Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:01, 4 February 2015

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner

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

This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

On the article Organic food, The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:

• That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
• In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
• Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".

This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Misplaced Pages, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which

• States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
• Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF,

It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article Organic food. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of WP:MEDRS, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).

The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.

In fact, in this case it is Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Banner talk 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:

• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif

It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Formerly just asked Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of "whitewashing" which Banner blew off, writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, I suggest a topic ban for him. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. The Banner talk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at Organic food, who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? The Banner talk 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. The Banner talk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food due to the messiness of reality. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?

I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why WP:MEDRS is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable due to the messiness of reality.

It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. The Banner talk 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it . The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:

1. Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."
2. Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."
3. "Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here."

So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The Banner has already blown off all requests to revert or remove personal attacks, and seems unable to operate per WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. I no longer think a warning will suffice. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. 23.27.252.213 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks] that you got yourself blocked, mr. IP. The Banner talk 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban As constant violation of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS is unacceptable.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning this user completely This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Misplaced Pages. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least WP:CIVIL, the least collegial individual I have met in my 7 years on Misplaced Pages. He is a mass editor, primarily interested in inserting his WP:POV, his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete (what he below calls following him around). I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in. And ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.

The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.

The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this narrow topic ban would help. See his mass deletion of relevant content in nearly all topics you can think about. Also how fast he is given warnings and blames others of an edit war etc. I support Trackinfo s opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything from "Support banning this user completely" to the signature was added by Trackinfo; it's not that the siteban advocate failed to sign. Trackinfo, go to Special:Contributions/The Banner and underneath "User contributions" you'll see a section For The Banner (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log), or something like that; that's the easiest way to reach https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: and here . The Banner talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called Psychological projection. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. Everybody else is not crazy. You are. Trackinfo (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. This editor has been persistently disrupted the organic food article with their disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. Yobol (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing WP:CIVIL really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. Tutelary (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tutelary thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
  • reverts removal of OR with no edit note
  • adding biased sourced (http://www.organicitsworthit.org)
  • edit warring to keep biased source
  • jumping in in order to edit war with edit note "no need for censorship of positive things"
  • again jumping in to edit war and again on same content
  • again jumping in to edit war with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
  • there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. The Banner talk 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. The Banner talk 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true? Difs.

1) you again make personal attacks about whitewashing in edit notes and on Talk

2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly a first time and again a second time

3) you write "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"

very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your bad faith statement You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. And why are you not commenting about the part of research that is unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". Did you corner yourself with that statement? Come on, Jytdog, the only thing you want is to shut down a critical voice. Not because I am disruptive but because I am inconvenient. The Banner talk 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are there to see and I am describing your pattern of behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lack of self reflection on their behavior is more evidence that this topic ban needs to be placed. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And do you really think a topic ban will improve the article? Or is it just step one to scare away all other critical voices? Jytdog stated above that most scientific research is unreliable, still only scientific research more or less positive is shot down, not the scientific research that is more or less negative. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not the article's content. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is the content and the use of different systems to measure notability of new info. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Support a narrow (article specific) topic ban. Those advocating community bans here are among the first to resort to personal attacks, confess to collating "sh*t-sheets" and have atrocious AFD contribution records as immovable inclusionists. But the attitude here with regard to specific topic areas is problematic and Jytdog has made a reasonable case for a topic ban, limited to those articles where there have been problems. But anything broader than that seems unwarranted. St★lwart 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've amended my position (reversed it, if you would). The ongoing discussions here have been enlightening and I'm quite glad they've remained open. What we've seen since my first contribution (2 weeks ago) is further and further refinement of the "issues". They still include The Banner's behaviour (in part) but watching those pushing for his topic ban interact without his active involvement in the area suggests there are other major problems here and many of them relate to content, not conduct. Those that do relate to conduct apply equally to some of those of both "sides". A plague on both your houses, if you like. There are many who seem to jump to personal attacks before WP:BRD and The Banner has been one of them in only a handful of related instances. I no longer think that applying a topic ban to him alone would resolve any of the substantive issues here, and so doing to would be contrary to our policies. This needs broader and more broadly applied restrictions. St★lwart 11:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would define the topic as "organic food". Concretely that would be Organic farming, Organic food, and Organic milk. Those are currently the articles about organic food where Banner has been acting disruptively. I would also include Organic farming as the same kinds of disputes have broken out there and that would be a place where Banner could easily carry on this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (amended per below Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for supplying evidence that this is just a case of silencing. In regards to Organic farming, I have never edited there so I don't know why you think I was disruptive there. My last two edits on Organic milk were in July 2014, reverted by one Jytdog. Before that I have an edit in December 2013 and a few older, nearly all reverted. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, that you have not edited the Organic food article. I amended the statement above. My apologies.Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we institute topic-bans to prevent disruption so including an article in a topic ban because someone "could easily" be disruptive there is unlikely to be supported. It's not something I would support anyway. Organic milk looks similar - he has edited there, but not disruptively and not extensively. The problematic article would seem to be Organic food. St★lwart 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some comments by The Banner mentioned here indicate the editor is trying to "defend" the topic in general, so I don't think discussing a topic ban outside of just the article is entirely out of the question. Considering the editor has had problems with similar behavior in the past based on their block logs and those comments they've made, someone could make a decent case that the behavior is likely to keep occurring in closely related topics. That's also partly because there are a few different organic related articles out there. I'd personally just look for broad topic ban on organic food, but if the narrow approach is pursued, a short leash approach should be taken through a very direct warning that more bans will follow if problem behaviors pop up in other related articles as part of the remedy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And other articles/topics can always be added later if Jytdog's predictions prove accurate. If The Banner wants to prove him right and so migrates the same behaviour to other articles, he would only have himself to blame. St★lwart 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd just like to stress my main point there was that there's a history of this behavior not improving despite blocks already. A topic ban helps, but is a band-aid for a more widespread problem. Because of that, an admin warning would seem like a good minimum action besides a narrow topic ban in case the behavior isn't changed for the nth time. The behavior appears to be relatively widespread in addition to the very pointed examples for this article, so it seems like some ratcheting up is needed if these cycles of block/bans and going right back to the behavior issues afterwords continue. No one has really made a great case for wider community bans like you mentioned (nor do I think they are called for right now), but it does seem like there's enough to keep a short leash if this behavior keeps coming up in the future elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is in WP's interest to ban him from the organic food topic, but even just a ban from Organic food would be an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A neutral article is in the interest of Misplaced Pages, not silencing a critical voice. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way: this edit, in which you removed a POV-tag, is rather symptomatic for what is happing on this article. I am definitively not the only one critical about the neutrality of the article. The Banner talk 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If reliable sources say that organic foods are healthier than we should include that in the article. And I'm sure that there are probably many. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why ANI can be difficult. Mr. Guye reliable sources say that we cannot say that organic food is healthier. That is exactly the point here. Your "probably sure" is not how we do things in WP. Please actually read the article and the sources cited there, and please see the discussion on the talk page about sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember that this conversation is based on editor behavior. If it were just a content dispute, this conversation wouldn't be at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, only because you refuse to admit that it is in basic just a content dispute. Talk:Organic_food#Neutrality is again evidence how MEDRS is misused, in this case to brush away a POV-tag. The Banner talk 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is how you behave in content disputes as outlined above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, so permanently saying NO in a content dispute is allowed, as that is what happening here. See for example this one: You can't place a POV flag if the basis of the POV challenge is a challenge to WP:MEDRS. Its wikipedia policy. {https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Organic_food&diff=642669126&oldid=642668116] In my opinion, that is misusing a guideline (as MEDRS is not a policy as claimed but "just" a guideline) The Banner talk 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. If The Banner has long-term civility and edit warring issues across the encyclopedia, then first of all a topic ban from natural foods is not going to address that. Second, I would question (but have not checked) how many of those editors favoring a topic ban are the ones who are having a content disagreement on this article, or who have had run-ins with The Banner in the past. That certainly entitles them to an opinion, but inasmuch as they are involved and there is clearly a heated content dispute afoot, that kind of !vote is not an appropriate way to apply behavioral sanctions. At a very minimum, anyone deciding the issue should discount the vote and look at their actual edits and comments. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  My brief experience wading into this article suggests there is a serious problem with POV editors camping out to establish a scientific rather than encyclopedic approach. As such, I have re-added a POV tag. This is all a legitimate matter of content discussion, but not a good place to allow a science cabal to assert ownership of an article about a subject largely outside the scope of science. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I have been further warned not to add a POV tag. My attempt to describe the science there as science, etc., have been reverted. It's clear that there's a weird ownership issue on this particular article of smarmy science types who believe that the supremacy of peer-reviewed journal articles extends to food and taste. It's bizarre. Whatever civility problems The Banner may have, they've hit a dysfunctional editing environment here at this particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  And going against that is what is called "disruptive behaviour" here... The Banner talk 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Wikidemon the proposed topic ban is focused on the problem I am aware of. I interact little with Banner and have no comment at all on Banner's behavior elsewhere. That is a distraction from the issues at hand. Further, long-term disruption by an editor cannot be boiled down to a "content dispute". That is a mischaracterization - this is about behavior, not content. My sense is that you have not spent time investigating the history of the article and the discussions on Talk and the way that Banner has behaved, nor looked at the diffs we have provided. I encourage you to do that before you make the kind of judgement you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I would be frustrated too if an article was hijacked in this way on my watch, and I am indeed somewhat irritated by my brief exposure to the dysfunctional editing environment there — I just have the good sense to recognize lost battles rather than WP:BATTLE them. So, again, if TheBanner has a long term editing problem with how they react to reasonably perceived unencyclopedic editing practices, in this case a misplaced scientific focus of an article about food, then that ought to be addressed dispassionately by uninvolved editors, not used by the editors in question to enforce their point of view. Possibly this is no more than a dispute over the subject of the article, with neither side blinking but one side having a local consensus by numbers. The page is just fine as an article about the scientific evaluation of foods certified as organic, it would make a fine subsection or child article. It could be that the broader topic including the history, economics, production methods, politics, culinary evaluation, social perception, and so on, is a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to actual content, you're butting heads with very similar issues that editors have when first entering topics such as climate change, evolution, etc. Working in scientific topics is tough, especially when it's a new area for an editor. Folks at the talk page have discussed how you can start into the topic if you want, but being an encyclopedia means we reflect the science as our focus, and that has been upheld time and again. Those are all things that if you want to discuss, that's better left at policy pages or the actual talk page. Here though we are discussing the behavior of The Banner. Whether a content dispute is "valid" or not is irrelevant when we're discussing when an editor acts inappropriately. Inappropriate actions are so whether someone thinks they are justified or not. There are dispute resolution options when someone wants to approach things civilly, but the whole case being brought here is that the user does not approach things civilly and users are tired of that specific disruption. If it was a content issues, we wouldn't be at this noticeboard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon I have looked over your contribs and I see you like to write about gastronomy, and were probably expecting a more "foodie" article on organic food. The essence of organic farming and organic food is its "purity" - that food produced organically is better (for the land, for the workers, for the consumer) because of how it is was made. In my view, people who want to learn about organic, want to understand how it is different from conventionally produced food. Much of that is handled in the organic farming article but things specific to food are addressed in the organic food article. Whether there are differences between organic and conventinally produced food, and what they might be, are questions that can be investigated with science. Now there may well be a "foodie" orientation that could add value to the article - I am not sure what that would be, but maybe content about organic restaurants, content bringing in overlaps with the Locavore movement (it appears that what differences in taste with regard to organic may be attributed to those overlaps)... stuff like that. There are ways your perspective could add value to the article. But that stuff is quite separate from what Banner has been doing, which has been disrupting the article because he has wanted content to be included that organic food is more healthy and that eating it makes people more healthy, and those claims have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and Banner has turned to disruptive behavior in protest. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are making things up, Jytdog. It is not a protest, it is plain concern about how a few people can keep an article POV and overly negative by applying a guideline (not a policy as is often claimed) that should not be applied at all. And what you do is just trying to silence a critical voice. The Banner talk 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• My point on the topic ban proposal is exactly as I say, that: (i) if The Banner's run-ins with other editors are broader than this one topic (which they may be if you do an archive search , then shooing them away on an article-by-article basis isn't useful; and (ii) complaints and !votes coming from one side of a POV dispute should be weighed carefully. The whole question of science and food comes in only inasmuch as this is a bona fide POV dispute, not one editor pushing fringe content. Being an encyclopedia means applying a scientific POV to claims about science, not to all of human knowledge. Whereas the "essence" of the organic food movement may be about meeting consumer desires for health, and environmental and social responsibility, the realization of those desires is an industry, a certification, distribution and retail channels, and a genre of food, which means that any intersection with science is only partial. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What I have been saying all along is we should look at this user's overall pattern of negativity. I have zero involvement with this topic. A small topic ban will not solve The Banner's general hostility to the opinions of other, well meaning editors (essentially forcing his POV); his constant incivility; and his mass deletion of relevant content. I fear this is about to fall off the ANI list into the archives with no resolution and he'll continue to get away with this pattern of activity . . . that is at least until he is back here again--as the above notation demonstrates he's apparently been in ANI 48 times already. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And what is the relevance of that? Are you so desperate to get me blocked that you start using every form of harassment to get what you want? While you have been warned by an admin to stop harassing me multiple times? Want to keep gambling with that? The Banner talk 12:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this narrow topic ban would help at the article in question at least. Problems in other topics just establish the editor has been made aware of the problem behavior many times for the purpose of this ANI. If someone wants to pursue issues in a wider range, probably better to take a similar approach to WP:ROPE and see what happens after action on this specific topic. This has been open for 11 days now with one oppose actually asking about behavior with some good conversation following that, so maybe it would be helpful if an admin would give their assessment of consensus at this point unless more folks have comments on The Banner's behavior? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree WP:ROPE would give everybody a chance to either see a correction in his behavior or to finally rid ourselves of him. What it takes is follow up. Like I said, he's been in ANI 48 times, this has been here you say for 11 days and yet nobody has taken the action to look at his record. Yes, its massive. He is on the cusp of being a top 1,000 editor and there are literally thousands of edits he's made that are protested by other editors; in hostile retorts to those protests; or defending his actions here and elsewhere. So let him hang himself, but it takes serious follow up, essentially a full time job. I tried to follow him for just a short period of time and it is too much labor to fight every hostile thing he does. And he bites. Of course, I'm not an admin. I did it the right way for an editor. For each erroneous deletion, I came back with multiple sources. That takes the defender much more work than his snap delete policy. So the investigation could be exhausting. He is great spouting off policy excuses, he will wikilawyer you on every point, repeatedly, but its all Bullshit. When do you say, enough is enough? He has already used up more than enough rope for me. Trackinfo (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo, how many times are you warned to stop harassing me? I guess you did not get that message at all. The Banner talk 12:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So folks, my appeal to get an Administrator to seriously look at this guy will get you this: " This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Banner talk 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" Trackinfo (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell that admin Drmies has already told you twice to stop harassing me. Trackinfo! The Banner talk 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note - Banner's disruptive behavior of making personal attacks has been continuing, even as we are discussing his behavior here:
  • dif not getting it, saying this ANI is about content. "I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. "
  • dif just today: continuing the personal attacks, "Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause". He doesn't even understand the problem. WP:IDHT Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Jytdog, are you serious? You call those statements "personal attacks"? The Banner does, it is true, use strong language every now and then, but I see nothing here that is even worth discussing, and I get the feeling that some (who aren't editors of that article, for instance) are just looking for an excuse to get Banner in trouble. Now, if the aggravating circumstances are to be found in some words and a picture on Banner's user page, I suggest that Formerly 98 removed the image from their talk page that proves without a shadow of a doubt that they are a troll. I'm kidding. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit, I'm a good-looking guy....:>) Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, I was pleased to be able to copy something fun and immediately appropriate here. Thanks for making my argument for me! Seriously, I don't think you'll gain much traction here from Banner's user page, which is probably why no one who isn't involved with the organic bit seems to have commented here... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its just me Drmies, but I'd say there is a difference between posting a tongue-in-cheek self portrait on one's userpage, and declaring one's intent to ignore Misplaced Pages guidelines and edit war on the other. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been stressed multiple times above and elsewhere to The Banner that a content dispute is not an excuse for behavior like this, but they keep going back to saying this is just a content dispute. Attempts to direct them towards the issue of their behavior in a helpful and good faith are met with hostility as can be seen in the responses throughout this poist. In the example diffs I gave above, I also left The Banner a warning on their talk page after constantly refusing to come to the article talk page, followed by The Banner leaving a warning on my talk page about edit warring for trying to get them to start discussing . I tried to stress that the reason their reverts were being reverted was because they were ignoring repeated requests to come to the talk page , but it seems by that exchange that this user is more interested in going after those who point out their problem behavior. As Jytdog mentioned, definite IDHT behavior than acknowledging a problem, so it doesn't seem any amount of discussion will alleviate the issue, hence why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kingofaces43, what I see is three diffs from August of last year where you revert the addition of apparently verified content with a somewhat lame reference to STATUS QUO--one man's status quo is another man's impeding progress. If those reverts are the extent of Banner's disruption (a half a year ago), well...and have you noted that, if Banner is edit warring there, then you are too? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I wouldn't call it blatant edit warring on my part (at least in comparison). How else are we supposed to respond when an editor ignores a current ongoing discussion? Remember that each time I had to ask for the talk page discussion to continue or for The Banner to rejoin the conversation rather than edit war contrary to the current discussion. The whole problem was that The Banner was trying to circumvent the discussion. The spirit of WP:EW is that we try to engage in discussion when there is a disagreement on content (as I was doing). I was trying to re-engage The Banner in discussion to bring them back to the conversation each time rather than trying to fight for content. Perspective matters here, so it's helpful to remember there was already discussion going on before the linked reverts.

