Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Amazon Eve

I wanted to request review of the request posted at talk:Amazon Eve#Gender. I responded that we do not lock or blank discussions unless they violate Wikipedia policies; I just wanted to flag it here in case others saw strong enough BLP concerns or other reasons to honor the request. The request was made by a self-identified representative of the subject of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in these cases, it's recommend that they contact WMF directly, if it's a BLP issue. Anyone have the email address? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Smells like commercial spamming article to me. But can't be proven to be so, should remain, unless WP:Notability is not fulfilled.Arildnordby (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That article has been a problem for years. Editors with obvious conflicts have attempted to alter the article without regard for Wikipedia's policies. This latest user has several times stopped just short of making legal threats. I finally removed the article from my watchlist because it was too much trouble to manage and because there were too few other editors interested in it. Frankly, it's too bad the article wasn't deleted when it was taken to AfD. Even if she passes Wikipedia's relatively low threshold of notability, she just isn't that notable. A great resolution, in my view, if one of her supposed reps wanted to take this to WP:OTRS, would be to have the article deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is obviously upheld, under legal threats, by the company Amazing Eve. But, unfortunately, some abuse of Wikipedia will always occur, particularly by dedicated persons who happen to be clever as well.Arildnordby (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

THat is incorrect, Arildnordby. The article is not upheld under legal threats, because we do not accept legal threats made by editors against the project or volunteers at the project. And this is precisely why; legal threats are made to intimidate editors and to try to control content. That is why I have blocked JourdySilva until the legal threat is retracted. -- Atama頭 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is that the rep likes to have the article on their client, but doesn't want any of the speculation about her being transgendered (or whatever the term is), of which there is plenty on the internet if you Google her a bit. Is she notable? I think the coverage does meet GNG at least, perhaps not WP:NMODEL since most of it is general coverage as a result of her being so tall and not recognition as a model per se. The rep did contact OTRS, I offered to take a look. The article claimed she was born a man, using original research to tie the subject to a person who, using her real name, identified as transgendered in an article on Out Magazine years ago. The latest is an SPA that insists their research into birth records and such is "proof" of the transgender claims. So far there is not a single reliable source that flat out identifies the subject of the article as anything other than a woman, and so that's what the article should reflect. Anything else is speculation and goes against the core of WP:BLP. Now as to the demands by the rep that we "stop" the discussion, I will AGF on it by now since it stops short of being a legal threat - Barek's comment to them regarding what we can and cannot discuss on a talk page should hopefully be enough. Going forward, we should consider this another one of those "problem" BLPs that needs a few eyes to avoid unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims to creep back in. Maybe one day there will be a source that supports the assertions, but until then, any whiff of her being anything other than a woman should be removed unless accompanied by very robust sourcing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Then, she wasn't that clever after all, fortunately! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How to get the balance right between open discussion and avoiding violating BLP on talk pages is always tricky but if no reliable sources have been provide linking the subject of the article to the other person or the sexuality claims and they have all been based on WP:OR, I don't see any harm partially courtesy blanking the discussion once it's clear there's nothing new coming, perhaps only leaving the statements that relate to our sourcing requirements and prohibitions of OR. (I'm actually always in favour of blanking discussion of controversy stuff about a living person which is clearly not going to be added to the article if people are concerned about the discussion itself.)

Similarly any future discussions can be deleted outright in the absence of any new sourcing or otherwise relevant, per WP:BLPTALK.

JourdySilva should of course be made aware that if all discussions are partially courtesy blanked, it's more difficult for someone to know what was discussed before and therefore possibly more likely someone will raise the issue again. If this stuff is discussed widely elsewhere I question the wisdom of such blanking instead suggesting the initial discussion is left be.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I've added some IMO fairly neutral hidden comments to the places where this stuff seems to be added most (DOB, birthname and beginning of article) to try to discourage further poorly sources or unsourced additions. In the process I also removed the DOB completely since I didn't find any reliable source which mentions it, even the subject's own pages. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the diffs between the one where JourdySilva added his contact info and the one where DangerousPanda redacted that info should be redacted, but not the rest of the discussion. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm referring to courtesy blanking not revdeletion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief, people. I have gone ahead and revdel'd that entire section from the article talk page, and for a number of reasons. IMO, it's borderline oversightable, but it's been revdel'd. Admins can still see the content and the edit summaries are available to all. Firstly, personal information (phone numbers, etc) were posted. Secondly, certain people were making egregious unsourced allegations relating to the article subject. Not just allegations, but seriously damaging ones. Given this subject's career, these allegations could be seriously damaging to her career. Not only that, people in that category suffer a high risk of violence and death. While it's not our remit to deal with that issue, it certainly is when people post unsourced allegations of same. Note that GID is a recognized psychiatric disorder (your opinion may vary, but that's what the book says) which now puts us into even further BLP-vio territory. Using the flimsiest of sources, a liberal application of synthesis and a helping of original research, and you have a massive BLP issue. So yes, I've redacted it per policy after complaints were made to me via email in my capacity as an oversighter - Alison ^❤ 20:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's the right thing to do. Have the involved people been warned about BLP violations? People often forget that BLP applies to discussion pages too. We give a bit of leeway or it would be hard to have any kind of discussion there, but you can't make unsubstantiated allegations about an article subject even there. -- Atama頭 22:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Alison, I agree that this was the right thing to do. Hopefully, you can keep this page on your watchlist. The kind of behavior described is unacceptable for the reasons stated. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Persistent bullying, harassment and endless threats

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

---

This is the second time that I am having to come on here to make a complaint. The first time, I withdrew my complaint because I did the decent thing and extended an olive branch to all those involved. But despite all attempts to calm the situation down which at times even involves me applying some humor to an aggravated situation, I am CONSTANTLY living in this nightmarish place of constant ridicule, bullying, harassment and endless threats. This has been going on for a while now and while I have stood up to the bullies many a time I think I now need this issue to be looked into very hastily. The last time I tried to lodge a complaint, I received a message asking me to try and sort it out on the editors talk pages. To be honest, short of me literally asking them to meet up so that we can discuss our differences over a cup of tea, I genuinely do not know what else I can do. I even stooped so low as to diss myself in order for this to stop. I have put a liitle essay-like article on my talk page which gives an insight to the state of my mind following these bullying tactics. I have DONE EVERYTHING only to be told that I "should stop playing the victim". These antics have gone on for so long that I have become like a schizophrenic. One minute I am cracking jokes, another minute I am tearing my hair out in anguish. I only came on wikipedia as a single-editor but now I don't know if it's been worth it at all. My aim was to stay since I loved creating the article and I wanted to be a part of some more projects but now I don't know anymore! How can people be allowed to carry on with this sort of behavior? Taking the mick out of your inexperience, taking a mick at an article you worked so hard to create, taking a mick at your identity. Just plain and simply taking a mick at the fact that youre a newbie. I did not put my article up for nomination but I do have the right to defend its ccredibility as an article without getting hounded and ridiculed. My talk page is constantly being hounded. Often times they come in the name of "peace, love and help". But minutes into the conversation you realise that they have a totally different agenda. Personally, this administrator who goes by the name dangerous panda has tried to right some wrongs because it is quite obvious that he nominated the article too hastily. His interaction with me have been confusing at best and threatening at worst. At times he comes across as if he wants to put the article back on AFC but instead of putting the question to me directly, he will offer it like he's only trying to help me and that he's doing me some sort of favour. I have had personal messages asking me about my username and that I work for the person whose article I created because I'm hiding my identity. They were even assuming my identity as being a man and all this was being discussed on my talk page. The last straw that broke the camels back was when a user who has been a constant presence on my page claimed to be offering me some friendly advice. The sarcasm was beyond belief and this time in quite a stern tone I practically tried to end the communication between us and any future ones he may be planning. You see, by this time I had had as much as I could take from this guy. Prior to that I had not actually been on his talk page to read about his mission or personal ethos on Wikipedia. But after our last interaction, I decided to find out who it was who kept on harassing me. It all began to make sense because this editor who goes by the name of Friday, claims to delete all "junk". Maybe that is why he is so sure that my article is going to be deleted. Because he is some expert on junk. As if that wasn't enough, he returns to the AFD discussion page to personally attack and ridicule the article I created. My responses are all on the page. But why this has now come to a header is that I am tired of panda constantly threatening that he will block me. I challenged him to do so but he hasn't. This is simply because he has no legs to stand on. But actually going ahead to block me or threatening me still goes down in my poor estimation of him anyway. My personal experience is that he operates on an intimidating " be afraid be very afraid of me mentallity" but that worked for a while until I was informed by some good people on here not to take any form of bullying. Not even from an administrator. Bullying is bullying whoever you are and it's not nice. I want this dealt with because I fear that he may block me because he can. I am done with the threats. If he wants to block me he should go ahead and do that. But if he has no grounds then he should leave well alone. I am really tired of this. I won't even go into the Religious pun and ridicule that Friday wrote on the AFD page because I think I made my point clear. But I would not want him to contact my page EVER AGAIN and if he does I will have to see how to stop him from coming on my page to harass and ridicule me. I have not been sleeping well because my e-mail keeps alerting me of constant activities on my page. I am pensioner who does not need this and I fear if something is not done about this Wikipedia may have its first case of suicide. I have informed my family in the unlikely event that something happens to me. I have taken shots of all my pages, e-mails, AFD discussion and talk page. Practically EVERYTHING. Please let this STOP !!Cowhen1966 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anyone is going to read your wall of text. If you expect volunteer editors to take time out of their day to help you resolve a problem, respect their time and effort enough to write out a concise complaint that provides evidence in the form of diffs and specific violations—not a 1080p paragraph-less screed. N^oformation ^Talk 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to provide diff. All I can do is write articles. Does that mean that my complaint should be treated any differently?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I am not disrespecting anybody's time. I am simply reporting bullying and harassment so if no one can do anything on here please let me knowCowhen1966 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) is the wall of text an essay I also think its referring to articles? The essay also says that sometimes by reducing the text you may miss out on important facts. Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines on putting a complaint up on the administrators notice board. It might tell me exactly what to do?Cowhen1966 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

HI, Cowhen! I'm not an adminstrator or anything. I'm just nothing. But, I sympathize with your frustration, and ALSO, what you feel as a lack of ability to help other editors to see DIRECTLY what you complain about. Now, I have an offer: Place a single complaint, one after the other, on MY Talk Page; link to the page in question for each complaint! Then, together, we can formulate a criticism of what you have experienced, and that I also think should be reported. If WE two (I don't think we have any meetings from before??) might disagree on whether or not it should be reported, we discuss it on my talk page first. Ok with you?Arildnordby (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I felt saddened about how you feel about, and have been received at Wikipedia. I want to be a sympathetic and friendly face for you, because from your message, I feel you need that type of support. Don't feel any sort of obligation to list your specific complaints in some sort of objective hierarchy, just post on my Talk Page point after point. I will do my best to be a friendly, supportive voice here.Arildnordby (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cowhen1966 - You could start by saying who the editor is who you feel is bullying you. Then, the place or places where the supposed bullying is happening. Leave out your personal feelings and just provide the facts. BMK (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Having made a minuscule, wholly insufficient check, I believe that this is how the editor who made the complaint feels about, in particular, the AfD nomination of his Cecil Jay Roberts article. But, there might be lots of other instances here the editor feels have been totally bullying in tone.Arildnordby (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I, too, looked at his talk page, and the AfD, and in the course of that reading, I've seen Cowhen1966 accuse a number of editor of harrassing or bullying him -- pretty much anyone who did anything that Cowhen1966 didn't like, such as posting a warning template on his talk page, or nominating his article for deletion. Throughout the discussions that I've read, Cowhen1966 has shown a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia processes. There's nothing wrong with that, but when he's been corrected or help has been attempted, Cowhen1966 had shown an unwillingness or inability to learn, and an intransigence which, on the AfD, gets close to being tendentious and disruptive. Editors have sincerely tried to help, but have been met with "I didn't hear that" behavior.

From what I've seen, unless Cowhen1966 provides something specific, there has been no bullying or harassment, simply normal Wikipedia processes at work. BMK (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread involving Cowhen1966 [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it you haven't been on my talk page then? Read the piece I put up on there about bullying. Even then I didn't know I would end up here again. And no this isn't about the article I created. It started there then it all became dark and nasty. Mind games, insinuations, ridicule etc. you are wrong if you think this is about some beady page I created. I just believe in standing up to bullies. Something I have shied away from in the past. And yes I have explained here on this page to some detail what has transpired over the last couple of weeks. If I was to write everything, it would fill an encyclopedia. Literally.Cowhen1966 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you explain nothing. You do talk a lot about your feelings, but there are no details in this report about the person you're accusing and the specific events you are referring to. We cannot get into your skin, and cannot feel your emotions, so you must provide specific facts for the admins to make a determination on. I see none of that. You're asking for action, you must provide the evidence of the need for it. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I AGREE, BMK, that as yet, it is really difficult for us outside editors to find ourt about this, That is WHY I offer my help, and ear, to Cowhen, so that he can calmly explain in his own way to me various grievances. We really should remember that lots of technical expertise is involved being editors at Wikipedia, and some might feel that can't "break that particular code". So, that will be one of my ambitions if Cowhen chooses to talk with me, to formulate what we two will agree upon are grievances to be dealt with at ANI.Arildnordby (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope that Cowhen1966 takes advantage of your offer. BMK (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I give him personally, on my Talk Page, the benefit of the doubt, but NOT here. I am sympathetic towards him, and if I really feal that untoward behaviour towards this editor hads happened, or that an UNDUE AfD proceeds agains Cecil Jay Roberts, I'll retutn to fight. But, I won't do that, unledss Cowhen goes onto my Talk Page (me being a neutral observer), we talk together, and find what our commo ground is. I'll certainly not demand an inclusion on Wikipedia of what I regard as a NON-notable article, but there are lots of articles being at Wikipedia SOMEBODY might declare non-notable. It alkl depends, relative to MY OWN offer, how Cowhen chooses to respond to meArildnordby (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

thank you you're very kind. But I have done what Wikipedia says we should do after all attempts at reconciliation fails. If this does not achieve that goal which I hope it will, then I will simply move to the next step. I won't respond to anything with regards to the article for deletion page because I know an IMPARTiAL decision will be made. And well, if one cannot be made, then I shall cross that bridge when I get there. But for now I welcome the fact that I have reported for the second time this time in greater detail what I have been subjected to for the past couple of weeks or soCowhen1966 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The person closing the AfD will not make an independent determination of what is "right" or "wrong", because that is not their job. What they will do is determine what the consensus is of the editors who have posted comments. For this reason, at this time, the only way the AfD is going to be closed is with the deletion of the article, because you are the only one arguing for keeping it, eveyone else (including myself) has !voted "Delete". If you think there is going to be another outcome, you're fooling yourself, at least as things stand right now. BMK (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen: There is NO DEADLINE at Wikipedia!! That will ALSO, possibly, work to your advantage. If. for example, we two talk together, and I find out that either a) You have been unfairly treated or b) Your article is unfairly deleted, I am in my perfect right to demand reopening of issues. Please talk to me, I've left an explanatory message on your own Talk Page.Arildnordby (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BMKCowhen1966 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to comment on my talkpage only, but I have decided that the information below is germane to the entire thread.

It's unfortunate that every time anyone gives Cowhen a piece of advice they don't like, they refer to it as "harassment" or "bullying" (see previous ANI thread noted above). Unfortunately, asking someone to simply read the policies they agreed to and actually follow the simplest of guidelines is neither harassment nor bullying. It's also bizarre that suggesting "this article looks like it was written by the subject" is somehow an accusation that they need to defend themself against - it's not. I think I've even been accused of acting without a neutral POV ... a laughable, unprovable claim - indeed, the evidence is quite to the contrary.

The simple fact is that there are at least a half-dozen respected editors (let's remove me from that grouping for a moment) who have tried to patiently and politely guide them in the right direction, but Cowhen insists and persist that they'll do things their way, according to their interpretation...or else.

If they have "threatened suicide", this would be unfortunate - this shows that they're far too attached to this subject, and should logoff and go for a walk - nothing on the internet should pick at one's psyche in such a way as to cause that feeling. We all have the ability to control how the internet affects us: turn it off.

As to this ANI itself, I'm not sure why I was notified: my name doesn't appear here. There are no diffs nor any evidence that I have bullied or harassed anyone - and if anyone on the planet reviews either the AFD or my edits to the editor's talkpage quite the opposite will be visible.

My "informal" and wholly detached reading is this: just like thousands of other editors in the past, we have an editor who wrote a reallllllllyyyy poor article, one that doesn't even appear to meet basic standards. We all know happens hundreds of times a day. Most editors happily take constructive criticism and develop into good editors in the long run. Those who are wholly unwilling to depersonalize and charge forward making wild accusations are eventually blocked. Hell, I've written crap articles that don't exist anymore either, and defended them ... up to a point. User:Cowhen1966 has actually been treated far more gently than almost all of those most persistent editors, but doesn't respond well to polite critique. It would be a shame to see them self-destruct in this manner.

