus had been achieved in an entirely different article. The edit warring in that case would have been entirely bypassed if they simply linked a specific diff instead of vague edit warring summaries after being asked repeatedly to use the talk page. Once the page is protected, go to the next similarly named page.
    Additionally, they consistently violate WP:FOC, which is policy, by ranting about other editors (I've lost track how many titles like, "OR by Jytdog" have been made) and often casting serious aspersions, such as being a shill, etc.[86],[87] Since they have a history of this behavior from their previous topic ban in vaccines and apparently bristles about WP:FRINGE in other diffs here, a broad topic ban for GMOs also seems pretty straightforward (or maybe even just fringe topics). Since John imposed the topic ban, I'm pinging them to this in case they remember anything from the case and have any comment on this editor's behavior here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to piggyback a little bit, it does appear that Prokaryotes entering into the topic is the straw that broke the camel's back here. It wasn't the source of all our woes, but their behavior definitely became the focal point across different articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – The behaviour of prokaryotes has been apalling. Edit-warring while RfC discussion is taking place, wikihounding, personal attacks, failure to FOC - he is clearly gaming the system, and this is the latest effort. Some time out and a pause to reflect on what we are doing here might help. --Pete (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. I did all this with a lot of haste. Too much haste. The GMO articles are often difficult, but the disruption that has occurred in the time since August 26th when Prokaryotes showed up is unprecedented in the 2+ years I have been working on these articles, and their aggressive editing, in the context of the new presence of the other editors I have named below, has created serious disruption.

    Here is all the drama board activity, just since then:

    Right, that is really remarkable. 4 of those directly involve Prokaryotes; the other is DrChrissy. Both are new on the scene. To provide perspective, I searched EWN for "glyphosate", "Monsanto", and "genetically" and here are the last EWN reports on related articles.
    The disruption is clear from EWN alone.
    The other piece of this, is opening multiple fronts at once in editing and Talk, on difficult issues, and not actually talking through issues. Just talking about the Genetically modified food article:
      • August 26 Their first edits at GM food added a section on glyphosate (an herbicide) all based on one thrust (the recent IARC report, and not the breadth of sources on glyphosate). This edit was all about the herbicide. Not about GM food, not even about residues on good. Just the herbicide. This is OFFTOPIC with regard to the scope of the article. The scope could be expanded to include all pesticides used with GM Crops, but that is something to discuss. That lead to [Talk:Genetically_modified_food#Glyphosate|this talk page section]] where Prokaryotes is just all over the place, and not dealing with scope and sourcing, and Prokaryotes [Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RFC_regarding_WHO_study|launched an RfC]] the next day. It is just raw demands to include the content they want and no effort to actually work things out.
      • Same day (Aug 26), rewrote the "scientific consensus" on food safety section, and edit warred over this (the first EWN above). On Aug 28th opened this strange Talk section and later launched [Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Editor_adds_OR_to_aprox_6_articles.2C_about_an_alleged_Scientific_consensus|this]] strange ORN post. We have been working over that statement since we had an RfC on it, as I mentioned above, and Prokayrotes showed no interest in actually joining the conversation and picking up the growing consensus there, just this slashing editing/Talk page style.
    Their presence is really disruptive. The topic ban is wholly justified. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your recent forced redactions of accusations against other editors, I am disappointed to see you doing this. STRIKEOUT! might be needed again I feel.DrChrissy (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware there was even more edit warring going on involving Prokaryotes now with the Seralini affair article. With now 5 AN3 boards involving them for making edits and continuing to revert when asked to go to the talk page under WP:BRD or WP:STATUSQUO, it's looking like we're getting an acute case of editor misbehavior shown there was well as in this ANI. Seeing recent comments on an article talk page such as accusing someone of playing dumb[88] or running an editor off the page[89] seems to drive the point home they can't utilize talk pages competently or according to policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you as an involved editor must also consider that Jytdog is involved in all these EWNs (you too for the most part), and speaking of FOC, do you have anything to say about this statement by Jytdog? ... just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck. At least try to be objective. Thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a perfect example of your approach to WIkipedia, Prokaryotes. That happened a while ago, and I struck that quickly and apologized to the person to whom I wrote that, who accepted my apology. But you are just throwing any random bad thing that you can dredge up. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Common personal attacks are not so random, indeed very common - yesterday alone you wrote, Your mischaracterization of what I wrote and of MEDRS is malicious, incompetent, or both. and to another editor who was trying to talk with you, Your answers are opaque. I am not willing to work with you. I doubt others will want to work with you either.. You are a bully, as have others noted several times.prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case however, one has to look at WP:BAITING in Prokaryotes' case rather than them being bullied (or in reality Prokaryotes doing the bullying) as they have been egging things on quite a bit lately. When you have someone constantly sniping at others by personalizing talk sections [90][91] in addition to the types of posts I mentioned previously being opaque, pointy, and generally nonresponsive, that fits WP:TENDENTIOUS like a glove/ You can expect people to hold their patience for only so long there. Your talk page behavior doesn't validate such outbursts from other editors, but it does point to the source of the problem for where admin action should be taken to alleviate the problem. There's no question that you are just stirring the pot in a controversial article whether intentional or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DrChrissy

    I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan. I would like to edit peacefully (as possible given the topics I work on) without him carrying his grudge into articles I work on.

    DrChrissy tends to edit content about animal health/welfare; I tend to edit content about health (drugs, food, etc) and ag biotech. We overlapped a bit at the Foie gras article back in March, which didn't go well. I was rude to him, which led him to open a thread here against me for incivility that was closed with a warning for me, which I accepted, and I apologized to DrChrissy at that ANI and at DrChrissy's talk page.

    DrChrissy wasn't happy with that outcome, and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Request_review_of_closure_of_ANI_against_Jytdog|sought to overturn the close AN to get more severe action. To no avail.

    Still unhappy, DrChrissy pursued conflict with me, editing health related articles outside his normal fields, like Scrambler therapy and Acupuncture, over which he filed an ANI case (closed no action) in mid-April. By mid-May his behavior at Acupuncture got him topic banned from discussing MEDRS.

    In his anger, he also started to make probing edits into genetic engineering ag content, as you can see here on the GMO article, here on the Genetic engineering article, all back in the Spring.

    Most recently he has pushed heavily into article that I usually edit, often incompetently and often aggressively and up to the edge of his topic ban and over into it.

    You can see the editing pattern here on Glyphosate (examples of incompetent include adding in this dif content that says "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." ("X can be lethal to Y" is true of any X and Y per The dose makes the poison - water can be lethal to humans.) That dif also has content about toxicity that directly reports the tox experiments used to established minimum exposure levels for humans). He also proposing using a very unreliable source here for the glyphosate article, and actually edit-warred over content in Colony collapse disorder here and here based on a FRINGE source (as determined at RSN.

    Along with Glyphosate and Colony collapse disorder articles, DrChrissy has extended the scope of his editing to include Genetically modified bird (which he created and edited to include the ludicrous content that RNA is a small molecule), Genetically modified fish (per this; and Genetically modified food per this. There is more, and I haven't linked to talk discussions.

    I asked him not to extend the field of conflict with me here and even tried to have a neural editor who seems to be OK with both of us mediate, here. To no avail.

    I am very sorry that I hurt DrChrissy so deeply but his carrying a grudge around and actually seeking conflict is not OK. So as above I am seeking an extension of DrChrissy's topic ban (he is already topic-banned from discussing MEDRS/human health content) to include agriculture, and an iBan. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban creep, this was all discussed and addressed by Adjwilley on Dr.Chrissy's page.[92][93] The admin who banned DrChrissy months ago. This is WP:FORUMSHOP AlbinoFerret 15:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Ajwilly was dealing with a specific instance. I am showing a larger pattern of bad behavior here that was not raised at DrChrissy's talk page. It is ban expansion; this is what happens to editors who act badly. They lose their editing privileges, bit by bit by bit. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you were unhappy with the decision of the admin in the first link[94] not doing all that you wanted. So you started a discussion on the same topics discussed here in the second.[[95] Since it doesnt look like your going to get your desired outcome, you have brought it here, thats WP:FORUMSHOP. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a flat out lie. I did not actually seek to extend their topic ban - I said I was thinking about it. Nor did I seek an Iban there. Stop lying. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you keep pushing for more, editors are free to read the sections. As for the IBAN. How about you show that your capable of doing it. Like staying off their talk page? AlbinoFerret 18:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever seen an editor list a series of editors he wants removed.While I have no experience with the other editors, in the case of Dr Chrissy, I know that Dr Chrissy and the admin, Adjwilley, who applied a topic ban are in communication as to the boundaries of the topic ban. For example [96] I see no reason for Jytdog to look elsewhere to find support to extend Dr Chrissy's topic ban. Doing so undercuts the admin who has been thoughtful and consistent, and is forum shopping. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. Also, this is another attempt for ban creep, as noted by AlbinoFerret. GregJackP Boomer! 17:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: This is a vendetta and a game of "gotcha." Jytdog needs to back off. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really Montanabw, I would rather not bump into DrChrissy at all. As the diffs above show, he keeps pushing deeper into areas where I have worked for a long time. I don't know how you cannot recognize that. He and I could be both be having a more peaceful and productive time here if he weren't doing that. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who was more on the sidelines in the DrChrissy/Jytdog interactions as I at least began out working favorably with DrChrissy in other topics, I do have to agree with Jytdog's assessment. Whether intentional or not, DrChrissy has been pushing into the topic where any competent editor would know from the topic, much less editors they've been cautioned to try to avoid, would be highly controversial. Most people with bans over their head know to stay away from such things, not go towards them. That doesn't make it a "gotcha", but just extremely poor judgement on DrChrissy's part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning towards support, although I think that an interaction ban would be better. DrChrissy is a good editor, but has gotten into the bad habit of following Jytdog around. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Littleolive oil has summed it up very well. If Jytdog has a problem with the ban being broken, he should discuss first with Adjwilley. If he has a problem with the admin being inconsistent, or not enforcing the ban properly, or some other issue, then the issue should be raised here. Otherwise, as Littleolive oil points out, that undercuts the admin. DrChrissy and Adjwilley seem to be communicating well. Accusations of lying are a little unseemly - AlbinoFerret also seems to be making fair points. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Martinevans123 the first dif that Albino gave (one] is a link to a section where I didn't comment at all, until after Ajdwilley had already spoken up. I was fine with his call there. The 2nd diff is to a later section where DrChrissy introduced a new source (so not part of anything discussed in the first diff). Use of that source would have been a violation of the topic ban and I was fine with the outcome of that decision too. I didn't seek an extension of their topic ban there nor an iBan - it would have been inappropriate to do there. I have kept hoping that DrChrissy would stop seeking conflict with me; I would rather not have any idea if he is violating his topic ban on health content or not. I have only filed this because DrChrissy keeps ploughing ahead (even right after the stuff discussed in the 2nd diff, he kept right on at the Glyphosate and other articles where I usually work). Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You characterise DrChrissy's behaviour as simply "seeking conflict with you". Do you think it's possible they are simply editing in good faith from a different point of view? There are plenty of other editors now looking over DrChrissy's edits, in the light of the ban. Don't you think it would be better for everyone if you and DrChrissy just stepped apart for a while? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained it above. I was rude to him, was warned for it, he sought to overturn that and get something harsher, was denied, and started following me around and editing combatively, which led to his topic ban at Acupuncture, and after that he has gone yet farther and started editing ag/herbicide articles, where he never edited before. In every one of the ag/herbicide article he has argued with me. He could have continue editing happily in the fields where he used to work, without expanding articles where he knows i work and that are very controversial. The before/after is very clear. I am sorry that I hurt him, but his behavior since then, is entirely his choice. I am sad to see it and do not enjoy this. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure DrChrissy is a him. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Does being male or female excuse DocChrissy's behaviour? Of course not. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So nothing. I'd be the last to suggest that. And it's reassuring that gender cannot be a factor in the interaction here? But I guess it's up to DrChrissy how "they" wish to be addressed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DrChrissy is a guy per this. People mistake that from his name all the time. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support interaction ban, neutral on topic ban. As documented on DrChrissy's talk page already here, Adjwilley (the admin instituting the topic ban) has grown frustrated with DrChrissy's constant attempts at stepping right on the line of their topic ban even after being given a lot of WP:ROPE. There's been quite a few times where DrChrissy said he understood the limit of the topic ban followed by pulling that rope extremely tight. Expanding it even further probably won't help with the block that he seems to be on track for in the future, but I do think the interaction would be warranted in this case. I have noticed that once the topic ban was put in place, it didn't take long for DrChrissy to move into GMO related articles to continue the same behavior issues that caused the topic ban. Some of those edits to seem to be closely associated with Jytdog, and DrChrissy for some reason has decided to step into very controversial articles with that topic ban in hand rather than stay clear away from areas that could easily get them blocked. I've edited rather collaboratively with DrChrissy in animal behavior articles for instance, so I think the interaction ban would help limit them to topics where they haven't such problematic behavior regardless of what's causing it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support they should have been blocked based on breaking their topic ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. The complete opposite of what is claimed above is true. Jytdog has been trolling, baiting, and harassing DrChrissy to no end. He banned her from his talk page yet hypocritically continues to post on her talk page and harass her. DrChrissy has asked him to stop. At 13:34, 4 September, she explicitly said, "Please do not post here again".[97] He refused to stop and continued. He also falsely claimed at 13:36, 4 September that he would "stay off your Talk page, except to provide notice when you are violating your topic ban or other official purposes."[98] Well, apparently Jytdog lacks self-control, because he just edited DrChrissy's sandbox at 23:34, 5 September 2015.[99] If this isn't harassment, I don't know what is. Of course, this is exactly what happens to anyone who edits an article where Jytdog is busy enforcing his ownership policies. And if you disagree with him, he will work tirelessly to rally other editors and lobby to have you blocked and/or banned. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban, support interaction ban. DrChrissy and Jytdog have each developed an unhealthy obsession with the other. Both are valuable editors in their own way, but the stranglehold they have on each other needs to be released. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Epipelagic, you realize that the current conflict is driven entirely by DrChrissy's choice to start editing articles where I edit? We would have no conflict - little to no interactions - if he did not keep starting to edit articles where I already work? Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jytdog please stop trying to deflect the discussion away from your editing behaviour. The "current conflict" is actually between you and the OP. Please stop wasting editor's time and direct your comments towards defending why you should not receive a topic ban and total block.DrChrissy (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've been thinking about an I-ban here more, how do you think it should ideally play out Adjwilley since you've been involved in somewhat mediating the interaction/ban conversations already as an admin? Since DrChrissy only recently came to the GMO topic, should he try to just stay away from that since Jytdog already has a major editing history there? I don't think Jytdog goes near animal behavior articles, so I don't think that end of things should be a problem. Functionally, an I-ban can be a quasi-topic ban in situations like this, so I'm just curious on your thoughts here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My feeling is that DrChrissy came to the GMO topic because that's where Jytdog was editing. So I guess in a sense an IBAN would act like a topic ban here. Ideally the two would just learn to ignore each other, but that seems unlikely from DrChrissy's side, and Jytdog is actually asking for an iban, so I figure let's give it to them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment For anyone looking at Jytdog's behaviour here, I would point out three things. First, Jytdog brought up this case against me in this thread before I had even posted here! Perhaps those with more knowledge of procedures on wikipedia might care to comment on the "legality" of this - should it have been a separate thread? Second, Jytdog is guilty of following me to Magnetoception here[100] and made completely unfounded accusations of my using contentious sources.[101] My first encounter with Jytdog was on Foie gras. He does not limit his disruptive editing to GM-related articles. Third, and perhaps most worrying, is that given the current heat here, one would think that Jytdog and others (including myself) would be considering their current editing much more carefully. Not Jytdog. On Jytdog's Talk page, there is a section called "Remove my name and the accusation." This is a discussion Jytdog is having with a third party - I am not involved in the slightest. In this discussion, Jytdog has chosen to provide a series of diffs with comments.[102] Several of these comments link my name to my topic ban or other subjects which Jytdog portrays in a very negative light, e.g. "3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler". These comments are totally unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the subject matter of the thread. (There are several other editors that also might be concerned by this behaviour.) I consider this to be an uncivil use of his talk page to attack me (and others). Jytdog banned me from his Talk page sometime ago, so I can not contact him there and I am unable to defend myself. One of Jytdog's favourite words is "ugly". Yes, that is ugly indeed.DrChrissy (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jusdafax

    This editor is active in the GMO articles for exactly one reason, and that is to take care of "a boil that must be lanced") on August 27. The amount of bad faith boiled into that statement is enough to ask for IBan and for him to also be topic banned from GMO articles. Jusdafax has no interest in the content there - is WP:NOTHERE in that topic to build an encyclopedia, but just to come after me, and you can see him actually starting to try to "lance the boil" around the time he wrote that.