Basically, another editor added the content unsourced, discussion ensued. They brought some sources they thought would work, but the sources didn't' support the content as there was some orignial research going on to make the statement. There was quite a bit of discussion about this under the Perceptions heading I linked you to. The Banner had been involved in that conversation too, so he knew about it. At that point there was no consensus for a source that worked for the content and we were in the process of finding sources that would work. That's why I removed the unsourced content (the status quo comment) citing the ongoing work at the talk page since we were actively trying to rework the content and find sources. That's pretty standard practice for challenged new content, especially if unsourced while its being discussed and reworked. Keep in mind this was all before the reverts by The Banner, so there was plenty of talk page discussion. Then he tried to reinsert the content with the source that had been challenged already. I reverted pointing him back to the ongoing talk page discussion that he had already been involved in, but the reverts continued. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Also just to be clear, I never claimed this was the only incident of disruption at the article. I just gave it as a single example of the problematic behavior that I've experienced to keep things concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmies thanks for commenting, and for injecting some fun into the discussion. {i love that self-portrait :) } As I wrote above, I've been ignoring Banner's constant focus on contributors not content on Talk and the nasty remarks he keeps making, and his edit warring to retain any piece of crap content that is added as long as it is "positive" about organic food, and have asked him to contribute constructively. But when he threw down the gauntlet I felt he crossed the line. He has thrown AGF completely out the window and has not used any DR processes and has just degenerated into disrupting the article. It's time for him to go. At any point in this discussion he could have said, "hey, ok, i've been acting like a dick because i'm frustrated. sorry, I will use DR processes and chill out on Talk." he has come nowhere even near that - instead he is now making martyr-ish remarks. really it's time for him to be topic banned. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, I just don't see it. We've topic-banned plenty of people on this very board, but I don't see how Banner's behavior is a matter of reproach in the first place. I have skimmed the talk page and I may have missed a note or two, but what I expected to find there was some serious hardcore discussion of sources, and I don't see it. And the other thing I expected was maybe an RfC or two about the specific wording of this change or that, and I don't see that either. One could easily flip the tables and say that one editor is here being gang-tackled by a group of editors who also (note Kingofaces's linked edits) removed sourced content--and, one should add, this is supposed to be a two-way street: did you all seek dispute resolution? Finally, I don't see the personal attacks or the persistent focus on contributors, not content, that Banner is accused of. Can we not use our time more productively on the talk page? Have you considered 3O, or soliciting the opinion of some MEDRS experts? Later, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking questions here Drmies (I'd rather see that than just support/opposes). I won't have time to respond to much else than this until later, but if you're referring to my three diffs up at my support post, you might have misread the situation. The content was originally unsourced by another user, and some discussion was already ongoing with multiple editors at the time before The Banner even added it, but there wasn't consensus that it was appropriate for the content well before my links. We basically were discussing a lot, but The Banner seemed to decide to just go ahead and add/revert the sources and content in. It's a little ways back (and a bit of read), but the conversation was here . I'll comment on the other things later tonight when I'm back if no one else addresses them by then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Drmies, we have been putting up with this for two years now:

• in November 2012 Banner first edited the article, leaping into an edit war (see the history here, around November 2012 to include sources like http://www.factorfizzle.com to support content on the safety and nutrient value of organic vs conventional food.
• Banner's first comment on the article Talk page was also back in November 2012, and he asked, "why MEDRS"
• his first response to the first answer went right to "Blatant nonsense"
• Actually I was wrong about no DR. Zad68 opened a mediation that failed back in December 2012 over all the ruckus and edit warring Banner caused then.
• there were efforts to frame an RfC (here and here that failed - and if you read those, you can see why.
• I got involved in late December and suggested a compromise - namely to handle "chemical" differences (of which some can actually be identified) separately from "health differences" from eating organic (none have been identified) (see here). That compromise has endured since then.
• but Banner has been railing against the use of MEDRS for health claims about organic food for two years now. Please walk in our shoes. And you are ignoring his dare when asked to strike yet another charge of whitewashing: "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". So what will the community do? How do we live with this guy who cannot hear that we need to use MEDRS for health claims? (a two year case of IDHT) Those are not rhetorical questions - I am really asking for your advice. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Why don't you tell that I initiated a possible RfC twice but that "you guys" (to give a short summery of the different people involved) could not accept my proposal? And why is there constant trouble at Organic food about stuff being removed? Quite often it were others adding stuff and seeing it removed on grounds of "failing MEDRS" or the polular "WP:OR". Is it not possible that something is wrong with the tight application of MEDRS when so many people have trouble with it? Only this year (just 19 days old) it happened to three other users to see their edits reverted by mr. Jytdog. We are talking about food, but sources from agricultural colleges and universities are often rejected as unreliable of failing MEDRS. And scientific research was, according to you, unreliable due to the "messiness of reality" but still you accept some scientific research, especially when it is vague or negative about organic food. You should apply the same rules for all scientific research, not cherrypicking the best ones for your goal. The Banner talk 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is policy. If you don't like it, the appropriate response is to work to change the policy, not to ignore it and and attack the characters of those who apply it. That's pretty much the way it works here and at any other organization for that matter. If you decide the rules don't apply to you because you don't agree with them, sanctions usually follow. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you really that desperate to get me topic banned that you have to go back more then two years to find excuses? Sheesh. The Banner talk 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's called "establishing a pattern". If it goes back two years, then the time period is not the deal-killer you're making it out to be; quite the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You can also look at it from the other side: they claim that the article is neutral and the use of MEDRS is valid. But there is a pattern of other people who also claim that the article is not neutral and that the application of MEDRS is at least heavy handed. The Banner talk 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Questions?. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any action yet after this long considering we've had pretty clear personal attacks/civility issues and edit warring The Banner resorts to, especially when consensus is against them due to reliable sources, due weight, etc. Considering that, are there any questions about something that isn't clear about the specific behavior issues for other folks reading here? What exactly are people looking for to make a decisions one way or another?

The Banner just can't accept that their behavior in attempting to deal with content they disagree with is problematic and tries to claim they are being attacked instead in some fashion instead of trying to avoid the behavior problems. Past history (apparently 48 ANIs) shows this behavior is a persistent problem, so I'd like to see if we can get some kind of resolution so those of us at the article don't need to keep putting up with continued personal attacks and aspersions whenever we do something The Banner doesn't agree with. It seems we have more than enough for the proposed warning by Formerly 98 at a minimum, and a topic ban seems like a no-brainer for anyone who's had to deal with the behavior first hand at least, but what kind of information are uninvolved editors looking for? Hopefully answering that can bring this to a close if something is unclear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - A topic ban is drastic and excessive for this incident on organic foods. The inserted statement at that article, while true, is vague in meaning, so it says little. I've also seen problems around MEDRS, as I have a history with it, and have seen other editors have a history with it. There were times where I believed there was false consensus, and eventually seen those articles grow more neutral. I've seen editors come and go, and had this belief there was NPOV, when they inserted something reliable, but it was removed because it wasn't a review, or they didn't have access to the review. The whitewashing remark looked like the perceived actions, and not necessarily a personal attack. I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. - Sidelight12 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, this has been an ongoing issue, not an isolated incident just to make sure that is clear. From your response, it seems like you might have taken just a glance at a few things (completely understandable given the length of this). The reason The Banner is being discussed is because of their behavior, not a content dispute. Voicing a concern of whitewashing is one thing on a talk page (variable in appropriateness), but edit warring citing white washing by users rather than specific reliable source or weight concerns is a problem because it contributes to the history attacking editors. The snipes are very directed at editors and not content if you follow the diffs and the talk page discussions linked above, and below by Jytdog. What do you think is the best way to prevent the behavior issue regardless of dispute with that in mind? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm just an outside observer here but I've been on the receiving end in the past of what felt like a tag-team effort by Jytdog, Formerly98 and KingofAces43. Spending a few days studying their edit histories is very informative. They, plus some other editors like Yobol(and a few others), seem to work as a team. That's my impression. And their edits tend to be beneficial to the big end of town, never the other way around. It could be coincidental, but thought it worth mentioning. Under these circumstances, Banner should receive the benefit of the doubt. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note for anyone trying to determine consensus, but it would seem like MLPainless has a separate ax to grind here as they aren't commenting on The Banner's behavior in their opposition. They've run into frustration in tackling WP:FRINGE topics at Talk:Vani Hari and Talk:Sunset Yellow FCF somewhat recently, which is what their above comments are based on. The editors that have interacted with MLPainless are largely from over at WP:MED (e.g. ) when problems at those articles were discussed there, and those editors came to check things out.

As a science editor, I for one get very tired of people passionate about a topic casting aspersions like above (shills, white-washing, etc. from some other editors) whenever they don't agree. It's a distraction at best, which is why we're hoping for some kind of action in the case of The Banner to get them to stop the behavior. If they actually want to discuss content instead of lashing out, then that's what we're looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean: within 3 hours of my comment above, user "Formerly 98" went through my edit history and deleted/modified edits I made at Atrazine, edits that tended to raise some flags of concern about a hugely profitable pesticide. If you look at that article's history, you'll see him and Jytdog (and Kingfaces43) removing all possible comments that cast a negative light on Atrazine. Their editing is almost entirely exonerating of the chemical, despite numerous primary studies showing problems. Those studies, even when there are several, by different researchers, all pointing to a similar conclusion, are tagteam deleted on the grounds of "not a secondary or review study". And even when I included a review study, it was deleted on the grounds that the review study was "polemic".

Now I don't care that Misplaced Pages is being expunged of any trace of doubt about profitable chemicals, and that all evidence for organic food is being deleted under the guise of MEDRS, but I'm not going to resile from commenting that it is happening, and that it's a shame. I've also looked at Banner's history and I really cannot see what the fuss is about. He can be a bit gruff, but not to the point of topic banning. This seems like yet another content dispute in which the corporate view is being rammed through. MLPainless (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sure The Banner has an obnoxious personal style, but that is not a crime on Misplaced Pages. I am more concerned about the allegations of corporate tage-team spamming. It takes two teams to edit war. IMHO it is the proposer who needs a good spanking for wasting our time here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner's history on the article and Talk

This is quite a wall of text. but it seems that folks aren't getting the history here. So here it is.

• article Banner came in hard and edit-warring, pretty much vanished, and has come back since the fall getting more and more nasty.

• 18 November 2012 adding content about nutrition based on primary source
• 22 November 2012 edit warring to retain content added by him and another editor
• 23 November 2012 continues edit warring
• 24 November 2012 continues edit warring
• 24 November 2012 edited out PSCI content on homeopathy and placed POV tag
• 25 Nov 2012 edit warred to keep tag in
• 29 Nov more of same
• 30 Nov nominated for deletion
• 30 Nov POINTy deletion of sources
• 2 Dec after bunch of crap content based on crap sources was reverted, Banner edit warred it back in this is the first of a pattern of doing this, as you will see
• 4 Dec more edit warring
• 4 Dec article protected due to EW
• 22 Dec taking out good source
• 23 Dec edit warring over that source
• 24 Dec edit warring over same source
• 24 Dec edit warring over same source
• 24 Dec article protected again
• 20 Jan 2013 my first slew of edits, after Talk discussion, that mostly resolved the issues that had been edit warred over
• 22 Mach constructive edit reverts vandalism/test edit
• 29 June constructive edit reverts addition of dubious content
• 3 Dec 2013 constructive edit reverted addition of dubious content
• 21 July 2014 back to edit warring over MEDRS
• (note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
• 20 AUg 2014 Banner edit wars to keep OR/unsourced content in article after it was reverted
• 25 Aug more of same
• 25 Aug 2014 more of same
• 28 Aug edits by me that resolved the issues until another editor validly challenged some it
• 18 Sept Banner edit wars over that, calling "censorship"
• 6 Jan 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Organic_food&diff=641172464&oldid=641160886 banner returns to edit warring to revert removal of badly sourced content, with edit note: "The permanent habit of removing things is quite annoying..."
• 6 Jan edit warring to keep that content in, again (but with nice edit note)
• 6 Jan edit warring again now with nasty note again: to counter the whitewash and POV"

• talk page

Am just giving sections for the hell that broke loose when Banner 1st entered the article, with much vitriol on his part.

• 24 Nov 2012 Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Removal_of_.22Health_and_Safety.22_section Banner proposes just removing Health and Safety section.
• 26 Nov, Zad opens section to discuss Banner's tagging edit warring Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Details_of_specific_POV_issues.3F
• 4 Dec Montanabw opened discussion after article was locked for edit warring Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Article_protection
• All of archive 3 is just ugliness, all around Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3
• series of constructive comments when I entered and started moderating the dispute
• 30 Dec 2012 16:33 reasonable
• 31 Dec reasonable, helpful
• 1 Jan reasonable and reasonable
• 1 Jan back to "I have strong the impression that two editors due to their personal believes, misused WP:MEDRS to prevent anything positive in the article. Exactly the same is happening at Organic milk (and is locked too)."
• 2 Jan reasonable
• 2 Jan turning back to broadside against MEDRS, oy and more of same and more and more
• 2 Jan 22:25 very reasonable
• 2 Jan 22:13 sharp but reasonable and again
• 3 sliding back into unconstructive - conspiracies
• 3 Jan constructive and again
• 4 Jan - I proposed a compromise here
• 6 Jan 2013 2:19 nice comment on Talk after my sandboxed proposal
• 6 Jan 18:14 nice comment on proposal
• 7 Jan bitterness about past war
• 8 Jan in discussion about independent sources, attacks MEDRS again and brings up dread "citations on google scholar" argument
• 9 Jan 1:58 now saying MEDRS sources are corporate/corrupt
• 9 Jan 2013 series of reasonably constructive edits here
• 22 Jan 2013 03:37 constructive contribution on merge discussion here
• 22 Jan 3:55 constructive contribution' keeping wacky content out
• (note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
• 20 Aug 2014 20:26 makes cynical comment about MEDRS, interrupting efforts to teach new editor about sourcing and OR
• 20 Aug 20:38 more of same
• 20 Aug 20:57 more of same, arguing about OR to keep "positive" content in article
• 20 Aug 21:10 in response to my frustrated comment, accuses me of "strangling" the article
• 27 Aug 14:41 justifies his edit warring on the basis that "It is quite annoying to see everything positive removed in this article with every time other rather poor excuses."
• 27 Aug 15:10 just more personal attack in the midst of edit warring
• 28 Aug calls article "an anti-organic blog.... The agricultural viewpoint is nowhere in the article. And it are farmers and growers who produce organic food, not medical scientists."
• 29 Aug Bizarre rant: "To the point that even chemical comparisons have been removed as being health claims. Sometimes it gives me the eerie feeling that when Monsanto claims that Agent Orange is perfectly safe, it is believed straight away. But a claim that Agents Orange is dangerous, should be backed up with thousands of sources but 95% is rejected immediately as unreliable, for instance because the sources are Vietnamese."
• 29 Aug explains why he is talking about Agent Orange, finally
• 4 Nov complains again about MEDRS being "misued to keep valuable information out of the articles"
• 1 Dec claims we have a "keep it out of the article" policy
• 6 Jan 2015 admits he is edit-warring in unsourced content; accuses other of "silencing" and whitewashing"
• 6 Jan in respond to
• 6 Jan arguing over MEDRS
• 6 Jan discussing edit war after the fact, claiming other editor reverted "not with explanation" (there was here and here)
• 7 Jan the throwing down of the gauntlet
• 15 Jan trying to use my statement about "messiness" to fight the application of MEDRS, oy
• 16 Jan asked a semi-real, albeit POINTy question about something I said
• 17 Jan playing the martyr over ANI
• 19 Jan 2015 sarcasm & personal attack

There you go. You can see the whole thing there. Like I said - came in ugly. got frustrated, and now comes back mostly in WP:POINT-y ways, making personal attacks and disrupting discussion. Please topic ban him. I will settle for a strong warning to 1) stop discussing contributors and discuss content, with a topic ban the next time he does so; and 2) to use WP:DR tools to deal with his concerns instead of venting on the rest of us and edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a nice list of my edits. I guess each and everyone was reverted...

And it is interesting to see that Jytdog gets irritated when I used his own words "due to the messiness of reality" to question the content of the article. I am willing to believe the "due to the messiness of reality"-statement but than it has to be applied on all content, not just the inconvenient content. The Banner talk 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I note an interesting gap between end of August 2014 and beginning of November (after almost daily attention in August) in his attention to the article that corresponds to my issues with him. Starting September 1, he nominated a slew of articles for deletion, documented by @Tomwsulcer: here that I suggested were, as a package, in bad faith. I explained my concern on his talk page. Tomwsulcer also commented and was deleted. @Milowent: also tried to talk sense to him to deaf ears here. I laid it on thick here and his response was to delete it within 5 minutes. He went through the four stages of warning me in 6 minutes here to here, which is certainly not the way the system is intended but got to the point that by the technicality he could use the stop or get blocked threat (which he used repeatedly, see above). So I had an active, conscious vandal, deliberately trying to force his POV through AfD nominations. I challenged all his bad faith AfD nominations the proper way, by adding sources he deliberately failed to find from the first pages of Google when attacking these articles. I won every case, which clearly shows he is the one out of line. Originally I tried to show how each individual bad faith nomination was not a singular event but part of a package. Apparently according to user:Drmies, disclosing these facts, suggesting the offender should be stopped, are personal attacks. So I had to back off. I gave a few key notations in this summation for brevity, there's plenty more.

The general point is, he didn't calm down and stop being obnoxious, he only diverted his efforts toward me for a couple of months. When I backed off, he turned his attention back to the article in question. There is an obvious pattern of behavior here. He's a moving target causing trouble to multiple users wherever he goes and as I have said above, is in need of serious disciplinary action (or psychological help) beyond this one complaint. Somebody please go through his history (contact me and I'll be glad to guide you to the dirt I have, both my interactions and his conflicts with more than 30 other users) and make a reasonable determination if we want this person constantly making hostile edits and interactions as a representative, as a member of our team. Do we want him to take ownership of any article he chooses to get involved with? Do we want more 3RR violations, more civility disputes, more wikilawyering to force POV and points into articles of his choosing? It is obvious even from his comments here, he will use any tactic and tool possible to bully his "opponents" to get his way. If you just topic ban him on this one topic, it will not solve the problem, he will just take his show elsewhere. After he has assaulted another editor with his barrage of tactics, they might get to the point that they find their way back to ANI with him and we do this dance again. Trackinfo (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to find the AfDs I was referring to in my warning--what was problematic was the personal attacks you made in those AfDs. "Personal attack" is a matter of tone, and I think you have a problem finding the right tone every now and then. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact I was trying to ignore your silly quest to get me blocked. I tried to ignore your personal attacks and harassment. But yu won't give up. And accusing me of a bias against articles related to pageants is not true. There is clearly a problem but you seem to ignore it. And the problem there is, amongst others, this: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. And yes, I have send your attack page to MfD (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner). How long do you want to go on and on and on? The Banner talk 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to note above that I made a good faith effort to discuss this issue headon with Banner and with the new editor I mentioned above, Redddbaron (a farmer who is new to WP and its sourcing guidelines). That discussion is here: here] It sadly devolved into personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It would have been better when you offered this link: Talk:Organic food/Archive 5#concerns about bias...., an interesting story of not listening to the real content problem. You are willing to listen to everything, except anything that questions the application of MEDRS and flawed neutrality of the article due to the strict application of MEDRS. You talk about everything here, except the content problems. The Banner talk 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the focus of this ANI is your behavior. There are many ways to resolve content disputes which you have not attempted to use for over two years now - you have reduced yourself to making disruptive, heckling, SOAPBOX comments like this and disruptive reverts in the article like this. Your contributions have not been constructive for a long time now. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are bluntly ignoring the fact that the talk page of Organic food is now filled with accusations of the article being POV. The behaviour that you dislike so much, is nothing more than me keeping pointing at how POV the article is. Instead of doing something about the POV, an opinion shared by many others, you just try to silence somebody you never managed to silence before. The fact that you even try to close the talk page of organic food for discussion is quite serious: see here. The Banner talk 16:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

requesting close

This has gone on long enough and we have crept to the top of this page. Can an admin please review and close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I just requested a close at the "request close" board here. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Improper closure