If User:Cowhen1966 had an issue with me, they were required to address me directly. I disengaged from their talkpage after spending a number of hours holding their hand and moving them forward - only to be attacked. I have remained engaged on the AFD solely because I started it, and have since found that they have turned it into a farce. They should read one or two previous AFD's to see exactly how to participate in a community discussion.

I'm not sure how much more can be given to an editor who refuses to help themself. The possible way forward for Cowhen is to get a mentor - but it will need to be one with a thick skin, because history has shown that they'll be attacked on a regular basis. DP 10:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've mentored a few editors who had problems (with mixed success, though I like to think I helped somewhat in each case) and I'm a pretty patient person but with no offense to Cowhen1966 (who seems to be acting in good faith with a sincere intent to improve the encyclopedia) I wouldn't know where to begin. They are treating every piece of advice with suspicion, and responding to a number of attempts to help with outright hostility. I don't think that this is just an issue where an editor doesn't understand Wikipedia's processes, I think this is an issue where an editor has an inability or unwillingness to assume good faith from anyone. That combative mentality will never work on this project. It's a shame but I can't see a constructive way forward for Cowhen1966. -- Atama頭 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to say I am pretty disappointed with the ANI process and in all of you. An editor comes here to complain about bullying, clearly frustrated at the lack of action by anyone and they get blocked for their trouble. If any of you looked at the users edit history and talk page you could clearly see the bullying going on and by what users they were being harassed. But clearly none of you took the time. Typical and ridiculous! 138.162.8.59 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Kumioko. It was certainly a huge failure of ANI that after a week of several editors attempting to help this person, they refused to heed advice, and based on many of the talk page discussions, easily turned on anyone who tried to lend assistance. While I see that you are starting to aim for maximum disruption with your trolling, I'm not sure this was the best case for you to try and make a WP:POINT with. Resolute 19:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a thought Resolute. Maybe if you weren't always so negative and always putting me down calling me troll every chance you get, maybe I would actually listen to you. As it is though, I have no respect for you outside your ability to write good FA articles. Your bedside manner is sorely lacking. As far as the case at hand goes, I agree the user does have some room for improvement but I also see where he was constantly getting messages over every edit. That is very frustrating and having had that happen to me I can completely see where the editor is coming from. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who trolls every conversation attempting to make it into a big disruptive circus that causes nothing to get done and nothing to get better, even the stuff he would like to see fixed. If you haven't figured it out, your actions alone have messed your situation up. Stop trolling and people will stop calling you a troll. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Block proposal

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

---

I have to agree with Atama, and therefore I propose a week's block, to be most likely followed by an indefblock if there's no improvement in Cowhen's embattled attitude. I'm putting a block on the table in particular because I've seen Cowhen argue with some triumph on the AfD of his article that he can't have been making personal attacks, because he hasn't been blocked: "If this a personal attack why haven't I been blocked? After all I have had many warmings."[2] Why haven't you been blocked, Cowhen? It's not because you haven't been making personal attacks and assuming an unacceptable amount of bad faith, because you have. The reason you haven't been blocked is because you're new, and administrators have been leaning over backwards to be nice to you and not bite, just as other experienced users have been doing. But if blocks are the only arguments that you're prepared to take on board — not explanations, not olive branches, not warnings — then I guess there's nothing else to do but block you.

Please note that the block I propose is not intended to inhibit communication between Cowhen and Arildnordby. Such communication can just as well take place on Cowhen's page as on Arild's, and might indeed have a better chance if Cowhen can focus on that page, and no longer feels obliged to post to defend himself all over various boards.

Proposed: a one-week block for personal attacks and battling.

• Support as proposer. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
• Support per my words above (the inability to AGF) and per their own words that the lack of a block is tantamount to an endorsement of their behavior. -- Atama頭 19:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support as the recipient of a number of Cowhen's attacks, and in response to his many attacks on those who sincerely tried to help him. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support I've been thinking of this for a while, both because of the clear problems they have in interacting with people, but also because of WP:competence issues, particularly since they haven't shown any sign of improving and their problems interacting make it seem unlikely there's much hope for improvement. That said, I also support only a limited block for now so the 1 week is fine. The AFD should hopefully be done by then. They may come back and try a deletion review (which I think they suggested they would do) or otherwise make a big fuss, but I hope not. I know they denied any connection to the subject but I finally decided to check the remaining image (which I asked them to put up for deletion a few hours ago), and confirmed neither Google Image search nor TinEye find it anywhere else despite apparently showing the subject in his early years. So despite my desire to WP:AGF, I do wonder. I'm hoping that Cowhen1966 will be less emotive if it's clear that the article is deleted and not coming back (as I expect from the AFD) and they will then move on to working on other things. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support a limited block to concentrate the mind. Nothing else seems to have worked. However, I very much doubt that he will continue editing here once the article is deleted. Even if it were kept, it is highly unlikely he would contribute to anything but that. From my experience, that level of desperation, aggression, and tendentious editing at an AfD is fairly typical of people who have a very close and personal connection to the article's subject. Someone should also close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Jay Roberts now. It's been running for over 7 days. Voceditenore (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I have read through the blocks of text above by Cowhen1966 and his comments on the AfD. I think as a new editor, he is a bit overwhelmed and doesn't quite see yet that it takes time and effort to understand Wikipedia policies. Some people get it more quickly than others. I notice that his editing has decreased, so he may be pausing on his own to think about what has happened. I think we should avoid block if possible, since this would be interpreted by him as bulling. Ultimately, if he continues along this path, I would favor blocking but I think we should wait a bit. I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: A block would certainly feed into Cowhen's perception of being persecuted. However, he's already seeing conspiracies behind every bush, so this would not be a new problem. I also share Voceditenore's suspicion that this editor will disappear after their article does. Friday (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the consensus here, I applied a one-week block, which should at the very least prevent additional disruption to the AFD until it's closed. This comment seems a pretty strong confirmation that they intend to continue their attacks and wild accusations unless blocked. The 'I'm a newbie' excuse doesn't really carry much weight when the problem is extreme and unprovoked personal attacks--it's not as though those are acceptable elsewhere either. Given the number of people who've attempted to reach out with kindness only to have it thrown back in their face, I don't think more of that is likely to help, but I won't discourage anyone from trying. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously I support your block but you might want to let them know on their own talk page why they were blocked, what the duration is, what they can do about it, and so on (whether by template or otherwise). Not meaning to nitpick but it's only fair. I'd have left a template myself but I think it would be less confusing if you did so, as the blocking administrator. -- Atama頭 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• A very good point. I left a message. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per I am One of Many. While Cowhen1966 has issues with comprehension and assuming good faith, I feel that a block of any length is counterproductive, and even if you disagree a week is massive overkill. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Torn If you want to block for personal attacks, go ahead. If you want to block to prevent further disruption on the AFD, go ahead. If you want to indef block, and only accept an unblock with conditions of a) strict civility parole, b) mentorship, and c) a topic ban from Mr Roberts, then I'm all in favour of that. I might even go for c) alone, if asked nicely DP 00:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Overly restrictive ambitions here I have NO opinions on justifications of currently imposed blocks herr, but I really think it is sad to see other editors rooting for indefinite blocks already. That is really premature, IMOArildnordby (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you don't understand the difference between "infinite" (forever) and "indefinite" (until the community is convinced the behaviours will not recur)? DP 00:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't see though, why one should root for even the indefinite (rather than permanent/infinite) block as a desired goal, without bothering to wait for the result of the actually imposed time-limited block.Arildnordby (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you guarantee he won't pull any of the same crap after a week is done? If not, then indef + conditions on unblock is actually the most sensible way forward to guarantee non-recurrence, and very standard DP 00:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any guarantees. He haven't even responded with any specific discussable posts yet, as per my invitation, although he has expressed genuine gratitude. I just feel that threats about indefinite blockings that some editors seem enthusiastic about issuing, isn't due- Yet.Arildnordby (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That tells me you're still confusing it with "infinite" DP 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, Seems Cowhen's been offered help & advice yet seems to ignore or doesn't understand, Perhaps a weeks block might actually help.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support after reading through the AFD (in its almighty entirety) and their talk page (what a mess). DP, Atama and Bishonen sum up the problem nicely. Seeing a new editor it's important to grant them some leeway, however seeing how many spoons have been brought in to feed Cowhen1966 it is getting to the point of "AGF isn't a suicide pact". In fact, I have nothing but respect for those who have tried repeatedly to help Cowhen1966 except it's time to cut one's losses. Blackmane (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Request to close

The OP has been blocked for a week, and their claims to having been bullied or harassed have been examined by a number of editors, who found no evidence to support them - instead, the OP has been misinterpreting warnings and attempts to help as personal attacks. There would seem to be nothing left to do here except wait to see how the editor behaves when they return from their block. BMK (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

There was a previous proposal for a six month topic ban for both User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8

Mallexikon filed a malformed Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 which included unsupported claims. See this diff and see the comment by User:Jmh649 (Doc James) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Outside view by Jmh649 .28Doc James.29.

Middle 8 endorsed an unsupported claim of skewing the facts but has since not withdrawn the claim.

Editors voiced their displeasure with the unsupported claim made by both Middle 8 and Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

User:Mallexikon and User:Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim both of you made against me at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Skewing the facts because of anti-acupuncture bias. The evidence is against both of you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed six month topic ban of User:Middle 8 and User:Mallexikon.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me. Middle 8 accused QuackGuru of IDHT-ing on misreading Middle 8's edits but the claim by Middle 8 is not supported by the evidence. I did not misread the diffs. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Re: Outside view by IRWolfie-. Middle 8, please withdraw your unsupported claim in that thread.

Middle 8 is continuing to make unsupported claims against me in another thread. Middle 8 accused me of IDHT again without supporting evidence. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Section break. Middle 8, please withdraw your repeated unsupported claims.

Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up. I explained it in my edit summary this was discussed before. But Mallexikon restored the technical details about the set-up against consensus again. There was a discussion about the details in a recent RfC. The following text was part of the RfC I started: For example, QuackGuru prefers a summary rather than keeping the technical details about the set-up of the trials. The problems with the technical details was also explained here. The problems with the excessive details was also explained here.

I recently explained again on the talk page the extreme details about the set-up is undue weight and is not typically found in other articles. The closing admin wrote "RFC sample size could be greater, but only 1 real !vote for the greater information. The lesser level of information avoids getting into WP:MEDRS violating WP:COATRACK. If the trials themselves are notable the article should be about the trials, not the acupuncture results." See Talk:German acupuncture trials#RfC: What level of detail should be included in German acupuncture trials.3F. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that those who have made the unfounded claims are not planning to withdraw them or provide evidence to back them up. Discussion with no difs continue. Probably best just to close it all and move on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:84.127.80.114 and Debian edit war

I have been recently blocked for 48 hours. I insist that I was not the one edit warring. I even reduced the amount of my changes to a minimum. I got a WP:AN3 warning to not be disruptive in the article. I only reverted the disputed changes that used non neutral language. I was not disruptive. I was blocked because I made a change to the article.

My unblock request is not answered. I see that administrators are busy but I cannot work without an answer. I am worried this will be an excuse to block me for a longer period of time if I try to make any changes to the article. My ability to bold edit and revert is virtually blocked. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not blocked - if you were, you could not have edited here DP 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you been edit-warring at Debian? Yes. Has Mthinkcpp been edit-warring? Yes, but to a much lesser degree. You were more insistent with your reverts, having reverted twice in the same day, while the reverts that Mthinkcpp had made were spaced days apart. Neither one of you violated the three revert rule (reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period) but Bbb23 made the decision to block you as being the more aggressive editor in this case. I'm not sure I would have made that decision, but I don't think it was the "wrong" decision either; I can see the logic behind it.

In either case, you can and should be blocked again if you insist on reinserting the information that was disputed through reverts and is being discussed on the article's talk page. The proper way to resolve this is to convince other editors that you are correct. If you can't do that, and can't achieve consensus, it can't be added. If you can't understand that, or refuse to accept it, and continue on this path you'll be blocked again. Just continue the discussion at the article talk page, and resolve it there. Also, look at our page on dispute resolution for advice about how to best deal with an issue where you are unable to come to an agreement with another editor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am not technically blocked. But I "should" be blocked again if I repeat my actions. Therefore another bold edit or revert will mean a new block. I do discuss. I did discuss then. Reverters do not. Atama says that content without consensus cannot be added. I reverted that content without consensus and I got blocked. If what I did is considered edit warring, why cannot these changes be made to WP:WAR?

Will my next bold edit/revert to the article mean a new block? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably. The reason why such blocks are made are to force people to handle these disputes as they're supposed to be done; through the article talk page. For reference, read bold-revert-discuss, which is the usual course of events. (Someone makes a bold edit, another person reverts it, and they settle it by discussion; you're at the discussion stage now.) -- Atama頭 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama says someone is at the discussion stage. I certainly am. Will I be blocked again if I try to reintroduce the changes more slowly? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggested dispute resolution, and linked to it for a reason. It has suggestions for how to proceed. If you feel that you are trying to facilitate discussion, but only one other person is participating, then go to the link I just provided. It suggests asking for a third opinion to weigh in. If that third opinion isn't enough to sway either side, you can try asking at the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance, or if you want to continue the discussion at the talk page, start a request for comments and try to get input from even more people. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if you can't convince others to your point of view and find that you are either alone in your opinion or you are in the minority, that you're not going to succeed. Move on and find something else to contribute to the article or another article. -- Atama頭 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute at V. S. Naipaul

There is an ongoing dispute over editorial control and overall direction at V. S. Naipaul. The primary issue is one of apparent WP:Own behavior on the part of User:Fowler&fowler. Fowler&fowler has been actively editing the page since September 2013, and the page has been tagged as under construction for over a month. While he has certainly added a lot of referenced content to the article, in the course of his edits, Fowler&fowler has removed nearly all content, including references, added by other editors.dif This removal includes the removal of all criticism of Naipaul. Fowler&fowler has been dismissive of concerns raised on the talk page (dif1dif2), and he has recently insisted that he have sole editing control of the page for a month.dif, and that discussion and debate be put off until he is finished.dif.

While Fowler&fowler has preemptively declared this a 'frivolous, indeed tendentious and disruptive, conflict resolution'dif, from my perspective, the development of the V. S. Naipaul article is being stunted by Fowler&fowler's actively discouraging other editors. I understand that placing an article under construction gives an editor some leway to make major changes, but in this instance, I believe Fowler&fowler has overstepped the purview of construction.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's reply: Since it began life in 2001 until early September 2013, the V. S. Naipaul page had remained one of the shabbiest biographies of any literature Nobel laureate on Wikipedia. On 13 September 2014, just before I began to expand it, with a view to ultimately making it a Featured Article, it had two sections and 1,000 words. The first section had gossip as is painfully obvious here and the second section, if you scroll down further, was nothing but a copy and paste from nobelprize.org, with one or two token sentences of criticism. I made a post on the talk page and proceeded to expand the article, explaining in my edit summary that I was removing some material temporarily, but that all that was relevant would be replaced in the expanded article including distilled paraphrases of the copy-and-paste quotes. In mid-October I had a family emergency—two members of my family, in quick succession, came down with serious long-term illnesses, one terminal. By early November it became obvious to me that it was becoming difficult to both attend to Wikipedia and the Real Life stresses caused by the illnesses, not to mention my other real life commmittments. I made put a Wikibreak message on my user page and my talk page. At that point the article had reached this state (there was an underconstruction tag in place, and it had been expanded to almost 2,000 words of plain text). In mid-December, I extended the Wikibreak message until mid-February. On 20 February 2014, just as I was preparing to return, an editor, user:Chisme, who had not made a single edit to the Naipaul page reverted all my edits and restored the poorly written version of 13 September 2013. Soon user:Dialectric, who himself had not made any edits to the Naipaul page in four years (and three trivial edits before), joined user:Chisme. For the rest of the story, you can read the sections:

• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#Back_now
• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#Cooling_it and
• Talk:V._S._Naipaul#A_frivolous.2C_tendentious.2C_and_now_disruptive_interruption

I frankly don't know what to say. As my user page, user:Fowler&fowler shows, I have been developing content for a long time, including FA India, the oldest country FA on Wikipedia, where I have made over 1,000 edits, and collaborated with dozens, if not hundreds, of people (my 2,845 edits on Talk:India are a testament to that! :) ). No one has ever made these allegations before, certainly not dragged me to ANI. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Since it began life in 2001 until early September 2013, the V. S. Naipaul page had remained one of the shabbiest biographies of any literature Nobel laureate on Wikipedia." That is a POV matter of opinion. The people who made the 1500+ edits to V.S. Naipaul between its inception in 2001 and 14 September 2013 when Fowler erased the work of all editors before him would disagree. Fowler keeps claiming that my objections to his re-write have no merit because I didn't edit the article before him -- that is clear evidence of a Wikipedia:Ownership of articles violation. I have never seen an editor try to reserve an article for more than a week, much less several months. He is abusing the Major Restructuring tag. And I have never seen editor so vehemently object to any change whatsoever because he believes an article belongs to him. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:DRN be a better place to put this? Epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I considered that, but the WP:Own issue I pointed out seems to me to be preventing a resolution of content issues on the article talk page, so from my perspective the issue is more one of conduct than content, and my understanding of WP:DRN is that it is for disputes where content is the sole/primary issue. Dialectric (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the current route the article is taking. If Dialectric or any other editor wants to add something more to it, they may suggest it on the talk page to avoid edit conflicts. Wikipedia has no deadlines and even better option would be if they actually turn to the article a bit later on and then probably they might not even need to make any suggestions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Who adds those galleries of images? I saw such galleries were added into Subhas Chandra Bose article too. Tito☸Dutta 10:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