    Here are diffs where all he is doing is ripping on me on various talk pages or rather mindlessly parroting people disagreeing with me and specifically naming them:

    • Aug 26 dif and dif within moments of each other, each just agreeing with prokaryotes
    • Aug 26 just praising whoever is disagreeing with me
    • Aug 27 again, and this goes on and on. No content contribs, just BATTLEGROUND behavior on Talk pages.
    • Aug 27 more
    • Aug 27 more
    • Aug 27 more - this one is important, for two reasons. Apparently prompted Petrarchan's remark discussed below, and shows the hysteria, and the way all these editors are feeding off each other (the comment is in reaction to a claim by DrChrissy)
    • Aug 31 personalizing content dispute with high drama. "Something is wrong..."
    • Aug 31 more of same
    • Sept 2 yet more
    • Sept 3 calling for early close to ongoing RfC (one of several launched of late over trivia)
    • Sept 3 this comment in particular, shows no desire at all to actually try to talk through issues. It just expresses no clue that we resolve content disputes by actually talking at article Talk pages, in good faith.

    When I filed at 3RR against Prokaryotes and then withdrew it because it had gone stale and the article had settled some (finally), Jusafax responded at Prokaryotes with this which was really surprising to me, as it egged Prokaryotes on instead of advising him to actually use the Talk page to work things out. I responded to him there with this.

    And at 3RR where we have been three times due to Prokaryotes aggressive editing, you find this kind of dismayingly clueless stuff, trying to turn that acute-crisis board into a drama board:

    And there is more of that.

    My interaction with Jusdafax goes back to 2013, when they accused me of being a paid editor without grounds, on his talk page here. He appears to remain convinced of that, even though I have bent over backwards to prove I am not.

    Yesterday when I asked Jusdafax about the "lance the boil" comment, instead of responding in a simple human way, (like "gee that was an ugly thing to write. i am sorry about that") he responded with this truly incredible rant. Really? Watching someone's Talk page is hounding them? The hysteria is way too much.

    So yes I would like an IBAN and for Jusdafax to be topic banned from ag biotech/pesticide articles. They seem incapable of AGF with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC) {withdrawing this, see note below. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    • Oppose. This appears to be an attempt to silence those who Jytdog believes are wrong, as to content. And who recently were in a content dispute with Jytdog where Jytdog was the lone voice arguing against including legal material edited by a subject matter expert. We don't topic-ban people because they don't agree with others, especially when they are not being disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This section shows Jytdog's WP:OWNERSHIP if someone disagrees with him, that person is fodder for him to ABF. Its also a content dispute. I wonder what PAG outlines consequences for disagreeing with someone over content? What one outlines using the drama boards to win content disputes by getting the opposing editors banned? The last sentence of Jytdog's post is really telling, he expects everyone to AGF with him, but not the other way around. AlbinoFerret 18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per AlbinoFerret and others. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose this also, not that it can be resolved here. But I think that there is some merit to the claim that Jusdafax has been jumping too quickly to see bad things where they really aren't happening, so I hope that he will hear that from me as a friendly suggestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral for now I've been on the receiving end of some of the inappropriate behavior by Jusdafax in this topic as well. It's disruptive, but not quite to the point yet where an interaction ban would be solidly justified. That being said, the improper use of article talk pages by not focusing on content is a distraction at best, and it should be made clear to them that continuing to use talk pages that way can results in administrative actions. One of my first main interactions with Jusdafax was tendentious "warning" to me after I asked another editor further up in the diff to stop accusations of editors being "pro-industry", etc on the talk page. [103] (with a bit more of conversation [104]). As with the AN3 boards cited here, there is a very clear trend of Jusdafax turning a blind eye to the behavior of editors with behavior problems that are pushing anti-GMO positions, but they are very quick to jump on editors that oppose the content or are trying to get edit warring editors, etc. to the talk page and focus on content. I'm really not sure how to address that behavior though as it doesn't appear to be limited to one editor and I've only had limited interactions so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the lack of support here and have withdrawn this. I still find the "lance the boil" statement of purpose, and the following behavior to be a very clear expression of bad faith, but this clearly doesn't rise to actionable behavior in the eyes of editors whose opinions I value above. the other issues I have raised here are much more problematic and I would rather the focus be on them. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another withdrawn accusation against another editor...just when it all seems to be going wrong for you Jytdog. You are talking about other editor's bad faith but it is now totally transparent the bad faith is originating from you. You may wish that this AN/I focuses on other issues but you do not control this ANI. It is about your totally unacceptable behaviour and the fact you have now had to strike yet again makes me even more convinced you should receive a site block.DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least Jytdog is able to admit when they are wrong...unlike some editors I know... Seriously, this isn't a political race and there's no shame in backing down on something. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree enthusiastically with what Adjwilley just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Petrarchan47

    It was a comment on his talk page by Petrarchan47, that Jusdafax responded to with the "lance the boil" comment mentioned above. Petrachan's comment was likely in response to Jusdafax's comment on Aug 27 here mentioned above.

    Hounding with personal attacks - reason for iBAN

    Petrarchan has been hounding me for about three years now. I have just put up with it but since I am flushing the toilet here, this comes out too. From the diff above, it is clear enough that Petrarchan needs to step away from ag biotech topics, since they seem to make her physically ill, as she wrote: "the fact that this remains a (growing) problem has disgusted me to the point that I become nauseous thinking about logging in, or in any way participating in this project."

    Going back to at least October 2013 she has vilified me as something like Monsanto's Antichrist Here to Destroy Wikipedia From Within ( see this and this followed by this, and especially this).

    And all along there, is stuff like the following, basically every chance she has to take a shot at me, or egg on people who are editing as advocates against good health content in WP. (and I mean that - here are her contribs to ANI, and most of them are taking shots at me. Working backwards:

    • July 2015 diff trying to derail an ANI with a long rant against me
    • July 2015 Jumped into a snow-closes proposal to topic ban me from COI and GMO editing here
    • June 2015 Ranted against me at ANI here
    • May 2015 opposes topic ban from health content for DrChrissy, "per every word by LittleOliveOil"
    • March 2015 piles onto ANI against me re DrChrissy. This is the one where I was uncivil to him, and was warned, which I aknowledged and accepted and apologized for.
    • (many more)
    • July 2013 dif and dif and dif and dif (that one actually characterizing WP:CIVILITY as "sticky-sweet speak.") - all that trying to derail an incivility ANI filed against Viriditas by focusing it on me and others who she came to think were in the pocket of Monsanto.

    It is not limited to ANI.

    In July of this year, on her talk page here and here she gives encouragement to Mr Bill Truth, who was recently indeffed for being WP:NOTHERE but rather only here to promote FRINGE theories (block log), and in the latter, Petrarchan pings ... yes, JusdaFax, several times to try to rally him to the effort of getting more FRINGE content into Wikipedia. In the midst of that is this dif where she goes on about her "Guerrilla Skeptics" conspiracy theorizing (which she goes on about) from time to time, and the conspiracy of a corporate stranglehold on WP articles about biotech. (here is a little lovefest between jusdafax and petrarchan on that topic, from P, response from J dif and response from P comes as close as you can without actually saying it, to calling me a paid servant of Monsanto. The self-congratulatory, self-righteous delusion and bad faith there, is hard for me to see. It is not WIkipedian.

    ; The above starts to lay the ground for consistent FRINGE advocacy on matters of science, including health and agriculture. Now for more of that:

    • advocates FRINGE content about Kombucha - proposes adding about this tea, that: "This healthy beverage has been used as therapy for several conditions like treating cancer, increasing T cell count, lowering blood pressure, curing arthritis, treating gastrointestinal disorders and alleviating constipation. Kombusha tea is also known as “fountain of youth” tonic as it restores the gray hair, reduces wrinkles and treats acne.
    • made edits to that article like this several times, downplaying negatives and pumping up "benefits" (immediately reverted by someone else
    • this dif made a dramatic edit to the food safety section of the Genetically modified food article, which is the most controversial part of that article.
    • dif to Joseph Mercola downplaying the extent of FRINGE content on his website
    • here she says that the AAAS is an "advocacy group". oy.
    • diff and dif introducing poor quality sources and giving undue weight to them, that are in keeping with skepticism about mainstream medicine here for example
    • all kinds of poor editing at the Cannabis article back in 2013, which I won't go into

    Anyway, I have had it with taking these personal attacks for the past 2-3 years. With regard to anything related to health and to agriculture, Petrarchan47 is WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for a topic ban from health content and agriculture content, and an iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (struck bad diff per Adjwilly Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)) (amend to better focus this request to the community Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    I have checked literally one diff, where I am claimed to have called the AAAS an advocacy group, and already am finding myself misrepresented. Below is my entire comment. I recommend editors verify all of Jytdogs comments and diffs before assuming they are factual.
    Arguments that "food safety is the core of the controversy" make no sense in light of the actual contents of the controversy section. If it is in fact the core issue, it should be stated in clear terms for the reader, not left to be assumed, and the details of this controversy laid out in full. The Safety paragraph is exceedingly detailed, whilst the proceeding paragraph says nothing beyond what a Table of Contents would. The third/final paragraph gives several examples of "opponents" and members of "advocacy groups" who doubt the claims of safety, and the methods and regulatory bodies behind them. There is no reference for this, just a citation needed tag. The Safety Consensus paragraph is very well referenced, and although the very first citation is to a paper by board members of the AAAS in an effort to block GMO labeling, there is no mention of "advocacy" here. The Controversy section should discuss the controversy in detail (with references). The Safety Consensus statement, in its current form, belongs in its own section (like a "health effects" section), as it relates directly the article's subject and is not simply a subtopic. The controversy section is being misused in that it saying "nothing to see here, folks. we're not sure what all the commotion is about, but it's just coming from a couple of advocacy groups, anyway". Meanwhile the section actually says nothing about the controversy. For instance, the vast majority of the US wants GMOs labeled, and that isn't mentioned at all. petrarchan47คุก 21:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Second diff checked, more innacuracy. Jytdog must have put these diffs together in a hurry, because he's misreading them. At Kumbucha, I was questioning the source, not trying to add it. Jytdog is the one supporting the 2013 source:
    However the 2013 source is of such poor quality, there is good reason to check into whether these two conflicting sources are actually referring to the same data, with the lower quality, newer review having missed the study invalidating previous findings, resulting in misinformation. I mean, they claim too that This healthy beverage has been used as therapy for several conditions like treating cancer, increasing T cell count, lowering blood pressure, curing arthritis, treating gastrointestinal disorders and alleviating constipation. Kombusha tea is also known as “fountain of youth” tonic as it restores the gray hair, reduces wrinkles and treats acne. Do you see why some are questioning its results and suggesting any claims made to it be removed from the article? petrarchan47คุก 21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercola article - I am claimed to have added bias in this edit, when actually I fixed an OR, cherry picked statement summarizing his website contents based on a primary source by adding RS. I removed a word that was repeated in the preceding sentences because it sounded awkward. Jytdog is clearly grasping at straws. petrarchan47คุก 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kombucha - Jdog claims I am pumping up the positives in this edit, suggesting biased editing. Actually I fixed the negative bias and only lightly reflected on some of the benefits mentioned here:
    It is shown that KT can efficiently act in health prophylaxis and recovery due to four main properties: detoxification, antioxidation, energizing potencies, and promotion of depressed immunity. The recent experimental studies on the consumption of KT suggest that it is suitable for prevention against broad-spectrum metabolic and infective disorders. This makes KT attractive as a fermented functional beverage for health prophylaxis.. petrarchan47คุก
    Cannabis - Jdog calls it a conspiracy theory to say that most of the studies have focussed on harm, but those who are familiar with the research know THE NATION'S RESEARCH-GRADE CANNABIS IS CONTROLLED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, WHOSE MISSION TO CURB USE IS AT ODDS WITH THAT OF RESEARCHERS LOOKING TO STUDY POT'S THERAPEUTIC PROPERTIES petrarchan47คุก 22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cannabis and cancer - Jdog flat out lies above when he says that I added a claim that cnanabis cures cancer, or that I spun the article otherwise. I am proud of the diff he shows, and merely added that Tommy Chong claimed to have cured his cancer using cannabis extract. Cancer dot gov has just eluded to cannabinoids' effect on cancer in their (fringe?) website. I highly doubt Wikipedia hosts this information, though, which is an example of a bias problem I have been trying to call attention to for years. petrarchan47คุก 22:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I have reviewed all if the diffs brought forth against me, and I disagree with the framing of all of them. I would not change a word, and feel proud of the edits I have made. If it turns out that the bias is mine, and that I am so full of delusion that I can't see this fact, then I should be site banned immediately. I am still using an iPad so won't be providing diffs, but have provided them along with with these claims in previous ANIs:
    I began editing the Cannabis article when I came across an OR/SYNTH claim with about 5 primary sources that cannabis had killed people. This is simply embarrassing, and if I am going to associate myself with this site, I would rather it didn't host nonsense. I worked with other editors on the talk page until we had a very substantive and accurate section on the safety of cannabis. Three members of WProject Medicine with their new MEDRS rule came in and took over all of the cannabis related pages, letting us all know what a horrible job we had done. Jdog above tries to hang me with using sources that don't comply with MEDRS, but I didn't know about this new law until the takeover. Proof of this is found on Sandy Georgia's talk page, where in my first and only edits, I sought assistance in understanding this new rule. Suffice it to say, there was no intention by any of them to allow me to help in building the articles. They purposely sought to find negatives about the medicine and present them front and center. They removed the fact that no one had died from the non-toxic herb, and used a rat study that was able to produce death by by injecting cannabis OIL into their veins. This was interpreted as proof that humans have been shooting up, and have died from, cannabis, and this was added to the article.
    I began editing the Kombucha article because again it was embarrassing. The lede claimed that this drink had been killing people, and the talk page had an entire year's worth of different editors complaining about the ridiculous bias in the article, with Alexbrn almost singlehandedly fending them off. There is a long story to this, but if you look at the article today you will see that the lede is very different from when I first found it, the article much more science based and well rounded, and this "death by Kombucha" claim no longer exists. However the climate here I such that I have been labelled anti GMO, anti science, a POV pusher, an environmentalist, and a possible insider with the Kombucha cabal (a serious claim Alexbrn posted to the Project Med talk page). Did anyone coach Alexbrn about his editing? Nope, his friends shielded him from criticism and pretended nothing was wrong, quickly archiving that talk page showing others' concerns.
    The Mercola article is less biased since my few edits there, but it is a hopeless attack piece on a guy who questions the pharmaceutical industry, and a page that will likely result in some sort of lawsuit against this website, I'm afraid, much like G Edward Griffin.
    My words to Mr Bill Truth, who's article about Mercola's multi award winning documentary about GMOs was deleted just prior to him getting the boot entirely, were actually to encourage him to leave WP and just enjoy his life. I told him if he wanted to stay, he should find a mentor, and gave him a link to WPs mentor project.
    If I had brought Jdog here with a series of diffs that did NOT say what I claimed they did, I would have been banned in more ways than one, and it would have happened within hours. Jdog does it, and his friends say nothing, instead they make noise about Seralini (???) and claim we can't possibly look at Jdog's edits in this venue. Tryptofish has recommended that Jdog find his best diffs to show that he is unbiased at the GMO pages, and says he's about to take this to ArbCom (see Jdog's TP). So this whole thing isn't about the reader. It isn't about getting to the truth, it's about supporting our friends and getting them off the hook. When atsme took Jdog to ArbCom for his fascist COI work, his friends did not say a thing against him or about the actual content, from what I recall, instead they screamed about what an awful, horrendous mess of an editor she is. It's hard to have respect for this process, or for the inner workings of this website, to be perfectly honest. petrarchan47คุก 22:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, this is clearly retaliatory, P-chan shows up here and comments, and then J-dog adds him to the list for a topic ban? Clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by J-dog, and unacceptable. GregJackP Boomer! 20:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would very much support this a full site ban, although it will have to be dealt with at ArbCom. Nonstop battleground editing and POV pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clearly retaliatory as GregJackP points out. This section should result in a sanction for Jytdog. Attacking commentators when someone is brought to this board is clearly the wrong thing to do. I wonder who will be attacked next? AlbinoFerret 20:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral/take to ArbCom. Comments that this section is retaliatory is highly disingenuous making it sound like Petrarchan hasn't been involved. Petrarchan has been a combination of a civil POV-pusher ranging to being very uncivil in a hounding manner as shown above. This editor has been highly involved in this topic and would more than qualify for a look at their behavior. That all being said, this is one case that someone needs to take a close look through the edits and behavior in an RFC:U fashion, but ANI isn't really suited for that as we don't have highly blatant actions that are easy for it to reach consensus on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't know the editor, but the diffs that worried me most didn't hold up to scrutiny. This diff in particular is grossly misrepresented (saying that Petrarchan47 was trying to add a statement to the article that Kombucha cures cancer, arthritis, grey hair, etc. when in the diff they seem to have been criticizing the source that said that). ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjwilley thanks for pointing that out. I have struck that diff. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Read the Grist article. This paper is an advocacy statement, not from the scientists but from the board, which contains multiple misrepresentations of the facts, including misquoting the WHO. It's atrocious that anyone would want to use this source without letting the reader know ifs true origins, let alone pass it off as MEDRS to discuss human health, as Jdog is doing. Why aren't more people speaking out against this? Why aren't you? petrarchan47คุก 09:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is from the AAAS. However, the real problem is that this paper was the spear head by Jytdog to argue that there exist a scientific consensus. The outlined related synthesis by editor Jytdog has been just ignored by DocJames, and he made his judgement already - to late.prokaryotes (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That response shows how skewed Prokaryotes Petrarchan's editing here is. HeShe pits the board of the AAAS against an alternative magazine on a science-based topic, and the alternative magazine "wins". That is the definition of FRINGE advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC) (wrong "p" editor, my bad. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I have no idea what you talking about, care to share a dif for yet another accusation? prokaryotes (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, wrong "p" Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose It is quite clear this is just a vindictive attempt for action against an editor who simply holds different opinions to Jytdog. What is perhaps more worrying is that Adjwilley easily found that diffs provided by Jytdog did not stand up to scrutiny. We should be deeply cautious about all other diffs provided by Jytdog, especially given the amount of striking out he is now finding is necessary.DrChrissy (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Edit conflict on my deeply regrettable but nessesary wall of text)