I am stating my objection to the above closure as improper. The closing administrator has been involved in this issue for months. This is also the same administrator who decided to delete content I collected that would be relevant to read about this case. Per the procedure I have been able to find; I have given notification to the administrator to deaf ears and am now seeking to find whatever the proper procedure is for having this reviewed. Trackinfo (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Many of the diffs which where described as personal attacks, to me, seemed too mild to be called personal attacks. However, I can see the frustration by the Banner, and his description of acts. Is it to topic ban people because of little tolerance for a different pov? There are a lot of people with similar pov's but they come in one at a time, to an established wiki community who are more eager at wikipedia. If that diff is about an involved editor, it seems like drmies was a mediator, instead of taking a personal involvement. If someone else wants to close or review, then they should, the more eyes, the better. - Sidelight12 03:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You should also keep in mind that Trackinfo is already engaged in a long personal campaign to get me blocked or banned as he highlights so friendly in his own comments above. The Banner talk 07:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I want a serious review of The Banner's history. There has been one administrator, and one administrator only who has stood up as a protector for this serial troublemaker, and by this act of closure he has again prevented a serious review of The Banner's activities. My own behavior "problem" is only trying to scream loud enough for some serious administrator to actually look at this guy. Look at his history. Look at how many other people he has offended, not just me. Alone, I'm at my limit of being able to protect content. Alone I cannot sound a louder warning. I'm trying to connect the dots for you. There is a pattern of behavior to look at. We have invested a month trying to deal with just one situation out of so many he causes. And so far, not one administrator has made any serious effort to deal with this disciplinary situation. We deserve a rational decision, not a closure to make this drop off the ANI list. Do you want to encourage him to continue to behave this way? If you don't do something about this, he will be back. He will be aggressively defensive, with reverse accusations and we will waste another month. ], , , , , , , , , explaining Trackinfo (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have no problem with Trackinfo's request; I have the feeling it will simmer like the last one. It seems pretty obvious to me that there was only one way for this thread to end. Jytdog, what do you think? You can guess nothing good was going to come out of it. I have faith in your judgment, though you are of course involved as well. :) Look, you all have a longstanding conflict and you should find a better way to solve it than try for a topic ban--and I wish you all good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sidelight12 for the Nth time, the ANI action was not about Banner's POV to which he is entirely entitled; it was not about content - it was about his 2 year pattern of personal attacks and disruptive editing, and his failure to use WP's DR processes with regard to his unhappiness with the application of PAG in the article. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I explained that I found what was called personal attacks I believed were too mild, or about actions themselves. Just restating it, so you think I didn't ignore it. For the rest, I have no comment either way. - Sidelight12 03:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Drmies. I am OK with the warning you gave to Banner. If he refuses to heed it, that will be helpful if we have to come back here (and I very much hope we don't have to) The only thing I ask (as I already did on your Talk page) is that you strike the "enjoy ganging up on" piece of your close which attributes bad motivation to me. I like working out differences with editors who AGF and work within PAG; I do not enjoy this kind of conflict in WP - trying to work with editors who refuse to assume good faith and instead make personal attacks, and who do not base their discussion on PAG, are the things that drive me away from articles. To be frank I am approaching burnout from that stuff. In any case I would appreciate it if you would strike that. If on the other hand you really think I have a pattern of WP:GANG or other bad behavior and you really see that justified in the discussion above, I would appreciate you telling me that directly and cleanly, but tossing that into your close seems... well, flippant. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I don't mind doing that all, though I will tell you that I certainly didn't mean you in the "some of you". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll just pipe in and say Jytdog hit the nail on the head here. POV isn't a major concern here, and we can work with that in terms of a content dispute. That's never been the issue for those suggesting dispute resolution. It's when someone starts sniping about other editors, etc. in the process of trying to reinsert their preferred version (or not even suggesting content at all) that we get into behavior problems that detract from the project no matter how you look at it. All that any of us actually working on the page are asking for is simply for the behavior to stop, and that doesn't require a topic ban if The Banner would simply stop. Each individual edit may not seem egregious, but we’ve been trying to describe WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior where one of the hallmarks of that is repeated seemingly minor misbehavior over a longer period of time (especially to an outside observer). That’s why the breadth of diffs presented is as important as assessing the how problematic a single diff was.

In terms of Drmies, involvement, I generally consider them pretty even handed. I was a little concerned about the involvement aspect where Drmies stated they consider The Banner a “net positive”, though that wouldn't be enough concern for me to reopen this conversation. I’m glad Drmies said at most of what they did in closing at least. However, I would like to be sure that we aren’t supposed to just tolerate The Banner’s behavior because the user is a net positive in other areas. That’s far from accusing Drmies of any wrongdoing here though as I would just like to see a framework for either handling the behavior issue now or in the future if it continues. I’d hope a warning would suffice so we can move on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any admin (and we're all volunteers, remember) who reads through all the content of a long dispute especially one that seems to continue for awhile gets accused of having been "involved" who are dissatisfied with the closure. I don't think I've had real interaction with the folks here, including the closing admin, the OP, the Banner, or whoever, but absent some egregious proof of bias, the close seems proper (remember WP:AGF) and the matter should rest there for now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments on being involved weren't about conversation here, but Drmies' prior interactions trying to wrangle with behavior issues between The Banner and Trackinfo that appear to be longstanding (I know firsthand from other sites this kind of work is hard). Basically, I had a slight concern opinions previously formed of The Banner carried over to interpreting this incident with the net positive comment. As I mentioned before though, I'm just asking about that in good faith as a potential unintentional bias to be mindful of, and it's not something I really intended to raise a fuss about at all. For the actual closing review, no one is saying what Drmies did was blatantly improper, and we've got at least a decent warning for The Banner. This topic has been at ANI way to long, so I'm going to consider this horse dead (and I sincerely hope it doesn't become a zombie horse). Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of J Doug McLean

This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.

I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples:
8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question".
13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI).
5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.)
11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"

Finally, I asked for specific evidence of verifiability for one of his claims and was not satisfied with his response. He has already been asked publicly and personally to refer to WP:VERIFICATION. He proposes insertion of a footnote that looks to me like WP:OR, but he only seems to refer to policy when it supports his argument.

I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Misplaced Pages. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish, after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.

You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. 0x0077BE 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: I can't agree that things were handled in a responsible way. To give a relevant example, at one point we were asked, "If 0x0077BE and Burninthruthesky think The Statement is true for some control volume other than the infinitely tall sliver, they need to tell us specifically what control volume that is and provide citable sources for their assertion."

I don't think I made any such assertion (see my link to "evidence" above). Did you? Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Malik-Shah I

Qara xan keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the Malik-Shah I article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;

Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.

And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

At best this is a content dispute as it doesnt appear to be vandalism. No eidts have been carried out in the alst week so this also is quite stale. Best option would be to take it to the talk page to discuss or seek dispute resolution. Amortias (T)(C) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Amortias. That user HistoryofIran is a liar. Just take a look on Talk:Malik-Shah I. --Qara khan 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:

if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning)
— User:HistoryofIran

Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly).
— User:HistoryofIran

Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English.
— User:HistoryofIran

I don't know the Misplaced Pages rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh.
— User:HistoryofIran

didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Misplaced Pages, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say.
— User:HistoryofIran

• I've bolded all the statements I consider offensive, and this is only from one of your discussions.... -- Orduin 20:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Misplaced Pages rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example ). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but will this issue be taking up? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.

There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.

During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.

I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here, however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not. Both involved editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Richie bedfellows: I have plenty of legitimate reasons for suspicion. Please do share these reasons, as accusations of sockpuppetry are serious, and not showing any kind of support behind them is concidered harassment, and can get you blocked. Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Please take care. -- Orduin 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting to me, as the user has yet to supply us with his evidence, and seems to be putting this on hold. -- Orduin 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks too - inviting me (twice) to stick my head up my arse. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that 'special' comment was added by an IP editor, but it could have been by the same person, but logged out. I removed the comment.

It does not seem to fit in with the later comment added by Richie bedfellows. -- Orduin 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom Ruen warring with gross incivility

Tomruen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started warring at Star polygon and generally throwing etiquette to the wall:

• Talk:Star polygon#gallery in the article is the main discussion.
• Star polygons being saturated with images is my appeal for help at the maths Wikiproject.

Tom has, among other things:

• Warred over posting excessive images: his edit - my deletion - his partial restore - my deletion invoking BRD - his partial restore
• been rude to me in an edit comment but, as can be seen from the article talk page (link above), his apology is pretty mealy-mouthed.
• Modified a comment of mine on the Project discussion - no big deal save for what followed:
  • I reverted it with an explanatory edit comment about not editing others' posts.
  • He then edited another of my posts in an unrelated conversation, in a way that does not fit in with the posts around it, since other editors had used the term but he did not change their usage to match his version of mine.

I dropped a warning on his talk page but he brushed it off: both here.

He is a highly experienced editor with a ten-year userbox on his user page, but nevertheless in his discussions he is professing ignorance of so much etiquette that it beggars belief. His justification for warring was that he didn't even know what BRD was. But having had it pointed out, that has not stopped him. He has very profuse output and it is hard to floow his edits or it would be easier to let this pass, but we are bumping into each other a lot and things can't go on like this.

I was going to request a short topic ban to bring him back to reality. But then he accused me of lying so I'd like to Request a short editing block for his gross incivility. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try to be available for questions over my behavior. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On the last charge, I consider repeating false information as lying given I already counterered on talk, but I offered confusion as my explanation for Steelpillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s rude accusation.

1. I added 30 unique images .
2. Steelpillow reverted, cutting to 0 .
3. I restored, compromised, added back 13.
4. Steelpillow reverted, cutting to 0 .
5. I restored, and attempted to merge better with text, split into two tables for convex and star polygons, and ended with 18 .
6. Another editor, Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried a compromise for SteelPillow, recombined the tables down to 12 and then tried 8 .
7. I added 4 NEW image upon request by DoubleSharp , and explained on talk and and offered my opinion that 8 is to small.
8. Double sharp attempted a compromise, reduced 12 to 8 again, removing 2 old images, and leaving 2 new images from the set he requested.

So when Steelpillow FALSELY claims "a third editor cut the gallery down drastically and Tom has since added images back in again without discussion." it is reasonable to call that accusation as lying by confusion. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom's reply is the one that is confused. After DoubleSharp cut the list to 8 but suggested two more, I suggested that one would be enough . Tom saw fit to ignore the conversation at this point and add several more. We know that was without consensus because DoubleSharp reduced them again. There is neither confusion nor lie in the account I give above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We're in agreement. 4>2 and 4>1, and my enthusiastic 4 images were delicately remerged with the selection of other 8, all without the aid of my inability to choose. So we can both be grateful for DoubleSharp's expert pruning skills. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is simply a content dispute, and the OP's accusations -- such as "Modified a comment of mine" -- which was actually just sticking a helpful section tag in a wikilink, do not hold up to scrutiny. WP:BRD is not a policy which which to beat other editors, and, as noted, Tomruen has not been blindly reverting but rather offering compromise number of images. On the other hand, "lying by confusion" isn't justified -- "inaccurate" is probably a better description. I encourage Tomruen and Steelpillow to dial it down a notch and note / appreciate DoubleSharp's good work in working towards a compromise, and any other editor who wishes to help reach consensus to participate in the talk page discussion. NE Ent 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

An up-front accusation that I am lying, repeated here for luck, cannot be dismissed as a mere content dispute. It is a flagrant breach of WP:CIVIL. Nor is my account as inaccurate as Tom would have you believe - see my reply above. "Modified a comment of mine" - I am glad that you agree with my own assessment that it was in itself "no big deal", but why hold that against me? Did you not read on? Meanwhile, I have thanked DoubleSharp once or twice already, how many more times are needed? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom Ruen may be a long-term editor who has contributed a lot of very nice images and a lot of content to the project, and has a lot of expertise to share, but it's also the case that a lot of his long-term editing (mostly on articles related to polyhedra) is problematic: throwing huge vaguely-related image galleries on them that dwarf the rest of the article (see WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:BALANCE), using nonstandard nomenclature, adding content that appears to be original research, not giving any inline sources for the content he adds, and then tacking on "references" sections that are copied-and-pasted verbatim across hundreds of articles, and that list whole books without page numbers that, on closer examination, do not include any content on the specific subjects of the articles they are supposed to be references for. It has caused many of our polyhedron-related articles to be problematic. I don't know that this specific content dispute is worth the attention of ANI, and I don't want to push him away from the project, but I do wish he'd get more serious about only adding content that is fully on-topic and can be properly sourced. After having gotten into discussions with him on this issue before that ended up generating more heat than light I don't know what the best way to get some change is. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After many years walking round the edges I recently decided to try standing up to him. He is not used to this and has had trouble dealing with it. So here we are at ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support a block because the allegation of lying, first, violates the principle of assume good faith, and, second, violates the principle of no personal attacks. It is true that this is primarily a content dispute, but it is a content dispute compounded by the conduct issue of the accusation of lying. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  Robert, please tell me what you need from me. I have no personal conflict against Steelpillow, only the false facts he was repeating. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(This got archived at this point bcause of inaction. The accusation of lying remains on the project discussion page, neither redacted nor apologised for. Will somebody please do something about this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

Even if User:Steelpillow was reporting false facts, to call the incorrect report of facts "lying" is a personal attack and a violation of the principle of assuming good faith. If you, User:Tomruen, have never ever made a factual mistake, then perhaps you don't understand that very occasionally editors try to report facts correctly and make mistakes. If you indeed have no personal conflict with Steelpillow, then I suggest that you strike all of the accusations of lying. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll gladly remove the accusation (if it helps). From now on I will simply say "This is false" to false accusations, and repeat it as necessary on every repeated false accusation. Here's my attempted correction, , keeping my original rude reply striked, so it's clear I was the one who is overreacting. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to accept Tom's withdrawal, and I am sure we are both capable of sorting out any remaining content dispute between us. For my part, I also withdraw my request for an editing block. As far as I am concerned, this can now be closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by Claudia McHenry?

Hello, I'm Claudia and i'm a user on Misplaced Pages, and was blocked out of nowhere by ponyo on some block evasion grounds.

Several days ago, i forgot to log in to my account when i made an edit adding the birthday to the Christina Hoff-sommers page, and found that the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked. It strikes me as strange that this block was put on the IP out of nowhere, so instead i have to edit from my appartment to ask the an/i to review the block on the IP address. I don't care about my account and there's no point blocking this IP as i'm moving march second to Vancouver. Please review the block on the address, or explain where the block evasion accusation originates. Was there a user formerly known as Claudia McHenry that was an unruly user years ago? Thanks. 209.202.4.50 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Its going to be difficult to review an IP block wihtout knowing the IP address. Could you provide further info. Also its a bad idea to come to WP:ANI and admit to being a blocked account socking via an IP. Unless the block also involved the talk page of the IP address you would have been able to appeal the block there. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

To me this idea that someone who accidentally doesn't log in can then be blocked, and then later accused of being a sockpuppet evading a block, smacks of the same sort of backwards logic and everyone-is-a-criminal mentality that lets police arrest people for resisting arrest (when no other crime is evident). The details of the block are not difficult to find in User:Ponyo's log (date January 23). In any case, the chronology appears to be: (1) 199.101.61.190 (talk · contribs) edits Christina Hoff Sommers to add the day and month of birth, but without sources, and is immediately reverted (with an edit summary indicating that the reverter treated the edit as a good faith one, but unhelpful); (2) Ponyo blocks the IP for no obvious reason with the edit summary "block evasion"; (3) Claudia McHenry (talk · contribs) logs in, and politely asks Ponyo what the block was for; (4) Ponyo makes the block on the IP permanent, blocks Claudia, and prevents Claudia from appealing the block by using the setting that prevents her from editing her talk page. Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction on Ponyo's part. Maybe Ponyo can come here and explain? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, i'm sorry if i broke a rule by not logging in before editing that page. Serg, the guy who edits from the IP accoutn usually says his edits were undone or something like that. Also if i'm breaking a rule by posting here, i appolojize deeply. 209.202.4.50 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you are missing something DE and you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" (I have not seen P overreact to anything in all the years of their adminship) until you have "all" the facts. Ponyo has been working with SPI reports and checkusers for months now and this could well be related to that work. MarnetteD|Talk 23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DE. Color me skeptical. See below. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" ... until you have "all" the facts. Sheesh. DE said "Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction", thus hedging and softening his statement not one but two different ways. Seems like MarnetteD's objection to the use of gross overreaction was an overreaction, if perhaps not a gross one. MHO. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock per the above. I have the same problem, as many of the IPs used by my mobile device are connected with known, long-time abuse accounts who use proxy IPs offered by my provider. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Really. This is an almost laughable case of jumping the gun. This thread needs to have "all the facts" and a reply from Ponyo before any decision is made on the block. MarnetteD|Talk 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I travvle a wholel ot so if i seem to jump accross the map, it's because i attend different sociological events including talks, as well as i'm currently in the process of moving to Vancouver so i can get better care for my mesothelioma. So if people see me on bad Ip's, then you know why. I'll do my best to remember to log in from now on if that's the issue. 209.202.4.50 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please use spellcheck before saving your comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll do that from now on, apologies I’m sure that ponyo’s a good person and I have nothing at all against them, nor do I wish to attack them in any way. I only want to know why they are charging me for a murder I did not commit.

Claudia 209.202.5.171 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to contact Ponyo several times to ask him/her the reason for this block, and my post on his/her page gets promptly deleted and i get promptly blocked. I then sent an e-mail to their account using the e-mail this user function, no response, and it's been one week, which is plenty of time to get back to me. If something was truely wrong then i think Ponyo would have explained it or would be willing to explain it to me. Instead, i question, the question is deleted, i get blocked and have to go accross town to have any chance of defending myself, it's madness is what it is. I really hope Ponyo replies to this or is at least willing to leave a message on my account's talk page with an explanation, else i be unblocked or at least the 199 IP be unblocked. I'd highly recommend that if people suspect any bad activity that they first notify the user of this activity and how they came to that conclusion before they even think about blocking and speedy-deleting it. Even with 34 years of studying psychology and sociology behind me i still don't understand how this could be considered benefitial to Misplaced Pages in any way. Again, i don't think Ponyo's a bad person, i just want to know why he/she screams bloody murder when i did nothing wrong to my knowledge. I admitted my mistake to Ponyo and that should be enough. End with a "don't do i again please" then move on, not "block her," then move on and hope that this goes away. I came here with the intent to help Misplaced Pages, and help it i shall, I'd like to follow the rules while doing it and if problems arise, i want a chance to address them before any punishment of any kind is dished out. That's all i ask Ponyo, you're a good person, but you made a mistake. Sorry if i seem angry in this post, it isn't intended to be any form of attack, i'm just stating things from my point of view that's all. Good night, i have a long day tomorrow and won't be able to reply for a while after, i'm going to be away untill the 8th, so won't be able to reply back untill then. Thank you guies for your help.