F&f adds them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think all of those should be removed. What do you think? Tito☸Dutta 11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Its different. I kinda like it. But i guess sometimes it might not look good. For example, with my screen size 4 images (as in VSN) fit very well in a single horz line. But 2 images (as in SCB) create a lot of empty space. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(To TitoDutta: It might be better to carry on this discussion on the Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose page.) I have followed the advice I was given during the FAC review of my FA Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#Subahdars_of_Sira.2C_1689.E2.80.931760 (see maps there). I have been away, so I hadn't noticed earlier that someone added half a dozen outsized images of the memorial in Manipur to the Bose page. I have now removed all except one, which I have moved to the "Death" section. The rest of the Bose article has mostly 4 images in each gallery, except two sections. I was trying to get some more images for those sections when I had to go away. I am back now. If I don't find more images, I'll change them to the regular WP format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

PS (To TitoDutta) All galleries in Bose now in 4 picture format. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• But why do we need such distracting galleries? 5 galleries in an article, adding nothing and changing the look of the entire article. I'll ask Sitush Ji, whom I trust very much. Then if needed I'll open a discussion thread at SCB talk. --Tito☸Dutta 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hacker threat today

I received this beauty today:

"we the hackers of anonymous Philippines has been inform by one of our members that you and your so called friends in Wikipedia has been bullying him and prosecuting him and his articles in your web page,well in response we the hackers of Anonymous Philippines has decided to teach you guys a lesson so be ready with your deletion buttons so that you could clean the mess we will do to your beloved web page we don't stand for online bullying so be ready for war-hackers of Anonymous Philippines"

Looks like some people have nothing better to do with their lives. User indeffed. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[Update] Not sure where this came from or why, but it may be related to User:Malusia22. If anybody is familiar with this case (I am not), feel free to comment. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar threat aimed at Gogo Dodo [3]after he blocked one of the Malusia socks. "War-hackers"? I suspect it's just one person. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Some people may think they can break Wikipedia, but that is impossible. They'll learn it. Tito☸Dutta 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the thing about the internet. I can claim to be Liam Neeson with a particular set of skills, but that doesn't make it true. (Spoiler: it isn't.) Admins get some interesting threats but I have to hand it to you, Alexf, that's probably more entertaining than anything I've ever received. -- Atama頭 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I can top that, and from right here on Wikipedia. In response to my including cited negative views of the subject in a biographical article I was the subject of the following: There has been a concerted all-out effort by extreme leftist and Islamofascist individuals to attack [X] publicly in his online groups, by mass emailing, and by editing and redistributing articles about him on Wikipedia to include derogatory and false information. These repetitive daily attacks have been going on for several months with the purpose of disrupting [X]'s work and interfering with his communications with other physicists online in his groups. The reason for the attacks is to prevent any chance of an American Dark Energy program getting off the ground. Our enemies want to deploy Dark Energy weapons before we do to insure world domination. Our communist and Islamofascist enemies are also buying time in which to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US to destroy us. This is not a conspiracy theory. Interference with [X]'s defense work is a serious felony under US TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2388 § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.". Later in the same dispute I was listed as a "Judenrat" (one of the Jews who assisted concentration camp guards), a "blatant liar" and other similar epithets, and a statement that a suit had been filed with the US Attorney's office to prevent me posting such criticism. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---nuked beans go here---

Speaking of beans -- there's nothing like a hat to focus attention on a section of the wall of text known as ANI. WP:BEANS is generally something that should not be wikilinked, per beans. (Don't say "Don't stuff beans up your nose!"!!!) Beans is mostly about not making a post in the first place -- if you really think another's post is just shouldn't be there, remove the darn thing and let them know why (usually on their talk page, by email if absolutely necessary). NE Ent 11:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is all related to Malusia22 and their effort to get an article published about their gang related to their fraternity. I also got this hilarious death threat a few hours before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll should see the stuff we get at the WMF. I have a literal "pile o' crazy" that goes from your run of the mill tin-foil hattery all the way up to "seriously? you wrapped the LETTER in tin foil to protect me from the tiny little robots that live in meat and stole February? Thanks, i think." Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh, Philippe (WMF), please don't exaggerate. It was only the last two (or three) days of February that were stolen. BTW, where did they go? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh, the tiny little robots got them. You aren't paying attention, are you? :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I knew it! It was THEM that stole it! -- Alexf^(talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, it also coulda been Maggie. She's bad about misplacing things. It's only a matter of time before she loses February. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Philippe Beaudette, I know there are privacy concerns and all that, but honestly, I think there would be more sympathy and understanding of WMF if we knew the level of craziness you have to deal with. I know, reading over AN and AN/I has helped me understand both the legitimate requests and the more off-beat demands some editors and readers make of admins on Wikipedia that I had been unaware of in my editing bubble. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We are the Legion We are the Anonymous, beware of serious threat of vandalistic violence, suicide virus or shutdown death threat, mail bomb threat, etc hacking cracking phreaking passwording, for banning anyone interested in Anna Katharina Emmerick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.228 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like that (above), exactly like that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Liz, I've been thinking about that and toying with a Wikimania presentation. The problem is, for me to get the best of the stories out there, I'd have to edit them so mercilessly that we might take all the fun out of them. I'm still thinking about it, though. I've also toyed with a blog post that talks about some of what we do. I also did an office hours once and talked about our work. I'd love other ideas of how we could get some of that out there. You can take that to my talk or email me (anyone!) if you have any ideas. It's just philippe{at]wikimedia.org. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Discovery of Downs Syndome cause reattributed by 'edit-a-thon'

Involved Editors: User:Rosieredfield and User:ChristophThomas

Involved Events: Wikipedia "Edit-a-thon"

Involved Pages: Jérôme_Lejeune and Marthe_Gautier

I would like to bring to your attention the page of Jérôme_Lejeune, a french scientist who discovered that an extra chromosome on the 21st pair caused downs syndrome. Very recently a group of people linked to the Wikipedia "edit-a-thon" have gone and edited this article and added links to interviews with a Marthe_Gautier who claims she discovered this. It's very troubling that an edit-a-thon is editing wikipedia in such a way.

I note that the only evidence this was discovered by either of them is;

J. Lejeune, M. Gautier et R. Turpin « Les chromosomes humains en culture de tissus » C. R. Acad. Sciences 26 janvier 1959.

In which J. Lejeune is named as the discoverer. M Gautier has just recently come out in interviews claiming that she made the discovery, however this is unverifiable and only happened after his death. Wikipedia's policy of No Original Research should come into play here and allow the page Marthe_Gautier to be deleted or stubbed pending a re-write, and for Jérôme_Lejeune to stay in its current form, as it is rolled back to 2013 Nov 18, which is before the edit-a-thon was created.

I note that the page for Marthe_Gautier is poorly written and reeks of argument. I am worried about an incoming edit war from the people from the "Edit-a-thon"

I think someone needs to monitor these pages for misleading edits and have a talk with named editors. Also, 'edit-a-thon's' for a particular cause, for any reason, are not constructive. Especially if a cause is political in nature, i.e., women in STEM fields.

Best Regards, Luke Martinez L32007 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Marthe Gautier article - it should probably be moved to AfC until it is ready for primetime. However a dispute over credit for discovery could very well be notable - keeping in mind we need to correct the WP:NPOV issues in the article. Some of the sources compel me to think this article should be on wikipedia in some form. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Women in STEM fields" is a political cause now? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit-a-thon is political in nature? They wouldn't be doing vandalising pages to promote falsehoods if they weren't feminists, what's the problem with calling it as i see it? L32007 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've contested your proposed deletion on principle. You put a prod tag with the summary, "Added deletion request. Do not remove. Discuss on talk page." Proposed deletions must be uncontroversial, and if anyone objects at all to the page deletion then the prod is invalid. Ironically, your proposed deletion was self-defeating because you were effectively admitting that it was controversial by demanding that nobody remove the tag (which you cannot do) and asking people to discuss the deletion on the article talk page (which, again, demonstrates the controversy of the deletion). If you want a deletion discussion for that article (which I don't object to) you must take it to articles for deletion. -- Atama頭 18:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Note taken, Thanks for that, I'll look to that. The page is poorly written and has redundent titling. Also Something needs to be done about the content, if she isn't telling the truth, and the only evidence we have is her interviews, she's not notible for wikipedia. L32007 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@L32007 : "In which J. Lejeune is named as the discoverer." there is no such claim in the sources you cite - if you would have spend the time reading the source you would know that. And no - I am not anywhere near any group - if you would have had a look at my contributions you would know that too. The controversy is out in the open for a while now (since 2009) and has been in each reputable French newspaper (Le Monde, Liberation, La Croix) Of course you would have known this is if ... christophe (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying that I don't disagree with Atama at all. I only suggested move to AfC because the article is so clearly under construction currently. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The source i cite is the publication by J. Lejeune OF his discovery, now that he is deceased M. G. is coming out to newspapers and going for interviews -- that can't be a reliable source, just because it was said in a newspaper by the person who claims credit now, 50 years after the discovery does not make it true. As for your claim that you are not in such group, please see the | relevant section of the groups page. L32007 (talk)

oh sorry Lejeune's own publication ... in that case! I was referring to the original publication of the discovery. christophe (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a content dispute, not vandalism or bad faith edits and so, as Atama says, this conversation should be moved to the article talk page or, if that discussion isn't constructive, move to the dispute resolution process. It doesn't sound like there is any call here for admin action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have participated in six or seven Edit-a-thons, and they are simply gatherings where experienced editors and newer editors meet to discuss editing Wikipedia, and then do some editing. These events help in recruiting and training productive new editors. If 20 or 30 people are sitting around tables editing on laptops, it should not be surprising that some of the contributions will be excellent, and some will be . . . not so good. Don't blame the Edit-a-thon concept for some poor edits, as Randy in Boise and his legions of POV pushing clones are perfectly capable of making poor edits while all alone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

An article in the 14 February 2014 issue of Science suggests there may be something to Marthe Gautier's claims. But we can't put a conclusion about this in Wikipedia's voice until reliable sources make a finding, assuming that they ever do so. Getting witnesses to recall the details of what happened in a lab 50 years ago may be tricky. Assuming this gets widely covered, the dispute itself may be notable. You may be not be able to read the full Science article due to the paywall. Another version of the story is on a news site operated by Science, "After More Than 50 Years, a Dispute Over Down Syndrome Discovery". EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: Why is the Edit-a-thon being blamed for this? If anything, it's the editors themselves, not the event, logically. Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Levotb and slow-moving POV-pushing

Yesterday, I was doing some anti-vandalism patrolling on STiki, and I ran into the article for Al Melvin (politician), which was undergoing some vandalism at the time. It eventually was sorted out, but then I ran into Levotb (talk · contribs) and this edit. Again, it's nothing too extreme, but when I went back into their edit history, although they aren't as bad as some others, they have deliberately removed or mis-characterized information on the pages in order to fit their viewpoint. Edits such as this one (where they replaced "African American" with "black"), and this edit (where they replaced "Undocumented immigrants" with "Illegal aliens"), and this edit (where they removed all mentions of a lack of minorities in the film) show that something is up, and I was wondering if anyone thinks that they should be blocked for an obvious breach of policy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Recommend you take this to WP:NPOVN. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, as that page appears to be article issues, whereas this is for a specific user. Also, since this is vandalism in some ways, I wanted to make a note of it here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ktr - I'd suggest engaging with the user on their talkpage about the issues you see, in pretty explicit detail. They're definitely acting from a particular POV, but they have few enough edits that they may not realize that's not appropriate on Wikipedia. I'd suggest giving them pointers to stuff like WP:NPOV, or even picking a particular edit of their's out and explaining the problems you see in it while making it clear that your objection is that it fails to conform to Wikipedia policy, and not a solely ideological one. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Thanks for the suggestion! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

President of Ukraine issue

This issue regards the article President of Ukraine. Mandz orp keeps adding "disputed" in the infobox for acting president Oleksandr Turchynov. They have done this so many times I would consider it edit warring. They have tried to make their point on the talk page but have no support from other users. In fact, many users have reverted, this including myself twice, and stated their opposition. I asked the user to gain a proper consensus to add "disputed" but they don't seem to care based on their most recent edit summary. Can an admin please remove the "disputed" from the infobox and temporarily protect the article, and explain to the user they must stop edit warring and discuss it until they have a consensus? Thank you. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I thank you for protecting the page, but can you please explain why you have not removed the "disputed" claim from the infobox while there clearly is no consensus for that? Fry1989 ^eh? 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A helpful label for affixing to any articles you find locked at the Wrong Version. But you can't affix anything because it's locked.

I protected the "wrong version", obviously. I was acting to put a stop to a budding edit war without deciding that. Discussion among editors should continue and people should discuss what will happen when protection comes off. Three hours isn't very long. I'm available to look on or stay out, as people prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And I give any uninvolved admin permission to change that as Fry1989 discussed, if they think it best, or if the dispute is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you fully understand the problem. There is no consensus to add "disputed" to the infobox, not a single user supports this move by Mandz orp, but clearly this user has no intention of stopping adding "disputed" unless an admin is involved. With a complete lack of support, Mandz orp's insistence is already edit warring and vandalism, they have added "disputed" (or reverted back to Yanukovich as legitimate) to the article 8 times in the last 3 days against the will of many different users. That's why I brought this to the noticeboard in the first place. As I said on the discussion page, the issue isn't whether this user is right or wrong, it's that they have zero support. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, in fact I agree (Though not on vandalism) , but that was what was in existence when I protected and after this discussion, I don't want to edit through my own protection to change it. Anyone else want to weigh in?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed my protection. Who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to explain, as an admin, why I think what Wehwalt did was correct (and why it's necessary for administrators to protect the "wrong" version when protecting a page). An administrator should not use their tools at any article where they are involved. Being involved means taking a side in a dispute or trying to expand or "fix" an article. If an administrator changes an article, and then protects it, they are basically misusing their tools by forcing their preferred change to the article to be in place when a non-administrator can't undo it. I think it should be obvious as to why that would be a bad thing. So an administrator who protects a page will leave it in the state it was in, making no judgment as to the suitability of the content, but simply preventing others from changing it (usually to stop an edit war). The only exception is in cases where the content of the article must be changed immediately, in the case of vandalism, violations of our WP:BLP policy, or some other problem that urgently needs to be fixed. Since this is not one of those cases, Wehwalt was following proper procedure by protecting the "wrong" version until the current dispute is sorted out on the discussion page. -- Atama頭 22:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I often take a different tack, reverting back to whatever version existed before the edit war began (whether I agree with it or not), then protecting. Kind of "forcing" WP:BRD. I've found that this is slightly less likely to reward an edit warrior who's edit warring against consensus, although there are no guarantees. If someone is edit warring against a clear consensus on the talk page, I'll warn them and then block them if they continue, instead of protecting the page. But in this case, I'm not actually seeing any consensus one way or the other, it seems to be one against one. I'm concerned that the person being reported is pretty clearly an SPA, but on the other hand, this is a pretty harmless thing to have in the article until an actual consensus emerges. So, more eyeballs and more discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I can see that. But that pre-supposes that protection was the right course of action. I'm not involved in that particular issue but have seen this scenario and this use of protection several times. Surely, if the problem is one disruptive/POV editor trying to override consensus of several other editors and force through change and if the neutral application of protection results in the version preferred by that one disruptive editor, then surely protection is not the right administrative action. Other measures eg blocking the disruptive editor shoukd be taken. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My thought was that it was pretty much what Floq said, the usual suspects in a slow-burning edit war, and that such is a time to disregard the behavior because it's senseless to spend the time deciding who is in the right when the important thing is that it be worked out, perhaps with Wikiprojects notified to provide more eyes. That was my focus.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I have no place in such a discussion about methods, but I do thank everyone for their interest and most of all in removing "disputed" as it is not supported by a consensus. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If full protection is the answer, protecting the lastest wrong version is the best path per Wehwalt / Atama. However, it this case [4], it was clearly one editor 3rr-"extended" (3 reverts ~26 hours -- close enough for Wikipedia work). A block at the time of protection wouldn't have been appropriate due to no 3rr warning (since taken care of by Beyond My Ken, but posting the warning would have been the next step. NE Ent 11:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Noor Pur Baghan

• Noor Pur Baghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sajjad Altaf (talk · contribs)

Long term ownership and edit warring over the article, which Sajjad Altaf created and built largely from original research. The problem appears to have originated with the editor, and article, receiving mention in the New York Times. Rather than acknowledge the COI issues, there are accusations of bad faith directed at user Sitush. Without having observed the longer exchange between them, the appearance is that Sajjad may be inclined to this kind of editing, and believes other editors are trying to sabotage him or the project. JNW (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is an edit warring on my behalf as i do not think i broke any 3RR rule here, if any one of you administrators observe what happened today was that i opposed an article from being deleted which was proposed for deletion by Sitush. As soon as i opposed that proposal, Sitush started reverting all of my edits made recently on three pages Noor Pur Baghan, Maula Jatt and Dulla Bhatti, to me this was an act of vengeance not of a professional editor. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sajjad, edit warring is not synonymous with WP:3RR. I make many edits to many articles and you'll note that I've edited Noor Pur Baghan before today and I completely revamped Dulla Bhatti recently. I doubt anyone would dispute that the latter article is far, far better than it was before my revamp; some might quibble about the state of the former article but, hey, you cannot just write anything on Wikipedia, even if it is with the charitable intention of promoting a nondescript village somewhere (as you said on the article talk page).