    Lazy argument, Jdog. I'm not pitting the AAAS board against Grist. I could however pit your support of the paper against our PAGs, the RfC result, and/or the easily verified fact that in the paper, the World Health Organization (as clarified by Sarah SV and reiterated in the Grist article - a publication you have referred to as support for your own arguments recently) most emphatically does not claim that there is SC. Therefore, I have simply asked that we don't use the AAAS anti-GMO labeling paper to make a claim in WPs voice. All I have suggested is that the reader be informed, exactly as you have done by labeling those who question the SC as advocacy in our GM article controversy section, of the details behind this source. In fact, Grist's article should be included per our rules about adding controversy when well sourced and applicable. What I am saying is basic WP law, and the fact that for many months we have been discussing this, and you still remain entrenched in your POV, is another reason I consider your topic ban a valid remedy.
    I support a topic or full site ban as a response to the fact that you lie with impunity resulting in wasted time of multiple GF editors. You have lied about my diffs in this drama board, calling me here on a Saturday afternoon to defend myself against things I didn't say, and against an addition to Kombucha which you call Fringe, but which you actually added in your revenge revert (to a page on which you have had zero involvement except to revert your detractors).
    Finally, you lie on the article talk page and think nothing of it, nor do any of your supporters who look the other way. When I asked why the SC statement was located in the controversy section of the GM article, serving as a rebuttal, rather than in its own "health" section per common sense, you told me it had already been discussed and that an RfC supported it. I asked numerous times to see the RfC and you never provided it, because it does not exist.
    Now, and most importantly for WP readers and the current topic of GM spindoctoring, you are lying instead of addressing actual MEDRS. When Pro brought the 2015 Tufts review to the TP, you wrote it off by snipping at him: "We've already discussed this. It's fringe". Again I asked you to link to discussion about the paper and the same is true - you won't, you can't, because you're lying. Lying and being a jerk (for instance, posting Atsme's personal information on WP under the guise of your self appointed COI hall monitor job, attempting to rid WP of an environmentalist for posting a link to a fricking fish article) pale in comparison to what you are doing to spin this encyclopedia in favor of the biotech and pharma industries. Your edits have been so heinous that when they are finally viewed in totality or at least by some truly independent-minded admins, I predict that everyone who has supported you is going to feel very ashamed, change their identity, or pretend they never knew you, and you will no longer be invited to charm this site.
    At GMO, you have done the opposite of what our editors are expected to do - you have not embraced but ignored the highest quality source on the topic of GMO food safety, and you've done this after claiming through word and action that getting this very this information ito the WP readers is what you care about most in life.
    For anyone interested in looking at this issue a bit more deeply, here is the paper Jdog refuses to acknowledge. TL;DR: This is a brand new meta review from Sheldon Krimsky of all GMO food safety studies and reviews in the past 7 years which finds (exactly what our RfC found) that the science on GMO safety is anything but settled, and that a substantial number of individual studies and reviews have noted serious concerns. Does WP mention ANY of this information? Not with Jdog, King and YOBOL et al on guard, no. Related TP section
    An example of Jdog's work on pharma articles:
    Note that his edit summary says the reference is not reliable. Is that because it's in Spanish? The source is the World Health Organization http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/fr/d/Js4896e/ petrarchan47คุก 02:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti depressant, and any article Jdog works on (such as Alirocumab), now reads like an FDA pamphlet. petrarchan47คุก 22:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog's job is to whitewash articles, to remove critical science, or opposing views. He will now just ignore you and claim your view is fringe, and because of that he will later suggest to topic ban you. That's how things are done here. Don't ask questions, don't be critical. If you do you will be reverted, your arguments ignored, and eventually topic banned. A climate of fear and anti science rules related discussions. The results are as you describe very one sided articles, and that readers turn to other websites. See Jytdog's response below, you overpersonalized apparently. prokaryotes (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea seems to be that if one's right hand is busy, there is no need to check out what the left hand is up to. It isn't surprising or particularly notable to find an anonymous editor spinning articles here in favor of highly profitable industries. Rather, what is of most concern is that Wikipedia provides a nice comfy home for this and a big, wet kiss. petrarchan47คุก 22:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Petrarchan47 your hounding of me for the past few years needs to stop. You overpersonalized this for far too long. I have refocused my request above to better focus it on your long term denigration of me here in Wikipedia. It is not acceptable behavior and I fully believe that the community will agree about that. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    −

    @Jytdog: ...I hope you are not actually going to resign! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no plans currently - I hope i didn't write anything suggesting a rage quit. Sorry if i did. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog:... D'oh! Your edit summary here... "amend and resign"-!!! I've just realised what you meant. Resign! rather than Resign! Classic misread- as you were! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ah ha! glad we worked that one out. sorry for the lack of hyphenation. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    section break

    TheGracefulSlick I have added the break above but feel free to change its title. I appreciate that it is your edit below. GregKaye 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - (I'm an uninvolved editor) Jytdog why is it on an ANI that was supposed to be about your behavior, you are pressing all these demands for topic bans and ibans? Even if you think you have a point on some of these claims, reporting them now just seems like a way to avoid discussion about your editing. Hopefully other editors will realize this and not fall for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But Short Brigade Harvester my point was more about the two other users Jytdog brought here. It has nothing to do with being boomeranged since they never even reported this ANI. Jytdog should have made seperate ANIs to avoid the enormous confusion and scrambling that will follow.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGracefulSlick, you seem to have a misunderstanding as to what the purpose of this board is. It's not the Editor Conduct Complaints Department, it's the place one comes to report incidents which potentially require administrative action. Since all three editors' actions are alleged to be part of the same incident, discussing all three in a single section is both correct and appropriate. ‑ iridescent 17:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No I completely understand what ANI is for, I've had my share of the mess users like to create here. I just know how the users will act here and it will quickly develope into a circus. If you want to handle it, be my guest, but I'd rather have this be an orderly civil discussion. Regardless, I'm no longer commenting on how anyone wants to sort this and want to look over the evidence as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for further clarification if you are still reading (and for other folks), the underling issue is that many of us science editors at this topic have patiently tried to work with editors that take a very strong WP:ADVOCACY approach, mudslinging, paid shill arguments, etc. It might have been better to nip each problematic editor in the bud by bringing them to ANI earlier instead of letting things draw out with additional such editors coming in over time. That has resulted multiple editors coming up in one case instead of spread out over time. It's tough because on one end good-faith is needed to work in controversial articles, but you also need to draw a line somewhere when behavior issues don't stop. A lot of science editors are more interested in content than going to drama boards, even in topics that attract editors like I mentioned above, so you get the situation that finally came to a head here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It might have been better to nip each problematic editor in the bud by bringing them to ANI earlier. You do realize that Jytdog has, in fact, been brought to ANI for his problematic editing numerous times, don't you? GregJackP Boomer! 17:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everybody here realizes that you are here with an ax to grind GregJackP. And yes everybody here knows that I work on controversial articles and topics and get dragged here pretty often. I have been sanctioned here twice, and that was my own fault for losing my cool with DrChrissy, which I acknowledged and apologized for and have not repeated and the other, where CorporateM asked for an Iban, which I accepted. Just those two times. In any case, as I wrote in my initial response, there has been too much going on all at once to manage this gracefully and I have been doing the best I can to just manage the surge of disruptive editing across all these articles calmly. But this is what aggressive editing on a whole set of controversial does - it creates disruption and drama. None of the actual content issues are unworkable - the behavior of these disruptive editors is what is breaking things. I have gone ahead and aired the extent of what is going so the community has more insight. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. You keep talking about an axe to grind. I don't have one. I was appalled when I saw how you treated a subject matter expert in the intellectual property field, I helped him, and I'll continue to help him. He's the exact type of editor that we need here. You have got to back off and calm down, for your own sake. If you want, I can post diffs, but I think it would be better for all concerned if you accepted a voluntarily 6-month topic ban in order to calm down and refocus. You do some great work here, WP:COI comes to mind, but you have to let off some. You get way too involved emotionally. Just ease up. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but fake sighs are unbecoming and just make you look even more silly. I know that litigators think it is great to try to demolish the other side, but your inability to recognize any problems with the editors I have listed just demonstrates rank partisanship. I encourage you to take a more thoughtful, Wikipedian approach here. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Please stop with the condescending attitude and take a step back to look at this. If there are a bunch of people telling you that you need to change, odds are good that you need to change. Had you taken a thoughtful approach when dealing with others, you wouldn't be in this situation now. Please, for your own sake, heed the comments people are making about your behavior. If you don't, I fear you will be topic-banned or worse. GregJackP Boomer! 08:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Following one set of encounters with Jytdog I took some time to a previous ANI that was brought against h' following threads on GM related articles and, while it certainly was not my area centering on my main areas of background knowledge, it was apparent to me that h' was both evasive and assertive on an argument that didn't seem to me and most other editors to fully hold up.
    I am particularly perturbed by the content of the second paragraph of the OP and regarding issues of incivility presented later. While I respect the general intention of Jytdog's involvements, I think that he takes things to unwarranted extents and certainly. There is certainly no excuse for the incivility and the borderline obstreperous behaviour. It would be wrong if no sanction were given although I would not recommend this to last for any lengthy period of time. Some time out to think things through I think would be potentially to h' advantage. GregKaye 18:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The tone of Jytdog's approach here is very troubling. He presents a false dichotomy that anyone opposing him is somehow a POV-pushing fringe-promoting, anti-science viewpoint as opposed to Jytdog, who portrays himself as the voice of reason. But, clearly that is not necessarily the case. What the problem here is tone: Jytdog attacks - and attacks viciously - anyone who challenges his own viewpoint. Though he presents his viewpoint as "scientific" - to argue that respected entities (Union of Concerned Scientists, for example) are not is disingenuous. While I can have sympathy about how someone who is trying to keep fringe advocacy out of an article can get testy and impatient, this user is going over the top. I think a short WP block and a topic ban for 30-60 days to allow some simmering down would be in order. I'd also suggest he be told to stay off DrChrissy's talk page, perhaps an iban would be suitable there. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Montanabw. DrChrissy has very steadily expanded his editing into articles that I edit - it is clear battleground behavior. I would just as soon never bump into him. I have not gone and started editing articles where he usually works - he has come directly at the articles where I work, seeking conflict. If you cannot acknowledge that basic fact here, it shows how little you are looking at what has actually happened, and are just playing politics. But that is how things go at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog To a limited extent I appreciate what you have been doing and that there can, in limited circumstances, be a call to oppose the views of WP:Lunatic charlatans. You hold your views very strongly and, while not criticising some root arguments, this has led to (in my interpretation) erratic behaviour to an extent that is unwarranted. GregKaye 07:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the topic ban of Jytdog. Originally was not going to comment. Yet as we all know he has long been a loose cannon here on WP. He has demonstrated repeatedly that he can not distinguish the differance between true scintific skepticism and his own pseudoskepticism. Thus, defeating WP's aims of verifiability by deleting everything that offends his POV. Everyone can edit WP is a good dictum - but Jytdog seems to want to piss on other editors backs and tell them that is raining! Enough.--Aspro (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why exactcly? Arbcom acts as the court of last resort! Jytdog still has a lot of steam (or hot-air) left in him. Let him finish arguing his point here first. --Aspro (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks who have replied so far are mostly (not all) expected knee-jerkers. There will be a few more. Most thoughtful Wikipedians are either steering clear because it is too much of a committment to read through all this, or are thinking. I am not surprised at the reaction thus far. I've been dealing with a lot of awfulness for a long time and I don't expect this ANI to end quickly either. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A knee-jerk reaction is somethibg that happens quickly and without thought. We have given you ample time, consideration, suggestions etc. All of which you have ignored. Therofore it is you that are behaving wilfuly ignorate based on your very own edits. If feel you have been dealing with “a lot of awfulness for a long time” – then stop pissing into the wind. I would hate to smell your pants right now what with all this blow back.--Aspro (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Or thoughtful Wikipedians steer clear of ANI in general, because they've better things to do, and because ANI is an infamous irresponsible cesspool. But will make an exception when a user, such as you, is particularly and egregiously hypocritical with over-the-top aggression, insults, and disruption. IHTS (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This place can indeed be an drama-orgy. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Limited discretionary sanctions?

    It's pretty clear to me that ANI is not going to be able to resolve this dispute. And I think that the time is ripe for it to escalate to ArbCom. However, I'm interested in finding a way to handle it, for now, with something less than a full ArbCom case. At the top section of this discussion, John Carter made what I think is a sensible suggestion, that some aspects of the GMO content area be placed under discretionary sanctions.

    Here's what I suggest. Someone (could be me, or anyone else) would open a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, asking that the discretionary sanctions put in place in the Pseudoscience ArbCom case be applied to content about the health effects of genetically modified organisms. (A good example would be the page about the Séralini affair.)

    These sanctions would necessarily have limited scope, only pertaining to health effects, which I think are entirely in the realm of pseudoscience. Non-scientific aspects, such as economic or business issues about GMOs, would not be included. Nor would ecological issues, because a significant amount of the science there is not pseudo.

    First, I would like to find out what editors here think about the idea. Do you think that this would be helpful? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a great idea. I had thought the only way to get DS around the food safety topic would be a full arbcom case and have been happy that we have avoided that thus far (but unhappy to not have the DS). I hadn't thought of just ARCA. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is about behaviour. Applying DS to a topic area does not address and in fact side steps perceived behavioural issues. How do you propose behaviour be dealt with. Should all editors just go back to work and let this AN/I fade? If so. this outcome should be clarified.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Littleolive oil, that's the kind of issue that made me ask here, instead of going straight ahead with a request. But my understanding of DS is that behavior/conduct is exactly what it is about. In other words, administrators would be empowered to enact blocks, page protection, or editing restrictions quickly upon a problem arising, without the need for a wall of text as we have right here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be on board with this. DS are exactly meant to deal with behavior issues in specific content areas. WP:FRINGE comes up a lot in this topic related to health, so I don't see much problem with the case going through. What we really need is someone who can come in and really look at the ongoings at a specific page removed from the ANI drama. This would give that option, and also hopefully simplify a full ANI case if we really had to come to that down the road by having some prior cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify. Applying DS as a solution here sidesteps the behavioural issues on which this AN/I is based. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    It addresses the issues going forward without drama. If you feel a deep need to sanction editors for past behavior ArbCom is this way along with all the drama and likely bad results all around depending on perspective. The problems are way too involved to manage here at ANI. JbhTalk 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The notion that the request, brought to ANI here has somehow something to do with Pseudoscience are unfounded, and show that editors who wish to defend Jytdog attempt to distract from the original issues. The references discussed from Séralini affair, have nothing to do with Pseudoscience and if anything show an edit dispute. prokaryotes (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it would be, IMO, a travesty if this ANI closed without some ban, of whatever length of time, being imposed. I think that the bare minimum would be a one day site ban and perhaps a greater length is warranted. Editors cannot be allowed to get away with behaviours such as abuse. GregKaye 07:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Great idea, and hopefully implemented as soon as possible since this discussion is continuing to devolve into editor ban proposals instead of useful discussions. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is about the behaviour of an editor over a wide spectrum of topics. DS in relation to just one sub-set of these topics will not address the concerns of many, many editors. Sorry.DrChrissy (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not see why the community can not choose to implement an equivalent sanction regime, through General Sanctions, to ArbCom imposed DS. ArbCom exists for things the community can not fix on its own. Just open up an RFC here or at WP:AN and request it. JbhTalk 12:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the US, where I am, it's a holiday weekend, so I'd like to let this discussion continue for a while, but at the moment I'm leaning strongly towards making this request. I'll try to reply to several comments here. About the community enacting General Sanctions, I don't think that the community is able, at this time, to reach consensus about that any more than we are able to reach consensus here. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we are not going to reach consensus here, sorry. And that should be a message to anyone who insists that the discussion here cannot end without punishment being doled out. I acknowledged when I first started this sub-thread that any such sanctions would be limited, and would be unable to cover all aspects of the dispute, but I do think they would cover the most acute aspects. I tend to think that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. And I wondered when I started this sub-thread whether any editors would claim that Seralini et al. are not pseudoscience, and I see that that has indeed happened. And it speaks volumes about where the problem really lies. Perhaps limited sanctions would be hampered by claims that there is no pseudoscience at all. But I think that ArbCom can resolve that question by motion, whether or not some editors end up liking the result. Alternatively, we could go straight to a full ArbCom case, in which case some editors may end up regretting what they wished for. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With the fact that it is a holiday for a lot of us, I don't have any problem waiting with putting a request in until later in the week or really whenever you get around to it if you're willing. It makes sense to start small with the pseudoscience aspect rather than hit ArbCom with a rather big glob of a new case. As you said, that really is the most acute area where I think we can at least get an attempt at some resolution with the least amount of drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not at all sure this needs a full arbcom case. I have ~tried~ to show that there is a particular bad constellation happening at this particular time. I think this is manageable at the ANI level. In some ways I would welcome an Arbcom case b/c my efforts to maintain NPOV ~should~ become very clear there, and having Arbcom validate that, would be valuable. But it will be a huge time drain that I would rather not go through. I do understand that be presenting some (and is just some) of the advocacy and bad faith that comes into play regularly, I am opening the door wide to an Arbcom case. We'll see where all this goes, I guess. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This thread has nothing to do with the original or secondary subjects. If arbitration of any kind is sought with regard to this suggestion, it must be clearly differentiated from the subject of the editors in question. Secondly I would highly recommend getting your hands on the new Krimsky paper before trying to claim Seralini would qualify as fringe. (See below) I don't see what GMOs have to do with pseudoscience, like Homeopathy. We don't apply DS just because it would make things convenient. There are problems at the GMO suite, and they are being discussed now. It's best to allow that process to continue since we have brought a lot of evidence to this board. petrarchan47คุก 05:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More on Seralini (information not found anywhere else on WP, to be sure):
    Dr Krinsky interview 2014
    From Daniel Hicks:
    "In his conclusion, Krimsky argues that the burden of proof should be on the claim that GM foods are safe. This would mean that it’s insufficient to, say, critique the Séralini study on the grounds that small sample sizes mean it has low statistical power. Low power just means that the findings could be the result of chance. We can’t conclude from this critique that the findings werethe results of chance and so the study does not provide (weak, tentative) evidence. Since the burden of proof is on the safety claim, even weak, tentative evidence of hazards needs to be taken seriously. That means the only adequate way to respond to the Séralini study — the only way to show that it does not provide even weak, tentative evidence of hazards — is to replicate it, and thereby provide evidence that the findings were the result of chance." *
    According to Mike Hansen,
    “Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.” * petrarchan47คุก 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah well, if you're seriously pushing tumblrs and fringey advocacy sites as sources in this topic area then you'd be a ripe candidate for receiving a general sanction. But as I say, arbcom probably needs to look at a number of editors here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Krimsky is a Tufts researcher interviewed by Democracy Now. The Tumblr belongs to an AAAS scientist and is RS for his words. We need science based editors here, this rhetoric of yours does not cover up for the fact that you are not seriously looking at the science but are interested only in a certain POV. Threatening me makes you look bitter. It has no other effect petrarchan47คุก 07:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Scientists respond to attacks on Seralini. petrarchan47คุก 07:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingofaces43