PS, don't edit when you're using a smaller touch screen and you have big hands, it's a nightmare to correct. Claudia 209.202.5.171 (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In case User:Ponyo didn't see the notification from the name-dropping earlier in this thread, I've left a note on their talk page asking for their input here. @MarnetteD: I agree with you that we should not unblock before making more of an effort to get all of the facts. And probably my "gross overreaction" was not a sufficient assumption of good faith: what I should have said was that we are no doubt missing some important piece of information, because if we look only at the evidence we already have then this has the appearance of a gross overreaction, but that seems unlikely given Ponyo's history of working the sockpuppet beat. However, until we see the evidence we should assume Claudia's good faith as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello all. Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick since Thursday and only logged on briefly to put up a wikibreak template as I won't be able to get back to regular editing for at least another 2 - 3 days. In an abundance of caution I have emailed Callanecc a detailed explanation of the evidence behind the block in order to avoid any possible privacy breaches. That being said, I have absolutely no doubt that "Claudia" is indeed a sock of a LTA account and that you are all being trolled. The messages from the 209.202.5.171 IP are textbook to many posted previously by the same sockmaster. It's striking that a mother with "34 years of studying psychology and sociology" displays the same blatant grammar and spelling errors as their blocked "son" as well as the many other personas they've used in the past couple of years to try to get around the block. The master account has been referred to BASC many times in the past - they know the path to a potential unblock if they want to pursue it. --Jezebel's Ponyo 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That may be so. But I am far more concerned with the lack of responsiveness, the appeal to secret evidence, the lack of non-admin oversight, and the transparency of blocking rationale, than I am with the effort made by one individual to resume editing. I have seen far too many false accusations made against users with trumped up, or in some cases, zero or invented evidence, to make a case, rather than actual evidence that the community can look at. This need to invoke secrecy, to claim that one is guilty before being proven innocent, sets a terrible precedent. Blackstone's formulation should be the guiding principle, with WP:ROPE our method. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason checkuser evidence is not publicy available. If we arent able or willing to trust the judgements that the users who can review this information make with regards to it then there are n awful lot of people who claim they arent socks who we are going to have unblock. CU evidence is one of those things that is given access to people who have shown suitable judgement and consensus for the tools by the community and on that basis I thik some level of trust has to be offered to those who can use it and the decisions they make from it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the newbie, wet behind the ears response, but I know how CU works. However, I will once again reiterate, the slow response to this user's request, the appeal to secret evidence, and the notion that the average editor cannot be trusted to comprehend a simple argument for keeping a user blocked, is and remains a serious problem. This authoritarian approach runs counter to the operation of a free society, to just application of laws, and to democratic oversight and transparency. As such, I do not agree with them or their application, no matter what the given rationale continues to be; time and time again, I have seen this kind of power corrupt "trusted" people, and evidence can be used to block the innocent, both intentionally and unintentionally. You may embrace this kind of unjust system, but I do not. There was no harm in unblocking this user, and a case could have been made that did not reveal "secret" information to restore the block. There is more harm in your chosen approach than there is benefit. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This rhetoric is all good and well and I wish the world online and off was more in line with these sentiments. But I would have thought that someone who is not a newbie would certainly have encountered WP:NOTDEMOCRACY before now. I accept the except Ponyo's explanation of why they could not respond before today and I would hope that you are not suggesting that P made up an illness. The bottom line is what do you think is going to happen now. Ponyo is not going to be blocked. Unblocks are not going to be handed out to any IPs involved. The system here is not going to change based on this thread. It should be noted that editing is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. As the person in question is, no doubt, enjoying all this fuss I would suggest that the thread be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, it would help greatly if you would read what you link, as NOTDEMOCRACY has nothing to do with this discussion. I apologize if the phrase "democratic oversight" confused you, but you seem to have evaded my points (and those of two other editors) and launched into a litany of red herrings. I already made my points, and your response is extremely unhelpful. Why should Claudia remain blocked? If your answer is, "it's a secret and we can't tell you", then I will say again, that's unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo doesn't want to tell you who the sockmaster is, because then you will know the geographic location of the sockkmaster. Named accounts are not linked to IPs to protect the privacy of the account holder. This protection of privacy is extended to everyone, even to long-term sockmasters and LTAs. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Like MarnetteD, I accept Ponyo's explanation (and the fact that there are reasons not to put certain kinds of sockpuppet investigation information in public places). As an unblock looks unlikely and there is no other administrative action to be taken, I think this thread is ready to be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've looked at the evidence from Ponyo and I'm comfortable that the Claudia McHenry account and the 209 IP address are being used by an LTA sock master. As Diannaa says there's not a lot of information that I can give due to the privacy implications, especially because I'm not completely aware of how much information the sock master has released themselves. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've never been interested in any private information, so that's a misunderstanding on the part of editors up above. What I'm railing against is the misuse of CU, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the "trust us, we're experts" line that non-CU's and non-admins are routinely spoon fed. I've seen editors falsely accused of being sockpuppets, and in my own case, I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by an admin on Wikinews who blocked me during a content dispute where he was involved, and then attempted to fabricate sockpuppetry evidence to keep the block in place. So I hope you understand that I am skeptical of so-called "trusted" members of the community, and I think that we need more safeguards in place to protect the accused. The burden is on those accusing Claudia, and if that burden can only be met in private, without community review, then I'm afraid this process is flawed and subject to abuse. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2)

After a previous ANI-discussion, which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.

• 4 january 2015 he followed me at the Dzogchen talkpage diff. I asked him to stop Wikihounding me diff, which he didn't diff. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff.
• 26 january he posted comments at the Anatta talkpage which I consider to be WP:HARASSMENT diff.
• I've warned him diff diff, which was supported by User:VictoriaGrayson diff.
• Thereafter he posted a similar message at User talk:ScientificQuest#In support of your edits of Anatta diff.
• I warned him again diff, where-after he popped-up at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact.
• I warned him again diff.
• The thread at the fringe noticeboard was closed this morning, with a very clear conclusion.
• And now Robert opens a new disucssion (at the wrong page...) Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Not very happy about recent closure of debate, en passant attacking me again.

Enough is enough: I propose a topic-ban for Robert for Buddhism, Hinduism and India related articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

NB: RW also seems to be discussing this at Facebook diff. Or am I overreacting now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Robert is now stalking Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral as presented and at this time. Comment It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor, Robert Walker, has conduct issues in the area of Buddhist-related topics. That was obvious a month ago. It was also apparent that there were content issues concerning Buddhism. At the time, I advised Robert Walker to request dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - In view of the following thread about the Vedic period, it appears that this combination of content issues and conduct issues may have spread to the point where the ArbCom should be asked to open a case. arbitration enforcement is needed under WP:ARBIPA with respect to India-related issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support in order to prevent "silent interaction", that is, following JJ and opposing without making the interaction obvious. This stalking needs to be dealt with. The combination of a topic-ban and an interaction ban is less drastic than a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Send to arbcom. After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. jps (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discretionary sanctions are already in force for everything India-related. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism isn't subject to discretionary sanctions except in the country of its origin, which is not primarily a Buddhist country. The issue about the origin of Indo-European languages does have to do with whether they came from India or went to India. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If discretionary sanctions are in place then we should send this over to WP:AE. If they aren't, then we should ask arbcom to broaden them. jps (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The basic problem is that I cleaned-up the Karma in Buddhism article, and Robert didn't like that. He wants a roll-back to the version before my clean-up, and a discussion of my edits, without wanting to participate in that discussion (the talkpahe already contains extensive explanations of my edits, and they are supported by several competent editors). He's been filling several talkpages now with his demands, repeating over and over again that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles. He's also stating for a couple of months now that he's going to file a DRN-request, without doing so. And now he's started to canvass other editors, and trying to re-open a debate about which he knows nothing at all, en passant attacking me again. So, I'm through with him. Let him use the normal dispute resolution, that his, file his DRN, or just stay away. But not attacking me over and over again, without even remotely trying to or engaging in a form of concencus-building. He's only making it worse and worse. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Joshua Jonathan has given three diffs as instance of Robert Walker harrassing him: 1, 2, 3. I am afraid I do not see any uncivil language or attack. --AmritasyaPutra 09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Further comment on the third link provided by Joshua as proof of harrassment: well, a discussion getting closed in less than 24h with a clear verdict is a mockery of a discussion. I also think the appeal is fully justified and a patient hearing is due instead of attack on those who chose to question the closure. Or rather haunting those who questioned the closure is a clear case of attack as it has been done rightfully within due limits in a civil manner. --AmritasyaPutra 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Amritasya, I'm talking about "harassment": following me around, stating at various talkpages that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles, without substantiating those comments. What he also did when he requsted to reopen this debate, suggesting that I'm biased and a poor editor. As if I'm the only one thinking, no, recognising, that the "Indigenist" position is fringe, or that I'm incompetent. I think it's quite clear from my edit-record that I'm a competent editor. So yes, when those kind of insuniations happen again and again, it feels like an attack. Robert keeps repeating "I'm working on a DRN", but we're still waiting. Instead of brandmarking me, he should actually try to resolve his "dispute". He's not doing so; he's only repeating his allegations. So yes, I've had enough of it.

Regarding reopening the debate: at third thought, I think it might be a good idea to re-open it, to settle this once and for all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can only follow the diffs that you provided. Provide more diff to substantiate the "harassment", those three diff are not harassment. --AmritasyaPutra 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I have only encountered Robert Walker at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact, where I can say that his statements only muddled waters and didn't contribute to resolution. He didn't say a single word about the issue, the claim that the Indo-Aryan migration theory is a "fringe theory," and started quoting readers' reviews from Amazon while ignoring professional reviews. If he is doing this kind of thing everywhere to User:Joshua Jonathan, whose contributions are simply outstanding, e.g., , then he is being simply disruptive. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Instead of guessing, check edit history and come up with diffs. Speculating with assume-bad-faith is not done. --AmritasyaPutra 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the samples provided by User:Joshua Jonathan and have no reason to distrust his statement about the general pattern. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. Those diff are not attack that anyone can see. It should be simple to provide diffs, since it is being requested. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra 05:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scroll trhough the following talkpages:

• Talk:Karma in Buddhism
• Talk:Four Noble Truths
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism
• User talk:Robertinventor
• User talk:Dorje108
• Talk:Dzogchen

If you think that's too much, here's the diff for the Dzogchen talkpage. Here's my intitoal response, in which I already noted his Wiki-hounding. Also read Jim's response. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff. Also have a look at the history of the Zogchen talkpage to see ho he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ad infinitum.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed, clear response. Now it makes sense. Wikihounding. I have faced it too. I hope admins take appropriate action, I have withdrawn my oppose vote in-place. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is Jonathan's second attempt to intimidate Robert and prevent him from submitting a DNR related to Jonathan's edits. - Dorje108 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Skip the "intimidate", and try to understand, for one time, what's going on. And if you want to help Robert post his DRN, you could have closed your RfC weeks ago already, as I've asked you before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support although I'd rather see a one-way interaction ban. To me the problem is that Robert Walker is following Joshua Johnson to pages that the latter has edited, and this disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed. While a topic ban would prevent RW from following JJ to pages related to this topic, it doesn't prevent RW from following JJ to other topics should JJ choose to edit them. However, a topic ban will prevent some such disruption and it's better than no remedy at all. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I found Robert Walker's entry into the WP:FTN thread whose closure he has requested be reviewed, in the middle of the thread. I concur with User:Joshua Jonathan and User:VictoriaGrayson that he has been stalking Joshua Jonathan's edits, since WP:FTN is not a place he had previously edited. Recommend a one-way interaction ban on interactions of Robert Walker with Joshua Jonathan. That is, Robert Walker may not respond to any posts by Joshua Jonathan. This may seem harsh, but following another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Along with the topic ban proposed by Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as well as the topic ban that I supported above. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as Robert Walker is clearly following Joshua Jonathan and disruptively inserting himself into conversatios where he has shown no previous interest and has a lack of expertise. I'm not convinced a topic ban is necessary because once he stops following the other editor around, his disruption in those areas should stop. Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment But he still can posts at talkpages where I am active? I see a complication there... And if we interpret it strictly: what if he starts to engage a talkpage on a Buddhism or Hinduism related page, and I start editing there too? It would give me a strange kind of "privilege", as it means he would have to back-off. That's not fair, nor clear. So, I'm afraid a topic-ban is still more appropriate. Plus, indeed, also avoidance from my part of areas where Robert is active. Although, he's merely editing a very selective range of talkpages, so in practice this may work. Some admin-feedback would be welcome too, at least for me. Anyway, thanks for the efforts, Robert McC.! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Joshua is correct that a one-way interaction ban does work like that. It does not require any avoidance by Joshua. It is true that this is a harsh remedy, but stalking another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. One-way interaction bans are fundamentally unfair. We should ban both of them if they've both been behaving badly, or if Robert's been the only one causing problems, we should block him. If JJ wants to antagonise RW, he can annoy him with impunity (like Foghorn Leghorn with the dog), and while if JJ acts in complete good faith, someone else could come in and cry "ban violation!" on a page where RW was still trying to obey the ban. See JJ's comment, too, "what if he starts to engage..." He's right. Too much room for wikilawyering and too much room for bad-faith participants to game the system. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Nyttend. To reiterate, one-way interaction bans are unfair. Either make the ban run both ways, or come up with a different solution. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: why should I receive an interaction-ban, when Robert is following me around? I am already avoiding him. It might mean that the first one to edit on an article or talkpage "owns" the page. With due lack of humility from my side, it would be a loss for Buddhism and Hinduism-related pages if there is a possibility to stop me from editing on those pages in that way, because one editor objects to my edits. That would be basically unfair. So, if that option is to be ruled out, something else must be thought of. At least it should be clear to him that "dispute resolution" does not mean throwing around accusations at the pages where I am editing, and that he should actually post his DRN, instead of repeating he's going to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you ought to be banned: I meant that he shouldn't be I-banned from you unless you deserved to be I-banned from him, and that he ought to be blocked outright if he's been causing problems and you're innocent. Not having investigated the situation carefully, I don't want to support any sanctions on him or to oppose the idea of sanctions in the first place; that's why I offered no opinion about your proposed topic ban. I just want to ensure that any sanctions be reasonable and workable, and a one-way interaction ban isn't either of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Site ban

Since some respected administrators think that a one-way interaction ban is inherently unfair or unworkable, and since there is evidence that Robert Walker has been stalking the edits of User:Joshua Jonathan, I have to offer a second-choice greater remedy, and that is a site ban.

• Support as second choice Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to the above 2 proposals VictoriaGrayson 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to a topic ban Sorry Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as third choice to iban and topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply to topic ban

I want to keep this short as I have warned in the past about length of my post. Do I get a chance to reply? If you are interested in my POV on this proposal, please see reply to the topic ban. (Here I am using the third of my Work arounds for lengthy talk page posts which I developed in response to the previous ANI action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was posting this response but the topic was archived when I saved my edit; since this has been re-opened, I figure I'll post it now.

• DRN is for content issues, not conduct issues, and it isn't necessary to look through an editor's contributions to file for dispute resolution.
• Whether you went to a page because you found it by looking through his contributions or someone pointed you there, you went there because he was there and that's WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which isn't allowed.
• To me it looks like you don't like Joshua Johnson's edits or approach to editing and so you're following him to pages and posting about his edits. That's harassment and not allowed, and it's why I support the one-way interaction ban. If the iban isn't going to pass then I support a topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well - whether it is a user conduct issue is one thing that needs to be determined. Robert McClennon advised us to post it to the DRN first. This is explained in the DRN notice: See DRN Notice Draft. He did do BRDR instead of BRD and it seems to us that he breaches POV and many core wikipedia guidelines with his edits - on all five of those articles. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of wikipedia policies and did all this in good faith. And I don't understand what makes what I just did such a big deal. Of course if it is prohibited then I have to go by wikipedia policy! But if it is, I didn't know that at the time. Note, that I am no longer interacting with JJ or posting to talk pages on India, Buddhism, or Hindusim until the notice. Robert Walker (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Do please read my reply to the topic ban where I say that both things that were represented by JJ as edit stalking were in good faith. For the Anatta article, then I saw ScientificQuest's post to JJs talk page User JJ: Anatta and so went to the article where I saw that JJ had reverted 47 of SQs edits with just a cryptic comment. And SQ is a newbie editor doing his first attempt at a major edit, on a topic he could consider himself to be expert on as he is doing a masters on it. And this was his third attempt to add material to the article, all of which was removed with cryptic comments a newbie would not understand . It was not in support of the DRN indeed makes things harder to rollback - it was just out of sympathy to support an editor I felt was being treated badly. For more, see Anatta talk page posts

And in the other debate - first note that when I posted the suggestion for a closure review, the response was overwhelmingly overturn and it was finally closed with Consensus - overturn. Also, I didn't join it in an article talk page, but in a forum where there was a reasonable expectation that a contribution from an editor not involved in the debate would be welcome. Of course since the objections to me taking part I have since left that discussion. For more on all this, see Migration hypothesis debate. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems wisest not to reply to JJ since he has proposed an interaction ban with me, and this is not the place to discuss the dispute itself. Robert Walker (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(Note, this discussion was auto archived by a bot. That was because of 36 hours of inactivity when nobody responded to my reply. It has just been restored from the archive)Robert Walker (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

SQ and I worked out that dispute pretty fine, and pretty fast diff diff diff, and I'm looking forward to his contributions. ScientificQuest thanked me for my "very constructive feedback" diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Robert Walker, it is definitely a conduct thing. I actually agree with you on the Aryan Migration content and am opposed to Joshua Jonathan regarding the content.VictoriaGrayson 01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions

Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions.VictoriaGrayson 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages offer corporate, real estate, hiring, banking and legal advice now? (Note: the neutrality of the wording of this very question is questioned)

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

Immediately after the swift closure of the discussion above on medical advice forbidden as professional advice by our disclaimer: "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area" we have a new thread requesting advice on setting up a new business venue, including the OP asking about, among other things: "finding providers for various maybe banking, legal, & accounting as well...hir contractors to build/modify the space, complying with applicable laws (permits, inspections, registrations, certifications, various filings)"

I have removed this question on the basis of the above decision that we do not give advice in contravention to our disclaimer.

Nevertheless, both the OP 173.49.17.60, and now Jayron32 diff have seen fit to reopen this discussion. Do we provide corporate, real estate, and legal advice, or don't we? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(after EC) Your phrasing of the question is misleading--it tends to lead the reader to form the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute. You're mischaracterizing both the nature of my posting and the issue being disputed here. I did NOT request advice of any kind. The text you (Medeis) quoted is about what I expected a business executive would have to address when starting an office at a new location. I did not say I needed to address those issues, and I most definitely did not solicit advice on dealing with issues of those kinds. I invite anyone reading this to refer to my origin posting to read it in its entirety, in context. Given the absence of even a hint of an actual existing situation in which advice is needed, and in the total absence of any particulars about that non-existent situation, there's nothing for anyone to offer advice on.

What I asked about was how business executives acquire the needed expertise to handle the tasks that I expect needed to be handled. A possible relevant answer could be: many MBA programs include a course on managing the practical logistics of setting up an office, so many MBAs actually are educated in that subject. Another possible relevant answer could be: there's actually a consulting industry that addresses this need, the services offered are generally known by the names ABC or XYZ. Still another possible relevant answer could be: this is actually not as hard as you think; it's like house hunting, only a little harder. If someone could start with a local commercial real estate broker, the broker should be able to tell the client what other professionals to pull in for the project. None of these answers, I submit, amounts to offering (regulated) professional service.