Yes, I was checking your contributions but I was doing so because I vaguely recalled seeing your name before & in relation to some problematic stuff (turned out to be because of the NPB article). There is nothing wrong with checking things out, especially if there have been causes for concern, and especially given that all these items have been watchlisted and, if you examine my edits closely, you'll see that I regularly maintain items on my list even though sometimes it takes me a few days to get to them. Hey, maybe the dedicated Sitush ANI will get its first report soon.- Sitush (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as we're here, I also have a question re: this edit [5]. Do we include honorifics in article titles, based on the insistence of an article's creator? Here, too, I'm wondering about ownership and original research in a regrettably poorly sourced article. JNW (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We should not. -- SMS ^Talk 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Professor Iqbal Azeem is known as Professor Iqbal Azeem, i have never heard of referring to him as Iqbal Azeem, it's not an honorific anymore, it is part of the name as per WP:COMMONNAME. Common name is what a person referred to as most. It's like Alexander The Great, you will have to remove "The Great" from his name because it is an honorific but as per WP:COMMONNAME, you won't remove because it has become part of his name. Same way Professor has become part of his name. Iqbal Azeem could be anybody. Iqbal Azeem does not identify the person known as Professor Iqbal Azeem. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, problematic stuff you are referring to is being mentioned in NYTimes. I know it's hard to digest. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't Sitush, it's the adherence to unsourced content and original research. It's not how Wikipedia works. JNW (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand that but i still feel i am being singled out and targeted by Sitush, my vote to keep Phaphra was in good faith and it was not because Sitush proposed it for deletion. I honestly did not know that there are some well known authors whose work is not being accepted by Wikipedia. All i am saying is that the flurry of edits that he did reverting my edits after that was in response to that. It should not have been that way. He should not have made a personal vendetta. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if you're correct--and I don't think that you are--the situation would be defused immediately if you followed policy and removed the unsourced content you've added to articles. There are no editors forcing you to ignore Wikipedia guidelines, so it sounds as if you're acting against your own best interests out of stubbornness. JNW (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hosting a personal attack by another editor on a Talk page.

• Not resolved: see comments dated 28 February 2014 at end of this section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. For several weeks now, I have been followed and harassed by an IP hopper making a huge range of unsubstantiated claims about my editing. This IP hopper has now posted a personal attack about me on the Talk page of User talk:Timelezz. This personal attack includes naming me in the thread heading. I have twice asked User talk:Timelezz over the last few days to delete this entire personal attack thread, but they have refused. I would like to know if I, or another editor, can delete this thread from User talk:Timelezz. Thank you for considering this request.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Timelezz requested advice at the help desk on this issue. I don't see any action being taken on it. Personally if it were about me, i would prefer to make a single response to such comments and then leave them there. If they are indeed completely unfounded, anyone who looks will be able to see this and the poster will only harm his or her rep, such as it may be. However, you are not required to do that. Perhaps if the thread was edited to make the heading more neutral, and remove the provocative language? DES ^(talk) 01:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've advised Timelezz and others who have received similar messages to remove the personal attacks, or to explain why they feel it is appropriate to allow their talkpages to by used by a blocked user to make repeated attacks on other editors. By the way, I've blocked the latest IP sock, who has fixated on DrChrissy as an opponent, and who is treating animal rights topics and Wikipedia in general as battlegrounds. A previous episode in January led to extensive rangeblocks that took out a lot of Western Australian IPs, and I have yet to discern an agenda other than axe-grinding. I think at least six IPs and an /18 range have been blocked in this month's episode. As Drmies and others noted in January, this is well past disruptive. I removed the attack on Timelezz's page on grounds of PA, DENY, etc., but Timelezz restored it and admonished me that he could manage his own page himself, thank you, so I let it stand rather than indulge in a pointless dispute. I will note that, while editors are given more latitude over their talkpages, it's not infinite, and it's still Wikipedia's talkpage in the end. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now I've blocked another IP manifestation at CYl7EPTEMA777's talkpage,who has his own interpretation of DES's remark [6]. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - your continued attention to this is very much appreciated.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• An IP hopper has been abusing an editor for months—see here and here and here and here and here. There have been several other reports at places like WP:RSN and WP:COIN where the IP has used inflammatory headings and extravagant claims to attack editors. Timelezz apparently thinks that their talk page is available as a safe haven for the IP, however Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or liberty, and talk pages are not available to host attacks. If the IP wants to accuse an editor of something, they need to use moderate language, neutral headings, and do it on a suitable noticeboard—not article or user talk pages. One unfortunate aspect of encouraging the IP by restoring their attacks is that it means the IP will never learn how to collaborate, and so may never make useful edits. If the IP received a consistent message, they might adapt. Would an uninvolved admin please explain this to Timelezz and ensure that a reasonable outcome occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now another WA IP here, now removed [7], Drmies and I are part of DrCrissy's "gang". This one blocked too. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Acroterion, as a certified sock of me, and me being on Dr. Crissy's payroll, you are waaay too involved to be making such a block. Next time I'll take care of it. On a less serious note, I hate being given reasons to support registering as a requirement to edit. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaving DrChrissy out of it for the moment, you/we are a mighty funny-looking woman, though the Acroterion version has more hair. Acroterion (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

While the IP range is allocated to a company registered in Perth, Western Australia, it is likely that this is accurate, namely that the IP is in Sydney. However, that's not important—can we please focus attention on whether an editor has the right to restore an attack on their talk page. The IP is using User talk:Timelezz to post unfounded accusations. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the short answer to DrChrissy's question "I would like to know if I, or another editor, can delete this thread from User talk:Timelezz", yes ? DrChrissy could have deleted that comment per WP:TPO since it is a personal attack and they don't need anyone's permission. That is my understanding anyway. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what I think, but the problem is that the owner of the talk page reverted the removal of the attack (Please, don't touch MY Talk page), and left a rather strong message on the talk page of the offending editor (Moderating Talk pages). Further, by restoring an attack, Timelezz has endorsed the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's very simple: the offending posting was made in evasion of a block, so it can be removed. If Timelezz wants it restored, he can only do so by personally endorsing everything said in it. But if he does so, he will be treated as responsible for every form of abuse in it – i.e. he will be treated as if he himself was attacking and harassing the complainant. In other words, if he restores it one more time, I will block him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the resolution. As I've said before, I doubted whether this was to be considered a personal attack. I was against other users moderating my Talk page as long as I doubt it is a personal attack. I've said to respect moderator's decision. I notice that a moderator agreed that, other than requested, removal of the whole thread is unappropriate. The moderator removed some sections that s/he considered a personal attack. Of course I abide to that. I think this approach is very well in line with Wikipedia:USERTALKBLOG. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Moderator? Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Timelezz for the graceful response; I guess we can call this situation resolved then, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FPaS. It'simportant to note that Timelezz has made it clear (to me at least) that Timelezz doesn't support the IP's attacks on DrChrissy. As for CYl7EPTEMA777, their English skills make them hard to interpret, so I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Timelezz: Thanks, that's good, but please give the underlying issue some more consideration. If someone goes to your talk page and writes "User X is a liar", that is a personal attack. The norms used by the community are very easy to understand as they are all based on the need for collaboration. It's fine to use a noticeboard to say "User X has made many statements which they must have known are wrong [link to examples]", but what do you think would be the eventual outcome if it became acceptable for editors to write "X is a liar" (and other insults) on various talk pages? Johnuniq (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I can not agree that this matter is resolved. Timeleez has now posted on a separate thread of his Talk page ("Notice") a thanks to the adminstrator who redacted parts of his talk page. In his thanks, Timeleez posted "And I applaud that you only removed the sections that were refering to words as 'lie', and did not remove a reference to "an original research case", which I agree, can not be considered as a personal attack." This is clearly an open support of the unfounded accusation of OR made by the IP hopper - and is in effect, posting such accusation, as indicated in the discussion above. If Timeleez wishes to bring a case of OR against me, then do that on the appropriate page with the appropriate evidence - which will not be found. If not, I would like this comment redacted. I wonder whether by drawing specific attention to this aspect of the IP's original attack, Timeleez is in further breach of policy and perhaps inviting more punitive action.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is where the wikilawyers have got you over a barrel. The comment from the abusive IP that is still visible says:

Hello, just let you know that there is an original research case of DrChrissy on the notice board.

That wording squeaks by the requirement to not attack another editor, and the fact that the original heading used by the IP (which was an extreme attack) has been redacted makes the above "OK" in the eyes of the average WP:DGAF onlooker. Some editors regard an attack as a string of four-letter words, but the IP uses none of them. To my mind, a string of expletives is easily shrugged off as any rational onlooker will disregard it as an emotional outburst. The IP's completely unfounded but repeated accusations of "lies" and "COI OWN" are much worse as they attack the character of another editor. It is disgraceful that it has taken so long for these obvious attacks to be removed, and it is absurd that Timelezz still does not get it.

What is more concerning is that Timelezz's last comment on their talk includes the opinion that "other users [should not be] moderating my Talk page" and "DrChrissy requested me coercively". The former shows a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and the latter is an unsubstantiated (and completely incorrect) personal attack. My guess was that FPaS was overlooking that because it is good that Timelezz has climbed down a fair way, and we are hoping that in time they will work out what collaboration involves. However, I am waiting for a response from @Timelezz: to judge whether pushing for further action would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I too was worried about the expression "DrChrissy requested me coercively" made by Timeleez. Timeleez has on many occasions stated that his native language is not English, so I was willing to accept this expression as being made in good faith. However, because of his continued attacks and support of IP harassment on his Talk page, I am now not so sure. It seems to be a highly loaded expression which suggests a high degree of understanding of the English language. Amongst all this, I have no idea why Timeleez has chosen this course of action against me - I think the only slightly adverserial contact we have had is on Marius (giraffe) where I inserted a without giving an explanation because it seemed obvious to me. For some reason, Timeleez took exception to this.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq, DrChrissy did not just request me to remove the text, he added pressure to it saying "Could I suggest that for each minute you leave this thread on your talk page, you are tacitly supporting this personal attack. This will not be looked upon favourably should you or I raise a dispute." Implying consequences on inaction. Hence, I called this a coercive request. Neither have I climbed down anywhere. My position was clear from the beginning, and nothing has changed about that. Acroterion is completely correct to state that "Timelezz has made it clear (to me at least) that Timelezz doesn't support the IP's attacks on DrChrissy." Instead, it is DrChrissy who repeatedly, and still, is arguing that I am in support of the claims made by the IP hoppers. He says literally, "This is clearly an open support of the unfounded accusation". I consider this a distorted view of the events and an inability to see events in another way than black or white. He is free to be as much mistaken as he wishes to be. But please refrain from throwing words like "disgraceful" and "absurd" at me. Thank you. On that final note, I consider and will keep considering this topic as closed. Timelezz (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:K6Ka supporter

Google Alerts sent me an e-mail when they found a new search match when one Google's "k6ka". Apparently, someone created a new Wikipedia account with the username K6Ka supporter. Here's what concerns me:

1. On the user's userpage, they state: "I am here to stop vandalizim in Wikipedia with the help of my friend K6Ka. Come and support me as well. Thank you, Siddharth"

I don't have a friend named Siddharth, nor do I know someone IRL with that name. A lot of my friends do know that I have a Wikipedia account and that I fight vandalism, but I simply can't imagine them doing something like this.

2. The username has "k6ka" in it. This concerns me a lot because a lot of people would think this is my sockpuppet. I want to clarify right now that this is NOT a sockpuppet account, and that a CheckUser is welcome to check.

I will keep an eye on this suspicious user's contributions, but I'm quite positive that whoever created this account is not someone I know personally. I would ask that the owner of this account, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, to abandon this account and create a new one, or use an existing one that hopefully has a less concerning username if possible. The last thing I want is to be blocked for sockpuppetry that I didn't do. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure (would someone please clarify), but in the future I think you would just need to put a brief statement at WP:UAA saying that the account was impersonating/attacking you. Whether or not the "supporter" can make up some fantastic story is not relevant, the account just needs to be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I have a different take on this:

1. It's clearly NOT imitation - the use of their "real name" on the userpage shows that, and it shows their intentions. Any admin would typically see that, and not consider it to be your sock
2. People who may have interacted with you on articles (possibly even while editing anonymously) may often feel some form of brotherhood with you based on similar views, and think of you as a "friend"
3. I do have a minor concern that the editor may already have an account and this was created as some form of alternate account - which while techically fine, might occasionally run afoul of the WP:SOCK#LEGIT aspects

The short version is this: you have a fan. Feel blessed. Most of us don't have any fans whatsoever. ES&L 11:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The user called me a "friend", and I'm rather hesitant on who I call a "friend". I have two kinds of friends - the Internet friend, which you meet over the Internet, and a personal friend, one that you met in person. Both kinds of friends require that I know the person for an amount of time and that I have worked or interacted with him/her before. So when someone pops up out of nowhere and calls me a friend... that's where I get really uncomfortable.

It doesn't seem right that I would get a fan while other users who've been on longer than me, have more experience than me, and have more edits than me, don't. I am quite wary of this person. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Try becoming an admin ... the "friends" get more nasty :-) Et tu, Bruté comes to mind ES&L 13:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's not acceptable. K6ka, I suppose this might possibly be somebody you know IRL having a joke with you, as people can be very, uh, jocular in an open project. But it seems more likely to be a vandal you have disobliged, having a little troll with you. In any case, it needs to be stopped, if K6ka, a harmless and useful vandalism fighter, is uncomfortable enough with it that s/he comes here to ask for our help. The name "K6Ka supporter" and the comment on their userpage is pretty obvious trolling, especially if you consider that there are no other contributions than the userpage — no "vandalism fighting". I have asked them nicely (well, nicely for me) to create another account. If there's no response, I intend to delete the userpages and indeff the account. Trigger-happy Panda, there are fans and then there a stalkers. Most of us prefer to decide which people we let snuggle up to us and call us "friends", even on the internet. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Funny that I have been often accused of being "trigger happy" with the block button, and indeed I think I was referred to as a bully once. ES&L 14:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense intended, ES&L, as I've seen you do some good work, but you seem to be having some judgement concerns today. Between telling a wary editor with a possible stalker "You have a fan. Feel blessed." and your condonement of the "jailbait" user page two threads down, seems atypical of you. Have a cup of tea, some fresh bamboo, maybe a nap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but his reasoning for wanting action was because he didn't want it to be considered as one of his socks. My argument surrounded that, n'est-ce pas? And I still stick by my comments below. Hell, we had a girl we called "jailbait" as a nickname in high school because of her penchant for older guys. It's not an uncommon nickname, and I certainly believe some overly-aggressive behaviour has taken place in that thread. Yeah, 4 nights with only 5 hours sleep causes issues...but not that bad DP 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is blockable per WP:IMPERSONATOR. Note where it states, "One should not choose a username that implies a relationship with an existing editor (unless the account is actually owned or the relationship is acknowledged by the editor themselves)." Obviously in this case, not only is the relationship not acknowledged, it's disputed. And for what it's worth, I've been accused of being a wimp with my blocking tools (in one case on this very noticeboard when I refused to be another editor's "hitman" years ago). -- Atama頭 19:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've waited long enough after my note to them, I'm blocking and deleting. In the unlikely contingency that K6ka's "friend" actually wants to edit Wikipedia (they haven't so far), they can just as well create a new account. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for taking yet another thing off my mind. The worst I can imagine are my friends begging me unsuccessfully for my password, but I haven't thought of this ever occurring. Let's hope this doesn't happen again. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a similar problem again, the simplest thing is to take it to WP:UAA as recommended by Johnuniq above. For other kinds of harassment, you're most welcome back on ANI or, perhaps simpler, my page if I'm active. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

Sudhan

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

---

A couple of editors ""sitush"" and "Smsarmad" have consistently deleted everything on the above referenced article due their personal prejudices, this article has been edited by numerous editors over the years and now only has a few lines due to these editors behavior. I request that they be banned from editing Trueblood (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

  Currently, the most recent edit is by Trueblood786 (diff) and that appears to add a bunch of text sprinkled with "citation needed". There is no recent discussion on the talk page, but there is a claim from August 2012 that general sanctions apply to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat?