    The editor above claims that i edit war and locked down several articles last week (Dif). However, the editor does not mentions:

    • Editor was recently reported at edit warring board, when he not accepted RFC outcome, and all reasonable attempts to explain to editor were ignored. Until Jytdog himself commented and supported the decision. Additional Kingsofaces kept reverting after talk page discussion was established.
    • Editor is involved in many of the edits on GMO related pages. In fact he is often there supporting Jytdog, trying to intimidate me with accusations here he claims i broke 3RR (notice how he cites my own edits,and this editor kept at it even after Jytdog redacted his claim of 3RR in the same discussion).
    • Here he removes my talk page discussion comment, and claims it wasn't related.
    • Editor claims i do advocacy (Dif). Difs he cite show me adding a study from the WHO, published in Lancet, and after reverts brought it to a RFC at the talk page there, what he and Jytdog claim is aggressive editing.
    • Editor tries to prevent addition of historic, well sourced case on Monsanto, when this is brought to RfC only him and two other editors (1 is Jytdog) oppose the addition, at the article about Monsanto legal cases. Editor Tsavage mentioned there, you are misapplying WP:CRYSTAL, which clearly states its intentions: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." A well-covered lawsuit is neither unverifiable, nor a speculation.- Editor Dialectric responded to Kingofaces, As a participant in the rfc, you are in no position to propose a 'logical conclusion' which favors your viewpoint.

    Because editor Kingofaces claims (Dif) that i edit war, an claims my edits locked down pages, and wants me banned for it i have to call WP:Boomerang on that user.prokaryotes (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guilt by association is a poor reason for a ban. I obviously have some crossover in topic areas and have a similar stance of reliability of sources and weight in scientific topics. That's really about it. That people couple their disdain for Jytdog to me because of that is unfortunate, but that's a problem with the underlying vitriol in this topic. As for "accusations", what are you referring to? In this board, I've brought quite a few diffs when I was referring to my own interactions or referred to things already cited previously by others. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Kingofaces43 on GM-related articles (broadly construed) and including those articles listed above by the OP. This should be an indefinite ban, with no appeal allowed for 6 months. Given that Kingofaces43's disruptive editing has not been limited to only GM-related articles (I can provide diffs if these are needed but I suspect they are not) there should be a relatively brief site block for 30 to 60 days giving time for Kingofaces43 to reflect on his behaviour.DrChrissy (talk)
    • Oppose this nonsense. Evidence does not support a topic ban. The same people who were complaining of Jytdog "trying to get opponents removed" are the first ones to throw their support here. Sad, hypocritical, but ultimately predictable behavior for ANI. Yobol (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Kingofaces43. It is like a State within a state is forming here on WP and those interested in history will know where that leads to. It is dangoerous to alow a few vocal editors to work in unison, so as to put their actions above others. Looks like Yobol is puting himself forward as candidate for the next topic ban. Talk about opening a can of worms. --Aspro (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose These tit-for-tat topic ban requests on general principals. From what I have seen pop up at the various noticeboards and the very few times I have looked at GMO talk pages, the POV pushing of FRINGE material is un-relenting. Take it to ArbCom if you feel editors need sanctions for past behavior. My guess is most of the major actors would face sanctions in that case. Clean out the topic and get some new blood in. The down side of this is there are many more FRINGE POV pushers out there than editors to keep them in check. JbhTalk 15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Jbhunley, while you apparently entirely ignore anything related to the discussion here, I must ask you to stop making up claims that involved editors are Fringe pushers.prokaryotes (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prokaryotes: Are you actually saying there is no FRINGE POV pushing in the GMO topic area? Really??!!?? I very consciously did not make any statements about editors on either side of this specific matter because I did not go dig up diffs to support those statements. If you think my statement about the general state of editing in GMO is wrong I suggest that our views of what is FRINGE is not compatable. I do not doubt for a second that if I wanted to make statements about specific editors it would be very easy to find the FRINGE pushers in the GMO topic area. That, however, is not the purpose of my comments here. JbhTalk 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We discuss an ANI report here not the history of general GMO article edits. If you meant that as an excuse for Kingofaces, then I at least didn't understand it. prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my discussion of the ANI report is that it is better addressed at ArbCom if people want to get other users sanctioned. The entire topic area is a pit of POV editing. Any closer can read this as my opposing any and all of the proposed topic bans in this section for the reason that they all look like simply an extension of the conflict and attempts to silence opponents. Trying to argue it out here is pointless and this exchange shows that quite well because you are unable to allow a simple stated opinion from an un-involved editor to stand without, personal and condescending, challenge. That, to me, indicates an environment that has become too toxic for 'business-as-usual' to be allowed to continue for the health of the project. JbhTalk 18:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Tit-for-tat is putting it mildly. At this point, we have reached tit-for-tat-for-tit. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious oppose. No evidence is provided by Prokaryotes for any action, but rather further justifies a boomerang on their part for misconstruing edits. It also seems to be retaliatory for trying to address their behavior issues. One thing I've noticed is that Prokaryotes makes a point of mischaracterizing people's posts and pushing forward in a sloppy manner in controversial topics that only inflames drama. I'm not going to push for a boomerang further here, but just bring some context to what I was doing in the cited links since my name is at the section header. Let's look through the diffs they gave for each bullet:
    1. The first bullet point is cherrypicking and avoiding what made that dispute an edit war. This series of diffs show the actual exchange: [110], [111][112]. There, Prokaryotes changed a statement on scientific consensus, which very much needs talk page consensus. In hindsight, text at another article had been worked out that I wasn't aware of, but Prokaryotes never pointed it out. Seeing none, I reverted it asking them to come to the talk page, but instead they reverted posting a link to a huge RfC (instead of a specific diff) that simply said the content should be changed, but didn't have any specific edit ironed out. Prokaryotes just made sweeping claims of consensus for their edit in edit summaries and links without pointing to something specific. It wasn't until after Prokaryotes escalated the situation to AN3 that Jytdog posted a link to actual consensus. This is all summarized in the talk page discussion as well. Given the sloppy editing by Prokaryotes (the burden was on them), simply providing the specific diff instead of vague comments would have resulted in not a single revert.
    2. Of course I cited Prokaryotes edits. That's what you do when demonstrating 3RR. The diffs show the series of edits made, as has been pointed out to Prokaryotes already, so they aren't going to show the traditional old vs. new edit, but just the start and stop. Ironically enough, I actually pointed out that I didn't actually see 3RR when Jytdog was posting about it (so much for the gang conspiracy). However, my comments on 3RR were after that point when Prokaryotes made additional edits later in the day pushing the revert count up further.
    3. More cherry picking and appears to be competence issue with respect to WP:TPO. The comments in question were very appropriate for hatting per TPO as it was not based on content at all. I posted on their talk page explaining how hatting works and to not alter other people's comments by removing select ones from the thread. What originally happened was someone else moved Prokaryotes' original comment into a new section awhile back. Prokaryotes didn't like that, but never pointed out that was done until after some discussion occurred in the new section. Instead of moving everything back, they for some reason left my comment out of the thread in the section making it look like I posted a new section with an out of context comment. I moved my comment back into the proper threading while hatting the thread, and Prokaryotes deleted my comment from the threading again. [113] However, I explained in the edit summary, "hatting discussion note[sic] related to content per WP:REFACTOR. Most recent attempt to only partially move some threaded comments misrepresented another post making it seem like it was the start of the section" I warned them again for altering my comment in the next edit summary and on their talk page linked earlier.[114] Everything was by the book on my part here for dealing with editors altering talk page comments and for hatting off-topic conversations.
    4. As mentioned in Prokaryotes section here, they have been solely focusing on anti-GMO perspectives exclusely since they've come into the topic. That coupled with the behavior of constantly pushing edits in a controversial topic, edit warring, etc. was where the advocacy comment came from. There's nothing inappropriate there (honestly, read my actual post[115]), and it was meant to get Prokaryotes to slow down and focus on talk page discussion and consensus building that we need in WP:CONTROVERSIAL topics. The RfC comment was because it was putting the cart before the horse at that time. There wasn't any serious attempt at talk page discussion to figure out what to do with it the source in question, but instead Prokaryotes went straight to RfC.
    5. There's quite a bit more posturing calling this a "historic case." This content in question is about a court case that was filed, but has not been completed yet. I and a few other editors do take the stance that incomplete court cases in all but extreme cases (e.g., Supreme Court cases) do not meet due weight for inclusion, but rather that weight is determined by the findings of the court at the close. This one is just a content dispute through and through with no behavior issues from anyone that really stick out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Kingofaces43. You need to change the above into a Comment as it is a given that an editor facing a topic ban would object.--Aspro (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a convention I've never really seen followed at ANI as we don't vote count here, but act on consensus. I do expect whoever is reading this section though to see my signature and see that the Kingofaces43 responding here is also the same one being discussed. That should be pretty apparent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:Aspro. Furthermore, your edit seems very much a a wall of text. Please consider the time constraints of other editors and the closing admin by keeping your posts as concise as possible. Thanks for your input.DrChrissy (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's extremely tendentious considering Prokaryotes misrepresented a large number of situations above and is very reminiscent of other actions you've bee chastised for here. Of course I'm going to describe the entire situation as opposed to cherrypicking. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. We are talking here about Kingofaces43 not to him. So whilst he may comment, etiquette expects the subject to step aside in such cases. So please Kingofaces43 change the above to Comment.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sticking to the conventions typically held at ANI, not rules you want. Quibbling over what I bolded is just plain silly, so it will remain. If someone reads my post, it should be obvious it's me either from context or signature. Beyond that, we're just talking bureaucratics, so there's no need to continue this particular thread. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Kingofaces43. Change the above to Comment: please.--Aspro (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Lets discus fringe. Jenner, had no ethical approval to infect James Phipps with cow pox. John Snow was dead by the time his germ theory was finally accepted by the rest of the medical community. Albert Einstein (well, we all know about Einstein) and many others were by definition fringe scientists. They were on the cutting edge – the fringe. If “you” had the power to suppress their views back then, would this World be a rich in understanding as it is now? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is space to keep it cutting edge by including referenced material that indicates that the old accepted dogma is now in question based on the latest research. Please don't say that believers of old dogma have a god-given-right to censor Wikipedia. It exposes you and other believers as Luddites who were born knowing everything. One of the first, if not the first controlled trials was on blood letting – yet doctors continued blood letting and losing any hope of future income as soon as they had killed their patient. Et cetera. So don't argue this defensible nonsense by resorting to the much loved pseudo-skeptic buzz word of 'fringe'.--Aspro (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (It's good to read an editor with their brain turned on.--TMCk (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Yes, this might be true, but this is not the place for such a discussion, even when some want to frame it that way (See also editors who mention Pseudoscience).prokaryotes (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose unsurprisingly. Kingofaces is a science-based editor who follows NPOV and like me has become a target for anti-GMO/pro-organic/Pro-altmed advocates in WP, who reliably turn up to !vote against him. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. William_Shockley#Personal_life experianced a similar problem when he thought that his science-based background made him an expert on race, human intelligence, and eugenics. An abundances of naïve misplaced overconfidence.--Aspro (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting choice, I would have picked Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare. Cicero. GregJackP Boomer! 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. How true User:GregJackP. Why don't schools today, educate children in the skills of correct critical thinking anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The hypocrisy in these accusations is breathtaking. Prokaryotes doesn't seem to understand that the behaviour he decries is exactly what he is doing himself. His idea of what constitutes diffs and evidence is very sloppy, to say the least. I think there is a question of competence arising here. Someone launching such aggressive attacks as we have seen here and on multiple talk pages should have more idea about what wikipolicy is about, and less about how his personal feelings are wounded. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pete/Skyring, btw is another editor who opposes adding Monsanto legal cases to the article of Monsanto legal cases. Pete, can you provide a dif as an example for what you call aggressive attacks?prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, your allegation is incorrect. I added a legal case, right here. See what I said about sloppy work? The diff you want for an example of an aggressive attack is this one and several subsequent. The disruption you are causing to the project is severe - we are spending far too much time dealing with your petulance instead of doing useful work. Just because someone has a different opinion to yourself doesn't mean they are some sort of corporation shill. Wikipedia thrives on difference - the trick is to work coöperatively. --Pete (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pete's (along with King) additions to the legal cases TP should be viewed for context. He is fending off GF attempts to improve the article by multiple editors. The only who is stalling progress is Pete, from what I can see. petrarchan47คุก 23:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support King has been an ardent supporter of the biotech industry and has worked alongside Jdog for quite some time to guard articles and keep them POV. He sees editing not through the lens of our guidelines, but though industry PR. I have watched and waited for one solitary neutral comment or edit from this user, and can tell you that he is 100% pro Monsanto and pro Jdog regardless of the facts. i have not seen signs that he is interested in learning and adhering to our guidelines that help inform readers about a controversial and complex subject. His responses on the GMO talk page are often very convoluted and nothing but OR, free of usable RS. We need neutral editors who are able to work with others, not industry guard dogs working in collusion. petrarchan47คุก 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good observations, i agree with you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I didn't agree on a ban at this time for Petrarchan above, making false statements like these do make me reconsider a need for them to be banned, especially when they go around spreading lies about editors in violation of WP:NPA and contributing to the vitriolic atmosphere. I stick to policies and guidelines, especially ones like WP:RS (WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS in my area) and WP:WEIGHT primarily and frequently cite them. Calling someone a supporter of the biotech industry is essentially a shill gambit. The problem we face in the topic is editors like this who a very steeped into a particular point of a view (based on the content they try to add) and essentially view anything not vilifying a company, etc. as a polarized POV itself.
    In reality, I actually tend to be just as critical of industry in the agricultural field if not moreso than whatever you want to call the opposite of industry. Take the industry pushing of insecticidal seed treatments when they aren't worth it at all for farmers.[116] I'm definitely not an industry supporter there if you read my edit, but I shouldn't even need to respond to this witch hunt attempt. The problem is that when you have anti-GM/biotech POVs being pushed into articles really hard on a consistent basis, reacting against that just causes editors such as Petrarchan to engage in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and start assuming I'm supporting a company. That's an editor POV showing there. We rarely if ever get true pro-industry edits making their way into articles (being in academia, I can tell some stories about some stupid things industry has pulled in my field), but they get snuffed out pretty quick when such edits do occur. I also don't intend to keep a list of every time I don't agree with Jytdog to disprove the claim I just agree with Jytdog all the time. We have similar views on content policy when it comes to science, but if I was engaging in some sort of tag-team, you'd see me outright supporting all the bans he proposed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingofaces43, you strike a chord with me there. I feel quite uncomfortable being placed in the position of having to guard Monsanto against attacks. I see their business practices as being pretty much everything I detest about modern corporate behaviour. Normally I wouldn't touch this sort of thing with a bargepole. But when I see dogmatic fanatics tag-teaming to push a POV here on Wikipedia, it needs action, otherwise the whole project just becomes a morass of poorly sourced propaganda. As far as I can see, most of the editors who have commented on the recent RfC at Monsanto legal cases are working in good faithg. But a few, whose names are sprinkled throughout this whole megathread, are one-eyed crusaders, where every source supporting their views is not just reliable, but Holy Writ, and every argument in opposition is made by "corporate guard dogs". I resent this sort of behaviour. It creates nothing but disruption and animosity. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pete

    Editor Pete recently argued above that he considers my ANI report an aggressive attack. He did not comment on the ANI report, but also claims that my ANI is disrupting the project. However, Pete has been disrupting a RFC for inclusion of a lawsuit, for quiet some time at the article Monsanto legal cases. When i tried to add the lawsuit per SageRad, Pete reverted and called it premature and an action against consensus. Basically what Pete does is he argues in circles, citing rules depending on the weather, together with Kingofaces and Jytdog against 13 other editors, still going.