I don't claim to be very familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies, but on the surface of it, it only seems to prohibit offering of medical and legal advice (and, I assume, advice whose dispensation is regulated by law.) In your edit to the original thread, you made a blanker comment calling my question "request for advice and speculation", without justification. When challenged to justify why my question supposedly violated Misplaced Pages policies, you just deleted the question. I am open to be shown wrong, but you never provided anything that amounted to an explanation of why my question supposedly violated Misplaced Pages policies. --173.49.17.60 (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Before Medeis started this discussion, I already had started a discussion at WT:RD and notified Medeis of that discussion. I have no horse in this race, and have no opinion as to the status of the post. I'm not sure why Medeis needs to have this discussion in two venues, especially since the discussion already exists in the more appropriate one. This is the last statement I will make on this matter, as I really don't care one way or the other, I just don't like to see unilateral decisions made for matters which are not clear-cut vandalism, trolling, or inappropriate medical/legal advice. Before medeis deleted the discussion, there was already people who noted it wasn't inappropriate in their opinion, and didn't cross the line. Where reasonable people disagree, one of those in the disagreement shouldn't act unilaterally. Status quo should remain until consensus is reached. If people do eventually agree something is inappropriate, then someone can take action. Otherwise, as I already have noted, I don't see why Medeis feels the need to hold this discussion in two places. --Jayron32 02:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I had started writing this report before I received Jayron's notice. Given there's no horse in this race, I am curious why Jayron accuses me of forum shopping. Given the time stamp of this edit advising the OP to see the decision above, before Jayron's thread in its edit summary, I find the accusation of forum shopping baseless.

I suspect Jayron may have innocently been ignorant of today's decision on not giving professional advice when it's medical, given he apparently did not read @Knowledgekid87:'s closure with advice to head the disclaimer above. Perhaps @Jayron32: will revert his re-opening of the thread given the discussion here? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said (and this is really my last comment) When the discussion at WT:RD plays out and people have had a chance to comment, decisions can be made. Otherwise, I don't really care. --Jayron32 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no, and I emphasize no, request for advice of any sort (much less professional advice) in my question. Any policy against offering professional advice is irrelevant to the issue discussion here. --173.49.17.60 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Medeis has misunderstood the RD question. The OP is *not* asking for legal advice etc. He is asking where a start-up with limited resources and experience could find such services, amongst others. That's a totally reasonable RD question. There is no ANI issue here and the proper place to review Medeis's actions is the thread at WT:RD. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a request for professional advice of the kind the RD guidelines prohibit. There is no fault requiring administrator intervention here. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

We have already seen that at the RD talk page, the majority are for a lawless free for all, and even suggest that editors who obey the RD and WP policies on those desks should be discouraged from editing. The OP's question is as blatant a request for legal and finacial and other licensed professional advice as one can imagine:

"finding providers for various maybe banking, legal, & accounting as well...hir contractors to build/modify the space, complying with applicable laws (permits, inspections, registrations, certifications, various filings)".

If Jayron, doesn't want to address this here, that's fine, but it is being addressed, and we need eyes not involved with the violations that go on at the ref desks continually to police the desk, if the regulars cannot do so themselves. This is for the long term benefit of the RD itself, since eventually such advice is going to end up causing trouble for people who actually ask questions within its guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: Stop quoting what I wrote out of context and stop mis-characterizing my request NOW! Your repeated acts of distorting what I said are outrageous and totally unacceptable. I invite anyone interested in this discussion NOT to take what Medeis (a.k.a. μηδείς) wrote in the above at face value, and read the original question posted on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk to form their own opinion. I'm confident that any reasonable reader will find what Medeis wrote in the above to be a gross distortion of what I wrote. --173.49.17.60 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. There was no hint of a request for advice on banking, legal, accounting, or any of those other matters. The question (here it is again ) was, in a certain context, who would and how would they know about these things. Quite a different question, and quite unobjectionable in terms of any disclaimers, liability, or practicing-something-without-a-license concerns. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree that Medeis's interpretation of the IP's question is completely off base. The IP editor raised points that would have to be considered but expanded on how a party tasked with this duty would be able to accomplish this. This is in no way seeking advice in any of the categories Medeis mentioned. This should be closed. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Expertscape

I have posted this in his talk page after he deleted ExpertScape page and stated" "speedy deletes are just like that".

==An Observation== Reading your posted census on your home page, it appears that you have deleted Misplaced Pages pages 5,000 times more than you have ever created any Misplaced Pages article. You have blocked and re-blocked users 2,000 times more than unblocking the users. How about the label "wiki-nator" for you, nothing sarcastic, just a neutral suggestion. S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the noticeboard? Zhaofeng Li 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this directed towards @Nyttend:? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not; you can find it at User_talk:Bbb23#An_Observation. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree too then that I don't know why it is here on the noticeboard or what positive things can come from it in any case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not any more you can't. I removed it. You can, of course, look at the edit history if you're burning (no pun intended) to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree too then that I don't know why it is here on the noticeboard or what positive things can come from it in any case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The post was about the recent deletions by . I am told that some of Bbb23's today's deletions are being discussed here. I shared the mere fact that this editor has deleted articles 5,000 times more than he/she has created articles, and Bbb23 has blocked 2,000 more people than unblocked people. These data are posted on his/her talk page as the only data about this editor. I wonder if such a high ratio of delete to create can allow somebody to qualify for the privilege of being an "editor". If mentioning these data are considered inappropriate, then I am truly sorry and have learned something new. On the other hand, I, a random, low-tier user, am posing a serious questions to our astute editors and their unrestricted right to "speedy delete" hours (to days to months) of people's work. I look forward to be educated and to a healthy discussion (without hopefully being deleted speedily). Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the OP is pissed off about the deletion of Expertscape for lack of a credible assertion of notability, but fails to point out that the article has been deleted three times before, only one of those times by Bbb23. BMK (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To shed light on the incident and to request astute editors to kindly review, Bbb23 deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process. I asked Bbb23 to allow a period of healthy discussion and review but Bbb23 deleted the page without any discussion and only minutes after tagging it under "speedy deletion". https://en.wikipedia.org/Expertscape Upon requesting the opportunity to review, Bbb23 asserted: "No, speedy deletes are just that, speedy. They don't require a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" In my opinion, and I may be wrong, "speedy deletes are just speedy deletes" would not qualify the action and may misrepresent the true spirit of "collaborative" nature of Misplaced Pages. Bbb23 deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process and despite the request to allow a healthy period of review and discussion. Honestly I have no idea who or what runs the ExpertScape, and I am not even sure if this is a company or enterprise or autopilot web operation. I feel (and happy to discuss if I am not deleted or blocked) that "notability" is met here, since the nationally renowned medical centers and USA based medical schools refer to ExpertScape rankings. If so the Misplaced Pages is warranted to have a neutral reference about this. One would benefit from seeing an informative article that is not promotional but indeed critical and questions certain angles such as source of funding and other limits. The article was deleted only once before, it was then recreated after months of work and stayed on Misplaced Pages for several months until today where 2 editors deleted it within minutes of each other. I sincerely request a review and discussion not only on Template:ExpertScape but also on the fundamental question of the status of "editor" if one has deleted 5,000 times more than created articles. S.Burntout123 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually requested a deletion review of the speedy deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the deleted article, and it looks like we haven't lost anything except some badly-supported promotional puffery. We're not here to host an ad for a website. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, C.Fred, and yes, I have filed "Requests for Undeletion" according to a great editor and await next step. I do not agree with TeonA... this is not promotional at all. If my original posting was promotional, then please go ahead and edit. It takes a lot of time and effort to edit and amend and improve, while it is more convenient to "just delete". As WP editors you have great responsibility which is beyond and above "delete". Look forward to a better and more tolerant world than discrediting and deleting the articles of low-tier users. Give us a chance to discuss and educate than calling something "badly-supported promotional puffery". Thank you all for your important contributions and editing efforts. S.Burntout123 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Four admins in the last year have a different opinion of the article from yours: the three that deleted it, and TenOfAllTrades above. Since you have a vested interest in the article being in Misplaced Pages, and they only have a vested interest in following Misplaced Pages policies, I'm rather inclined to think that they are correct, and you are not.

By the way, what's your connection to the company? BMK (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user is confusing WP:DRV with WP:REFUND. He's been to the latter. Indeed, he's posted at least part of the article there, so we're still hosting an ad for the website. I realize you're all focused on whether the article should or should not have been deleted, but I'd pay just a little more attention to the user's conduct as the issue of the deletion doesn't even belong on this noticeboard except the user's claims that I've abused my powers because I deleted an article without due process and discussion, which, of course, is patent nonsense in the context of a speedy delete. I'm going off-wiki and I'll let those of you who are more patient than I deal with this as you will.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

May I ask to please not attack users. It is disruptive to accuse a user: <<<"so we're still hosting an ad for the website">>>. If there is any ad anywhere, then please go ahead and remove anything that sounds promotional, so that this discussion can remain focused on the fundamental 2 questions: (1) Speedy deletion of the article. (2) The qualification of an editor who has deleted 5,000 time more than he/she contributed to "editing" WP articles (and these are the data that Bbb23 has posted on his/her page, please visit Bbb23 home page). I truly look forward to be educated here and have immense respect for hardworking WP editors who contribute immensely in this treasure.S.Burntout123 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So, it's OK for you to attack Bbb23 by calling him the "Wiki-nator", but when he points out your conduct problems, that's somehow not allowed? I think not.

So, you socked in 2011 as User:Burntout1234, what's your relationship to User:Europeisme, who created the deleted article Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, a copy of which has been in your user space since 2010, despite your failing to work on it -- the only reason that deleted articles should be in userspace -- since 2011, despite your stated intention to do so in 2013. What is the relationship between this article and Expertscape? And, again, what is your relation to Expertscape? BMK (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was the most appropriate time to attack me and my contributions and to delete my other works and projects. I truly feel harassed and ask for protection during this sensitive time asking that the focus on my fundamental questions about the legitimacy of certain editors are not diverted by going after my page. This reminds us of the IRS suddenly auditing 6 years of tax records when one has dares to question the government's actions in Vietnam. I have absolutely no relationship with ExpertScape and have no idea who these people you have listed are. I hope that we are not experiencing McCarthyism. Is this really the price a low-tier user has to pay for questioning the qualification of an editor who has deleted 5,000 more than contributing to articles? S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I had sent this editor to WP:UNDELETE under the impression they are "a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion under speedy deletion criteria". They also handle userfication so it could be submitted through AfC which I thought would be better for this kind of editor and article. EoRdE6 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I truly feel harassed by several editors here and ask for support and protection and the right to ask the fundamental questions about editors who delete 5,000 times more than contributing to article. Hope the low-tier users are not supposed to stop questioning the editors as a contingency to survive. S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You come here bitching and calling names, then complain about being harassed -- and in the complaint repeat the attack you started with. Beauty.

As noted on your talk page, I have nominated User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus – a deleted article which was userfied to your userspace 4 1/2 3 1/2 years ago – for deleton, as you have had plenty of time to work it into an acceptable article and have not done so. The nomination can be found at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, and you can make your arguments there.

In the meantime, I suggest that an univolved admin might like to consider blocking Burntout123 for a short period of time if he repeats his attack on Bbb23 again. BMK (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again I am asking for help and protection against intensified harassment and attacks by certain editors. BMK just deleted my userified project with this message on his talk page: "Bullshit, you can't save the article by adding some crap you dug up in 5 second of Googling. BMK (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)"S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you added this one sentence to the article: "Since then over 50 papers have mentioned the term according to Google Scholar including in recent publications in New England Journal of Medicine in 2013, and there have been over 500 citations of the publications on burnt-out diabetes." and called it a "new version". BMK (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just deleted User:Burntout123/sandbox, a userspace copy of the article that was created with the AGF-destroying edit summary "Expertscape doppelgaenger as back-up for future deletions". I think it's pretty clear by now that this user isn't here for any reason other than to promote this website. —Cryptic 08:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly the harassment has continued by these certain editors, while supportive and balanced editors do not appear to feel comfortable to say anything. The original questions have been overshadowed, and instead the low-tier users and their home page have been attacked and vandalized. I ask the true WP editors to protect the low-tier users against further attacks and public accusations and harassment. If a user dares to question the legitimacy of the editors who delete much more than contributing to WP, it is not professional to suggest to "block him for a short period" to teach the user a lesson. The very foundation of WP comes into question which such approaches, similar to the time when a government justify torture. Hope we control our emotions and biases and remain focused on the original questions: Can an editor be legitimate if he/she deletes thousands of times more than contributing to articles? Is the fundamental act of asking this question the reason to be blocked and to be harassed? S.Burntout123 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Admins mostly carry out the tasks requested by others...at least as much janitor compared to the judge+executioner you presume it to be. I recommend you focus on what you actually want done and use diffs and other details of specific actions rather than than raising vague raw data claims (Lies, damned lies, and statistics). By policy, blocks are preventive not punitive--if you appear to be disrupting wikipedia, you'll be blocked so that the rest of us can get back to writing an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of destroying AGF, there's this gem: User:Burntout123/Neovandalism. Looks like the axe has been on the grind for a long time. --Kinu /_c 09:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Neovandalism article – yet another userfied deleted article in Burntout123's user space – see this AN/I thread. BMK (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Snow deleted at AfD. BMK (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you going after the user and auditing the last 6 years of his/her tax return because he/she dared to question the government actions in Vietnam? Am I suddenly running out of time? Given these circumstances, I hereby request 4 weeks of protection to update and complete my userified projects, while requesting that they not be touched or deleted during this period including ExpertScape, Diabetes and Neovandalism. I truly ask that I and my pages be protected during this period of time. I am happy to stop further posting during this time. S.Burntout123 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't respond to the nonsensical part of your comment, but I will point out that you've been here over 3.5 years and your attitude in most of your non-article edits is pretty much the same as it was in your first edit. Perhaps you should take a step back and consider whether it's not us, but you... and then determine whether a collaborative project such as Misplaced Pages is the right one for you. --Kinu /_c 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One week is the standard for XfD. That should be plenty of time to find even a bare handful of actual reliable sources to support notability and prove an article/topic is minimally viable. One week, on top of however many previous years... DMacks (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and will do. Can I ask that the deleted projects and pages be placed back for this period and nothing else be changed or deleted while we interrupt all postings and discussions by all parties for one week? I appreciate 7 days of protection and pieace and kindly ask others also to stop. Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you can request that, but I doubt your request will be honored.

Regarding this user's behavior, reading this version of C.Fred's talk page from 2011 is very illuminating, especially when read in conjunction with this version of Burntout123's talk page from the same period. BMK (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just store your prospective article on your PC and upload it when you think it's ready. Then there's no time limit. You can take 20 years to finish if you want. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the google cache of the Expertscape article and agree that the article is spam. I haven't examined the user's other contributions enough to call for a block, but the signs I've seen point that way. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the User's talk page and things are moving in the right direction. Can someone please help the user understand how to copy/paste his local articles onto his PC and how to apply for a WP:REFUND for Expertscape. I'll be offline for several hours. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm not certain how this could be considered "the right direction". --Kinu /_c 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion on his talk page, not his venting on his userpage, which I didn't see. If you think the user needs a WP:CIR block, propose it. Otherwise, I suggest that de-escalation (which the user has responded to favorably, in agreeing to most of my points) is better than a continued recriminations. If someone could invest a little time in helping to calm things down and help the user, that would be great. If every user responded to criticism on ANI by having a lightbulb go off above their head and then they reply clearly with "mea culpa" and a plan for improvement, we'd have a very different environment here than we know we have. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Since he's still asking fpr special immunity from normal Misplaced Pages processes, I'm not sure that you're really getting through to him at all. Considering that his behavior has been typical since the very beginning of the account, it's possible that you're tilting at windmills. BMK (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I do believe if we can get him a userfied copy of Expertscape and if someone can help him figure out to copy the source for "Burned out diabetes", this issue would cease consuming people's time, for now. I admit, it is a good possibility there will be a problem in the future, but I WP:AGF that there might not be. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Burntout has requested I restore the Expertscape page to draft space, an offer I made on WP:REFUND, , before noticing the ANI discussion and reverting myself, . Would anyone object to this? (My search suggests the subject is possibly notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting in draft space seems ok to me. It's probably preferable to user space for various reasons. I still think it's a spammy article, but maybe it can be cleaned up and notability established. Separately, I did a little bit of web search and burnt-out diabetes seems to actually be a thing. I have no idea what condition the deleted article is in. Burntout123, note that the amount of Misplaced Pages bureaucracy surrounding articles on medical topics is even worse than for most other topics besides BLP's. See WP:MEDRS for info on how you'll have to write and source your article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I certainly object to it. Numerous editors have commented that the subject does not seem notable, the editor involved appears to have a COI in regard to the subject (although he denies it), and the editor's past track record is that userfied articles (the previous version of draft articles) stay in his userspace for years without being substantially modified. One userfied article that he "worked on" in the past few days -- an article which had been deleted a number of times -- was recently rejected at AfC, and another was deleted at AfD. I have no confidence whatsoever that this editor (or really anybody else) will be able to bring Draft:Expertscape to the status of an acceptable mainspace article. Therefore, I urge ThaddeusB not to move the deleted article to Draftspace. BMK (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Would putting it in userspace render it visible to Google searches? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not if it has {{user draft}}, {{user sandbox}}, or some other template that adds the noindex magic word to it. —Cryptic 11:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious too, after the edit summary on User:Burntout123/sandbox. I'd only be willing to acquiesce to userfication or a move into draftspace if A) it gets one of the AFC templates so we can speedy delete it with a minimum of fuss after he abandons it for six months, and B) you're willing take responsibility for dealing with him if he prematurely moves it into mainspace himself. —Cryptic 11:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering the history of the article, I protected against recreation. But that is no reason why it cannot be restored by any admin and moved to draft space. It will then need admin action to move it back, not just an AfC approval, but that's a fairly usual way to proceed in these cases. I've moved a number of improved AfCs to mainspace over protection under this sort of circumstance DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made Burnt a conditional offer, User talk:Burntout123#Offer, in which I take responsibility for mentoring him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR block needed

ADHZ07111989 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly created a hoax article about a later Sui dynasty (not the historical Sui dynasty, but a revival that lasted far longer) based on this alternate history Wikia. After being warned about it (repeatedly), he shows himself shifting to a singular focus in creating the article, refusing to hear out any warnings and continuing to ask people for permission and even help in creating a hoax article. When I explained what alternate history is, he cited sources about the historical Sui dynasty as if they were sources about the "later" Sui dynasty, and even sources about the Ming dynasty (which occupies the spot where the "later" Sui dynasty was supposed to be). And no, "Later Sui dynasty" is not an alternate name for the Ming dynasty.

To put this in perspective, this is like someone trying to create an article about the "second Ostrogothic empire" that occupied Germany from 962 to 1806, citing a video game Wikia and books (in their own language) either about the original Ostrogoths and the Holy Roman Empire. Either they're a troll or they're at a level of incompetence that cannot be described without violating WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)This is my argument:

Please visit the ctext.org and see there at Song-Ming section it is not about era of legacy Sui it is about Later Sui II " http://ctext.org/song-ming " upsurp at the era. See about the text above.