Resolved

 – Blocked indef

CeredigionLawCentre (talk · contribs) has made this diff to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. I can't tell if that is just a statement made by some sock or user involved in the ongoing Daft/AA block/unblock saga that seems to be consuming that page at the moment - of which I am largely ignorant - or whether it is an actual legal threat or some intention. As a member of the project, despite being very much ignorant of the Daft/AA matters, I didn't feel it appropriate to comment. Plus it's quite a light legal threat if it even is one. Thoughts? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat. It was a one-time post (probably by a sockpuppet, though without knowing who it's a sock of there's no action to take in that regard). It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it didn't reference what prompted the post, and didn't state any particular action that would be taken. It appears to be a random post, perhaps an odd trolling attempt. I also looked up "Ceredigion Law Centre" and while Ceredigion is a real place, I could find no evidence that the "Ceredigion Law Centre" is anything but fictional, so there's no need to block per WP:ORGNAME. My advice: ignore the post, and don't give anymore undue attention. -- Atama頭 17:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't seen this before I read the UAA report. Notwithstanding those issues, I blocked indef anyway, as between the name and the insinuations I don't think we need this person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to both. I realise it was a bit of a wishy-washy "threat" likely connected to a sock of Daft or someone else who is involved in this apparent saga at WT:CRIC of which I have been largely ignorant. Thanks! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to blocking, I don't see that the person was here for a constructive purpose. If nothing else, I'm sure they're a sock of someone. -- Atama頭 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

strange userpage / provocator agent?

At AIV, where I had posted this first, I was instructed to take it to ANI.
When I checked a somewhat out-of-scope-looking image over at Commons, I was taken to the userpage of Soixante Nerf (talk · contribs), which appeared immediately rather fishy to me. As I am not well-versed with :en's terms, please take a close look at the userpage of this self-proclaimed 16-year-old, who has mostly edited his/her userpage. Something seems to be very wrong there. Some of his/her edit-summaries and the links in the last line of the userpage make it rather unlikely that this is a 16-year-old. Eventually this might be a Agent provocateur, who wants to put Wikipedia in a bad light. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with this userpage, or any edits this user has made. Please assume good faith and be welcoming to new editors. I would in fact delete/remove this report. It is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Look very carefully at the links at the very bottom of the user page (and links elsewhere). The user page should be deleted and account blocked immediately. It could be an attack page on a minor, we can't take any chances.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the issue here. They've done a lot of work on their userpage, yeah. They have some interesting choices in articles to edit, yeah. Their external links in some places just come back here to Wikipedia, yeah. Their grammar, wording, and even some edit-summaries certainly fit the intellectual and age description. They're not a minor. The external links go to a subdomain of a website (lisaem) that happens to meet what the person claims to be their name. What's the problem? ES&L 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whether it matters or not, their self-proclaimed birth date does make them a minor in most places, at least in Florida where the Foundation is legally based. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with I am One of Many. Túrelio was quite correct to bring this here per Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. We have here someone (Redacted). In many US states and in US Federal law, 16 is below the age of consent. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have suppressed her page as it contained way too much personal detail for a minor. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It also had a photograph. If the girl in the image was someone else, that was potentially very serious. If it was an adult posing as a 16 year old, ditto. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The image have now been deleted at Commons, as it was out-of-scope. --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely: (1). Journalist or blogger posing as underage "jailbait" so as to shame Wikipedia. Reddit got a lot of well-deserved bad publicity not too long ago for having a "jailbait" forum, could be an attempt to make Wikipedia look similarly bad. (2). Law enforcement trying to catch pedos by posing as "jailbait" user and seeing who sends them messages or otherwise interacts with or defends them. (3). Someone creating fake accounts to bully some kid. Mean, but hey, it happens. (4). Some kid trying to shock their parents by being "jailbait" online. Basically the novel Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack for the web 2.0 era. Regardless of which possibility it is, no good can come to Wikipedia by having a "jailbait" user page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • All are possible and a misuse of a user account. I'm especially concerned about some version of (3). I am One of Many (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A side note, "soixante nerf" seems like a slight modification of the French phrase "soixante neuf" which is slang for a sexual position. This seems consistent with much of the editor's interests (see their contribution history), but provocative usernames are often associated with disruptive intentions. -- Atama頭 19:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this editor was not notified of this discussion? Is there a reason why this user page was already deleted before hearing from the editor? It seemed like there was discussion going on and the editor spent a lot of time creating her user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason why the page was deleted is outlined at WP:KID, already linked to above in this discussion. As to your other question, I don't think there is a good reason except that it was forgotten (not a good excuse, I know). I'll rectify that now. -- Atama頭 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For more background as to why user pages like this are often deleted, read the arbitration discussion here. -- Atama頭 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: I saw User:Soixante nerf early on, after seeing her edit the Erotic sexual denial article, and I discussed her user page, including the fact that her username seems to mean soixante neuf, and the existence of all the links (links that are not directly Wikipedia links...but double as Wikipedia links), with a few Wikipedia editors via email; we were all concerned, some of us more concerned than others. One of the editors I discussed the matter with brought up WP:CHILDPROTECT, but wondered if she is too old for that policy to apply to her; I assured the editor that the policy applies to late teenagers who are underage as well. But since User:Soixante nerf says she is a late teenager, though still under age with regard to most countries, I decided to let the matter play out itself, especially given the editor's feelings toward Wikipedia. I may have acted wrongly in that regard, and it seems from above that others would agree that I did. As for the editors I was in discussion with about this matter, it was me who contacted all three and I did not reveal their identities to each other (in fact, only one of them was aware that I was in discussion with another Wikipedia editor about this matter), just like I will not reveal their identities here in this discussion. If they want to comment here, they will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cue The age of consent is lower than 16 in some countries, so there's no need to worry yet, at least until a checkuser can check out which country User:Soixante nerf's IP address is located (and even then, we don't have definitive evidence that this user is a minor). But if the user is a minor in a country where the age of consent is higher than 16, then there's a big problem and the user may need to be scrutinized. Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm... excuse me for being late to the party, but no one told me that all this was going on.

Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely:

Journalist or blogger posing as underage "jailbait" so as to shame Wikipedia.

Do you really think that is the most likely explanation? That's terrible!

Someone creating fake accounts to bully some kid. Mean, but hey, it happens

That is also a terrible thing to think. But if it really happens, I guess that is even more terrible.

Some kid trying to shock their parents by being "jailbait" online.

My parents do not know I registered an account with Wikipedia and I am sure they do not care. I am also sure that if they saw my account name, they would think it as funny as everyone else does.

Law enforcement trying to catch pedos by posing as "jailbait" user and seeing who sends them messages or otherwise interacts with

I am not going to respond to old weirdos who come on to me online, here or anywhere else. There are plenty of young wierdos in my dorm.

Again,

Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely

Note that in your exhaustive list of possibilities, you omitted the one that should have been listed first: that I am just a smart 16 year-old.

But you didn't even consider that as a possibility. You said you will only consider descriptions of me that are evil. It's a trap. It's a pedophile.

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? Might it perhaps be unfair when deciding whether I will be allowed to edit Wikipedia? Is rejecting the obvious explanation right at the start really the best way to decide what to believe—ever?

or defends [her].

That is a very worrisome statement to me. If I am in a contentious situation as an editor, everyone involved has now been warned not to support my position because if they do, an admin at this notice board will assume they are a criminal. I very seriously object to that statement. It isolates me from legitimate article-related communication.

It also had a photograph. If the girl in the image was someone else, that was potentially very serious. If it was an adult posing as a 16 year old, ditto.

Gee, thanks a lot. The photo was of me.

"soixante nerf" seems like a slight modification of the French phrase "soixante neuf" 

It is. So what? I think it is funny, my roommate thinks it's funny, and my friends here think it is funny. If some of you people are really this screwed up, then just let me pick a different name.

WP:CHILDPROTECT, but wondered if she is too old for that policy to apply to her;

I am not a Beiber-obsessed little girl wandering around backstage flirting with roadies at a concert. I am a college student in a dorm. Guys live in both rooms next to mine. I have all the freedom and responsibility of every other student here. I know this will shock and horrify you, but I even have sex, too. (I apologize for using such filthy language.)

And to show the level of depravity to which those godless Liberals have sunk our once-great country, my parents know about it and they think its fine. They have even had my GF over for dinner! But, then, you can't expect better from a couple of progressive, atheist, socialist PhDs.

I used the term "jailbait" because I think the phrase is hilarious, and I put it in my "a.k.a." list because it really is my nickname here. Also on that list was "speedy," which I was called one time because of my use of a larger-than-usually-prescribed amount of (legitimately prescribed) Ritalin.

I'll let you figure out why I'm called "spanky."

Sadly, I can only play with freshmen because sophomores know they could be pulled out of school and thrown in prison for 30 years if they do the very same thing a few freshmen have already done with impunity, and the very same thing they can do themselves in a few months on my birthday. In fact, I have considered throwing a particularly exciting birthday party with only 19 year-olds invited.

But the Juniors had better keep at least 10 feet away from me at all times and never be alone with me, or they're in a HEAP o' trouble!

Perhaps you see why I said, "I should write a book about the experience of being jailbait." I was referring to the grossly illogical consequences of these "protect the innocent girl's virtue" laws, the strangest of which happened when my GF turned 19. For a long time (by my standards), she was legally allowed to do stuff with everyone's blessing. These days, we could even have gotten married! Then literally the next day, she was a felon in danger of being imprisoned for decades and branded a monster if she did the very same things to me that she did legally just a few hours earlier. The kicker is, in just a few months, the exact same stuff will suddenly become perfectly legal again.

The unjust nature of this strange and shameful paradox was briefly taken notice of in several campus forums. But to me, it was my proud "15 minutes of fame," and the basis for (jokingly) calling myself a "dorm celebrity" on my user page. I found it so cool because I was not one of the popular girls in high school. It was also the genesis of my nickname, "jailbait," which I really love, is used by my friends more than "Lisa", and is now my favorite internet handle.

Your concern is appreciated, but unnecessary and, I think, unwarranted. I try not to take offense, and I remind myself that that you don't know me, and that you are just being safe instead of sorry, and as with powerful drugs, some people do need to be protected from their naive stupidity.

I discussed her user page, and her username with a few others.

You had email conversations about me with several people and even blanked my user page, yet it never occurred to you to advise me, tell me, or most of all, ask me anything. Nor did anyone see fit to let me know about this long discussion, in which I am the one being discussed. Instead, my user page was blanked without me being told first or being allowed to bring it into compliance with whatever rules apply.

the links in the last line of the userpage

Download and look at those links. You will see that they are simple redirects. I added them because most of them are, to the non screwed-up, ironic and humorous. Like having "Liberal" point to the article for "Communist." I used redirects to prevent readers from seeing the punch line in the link name.

But nobody ever asked me why. Instead, my links are used by admins here as evidence of my being evil.

Some of his/her edit-summaries make it unlikely that this is a 16-year-old.

I speak proper English, am intelligent, literate, well-informed in many areas, and I am 16. Since that is next-to impossible in the United States, you conclude that I am a much older person—probably a man—pretending to be me. Worse, I now have to defend myself about it.

This is a trigger issue with me, because in grade school I was accused of plagiarism, and the reason given (in front of the class) was that I had obviously copied my book report verbatim from the book jacket. I was so disheartened and despondent about this being my reward for excellent work that I never even showed him the book jacket. I just passively said nothing and didn't defended myself.

Well, I'm defending myself now.

This kind of moral panic craziness tar pit is exactly why I edited anonymously for so many years. And if things I've seen at WP in the past are any indication, it looks like pretty soon I will be correcting grammar anonymously here again. You already deleted my user page. The next step will be to ignore everything I just said, come to some kind of wrong, bizarre decision, and delete *me* as well.

I suppose I should have known better than to establish an account. There are screwed-up weirdos here alright, but they are not pedos.

Please reinstate my user page and advise me of what you don't like about it, so I can change it to one that you do like.

Please. ☺

I see no problem with this userpage, or any edits this user has made. Please assume good faith and be welcoming to new editors. I would in fact delete/remove this report. It is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk)

I'm not seeing the issue here. They've done a lot of work on their userpage, yeah. They have some interesting choices in articles to edit, yeah. Their external links in some places just come back here to Wikipedia, yeah. The external links go to a subdomain of a website (lisaem) that happens to meet what the person claims to be their name. What's the problem? ES&L 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, capitalismo and ESL. It is relieving to know that there are as many as two people here with common sense.

Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Soixante Nerf, you were already pinged when Túrelio made their original post. How did you not know that this was going on? (Unless, of course, you're a troll, which, judging by your editing style, is easy to assume...) Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Last night, I began a rather long defense of a very popular webcomic that was deleted for not being notable, even though it has fan pages and is sold as a book on Amazon. I went to sleep because I have an early class tuesday and thursday. I got back to it today around 6pm, after classes and then the dining hall. The page still open on my screen had no notifications on it. I deleted most of what I wrote last night as unnecessary distraction from my main point, then posted it, as you can see on my contributions list. As soon as a new page loaded, I saw the "messages" flag, came here, and hit the ceiling.

Thank you for asking me, BTW, instead of making the ugliest possible misinterpretation that you could.

How did you not know that this was going on unless you're a troll?

The question makes no sense. A troll would drop everything and come here immediately, to wallow in the attention. Why is my not doing that evidence of trolling?

I'm starting to understand how women felt when they were tried for being "witches." The jury had concluded guilt before even hearing the defendant (as starblind said he did, above), and the entire meaning of "evidence" was turned on its head.

a troll, which, judging by your editing style, is easy to assume

What is it about my editing style that makes you believe I'm a troll? All my edits are punctuation and grammar.

Forget what I said about you not making the worst possible interpretation you can. I figured that when I had a named account, that I would soon be banned by an admin for not agreeing with an article's owner in a content dispute. But I now consider it inevitable that I will be banned in less than a day for replying to the issues in this pointless noticeboard "incident.

Why not just let me recreate a politically-correct user page and continue fixing punctuation errors? I never started a fight here; I just made a funny user page that was deleted by people with nothing better to do.

One more thing occurs to me. I'm not sure how to phrase it, and it will be interesting to see how the crazy people here twist it into evidence of trolling or media conspiracy. But my guess is that my ex- user page is probably just what one would expect from a 16 year-old who's free of her parents for the first time and finds herself in a dorm of guys (and girls) more than willing to help her explore this new, exciting thing called sexuality.

To anyone who's both intelligent and not crazy, that would be almost certainly true, a no-brainer. It would also clearly be a more likely explanation of my humorous user page than "it's the undercover cops", "it's a disrupting troll," or "it's an old pedophile."

I don't like this conversation. In fact I hate it, and I've asked several times to please stop it. I just want to fix minor errors in Wikipedia, and if you end this circus, that's what I'll do.

To sane people, my return to low-key editing would be proof that—what do you know—she didn't come here to fight; she came here to fix grammar mistakes. But I don't think that the kind of people who've accused me of crazy stuff will do that. They don't seem to be the kind of people who would ever say "wow, I suspected that Lisa came here to trick us for Fox News, but I realize that I was wrong."

I observe that some people who hang around this noticeboard are eager to believe that conspiracies by the media, pedophilia, and clever traps to trick them are literally the only explanations for a smart girl with a dry sense of humor editing Wikipedia. I think that probably, once that kind of person gets started blaming and judging and accusing, that they are emotionally incapable of any ending other than "Beat her up! Ban her! No 16 year-old could be that literate; she's an agent provocateur, satanic and evil pedophile come to trick and discredit us!"

There is no way to defend yourself against that using logic and reason because this is the only time they ever get to bully and hurt other people—which is how the lesser-intelligent adapt to being bullied and hurt.

Since they appear to be a vast majority here, I think it's a foregone conclusion that they will use my very words right now to whoop themselves up, ban me within 24 hours, then go find someone else to hurt. In fact, the only reason I don't just cancel my account in protest is that those same people would somehow manage to interpret it as confirming their manifestly unwarranted, ridiculous theories.

It's too bad, too, because all I really want to do is fix grammar errors. Soixante Nerf 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs)

"I know this will shock and horrify you, but I actually have sex, too."

Soixante Nerf, LOL, you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. As one of the editors around here well educated on sexual topics, I'm not sure that there is any sexual topic that would shock me. Certainly, there are ones that horrify me, but a 16-year-old having sex is not it. And for those stating "pedo" ("pedos"), that's not an accurate definition of pedophilia when it comes to adult sexual attraction to 16-year-olds. Not to mention that 16-year-olds can be pedophiles as well. But oh well. Like the Pedophilia article notes, people do misuse the term.