    • Pete cites various rules why he opposes inclusion of a lawsuit, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Original Research, WP:NPOV
    • Pete said after days of arguments, Whether this case is significant or not seems to be a matter of opinion (Dif).
    • Tsavage mentioned, Skyring/Pete: You seem to be in I don't hear you mode now, where Pete responded, Thanks! Naturally I disagree with your opinions there.
    • Another response by Pete was: The world is full of stuff that was well-publicised but isn't in Wikipedia. Kevin Rudd's earwax incident, for example.
    • Jojalozzo responded to Pete, Suggesting that what I am proposing has any similarity to a news feed is a strawman.
    • Gandydancer, wrote, Something is wrong when an editor needs to go to these lengths to get mention of this lawsuit into this article when it is so obvious that it is appropriate. It should concern any good editor. Pete response, Who - apart from Wikipedia editors - says that these cases together are significant? WP:SYNTHESIS means we can't add two plus two, no matter how much we are certain the answer is a very important number. We have to find a reliable source linking these cases and stating their importance. We don't have one. Yet.
    • Notecardforfree responded to Jytdog, significant media coverage of the filing of a lawsuit will likely meet WP:GNG guidelines. I was simply saying that editors shouldn't argue for exclusion of content by saying, "but we haven't seen the result of litigation yet!" -- When Pete responded with, It seems to me that a good many editors here are part of a personal crusade, using this and other articles to mount a propaganda war for or against Monsanto. We're not a blog for advocacy.
    • Pete insists, There's a clear division of opinion. You can't just discount the views of other people just because you don't happen to share them. (Dif)

    The RFC is pages long, above quotes do not show the entire picture, almost every single comment by Pete is ignoring other editors and wikilawyering. Because the editor claims that my edits are disruptive and my ANI report an aggressive attack i call WP:BOOMERANG on that editors disruptive behavior on a related page. Pete should be topic banned for continued disruption at Monsanto legal cases. prokaryotes (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose - Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I stood by my view that Jytdog needs a topic ban and King. But now it seems like a shoutout between POV-pushers trying to block one another because they disagree with one another. It needs to stop here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please User talk:Prokaryotes you are putting way too much on the closing admin. Close this part of the ANI immediately before it develops into something totally distracting. I suggest you strike through - Jytdog does this and seems to get away with it without negative comments.DrChrissy (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm tempted to say "for Pete's sake!" I said above that we have progressed to tit-for-tat-for-tit, and although I'm losing count, I'm pretty sure we are up to another tat now. On the other hand, we are certainly accumulating evidence about editor conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Discussion at the article is progressing, with focus on wikipolicy. The main question is whether a just-filed lawsuit is significant. In time we'll have a clearer idea, once the thing hits the courts, and in more time we'll have an actual outcome. Some editors want to use this as a soapbox to push their personal views, and Prokaryotes above is one of those who preferred to edit war while the RfC was under way. The RfC will conclude one way or the other, and while I don't envy a closer their task, we've managed to stay pretty much focussed on content and policy rather than slinging rocks at each other, so that's fine. Obviously Prokaryotes and I have different views, but pulling remarks out of context as above doesn't do much to help here. --Pete (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and further evidence for a boomerang. It's really looking like Prokaryotes is using ANI to gain advantages in content disputes rather than address behavior issues. The diffs don't show any behavior issues at all on Pete/Skyring's part. We had a tenuous situation in these topics before Prokaryotes entered the topic, but tactics like this seem to really be stirring the pot now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not simply tit for tat, and I will note that this claim didn't start until King was up for a ban. The respected editors who have been patiently working alongside Pete on the Monsanto legal cases talk page have been discussing this problem for some time. Please note Gandydancer's interaction with Pete at the bottom of "Blogs and sources". Jusdafax notes in another section, I agree that outside admin input is needed here, and feel that the focus needs to be on editing behavior over not only this article, but the entire range of Monsanto-related articles. It's my belief that the long-term editing of several editors needs deep scrutiny, and that the coming days and weeks are the time to do so. This situation has gone on far too long. Jusdafax 18:43, 31 August petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Ridiculous is right. BMK (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - ANI is often pretty bad, but this is plumbing new depths. Probably all the GMO-involved disputing parties should be scrutinized at arbcom. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree with you Alex.prokaryotes (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we really need arbcom. There are a specific set of bad circumstances happening at this particular time. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    The ANI is about discussing editors behaviour – right. The editors who are being discussed here are also being allowed to chip in their two cents worth without any oversight. Would Judge Judy allow plaintiff and defendant, to just interject anytime they wanted to, in order to fly off at tangents and confuse issues. Of course not. The hearing or case would never end. Yet, this is what is happening here. A complaint has been brought here on ANI and it should be discussed rationally without all the injections of rhetorical augment. Let us ask the plaintiff and defendants for their side when we are ready. Until then, they should excuse themselves from interference in the ANI process.--Aspro (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree entirely. Waters have been substantially muddied here by Jytdog raising complaints in a blatant and clumsy attempt to deflect attention from his totally unacceptable behaviour. Editors are seeing through this, however, Aspro, I think you need to make a clear proposal here if that is your intention. I could suggest several proposals, however, I do not wish to hijack your thread.DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please hijack it User:DrChrissy. The Wisdom of Crowds is more important here on WP. I don't own this debate. Unlike some others that think they do.--Aspro (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that permission. Proposal: I repeat my proposal above which I have not ramped up despite recent attacks by Jytdog. I propose a topic ban for Jytdog on GM-related articles (broadly construed) and including those articles listed above by the OP. This should be an indefinite ban, with no appeal allowed for 6 months. Given that Jytdog's disruptive editing has not been limited to only GM-related articles (I can provide diffs if these are needed but I suspect they are not), I agree with Montanabw that there should be a relatively brief site block for 30 to 60 days giving time for Jytdog to reflect on his behaviour.DrChrissy (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After much consideration, I think it is more important to have it written in to WP policy, that once a complaint has been brought to ANI, the complainer and the editor accused of unWP spirit, excuses themselves from the deliberations – (unless asked to provide more information). The current editors under discussion here are really ephemeral when you come to think about it. We need to look at the longer term to protect ANI from this type of wikilawering by the few, who can build a Big Wall o' Text' ad infinitum. Look-at-the -length of this debate. We need a more organized and better way.--Aspro (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for Dr Chrissy's proposal with one amendment: it should include pharmaceutical articles as well as biotech. Arguments for this have already been made in my previous statements. (Support for Aspro's idea too.) petrarchan47คุก 00:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose this thread be closed with recommendation parties seek Arbitration

    It is more than obvious to outside observers that absolutely nothing productive is going to come out of this thread. To paraphrase one editor above, the tit-for-tat-for-tit... is just silly. Each of the sanction proposals in this thread would make great evidence in a Request for Arbitration but is just a wall of text and noise here. The issues involved and the 'high spirits' of the involved parties make this unsuitable for the unstructured environment of ANI.

    • Oppose: If the complainer and the editor accused of unWP spirit, excuses themselves from the deliberations -as I suggest- there would be no opportunity of tit-for-tat-for-tit... would there. Doh! Lets improve the structure of ANI. --Aspro (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've tried to stay out of this mess until things blow over, but it's clear that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. Although I have some pressing obligations over the next week I'll try to find time to write up the WP:RFAR. If someone else wants to take the lead let me know and I'll be glad to help out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, Tryptofish mentioned potentially drafting something for already existing sanctions. Might be worth seeing what they had in mind already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While Tryptofish is a respected editor, their edit history shows fairly heavy involvement in this issue (83 edits to Genetically modified food controversies and 164 to March Against Monsanto). In the interest of distance from past conflict in this area, it would be best to have an uninvolved editor draft the request.Dialectric (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Arbitration is for when normal DR doesn't work. It ain't working here. Alexbrn (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Occasionally there are conflicts that develop into shouting matches to see who can "win" by making the loudest accusations. This has become one of the conflicts, and it is clear that there is plenty of shouting, and that when there is so much smoke, there is fire. That is, if there are enough accusations of conduct issues, there almost certainly are conduct issues. I see at least three ways out. We can close as no consensus, and this will come back again. We can close with one or more sanctions based on the volume of the shouting, which doesn't identify where the real misconduct is. Third, the ArbCom can be asked to conduct a full evidentiary case that really does determine where the conduct issues are. Only the third, arbitration, is likely to resolve this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth (or part of the third depending on how you split it), mentioned in an above section, is utilizing already existing limited discretionary sanctions under pseudoscience. This would skip introducing a full case, ask ArbCom to specify that it does indeed apply here, and let admins evaluate the situation. Either way, I welcome the opportunity to get some really focused attention on edit behavior here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert, this should not be categorized as a shouting match. [sorry, that was King's comment I'm referring to: and if you think we can skip a full case, you have not been paying attention.] I would support the idea of a full evidentiary case (I voted oppose because I don't think this means the ANI should come to a halt). petrarchan47คุก 06:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @King, there is nothing pseudoscience about GMOs, and DS is not to be used in this manner. It was created to help with articles like Acupuncture and Homeopathy. GMOs are based on hard science. We don't have DS for this yet. But perhaps we should create them especially for pages where huge corporations and special interests are concerned, especially if they have received many complaints about possible spindoctoring and other malfeasance. The idea of forgoing a deep look into the claims made on this thread is unacceptable; it would be offensive to those who have put diligent work into uncovering this mess during a holiday weekend. In fact, Jytdog should be sanctioned for the fiasco he created here, and for bringing unfounded claims against 3 people. petrarchan47คุก 06:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- Arbitration is necessary, as this issue is showing no sign of resolution, and this is the latest in a series of messy AN/I cases related to behavior on GMO articles generally and Jytdog's behavior in particular. Trying to shoehorn this into existing discretionary sanctions will leave parts of this issue unresolved. Now is a good time for Arbcom to look at the broader picture. Thanks to Short Brigade Harvester Boris for offering to write up the RFAR.Dialectric (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by MrSean99

    MrSean99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – continued disruptive editing after final warning. Inserts apostrophes into decades (e.g. changing "the 1990s" to "the 1990's" contrary to MOS:DECADE. Never responds on talk, never provides an edit summary, so no clues as to motivation and no prospect of participation in any form of dispute resolution. Diffs provided are for illustration – there are others:

    Adding to the difficulty of understanding this editor's motivation, there have also been some edits that are constructive:

    – Wdchk (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried WP:AIV? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion, but no I haven't, because in my judgement, there is not enough evidence of a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia to call MrSean99's edits vandalism. The policy states: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." This user may believe he is doing the right thing and the MOS is wrong. Note that some of his edits have not been reverted. I am happy to listen to other opinions on this point, but my hope is that in a borderline case, it wouldn't matter too much which forum is chosen to request administrator attention. Whatever label we apply, unfortunately the end result is time-wasting. – Wdchk (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely, but certainly not permanently. The total refusal to engage with other editors is an issue. If this editor is willing to indicate they would be willing to engage with other editors going forward, I'm happy for anyone to unblock them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If permitted please copy my response from talk page to the archived discussion.

    Link. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 18:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin eyes requested

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide. I am not involved in the dispute, but this deletion debate has started to spin out of control and needs attention by administrators. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotion on user talk page by User:Super51hotels

    Talk page access revoked by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Super51hotels Please revoke Talk page access, the user is all-ready blocked Bentogoa (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bentogoa, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Bentogoa (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unsourced ideologies and controversial info for radical parties

    Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs), and 3 "new" IP accounts ([117]) with a sudden interest in the topic, keep adding unsourced "Ideology" labels and other unsourced controversial content in articles of radical Eastern European parties (see Bulgarian National Alliance, Shiv Sena and other similar articles). They have received several warnings and information on the named account's talk page, several users reverted their unsourced edits in those articles. As I am close to 3RR (and a minor edit war is also happening at Shiv Sena), it would be great if someone uninvolved could look into this. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified the named account and one of the IPs with an active talk page. GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This pattern of editing is remarkably similar to that of the prolific serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. It's probably worth comparing this with identified socks, and opening an SPI. RolandR (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what 'Anti-Ziganism' actually is??? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish there were some sort of online encyclopedia where one could easily look up things like that... —Wasell(T) 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that would be an innovation wouldn't it!!! Cheers Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And again just now here with another IP. Could an admin please look into this - maybe just semi Bulgarian National Alliance and Shiv Sena for a while? Doesn't make much sense to send additional messages to 4 changing IPs. GermanJoe (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Martinson problems

    Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has long been banned from article creation for his massive disregard for copyright. He has a great number of subpages on his user page, all intended as potential articles for others to move into main article space. Recently a new editor copypasted one of these subpages, creating the article Robert Martinson. The first thing I noticed about the page (unaware of its provenance) was the obvious copyvios, numerous quotations in the references. I deleted the copyvios, thinking they were rookie mistakes, and then I added information and sources. In the meantime, Richard had asked a third party to fix the article's history by moving his original subpage over the page, leading the third party to restore the copyvios and erase my changes.

    Now it's a very minor mess, and I'm not sure what the proper way forward is. Plan A is to just revert and move on. Plan B is asking here, and I've opted for Plan B. I'll mention the new editor created some other pages that may have the same copypaste/copyvio issues, I just briefly looked. Richard's other subpages may also be problems, I have not looked.