  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
  *梁惠王章句上 page 6
  *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世　孫行者施為三折肱
  *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨
  *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊
  *太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》
  *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1
  *之 Part 葘
  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
  Hawley, Samuel (2005). The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. Seoul: The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch. pp. 195f. ISBN 89-954424-2-5.
  Turnbull, Stephen (2002). Samurai Invasion. Japan’s Korean War 1592–98. London: Cassell & Co. p. 244. ISBN 0-304-35948-3.
  Roh, Young-koo (2004). "Yi Sun-shin, an Admiral Who Became a Myth". The Review of Korean Studies 7 (3): 13.
  *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》
  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.

  *梁惠王章句上 page 6

  *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世　孫行者施為三折肱

  *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨

  *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊

  *太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》

  *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1

  *之 Part 葘

  *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》

I don't care about any fiction made from the Later Sui II Empire.

Please give me permission to make it or in exchange of that please help me make the article.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As I already explained, those are sources about the original Sui empire, or about the Ming dynasty. User refuses to leave Tlön. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'll wait for Nyttend to weigh in, but I smell a NOTHERE block coming a mile away. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Dear sir/madam Please visit the ctext.org and see there at Song-Ming section it is not about era of legacy Sui it is about Later Sui II " http://ctext.org/song-ming " upsurp at the era. See about the text above.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are about the Ming dynasty, not Sui II. You have become confused because of alternate history fiction you cited as the only source in the original draft of your article, and are now misinterpreting sources about the Ming dynasty. That or you're trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Giving the guy one more chance: I've told him to drop the subject entirely and edit on something else if he wants to continue, and if he does anything more on this topic, he'll get the indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I work extensively on Chinese history and culture articles, and can verify that none of the long Chinese texts ADHZ07111989 cited above has anything to do with the so-called Later Sui Empire. This person seems to be obsessed with glorifying the Yang surname. In addition to Later Sui (Yang was the imperial surname of the historical Sui dynasty), he also created the pseudohistory Dương Dynasty (An Nam) (Dương is the Vietnamese pronunciation of Yang), and Yang (state), which was a historical entity but most information he added was genealogical legend that no historian would take seriously. -Zanhe (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This user has posted a (horribly malformed) WP:DELREV request here. I didn't want to unilaterally revert it, but I honestly don't feel it's worth fixing either, since it's apparently the same extended content that this user has posted at multiple locations, including above in the collapsed section. In other words, Nyttend, it looks like your advice to drop it fell on deaf ears. --Kinu /_c 06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, check the timestamps: he hasn't edited since the advice was given. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good call. I also see that the deletion review has been dumped. Here's hoping that's the end of that. --Kinu /_c 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

LGBTory

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

Would be helpful if an administrator could intervene here as it doesn't look like I'm going to get anywhere. Several names were added to the patrons list at LGBTory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by 213.105.80.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but that do not appear in any source. This may be a deliberate WP:BLP violation but I do not know enough about the individuals listed to determine if being supporters of LGBT topics might be electorally damaging to them. I reverted this, initially assuming edits were good faith and offering to include citations if they needed help. Now SleepCovo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is carrying on where the IP user left off, with similar behaviour: ignoring requests for conversation; reverting changes back to the version that matches the cited source; removing all warnings posted to their talk page; and now trying to rename the article section to get around this problem. The rename doesn't help, as it similarly fails verification for citations and is unencyclopaedic. Both accounts seem to have form for this kind of behaviour. ~Excesses~ (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edits they are claiming that these people could be LGBT, which is definetly a BLP problem if unsourced. You cant claim someone is something without sourcing it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• SleepCovo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24h and given an unambiguous warning. Consider WP:RFPP if anons return. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)—

Reopened

• The original user has been blocked for BLP violations (the blocking admin said for "scurrilous allegations of living individuals" - sad that "being LGBT" is a scurrilous allegation, but I suppose even in the UK we're not there yet). However, all the names they added to the article were of those Conservatives that are openly gay or bisexual (check their articles). Of course, it is wrong (or at least unsourced) to say they were patrons of the LGBT organization, but I hardly think this was a BLP violation, simply an error on their part. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• "scurrilous allegations" almost sounds like an attack, but since we permit virtually all our lists of people to leave sourcing to the articles (if at all), it is no wonder that a newby would think it perfectly fine editing in accord with practice, while technically against policy (which is less likely to have been read or understood). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• It would be a better policy to have a no lists with people without reliable sources showing that the person belongs on such a list, without worrying about whether it's "contentious" or not; but WP prefers more content more than better sourcing. IMHO... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a IBAN

I'm requesting a IBAN between myself and ATinySliver (talk · contribs) after wikihounding me at RfP, twice actually. Just because I nominated an article he contributed to for deletion doesn't mean he should go and undermine everything else I am doing. It was the first time he ever commented at an RfC so it was kinda obvious. When I mentioned it on his talk page he reccomended I do it so here I am. EoRdE6 03:15, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)

No further comment. —ATinySliver/ 03:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Two comments on Requests for permissions do not comprise Wikihounding.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree, SarekOfVulcan. @ATinySliver:, though you must be smug because you didn't get threatened, you might appreciate the fact that he saw your edits as an act of aggression. Next time, try to explain your edits instead of getting into battleground mentality as you did with your "Just do it" reference. It wasn't a very civil thing to do. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You are in error; smugness was not the motivation, nor is it the result. Given the circumstances, the response seemed appropriate. Next time I'm among the recipients of a blatant lie by someone who suggested he might have speedied the article himself had he possessed a set of keys, I'll endeavor to provide a more measured response. —ATinySliver/ 19:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

He tried to get that article zapped and was soundly defeated. No need to rub his nose in it after the fact. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: definitely not. But then, that response was definitely not appropriate. EoRdE6 was definitely not understanding and proceeded on to cover up with a lie maybe. Who knows, but then, as an accepted member of the community, it's your responsibility to fix problems. I spend my days in ANI mostly, where interesting threads come up from time to time. All I do is argue, ask for evidence and stuff, but then it's nice to present your two cents in front of people. The point is, new users are not welcomed by the community anymore. Our editor-retention value has fallen way too low. And there's only hope left. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 11:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sliver, I'm not sure why you keep calling it a lie that the article was only created on January 31, when it did indeed spend most of the last 6 years as a redirect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"ommunity consensus decided redirect" can only have been a deliberate falsehood (see the corresponding diff within my reply herein linked). I had, and have, reservations when an editor with such a demonstrable difficulty in accepting an opposing opinion asks for permissions that can only increase his interactions with others. That is all. —ATinySliver/ 22:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: In the OP above I did not find your twice actually edit to be particularly civil as you were basically giving INDCRIT of a problem while not providing direct justification. The provoking of Wikidrama is something that should be avoided and clear and justified communication will help. I recommend that future remarks either not be made or be directly referenced or link cited and rationalised. reply was given by another editor/admin and your response was curt. I don't see how your edits were helpful in the situation and, unless justification can be given, I would support a block of relevant topic ban. IBANs solve nothing. GregKaye 14:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

My communication was intentionally terse; I did not wish to appear to be "piling on", an impression given anyway. In retrospect, I can see how further clarity might have been of assistance. —ATinySliver/ 00:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Also EoRdE6 when you give a related edit with an uncivil summary "You guys are quite dumb", perhaps you can expect a reaction. There is no condoning ATinySliver in this but I would not be against bans to both. This incivility was not confined to a single editing relationship. GregKaye 18:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

user:NiranjanUltrasound - possible block evasion

NiranjanUltrasound (talk · contribs) is under an indefeinte block for spamusername, but appears to have reappeared as Tepp Niranjan (talk · contribs). File:Colordopplermagazine.jpg has been previously uploaded by iranjanUltrasound (deleted), and then has been uploaded again by Tepp Niranjan, and their content contribution seems to be there to promote Niranjan Ultrasound, so it's very likely the same person. No request was ever made for a name change under the original name -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Definite block evasion - it's the same person. I guess, you'll have to wait till an admin checks this thread and blocks them as a sockpuppet of NiranjanUltrasound (talk · contribs). --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor

The following accounts/IP addresses are relevant to this report:

• K6kaisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K6katherollback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K6kaisbacktorollback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K6kaisasockpuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• K6ka19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChristmasHaterK6ka19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FredisK6ka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ilovethesims5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.82.40.187issorry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoryMach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoryMach2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoryMach3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoryMach4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.82.40.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Before I get redirected to WP:SPI, I would like to clarify that 1. Yes, all found sockpuppets are currently blocked, and 2. This is more of a long-term disruption issue than one for SPI. But to get things clear, I'll need to start from the beginning:

The issue originates at The Sims Wiki on Wikia, where IP 50.82.40.187 vandalized the wiki. As I am an administrator over there, I blocked the IP address from editing (see block log). One month later, the IP vandalized the wiki again, and was blocked again as a result. The user has since then tracked me down to Misplaced Pages, where they began vandalizing. They often leave me talk page messages asking to be unblocked from The Sims Wiki, or issue threats to create more sockpuppets if I didn't become a bureaucrat. Since then they have been creating new sockpuppet accounts on both Wikia and Misplaced Pages and is starting to become a real pain.

The issues on Wikia are mostly none of our business (I'll deal with those) but those on Misplaced Pages are becoming disruptive and annoying, and the user is continually coming back for additional harassment and trolling.

Administrator or experienced editor advice would be appreciated in resolving this situation. Thanks. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe there's no need for a SPI here (if you just want them blocked). The editing pattern and evidence is enough to support the conclusion, that they're sockpuppets of the sockmaster. I would however recommend, a CheckUser to verify the IP ranges to do an IPRangeBlock if possible, in which case a SPI is required. I am not an administrator, so I don't have the necessary powers to do anything. I recommend you do the latter to get an autoblock issued. However, if your sockpuppets are unfortunately on dynamic IP ranges or clever enough to use a VPN, then you'll have to deal with it. Then, we'll have to go with Long-term Abuse and file a report with the ISP. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Per , this is almost certainly user:Cmach7 who has been at it for 3 years now. Nothing new to add, just connecting this new sockfarm to an older sockfarm. —Soap— 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Copy/paste move with copyright violations

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

A user editing as both Koko Nigel and 175.XXXXXXX copy/paste moved Melanophryniscus stelznerni to Melanophryniscus stelzneri. (As near as I can tell, the new name is correct.) Additionally, the editor has copy/pasted text from sources in numerous instances. As a result, we need a copy/paste move cleanup and a revert to the January 15, 2015 version. Once that is completed, normal editing can work out whether this is about Melanophryniscus stelzneri or Melanophryniscus dorsalis, I guess. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the previous name you wanted to point us at was Melanophryniscus stelzerni , not Melanophryniscus stelznerni . David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• This user is a problem who focuses on adding "keeping in captivity" non-encyclopedic and unsourced information to reptile articles; see AN archive. The actions look minor but the copyvios are persistent and when pressed, the bogus edits are extreme—the deleted Salamanders as pets was a blatant hoax at one stage (the text was copied with bogus changes from here). Two edits at the user's talk were very dubious: diff and diff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user was previously blocked for a variety of problems and many of those continue. I gave them a final warning before coming here. As to whether or not more needs to be done at the moment, I am not !voting. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another copyvio. They are up at AI/V.- SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• The editor in question has been indefed. The copy/paste move remains. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it will need a history merge, which I have never done. If you could tag it for expert attention using the templates provided at Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging, I would appreciate it. Tired now, logging off. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've performed the history merge. Graham87 08:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User Is not a

Is not a (talk · contribs)
WP:NOTHERE Attempts to obstruct and my participation and disrupt sourcing discussions at notice boards, doesn't address content issue at hand, asking me to stop looking for sources.

Insinuates I’m associated with Larouche, making a personal attack and casting aspersions.

Denies evidence of my association with Larouche, harps on about defamation, suggest blanking the page in his edit summary.

WP:IDLIUser Is not a (talk · contribs) appears to think that Misplaced Pages should not have BLPs in the first place, because he doesn't like them.
I have tried to ignore him.

Fails to follow WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:PUBLICFIGURE
Removes this tertiary source, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link here, and then used as a reference in January 2008 here.
He failed to get consensus for the removal on Talk, claiming that it was an “attack site”. I decided it didn't need to go in the article anyway, as it was a tertiary source and other sources could be used in the main body, and added it back as an external link after he removed another external link, and I was reverted without discussion, with a threat of taking me to AN/I while repeating a BLP claim he has refused to answer queries about. I re-reverted, he didn't file the AN/I, but simply reverted again.
Finally, he has made some spurious claims in an attempt to derail a topic ban appeal I have pending at AE.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I shall leave this to others to discuss, since I am busy. Administrators should read the talk pages of the associated articles and at WP:BLPN and note that Ubikwit's SPI investigation request was closed with a suggestion that Ubikwit read the SPI description before filing another. Ubikwit received similar advice on at least one occasion here. is a 17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That must just be an action of poor judgement. Otherwise, can you give us the diffs. in a list, so that it's easier to review. I can understand your exasperation but if enough, admins will declare an IBAN. Till, then fix this thread, please. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The user "is not a" arrived at Misplaced Pages with longstanding experience and knowledge of old Misplaced Pages matters. I got very suspicious when this supposedly new person mentioned the incorrigible sockmaster Herschelkrustofsky here. This is not a new user; usually such persons are evading a block or ban rather than simply abandoning an old registered account in good standing. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather focus on content issues at appropriate talk pages, but here let me give an example of the biases I have been trying to clean up at the BLP Robert Kagan:

With this edit Binksternet truncated "the realist tradition of Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr rather than neoconservativism", omiting "rather than neoconservatism", changing the skeptical writer's point: "Kagan largely eschews neoconservative theology and instead sounds themes reminiscent of the great American realists Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr".

is a 23:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Binksternet!! What are you doing!!!! Don't you know that WP:AGF requires you to throw away all your accumulated past experience and treat this editor like a long-lost friend, your best buddy from college or your cousin you haven't seen in years? Ask him in, serve him tea and crumpets, put him up for the night -- nevermind that your Spidey-sense is tingling away to beat the band, that he arrived at your door with a blackjack and brass knuckles, you must give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt. Not very cricket, sniffing him out like that. BMK (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, alas, has had major problems in the past with edit war behaviour, and has been cited for such by ArbCom. On Neoconservatism he has 4 reverts in just over two days, in Robert Kagan he has 4 reverts in just over two days, and so on. Some of his edits on Kagan were clearly problematic in the past, was a revert to call Kagan "Jewish", etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree somewhat. Both editors have been problematic on this page. I am not made a slew of edits removing any neocon reference and spamming templates. But they've correctly removed some EL and other BLP issues. Same with Ubikwit; some good edits, some not (like the one Collect linked above). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Collect referred to an edit regarding a BLP issue I had encountered for the first time, with respect to which consensus was reached on this Talk thread there is other relevant background here and here. Owen (talk · contribs) appears to have "recused" himself from the article due to the dispute over that issue.

Meanwhile, regarding this exchangestarting herebefore being hattedhere, the text on the page could only have been in English because there is not Japanese translation of the book, and no translation function. Is that gaming the system (claiming he can't read the source)?

@EvergreenFir: By the way, this link is to a Facebook page.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks... copy-paste fail. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

With these links, Ubikwit documents his discussion about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA of American Jews, his linking to an antisemitic site, and his other soapboxing about American Jews and others adopting a "democracy" argument for supporting military aid to Israel and opposing aid e.g. to Egypt, the topic of The Israel Lobby.

This is so distasteful, that I'm done here. Do what you want, here in public.

is a 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Is not a: those are serious allegations. Please substantiate them or strike your comment. And by substantiate I do not mean refer to some unspecified link somewhere else in the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

is a 00:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Is not a: So you linked to somewhere else where you made this accusation? And then I followed your link there and I was unimpressed. Let me try to make this simpler and take this one step at a time: Specify, here, by name, with your next edit, the anti-Semitic site allegedly linked to by Ubikwit, or strike your comments to that effect. Gamaliel (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is quite enough of that. As one who tries to be a righteous gentile, I take accusations of antisemitism quite seriously. I also think it is not an accusation that should be thrown around the encyclopedia lightly. User:Is not a has responded to this matter on their userpage with a link to a news article on a particular publication whose name I will not repeat because the name of one of its founders is in the publication name, thus making the claim of antisemitism a BLP violation. According to the Misplaced Pages article on this publication, a publication with which I am completely unfamiliar, it has been accused of antisemitism in the past in the rough and tumble of political discourse, but I can find no evidence that this publication is actually antisemitic. Neither the Anti-Defamation League nor the Southern Poverty Law Center label it antisemitic. The ADL does call it "anti-Zionist", however, but the SPLC has used it in some of its articles as a reference regarding cases of actual bigotry. Most significantly, its founders are Jewish. Thus I conclude it is both a BLP violation and a violation of WP:CIVIL to repeatedly hurl that accusation against this publication and this editor. Given this, the gamesmanship on display here, and the dubious edit history, I am imposing a 24-hour block and an indefinite one-way interaction ban on User:Is not a preventing them from further interaction with User:Ubikwit. I also think it would be appropriate to consider evidence on the matter of stronger sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You know, I have to say that Misplaced Pages it's sometimes hard on to tell the players without a scorecard, but if the link that "Is not a" (stupid name) posted on his talk page is supposed to be antisemitic, I just don't see it; and I say this as an unabashed liberal who is generally (but not knee-jerkingly) pro-Israel, but who has found value in the writing of both Robert Kagan and his father Donald Kagan. Some of this kind of crap comes about because people insist on things being either black or white, even though the geopolitical world is much too complex for that to be true.

In any event, it appears that Gamaliel has blocked "Is not a" (still a stupid name) for his personal attack on Ubikwit, and I support that block. Which camp that puts me in I have not the slightest idea. BMK (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Those are grounds for immediate block. See no reason to humor this user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Gamaliel: Note that "Is not a" has a personal attack against Ubikwit on his userpage at the bottom (and a similar one against Binksternet on his Talk page under the subheading "Clean hands"). Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:Now that I see what source he is referring to, I think that a simple reference to the WP article's "Reception section is revealing.

It should not be permissible to attempt to impinge editor's integrity by launching a blatantly POV attack aimed at undermining the competitions sources, so to speak, especially where such serious allegations are being made. That is an offense beyond violating NPOV at the article's content level, and represents a sort of preemptive personal attack because one editor has a POV that is opposed to the POV of a reliable source (note that the source itself was not even challenged in that thread) that another editor has proposed.

I note that the subject of this report has retired, but he caused a lot of trouble in a very short time, and I agree with Binksternet that the editor is not a new editor, though the SPI I filed failed and it is not easy to connect such people to past accounts. They will resurface and again skew the editing environment off balance, trying to take out the competition through a smear campaign.