"You had email conversations about me with several people and even blanked my user page, yet it never occurred to you to advise me, tell me, or most of all, ask me anything. Nor did anyone see fit to let me know about this long discussion, in which I am the one being discussed. Instead, my user page was blanked without me being told first or being allowed to bring it into compliance with whatever rules apply."

Yep, I had email discussions with a few (not several) people about you, and I even mentioned to one Wikipedia editor that you remind me a little of myself when I was your age. But I didn't blank your user page; the person who did that identified himself above. And, no, I wouldn't contact you to tell you that I had email discussions about you. Not unless it was something you needed to be informed of. Like I stated, I decided to let things play out. If there was truly something wrong with your user page, others would tackle that; I wanted no part in tackling it. I queried others about you because I know how this site works and I knew that there was a chance that others might approach you about the things that you are now facing here in this WP:ANI discussion, and so I wanted opinions on the matter. Many Wikipedia editors here converse via email about Wikipedia and other Wikipedia editors, with it never occurring to them that they should let the people they were discussing know of that discussion, especially if most or all aspects of that discussion are better left off Wikipedia and/or away from the people the discussion concerns.

As for you not being notified of this WP:ANI discussion, not only were you notified via WP:Echo, you were notified on your user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, I read your user page and some of your stuff, and it made me extremely happy! You are so obviously me in the future who came back in a time machine to write those things, that I am absolutely overjoyed to know time-travel is possible. Soixante Nerf 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs)

The deletion of your user page was simply a good-faith effort to protect a young person. Wikipedia is anonymous unless one chooses to disclose who they are. Your edits are not all grammatical in nature. Some of your edits are corrections to mathematical equations, correct rephrasing of physical forces and processes, and the appropriate addition a highly technical scientific reference to an article. We do assume good faith when it is reasonable, but in this case, it did not appear reasonable regarding your user page. I am One of Many (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That was not what I said, at all. congratulations for taking my words and skewing their meaning completely. I was just saying that, as Flyer22 stated above, the Echo notifications systems notify you of this post immediately, when your name is linked inside a post. that said, I was saying that some might think you are a troll (I don't) but based on your main topic of editing in some reproduction-related articles, it is likely that at least one editor may think that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Amsterdad

Several editors have identified this Wikipedian's work as appearing to be paid editing. there is a discussion on User:DGG's talk page and one of their article's is at AfD. Another example is: Monica Lindstrom. I am also wondering how these articles that have been created over the past couple of years were never tagged or raised red flags despite appearing to be very promotional and poorly sourced? Who has reviewing them? Is it possible to determine? Thanks for your consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are almost 4 1/2 million articles on Wikipedia. A handful are going to slip past the finite (and shrinking) number of people keeping track. It happens. -- Atama頭 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The first of these pages is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Hudson. If it is deleted, I intend to nominate others from the same ed., starting with the most dubious. Of the 4.5 million pages, perhaps about 1.5 million are substantial. My guess that at least 5% of them are similar to this, many of them from the earlier days of the project. When I joined 7 years ago, anything that technically met the GNG was accepted unless there was prejudice against the subject. The difficult question for us is not how can we get rid of them, which is easy enough if there is the will to do it (at least 1/4 of similar pages I send to AfD are being kept for lack of interest in removing them) , but how to identify the ones that are worth rewriting and find people to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I had to double-check when you said you joined 7 years ago, DGG. Because that's about the time I joined (or created an account, at least). I could swear you've been around much longer than me. I checked... And you joined one month before me. Sorry for the tangent, but it blew my mind a bit. -- Atama頭 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the concerns of DGG in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, no one is paying me to do my volunteer work here, and if this is how my work is being treated I will definitely be considering leaving this place. Life is too important to waste on friction. For now, I will be cutting down the articles as others have suggested, as it appears I've misunderstood what good sources are and which aren't. I do apologize, if you feel it is necessary, for trying to use as many sources as possible. I will obviously have to review the rules further if I choose to stay. Amsterdad (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gone all the way back yet, but I believe these are some of the articles in question:

• Sam Korankye Ankrah
• Laurette Koellner
• Greenberg Glusker
• Danny Rich (rabbi)
• Michael Jay Moon]]
• Simplilearn
• TakeLessons
• Fionnuala Sweeney
• Bill A. Jones
• Amy Markham
• LabWare
• Peter Staley
• Rob Dickerman
• Ritu Raj
• DJ Amadeus ‎
• Martin G. Bean
• George Walker (printmaker)
• Jill Konrath

As a side note, Atama's response in uninspiring. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Candleabracadabra, thanks for making a list of articles with potential problems. I have read up on reliable sourcing and I am working try to fix these articles as best as possible to meet Wikipedia's requirements/ Amsterdad (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of talk page by DHeyward

It is proving impossible to achieve any progress on the talk page Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming becauuse any discussion is continually diverted and hijacked. There are others besides DHeyward (talk · contribs) doing this but they are they one who I have explicitly warned there and have practically immediately started up again. This is a page under the climate change WP:AE sanctions.

At [8] you can see how one of them TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) diverts the discussion then I warn DHeyward. However in [9] they are off supporting TheRedPenOfDoom in diverting the discussion again. This topic was raised before at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Put in something about the notability of the topic but that was hijacked and turned into Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Rename and refocus to List of scientists that the media have used to inappropriately "balance" discussions of climate change by TheRedPenOfDoom and Ronz (talk · contribs). Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One cannot not consider how BLP will impact any future criteria. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried an RFC or dispute resolution? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Debating the same things endlessly on that Talk page is tedious, I know. I've been watching it for years and sometimes I have to take it off my watchlist just so I can see the wood for the trees. People feel very strongly about the issues it raises and some become disruptive to a greater or lesser degree. I don't personally think DHeyward and TRPoD are at AN/I level yet though. I would personally recommend taking a deep breath and getting back to what you were trying to do. Ignoring irrelevant posts and repeating relevant points is somewhat helpful. Remember, patience is a virtue! --Merlinme (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Dmcq needs to take some time from the article given his repeated focus on editors and overreaction when discussions naturally stray from their initial topics. See [10] [11] [12] for some context. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't find where I was disruptive. It's pretty clear that there is no consensus on who belongs on that list. It's kind of difficult to discuss how the list is notable without first determining who is on it. Cart before the horse, and all that. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well- I can understand the desire to keep "redesigning page completely" discussion separate from discussion of a specific proposal. In the absence of consensus for "redesigning page completely" it's understandable that an editor would like to to focus on areas where it might be possible to get consensus to make incremental improvements. But I still don't think AN/I is the way to go because threads keep getting sidetracked. Threads getting sidetracked is pretty normal on that page, to be honest. --Merlinme (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• DHeyward isn't being disruptive from what I can see. I don't know what the criteria is for inclusion on that list but unless said person states where they stand on the topic, it should never be our mission to use references to come to our own conclusions, regardless of how reasonable they may seem.--MONGO 20:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion topic was including notability in the lead. The criteria are listed at the top of the talk page. Changing the criteria is something separate and there was a section there for them to take their BLP concerns. The BLP concerns have nothing to do with the notability of the list. You have been sidetracked into considering those concerns. That is what they do all the time, they have ignored the course they shoudl take and just go in for disruption of progress on the list because they want it deleted but can't get that past AfD and if you look at any of the previous discussions since the last AfD the same thing happens. It is Gish Gallop and others have noted the disruption. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a rather gross mischaracterization of my edits to the talk page. I also take issue with your characterization of motive and comparison to "Gish Gallop" as well as a characterization of "they." Not sure who "they" are. If you like analogies - I'd point out that "list criteria" is the Titanic. "BLP Policy" is the iceberg. "Notability in the lead" is the deck chairs. I'd argue that the attempts to rearrange/count/order/categorize the deck chairs while ignoring such obvious problems is more disruptive than addressing the immediate catastrophe. It's a time waster. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You should deal with your concerns in the separate section set up for you to discuss them. You are not doing that. You are disrupting an unrelated discussion. If you believe you can get agreement to what you want why bother with a discussion about the lead? Your change would require a change in the lead if agreed but it has not been agreed yet and you're not going to get agreement for the deletion of most or all the names on BLP grounds by sticking your concerns into a discussion about the notability requirements in the lead. I'm repeating myself yet again saying that to you as you simply ignore that and continue on and on like this. That is why I have raised this AN/I request. If you wish to not waste time then get your changes agreed rather than waste your time in something you think is a waste of time. Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think its only in your mind that a discussion of list criteria for a controversial subject about living people could somehow be "not related" to BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a discussion about sources for notability of the list topic not the contents. Criteria for individual entries is separate and you could discuss those separately. There was no excuse for you to suddenly hijack such a discussion with your proposal 'Rename and refocus to List of scientists that the media have used to inappropriately "balance" discussions of climate change' and insist on it taking over rather than being split to a separate discussion. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not "hijack" the discussion. The subject was "Put in something about the notability of the topic". How do you put in something about the notability of the topic? - by showing what reliable sources say about the topic - which is what I did by providing a list of sources. Then by looking at what those sources were saying about the topic, it became clear that an alternate title would help align the title> with notability> with sources> and thence the criteria for inclusion. All "on topic" for moving the article forward. That someone else you , actually) decided to promote it to a section header and that multiple editors considered the suggestions worthy of continued discussion is certainly not me "hijacking" any conversation in a way that is detrimental to the article and its contents actually meeting our policies.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• 'It is proving impossible to achieve any progress on the talk page <-- There has been almost no progress in that article for at least one and a half years. Second Quantization (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly true and I would like to see some discretionary sanctions by uninvolved administrators applied. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparent anti-female bigotry

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

---

Please see the following comment from Giano, which is directed at administrator GorillaWarfare: "Well I am still rather mystified as to why GorillaWarfare permitted her "friend" to remove my talk page access. I was merely reinstating what she had removed by conflicting; in fact, I am puzzled as to why her friend was there at all, does he always walk two paces behind her? Is she some poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone? But then of course she needed a third man to help her place the block, so perhaps she is. Then again, was it a longed for arbcom revenge and they were all fighting amongst themselves to place it? Possibly even, Gorilla's not very good at placing blocks on her own and needs a cluster supporters to assist her in difficult tasks. Whatever, I'm reminded of a beloved aunt, who when arranging flowers, had a butler to hold the vase, a gardener to select and pass her the flowers, a maid to cut the stems, and three friends to admire her handiwork and artistry." (diff)

I realize that Giano is, perhaps somewhat rightfully, unhappy about the events that have transpired during the past few weeks, but these comments have crossed a line. Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano's personal attacks go far beyond that with [13] that edit "an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond" etc, along with those listed below, however as these attacks were done in full view of the Arbs, during an Arb proceeding, it may be best to let them handle it if they see fit. On the other hand, since the attacks were directed to the Arbs, perhaps the community should be the impartial judge in this case. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18][19][20][21] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can i just advise that when you are planning a topic here with your friends; it's best for them not to respond with 8 diffs within 7 minutes of the original post. People might just find that a little suspicious. Giano (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't planned out. I have never interacted with Northern Antarctica in any fashion, on any page, article or discussion. I had put together the list of diffs previously during a discussion with one of the Arbs commenting that I was surprised your behavior hadn't resulted in a block. Though I certainly do not claim any credit for your block, since it was obviously the right thing to do and was approaching inevitability, you were blocked shortly thereafter by GW. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 is correct (and also a lot nicer than I was going to be). Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been many heated discussions. It would have been better to let this remain on the user talk pages and die a natural death than for an uninvolved third party to bring it here.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Baloney. Some of us are tired of watching as Giano lashes out in all direction. He's made a mockery of civility and it will be an utter farce if he gets away with such a blatantly hateful remark as this one. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I rather think you'll find that it's the Arbcom who have made a mockery of civility recently. Giano (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you don't even seem to know what civility is. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already suggested to Giano's aunt, who sits high in the counsel of the Wikipedia elite, to give him some words of advice on behaviour similar to this. I hope she will do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what this neverending cycle of infantile whining and facile namecalling has to do with producing an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bigotry is a big accusation. Until we hear from both parties we should not jump to conclusions about something both parties might consider to be normal badinage between them. Leaky Caldron 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like GorillaWarfare saw it that way [22]. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, her twitter says much the same thing. "As much as I hate to say it, things like this make me miss the days where no one in my online communities knew I was a woman." & "Getting reeeal sick of some of the assumptions that are made about me, and those who interact with me, made based on my gender." Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide a link or would that not be possible? (I'm not familiar with how Twitter works.) Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NOT SURE THAT'S WISE. She might not appreciate a bunch of new followers from here. Leaky Caldron 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it would be a good idea. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I Agree. I won't be posting the link (although its trivial to find, she left plenty of breadcrumbs). If someone doubts the veracity of my quotes, I can provide more personalized linkage or screenshots or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because I know being called "an extremely stupid woman and a little fish in a little pond" is just normal, friendly conversation between two editors on WP.

That said, unlike, say, having a sock account, it seems like admins are very reluctant to impose blocks for incivility despite how it poisons the atmosphere around here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I was considering posing a thing to the community for consideration to the effect of: "In the case of incivility/personal attacks against an experienced editor (where experienced means that they know enough to know where AN/ANI is and what the appropriate steps for reporting are), AN/ANI threads are not to be made by anyone other than the target of the incivility/personal attacks without their explicit blessing." GW is an adult and knows where ANI is; why are we making the choice of whether to start an ANI thread about this or not for her? This kind of white-knighting (so to speak) can do more harm than good at times. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but maybe GW didn't post here because she's tired of dealing with Giano. Dealing with a bully can be emotionally draining. Should we just ignore the bullying because it wasn't the victim who pointed it out? Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Contrariwise, should we keep dragging out and calling attention to an issue that she doesn't want to hear about anymore? The best person to answer that is her; perhaps we should've asked her before doing so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point there. Either way, there is still an problem with Giano's conduct (and it wasn't just one post), which is what caused her discomfort in the first place. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Recent events have been tumultuous, with absurd accusations from an admin, an arbcom case, motions, and attacks—and those were the good things. The matter has finally ground almost to an end, and now is not the time to push the train downhill again. Giano's intemperate outburst was highly inappropriate, but so were each of a dozen steps in the preceding chain. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I get that he was upset, but how many other Wikipedians would make such a sexist remark under any circumstance? Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

...is that a trick question? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I've seen other veteran Wikipedians lose their cool and make unpleasant remarks, but I don't know that any of them ever emphasized the gender of the person they were displeased with in a scathing commentary. Giano used the term 'woman' in what seems to be a pejorative way. That's not ever acceptable. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The instructions at the top of this page say "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.". I see no evidence that Northern Antartica has attempted to do so. Eric Corbett 22:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Two questions re logic: Q1) If ANI threads re allowed to be opened by uninvolved third parties, what does that spell for future? (What if Northern Anarctica or some other user got an itch to play "civility cop" during the entire year 2014, there would be no shortage of uncivil remarks at their disposal. So we might have 2, 3, 4, or even 20 or more ANI threads opened per day by the third part executing their little hobby. That means perhaps 365 x 20 = 7300 new ANI threads in a calendar year, all from an uninvolved third party. This is the kind of chaos element to ANI that makes ANI the cesspool it is.) Q2) @Northern Antarctica, you included accusation in the thread name of "anti-female bigotry". Although in RL that is a serious offense, and I think so too, I'm curious ... on what *WP* basis do you base an ANI? (For example, in my Wiki-history I opened an ANI resentful of the fact that a user fabricated that I had called editors Dennis Brown and Elen of Roads "asshats" and "idiots", when I had never used those name-calls against anyone, ever, let alone those two users. When I complained about the fabrication, the false accusation against my character, I was told [by an admin] that Wikipedia had no classification for such a thing other than [general] incivility. I was told to see the fabrication as nothing more than incivility. Therefore, your claim of bigotry, unless you can provide a WP-basis for more, is nothing more than a form of incivility and s/b treated that way. Therefore you can drop the "big serious-sounding charge" from the thread title, since it isn't recognized in any WP policy -- only in an essay.) Your charge of bigotry has no significance in WP unless you can show that it does outside of being generally uncivil. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your bogus wiki-lawyering. Anti-female bigotry is just as wrong here as it is anywhere else. Regarding your first question, let me know when you see me opening 20 ANI threads per day. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a non-reply, Northern. The issue of third-party-initiated ANIs makes no sense, and I just provided argument why they shouldn't be permitted. And I'm not disagreeing with you bigotry is wrong wherever it is found, but so is a false fabrication that goes against someone's character, and I was told by admin the fabrication isn't covered by policy outside "general incivility". Ditto for bigotry, unless you can show otherwise, so your thread title has no significance within WP unless you can provide some, which you haven't. How about deal with the good-faith logical questions Antartica, instead of your uncivil mischaracterization because it doesn't please your agenda to be free to file uninvolved third-party ANIs? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider it to be a fabrication. It is quite troubling that Giano would belittle GorillaWarfare while emphasizing that she is a woman. I'm not going to go digging for policies in order to demonstrate why something is wrong when it is obviously wrong. As for your argument about why third-party ANIs (and I'm not the first person to ever do it) should not be permitted, please provide hard evidence that your numbers are an actual reflection of what is going on. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You miss the points, Northern. There is no WP basis for your "bigotry" claim other than "general incivility". And you totally misunderstood about "fabrication" -- that applied to me, not to Gorilla. (Hello! Read much?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On the other point, I argued that uninvolved third-party ANIs should not be permitted, period. Because that is chaos. The fact that others might do it, doesn't change that it is still chaos and makes no sense to allow. (How about reading what I write rather than misconstrue meaning so frequently?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I see where I misunderstood about the fabrication part. My mistake. At any rate, I do not think it is necessary to have a policy that specifically spells out that anti-female bigotry is a problem and I will not be changing my opinion. Also, I disagree with your position on uninvolved third-party ANIs. In my view, it is more chaotic to insist that only the target of a vitriolic attack can report it. If you saw someone break into your neighbor's house and tried to report it, would the police ignore you simply because it wasn't your house? Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My point is that you have no WP policy to stand on outside of "(general) incivility". The amount of incivility on WP is almost unimaginable ... To take a position that uninvolved third parties can file ANI threads, leads to a huge loss of community time/attention. For example you recently filed an uninvolved third-party ANI against *me*, and it went nowhere. It is a form of disruption, Antartica, you have a habit of doing this and you are the disruptor. Third-party ANI threads based on civility are nothing like a house burglary or forced entry that is potentially life-endangering, so that analogy doesn't compute. (Another broken part of your house break-in analogy is that you are presuming the homeowner wasn't home to call the cops? Well Gorilla "was home". Or the homeowner was home and you called the cops during the break-in because the homeowner wasn't able? Again, Gorilla "was able".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All analogies will break down eventually. At this point, we are just talking past each other. I get it. You dislike me. That's been obvious to me for a while now. At this point, I don't anticipate anything productive coming out of further discussion with you. Therefore, this is my last remark to you in this thread: I do not care at all whether or not WP policy specifically states anything about anti-female bigotry. It should not have to. Common sense is good enough. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not all analogies break down. (Though sound ones are not easy to create, granted.) Attributing the arguments I've made on your thinking and behavior to a personal dislike of you is tacky ad hominem Antarctica. (If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen of ideas, then get out of the kitchen.) Your arguments belong on The Jerry Springer Show. (And so does ANI generally. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility here, and cat-fighting is the accepted norm of quality of argument -- you've done nothing but provide additional demonstration of same.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Northern Antarctica: You claim there's a problem with Giano's comments. What have you done to rectify the alleged problem? Where's the diff of your attempts to resolve what you perceived as problematical? --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso and Northern Antarctica: Actually, there is basis in policy to bigotry. It's found in the Wikimedia non-discrimination policy and all projects, including the English Wikipedia, must follow it.--v/r - TP 05:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This?