    I have not named the two other editors, both seem to have acted GF, and if either needs to be told something constructive, presumably their Talk pages suffice. While Richard also seems GF here, this looks like he still does not seem to get copyvio. (And I have no idea of the fine points of his ban.) Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you think using the quote parameter in the citation templates is "obvious copyvios" and you "deleted the copyvios" you really need to study the fair use policy at Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The only violation of Wikipedia copyright policy and plagiarism policy was by the user who copy and pasted my work and attributed it to themselves. They contacted me when they realized they had made an error, and I contacted Sandstein to correct it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the admin whom Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) asked to fix the copypaste article creation by another editor by moving the article history from his user space into mainspace. I was then not aware of his article creation ban, but another admin pointed me to this request and linked to WP:ARBRAN. I am now deleting the article Robert Martinson as an arbitration enforcement action: The ban was apparently made because Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has previously violated copyright, and therefore the prohibition extends to all articles based wholly on his work, whether or not it was he who moved them into mainspace. This should settle the matter as far as I'm concerned, unless anybody wants to consider sanctions for any involved editor via WP:AE.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting it was improper, if you had doubts, you should have migrated it back to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson and not delete it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, so if an admin finds sufficient copyvios in a mainspace article to delete it, sending it back or restoring it to userspace would be irresponsible. BMK (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using the quote feature built into the citation templates is not a violation of copyright, it is the definition of the Wikipedia sanctioned fair-use policy. You are welcome to argue about how much material constitutes fair-use at the Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." If you think that the definition of Wikipedia fair-use is wrong, then you should lobby to have the quotation feature contained in over 100,000 citations removed from all of Wikipedia. Removing them adhoc from one article is not the way to do it. While I am blocked from moving articles into mainspace there is no restriction from others moving them into mainspace at my request or by me giving permission for someone asking to move it. However, it is a violation of copyright and a violation of rules against plagiarism to copy and paste my work into a new article under the name of another author. If you think that me quoting the New York Times and properly attributing it is a copyright violation, then you also have to believe that me quoting Wikipedia policy above is a copyright violation, weird world isn't it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that you don't actually need the extended quotations in the footnotes at all. Footnote quotes should only really be used where the source is large and/or difficult to navigate (i.e. no page numbers) so that the reader may struggle to find the source for the citation, or the source contains differing viewpoints so that it is necessary to pinpoint the actual sentence you are using as a source. In this case, neither applies. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your personal interpretation of the policy and you should should state that it is your personal interpretation. You are presenting it as fact. The exact wording of facts from the original source prevents semantic drift, we have no idea if the source material will be available in 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. The original article may read that someone was "from a farm near Fooville", the next editor may rewrite to read that he was "born on a farm near Fooville" and the next editor may change it to "born in Fooville" and the next "born in Fooville, New Jersey. Each small change causes the information to drift slightly and that drift may or may-not be correct, every editor does this when they change wording. The reader has no idea that drift is taking place, unless presented with the original source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what I am saying is exactly what I wrote, re-read it. Once again you are using the inflammatory "copyvio" for fair-use as defined by Wikipedia policy. If you cannot discuss it in neutral terms you are purposefully being inflammatory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response to RAN/ec) In the article in question, you had more full sentence quotation from five NYT articles than you had written in the body of the article. That in itself is ridiculous. Worse, your quotations met none of FUR. Nothing except laziness or incompetence prevented you from summarizing the contents of the NYT articles and leaving out the actual quotations. We're not here for pull-quote journalism.
    • The quote parameter is for responsible usage.
    • I recently created an article Kelayres massacre, over 20K, with fifty footnotes, and I incorporated a grand total of one quotation, from an editorial, since the exact tone seemed to be just as essential to the whole story as the factual content of the editorial (which may, in fact, have been very little). (And there were two FUR pictures, and one PD picture which I asked about on WP:MCQ, just to play it safe.) You? You're not even trying. Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you are awesome that is why your articles do not use the quote feature. However, using words like "obvious copyvios" and "incompetence" makes you less awesome. You are inserting your opinion and personal style as as Wikipedia law. If you do not like using the quote parameter, do not use it. If you think it should never be used, lobby to have it removed globally at the talk page for fair-use policy. Also, Wikipedia:FUR policy is for images. Also, we are not journalists, so I am not using "pull-quote journalism", we are writing a reference-work. Journalists use primary sources, reference-work writers rely primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion seems to be the consensus opinion. I think it should be used. As I said: responsibly. I'll point out I use it frequently over on Wiktionary, since presenting exact quotations over there serves an accepted educational purpose. Choor monster (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was Wikipedia policy you would have already quoted me the chapter and verse where it is specifically stated as I have already done above. We all have high opinions of our own opinions, but that doesn't make them Wikipedia policy, it is just magical thinking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAN: Given that there's still a lot of work left to do at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, and WP:ARBRAN specifically states "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions" (referring to the ban on article creation), why are you not doing that before you create articles? —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) So now RAN is creating draft articles with the same kind of copyright problems he will not acknowledge to even exist. Copyright infringement in the Draft space is the same as copyright infringement in the mainspace. It's certainly a violation in spirit, if not the letter, of ARBRAN. Is it time for an amendment to that case? KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your outrage, but again "copyright infringement" is incorrect, you clearly have a limited understanding of fair-use as defined by the United States Supreme Court or by Wikipedia policy of fair-use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What SCOTUS permits is irrelevant to us. Citing it is a red-herring, and a serious sign that you don't get WP and WP:COPYVIO. We hold by our own stricter policies. What newspapers and journals and the like do under Fair Use is not something we're supposed to imitate. Choor monster (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, please stop saying it is in the Bible, just read the Bible. If you are quoting exact Wikipedia policy quote me the exact chapter and verse. This is not the first time I have asked you to quote policy, and not express your opinion as if it were policy. Note that I quoted you the exact text of the Wikipedia policy on fair-use and put it in quotations above, which under your opinion, is a copyright violation. I directly quoted a copyrighted source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm not outraged. Nothing on this website gives me an emotion that remotely approaches outrage. Second, when you've spent the hundreds of hours I have cleaning up copyright problems, we'll talk about who understands copyright and who does not. The NFCC policy clearly states that Wikipedia uses a more stringent standard than does US copyright law. Either you get that or you don't. If you get it, you'll stop what you're doing now. If you don't, you'll be forced to stop what you're doing later. Up to you. KrakatoaKatie 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaning up a pile of poop off the bathroom floor does not mean you have the equivalent of an M.D. in proctology or have a Ph.D. in scatology. If you think the "more stringent standard" applies, then work to define it. You can lobby that quotes can be no more than three sentences, or two sentences, or one sentence, or three words. You can lobby that the title of books, and the title of news articles, be restricted to the first three words or the first three letters. You can lobby to have the quote parameter removed from all the citation templates. Until then you are just expressing your personal opinion of how you interpret the Wikipedia fair-use, which is fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are quoting essays, at least that is a step up from saying that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy, but you are still telling people to read the Bible, again cite the chapter and verse or quote what you are referring to. "Go read the Bible, the answer is there" is never useful. If you found something relevant in the essay WP:CIR, then quote it to me, don't tell me to read it and guess which sentence you found relevant. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point, you haven't answered the question posed by SpacemanSpiff above. There is still a huge amount outstanding at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. Why are you not cleaning those issues up before creating new articles? After all, that's exactly what the sanction stated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not found any, that is why. Spending the next ten years certifying that the previous ten years of edits do not contain any copyright violations, is a waste of time. If there are any more clear examples, a bot can find them, and I will fix them. Copyright isn't subjective, if a bot cannot find them, how can I be expected to? When we have people who think they understand copyright and fair-use, that do not ... as per the comments above, there really is no way of satisfying their manufactured outrage. During the ANI someone said that my quoting a 1905 New York Times article was a copyright violation. And, by the way, my new articles in my user space are awesome. The people I write about deserve no less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While CorenSearchBot flags any new articles that contain copyright violations, there is no bot that checks existing Wikipedia articles for copyright violations. That task has to be done by hand, one diff at a time. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It just needs to be modified to run against the current state of an article and not the first edit of an article. And of course it needs to be run against all of Wikipedia and rank articles on a scale from 1 to 10. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not possible. First, we pay for CSB to do its searches, and the burden of doing this against all articles is astronomically higher than the burden of doing this against new articles. Also, new articles are considerably less likely to find Wikipedia mirrors (legitimate or otherwise) and, when they do, that often highlights another problem - unattributed splitting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest the nuclear option. Since the only possible reason for RAN to create new articles in his user space (there are scores of them) is so someone will move them into mainspace, thereby circumventing his article-creation ban, I would think, following Sandstein's point, that they should all be deleted. If RAN is interested in editing Wikipedia, there's plenty of work to be done on existing articles, or, as SpacemanSpiff and Black Kite suggest, he could stop bitching that it will take "10 years" to fix all his copyright violations, and just get to work fixing them. It's not as if he started to do so and then gave up, he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever. If he had spent all the time between the institution of the ban and now helping to fix his copyright violations -- instead of creating new articles in his user space with more copyright violations -- he might not be finished, but he'd have a damn good case for having his ban lifted due to his services in cleaning up the mess he had made. Instead, RAN continues to refuse to concede that there are any copyright violations, despite the very clear community and ArbCom consensus that there are, and a major form of them was his extensive misuse of the quote parameter. BMK (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck statement per Sphilbrick's comment in the section below. BMK (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop the manufactured outrage and please do not libel me with "he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever." Anyone can see all the work I have done simply by looking at the first 100 articles I created in 2005-2006 and then seeing the post ANI changes I made to them. I removed the hidden text of the source documents that I was using to write the biographies. I trimmed long quotations and reworded Air Force *.mil biographies which may/may-not be government public domain. User:Beyond My Ken and I have been antagonistic for years, and he uses every opportunity to try and get me banned permanently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No outrage -- is that going to be your standard attack on your critics? -- just a possible solution to the problem you have made, which is to delete all your user space articles as straight-forward violations of your topic ban to not create articles. I recognize that there are other possible solutions, such as your being indef-blocked, or some combination of the various choices. BMK (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is some doubt whether the articles in his user space are typical RAN creations -- which is to say. abusive of the quote parameter to an extent that they are copyvios, I would suggest that Moonriddengirl or some other admin well-versed in copyright matter take a look at a random sampling of his user-space articles, and use the result of that examination to determine if the nuclear option is a viable choice or not. Alternately, they can all be tagged with G12 speedy deletion templates, and individual admins can decide on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I have never understood why RAN has been allowed to take the path he has, which is to clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban - one that was first put in place by the community, and then endorsed and taken over by ArbCom. BMK (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome that you can read minds too: "clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have to read your mind, it's easy enough for everyone to read your actions, and your words speak for themselves. BMK (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quotation parameter is a fine parameter when used in moderation (and completely unproblematic when used with public domain or compatibly licensed material), but the idea that it should be used to archive the content in case the source becomes unavailable in the future is not supported by WP:NFC, which tries in simple language to explain the transformative use of quotations. Capturing the content for fear that it won't be available later is not on that list - if anything, that's far more likely to be seen as competitive with the original publication, as we eliminate the need for our readers to access the original. In terms of reviewing the drafts, I think it would be better if somebody with less history dealing with RAN's copyright issues undertake this, BMK. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAN: Please explain how this is in line with our fair use policy. This is now becoming a case of having to update the original CCI and waste yet more time of other editors and as KrakatoaKatie suggests above, it's time for an amendment to the case to stop any more addition of content, period. Given that this is a two day old violation and that our fair use policy is more strictly implemented in user space, any admin is welcome to take an AE action here (I just don't have the time or inclination to looking at the history right now to do so myself). —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is image policy, it states that the file has to be deleted. No fair-use images on user pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, once again you show your ignorance. WP:NFCC isn't just about images, it's about any non-free content, visual or textual. Someday you ought to read the policy so that you can actually follow it.

    Policy

    There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the quotation style guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

    #9 I quoted above comes directly after this in the same section. It applies to all non-free content. BMK (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's strange is that the quote is totally unnecessary. It does not provide any pertinent information that's not in the article, except for the name of the Governor, which is in the title of the article cited. BMK (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ARBRAN has this to say: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia and failing to adhere to the project's expected standards and policies with regards to non-free content. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing. I don't see anything restricting that remedy to article space; perhaps it's time for an indef block? Whether through AE or ARCA I'm not sure. GoldenRing (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lest we forget, although it doesn't come into play in this discussion, RAN is actually subject to twin topic bans. The one we've been referring to here disallows him from creating new articles, and its twin disallows him from uploading images to en.wiki. The reason for this was also copyright-related, as part of the restriction is that if he uploads a copyright-violating image to Commons and uses it on en.wiki, it will be treated as a copyright violation to en.wiki. Clearly, when ArbCom made these restrictions -- which can be found at WP:Editing restrictions -- they had absolutely no faith that RAN understood what is and isn't a copyright violation, which is a powerful reason for ignoring his commentary here regarding copy-vios: he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. BMK (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By your definition we cannot use the title of news articles, remember they are also copyrighted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you see, once again you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about, since titles are specifically not copyrightable. BMK (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Short phrase headlines are not copyrightable, however headlines such as: "Gen. E. A. M'Alpin Dies At Ossining. Former Adjutant General of New York Stricken at His Country Home in His 69th Year. Long in National Guard. Tobacco Merchant and Republican Leader Owned Land on Which Hotel McAlpin Stands." It would not constitute a "short phrase" because it contains original expression. "General McAlpin Dies" would not be copyrightable as a headline since it states non-copyrightable facts under the "short phrase" rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, SpacemanSpiff quotes from WP:ARBRAN above, where ArbCom endorses and take up the community ban. It refers to this AN/I thread, in which it was decided to make permanent the initial temporary ban. That initial ban can be found here, where it is phrased as: "[H]e is banned specifically from creating new articles and from page moves". (Note that there's no specification of where the new articles are created.) So, given this clear ban, why, when I look at RAN's talk page, do I see that he is submitting his user space articles to WP:Articles for Creation? Does he somehow think that the fact that someone else pushes the button to make his article appear in mainspace absolves him of his restriction from creating new articles, and that asking other people to make page moves for him doesn't mean that the page move is essentially his? What he is doing is clearly Wikilawyering around his sanctions and pushing hard against the boundaries of his bans by enlisting other editors and AfC as his proxies. That he has gotten away with this behavior for so long is pretty amazing, actually. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • My summary: A properly attributed quote is not a copyright violation either under United States copyright law or Wikipedia !law. If you want to restrict all quotations to a single sentence or a single word, then lobby to make that so. The only clear copyright violation was by the user that cut-and-pasted my nascent user-space article and put it in mainspace and attributed it to themselves. It was corrected, when the cut-and-paster contacted me, by Sandstein and there was with no ill will toward the cut-and-paster by me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your understanding of US copyright law, the fair-use doctrine, and Wikipedia's NFCC policy (which is deliberately more restrictive) is fundamentally flawed, as shown by your past history, your current actions, and your commentary in this thread. You appear to be making it up as you go along, without truly understanding the real issues, or why your actions contravene your sanctions. You have, in a variety of ways, violated your topic bans, apparently very deliberately so -- just as you violated your community-placed ban before the case went to ArbCom, where you were not slapped on the wrist, but given a last chance instead of being indef blocked. You did not take that last chance, which required you to help clean up your existing copyright violations, choosing instead to continue to create new violating articles in your user space. There really is no excuse for any of these actions on your part. BMK (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While I can appreciate the use of AFC to verify the contents of drafts, the topic ban is pretty clear that he is banned from article creation / creating new articles. This doesn't specify in what manor, so he's bypassing the direct approach by creating articles through AFC (or by having other editors moving his drafts), which is still in violation of the topic ban. (striken in relation to Choor monster's note relating to this. However, in addition to that, the topic ban included a ban on page moves, yet his page move log is pretty full. - Happysailor (Talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Without actually seeing the article in question, it is rather hard to tell if there were copyvios there. I will note simply that there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources. Indeed, it is rather common in historical areas. The other example given from RA Norton's space (I assume that refers to footnote 2) has a quote consisting of one and a half sentences, which is rather hard to judge as copyvio and not fair use. Whether a quote of such a length is necessary or not, it is rather a stretch to call it a copyvio. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That example is from 1912, so it is PD. Assuming a later date as in many RAN articles, note that there was no need to refer to the article by every last subheading—the first heading suffices—the quotation is longer than the article in question! Note too, it's not US Fair Use which is relevant, but WP:FAIRUSE. Note also RAN's defense of his quotations: he seems to very strongly believe in close paraphrasing and nothing but close paraphrasing, and the point of including the quotation is to seemingly discourage anyone from rewriting one of his close paraphrases. It certainly serves no other purpose here on WP. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Kingsindian: Please keep in mind that we don't actually follow the normal "fair-use doctrine", we have our own rules, WP:NFCC which are deliberately more restrictive than fair-use. One can make the argument that we should just follow fair-use doctrine, but the fact is that we don't. Because of that, any use of a quotation, of whatever length, needs to be necessary for the article, and should not simply repeat information that has been written into the article in a non-quoted, non-plagiarized manner, which is the preferred way to deal with sourced information. There have been any number of times when I determined that any re-writing of a source's statement was going to water down, misrepresent or too closely follow the quote from the source, and I chose to directly quote the source to get the correct flavor and attitude it conveyed, but the quote didn't repeat something I wrote, it replaced it as being the best representation of the cite. RAN's use of the "quote" parameter in his citations is, instead, repetitive and, generally, totally unnecessary.
    Our policy says quite specifically "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", but RAN operates on the opposite basis, that he can use quotes whenever he wants to, even when they are repetitive and unnecessary. Such usage would mostly survive scrutiny under the fair-use doctrine, but it is not in line with out NFCC policy. That RAN cannot or will not recognize this (or indeed the intent of his topics bans) is why we are here discussing this. BMK (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever standard of "fair-use" one uses, one and a half sentences surely qualifies. I would barely be able to write any content if such a restrictive standard is used. For instance, I quoted two whole sentences here (at the very end). I hope I am not going to get banned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume an official government committee's statement is PD. Even if it were a private committee making an official statement about some investigation, its exact wording would typically meet NFCC. In contrast, the exact wording of a newspaper summarizing for us what some committee said, or even any PD document, would typically not meet NFCC. Why is this so difficult to understand? Choor monster (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian: Please also keep in mind RAN's history. He's on an official short leash because of his past infractions, you're not. BMK (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsindian, with respect only to the note "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources", I just wanted to clarify that there are indeed such rules in both Wikipedia ("Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." WP:NFC) and the US copyright law that governs us.  :) As our article on fair use notes, amount and substantiality of copied content is a determinative factor. (cf. http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html) Prudent use of quotations is not only permitted but good practice, but extensive quotations of any text that is copyrighted and not compatibly licensed is forbidden on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "extensive" cannot be identified here any more than it is in law, since what qualifies as extensive is defined by a number of factors, including the centrality of the content and its original length, as well as a review of the other factors of fair use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the source is not an official actor regarding some content being written up (if it were, the exact wording is inherently significant), I personally apply the "everybody quotes it" test. Strong editorials and reviews and so on are often the most interesting reactions to something, and tend to get quoted by later writers trying to capture the flavor of initial reactions. In contrast, routine journalism rarely gets quoted by later writers, and is normally never part of the story, then or later, so we should avoid quoting it too. Choor monster (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moonriddengirl and Choor monster: The two sentences which I quote are not from a government statement, but from a book (actually the book is cited by a journal article, and I quote the journal article). I am of course aware that very long quotations are not a good idea, but as "extensive" is not defined exactly, I apply common sense here. One and half sentences (in the case of RAN) and two sentences (in my case), are surely within the bounds of "brief" and not "extended". Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Delete all articles in RAN's userspace and block indefinitely with the block only to be removed for the sole purpose of clearing up his existing copyvio issues and for no other reason.

    Support as nom. Too much time and energy has been spent on RAN already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a multi-million dollar installation. You can't make that kind of decision. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support After reading through all of the above and taking a peak at some of RAN's work I see an editor that is unwilling to work within community norms even after having them repeatedly and over time explained to him. That he is unwilling to take on board criticism of his methods and conform to community norms regarding copyright indicates to me he is not competent to judge copyright issues or add material to the project.

      Since the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to document knowledge without infringing on copyright we take an extremely cautious line on the use of non-free materials so as not to put the project's reputation at risk or open it to legal action. Based on RAN's unwillingness to address the community's concern with his work and his obstinate refusal to even recognize there is a problem I support not only the deletion of his articles, which were created at the very least in violation of the spirit of his ban if not in fact, I also support an indef ban block from Wikipedia until such time as he is willing to recognize and fix the community's concern with his work. JbhTalk 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Although I am the editor who brought up the "nuclear option" in the first place, I would actually much prefer that RAN acknowledge his errors and pledge himself to help undo them before we go there. As I said below, I think that his skills make him potentially a net positive, and I'd like to see him make some effort to make that happen, perhaps working with a mentor, before we go nuclear. So I look forward to seeing some indication from RAN as this discussion continues that he understands what went wrong and will help ameliorate the problem. So... I'm going to continue to monitor his comments, and will decide about this proposal based on that. BMK (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that RAN's user subpages were permitted under the creation ban (see the Talk page) in order to demonstrate that he can create content without violating WP's terms. So talk that these articles' very existence violates the spirit of his ban is out of place, but I'll notice that so long as they stayed in his user space, nobody seems to have paid them any attention regarding copyright issues. Whether the request to move the one article to "fix" someone else's copy/paste to main space was a violation is another question. Choor monster (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a long talk page! Is there a particular place where it's specifically stated that creation of articles in his userspace is permitted, or are you going on the fact that almost all the participants in the various discussions assumed that was the case? Because what's interesting is that the topic ban seen on ARBRAN doesn't go into details, it simply says that the community ban is endorsed and taken over by ArbCo,, and the wording of the community ban is as I posted it above, that RAN was prohibited from "creating articles" and "moving pages", without any specification of where that article creation was prohibited. It may be that having been accepted by so many people for so long, it's too late to retroactively enforce the actual wording of the topic ban, and not people's understanding of it, but unless you can point to something on the user page that I missed (which is quite possible, I couldn't read the entire thing), I don't think there's anything there that proactively says it's OK for him to do that, it's just assumed by all and sundry.
      In any event, RAN himself says in one of those discussions that the creation of those articles was designed to show that he could create non-copyvio articles, but here we are again with the same kind of NFCC-violating quotes he got in trouble with before.
      The other interesting thing about the talk page is that, fairly recently, ArbCom rejected RAN's bid to have his restrictions amended, based on an examination of his work to that point, a sign that -- at least in their opinion -- RAN is still not editing up to NFCC standards. BMK (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sadly. Whether creating articles in user space is permitted or not seems at least plausibly a grey area; whether those articles are permitted to contain copyright violations is most definitely not. I've got a lot of sympathy for giving an editor another go and giving him a chance to demonstrate that he's understood the problems and is ready to remedy them; that chance has been offered, at great length, and the demonstration has categorically not been made. My only amendment would be that the standard offer should still be open; if he can convince someone that he's actually understood the problems and is ready to change, then he should be given another chance. Until that time, the editing privilege should be forfeit. "But there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing," in the face of overwhelming consensus that there is something wrong with it, is not a viable attitude for editing. GoldenRing (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support too many ban-evading and copyvio concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still waiting to hear from RAN, who was all over this discussion earlier, accusing critics of manufacturing outrage and making cracks about poop and proctology, but who seems to have disappeared now, when it comes time to provide some kind of pledge of cleaning up his act. BMK (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? He hasnt actually contributed to cleaning up his past problems in any significant manner. He has repeatedly over YEARS and multiple venues shown that he has no regard for others, wikipedia policy, community consensus or the restrictions placed on him by arbcom (who erred in not making him work solely on his own mess in the first place). I am not suggesting we nuke his userspace out of any punishment for him, I am suggesting we do it because no other editor should have to put up with his crap and vet it all to check its ok. Are you going to do it? Should we ask a specialist like Moon to have a look? Why would we wish that on someone else. There are likely loads of copyvios there *now* that will not have been looked at, because RAN thinks what he is doing is ok. Look at his responses to you above, he is a fanatic, he doesnt care about any other opinion or interpretation than his own. You want him to make some sort of commitment to being a better editor, but time and experience has shown whatever he says, whatever restrictions he is under, he will do what he wants regardless. Why are we wasting everyone's time? Given that he *will* continue the same pattern, any action we fail to take now is only making more problems in the future for other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other problems

    The articles Stuyvesant Polyclinic and Eccentric dance began in RAN's User space. Choor monster (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I wish I had seen this thread earlier although I see it is not all that old. I see some black-and-white statements to describe a situation which in some cases is not that clear-cut. I am very sympathetic to BMKs frustration, but I wish they had not made the strong statement that RAN has never helped clean up some of the copyright issues. I may be one of the few editors who can say I have worked with RAN to resolve some articles. That said, my involvement ended because we could not reach a resolution of the use of the quote feature in references. It is not quite fair to suggest that RAN is deliberately disregarding copyright rules. I think he accepts that we cannot violate copyright but he believes his use of the quote feature is in compliance with the rules. I fully get that we have tried multiple times to explain that we do not agree with his position, but there is a distinction between a difference of opinion about the application of a role, and a blatant disregard for rules.

    I tried, very hard, to resolve the quote in reference issue. I don't have the links handy but I can find them if someone thinks they are relevant.

    I think it would be an unrealistic expectation that he do know content related work until all copyvio issues are resolved. However it might be reasonable to propose some compromise, for example, some percentage of edits over some period of time have to be devoted to resolving open copyright issues.

    I will volunteer to spend some time working with RAN to resolve some of the open issues. We will have to identify items other than the quote within reference articles, but I'm sure there are many such examples. I think we will still have to resolve the quote within reference issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My prior attempts to solve the quote in reference issue are here:
    Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_32#Use_of_quote_parameter_in_footnote_-_a_proposal_to_provide_better_guidance--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am incorrect that RAN has never helped to clean up his copyright violations, then I withdraw the statement and apologize for it, but it cannot be denied that his involvement has been minimal at best, and that he now consistently rejects suggestions that he continue that work with the "10 years" canard. As for "content work", the AN/I discussions specifically shied away from saying the RAN couldn't do content work, so he is free to add content to existing articles, even to expand sub-stubs to full-blown articles, what he is not allowed to do is to create articles which has been his primary focus for quite a while, albeit in his userspace and not in mainspace. BMK (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the impression that RAN simply does not understand this Internet thingie. Many of the examples I've seen probably pass US Fair Use, and he believes that ends the discussion, when of course, the only rules that matter are WMF policies/guidelines, which are much more stringent. That, and his employment of an endless succession of time-wasting Wookie defenses (look, over there, somewhere there's a issue in which WMF took an expansive view of public domain!) is simply a complete failure of competence. Choor monster (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the RAN is an excellent researcher, that he comes up with information that many other editors would never find. His skills as a writer aren't quite as good, but still much more than acceptable, and his ability to nose out subjects that haven't been covered by the encyclopedia is very good indeed. Where he fails is, I think, in judgment, as exemplified by his sticking like glue to his misinterpretation or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, and by the choice of which of those subjects he finds to write about. With some frequency the notability of the subject is fairly borderline, but, just as with the use of the quote parameter, once RAN has decided to do something, he digs in and resists all attempts to change his course. That is unfortunate, as such a modus vivendi for a person in his delicate position (3 topic bans and a strong admonishment from ArbCom) needs to be more flexible and to understand the rules he is supposed to live by, becauise failure to do so would seem to inevitably lead to an indef block or even a site ban. That would, I think, be a shame, because he has the potential to be a net positive if he would only be more reasonable, give up the idea that his judgment on these matters is infallible, and listen to what other editors are telling him. Despite his statement above, I don't want to see hoim kicked off the site, I just want him to be able to improve the encyclopedia and at the same time follow policy and his restrictions. BMK (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping edit warrer

    Originally I was going to take this to WP:ANEW (and it's too minor an issue for WP:RfPP), but when this user hopped IPs, I figured ANI was probably the best place for it... Anyway, 2.120.157.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring at Streetcars in North America (see article history) to include content that is too trivial for an overview-level article like that, and has been reverted by both myself and Anmccaff several times. I was hoping my recent reversion was the last of this, but now 86.139.221.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made the exact same edit (diff), so it's clear by WP:QUACK that we've got an IP jumper here. I'm asking for a short (c.48 hour) block on both IPs. And, yes, I have notified both IPs of this ANI action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ParamountLogoMaker

    User indeffed by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Creating nonsensical articles about made up films and songs, and editing pages just to add nonsensical things with no source. Clearly NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked; clean-up complete. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    INDEF'D
    NLT blocked by MaxSem NE Ent 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This edit includes "I am having our legal department and lawyers contact you guys regarding the creation and deletion of this page" - have suggest poster reads WP:NLT - Arjayay (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Block request for 140.200.7.58

    IP blocked for six months by HJ Mitchell. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    140.200.7.58 has been warned multiple times but has not seemed to stop, the ip address was blocked before for 72 hours a few years ago, and has received countless warnings. TheJack15 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:ThorLives and the Heathenry (new religious movement) page

    In the almost ten years that I've been active here at Wikipedia I've never suggested that any editor be banned or blocked, but unfortunately I’ve come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in the case of User:ThorLives in order to prevent continuing disruption to the Heathenry (new religious movement) page. A self-described "Odinist" – and thus a practitioner of the religion that this article is about, a possible Conflict of Interest of sorts – it is clear from ThorLives' contribution list that this is one of very few articles that they actually edit, and that they have been active on it since opening their account in October 2011 (and thus they've had four years with which to familiarise themselves with policy). Thus, I do believe that their intentions are good, even if their behaviour of late has repeatedly and seriously violated a number of Wikipedia policies, including those on disruptive editing, edit warring, Wikipedia:no personal attacks, and "outing", with no sign that they intend to stop.

    The article in question was formerly titled "Germanic neopaganism", but in August 2015 a Requested Move resulted in the group decision that the page would be renamed "Heathenry (new religious movement)". Several hours after User:Sovereign Sentinel had orchestrated the move on 2 September 2015, ThorLives (clearly unhappy with this decision) created a fork redirect back to "Germanic neopaganism". Within the hour I had realised what they had done and undid their edit, thus restoring the page to "Heathenry (new religious movement)", pointing them to the recent Requested Move discussion in my edit summary. Unfortunately, they ignored that and simply restored their fork redirect. Only after being warned about their actions by both User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Sovereign Sentinel on the article Talk Page did they then undo their edit. This reflects not only an initial refusal to accept group decisions and a willingness to unilaterally act against them, but also shows that they are prepared to wilfully engage in edit warring.

    The very next day, on 3 September 2015, they then proceeded to engage in a range of edits that removed much academically-referenced material and introduced content that was in part poorly sourced, in part not sourced at all. This was always going to be controversial. On 4 September I undid these edits, seeking to bring about the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. However, ThorLives then engaged in edit warring by restoring their edits. Also acknowledging the problematic nature of ThorLives’ content, User:Bloodofox then restored things to how they were, but ThorLives simply undid that too. On 6 September I once again restored the article to the established revision, but fearing that the edit warring would continue and that I myself might be accused of violating the three-revert rule, I successfully requested a three day full protection for the article, which was kindly administered by User:NeilN.

    During this edit war, on the talk page I repeatedly requested that ThorLives engage in dialogue so that their proposed changes, which were both sweeping and controversial, could be discussed with other editors first. They ignored my requests, and in their response instead broke Civility policy by attempting to expose my identity, which is an attempt at "outing" and thus in very clear violation of our Harassment policy, which states very plainly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Since then, they have posted some rather odd comments on my talk page trying to "out" me further by linking me to a different user (and wrongly, as it happens) and making pretty uncomfortable accusations regarding my gender, and then most recently they've done it again on the talk page, this time making a personal attack by libelously accusing me of sock puppetry.

    All in all, ThorLives has exhibited a pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring, and outing with no sign that they admit their errors and intend to cease. Attempts have been made to engage in constructive dialogue with them on the article talk page, all of which have proved fruitless. This has all been highly detrimental to the quality and stability of the article in question, and frankly has been unpleasant for me, and it has led me to the unfortunate conclusion (which I most certainly do not take lightly) that a block and/or ban (temporary or otherwise) on this user's ability to edit is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am completely uninvolved with this other than carrying out the requested move, and therefore I am abstaining from this discussion. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From ThorLives — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I suspected a "sock puppet." Midnightblueowl and Bhlegkorbh made the same edits and same arguments and disrupted the page in the same ways. If you check my edits, I was not deleting material: I was restoring material he deleted.[reply]

    Both editors insisted that "heathenry" is the ONLY term for Germanic neopaganism. Folkish types do not like "pagan" because it has Latin and French roots.

    Both editors deleted academic references dealing with medieval Norse Paganism. For example, who could object to the following, but both constant;y deleted it:

    Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: “But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another.” Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

    Both editors deleted saga, Prose Edda, and Poetic Edda references.n

    Both editors deleted links and references to mainline pagan groups. This is the lede before the two removed it:

    Heathenry or Germanic neopaganism,[1] also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Wotanism, Theodism, and other names, is the contemporary revival of historical polytheistic Germanic paganism.[2] Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddesses of the North, the focus of Germanic neopagans varies considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), Jungian, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

    Much of Germanic Neopaganism's origins are in 19th century romanticism, as the aboriginal cultures of Northern Europe came to be glorified. In the early 20th century, organised groups emerged in Germany and Austria. In the 1970s, new Germanic Neopagan organisations grew up in Europe and North America, although a broad division in the movement emerged between the folkish movement, who saw it as the indigenous religion of the Nordic peoples, and the universalist movement, who opposed strictly racialist interpretations. As present, established Germanic Pagan communities exist in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. A few adherents can even be found in South Africa.

    References to the Odinist Fellowship, Odinic Rite, Ásatrú Alliance, Asatru Folk Assembly, and so forth were constantly deleted by both editors.

    Both editors constantly deleted references to Valhalla, a curious "conceit" on a page about Germanic paganism. (It makes sense, however, in a certain context. One small American group, who always uses the name Heathen exclusively, denies that Valhalla exists, and they argue that the dead continue to live in the grave mound)

    Both editors deleted all references to modern Norse pagan leaders and their books, people such as Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, and so forth.

    I could continue, but you understand the point.

    I should add that, in my opinion, an article on Germanic Neopaganism should be comprehensive, and should not promote a single agenda. It also should contain numerous links and discussions to help readers find related articles. --ThorLives (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. --Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged not apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. I had good reason to delete the poorly referenced, in some some cases not referenced, often sectarian, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they deleted). As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account. Their claim wrests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved. However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so I guess that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dexbot

    Someone needs to mass undo the edits by Dexbot. Dexbot has wrongly been removing all references to cite doi even though there was no consensus to do so. see the new RFC that shows that people like having all references stored in subpages so that the articles are cleaner. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    see how Milky Way was ruined here. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One can easily include references in articles cleanly using {{reflist}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It still adds to the text size. The point is to have it all hidden away so that people can edit a clean article without all that nonsense. That's what the new RFC at Template talk:cite doi is about. People should learn how to use templates. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Point is, the bot needs to be reversed. There was no consensus to implement it, just a consensus to deprecate its use. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved to run at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 4, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 47#Replace "cite pmid" with "cite journal", among other places. If there's a problem, discuss it elsewhere, the bot is not malfunctioning or operating outside approval. Mdann52 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, just found Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? too. Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, this is not the first time Bots (or editors using automated tools) have used an RFC's consensus to depreciate use as a justification for making mass-changes. Which isnt what the RFC's were about. To run a bot or make mass-automated changes there should be an RFC specifically about that. The local discussion at project medecine to use cite journal instead of cite pmid should not be taken as justifcation for replacing cite templates site-wide on non-medical articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: I will note the RFC states "however, the bot function should remain, with a BRFA raised to change its function to use cite journal within articles without separate subpages", so this does appear to be in line with the most recent closed RfC on this. Mdann52 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that @Mdann52: as changing the function of the existing bot (that was adding the template to be depreciated) so instead of one template it used another. Not changing its function so it replaced already existing uses of the template (which the next sentence appears to be in line with) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Legal Threat - 85.76.177.14

    Blocked for 1 month for WP:NLT and WP:NPA. Mkdwtalk 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See this diff - I received this message the other day, but I failed to read the second paragraph (I was tired). I didn't realize until now what it said. The user used the term "was", but I should report this possible threat here nonetheless. The user has been notified of this ANI report. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That threat is a little confusing; which other IP is s/he referring to? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a legal threat, and the IP should be warned if not blocked. As to other IP, the one against whom the legal threat is being made, presumably it could be discerned from the article history. But who the target is doesn't matter: A legal threat is a legal threat, and cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP blocked for 1 month for making a nondescript, but nonetheless, legal threats against other editors. I had considered a warning but after reviewing their deleted contribution at User:Simonekpa, it is clear this individual is WP:NOTHERE and only here to disrupt and vandalize this project. Mkdwtalk 22:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor repeatedly recreating article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Hinzie Kersten

    user blocked and article has been salted (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:MrMojoRisin71 created Herbert Hinzie Kersten which was deleted through the above AfD by User:JohnCD. They then created Herbert H. Kersten[119] the next day. User:Mufka deleted that version as a G4 recreation. Today Herbert Hinzie Kersten was recreated ignoring my warning on their talk page 31st August. Doug Weller (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DAY6; Suspicious article behavior

    Handled at SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm back after 2 months. :P

    But anyways, I've found some vandalism on this article, DAY6, and then more weird edits such as "OPPA STOP EDITING YOUR OWN WIKIPEDIA", "Chicken Little 2.0", and "Totally doesn't edit his own Wikipedia" began filling the article. I then discovered that several new (and blank) accounts and IPs have been messing with the article starting here. Many of the accounts were recently created.

    Blank accounts that have edited it in the past 2 hours;

    IPs that have edited it in the past 2 hours;

    (I might have missed some, there is an alarming number of IPs)

    Is there some SPA sock puppetry going on? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I know you're aware, but others please note that I've requested, and NeilN has actioned, semi-protection on the page for two days. Let's see if things cool off after that. I see you've also filed this. I'm not sure there's much more ANI can help with? GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice job on the SPI, by the way. I thought about it, but didn't have time to do a good job at the time. GoldenRing (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued victim playing and WP:ICANTHEARYOU by User:Mhhossein

    Over several days, Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in disruptive victim playing and refusal to get the point in Talk:Nuclear weapon#RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views. He requested that I open a report here, so as to settle the issue.[120] The user was also asked by VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop the behavior.[121] I previously had requested intervention against his refusal to respect WP:BURDEN here.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While there has been tension elsewhere between the two editors, I don't really see what the problem is. The RfC was closed by Anders Feder with everyone's agreement (as far as I can see). (Technically, the initiator of the RfC should not close it, but since everyone agreed, it is ok here, WP:IAR). It was reopened due to a misunderstanding: it was closed while Mhhossein was writing his comment simultaneously (explanation here). The rest is some back-and-forth over politeness, but since everyone agrees over the content, so I do not see what is to be achieved by fighting over this. My suggestion is to simply accept that it was a misunderstanding and bury the hatchet here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by Mhhossein: First of all I really don't know the reason why Anders Feder wishes to increase the tensions by opening unnecessary topics here. However, he made the opportunity for me to have some explanations on this and I was not really willing to take him here in spite of his background.
      • Nuclear Weapon talk page: I opened a topic on the "Islamic views" on nuclear weapon, and for the beginning I wrote a summary of Khamenei's fatwa regarding nuclear weapons, considering that the section will develop later by other users and other viewpoints will be added from other scholars other than khamaneie. Unfortunately, Anders Feder apparently assumed my bad faith and opened a misleading RFC. In fact, he asked "Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"? while he could easily write: "Should the article include a section on "Islamic view" and should the section include khamenei's view?. The way he opened the RFC made almost every one think that a section is going to be devoted to Khamenei (read the comments) while it was not the fact . Anyway, almost every one agreed on having a section on "Islamic views" or "religious views", and Feder acted in a manner as if there's no consensus. He got angry and had some impolite comments and I asked him to be cool. He said that the section has the due problem and I answered (my previous comment) if there was a due problem why he had opened a RFC for inclusion? As Kingsindian said, I explained how I was writing my comment simultaneously when the RFC was being closed.
      • Warning by VQuakr: He made a strange warning on my talk page and I answered why the warning really did not apply there.
    • Mhhossein (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing "strange" at all about VQuakr's message to you. It was completely warranted and evidence that the on-going disruption is being caused by you and no one else, and is not, as Kingsindian erroneously and counter-productively characterizes it, "tension between editors". The sole source of disruption is you, and it will continue across Wikipedia until admin action is taken against you, as I correctly predicted in the previous ANI.
    Your other claims are obviously false as anyone can see from the talk page.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His message was just strange to my eyes and it simply could have been not strange to yours! As it seems you believe that all what I said was wrong while all what you say is right. If you are sure that I'm the sole source of the problems, be cool because the admins know what to do by theme selves and don't need us to tell them what to do. Mhhossein (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to pretend that you are cool, no one has required you to respond. Admins often do not know what to do with tendentious editors like you until they become aware of the amount of disruption you are causing. That is the whole point of ANI.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Comment by Mhhossein: Pinging @Sa.vakilian: as I had consulted him regarding personal attacks by Andres Feder. More about Andres Feder:
      • Andres Feder hounding me: On some pages, he appears just after I edit them. He even does the same on the talk pages. His edit in Nuclear weapons is an example. Assuming his good faith, he is trying to enhance the encyclopedia, but how can one call these edits anything but harassment ([122]-[123]-[124]?) and I had asked him to stop hounding me two times (one time on his talk page (which was removed by him) and one time on an article talk page where he had hounded me).
      • Andres personal attack over several months: There's a long list of personal attacks by Andres Feder:
    1- here, this editor, Andres Feder, insisted on insulting religion by repeating the phrase "degenerate religious thinking", and here by referring to “all religious fiction” and saying that "all religious texts are fictional", even when I told him that Wikipedia does not care what our beliefs are. He further insulted me by saying, "You can believe in whatever figments of imagination you want!", after which I warned him and asked him to respect the beliefs of others.
    2- He always pretends that I am upset because of the policies, but I try to respect the policies and his behavior has irritated me.
    -Me: "This is the last time you are insulting my beliefs, I respect yours so please respect mine."[125]
    - Editor: "If these policies cause you offence, you are free to set up your own wiki and use any sources you want there". [126]
    -Me: "Of course We are not talking about the policies. The policies are highly required for maintaining an encyclopedia. This is you who causes offense to one's beliefs."
    [127]
    3- The editor tries to use insulting sentences and examples even when we are discussing something else. When I asked "Lightbreather" to guide me on this, Feder came in and said " Not to support the Iranian dictatorship or any other church-state".[128]
    Or here he used this example which is in fact an insult to Khomeini:
    "According to Ayatollah Khomeini, God likes sick-minded and deranged forms of punishment"[129]
    4-I tried to solve the problem through his talk page, but he made more attacks and removed exchanges [130]
    There he said, "you expect me to respect someone who everyone knows was a deranged madman?" (referring to the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini).
    5- He was given another request to be polite, but he removed that message, too:
    [131]
    6- Some other insults are here: [132]-[133]-[134]. Mhhossein (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When bad-faith editors fill Wikipedia with Iranian state propaganda, good-faith editors will naturally show up to remove it. If that is what you think "hounding" is, then "hounding" is completely fundamental to the way Wikipedia works: contrary to what you believe, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your favorite totalitarian regimes. (And please point me to the policy that prohibits "insulting" "Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini". Maybe you are confusing the policies that apply on Wikipedia with the anti-democratic authoritarian laws that apply in your own country, according to which so-called insults against the "Supreme Leader" is punishable with nothing less barbaric than death?)--Anders Feder (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unresponsive editor

    Blocked for 1 month. Extended comment below. Mkdwtalk 21:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kristijh (talk · contribs) has been around for several years and I've left several messages for them during this period. There has been some disruptive activity on their part, including vandalism and page moves that use nonstandard naming conventions, but the most disruptive part of the person's behavior is the lack of communication. There are very few edits that include an edit summary, and talk page posts by other editors usually get removed by Kristijh after a short while, with no reply [135] [136].

    Several years ago, I approached the person on their talk page [137] with several complaints including not using the edit summary and vandalism [138] [139]. This user has been blocked once for vandalism and once for edit warring. [140] Here is a revealing look at some transactions on their talk page: [141] [142]

    I'm posting here today because there's been another page move fiasco. All page moves, like their other edits, do not include edit summaries. One earlier botched move was because of a nonstandard naming convention [143]. Today, there was another [144] and that is why I left a rather frustrated series of notes on their talk page. In WP Earthquakes, we name events with the year and the location (we never include the day in the title).

    Lack of communication is fairly major, but the vandalism and other aspects that include lack of competence are why I'm bringing this here. I've notified the editor, and would be interested to hear what they have to say, but I'd also be shocked if they spoke up. The newest page move [145] and article creation [146] will need to be rectified. I moved the one article back (24 September 2013 Pakistan earthquake) twice before giving up and coming here. Dawnseeker2000 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for helping out with today's botched page move, Fuhghettaboutit. Dawnseeker2000 17:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dawnseeker2000: You're welcome. By the way, we might consider merging the recently created article into the other (where the 9/28/13 earthquake is already mentioned), and redirecting it. Thereupon maybe the article should be moved, but to the plural title 2013 Pakistan earthquakes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger that. See my move request that includes the name and merge proposals. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 18:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. Will comment there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked this editor for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing following two subsequent blocks. In the past 3 years, they've never engaged in a discussion on their user talk page other than to remove warnings and block notices. They have also never engaged in any talk page discussions other than performing technical moves. Their deleted contributions log shows a troubling series of articles they've created that have been deleted that spans a number of years. At this time, it would be my recommendation that if they persist in a series of inappropriate unblock attempts (a previous problem where their talk page access was revoked) or return to disruptive editing following the end of their block, and indefinite block under WP:NOTHERE may be required. Mkdwtalk 21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Anniepoo's tendentious edit warring and defamatory false accusations

    Article protected for a week (without the original name in), Anniepoo final warned about using inaccurate and unpleasant accusatory language towards those she disagrees with. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On Rose Venkatesan, I re added her birth name being mentioned in a sourced interview. Anniepoo removed it citing MOS:IDENTITY. I re added this and explained why. Anniepoo reverted again, but then came to my talk page and accused me of being "pro-rape". Please can somebody deal with this, I support the rights of everyone and I just want to be left alone, rather than having defamatory accusations made against me.

    Oh God she's trying to rally everyone in Wikiproject LGBT studies against me oh God please help. Rubbish computer 16:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The underlying content dispute appears to have rationale points to be raised on both sides. The issue here is behavioral and there's been some poor decisions on both sides. The best result is for civil discussion to take place on the article's talk page (where everyone should avoid mentioning the name itself), with no more edits to the article to add the name until some consensus can be found. Rubbish: I think it would have been prudent to go to the talk page before reverting a second time (with no edit summary) – especially given the stance (even if you think it's invalid) that this is a BLP outing issue. Anniepoo: you could not have possibly been unaware that using the section header title "Pro-Rape Names" would be an intensely escalating, accusatory act, and I can't see how you could rationally come to the conclusion that RC's stance that including a name the subject acknowledged was their own was a 'pro-rape' edit, regardless of whether you're correct that it should not be included.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fuhghettaboutit: I left a message on her talk page, first time. Rubbish computer 17:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fuhghettaboutit: Are you not going to do anything about it? Rubbish computer 17:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c with close of thread) @Rubbish computer: I'm not quite sure what you mean. I left my take above, essentially asking for de-escalation and discussion. If you mean am I going to take some action with respect to Anniepoo right now, no – that's what this thread is for discussion of by not just me. By the way, I've informed Anniepoo of this discussion using {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=section title}}. In the future, please inform any editor you bring here with something similar. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP user keeps on adding contributor and developer names in the mainspace

    Page semi-protected for 72 hours. Report IP to WP:AIV once appropriately warned if pattern persists. Mkdwtalk 21:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, I really need an admin attention in this article because this IP user 115.241.228.20 keeps on adding the contributor and developer names in the external links of the article. Here is an [edit]. I undid these edits but the user keeps adding them back again. I did notified the user telling him/her not to do it but s/he ignores my message. I really don't know what to do in this case. Please resolve this. Thanks Ayub407talk 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the page for 72 hours. The IP has only been warned twice. If they persist and they've received the appropriate number of warnings, I suggest reporting them to WP:AIV. Mkdwtalk 21:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've removed 95% of the article, because it was a straight copy of this webpage. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Slanderous accusations by user Lute88

    On 29 August 2015, I read the sentence "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin” in the ‘Murder, investigation and trial’ section of the article Anna Politkovskaya. I felt that the implied connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin’s birthday was an innuendo bordering on libel and thus had no place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I deleted it. It was immediately reinstated by user Lute88. I deleted it again with an explanation, but it was again reinstated by Lute88 without explanation. After this went on for some time, I brought the matter to the talk page of the article in the section ‘Putin's Birthday & the lead’. There, I found the support of an admin,Drmies. There ensued a heated discussion with another editor,My very best wishes, later joined by Lute88. Drmies explained why the mention of Putin’s birthday was inappropriate and said she was going to delete it. She did so and was immediately reverted by Lute88. After that, Lute88 made a post where he asked why he "was smelling something" and provided a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. Drmies remarked that this was not funny and I asked her to convince him to stop because I would hate to take the matter further. He replied with this new post: "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…"

    I asked him to take his words back, but he made no response. That decided me to bring the matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Although I agree that, absent some strong evidence of a connection, the death should not be linked to Putin's birthday, this is essentially a content dispute and should be dealt with on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK I may be wrong but I believe that Againstdisinformation is here to for Lute88 to "take back" the comment 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant' - it seems the content dispute has been sorted. Flat Out (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see that, but Antidisinformation threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning, which is now getting pretty darn close to violating WP:NLT, so he's not really in a position to demand anything from anybody. BMK (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Againstdisinformation there is no possibility of slander when no-one knows who you are. Both you and Lute88 have been edit warring and this is no way to solve a simple content dispute. The best way to resolve these kinds of disputes is to walk away and work on another article. As BMK notes above, you should read WP:NLT and I would add WP:3RR Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, Flat Out is right, the dispute has already been sorted by the felicitous intervention of Drmies. However, I cannot agree that User:Lute88 can throw any kind of insults at me, just because he does not know my identity. I cannot agree either that I violated WP:NLT because I called a spade a spade. Yes, his accusation is slanderous and I am certain of what your reaction would be if it were thrown at you. Now, you say that I "threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning". I am afraid that your reading has been cursory. I didn't say at the very beginning that I had been libelled, I just tried to make my opponent aware that, the innuendo he made about Putin would without any doubt be considered libel in a court of law, unless he had incontrovertible evidence. Therefore, I think this has no place in an encyclopedia, which must remain neutral. He can always write this in The Daily Mirror, if he so wishes. Besides, I am not asking for a sanction, I would just like him to take back his words, which, I am sorry to say, I take as an insult. In any case, it's a great comfort for me to see that you agree with me on substance. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Againstdisinformation are you saying you have been libeled? Flat Out (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The more that is said here, the more confused I become. It's becoming impossible to tell who is supposedly being libeled, slandered or whatever. Since the dispute apparently has been sorted it would be best to drop the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'm fairly confused as well. Saying that person A murdered person X on person 3's birthday is clearly not libel for the person 3 unless it's also implied that person 3 supported or sanctioned the murder. While I can't recall any examples offhand, there have definitely been cases when nutty person A have done something (whether murder or whatever) out of their "love" for person 3, where person 3 is horrified by the actions. It may be libel for person A who did the murder to give them incorrect motiviations, but while we should get these things right, I'm not sure libel is ever our biggest concern for murderers even if it's theoretically there. (Of course calling them murderers when they are not would raise more serious libel concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Spartan 003 and reference falsification

    (Lowercase sigmabot III doesn't understand "case not solved", so I'm re-reporting.)

    After receiving a 24 hour ban a month ago for OR and altering sourced content, he's returned to doing the latter. Actually, he returned to doing that about three weeks ago (see [147]), and I warned him about that (see [148]).

    Now, the following edits ([149], [150], [151]) are another instance of altering sourced content. Fortunately, I have that book, and I can confirm that what he added is not what the source says.

    This edit is another case of ref falsification/OR. Peter238 (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Manika

    The Manika (singer) article has descended into chaos. The article had become overly promotional and possibly with content by individuals close to the subject (e.g. User:ManikaOfficial, User:Manikaofficialmusic). Some of the material in the article appeared to be incorrect; other material was poorly sourced. User:AyanP did some heroic work trying to clean it up, although this got reverted and mixed up by others' good faith edits. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manika (singer) was begun: I and some other established editors have voted keep, other established editors have voted delete, and there's been lots of IP input. The article has since then become a mess: there are IP edits pushing the article towards a more promotional state. Many of the IP edits are well-meaning, I assume, but against Wikipedia policy or poorly formatted. There is some enthusiastic tagging of problems -- perhaps overly enthusiastic: see this by User:Chasewc91? There's been some straightforward vandalism: see this by User:ManikaWard, which I presume is not actually the individual concerned. The whole thing is becoming unreadable and formatting is messing up.

    It would be useful if an "adult" could step in and try to do... something? Warn actual vandals; welcome new editors while pointing them to some advice on how to edit; maybe semi-protect. Thanks in advance for any input. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    hey guyz

    I'm new 2 Wikipedia and I really need some help

    thnx

    Somebodycall911 (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=680048531"