All the more reason that en.wiki needs to drop the proscription against so-called "fishing expeditions" and allow CUs to be run when there's a reasonable probability that a "new" user is a returning one. Too many times these malefactors get away with their abuse of the system simpy because who they are is not immediately apparent. We should not be in the position of rewarding those who use the system to hide their connection to previous identities when we have the tools to identify who they are, and block or ban them if appropriate. BMK (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, and don't understand the privacy issues that are claimed to prevent doing so.

The way things stand, hypothetically speaking, any individual of organization with resources to pay someone to sock for them on Misplaced Pages can wreak havoc, exercising far too much influence on the editing environment, at the expense of individuals that contribute their time and effort as individuals. There must be a better way to implement preventative measures.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In regard to sourcing, it should be noted that I made it to the Kagan article via the Nuland article, to which the subject of this thread referred. I made it to the Nuland BLP via the Ukraine conflict in connection with a content dispute over the "F--- the EU" remark. A pro-US faction was negating all sources from Russia, including an official statement by Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, published in the state owned media. There were numerous RS/N threads, and I opened a thread at IRS that was inconclusive. The Lavrov statement (and by extension, the Russian pov) was barred, and I withdrew from editing about the Ukraine crisis. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:54, 10:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

break

As an individual that has been associated with the "Israel lobby", it would seem that such categorization is merited, but two reverts have been made, with the reason given in edit summary, "request by article subject on talk page" and a link to blpcat. I don't know whether the assertion about the Talk page request is verified or not, or whether it matters, as it would seem that Kagan is a public figure.--User:Ubikwit (signing was on the original page) shows Ubikwit does regard the "Israel Lobby" as being important to Kagan. Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to make insinuations impinging my character, WP:NPA. This is not a guessing games forum, so if you have something you might want to allege, then do so in a straightforward manner. Also, signing my signature in your post is incorrect practice.

Have you read the article I cited on the talk page that you quote above.associated with the "Israel lobby" If you have, and, like Is not a, don't like the source, either, and would rather condemn the entire site, then just say so. You're entitled to your POV.

HJ Mitchell stated that the diffs didn't show that I violated the topic ban.

1. Open Frederick Kagan thread at BLP/N at 11:15 on 1/31
2. After some discussion of first round of sources, Collect agrees that F. Kagan could be characterized as a neocon with proper attribution.
3. At the Neonservatives talk page, he reverses himself, and attempts to impede further discussion, claiming that the BLP/N thread opened only hours early had “was a “Fail”.
4. I state that his statement is a unilateral attempt to curtail discussion.
5. He then accuses me of “quote mining” and claims consensus.
6. I ask him for the second time to cease with the pointy disruptions, and not to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting sources.
7. Meanwhile, The Four Deuces (talk · contribs), to whom Is not a referred, was also involved in impeding that discussion, claiming that he disagrees with the existence of the lists on Misplaced Pages in the first place, because he doesn't like the criteria for inclusion.
   

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I cited your precise post. That you find this to "impinge"(sic) your character is sad. I corrected the "signing" lest anyone think you somehow just posted here. And as I did not say you violated your clear topic ban, I am unsure why you need to iterate that bit - what is clear, sadly, is that you appear to be highly interested in Jews and the "Israel Lobby." You recently edited History of the Jews in Afghanistan, Ten Lost Tribes, Menasseh Ben Israel, British Israelism, Jewish Buddhist, Judaism in Nepal, Lev Tahor etc. all dealing with Judaism. And accusing TFD of "impeding" anything is a non-issue here - the fact is that you appear on the basis of your edits to be exceeding highly interested in Jewish issues, and have been topic banned in the past from Arab-Israeli articles broadly construed. And my advice that you consider that when you are the only person making a claim and others demur that you consider the very slim chance that you might be in error is standard Misplaced Pages advice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (impinging no one)

shows some AN/I discussions from six months ago. Collect (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Do either of you have any sanctions you want imposed or actions you think should be taken? If not, this discussion should be hatted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a 1-way interaction ban imposed against Collect. He has been responding to my posts in a somewhat erratic manner, sometimes changing his position abruptly, which generates friction and consumes time to clear up misunderstandings. I find that disruptive, and it impedes the overall discussion on Talk pages when it sidetracks the main focus.

Above I asked whether one interaction that was hatted as just such a distraction was a form of WP:GAMING, and that is a case in point.

The above comment demonstrates that Collect read the currently open AE thread, but

@Collect: Do you have a response on the specific issue of an IBAN? Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest Ubikwit be told not to accuse other editors of being socks or of editing based on a POV without very strong reasoning based on diffs, that he not continue to specialize in "Jewish" issues, that he be told that the use of edit war on multiple articles at the same time is unwise, and that he be told not to attack or interact with "Is Not A." I suggest "Is Not A" should also be told to avoid direct interaction with Ubikwit.

I point out that I made no "allegation" that Ubikwit violated his topic ban, and I do not appreciate his iterated claim that I did so. Thus a two way interaction ban between Ubikwit and "Is Not A" along with the suggestion that Ubikwit avoid his "Jewish article specialization" seems to make sense.

I further note that I have not sought any interaction with Ubikwit, that I was going to oppose his ban from AN/I were it not for his accusation that apparently almost everyone else is against him.

His use of AN/I is problematic vide , and then attacks me at , , all pretty much at the same time with a great many editors. I seek to ignore him, and have not sought here for any actions against him, and find this request that I be the one banned from mentioning him to be Kafkaesque. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence of his possible antagonistic attitude toward almost everyone is at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Ubikwit for which he was blocked for two weeks for insulting User:AGK by saying Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce? I fear his accusations against me are of the same ilk. Collect (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And to make it clear: Ubikwit: I specifically and abjectly apologize for any instance here where I said you violated your topic ban. I trust that apology is sincere and accepted as such. Collect (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (please try to avoid making edits within a continuing sequence by another editor - it amonts to refactoring his comments which he expected to be read as a sequence)

(edit conflict) Collect, you post text stating

Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic.

Which is a basically indecipherable passage, seeming to imply either that you agree that the source Is not a smeared as anit-semitic, or you assert, like Is not a, that I violated my topic ban. I don't see a third reading of your statement, so consider that you intended the later, based on an oversight, rather than the former, a more serious WP:PA. So I queried you about it, and your response was indeterminate. It seems that maybe you actually didn't read HJ Mitchell's comment, and upon recognizing that deny that you too asserted that I violated that topic. Otherwise, you have no grounds to comment on my editing what you refer to as "Jewish topics" on Misplaced Pages. Your POV in that regard is exceedingly narrow. You do not own those topics, and Jews do not own those topics.

The other diffs I provided don't need further explanation.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting since you had written on the Kagan talk page:

The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see xxx's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.

Which some might accidentally read as an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby. Of course, I am sure, of course, you would not make such claims. Collect (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Here again, if you still haven't read the article, "". And I would suggest also reading the "Reception" section I linked to for that publications, because the subject of dual loyalties appears to be something that they often address.

Moreover, such accusations in American politics are nothing new. It should be recalled that, before Kennedy was elected president, some Protestants and others used to say that a Catholic shouldn't be president because he would owe more loyalty to the pope than the Constitution, etc.

My position at Kagan's BLP was, of course, if it is common knowledge that Kagan is Jewish and associated with the Israel Lobby in reliable sources, why would Misplaced Pages not disclose the fact that he is Jewish. Once I learned about the current thinking on BLP policy regarding religious affiliation, that was the end of my participation. On the other hand, as I noted in the article, "divided loyalty" based on religious affiliation is not a foregone conclusion, as many people do not try to hide their religious affiliation regardless of their political stances on Israel.

The article, however, is unabashedly clear regarding the existence of various potential issues

"Middle East policymaking is now dominated by the Israel lobby and its affiliates. Advocacy of Israeli positions has replaced professional qualifications as the criteria for service.

That brings this discussion back around to your apparent insinuation that there might be something "problematic" with my edit, which only appears to exist in mind."There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic." I suggest that you cease and desist with what could easily be taken as making the exact same assertion here, albeit in a veiled manner, that Is not a made. Obviously, it doesn't matter if you don't like the POV of Mondoweiss about the neocons, Jewish and otherwise, and the Israel Lobby, with which I happen to agree. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit war continues on Robert Kagan... Ubikwit's edit here EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Why do you characterize that as an edit war? Are calling that a violation of WP:EW? The material (one link) removed from the article has been there with consensus since 2007, and there was no consensus on the Talk page for its removal. You introduce a new rational for your deletion with the edit summary "These do not seem to meet WP:ELYES", so I will study that when I get the chance, but we we'll have to take that discussion to the Talk page.

@EvergreenFir: You should also take a look at this thread at RS/N. , and note that there has been absolutely no response to my post. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your post was made in the last 24 hours. RSN isn't exactly the fastest moving place. Nevertheless, the issue I commented on is WP:EL, not WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This whole thread turns out to be really about its original poster, User:Ubikwit. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by that baseless assertion? Do you have a logical rational? If so, present it, so it can be addressed in terms of reason, not you jumps of faith accusations from out of the blue. Why have you not commented above? The subject of the thread has had two sanctions opposed against himself, so your assertion is so out of line I consider it to be a personal attack. You false accuse me of filing a report that has resulting in sanctions against the editor I filed it against. Do you see the logical fallacy in your assertion?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel and Binksternet

I requested that Gamaliel ask for a review of his administrative actions here, on my talk page, to which he has failed to respond.

Here, I request first that Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN be made a two-way ban or removed, not only for fairness but to avoid violations of WP:BLP and other policies, which have been addressed in my contributions to articles.

Second, I am also confused that others have been discussing problems with the treatment of Judaism or Israel in related WP space without having been cautioned, where I was blocked in the middle of the night when I could not respond or alter any offending text. This does not seem to be consistent with blocking policy or fairness.

Third, I would like a review of user:Binksternet's behavior particularly on my talk page. is a 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

One-Way Interaction Ban by User:Collect against User:Ubikwit

This topic is listed here only to permit it to be ridiculed or dismissed. Unfortunately, this proposal appears to be an attempt at wikilawyered bullying by Ubikwit to silence Collect.

• Strong oppose as an apparent effort by Ubikwit to silence Collect. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - on principle. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Robert McClenon. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CANTALWAYSGETWHATYOUWANT. Shii (tock) 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reinstate Proposal to Topic-Ban Ubikwit from AN and ANI

• Support as a vexatious litigant with the sole obvious exception that he may defend himself. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good grief, this should boomerang on the proposer, Robert McClenon. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Relucatant Support Noting how he wrote to AGK and the interesting phraseology therein, and a large number of editors seems to indicate the drama boards do not need this agita. Collect (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose*, for obvious reasons, and agree that RobertMcClenon deserves a WP:BOOMERANG of some sorts.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree that RobertMcClenon needs some kind of BOOMERANG for these two suggestions. Maybe a nice {{trout}} on his user page. Shii (tock) 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Extend Topic-Ban to All Jewish-Related Topics, broadly defined

• Neutral at this time, but may change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment An utterly groundless proposal, outside the scope of the thread and based on accusations that I posted source to an anti-semitic site, which I did not, etc., etc., etc. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• What is the basis for even suggesting this? As far as I can tell this is a dispute over a rather boring external link... Shii (tock) 00:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Propose full two-way interaction ban between Ubikwit and Collect

• Support - as proposer BMK (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Second choice--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of Dan56

Dan56 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.

• AGF: , , ,
• Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: + my response: + ; + ; + + + ; + + + (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)

I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.

I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.

Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further. Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October (), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doc talk 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Misplaced Pages.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit, which I partially restored. --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another tendentious edit and reversal of copyedit/improvements, demonstrating again WP:OWN, POV, and Wikilawyering issues:

I copyedited, as edit summary details:

He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement ): . The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.

My response to his talk page post: )

I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.

Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111

I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

31.48.73.38 hounding Wtshymanski

31.48.73.38 repeatedly reverting Wtshymanski in multiple articles:

...including one flurry of reverts at a rate exceeding one per minute:

Technical notes: IEE-488 is not a serial protocol. Commodore incorrectly described it as such as a marketing ploy (pretending the Commodore had an IEE-488 port when the truth was that you could buy an extra-cost serial to iEEE-488 converter). Also. Countertop is not a chemistry article and thus Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (chemistry) does not apply.

31.48.73.38 Taunting/insulting Wtshymanski:

Warnings:

I suspect that this is a continuance of an existing fight under another username or IP address, but I don't feel comfortable naming names without better evidence than I have been able to find. --Guy Macon (talk)

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple edit-warring (see Countertop), hounding, tendentious editing and either a fail of WP:COMPETENCE in restoring Wtshymanski's vandal reversion so as to restore obvious vandalism, or else being so blinded by their hounding as to lose track of the overall WP benefit.

Throw them to the wolves. We've all got better things to be doing. Probably a sock with a grudge too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Hi

Looks like a fairly blatent case of not here.A block might be in order to prevent more disruption. Amortias (T)(C) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The user has only made two edits, but, I will be keeping an eye on him if it spreads. -- Orduin 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth checking deleted contributions as im sure I marked some pages for Speedy they were screwing with yesterday. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think only his past talk page was deleted. -- Orduin 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Am going to have to slow down reviewing stuff so my memory can catch up. Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

David Adam Kess

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

David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may appear to be a good faith editor but is lacking competence, especially in financial topics. David Adam Kess has decreased the quality of every finance article he edited by adding irrelevant, off-topic content, adding useless and redundant citations often copy-pasted from the on-topic articles, and messing up the edit histories with his irrelevant spam of code fragments and characters.

For example, there is a book about high-frequency trading that I am familiar with, Flash Boys. In this article, David Adam Kess messed up the section headings by adding "3.1 Impact, Desribing Dark Pools" and "3.2 Impact, Desribing High Frequency Trading". Think about this for a second: The impact of a book is that two other topics, dark pools and high-frequency trading are described? Nevermind the typo and improper capitalization in both headings, a consequence of the user's copy-pasting, often cross-pasting the same irrelevant text into multiple articles.

Edits like these are typical for his contributions to finance articles. Notice the prose: "Desribing Dark pools is described in amazing detail in the book, writer Michael Lewis describes how when a Pension fund (...)" As usual, David Adam Kess also added the same text to this article and who knows how many others. Some of this text was actually copy-pasted from the high-frequency trading article. I brought up previous issues on the user's talk page to no avail. It has actually worsened since then and would take me many hours to clean up the mess inflicted. Kristina451 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kristina451: do you think the problem is attributable to ESL, or something more than that? This noticeboard has a habit of failing to take action when it comes to issues like this, so if you can be more specific (and very brief) about the exact nature of the problem, using only one or two examples, you might get a better response. Then again, given the horrible track record of this board, they might not do anything. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seems well-intentioned but most of what has been added is completely without citation or verification and much of it is in broken English with spelling and grammatical errors. I've reverted the addition of a couple of sections to articles. Unless there is a commitment to slow down, check edits, source edits and communicate to resolve issues, a block is needed to prevent further damage. Should certainly be unblocked if such a commitment is forthcoming but for now we need to tourniquet and cauterise (unfortunately). St★lwart 23:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and I thought about Viriditas' question, so here is another (article) example. I first explained the issues in detail on his talk page. When David Adam Kess made another off-topic insertion, I removed it with a descriptive edit summary. He added it back, and more. I then tagged a few of the issues. David Adam Kess responded not by addressing any of them, but by adding more off-topic and irrelevant text to the same article. I appreciate the few reverts by Stalwart111. It turns out David Adam Kess edited half a dozen finance articles and to get them back in shape, it may be faster to take the revision before he edited them and restore the edits by others. Kristina451 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you now explain the reaction of the user when you brought these edits to his attention? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I brought previous edits to his attention, before he made the linked insertions. I remember our talk page conversation back then as pleasant and polite. It did not have the intended effect, the insertions of irrelevant content continued. Kristina451 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It would help to link to selected discussions here. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This talk page section. Kristina451 (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

hello and good afternoon

completely without citation or verification, this is not true, i got to get back to my real job

i have been working on how to describe HFT in plain english and have a little issue

instead of working out the grammar, i got a note in the hisotry section

Reverting addition of section with broken English.

for me, this is odd because why delete everything, instead of fixing the englis message by

Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,155 byadtes) (-550)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 645231766 by 198.84.203.92 (talk): Reverting addition of section with broken English. (TW)) (undo | thank)

this is a complex topic HFT, High-frequency_trading and should be in plain, easy to read english!

and not deleted without an effort to fix!

have a nice day !

have a nice day

it is very important to describe this in detail

https://en.wikipedia.org/High-frequency_trading#HFT_Algorithmic_trading_strategy

this was deleted and should be in wikipedia

-- David Adam Kess 2nd of February 2015 (UTC)

the same rapid delete with the same bogus ref. Reverting addition of section with broken English.

when you look at the code, it is in basic english!

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Algorithmic_trading&action=history

(cur | prev) 23:48, 2 February 2015‎ Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,747 bytes) (-375)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 645241697 by Gragre123 (talk): Reverting addition of section with broken English. (TW)) (undo | thank)

Algorithmic_trading and High-farequency_trading

are very complex and the stock market is not like it was years ago, and this kind of info must be in plain english for anyone to understand

in response,

I brought up previous issues on the user's talk page to no avail. It has actually worsened since then and would take me many hours to clean up the mess inflicted. Kristina451 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

you make me laugh, you can revert my edits like Stalwart111.... a good laugh!

-- David Adam Kess 2nd of February 2015 (UTC)

the proff is in the pudding, just look at the edits of Kristina451 (talk)

01:20, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+203)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply) 00:58, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+338)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+982)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
21:44, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+350)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎ANI: new section)
21:43, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,905)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: new section)
15:03, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-119)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (unsourced and ambiguous)
15:00, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-15)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (removing senseless section heading)
14:28, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-350)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (→‎Control: removing text that was senselessly copy-pasted from section "types of hot money")
14:19, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging as off-topic, and the on-topic article pump and dump makes no reference to dark pools)
14:11, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging weasel words, original research)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3,318)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749301 by David Adam Kess (talk) inserted section has nothing to do with hot money)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749415 by David Adam Kess (talk))
22:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (clarification)
22:50, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+393)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
18:41, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,115)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
17:18, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+220)‎ . . User talk:Kristina451 ‎ (→‎good afternoon Kristina451,: reply)
16:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+907)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
15:46, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,132)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: new section)
18:38, 5 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Virtu Financial ‎ (→‎Trading activity: some clarifications)
17:54, 5 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-309)‎ . . Virtu Financial ‎ (→‎Investigations: redundant citation)
15:40, 5 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,593)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (reverting the removal of relevant reviews)

she just stalks me !

look at what i edit and update!

have a nice day stalker !

-- David Adam Kess 2nd of February 2015 (UTC)

wikipeida stalker Kristina451

Kristina451

why are you stalking me, i can see your edits and you add nothing, but you go after everything i add

just look at your history, i have reported you the administration, this is just crazy!

just look at your history section, who do you work for in finance and why are you taking out data from wikipedia!

from december, you just go after what i put in!