The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer.

Isn't it quite a stretch to assert that applies to this ANI? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're unaware. This applies on every Wikimedia server. Last I checked, ANI currently resides on a Wikimedia server. So that should satisfy your policy request from earlier.--v/r - TP 05:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You miss my meaning. Even if Giano's comment was a sexist insult, I doubt it would fall under "discrimination" in the context of the Wikimedia prohibition statement (whose context is "equal opportunity"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

But why have you decided to try and make an issue of this particular incident by screaming "bigotry"? What about "bigotry" against males, such as you and others like you demonstrate? Eric Corbett 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a male. Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do? Northern Antarctica (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I expect anybody who brings an issue to ANI to have previously taken some steps to resolve their dispute. Which bit of "What have you done to rectify the alleged problem? didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I didn't understand it. It's more that I doubt that there is anything I could have done to persuade Giano that he was wrong. In retrospect, I suppose I could have left a note on his talk page, but you tell me how you think he would have responded? Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny is present in an online environment composed primarily of single, white 18-35 males? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Tarc (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, seriously. Are you joking? You're going to say, with a straight face, that instances of misogyny should be ignored because our community is predominately male? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The ed17, Actually no, I'm saying that it is a seriously institutionalized, entrenched problem in many electronic social spaces, from the Wikipedia to online gaming to Reddit, and a million others. I don't want to ignore it at all, just trying to point out how widespread it is, so my bad if it came out wrong initially. Tarc (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, and I'm sorry for jumping on you like that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting argument, Ihardlythinkso. If you feel that uninvolved third parties should not be starting ANI threads, logic dictates that you should feel the same way about uninvolved third parties filing RFArbs. Except, of course, that you failed to express such a sentiment in your comments in the case just passed. It almost leads one to believe that your views on third-party intervention are completely malleable and change to suit whatever agenda you wish to push. Resolute 23:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Logic doesnt't dictate that, Resolute. (I didn't argue against "third-party filings" generally, which you're attempting to make me accountable for by broadening the scope of what I said, which was limited to no uninvolved third-party ANI cases based on CIV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano was outside the pale here, but a lot of what led up to this has also been. If there's anything more to be done, let's let arbcom sort that out. Please let this whole sorry affair just end. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. To answer some of the points above: Yes, the sexist comments bothered me. Yes, I tweeted about it. I'm fed up with my gender being made one of the main points of attack when someone decides to criticize me, and even more fed up with how any man who becomes involved with an on-wiki dispute I'm having is immediately presumed to be either romantically involved with me or "white-knighting" (even here). Am I surprised that this is an issue on Wikipedia? Not at all. I'm used to tech communities being unwelcoming to women. But am I okay with it? Certainly not. I would not have created this AN/I post myself, as I don't think trying to start this discussion as some sort of branch off of the recent ArbCom case/bickering with Giano is wise, but at some point I think it's an issue that should be discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want this particular incident to be discussed any further, I am willing to let it drop. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, best to drop it I think. It's a topic worth discussing elsewhere, although some factions would suppress that happening in some places. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:In Ratio Veritas

I noticed In Ratio Veritas (talk · contribs) when he/she added a whole series of edits[23] at List of Italians that seemed to stray into WP:PEACOCK (which I notified[24] the user about). I then noticed further edits by the user that made marginal (and beyond marginal) claims that Napoleon was Italian[25], that Vincenzo Tiberio discovered "the power of antibiotics"[26], and that Italians invented the Magnetic Compass, Concrete, the Assembly Line, Crystal glass, the Dome, Fabric, Insurance, Learned society, and the Submarine[27]. I attempted to point out the need to reflect list articles, reliable sources, and a neutral point of view but attempts clean up just the Vincenzo Tiberio claim has been continually reverted by the user[28][29][30][31] and discussions with the user have gone down hill civility wise to the point of pointlessness[32]. The user keeps reverting[33][34] and labeling my edits "vandalism"[35].Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts, after perusing some of these diffs and reading talk pages, looking at the history of List of Italians...

• In Ratio Veritas is at least communicative, which is a good sign. Most often, I find people who are particularly tendentious with a "cause" (especially one that might be nationalist like this one) don't want to discuss their edits, and only want to make accusations and edit war. This editor is not, which is good.
• Many of the editor's comments are inappropriate, and step over the line of WP:NPA, such as calling you "authoritarian" and labeling your edits as "vandalism".
• I strongly advise you to no longer revert at List of Italians; while I realize that discussing matters with this editor is frustrating, you've been engaged in a days-long edit war, including multiple back-and-forth reverts in the same day (not approaching or violating WP:3RR but still edit-warring). Reaching out for help here is a better solution than continuing to revert, please don't revert any further though.

I hope that In Ratio Veritas participates in this discussion here. They were notified of this discussion properly. -- Atama頭 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One other note, if I have time, I'll try to speak with In Ratio Veritas personally, with some advice and suggestions, but I'm also trying to thin out the SPI backlog a bit so I don't know how soon I can get to that. -- Atama頭 00:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User Excirial threatened to block me

Hello,

I am requesting that users Excirial and TJRC be blocked from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Business_Process_Modeling_Notation_tools#General The user left this message after he was referred by user TJRC.

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

They both have repeated removed the following text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Business_Process_Modeling_Notation_tools#General: Primarily a BPMN2.0 modeling tool with support for Value Chains, EPC and other notations. Complete revision control. Process simulation & side-by-side model comparison. Custom modeling guidelines. Attribute layers representation. Automatic creation of process documentation (.pdf or MS Word). Embed process models in other HTML5 applications, google docs, and wikis. API for integration with other IT systems. LDAP/AD, support for Sharepoint, and Process Portal for collaboration. QuickModel, collaboration, publication, analysis, reference models, integration with process automation platforms (e.g. execution engines Activiti, jBPM, and SAP).

Nowhere in this text are there advertorial claims as they have implied, and I feel bullied by the two users. If an administrator were to review the entire page, one would see that there are similar "feature" descriptions which neither Excirial nor TJRC target. I agree with them in removing the logo which I placed on the page as it expanded the table, but in no way do I differ from any of the other editors in presenting neutral information for the page. In no way have they proved their claims of conflict of interest and soapboxing. The final revision I posted to the section does indeed follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and does not violate any rules associated with the content on the page.

Please review my request and respond appropriately. This is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketeer415 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Feature lists and text written in the second person (e.g. "Embed process models in other HTML5 applications") are not really encyclopedic. Thus they are not unreasonably described as "promotional". Please do continue removing obviously promotional text from that or any other article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've given Marketeer415 a 3RR warning, since they're now at four reverts, and would note that anyone calling themselves "Marketeer" may expect scrutiny and even criticism when they're adding apparently promotional prose. @Marketeer415, Please discuss your edits on the talkpage, and bear in mind that Wikipedia has a low tolerance for even a hint of marketing or promotional prose. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Following my edit-warring warning, they reverted again. Now blocked for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Reporting an administrator

Hello,

I had a very negative interaction with the administrator User talk:RHaworth, and hope someone there might have some time to assist him, as he seems to be struggling with positive communication.

This admin has privileges which seem to include deletion and rollback. My interactions all occurred on his talk page, and I took a moment to look at the interactions above mine. Nearly every entry was responded to with rudeness or worse. For example:

• A very polite but scattered letter got a response which began: "What on earth is this "self-reference" rubbish?"

• A very polite letter written from the president of a drama club inquiring about a deleted page. The response: "three infractions - so I ignore."

• A very polite letter inquiring about an email. The response: "Please give details of the alleged "notification". Your email of Jan 4 reached me perfectly well. But why on earth are you trying to email me. Two other things you should have learned in two years of contributions: wikilinks and that refs need a reflist tag but in any case they are inappropriate on user talk pages. OK, your article has been waiting some time for its third review but you must be patient. I do not usually get involved with AfC review so I have no comment on the suitability of the article."

• A very polite letter inquiring about a deleted article. His response: "May I introduce you to the concept of links? You do not clutter this page with article material - you provide a link to your draft. What does it say at the top of Thierry Noritop and fr:Thierry Noritop? "Needs additional citations for verification" and "ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources". This is the hurdle you must overcome if you want to create the Bernie Adam (get the capitalisation right) article. I suspect you are fluent in French so I suggest you create fr:Bernie Adam first. If it sticks it will provide a slight boost for the corresponding article here - which you should launch via AfC."

• A comment about a deletion review. His response: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested."

• An inquiry which stated: "I am curious to understand why you deleted the Orhan Sadik-Kahn page. Interested in learning how to best position on Wikipedia articles. Thank you!" His response: "Possibly mainly because it did not look like a Wikipedia article. How many articles start with == Summary == ? How many bios put the dates of birth and death at the end instead of in the first sentence? Have you noticed that other Wikipedia articles contain wikilinks? Did you think that putting some in yours might make it look more like a proper article. Have you considered the possibility of creating the refs as external links? Please learn the format to de-duplicate references. He is mentioned at least once in other articles - why did you not create incoming links to your article? I have restored your text to User:Kgardner1/sandbox - attend to the matters above then re-submit via AfC."

• A message from an editor who, I assume, had a previously deleted page about a prayerbook restored. He wrote: "I have taken pity on you," and then, "You will receive no further kindness from me until you explain..." Then, "In the highly unlikely event that the text agrees with what you posted, I shall report your priest to the bishop." Then, "my reference to your church was a joke".

• An editor writes: "Hi, I am a brand new editor working on the article of an animated film festival in Kosovo Anibar. I don't know much about Wikipedia, please bear with me. I am working on my personal space before I post the article on mainspace. Thank you for your understanding." His response: "The parrot has not squawked for several days and not yet on this generation of this page so — kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here".

• To the next editor: "What colour is this link?"

• To the next editor who clearly didn't realize she had deleted something from his talk page, he writes: "Before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism." She responds, "Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you but I am thoroughly confused. What vandalism? " He responds: "Did you see that the words this vandalism are a link? If you follow that link, it will take you to what we call a "diff report". That report shows the effect of an edit that you did. Please explain why you did it."

• To an editor asking why this administrator had made a rollback, he responds: "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action."

My interaction was next, and was equally negative.

In the real world, people get fired from jobs when they behave like this. The biggest problem though, is it turns new editors off. No kindness. No encouragement. Few suggestions of where to access help.

All of us here are volunteers. None of us deserves to be treated like this. If someone could please take a moment to offer this administrator some strategies for writing to others in a civil way, it would be a big help. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to reply because I don't want to give the impression that you are ignored. I looked over RHaworth's user talk page, and what I saw as responses run the range from brusque to acerbic, and I can definitely understand your concerns. Nothing there crosses the line in my eye to actual misbehavior, not even per incivility which is a much lower bar than personal attacks or harassment. But it's also not kind, either.

To put it in perspective, I wouldn't see any actions from this administrator to be worthy of any templated warnings (even ignoring the fact that templates generally aren't appropriate) but if a request for adminship were run today, these would probably be raised as objections.

I'm not going to offer advice to RHaworth. I don't suggest that administrators are above reproach (I certainly am not!) but for me to suggest to RHaworth that they need to change their communication style feels like arrogance on my part. At least not in the case where another administrator's "style" may be different from mine, but they aren't breaching any policies or guidelines. So I apologize, but I'm not going to take the action that you very politely suggest. All I can offer you right now is an assurance that I do understand and don't entirely dismiss your concerns, I just don't feel that it's my place to try to correct it. -- Atama頭 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama is exactly right. Nothing here rises to the level of incivility as defined by Wikipedia, and even if it did sanctioning other users for civility is controversial to say the least. There are over a thousand admins, with as many individual styles as you'd find in any group of 1000 people. You cite this quote, for example: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested." That isn't insulting, uncivil, or even curt--it's just saying the facts: specifically, that he's not bothered by the DRV and if he cared about the article he would've watchlisted it. Someone who took 3 paragraphs (plus seven links and a picture of a kitten) to say the same thing wouldn't be a better admin, just a more verbose and blustery one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone is acting like a bully and a douchebag, about 40% of the time they turn out to be an admin. Though some of the nicest interactions I've had have been with admins. Power goes to some peoples heads, and couple that with being behind a screen can make people act in ways they would never act in person. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be a caution towards a boomerang. RHaworth, an excellent admin, does not need to be dragged through the mud over this bit over oversensitivity. The OP brought it right here... for what? An admonishment? Move along. Doc talk 09:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How on earth can saying " "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action." be construed as in any way as uncivil? The other comments are at a minor level compared to some on Wikipedia - a number of them are clearly meant to be humourous. I suspect that there are also instances where the quotes have been taken out of context and regardless of history. It's a dirty job out there on the front line and RHaworth in my book is doing a fine job. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is this "bit over oversensitivity" rubbish? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Doc talk 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This one should be quick and easy

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

---

I was amused when Shellwood accused me of campaigning against a random princess, less amused when he or she started edit-warring and making petty remarks about me, and not at all amused when he or she referred to my argument as "this losers personal opinions". Normally I would not report such things, but the user shows no intention to drop the edit-warring and/or believes he or she is free to break basic rules of civility and cooperation. Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now he or she saw it fit to vandalize my userpage. Surtsicna (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

... And to remove this thread twice from the noticeboard. Well, at least he or she is making it easier for all of us. Surtsicna (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What has happened to you Surtsicna. You see conspiracies and enemies everywhere. Your edit summaries are not much better to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fairly easy, yeah, but then you were edit-warring a bit, too, as is usual in these kinds of cases (and whatever they are, I really don't think they're much of a "vandal", though the blanking of your user page isn't cool). Seeing as how this dispute kinda came out of nowhere, I'm more willing to chalk this up for both of you getting a bit hot under the collar (them moreso than you, of course, but still). I'll write 'em a stern notice to stop, I'll let this serve as your less-stern notice to also stop, and leave you two to hash it out on the talk page, hopefully. Further misbehavior from them (particularly in the realm outside the article) will result in a block, but other than that, go, and edit-war no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

*eyeroll* And as usual, things happen while I'm typing. I'll overlook the latest blanking, since it came before my more "official" warning, but Shellwood, if you're reading this, you're treading on very thin ice. Cut it the eff out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, rats. I saw this earlier, watchlisted Surtsicna's user page to see if it happened again, and blocked Shellwood when it did. i didn't see your comments here until too late. My thoughts are that someone doesn't really need it explained to them that blanking a user page with that edit summary is not OK. Stil, @Writ Keeper and WK:, I'll unblock if you want, or you can if you want. It's too easy to step on someone's toes here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. Leave things be; it was an inherently blockable action, complicated only by the fact that I was typing my warning and had submitted it unawares. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:AnnerTown and gross WP:BLP violations

User:AnnerTown, a WP:SPA concerning the Juggalos (gang) and related articles, has repeatedly violated WP:BLP and other policies over this matter, and seems entirely incapable of understanding the need for proper sourcing, and the need to accurately report what sources say. The latest episode involves AnnerTown asserting as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that a homeless man, arrested after an incident which ended in a stabbing, was "a Juggalo and former member of the guerrilla insurgent group Irish Republican Army". [36] As the source cited makes clear, [37] the man himself is alleged to have made such a claim - but the source makes no suggestion whatsoever that either statement is true. Furthermore, it should be noted that the source (from May last year) only refers to charges, and an upcoming court appearence - accordingly it is highly questionable per WP:BLP policy whether this incident would belong in the article even if it could be established that the man was a Juggalo gang member, which of course the source cited doesn't state: it says - correctly - that "Juggalos are fans of Insane Clown Posse, a horror-based rap group", and says nothing whatsoever about membership of any gang. Which of course makes the entire section off-topic for the article anyway. As for the BLP implications of Wikipedia asserting as fact that a homeless man is a member of an organisation frequently regarded as terrorist, I think nothing further needs to be said. There is a long history of dubious sourcing and BLP violations regarding this and related articles, and AnnerTown has been at the heart of it. Given that AnnerTown is now edit-warring to retain this gross violation of multiple policies, and given that AnnerTown's past history (which includes a ridiculously premature appeal to ArbCom [38], and a thread started at Dispute Resolution which AnnerTown conveniently disappeared from as soon as relevent questions were asked [39], as well as multiple earlier WP:BLP violations - I'll document these later if needed), I think it would be for the best to block AnnerTown indefinitely, on competence grounds, before more damage is done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Incidentally, it should be noted that as well as labelling a homeless person as an IRA member, the edit in question also states that " a group of men accosted him for wearing a Juggalo-related T-shirt" - which isn't supported by the source either. AnnerTown is at least consistent, in that everyone involved in the incident gets to be the subject of a WP:BLP violation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. In my defense, I will say the following:

• AndyTheGrump here has been extremely rude and disruptive ever since I began writing at Wikipedia. You'll notice that all of his edits made in relation to the article in question are either to remove things, challenge things, or try to challenge the article itself. He's made it very clear that he's not interested in anything other than getting rid of the article (and now, apparently, the person who wrote it). He's also not talked this over with me at any length. He's only engaged in edit warring (of which I am also guilty) and done the absolute bare minimum for this to be reported at WP:ANI (a half-assed comment on my talk page), without attempting to resolve it peacefully.

• This whole wacky episode started when he accused me of a BLP violation because I added a sourced statement saying that a guy committed a crime, when the source said that he was in fact planning to plead guilty. I assume that Andy's problem was that he had not yet actually plead guilty, but of course he did not explain this to me, he just told me basically "you're not competent enough to edit Wikipedia." So I read over WP:BLP, added a source saying that he was convicted, and he removed the text AGAIN, even with a source, along with another area of text about a Juggalo criminal arrested for a stabbing. He claimed that it was a BLP violation to say that the guy who stabbed people was a member of the IRA, when he himself claimed to be a former member of the IRA. (FORMER member, which is probably why he's homeless.) This struck me as ridiculous, and (to no avail) I asked him what the problem was.

• AndyTheGrump, who is a much more experienced editor than I, did not bother to discuss any of the finer details of point #2 with me at all. He basically just said, "This is a BLP violation, and I want you blocked," and continued to edit war with me without explanation despite being asked what the problem was. If he would have said that "the problem is that he CLAIMS to be a member of the IRA, not that he IS one," then I would have simply changed the article to say that he "claimed". But an accurate Wikipedia article is not what he's aiming for here. He doesn't care if I have sources, or what the article itself says. He just wants me gone. I hope that whoever resolves this dispute will understand this and allow me to continue editing.

• As far as the WP:SPA accusation goes, I would agree that my edits are limited to a specific set of subjects, but I don't really think that I'm "advocating" anything. I wrote the Juggalo gang article because there are plenty of sources for this phenomenon, yet no Wikipedia article. I'm also working on a couple of other Wikipedia articles on my PC right now, so this will be a moot point in the near future anyhow.

• I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I apologize that I forgot about the dispute resolution thing. I'm more than willing to try it again while I have some spare time. Please also consider that I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, and I take frequent hiatuses as I travel, so I'm not as familiar with all of the policies and procedures as some people; I'm still getting used to things to some degree. I've edited Wikis in the past, but this is a whole new ball game, and I still have much to learn.

• I felt that the Juggalo/IRA thing belonged in this article because this article is dedicated to documenting the Juggalo criminal element, and it might damage the reputations of Juggalos who are not criminals if it were put in the main article. I've tried to make it abundantly clear through that article that Juggalos themselves are not dedicated criminals, and the criminal element makes up only a small population of the subculture, a position which is supported by most of the sources cited by the article. Clearly, this man was a criminal, and he belonged to that criminal element. This is something that should probably be discussed in the article's talk page instead of here, and I don't think anyone should be blocked for it either way.

• I am doing my best to understand Wikipedia policies and respond to Andy's complaints. He's doing his best to fail to provide me with relevant information and to get me blocked from Wikipedia. In my mind, that's what this boils down to.

• Finally, all of this should be discussed on the article's talk page in order to perhaps reach some sort of agreement. I'm not perfect, and for that matter neither is Andy, but no one needs to be blocked.

• Relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juggalos_%28gang%29&diff=597478005&oldid=597476990

AnnerTown (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly, this man was a criminal, and he belonged to that criminal element." Um, no, repeating a WP:BLP violation on WP:ANI isn't going to do your case much good. The only thing that is 'clear' is that the source doesn't say (a) that he has been convicted of anything, (b) that he is/was a member of the IRA, or (c) that he is/was a member of any Juggalo gang... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that Wikipedia wasn't allowed to cite arrests or criminal indictments until today, but what I meant was, he is a criminal if this is true. I'll give you that one, and I agree that this section can be removed until the court reaches a decision. Of course, you wait until we're on WP:ANI to give me these sorts of details, because you're trying to get me banned, not improve the article. Once again, that's what this boils down to. If you'd brought up any of the above issues on the article's talk page, using the detail that you are using here, they would have already been resolved, but it seems that's not the outcome that you are looking for. AnnerTown (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• AnnerTown (talk) - Ignorance of the community-adopted WP:BLPCRIME policy is no excuse to continually violate it, especially after being warned. Violations of the WP:BLPCRIME policy can be removed without discussion, because of legal ramifications to the Wikimedia organization (defamation). It's just that simple. Your edit-warring (even in ignorance of the policy) does not help your position very much. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AnnerTown, so what you are saying is that you didn't know that Wikipedia doesn't state that people are guilty before they have been convicted of a crime, and you needed this explained to you before you would stop edit-warring such claims into articles? Ridiculous.

And you have still to explain why you think that Wikipedia should be labelling someone a member of a terrorist organisation, based on nothing but a statement allegedly made by a homeless man under the influence of alcohol. Do you think that being drunk and homeless makes someone incapable of fabrications?

And furthermore you have still to explain why any of this belonged in an article entitled 'Juggalos (gang)' when no evidence whatsoever has been presented that the individual concerned was a member of any gang. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Fair enough, but it certainly would have helped if someone had explained all this to me in the first place. I think it says a lot when someone recommends that I be blocked from editing altogether instead of simply telling me what I'm doing wrong. I'll try to do better in the future, but this was an honest mistake. I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I think that educating me would be more beneficial than blocking me outright. It's a bit extreme to punish me when I don't realize that I'm doing anything wrong, especially now that I better understand the policy. Even if a discussion isn't required to remove the material, AndyTheGrump did not reference WP:BLPCRIME in the IRA instance at all, so I didn't even realize it was an issue in that case until he posted it here. It's not fair to block me when I specifically ask "What is the problem here?" and get no response. Hell, the first time he reverted the edit, the edit summary simply consisted of "reb" without any clear explanation of what that meant or why the material was being removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juggalos_%28gang%29&diff=597213933&oldid=597213310 AndyTheGrump should be working with me to improve the article, not being cryptic and attacking me. I am not his enemy, but he seems to believe otherwise. But I'll improve my editing in the future in that regard. Once again, I wasn't aware of that policy until today, and I apologize.

2. The article was originally titled "Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos" before being changed to "Juggalos (gang)", and I was operating under the assumption that it was not just limited to gang-related criminal activity, but to Juggalo-related criminal activity as a whole. I felt it would be better suited to place the information here than on the main Juggalo article. Furthermore, the article sourced just before that article, from the same news source, referred to "the Juggalo street gang, who are devoted fans of the horror-rap group Insane Clown Posse that participate in criminal activities." - http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/06/juggalo-street-gang-member-arrested-after-attack-p/ But this is, once again, something that should be discussed and perhaps moved to another page, or simply removed.

3. Where are you getting the idea that he was intoxicated on alcohol? I didn't see that in the source. He CLAIMED that he had a few drinks. It didn't say that he was intoxicated, or even make any indication that his claims of drinking were true. Anyway, once again, this could have simple been changed to "alleged member" or "claimed he was a member" or even discussed this on the talk page. There is no chance of it being a legal liability since it came out of his mouth. AnnerTown (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "I wasn't told" argument won't wash, since I had already posted the following statement on the article talk page, in the thread you recently started: "WE DO NOT ASSERT AS FACT THAT PERSONS CHARGED BUT NOT YET CONVICTED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENCES HAVE IN FACT CARRIED OUT SUCH OFFENCES. EVER" [40] That's right, I said it in block capitals. In bold. Not normally considered compliant with talk page etiquette, admittedly, but at least it should have been obvious. I'd have thought so, at least. And no, I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing this elsewhere. You clearly lack the competence to be involving yourself in such controversial articles if you are unaware of such elementary legal principles as the presumption of innocence - which isn't just Wikipedia policy, but law. As for the rest of your comments, they merely illustrate further that you were more concerned with padding the article with negative material than with accurately reporting sources, and it doesn't matter a damn what was said elsewhere: we don't engage in original research to decide what we think sources are saying. The article cited didn't state that the man was a Juggalo gang member, so neither can we - and accordingly it doesn't belong in the article. As for the lack of 'legal liability', even if you are right in that the homeless man can't sue us you* for stating that he is an IRA member (which may or not be true - we are of course reporting it third-hand), we also owe a duty to our readers not to post random bullshit into articles just so we can pad out an article. AndyTheGrump (talk)

*Note. It is much more likely that the person getting sued in such circumstances would be the person responsible for the edit, rather than the WMF, who take great care to ensure that they aren't accountable for such things. Which they do by ensuring that policies such as WP:BLP are in place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And further to you not being aware of WP:BLP policies, can you explain how you were unaware of the thread entitled "A gross violation of WP:BLP policy" [41] that I posted on your talk page in January of last year, where I pointed out the multiple violations of policy you had already made? Why didn't you ask for an explanation then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You never said that the IRA source had anything to do with WP:BLPCRIME, even after I had asked "What is the problem here?". You only indicated in your edit summaries that you were removing it because the idea that he was an IRA member violated WP:BLP, which is a completely different. I only learned about WP:BLPCRIME today, and it never once crossed my mind that it applied to the IRA source, since that's NOT what you said. I did figure out that the Norteno reference was related to WP:BLPCRIME after reading WP:BLP, and I added another source accordingly.

Also, the idea that I'm "only interested in negative information" is absolutely false and betrays your bias against me. Yes, I have added a lot of crimes committed by Juggalos, but I've also made sure that it is balanced out with an entire section on the differences between criminal and non-criminal Juggalos, as well as stating very clearly at the top of the page that not all Juggalos are criminals or gang members. My last major edit included quotes by police officers which have stated that not all Juggalos are gang members or criminals. This is an article about violent criminal activity. It's naturally going to have a lot of negativity. Violent criminal groups are not known for doing positive things!

But this has nothing to do with my competency as an editor, it just means that maybe the article doesn't read as well as it should. Andy is ironically just trying to pad this discussion with negative bullshit.

And I never said that he was a Juggalo gang member. You need your eyes checked. I said that this article was originally named Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos, and I was operating under the assumption that all Juggalo criminal activity would be better suited to that article than the main Juggalo article, because that's how the article started off. Maybe that's not the case, but if so, here is not the place to discuss it. (And I'm well aware that you're not interested in talking about it anywhere else, which only further betrays your bias - you just want me gone.)

As far as the old reivision of my talk page that you linked to, I doubt that I even read it or knew that it was there, considering that I apparently didn't respond. If I did, I certainly don't remember it. This was over a year ago when I knew very little about Wikipedia other than the basics. After this discussion, you can be sure that I won't forget again.

And yeah, I'm sure that lawsuit would go over real well:

HOMELESS JUGGALO: Hey, Judge. I said I was in the IRA, and then the news repeated what I said, and then Wikipedia repeated what the news said. Do I get money?

JUDGE: What the hell have you been smoking? Get out of my courtroom.

The rest of this discussion is just going to be me and Andy flinging shit at each other, apparently, so I'm done with it.

Closing argument, because I have to go to bed: STATicVapor has noted that while the article was awful when I first created it, and it still has issues, I have made an effort to clean it up and improve it. I will continue to do so. Blocking someone when they genuinely don't understand a Wikipedia policy is overkill, and I believe that the best course of action is to allow me to learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor, which I will make every attempt to do. AnnerTown (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, a clear lack of competence. AnnerTown "never said that he was a Juggalo gang member". but included him in an article on Juggalo gang members anyway. And thinks that's ok. And still thinks that Wikipedia should be labelling people as members of terrorists organisations based on a source that doesn't say that they are a member of a terrorist organisation. And thinks that just because they don't think they will get sued, that's ok. Ridiculous.

As for my 'bias', I'll freely admit to be biased against articles which declare people guilty prior to conviction, which cite material anonymously uploaded to filesharing websites as sources, and which still contain gross WP:BLP violations. I've just noticed that there is yet another assertion of guilt based on a source which refers to individuals who have been arrested, but not convicted - this time regarding an alleged murder. [42] I have of course removed the offending material, but at this point, I think it may be wise to ask for the entire article to be revdel'd as sorting out the valid content from the policy violations is probably less effort than recreation from scratch with appropriate sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You repeatedly calling them a terrorist organization, when they are definitely not, is a WP:BLP violation. STATic message me! 15:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is twisting the facts here, and this should be dismissed for that reason alone. The IRA is not a terrorist org, the suspects were convicted of the "alleged" murder that he just removed and complained was a WP:BLP violation, he claims that it's wrong to include Juggalo criminal activity in an article based on Juggalo criminal activity, and he's falsely claiming that I want to use "sources anonymously uploaded to file-sharing web sites", which is not the case at all (and all of the editors working on the article besides him want to keep the source in question). Now he's asking for the ENTIRE ARTICLE to be destroyed, not just whatever he believes is offending, along with all of the reliable sources used in it, and removed from public view (!), and asking for me to be banned, so that it cannot be easily rebuilt. His agenda here is clear as day. He's using underhanded tactics to get rid of an article that he doesn't like. AnnerTown (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

BurlesqueCoversGalére

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

User adding unsourced or improperly sourced information to biographical articles such as Mike Scott (musician). Also in breach of WP:3RR 81.86.72.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Those additions look pretty sourcy to me (see what I did there?), and there's no 3RR breach. The user is trying to discuss this with you on your talkpage; maybe you might like to have a conversation with them before bringing this to ANI? Yunshui 雲‍水 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandal Spam Account

User:2601:D:6700:25D:8426:ACCE:405B:6A9E looks like nothing but trouble. The name alone implies its a computer generated string and not a legitimate user attempting to join the community. Three edits so far, at best sandbox tests and at worst warming up for vandalism. I would recommend deleting the account if possible. -OberRanks (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is just an IPv6 address.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed an IPv6 address, not a username. The edits are concerning, though, and I've left the IP a warning. In future, please bring such concerns to WP:AIV, rather than here. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)User:OberRanks. We do not delete accounts, even when problematic. As noted, this is an IP address. They aren't starting out well, but looks to me like theya re just testing to see if it is true that anyone can edit. Consider giving them a welcoming template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I need help to move a page over a redirect

I want to change the name of the page Draugr to Draug. Draug was however its original name, and is now a redirect. Since i can not move a page to an already excisting page (even though it's only a redirect) I need an administrator to do this. KnutfAen (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Reece Leonard

User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [43], [44], [45], [46]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [47], [48], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has also begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: [49]. He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: [50], [51], and has begun canvassing other editors with this same material as well, [52], [53].

I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: [54], [55], [56], [57]; Katy Perry: [58] and Britney Spears: [59]. He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits [60], [61].

It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)