01:20, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+203)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
00:58, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+338)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
00:29, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+982)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
21:44, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+350)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎ANI: new section)
21:43, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,905)‎ . . Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: new section)
15:03, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-119)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (unsourced and ambiguous)
15:00, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-15)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (removing senseless section heading)
14:28, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-350)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (→‎Control: removing text that was senselessly copy-pasted from section "types of hot money")
14:19, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging as off-topic, and the on-topic article pump and dump makes no reference to dark pools)
14:11, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging weasel words, original research)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3,318)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749301 by David Adam Kess (talk) inserted section has nothing to do with hot money)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749415 by David Adam Kess (talk))
22:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (clarification)
22:50, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+393)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
18:41, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,115)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
17:18, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+220)‎ . . User talk:Kristina451 ‎ (→‎good afternoon Kristina451,: reply)
16:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+907)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
15:46, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,132)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: new section)

Cheers. --David Adam Kess ] Yes?

• Oh my. I'm sure Mr. Kess means well, but that's not always enough. Or in Wiki-speak, WP:CIR. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• David Adam Kess appears to mean well, but it is clear that he lacks the necessary skills to contribute to the English Misplaced Pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I broadly concur with that. If someone can ascertain what DAK's native tongue is (I took a quick look at his global contribs but couldn't tell from that), perhaps someone who speaks that language can get through to him and explain things to him. If that's not possible, or if it doesn't work, then I'd say a CIR block might be necessary. BMK (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Based on his user page and contribs, I'm going to guess his native language is Catalan and Spanish. Viriditas (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• There are some questions about his Spanish raised over at es.wp. See es:Usuario discusión:David Adam Kess. And "nuevo pagina" para WorldTeach en Espanol - surely that should be nueva pagina? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think he speaks English well enough to be able to discern what to do and what not to do (and to follow instructions and abide by the agreements he has made). (If not, he should not be editing En Wiki.) I don't think explaining to him in Spanish is going to help matters at all. No, I think this is a clear case of WP:CIR, and a disruptive one at that. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• David's edit summaries are (shall we say) unique. WP:CIR, seems likely. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In his most recent edits, he added a lot of text to the National Polytechnic School article, unsourced, so I wondered where it came from. Turns out it came from the Spanish version of the article. Might be a (modified) auto-translation. Since the text at es.wiki is also unsourced, I checked who inserted it and it was David Adam Kess. The Spanish article text is a massive COPYVIO of "Departamento de Ciencias Nucleares" by Patricio Castillo, page 13 in this pdf. Kristina451 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block per the latest edits. Competency is required. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Indef blocked for copy vio and competency issues. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Resolved David has been Indefinitely blocked by User:Diannaa, time to close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:CFBE:D540:7CA3:E1C5:9B8D:9107

User is changing the templates of blocked socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne to admin templates. Needs a block and possible CU. KonveyorBelt 23:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Add 2602:306:CFBE:D540:7CA3:E1C5:9B8D:9107 (talk · contribs) to make it easier for admins responding this to check the IPs edits. MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll leave this thread open for a CU. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

CUs won't tie named accounts to IPs unless the abuse is beyond the pale. This doesn't smack of beyond-the-pale abuse to me. —Jeremy v^_^v 01:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

True, but they can block them with {{checkuserblock-account}} without mentioning the connection to us. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Another IPv6 editor was attempting to edit on the same subjects as these blocked socks earlier, and got blocked for it. Still, nice to know AT&T now support IPv6. Every little helps. Can we rangeblock IPv6 ranges yet? -- The Anome (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it appears we can: I see that 2602:306:CFBE:D540:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked. However, many (most?) IPv6 ISPs are allocating more than a /64 per customer; a /48 is recommended, some are using /56s, and issuing only a /64 is generally deprecated. Can we block on wider boundaries if needed, eg 2602:306:CFBE:0:0:0:0:0/48? -- The Anome (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, edit filter 425, which attempts to match the editing patterns of this long-term sockmaster, is now active. -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Constant addition of contentious material by obvious sock and/or meat accounts

• Jagello (talk · contribs)
• KoreanSentry (talk · contribs)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture ended with only a slim majority (8-5 at closing time, 7-3 a little over a day earlier, 6-2 one week after opening) in favour of deleting the page, but no one arguing that the current article wasn't rotten. I removed most of the contentious/POV/unverified material, but was immediately reverted by Jagello and a little later by KoreanSentry, who made only tiny cosmetic changes but claimed they had "verified" the material.

Neither of these accounts had ever edited the article before, and neither had they edited any other article for years before suddenly turning up and reverting me. I can't figure out exactly who is whose sockpuppet, or even if there was some off-wiki collusion by Korean nationalists who know each other in real life, but both of these accpunts are super-suspicious. Could we get some admin input? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I constantly monitored the article. That's all. This is no reason that I should become a victim of your false accusation backed on your personal ridiculous conspiracy theory. Even though there has been definitely no consensus over the massive blanking of the page, Hijiri88 constantly insisted on blanking the well-sourced sections cited from renowned and mainstream Western Japanologists. Now he is claiming that the contents of this article should be verified. But the text is well sourced from the renowned and mainstream Japanologists like Edwin O. Reischauer, George Bailey Sansom, Donald Keene, Lane Richards, Ernest Fenollosa, Louis Frédéric, Peter Kornicki and much more. The administrator User:Nihonjoe also confirmed that the information presented in this article is completely verifiable and backed by completely reliable sources. According to the Misplaced Pages:VERIFY policy the mass blanking caused by Hijiri88 should be reverted.--Jagello (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. I did not state that. To quote what I actually wrote way back then (this is from almost 5 years ago): "We need to take very careful care in articles such as this that the information presented is completely verifiable and backed by completely reliable sources." Please do not mischaracterize my comments or lie about what I wrote. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But where you had gone? Hijiri88's suspicion is justified, you and KoreanSentry haven't been on for ages and you both have restored same amount of content. SamuelDay1 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Woah, woah, Arbcom was very clear - you can't just go crapping on accounts because they are obvious sleepers! Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that decision? BMK (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jagello's above assertions about the articles are false. All of the reputable sources mentioned in the article are actually being WP:SYNTHesized with remote fringe material. User:Nihonjoe made no such statement: they said that all the material should be properly sourced to sources that actually support the claims, or it should be removed. After four years, no attempt was made to improve the sources, so I went about removing it.

As to the user conduct issue at hand: why would Jagello be watching a page they had never edited? And why would they stay silent for a week-long AFD only to emerge from the shadows immediately afterward? And why would they not simply revert the post-AFD removals, but re-add material that had been out of the article for almost a year? If they were closely monitoring the article, why did they not revert these edits in February? Can we get a CU in this case, even though we can't be sure who the sockmaster is?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Hijiri here. I find it very odd and suspicious that Jagello 'monitored the article very closely' and hasn't made an edit on it until now. I don't think we have heard from KoreanSentry yet and what he/she has had to say about this. Eurodyne (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Serious violation of WP:NPOV on Italian Fascism article by User:Boeing720 who regularly edits there

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

User:Boeing720 inserted the following text into the Italian Fascism article by a source that if it says what it says is highly unreliable as it has a very strong POV and then that is followed by a sentence with no source that is a rant condemning the ideology: "Italian Fascism as an ideology was poorly or just partly thought through, new laws didn't necessarily become introduced in reality. It has further been described as being much of a fraud in its nature". Compared to Nazism and Stalinism there were not very much "Facsism" about it behind it's pompous leader. Hence, and by time, especially during the Second World War, it became "eaten" by the more targeted and much more rabid Nazism through military rather than diplomatical channels.

Here is the link for that showing Boeing720 inserting that: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Italian_Fascism&diff=644696763&oldid=644694136

- Note that when inserting that text, Boeing says in the comment section explaining the edit, the following: "Little ideology behind its pompous leader. Little or only partly thought through. Was "eaten" by the nazists during WW2."

I consider this to be within Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and I am concerned about this behaviour continuing and escalating on the topic of Italian Fascism and topics surrounding Fascism in general, given the intensity of Boeing720's stance towards the topic if this attitude by the user to the topic continues. I have attempted to explain to the user in previous edits of why other edits of theirs were inaccurate however I do not believe that they even considered what I said.

This matter needs to be addressed by administrators in my opinion because I am not confident that the user will listen to me.--184.145.69.153 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that those are not especially good edits, but if no one has reverted them or raised the issue with the user, it does not rise to being a matter for ANI yet. You should try discussing the issue with the user. Only if he persistently edits disruptively will ANI need to be involved - ANI can't be your first resort before you've even talked to the guy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. The Consice History of World History, Edited by John Bowles 1958, 1971, Chapter 20, Part VI, by John V Plamenatz

Conduct of User:DaoXan

Since January 22, 2015, when he first started editing, User:DaoXan has been undertaking major rewrites of key Judaism articles and templates. It is fair to say that very little of the user's contributions are constructive, however, as they are being challenged and reverted by numerous other editors. The user is busy reverting and replacing long-standing text and templates, adding questionable rewrites and sourcing, and has an inadequate grasp of basic English grammar and spelling. While seemingly sincere about contributing to the encyclopedia, the user is unaware how much extra work he is causing other editors to revert his additions and engage in AFD discussions. I have commented on these issues to the user on his talk page and in AFD discussions, and other editors have commented to him more forcefully on his talk page (the user has since blanked portions of his talk page). I believe a topic ban on Judaism articles is called for to give the user a time-out on his crusade. The user should be urged to seek out a mentor to help him learn the rules of writing and consensus-building, and also to connect with the copyeditors at WP:GUILD who can review his additions before he posts them. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban would certainly be in the interest of his fellow editors, and likely the project as a whole. I am one of those who actively reverted User:DaoXan's edits, and nominated two templates he created for deletion (see here). I am, however, very reluctant to directly recommend such steps, as a matter of principle, and will therefore say no more. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on the highly disruptive nature of the user's edits, and his refusal to collaborate or learn, I feel a topic ban at least is absolutely necessary here. If not that, then a WP:CIR block. Although he is relatively new (by the way, a large portion of his edits are not visible, because they were for articles and templates he created that have been deleted as egregious), I believe he has been given enough warnings and requests to learn and cooperate, but suffers from delusions of grandeur and infallibility, in addition to his inadequate grasp of English and his repeated defiance of constructive feedback/criticism. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have to agree with Yoninah, Debresser, and Softlavender. I think a topic ban is probably the only way to get through to User:DaoXan. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Liberal36 returns to edit-warring

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

After User:Liberal36's 3d block expired, he's returned to edit-warring against consensus at The River (Greece). I'd previously reported them twice for edit-warring, the first time as an IP; and I've tried to convince them to discuss the issue repeatedly, both at AN3 and on their talk page. Could someone who's got a way with words perhaps get them to stop? Alakzi (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just commented on the talk page of the article. There is no consensus and I am not the only one who disagrees. Liberal36 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(a) There quite clearly is consensus. (b) You need to be able to articulate an argument as to why it is that you disagree. We've rejected their being part of S&D as OR. Alakzi (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually Liberal36, you are the only one, from what I can see, who disagrees. And, there is no consensus for your changes. -- Orduin 21:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Νο, Ι am not the only one because if you look at the article history you will see at least two other registered editors sharing my opinion that the party tends to the centre-left. They have just not written on the talk page. Liberal36 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, consensus is formed through discussion. Also, one of them reverted their edits. The other I pinged twice, but he chose not to participate. Alakzi (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just provided 6 recent articles on the talk page clearly referring to the River as centre-left. I can find many more if you like. Liberal36 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's good that you're discussing this now, but you do actually need to stop edit warring. Alakzi (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm entering this since I'm also involved. This user has just (again) broke the 3RR despite an ongoing discussion on the issue in the article's talk page, refusing to wait until consensus forms and instead opting to push forward his own personal view of the situation. I suppose this is all my opinion on the issue. Impru20 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• He broke 3RR again. I'm not filing a third report in 3 days. Alakzi (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them for a week as it's their second 3RR violation in four days. Number 57 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP with the whole nine yards (COI, Copyvio, NOT, MEAT, etc)

See Krista Tippett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and On Being (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

An editor with a self-identified COI (I won't give diffs here to avoid outing, but the editor uploaded an image as "own work", associated with his real life name, which is also given in the articles) added a large amount of NOT a webhost, directory, or indiscriminate list text to both articles (sample here.) Bibliophile227 (talk · contribs · logs) reinstated the text, that was earlier added by Ghz89med (talk · contribs · logs) without discussion on talk. Neither of them has engaged talk:

I have also removed several instances of copyvio or too close paraphrasing, and correctly cited information that was previously uncited, which new accounts are reinstating or removing.

When I listed on talk the problems with the article, including sourcing, copyvio and others, and that Bibliophile227, SPA Ghz89med and a Minnesota IP, SPA 50.241.48.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had all edited User:Bibliophile227/sandbox, Bibliophile227 blanked the sandbox. Within minutes of the sandbox blanking, four new accounts were registered and began editing the articles: Gibsonten (talk · contribs · logs), Stellapensac (talk · contribs · logs), Convsa2 (talk · contribs · logs) and Jacsman (talk · contribs · logs). Jacsman and Stellapensac, for example, have made the same edit. It is a curious deletion since her well-known divorce was mentioned in the article already, albeit uncited.

So, there's a lot going on (BLP issues, COI, NOT, possible MEAT, instances of COPYVIO/too close paraphrasing, etc), and I'm not sure to which individual noticeboard this might go, including possibly MEAT along with COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And I now see (by scrolling to the bottom of the diffs), that the deletions made by the accounts is POV, since the source includes criticism of Tippett. Perhaps that text-- not the well known divorce-- explains the appearance of these accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has declared on the Libertarianism talk page that libertarians should like capitalism and that libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian marxism are (apparently) some kind of myth. The editor has chosen to expunge that myth from WP by starting up edit wars on just about any page describing libertarian socialist politics:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference on PKK describes it as communalist, which is a strain of libertartarian socialism, and aligns it with Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist. fi (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We need an RS that says specifically that it's libertarian socialist. Otherwise it's OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on my talkpage need redacting

Resolved. Epic Genius (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Can an admin hide this and these two diffs from my user talk page history per WP:RD3? The other edits by 72.68.240.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may also need to be redacted as well. Thanks in advance. Epic Genius (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yngvadottir. Epic Genius (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we need the attention of someone who knows about range blocks. This was IP 72.68.240.215. Previous incarnations include 2600:1001:b117:577:fdc2:477d:3f51:2340, 216.37.96.157, and 72.68.242.74. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC) -- rangeblocks implemented by Kww, thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and redlinking

Please bear with me.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an editor with a number of WP:Editing restrictions logged against him, one of which forbids him to create new articles in mainspace until his numerous copyvio'd articles are cleaned up. Since, as far as I can tell, he doesn't seem to be spending much time working on those copyvios, it's probably going to be some time before the sanction is lifted. Nevertheless, RAN's userspace is chock-a-block with new articles he's written.

This would be fine, if a little sad, if RAN didn't want to redlink in connection to his userspace articles. Since his articles are unlikely to see the light of articlespace any time soon, any redlinks he adds are going to remain redlinks for quite a long time. This appears to contravene WP:REDLINK, which says:

Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.

RAN is indeed writing the article(s) in his userspace, but since he can't publish them in mainspace, he's not "writing" them in any real practical sense. These redlinks essentially serve no purpose at all. There's no benefit to the reader to have a redlink to a non-existant article, and there's no need to prompt an editor to write the article, since RAN is already doing that. The redlinks will therefore just sit there, a distraction to the reader.

If RAN's sanctions are lifted, it will take no more time and effort to link the articles then, after they're moved to mainspace, then it is taking to link them now, when it serves no practical purpose. (Of course, RAN may be anticipating a waterfall of article moves if and when his sanctions are lifted, and taking the time to make links then would slow down what he perhaps hopes is an impressive flow of new articles.)

I came across this problem on the article Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital, in which RAN added the names of people who died in the hospital (which in itself is a WP:WEIGHT problem, since the article is about historic buildings and not very much about the operation of those institutions, so his list of deaths creates the false impression that what happened at the hospital is that people died). Most of the names he added had articles, but one did not, an obscure actor. He redlinked it, I removed it on the grounds that he should link it after he wrote the article (I had forgotten at the time about his restrictions), and he responded that he would write the article. Which he did. In his userspace where it will wait until....

It worked the other way as well. RAN is working on an article on "Eccentric dance" (which could well have problems if it ever moved to mainspace, because it appears to be more of a description than a true genre), and went around redlinking "eccentric dance" in various articles. I came across this in the Eddie Foy, Sr. article, reverted, and RAN reverted it back. A discussion was started on the talk page and RAN initiated an RfC, but he also tried to institute a compromise whereby he removed "eccentric dance" from the article and removed the name "Eddie Foy, Sr." from the article he was writing. To me, that seemed like no compromise at all. (The term has since been restored with a source.)

So... what am I looking for here? The question of when a redlink is and isn't appropiate isn't one of the great Misplaced Pages debates, but it sometimes can be prickly. I generally think that if it's likely that an article will be written, or should be written, a redlink is OK. If the subject is obscure then no redlink is needed. For an editor creating a new article, I don't think pre-linking is a good idea - write the article first and then link it - it's no easier to prelink than it is to postlink.

In RAN's case we have an editor who is well able to write articles, but whose previous misbehavior leaves those articles -- at this moment, and for the foreseeable future -- moldering away in his userspace. He is sui generis in this regard, and because of that, I propose that RAN be told that until his sanction is lifted, and he is able to freely move articles into mainspace, he may not prelink those articles. It think this would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothere? Norton's use of redlinks is no more annoying than a certain someone who uses hidden comments to add white space. I'm not seeing anything actionable in this report other than a possible case of harassment. If you want to discuss the philosophy of redlinks, don't you think the MOS talk page is a better venue? You got into a dispute over redlinks and dragged his ass here instead of an MOS page. Was that wise? Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading comprehension problem? Why would I go to a MOS talk page to fix a problem that's specific to one editor's unusual situation? That certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.

And harassment, hmmm? Both the articles mentioned have been on my watchlist for a long time, so the problem came to me, not vice versa. And my use of one extra blank line (not "whitespace", which I remove whenever I can -- love your misuse of words for rhetorical purposes there!) makes articles look better for the reader, as opposed to annoying them with unnecessary redlinks. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who created a sockpuppet in the attempt to win a dispute. BMK (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused, which is leading you to respond with personal attacks and false accusations. It's certainly plausible that in your confusion you have confused me with another editor, but I am sorry to inform you that I have never "created a sockpuppet in attempt to win a dispute" here or anywhere else. Would you like to retract that statement, or would you prefer to continue down the path of a BOOMERANG? You are clearly involved in a dispute with Norton and you attempted to gain the upper hand by filing this report. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh, you deny sockpuppetry. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.

Look, you don't like me. I don't like you. Great, stop the presses, nothing's changed. So maybe you should stick a sock in it and let some unbiased people comment. BMK (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you appear to be very confused. I have not commented anywhere about liking or disliking you. What I have commented about, is your repeated false accusations. While you might find the "are you still beating your wife" line amusing, I believe your false accusations are grounds for a block. I have never used sock puppets, and your claim that you remember that I did because you were there amounts to a paranoid delusion on your part. Without any evidence or diffs from you in this regard, you should be blocked for repeated personal attacks, false accusations, and a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread, which is clearly your attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards