Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

problem on Ghost

Unresolved

 – Classic WP:SHOT: Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) blocked for edit warring Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (Later unblocked per promise to not edit Ghost article.)

I keep trying to remove or {{Fv}}-tag a footnote on Ghost that has failed verification, but I have a number of editors consistently re-adding it and removing the tag. The statement in question is the bit about 'pseudoscientific belief' (in text, based on footnote 3) which refers to the 2006 version of the NSF's Science and Technology Indicators. the current (2010) version of this document - available here in html and in a more complete form here in pdf - supersedes the 2006 version, and makes no mention of either 'pseudoscientific beliefs' or ghosts. Note that I am not objecting to the NSF or the pseudoscience bit per se, just to this misrepresentation of their position.

I have made this point two or three different times in talk and edit summaries, but none of the editors involved in the page have seen fit to acknowledge it.

If you want to take me to task for being bull-headed about this issue, we can discuss that, but I am bull-headed and right in this case, and I am tired of struggling with non-communicative editors. someone please fix it. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted in an earlier thread, you have set yourself up to not accept consensus, expressed in several places, concerning the NSF report. There's nothing that needs to be fixed here except your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to bring edit conflicts. Woogee (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is, however, the place to report editors who are tendentiously violating wp:V. you've got three or four editors insisting on the inclusion of a quote that appears nowhere in the most current version of the document they are citing - how does that improve wikipedia as an encyclopedia?

to your other points, I'll simply remind you to comment on the topic, not the editor, and then I'll forget all about it. thanks for sharing, though. --Ludwigs2 00:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to see my powers of observation and extrapolation remain in fairly good shape. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

well, BMK, I do think you misunderstand the nature of consensus. consensus is not a tool for getting what one wants, it's a tool for building an encyclopedia. I am not particularly concerned when a number of editors form a consensus that detracts from the value of the encyclopedia, and I don't mind standing up to such a group even if it causes me some trouble. The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right. I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right, because then I could leave this stinking, stupid, thoroughly irrational conflict and go do something more productive.

Now, if you would care to discuss this with me rationally and demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that. I'll be very surprised if you come up with a feasible argument, but I will appreciate it and accept it if you do. On the other hand, if you don't have a feasible, rational argument... what are you criticizing me for? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am criticizing you for ignoring a clear consensus when it is put in front of you, because it's not the result you wanted, and for continuing to attempt to manipulate things to get the result you want in the face of that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"The problem here, as I keep saying, is that from just about any rational perspective I am in the right." ----> see WP:TRUTH, get bonus points from implying that other editors are using irrational perspectives. "I'd be happy if someone could demonstrate that I am not in the right (...)" ---> us people have been trying to do that at Talk:Ghost and WT:NPOV. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really possible to demonstrate that someone is not right when they excell in the practice of not hearing what's being said, which is clearly what's going on here, and will continue to go on until Ludwigs2 is in some fashion compelled to follow the community consensus he doesn't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me - what part of "The quote being used does not appear in the source being cited" are you having trouble with? BMK, you can attack me personally until the cows come home (I really don't give a flying f#ck what you think about me), but you seem to be arguing that we should violate wikipedia policy because you don't like the person pointing it out.

Policy is on my side here - it's too bad that you're too blinded by your own emotions to see that to see that, but I really don't care. argue the point or go away. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hopeless. I suggest this thread be closed, as there's no admin action to be taken here, unless someone wants to look into L2's intransigence and deliberate ignoring of consensus; certainly nobody that L2 is complaining about has done anything against policy, no matter how often he pounds his chest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so, in other words, you're not going to make an argument, you're simply going to ask to have the thread closed without due consideration? yes, hopeless is a good word: complete incapacity to understand policy or engage in rational discussion. very sad. Honestly, you'd server yourself better by taking the time to explain your position than by continuing in this kind of... heck, I can't think of a polite word, so I'll leave it hanging. go away, and allow someone who is willing to discuss the matter to explain it to me.

Unfortunately, you may have a significant wait, since no one is willing to discuss it with you, because you don't hear them. Toodles! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm patient, that's fine. it's not like the problem is going anywhere. thanks for contributing, at any rate. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, this is not about scientific research, where new findings replace old and outdated ones. The NSF report changes slightly from year to year. In the absence of any evidence that they have changed their POV, the contents of ALL the NSF reports are legitimate sources. The part that's relevant and fits the ArbCom wording exactly is found in the 2006 version and possibly others. Just because the NSF declared belief in ten concepts to be "pseudoscientific beliefs" in 2006, doesn't mean they are suddenly not pseudoscientific beliefs today. What you say above really doesn't matter. It's just another diversionary attempt (by substituting a different version for the one which contains the content overwhelmingly approved by two RfCs). The National Science Foundation is a legitimate source and my simple proposal has overwhelmingly passed muster in two different RfCs found at Talk:Ghost and at Talk:NPOV. There are two overwhelming consensus against you. I invite you to bow to the consensus as any good Wikipedian does. Your continual violation of consensus isn't taken lightly here. You have just been blocked and unblocked based on a promise not to edit the Ghost article, but your disruption is still very evident on talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer: Your entire argument has been that this 'pseudoscientific belief' terminology - which only appears (to my knowledge) in the 2006 revision of this document - is significant enough to the NSF that we can justify the claim that the NSF objects to any non-scientific belief, whether or not it was ever presented as scientific. The fact that this terminology only appears in that revision, and was subsequently revised away completely so that it is no longer used in the current version of this document (or anywhere else), is a pretty clear indication that the NSF does not mean to say what you consistently claim it means to say.

Even scientists make mistakes. The hallmark of a good scientist is that s/he corrects the mistake and moves on, which is what the NSF has done. You, by contrast, are clinging to an unsupported, outdated statement simply because you want it to be true. You had very thin grounds for making this assertion in the first place, and even those grounds have slipped away with the NSF revisions.

Let me be frank here. I am being a hard-assed bitch about this issue (yes, I know that), and I'm doing it for a very particular reason. You spent a good month insulting me, misrepresenting me, defaming me, and otherwise acting like a hysterical fool (I have a couple of hundred diffs that will demonstrate that, which I will bring up when I take you to RfC) all so that you could reach this point where you could dismiss a logical argument on purely emotional/personal grounds. It is a masterful and thoroughly disgusting example of political gamesmanship, and I salute you for your perseverance, if not for the ethics or intelligence of the act. I will continue to argue this point (yes, like a hard-assed bitch) until the wikipedia community makes it clear that (a) I have misunderstood the situation, or (b) that they prefer your brand of poison to my brand of reason. Frankly, the difference between your position and mine is minor enough that I would have given this up as pointless ages ago, except that I cannot stand this kind of political manipulation.

So, I thank you for your reasoned response above; as I have shown, your reasoning is flawed. would you care to make a stronger case for your position, or are you going to go back to ad hominem attacks? posted by Ludwigs2 at 12:51, 12 March 2010

BINGO!       (Pointy too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that an actual argument, or another ad hominem? As you can see, I heard him perfectly well, I just think he has a rather stupid argument. can you do better? I'm sorry BMK, but if you haven't got anything intelligent to say, it's probably time for you to stop talking. I mean, it's fine by me either way - the more you harass me like this, the stronger my case gets - but I'd rather this were decided by reasoned discussion. --Ludwigs2 21:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You really need to review the definition of an ad hominem argument. Tan | 39 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"IDHT" accusations are at least a borderline ad hominem if they are patently false, as here. Hans Adler 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. I'm not making any judgment as to who is right or wrong, or the validity of the claims. I am just saying that Ludwigs2 repeatedly claims that other people are using ad hominem arguments, when they are not. Ad hominem != personal attack. Tan | 39 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that "BINGO!" above is linked to WP:IDHT. Beyond my Ken is clearly accusing Ludwigs2 of using the "I didn't hear that" technique. While such an accusation can be justified in some cases, it is not so in this case because Ludwigs2 actually has the better arguments, which are simply being ignored by the opposite side. Therefore when Beyond my Ken linked to WP:IDHT, it was at least a borderline ad hominem. Clear now? Hans Adler 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not "clear" at all. I think that you, like Ludwigs2, have a misconception of what an ad hominem argument is. Tan | 39 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely off-topic, but I maintain that it is a borderline case of the definition of "ad hominem abusive" under Ad hominem#Types of ad hominems. Basically, Beyond my Ken said: "Ludwigs2's arguments are invalid because he is in the minority on Talk:Ghost and has been so for some time." (The reason the IDHT link must be interpreted in this way is that Ludwigs2 has an extremely strong argument – that this is an egregious case of quote-mining – which nobody is addressing. I.e. the IDHT actually occurs on the other side.) There is a connection between Ludwigs2's situation and his credibility, but it is weak.

Ludwigs2 is absolutely right here, in every respect. The IDHT is clearly going on on the side of Brangifer, as usual (I can give you a few more examples if you are interested) and resisting against an attempt to push a policy violation through by bullying is never a POINT violation, even if the policy violation itself is not a big deal when taken in isolation (i.e. without the attempt to push it through).

I think we have a problem here with people who have no idea how scholarly citation works and who think quote-mining is good academic practice. Hans Adler 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

<-- Hans, this has gotten blown all out of proportion by User:Ludwigs2, User:Dbachmann, and now by yourself. If I'm wrong, then my fault is the extremely serious policy violation of believing the overwhelming majority of editors, including notable admins, who have clearly stated that they support my proposition in two RfCs, and who have actively resisted their arguments. They haven't convinced them, but have apparently fooled you into joining them. Abiding by such a great consensus is apparently a very serious offense! After all, in the world of Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, CONSENSUS has NOTHING to do with how Wikipedia works. In Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's world it obviously doesn't, so they must be right and I must be mercilessly hounded by them in all venues, talk pages, and noticeboards (as I have been!), including a planned REVENGE RfC/U.

What was it that the overwhelming majority endorsed so clearly in TWO RfCs?:

• That the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for what it states. It stated that belief in the ten items they listed in a very independently clear manner (in relation to the original source) were "pseudoscientific beliefs". (There is no evidence they have ever changed their position, and lack of mention in a later version is irrelevant to that point. The pseudoscientific concepts they mentioned are still pseudoscientific.)

Is that such a radical proposition when they stated it so clearly? Am I such a terrible person for innocently believing what they say? Is that "quote mining"?

Ludwigs2 expressed very clearly that the RfC at Ghost was formulated improperly, and based on that Ludwigs2 has refused to accept the consensus from the RfC and the RfC at Talk:NPOV. Well, it really is irrelevant whether Ludwigs2 was right or wrong in that matter. Even if they were right, that wasn't the question dealt with in those two RfCs, and Ludwigs2's rage over losing two RfCs is misplaced and simply disruptive revenge, which he's planning on wreaking on me in an upcoming RfC/U. I have already told him that the gun is in his hand, and if he's going to shoot, then do it. It's not my fault that the gun is pointed at his own foot, since he's the one who has violated multiple policies since this started, most notably the rule of consensus, which generally trumps nearly all other policies. (Note that when and if a consensus is wrong, the solution is not to persecute those who followed consensus, but to change policy.)

My three faults are in

1. believing and abiding by the overwhelming consensus of a large number of editors in two RfCs, and
2. believing the arguments made by many of those editors who have debated this with Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann, and then
3. pointing out very clearly that Ludwigs2's and Dbachmann's behavior (personal attacks, edit warring to the point of Ludwigs2 being blocked), and other policy violations were/are against consensus, disruptive, and very improper. (They obviously consider such "revealings" to be incivil.)

Are those three things punishable offenses? Let's see what the result of the RfC/U against me shows. If editors here fail to defend me and allow these two (or three) editors (the "gang of three") to use the RfC/U to distract from the real issues, then we have a serious problem. If the gang of three can convince other editors that my actions (in pointing out the improper nature of their policy violations, refusal to accept consensus, and edit warring) are gross incivility violations that are worse than their offenses, well, then those editors will have succeeded in fooling everyone and elevating refusal to abide by a consensus and edit warring against it to acceptable practices.

Why do I say that this has been blown out of proportion? Because my fault is in refusing to address a very different matter that wasn't dealt with in the two RfCs. I refuse to let the gang of three divert this away from what the overwhelming consensus has approved. They approved those two RfCs as they were worded, and they obviously believed they were worded properly. And ever since then the consensus editors have resisted the efforts of this "disruptive" (is that really so incivil a word?) gang of three who refuse to abide by the consensus. No one says they have to believe it, but they should be silent and let Wikipedia continue to function. Instead they are pursuing this matter in many venues, noticeboards, and a planned revenge against me personally in a coming RfC/U. That's serious disruption and a classic example of tendentious editing: "On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." Read that essay and you'll see it was written with the gang of three in mind.

In fact, if editors here fail to meet up at the RfC/U and make their voices count, they will by default have voted for such a change of practice here. Consensus will mean nothing. Is that what we want? Are those three "faults" of mine really faults, or are they the proper way to defend Wikipedia against the two editors (Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann) who have declared ownership of the Ghost article and have grossly ignored and warred against a very clear consensus? What think ye? (Frankly I think they should have already been blocked and then topic banned from all fringe (paranormal/pseudoscience/alternative medicine) subjects (articles and talk pages), and if they start an RfC/U against me, they should have their blocks reinstated and lengthened for frivolous and disruptive misuse of RfC. Dbachmann should also be desysopped no matter what. He should know better than to do the dastardly things he's already done.) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, consensus means nothing if it's only based on random sociological factors rather than reasoned debate, if it obviously needs to be revised because its result is absurd, and if it will be revised as a matter of course once the wider community looks at the matter.

According to you, the NSF has claimed with its full scientific weight that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience.

The purported NSF claim is patently absurd because it implies that belief in most religions is pseudoscience. Ghosts feature in Christianity (resurrection of Jesus), Islam (genies) and many other religions. Therefore belief in Christianity or Islam would be belief in pseudoscience. Similarly, belief in Buddhism and Hinduism implies belief in reincarnation and therefore belief in pseudoscience.

A definition of pseudoscience compatible with this claim would be so broad as to be essentially meaningless and contradicts the very paragraph before the one that you are quote-minging: "Pseudoscience has been defined as 'claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility'". (My italics) Hans Adler 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, your comment is based on a misunderstanding and is therefore misleading and a straw man argument, which you then use to discuss religion, even though religion isn't part of the quote or my argument. You write "according to you", but even a relatively careless reading of my wording and the quote makes it clear that neither I nor the NSF have "claimed...that belief in ghosts and reincarnation is belief in pseudoscience." The NSF statement and their reference to the Gallup Poll clearly focuses on beliefs, not the items listed. That doesn't mean they couldn't have done it, but they didn't in this instance. They clearly state that beliefs in the ten items are "pseudoscientific beliefs". That's not the same as stating that the items are pseudoscientific. That's your interpretation. Although it's an accurate interpretation of fact, it's not accurate to make the quote say that. What can accurately and justifiably be concluded from the Gallup Poll and the way the NSF use it is that the NSF equates paranormal beliefs with pseudoscientific beliefs because Gallup never used the word "pseudoscience", but repeatedly used the word "paranormal". The NSF then took that and used the word "pseudoscience" when referring to those items. I hope that ends the use of this misunderstanding of the quote. I totally AGF since it's an easy mistake to make. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is entirely on your side. I maintain that your distinction is meaningless pedantry.

If it was true that it did not follow that these subjects themselves are pseudosciences, the your proposed addition to WP:POV would be completely off-topic. You have advertised this list of ten subjects with the words: "In fact, I can hardly think of a better or more authoritative example". Now that you are under pressure, now that you realise that your position is indefensible, you are moving the goalposts. I am not surprised because that's exactly the kind of disruptive debating to which I am used from you. And this is precisely why we need WP:Requests for comment/BullRangifer. This and your habit of conducting character assassination campaigns on other users. (To any pseudo-pro-science civility police admin considering to punish me for the last sentence with a block: Diffs proving the allegation beyond doubt are of course available. Better look for a different pretext.) Hans Adler 18:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I didn't say that "it did not follow that these subjects themselves are pseudosciences". I actually implied that such was the case. My point is that isn't what the quote actually says. Let's not engage in OR by making the NSF state something they didn't state. That's all. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? BTW, I'm not proposing to "add" anything to the actual wording of NPOV, only add a ref. You seem to be loading your guns, while I'm offering to smoke a peace pipe with Ludwigs2 on my talk page. I hope that you will join in and accept my offer. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of interest to other editors, Hans did appear on my talk page and totally and deceptively baited me. I naively AGF and offered to settle differences, but he than took my offer, turned it around, and showed he had set me up in the worst manner. Very unethical and a total lack of good faith. That's a serious policy violation for which he should be blocked. He cannot be trusted. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that is what you are driving at. I see. So you are making the same distinction that you made (under your former user name "Fyslee") in your character assassination campaign against Unomi: You knew that the fishing expedition against Unomi had ended with the result: "Checkuser evidence shows no IP-relationship nor any geographic relationship nor any other checkusery sort of evidence between the three candidates." You knew that the admin who had blocked Unomi as a sockpuppet had apologised for the error afterwards. Yet here is what you wrote on ANI:

"You were User_talk:Unomi#Indefinitely_blocked_-_apparent_sockpuppet_of_User:Immortale and a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through. See case again." [1]

Later you defended this behaviour as perfectly OK. Things are beginning to make sense now. Apparently you believe that anything goes so long as what one says can be interpreted as only extremely and intentionally misleading rather than literally false.

Here is news for you: That's not how the world works. When you work actively on making people believe something that is not true, then you are lying. Hans Adler 20:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: BullRangifer has moved my above comment from here [2] to his talk page [3], where it now appears under the heading "Moved from NPOV talk" as if this was WT:NPOV, (See new heading below.) which of course it isn't. If ANI is not the place to discuss problematic editor behaviour then somebody please tell me where the right place is. Hans Adler 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I have retitled it to Moved from Talk:AN/I. I have stricken the no longer accurate wording. Sorry again. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, the proper thing to do is to respond to my comment above, rather than bring up old conflicts (which I thoroughly explain on my talk page) as an ad hominem attack, which is designed to do what ad homs are supposed to do -- distract from the real point. As such your comment is a totally misplaced personal attack of the worst kind. It's character assassination and poisoning the well.

Please repond to my comment properly and civilly. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you forgot the point of this section: Ludwigs2 had to come here because a bunch of editors were bullying him while protecting an inaccurate claim supported by a misquotation. You were one of the worst bullies: You opened no less than two frivolous RfCs. The first one begged the question: It asked whether the NSF is a reliable source for a certain statement (which it didn't actually make in a meaningful way) and whether it can be considered to express the scientific consensus (when it claims to do so, which it didn't). The second tried to change a policy in order to further your position.

While trying to address these problems I became aware that the underlying conflict and your complete failure to grasp what is wrong with the problematic article content that you are supporting is part of a wider behavioural pattern that already became apparent in your earlier behaviour in relation to Unomi. You don't just make up your mind and refuse to change it much longer than most reasonable people do. You also make very forceful statements which, while not being entirely false (assuming some weird interpretation) at least strongly suggest something that you know not to be true. And you insist that this is not lying, is perfectly OK, and (in the latest instance) even we as Wikipedia are allowed to do this in our articles.

This is very much the core of the present ANI dispute. Hans Adler 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of the two RfCs. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment.

Your first paragraph is misleading in several ways, most notably that I am not changing policy in any manner. I'm only adding a ref. That's all. Nothing would be changed. Your next paragraph is also misleading. I did not lie. Period. AGF. Thirdly you are returning to your attacks on me, rather than replying to my comment ("You are missing my point...") above which pointed out your error. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghost, arbitrary break

It seems to be clear what's going on. For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side, and so a lot of people have made up their minds that he must be wrong when he holds his opinion against so many others. But it turns out that he isn't. Which is why dab is on the same side at Talk:Ghost. I would have done the same if I had seen earlier what's going on there. Unfortunately I first saw the mess when I became aware of an RfC about editing a policy. The RfC was started by Brangifer. The RfC did not even have a link to the NSF source on which it was ostensibly based. When I looked for that, I eventually found it at an earlier RfC also started by Brangifer, which was still open. Both RfCs already were extremely messy. So I simply stayed out of the matter. My apologies to Ludwigs2 and dab, but I don't have that much time to waste for fighting against WP:Randy in Boise. Hans Adler 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have your attention, hopefully, may I ask everybody to turn on your brains and ask yourselves how likely it is that the NSF really meant to say, with its full scientific weight, that certain fields are pseudosciences without any further qualification, but instead of publishing this important contribution to the demarcation problem, a known-hard philosophical problem, they did it casually and even omitted this significant contribution to the pseudoscience debate from later versions of the paper. Hans Adler 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you are very mistaken on four points:

1. The RfC at Talk:NPOV -- Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference has always contained a link to the original source. Look again and click the link. It looks like this:

   --- Source: "Science and Engineering Indicators 2006", National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Belief in Pseudoscience". (See Note 29)

2. While your linking to "Randy" is amusing, it's also very deceptive, offensive, and incivil. It is Ludwigs2 and Dbachmann who are acting in a tendentious manner, not I. If they had the RfC consensus on their side, you would be right, but that's undeniably not the case, so your argument carries no weight at all. It's totally wrong and thus also adds to the disruption.
3. The NSF statement did not state that the ten items "are pseudosciences". The NSF carefully declared that "belief" in those items were "pseudoscientific beliefs". There's a huge difference. While that does, in effect, label the ten items as pseudoscientific in some manner or other, your statement is just plain wrong. Read the actual quote above in the RfC. What's really interesting, and what proves they were very deliberate in their statement, is that they were referring to a Gallup Poll which only used the word "paranormal". The NSF then used the word "pseudoscience" instead of paranormal, thus demonstrating their understanding of an obvious truth, that paranormal beliefs are pseudoscientific beliefs.
4. Their "omission" from any later editions really means nothing. There is no evidence (but some OR indulged by certain members of the gang of three) that the NSF has changed their opinion, and those items have most certainly not ceased to be pseudoscientific in some manner. The NSF report is a yearly report and it varies somewhat from year to year, often citing research, articles, polls, etc., which are actual at the time of publication. All of those reports are valid sources. None of them supercedes another later version, since they aren't scientific research, where newer research supercedes outdated and incorrect previous research. These are different. When one actually adds up the various things they have labelled as pseudoscientific in some manner during the years in all those reports, it adds up to quite a few more than just the ten they mentioned in 2006, and we could/should justifiably create a properly sourced list of all of them and state in an NPOV manner that the NSF has declared them all to be pseudoscientific in some manner or other. We have the NSF as a V & RS to do it.

Brangifer (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's a matter for unambiguous attribution. "In <year>, <source> said <statement>" should work. If the source has since come out with a conflicting statement that would be a problem but to simply drop it does not indicate that it is no longer the case. Aside: one wonders if they have had as many griefers badgering them about it as we have and have simply decided to walk away from the advocates of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 10:18, March 13, 2010 UTC

Sorry, but I have refactored the above comment to include nowiki tags as the tags used in it were interpreted as real by the software and broke this page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Saved me doing exactly that, thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, that doesn't work because this claim has been assembled from something in the main text of the NSF document and a footnote. (See my hatted paragraph "What the NSF really said" below.) It also wouldn't solve the problem that it's quote-mining in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re 1: I stand corrected. (I did end up at the other RfC when trying to make sense of things and looking for the reference itself. I guess it has something to do with the weird formatting of your proposal, but I shouldn't have mentioned this at all.)

Re 2: You are using a strategy that I have often observed: Some of the most disruptive editors are very liberal with certain accusations which accurately describe their own behaviour. (I guess this is not because they understand they are guilty of it themselves and they try to anticipate corresponding accusations so they can claim that their opponent is just mirroring them. Although that would be a very efficient rhetorical technique. But rather, I guess, they use these accusations after being targeted by them and being defenceless. Their conclusion, then, is not: "It's true and I must change my behaviour." Their conclusion is: "This is a highly efficient personal attack that I should take into my repertoire.")

Detailed argument condensed for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are also using the same unethical rhetorical trick here that Beyond my Ken used above (see my discussion with Tan): A: There is a consensus here to use [...] quotation in [...] way, but it is wrong. This is not what the authors meant, because [...]. B: You are wrong. A: Why? B: We all agree to use the quotation in this way. It's consensus. [Therefore] it's not a misquotation. A: That's not a valid argument. B: Ha! Now he is practising I didn't hear that and tendentious editing. There are at least three factors that can lead to a consensus: (1) Everybody sees the truth. (2) Everybody sees what is most convenient to reach a certain goal, even if it is false. (3) A bunch of people agree with each other because they are friends or have a common enemy. Do we have a consensus of type (1) here? Let's test this hypothesis. What's the dynamic when we take matters to a more public place? Oppose and objection (by the black sheep, Ludwigs2), Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Objection (by the other black sheep, dab), Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Support, Words of caution, Support, Support, (*) Oppose, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Oppose, Oppose, Support, Support, Oppose, Support, Support, Comment, Support. Look at the place marked (*). Before that we have 2 objections and 2 instances of words of caution. And a whopping 11 Support !votes. After the (*) we have 6 Support !votes and 6 Oppose !votes. Doesn't look like a stable consensus to me. (For simplicity I have argued as if the two RfC's were discussing the same question. Yes, I know it's a simplification.)

Re 3: Granted, the passage that you are trying to push into WP:NPOV says this:

The scientific consensus, as expressed by the [NSF], has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] reincarnation, [...].

So you are making a distinction between subjects and belief in the subjects. OK, that's a distinction you can make if you are pedantic. But it is not a distinction that makes much sense when you are quote-mining in the first place.

What the NSF really said
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is what the NSF really wrote: Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" [...] [...] about three-fourths of Americans hold at least one pseudoscientific belief; i.e., they believed in at least 1 of the 10 survey items (similar to the percentage recorded in 2001).[29] [...] (Moore 2005b). [29]: Those 10 items were extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations, telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses, clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, astrology/that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation/the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death, and channeling/allowing a "spirit-being" to temporarily assume control of a body. (Moore 2005b) Moore DW. 2005b. Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup Poll News Service.

The sentence "Obama is a Muslim" is false. If you draw that 'information' from a White House statement then you made a mistake. If instead you draw the 'information' that "Belief that Obama is a Muslim is belief in the truth" from the same statement, it's not more correct, it's just more absurd.

Re 4: Yes, the NSF report varies from year to year. No, they don't do it for your convenience, so that you have more versions to choose from for your quote-mining. E.g. in 2004 they used a more careful formulation: "According to one group studying such phenomena, pseudoscience topics include [...]" with a different list. We don't need evidence that the NSF changed their opinion because we don't have more than very weak circumstantial evidence that they held such an opinion, as a considered opinion with a weight suitable for what you are trying to use it for, in the first place. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it. NSF basically says that belief in ghosts is pseudoscience, a few people don't like it, tough shit. Sorry, that's an end of it. It's been discussed to death and consensus is clear, it's now got to the point of disruptive refusal to accept consensus. I don't see any willingness on the part of the holdouts to compromise, and the arguments indicate to me that the opposition is rooted in WP:TRUTH rather than commitment to policy. How many RfCs and discussions have to go against before people will finally accept this, I wonder? No, don't answer, that's a rhetorical question. And yes I know this is never going to fix the real world problem that close to 100% of scientists agree that the paranormal is pseudoscience whereas a large proportion of the US public in particular remains wedded to belief in such stuff. We can't and actively don't want to fix that, we're just documenting it. It's no different to creation myths, which remain creation myths however many people sincerely believe them. The term is accurate even though true believers are unable to see it without feeling their belief is being challenged - that is their problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Beleif in ghost is pseudoscience and there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious so that no one gets confused. The reference says that beleif in ghost is pseudoscience. Yes the 2008 version does not mention it specifically but that does not mean that belief has become ligit in the eyes of science. This whole arguement in my opinion is rather strange. I have specifically asked those who disagree to specify the text this quote should be used to support.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Guy, you are arguing on the level of truth rather than wikilawyering, so I am responding on the same level.) Well, we are still writing an encyclopedia here. That requires intelligent reading of the sources rather than quote-mining to make absurd claims. Of course there are strong connections and similarities between religion, other belief systems and pseudoscience. But that doesn't mean it's OK for an encyclopedia to call religious beliefs pseudoscientific and vice versa where it makes no sense. (By all means do so where it does.) Basing it on a misquotation doesn't make the absurdity better.

We all have a tendency to believe that subjects we don't like are more closely related to each other than subjects we do like. That doesn't make it OK to give up all standard distinctions when dealing with ridiculous topics such as ghosts, reincarnation and pseudoscience.

By calling ghosts and reincarnation pseudoscience in general and without qualification, i.e. in the absence of any pretence at being scientific or copying of the language of science (of course there are plenty of pseudoscientists who play their silly games with these beliefs, but they are not dominant for these topics) you are making the term pseudoscience redundant and basically useless.

Basically you have just told me that yes, a Buddhist or Hindu who believes he will be reincarnated, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, a Muslim who believes that genies exist, is believing in pseudoscience. That yes, an African who believes in witches, is believing in pseudoscience. Is that really what you mean? Then what word are you going to use for the distinctive properties of writings such as Frank Tipler's "The Physics of Christianity"? [4] Perhaps it isn't even pseudoscience but something else? Hans Adler 12:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "absurd" about the idea that most paranormal ideas and nearly all paranormalists are pseudoscientific. My reading of the source (which reading I like to think is intelligent, given that I am a graduate professional) supports the statement we make, undoubtedly some people don't like that and have spent an inordinately long time raising the issue at new venues in the apparent hope of eventually getting an answer they do like. This has now, in my view, reached the point of disruptive stonewalling. Time to drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, you seem to have a serious case of IDHT. Do you count all believing Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus as paranormalists? I was under the impression that you are a Christian yourself, which would make you a paranormalist yourself. (I am an atheist, by the way, so I guess I am safe.) The stonewalling is entirely on your side. Most people who believe in ghosts or reincarnation do so because it is part of their religion (or because it is part of the culture in which they grew up). Most of them are not trying to explain or justify ghosts/reincarnation with science, or confusing these things with science, or otherwise of the opinion that they are in any way connected to science. For them it is no more pseudoscience than it is pseudobakery or pseudomusic. Brangifer's second RfC tries to paint all adherents of these religions as believers in pseudoscience. While I am not personally offended by this in the least (just look at some of my statements about religion in the archives of Talk:Creation myth if you don't believe me), it is simply nonsensical disinformation that dilutes the word pseudoscience almost beyond recognition. The few Christians who go stark raving mad and start writing about intelligent design or weak dematerialization are the pseudoscientists, and we need a word for them. If you call all Christians pseudoscientists we don't have an adequate word. But perhaps that's what you are after? You, Brangifer and quite a bunch of others are POV pushing for the pseudoscientists by attempting to dilute the term so that it becomes meaningless. As a firm believer in accuracy and the scientific method I am not going to watch you compromising the intellectual integrity of the encyclopedia in this way. Hans Adler 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I am really baffled. Haven't you read anything I've written? Where have I brought religion into this? You are very clearly referring to something I've said, so please provide the quote and diff. If I've written something unclearly, then it needs tweaking. I have clearly distanced myself from those who are painting this feared boogieman on the wall. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you Guy? I didn't think so. Hans Adler 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So now you want to have a private conversation in a public place and you want to accuse others of not hearing because they don't agree with you. I think we're done. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It was done before it started: no there there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I find it hard to imagine that you fake misunderstanding me, so here is the explanation: I responded to you, pointing out what I felt logically followed from what you said. Then Brangifer came and insisted it wasn't his opinion, of which I am well aware. Brangifer is of course free to comment on what I say to you, even when it starts with "Guy, ...". But when he does so he needs to take care not to assume that everything I say about you actually refers to him. Hans Adler 14:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Heavens to mergatroid... I avoid this thread for a day, and all hell breaks loose!

let me make a few points perfectly clear:

1. If Brangifer held an RfC on the question "Should Wikipedia state as a matter of policy that the sky is orange, based on such-and-such a cite?", I don't care if he got 150 editors to register their support for it; I would still steadfastly and vocally oppose it. RfC's are not intended to be used to insert highly questionable material into the encyclopedia over the reasoned objections of other editors. Using them in that way is a clear and unambiguous perversion of wikipedia's core principles.
2. pseudoscience contains the word science because it refers to ideas that are improperly presented as scientific. It is not a catch-all for any old application of skeptical disdain one would like to make.
3. Cherry-picking particular utterances to make absurd points is not responsible editing. sure, you can talk about using 'unambiguous attribution' to justify your cherry-picking - is that an invitation for me to collect a whole series of 'unambiguously attributed' instances where the NSF doesn't use the terminology? Won't that be charming; "The NSF called Ghosts pseudoscientific beliefs in the 2006 version of this document, but the failed to do so in the 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, and 20010 versions". perhaps we could then draw the conclusion that belief in ghosts was only pseudoscientific in the year 2006, but then it... got better? pure silliness...
4. Hans said, quite clearly "For some reason Ludwigs2 has acquired a reputation of being in the "pseudoscience" side" and I am compelled to point out that that reputation is entirely and intentionally manufactured by brangifer, just so that he could play this particular political game. It still steams me! if you need any other reason to discount brangifer's efforts in this mess, you need look no farther than that.

I'll add - just in the spirit of clarity - that brangifer's "Peace Pipe" to me came in the phrase "If you'll stop now I won't seek to have you banned [...] I'm putting some very good weed from my stash into the peace pipe."[5] talk about a buzzkill... --Ludwigs2 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Ludwigs2 how would you like to see the source used? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ludwigs and Hans, is this really worth so much debate and hassle? A couple things seem fairly clear to me: 1) a newer NSF report not mentioning something in an older NSF report does not invalidate the earlier report or its information. If the NSF thinks it made an error, it will let us know. That's not to say that we can't exclude something if, as editors, we can agree that it is clearly erroneous. I don't think this is one of those cases. 2) Pseudoscientific and superstitious get conflated sometimes. I'm no expert in the area, but perhaps they shouldn't be. Belief in ghosts is always superstitious. If someone tries to make a scientific case for it, or believes in ghosts based on erroneous science, it is pseudoscientific. The lead as it appears right now [6] conveys this distinction, and it seems quite appropriate. I think this can be dropped. II | (t - c) 04:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This should be closed. Consensus is clearly against Ludwigs and his disruption has now been stopped. Verbal chat 11:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it hasn't been stopped, and he's once again threatening to persist until he gets his way, even to the point of reopening this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this can be closed. Consensus of all editors who are able to think scientifically instead of uncritically jumping on bandwagons is clearly against BullRangifer and his cronies. BullRangifer will be dealt with by RfC/U.

As to the situation at Ghost: Apparently my explanation at Talk:Ghost helped to clarify that this is not a minority pushing pseudoscience against the majority. In fact, the current text implies that if James Randi did an experiment to disprove a "ghost", he would be engaging in pseudoscience, and that a medical researcher researching ghost apparitions as symptoms of mental diseases is also doing pseudoscience. Among other problems. This is of course blatant nonsense, and unsurprisingly was not actually claimed by the NSF. Doc James, who was on Brangifer's side so far, seems to have understood my point and has proposed excellent wording for dealing with it.

I am sick and tired of so often having to go through so much drama after hysterical pseudo-pro-science editors have made up their minds that proposals they don't understand, based on distinctions they don't understand, must be POV pushing just because the same editor has earlier argued for another position they didn't understand.

Can't we ban this entire crowd of people who think they are scientists because they are wearing the right T-shirts, once and forever, so that we can finally concentrate our efforts on dealing with the never-ending stream of fringers who join the project? Hans Adler 14:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's about the most deceptively worded comment I've seen on this page. The consensus in both RfCs are against you. Suck it up. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support per Hans Alder. So much time is wasted on knee-jerk reactions and simplistic/specious reasoning that serve a POV rather than informative content. Unomi (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, the !voting occurs above, and your vote would be "Disagree", not support. Look at the RfC before making such comments based on Hans Adler's deceptively worded comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Forgot which page I was on. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Doc James: I've discussed the proper way to use the quote previously, but (as normal) it was drowned in a sea of confused rhetoric. recapping in brief, the quote is usable to display the NSF's stand on critical thinking (at least with respect to the US) - something like "The NSF notes that large segments of the US population still believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts, despite the lack of scientific evidence" would be perfectly reasonable, and completely in tune with the greater context of the document in question. I'm more than open to discussing any particular wording, I'm just opposed to the kind of extreme misrepresentation of the NSF's position that brangifer keeps stumping for

@ verbal: yeah, yeah... I was wondering when you'd start throwing spitballs.

@ II: sorry, but you've misunderstood the issue. the problem here is that brangifer has seized on the earlier report and fabricated a position for the NSF which there is no real evidence it holds. It's not a question of arguing that the NSF 'stopped claiming' or 'neglected to add' this position; There is no reason to suppose they were making the claim in the first place.

@ others: I have no real position on closing this debate, but if you try to close it in favor of the irrational position that brangifer is pushing here, I will simply re-open it and continue arguing for reason. If reason has prevailed here, say so; if it hasn't, let's keep at it until it has. --Ludwigs2 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More deception and threats of persistent disruption by Ludwigs2. The consensus in both RfCs are overwhelmingly against you. Suck it up instead of repeatedly insisting on disruptively keeping this alive until you get your way. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD and block those who then refuse to abide by the overwhelming consensus in both RfCs. This disruption and the incessant harassment here and elsewhere by these few editors are insufferable violations of multiple policies. This little gang needs to be placed in a wikijail for some time. How about topic bans for them all and letting them know that harassment, including revenge RfC/Us, will not be tolerated? -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick summary for any admin wondering about BullRangifer's plea:

Dispute

Did the NSF say A in document B2006?

Background

With some effort one can draw something like A from B2006 by assembling the main text with a footnote and ignoring the general context of B2006. One can (almost) do the same with B2004, but not with B2008 or B2010.

RfC1

Is the NSF a reliable source for saying A?

RfC2

To change WP:NPOV so that a footnote in it claims that the NSF said A.

Hans Adler 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hans, that's a very deceptive misrepresentation of the facts, which are attested to by the multiple supporters of both RfCs. I would never be able to fool them with such shoddy tactics as you propose. Your consistent failures to AGF are affecting your judgment. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I count 4 or 5 times that brangifer has accused other people of misrepresentation and deception, on this thread alone. methinks he has a guilty conscience...

As I said (and will maintain) I will continue to argue for my side of this debate until it is resolved through reasoned discussion. brangifer's steadfast refusal to discuss the matter calmly and reasonably (as well as his fairly hysterical pleas that the thread must be closed before any such calm, reasoned discussion can take place) just lead me to believe that he should be ignored until the rest of us have discussed the matter properly and come to some kind of conclusion. Let's do that, shall we? --Ludwigs2 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Catholic Church straw poll

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll to save space here and to centralize discussion. Please do not timestamp until this section reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Wikipedia," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Wikipedia mirror, it can't be used to reference a Wikipedia article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH ^ping! 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.[7]. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Wikipedia compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Wikipedia contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Wikipedia is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Wikipedia's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Wikipedia citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag.[8][9][10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100)

IP 174.3.110.108 (talk · contribs) is engaging in deliberate wikihounding of myself. I first encountered this editor, when he was 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) and later as 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs), when he made massive changes to Wikipedia:Tables (formerly Wikipedia:When to use tables), Wikipedia:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and Wikipedia:Lists without any discussion nor consensus. As he continued these edits, despite warnings from myself and others, he was reported here and was blocked for 3 hours. During this event, he also filed a false 3RR report that resulted in his being warned again. After his block was lifted, he was again admonished by several admins, but continued on and the report went stale. Administrator User:Father Goose apparently deciding to adopt the editor and helped him make the changes he wanted. He was reported here again on March 3rd by another IP, but no response was given to that report.

On March 10, he pretty much straight down the list of articles on my user page, and making random bad edits to Meerkat Manor[11], Tokyo Mew Mew[12], U-Drop Inn[13], and White Dog[14]. All of his edits were reverted and I requested that Father Goose intervene, as he had clearly decided to "nuture" this IP and had assigned himself as the IPs "advocate"[15]. While Father Goose agreed that the edits were not improvements, he also asserted there were in good faith and felt no action was needed[16]. Further discussion followed on both Father Goose's talk page and the IPs, including some back and forth between the IP and myself where I reiterated that I wished him to stop hounding me and bothering me, primarily through the Meerkat Manor talk page, despite FG also objecting to his change.[17] He continued to do so and Father Goose finally asked the IP to back off and again noted that the edits were not an improvement.[18]

The IP has continued to ignore Father Goose's notes and my own requests to leave him alone, quickly losing my temper with his continued aggrevating actions and Father Goose's seeming approval by his lack of action.[19] Father Goose even went back to U-Drop Inn,[20][21] and made similar edits as the IP, to which the IP responded to by giving him "getting [his] changes implemented".[22] The IP tried to call my reverts of his edits WP:OWN and began using that as a pipped link every time he used the phrase "your articles". He admitted that he'd specifically gone to my user page to "came to audit your articles" to see if they met his idea of what they should be, and then as they had no tables, he just made random changes to "improve" them. He clearly stated: "If you are wondering what my motivation for editing your 4 articles, it is because considering you were the only person who objected to the changes to wp:table, and then you did not explain your objections, considering that you made no contribution the current version of wp:table, I did not think you had invoked the changes to "your" articles." though none of those articles have even one table. These remarks were made after Father had told him to back off, and despite the IP's stating "I won't post any comments on any of your articles' talk pages" he continued to do so.

After I posted to Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles suggesting the guideline be clarified to note what is not ownership, he followed me in his very first edit, after being offline, to opposed it.[23]. He had never edited that talk page before, nor WP:OWN itself, so it is clear he came behind me.[24] The IP went on to claim he'd done this before, editing Gossip Girl[25], however no edit was found with his IP range, unless he deliberately changed ranges. He also clearly recognizes that his behavior is disturbing and annoying, seeming to find it amusing and has indicate that he fully intends to continue doing so deliberately and claiming that any objection I make is displaying "ownership".[26][27]

Father Goose said he would speak to the IP[28], but nearly 24 hours, has not done so though he has been online. The IP's newest remarks have been to make his expression of his full intention to continue his harassment and random "auditing" of his articles. I am also concerned about the appropriateness of Father Goose's actions in this situation, after learning that the IP is actually 100110100 (talk · contribs)[29]. This user was blocked in 2007 for serious incivility, disruptive, and even making death threats. Apparently, he admitted at some point to Father Goose that he was this indef blocked user, and rather than reminding the IP that he was evading his ban, Father Goose decided to lift the block all together, stating "Assuming good faith; has displayed an imperfect but much more even-tempered manner as an IP since this account was blocked." Father Goose also seems very quick to jump to this IPs defense against any criticism[30] and after his earlier block as an IP, went on to do the IP's edits for him and explained why he could "get away" with[31].

It should also be noted that the IP is in an on-going edit war with User:Paul 012 at Wikipedia:Lists[32], and has been warned for doing various template changes without consensus (even being mistakenly blocked as a bot for how quickly he was doing certain changes. Also, as I was typing this, the IP filed a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against me.[33]

At this point, it seems prudent to have some outside administrative reviewing of both the IPs actions, and the quite unblock of what appears to have been a very disruptive editor who has been evading his block with IP socks for weeks, if not longer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC); Modified 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is continuing his actions, going on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself and Father Goose as being incorrect and not an improvement to any of the articles.[34][35][36][37], and two more done under his user account[38][39] I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. Father Goose purportedly contacted him OFF wiki, but obviously it had no results only to prompt this editor to continue this sort of stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot defend 174's continued editing of Collectonian's pages at this point. I've counseled him against it, but he has persisted. Being his effective mentor, I am reluctant to block him myself, as it would compromise our ability to continue to deal with him diplomatically through me. But while I have been offering him advice and assistance, he is not under my aegis, and if another admin feels his actions call for a block or any other administrative action, I will not interfere.

I'll continue trying to suggest to him what actions he could be taking that would be more constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you tend to be a very AGFing editor/admin, but I am curious as to why you choose to unblock his named account, rather than enforcing his indef blocked, considering the history and circumstances (particular the death threat which, as far as I could see, he never retracted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The broad principle here is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. His behavior is still not perfect (and his choosing to tangle with you in this manner deserves a rolled up wiki-newspaper to the nose), but I've seen him make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and his behavior has been far more communicative and cooperative than what caused him to get banned three years ago.

People are allowed to "come back" if they clean up their act. At the time that I unblocked him, his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed. Clearly we can't claim that he's a model citizen quite yet, and if he decides that hounding you is all that he wants to do on Wikipedia, then the cover should go back on the sarcophagus.

However, as pointed out by several people in the current Wikiquette alert ([40]), the intensity of your reaction here has not helped the issue. I'm not saying you should suffer a fool, but it makes it difficult for me to tell him to stop fighting with you when you're swinging back so hard. So far, this hasn't been going well for either of you.

I'd like to be able to stop this fight, but I'd need two calm people first.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fight would stop if he would stop the hounding. Why he decided to start it in the first place is beyond me. And I am calm(er) now than I was the first day. I have little patience for that sort of behavior, particularly when I have it coming at me from three sides at the moment, thanks to this guy, User:Bambifan101 finding yet another range to get past the 4-5 rangeblocks on him, and User:ItsLassieTime making socks and doing their darnedest to try to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, including harassing a bunch of folks who supported or commented positively on it. And, quite honestly, your lack of response only made my frustration far worse, as you seemed to be condoning his behavior and at times I felt you were even encouraging it. I acknowledged in my original report that I had not been as clean-languaged as I could have been, but the issue was still on-going and as we have now both no doubt seen, he fully intends to keep it up. I don't think my being stressed and annoyed at his hounding and using more colorful language than I would normally would (which was far toned down from what I was thinking, believe me) should somehow excuse his behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an update, IP is continuing to push an issue at Talk:Meerkat Manor despite the notes above, it being rejected by multiple people, and folks in the Wikiquette alert that agreed he is acting inappropriate.[41] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Tangentially related opinion

Collectonian, his behavior could be called into question. However, I'm still not seeing behavior rising to the level of hounding. He has made changes, but they appear to be good faith changes done IAW policy. While I concur that WP:IAR definitely applies at [[42]] and "The" is appropriate unless someone can come up with a better header. I have 4 articles to which I contributed that became FAs (as you are probably well-aware), but others still add a lot to those articles and change things, as they have a right to do.

However, even if someone else finds his behavior to be hounding, this doesn't excuse your behavior, which has been atrocious: from claiming ownership over articles, to excessive profanity, to inappropriate demands, etc:

[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

In short, I find your behavior to be worse and severely over-reacting. You should have simply brought your concerns here or to another board instead of reacting the way you did. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your personal point view. As already pointed out in the Wikiquette alert, your are completely non-neutral in this discussion considering our disagreements over the A&M articles and my opposing one of your many failed RfAs. This is not the first time you have popped into a discussion that clearly showed inappropriate action by another editor to try to claim I was the one acting wrongly, despite no one agreeing with you. Again, whether or not I used profanity is irrelevant. I'm an adult and can use whatever language I choose. Further, it has already been noted above that this is NOT the first instance of this type of stuff. There is NOTHING inappropriate about telling someone hounding you to leave you alone, anymore than it would be wrong for me to tell you to get over the previous history and leave me alone. I walked away from almost every A&M article because of you. Be happy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your language and hostility are a problem (the IP's behavior notwithstanding) and is not only relevant, but central to the problems we're facing here. You indeed can choose any language you want, but on Wikipedia, communication should be civil; it currently is not. At least 4 other people agreed with me on the Wikiquette board that your reactions are out of line. Our "history" (which near as I can tell we haven't interacted for over a year) or your history with anyone else is irrelevant. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior" - you mean like you are doing now to excuse away this editors edits? And of the people who agreed with you regarding my language, I notice you don't bother to mention that they also agreed with me that he IS wikihounding (and that the last you one yourself noted was lying and had not actually interacted with me, just decided to pop in and make a a negative remark because they disagreed with my replacing the tags on an article they had removed). Honesty is just as important as civility, and using profanity, in and of itself is not uncivil. My behavior here was appropriate, even if you disagree with my language in the discussions. And your view is not neutral (it is amusing you are lecturing me on my behavior when your four RfAs have failed, in part because of your own personality issues....but such is life, eh?)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behavior, though I've seen no specific diffs that you've provided with any problems. They seem like editorial concerns; ones that should be discussed on talk pages. One of your changes even goes against WP:HEADING, but I certainly concede that WP:IAR applies, no alternative really works, and you both discussed it on the talk page. Labeling a change vandalism when it is merely a difference of opinion is also uncivil ([55][56][57][58]). I don't see any diffs for the alleged tag removals. Profanity in discussions is not acceptable and explicitly mentioned in policy. Taunting me (or anyone else) is also uncivil.

If he's done something wrong, I'm just not seeing it in the diffs you've provided. I'm not excusing any behavior by saying his actions are justified because of yours. I'm saying I don't see that any inappropriate behavior exists at all." — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree that some of Collectonian's reverts that are identified as "vandalism" are far cries from it. For example, the change that is undone by either [59] or [60], the addition of a pop culture section, is nowhere near vandalism - it is a good faith addition that is unsourced or unnecessary, but not vandalism; I'd still likely undo the change by under a AGF revert. Same with [61] a change that adds a bad EL (but not a copyvio EL). If these were repeat offenses (people pushing 3RR or a wise IP that's avoiding 3RR with slow edit warring), ok, vandalism starts to come into play, but not here. I would strongly recommend Collection to avoid the "revert (vandalism)" (which bypasses the edit summary entry) and instead use the other two revert tools that provide a quick edit summary so that it is clear why the reverts are being done. And this is not to question the need to revert - I think Collectonian is right that these aren't appropriate additions, but they are not vandalism. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two are the same edit, made a bit of time apart, by the same person. Isn't that a repeat offense? I do consider the addition of unsourced, random content into a FA to be vandalism, however it others feel it is not, then I'm happy to start just using the regular RV for that sort of thing. I realize I tend to have a far harder view of vandalism than most others. However, I am curious. You do not feel the addition of spam is vandalism? That was not just a random site, but someone's personal "petition". To me, the last is a spam link, not any kind of legitimate link. That, to me, is vandalism, but again if it is not can you explain further to me what constitutes spam versus just a bad link? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the first two edits are not the same edit. They look similar but they are two different facets of pop culture. And because the IP addys are far apart, there's no evidence it is the same person (it could be, granted). I think the stance that "the addition of unsourced, random content into an FA is vandalism" is very much against AGF. (Yes, mind you, I'd love flagged revisions, which would deal with much of this, but...) All of this starts from AGF. If an editor (particularly an IP) makes a first-time edit that is not blatantly wrong but otherwise not appropriate, we need to take good faith that they may not be familiar with all policy and guideline - we can revert, just, we can't assume the person is vandalizing the article. Again, vandalism is deliberate; a new editor adding a bad (non-copy vio) EL is likely not trying to degrade the quality of the article deliberately, and that's why I wouldn't call any of those three examples vandalism. If the same IPs appeared later and make the same changes, then that becomes deliberate and thus vandalism. Again, the reverts in-of-themselves are not wrong, just the choice of using vandalsim rollback. That's why I suggest you should use AGF rollback to at least explain the edits - that will, in part, deal with the supposed attitude issue that BQZip is describing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense (and so agree on flagged revisions). I suspect it is not always evident, but I have actually been working on improving my method of dealing with reverts and on trying to do more AGFing, per some remarks left on my talk age. I do not always successfu, but I don't think anyone can expect one to change overnight? To confirm, these are more appropriate AGFing rollbacks, yes?[62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem better to me. Again, my only caution here (which is in part what seems to have led to this case) is to avoid pressing the vandalism revert button too fast, as doing a revert with more of an explanation that "vandalism" is much more helpful to new editors and those reviewing such cases. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To the admins, I welcome any opinions, but Collectonian seems to have no desire/will to change her behavior. I recommend a 24 hour block (1st block for such a violation) for multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and an inability/unwillingness to alter such behavior which is explicitly in contradiction with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I also recommend a review of the IP's actions; while I don't see anything wrong, I'm willing to admit I could have missed something. The same goes for the unblocking admin. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know on my talk page or here and I will correct it (if it is something worthy of a block, please block me IAW WP:PG). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block nearly 2 days after the incident? Blocks are not punitative (supposedly), and it seems you are just trying to find some reason to get me blocked. What is your stake in this? Why are you so determined to get me blocked while continuing to see nothing wrong with the hounding on both a logged in account and multiple IPs (which at least four editors have agreed occurred, despite your own personal denial of events). Hounding and pointy edits are vandalism. Thank you for at least admitting you really haven't reviewed anything and are pretty much just coming here to make negative remarks because its me. Were this any other editor, I doubt you would be calling for a block. And, FYI, Father Goose, whose talk page the exchange occurred on, IS AN ADMIN. Had he felt my language was inappropriate or worthy of blocking, don't you think he would have left me a warning (which I have not received a single one for) and blocked me himself had I continued. You really are not adding any value to this discussion, but instead only causing a lot of noisy distractions from the real issues. As such, it seems unlikely any actual admin discussion will occur here because of this pointless back and forth on a non-issue. Despite what you may like, you cannot have me blocked just because you dislike me.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Blocks are not punitive (and I wasn't suggesting otherwise), but are designed to change behavior. You have indicated that you not only have no desire to change your behavior, but that you believe it is acceptable. "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." "A user may be blocked...when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to...persistent gross incivility."
2. Hounding and pointy edits are explicitly mentioned as things that are not vandalism: NOTVAND. These fall under disruptive editing.
3. For an admin to initiate a block in a situation he was involved would be inappropriate: "Administrators should not use their tools...in a content dispute where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
4. Plenty of users and admins have warned you over the past 2 days that your conduct was inappropriate. Complaining that "I didn't get a warning is disingenuous".
5. I am not asking for you to be blocked because I dislike you personally (which, in fact, I don't). I am asking for your to be blocked so your behavior will fall in line with our policies and guidelines on appropriate behavior.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Collectonian, the degree of unchivalry pointed out by BQZip01 with those vandal revert edits is not minor. Four edits, each one possibly worthy of a block in themself. It seems to me that despite conversation encouraging your calmness, you are far from editing in the calmest possible way. In doing your false vandal reverts it bring into question your ability to assume good faith and the objectivity of your comments here and elsewhere. I would prefer you are not blocked but what would you suggest instead? How is that you behaviour can be improved? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how I am not calmly editing now. Not two days ago, but now. Also, please note that in my initial report, and in replies to Father Goose above, I DID acknowledge that I lost my temper in my initial responses to this situation. I see no reason to block me now. It is not going to change my general nature, which is not evidenced by that response at the start of this (which is what all of those diffs are from). I am annoyed by BQZip01's responses in the etiquette report and here, but again do you see any evidence I have been uncivil in my responses or repeated the response I had to 100110100/the IP? Also, can you or BQZip01 point to any other time I have had such a response anywhere in my 5+ year editing history? Even when another User:ItsLassieTime sock tried, for the second time, to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, I believe my revert was fully civil[69], I requested the page be protected, and made the appropriate reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response is one of challenge. It would be nice if it was one of co-operation. You will notice that when tables are turned your view is to propose a long block. Such blocks are not something I would agree with. Let's move forward and assume good faith. I have every reason to believe that in a spirit of co-operation and a helping hand from Father Goose that your issues with the IP can be resolved or at least not brought into flare up or 'fight' again. For now, I'm outta this conversation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suncreator, thank you for your kind words and assistance.

Collectonian, ask and ye shall receive: [70][71][72][73][74][75] In every edit summary there is profanity. This isn't an isolated incident. Moreover, the last one was for MQS, an editor in which you opined recently in his WP:RfA. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One profane word in an editsummary, some of which you had to go back TWO years to find, is not the same. Thanks. And what does the RfA have to do with anything? I am allowed to oppose any RfA same as you (an RfA you yourself opposed). And if anyone is going to tell me that Bambifan101's socks don't provoke cussing, you'll also have to block several of the administrators, who have also used "profane" language in dealing with him. And let's see....you had to seriously hunt for those, to go back two years...out of 100,000 edits, thats all and the best you could do? A few minor edit summaries? *sigh* And I'm supposed to assume good faith that you aren't here with an agenda? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Collectonian should be blocked -- not over this incident, at any rate. 100110100's behavior was at least to some degree provocative, and while Collectonian's response has been disproportionate (in my opinion), that's still nowhere near a block.

I do agree however with the criticism leveled at her here and at the Wikiquette alert. She has a tendency to bare the claws early and often. But I'd much rather address that problem through peaceful means -- i.e., talking to her about it. I don't think I'm the right person to do that, as she no doubt sees me right now as the ally of one of her enemies. But if Collectonian found a way to be calmer and more willing to assume good faith in general, I've got to think she would find Wikipedia to be a much more amicable place than it has been toward her to date.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite this issue of wikihounding, I haven't had any problem with finding Wikipedia an amicable place. Yes, with my lengthy history and visibility in the fictional areas, I've made enemies. So has any other active editor. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to make people like me or make friends. So long as it doesn't bring harm to the articles, its neither here nor there. I do, however, take issue with being harassed and wikihounded. I ask this of you, and my other critics. Had I been the one who had followed 100110100 and his IPs edits and just randomly began changing things around that did not improve the article at all (and in some cases were not even valid per the MoS), and I clearly was following him, not just happening to interact with him, would the response be the same? I doubt it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you done the same to him, I would have assumed good faith with the initial four edits, and had you persisted, criticized you for it and asked you to discontinue. In other words, I believe my response would have been largely the same toward you as it has been toward him. Despite being his mentor, I haven't defended his behavior when it has been unambiguously problematic.

As for the "random non-improvements", I've found that about half of the time I see the sense in 1000110100's edits, and half of the time I don't. The primary reason I've been willing to be his advocate is that often his ideas are quite sound, although his ability to express them (or the specifics of his implementation) is poor. His change to the U-Drop Inn article, for instance, was an instance of poor implementation: "Movie fame" was a poor choice of headings, though "Movie notability" was even worse. That edit brought to my attention some other shortcomings with the section, and I made changes to the section and its heading that you seem to have mostly agreed with.

In the past you opposed his changes to WP:TABLES. It took me a while to understand what he was pitching there, but in the end I came to agree with him fully, and badly needed complete rewrite of that guideline was the result. He's not quite the vandal or bastard you make him out to be, although sometimes he doesn't make himself well understood, and other times he makes some outright bonehead moves -- this hounding case is an example, though I'm happy to see he's now taking a more constructive tack.

I'll do what I can to continue steering him away from unconstructive behavior and trying to help him with his positive contributions. He's probably going to pursue this quote box thing further, and he's entitled to, as long as it doesn't come in the form of a vendetta against you. I don't believe that's his sole aim here, although he did focus on your articles at first, and I won't claim that was an accident.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review of user:100110100

Per above, I think it would be prudent for an admin to review the unblocking of this editor, who admittedly was violating his indef block under numerous IPs for at least several months. While he was unblocked by Father Goose, who stated "his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed" (fuller explanation above), it seems odd to me to say his record as an IP was clean when he was deliberately evading his indef block. He made no apparent attempt to request unblock under his user name, but choose to edit as a multiple IPs. This, to me, does not show a change in the sorts of behavior that resulted in his indef block, particularly compounded with his massive changes to Wikipedia guidelines without discussion, the wikihounding of myself (as detailed above), his ignoring numerous notes on his various IP talk pages about his mass changes to templates, and his continuing to make various edits that meet his personal preferences but directly conflict with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and consensus in the articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on the assessment of the problem/situation, but what exactly would that do? Apparently, we're dealing w/ somebody who could easily keep using multiple IPs. Re-blocking the account won't actually do much. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the indef block is restored, any active IPs would also be blocked, and, if necessary, new ones would also be blocked for block evasion. Depending on whether he were to continue to evade the block as he did in this instance, a range block could also be implemented. They can have some success, though of course they can also be evaded (as we have some very very long term indef blocked folks who have some 400+ socks can show). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true. So, in that case, it would seem only fair to re-block for block-evasion, as is usually done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for unblocking someone on the basis of reformed behavior. This is for a very basic reason: blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If the block-worthy behavior stops, the block itself should stop.

The indefinite block of 100110100 was appropriate at the time that it was imposed: he had made death threats following a long history of disruptive behavior. Although 100110100/ip174's behavior hasn't been exemplary during the time that I've known him (about two months), I have seen nothing approaching the level that warrants continued indefinite blocking. For the most part, he has been a constructive editor, willing to resolve his disputes through appropriate means.

This episode with Collectonian is regrettable; I personally would be willing to call it low-grade wikihounding, although the edits he has made (and Collectonian has reverted) are defensible if taken individually, even if one might disagree with them. At the same time, Collectonian's response has been so vituperative that it has most likely heightened the conflict.

At this time, 100110100/ip174 seems to have switched to a far more appropriate course of action, namely trying to establish a consensus for the removal of {{quote box}}es, which Collectonian has used in many of her articles. I do not believe this particular initiative is specifically targeted at Collectonian, as he has tangled with me over a similar issue in the past: Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#.7B.7Bquote.7D.7D.

Collectonian's behavior here has not been exemplary either. She almost immediately treated something that ought to have been a minor conflict as a scandalous personal assault, and her actions have served to intensify the conflict. I'd really rather not draw her ire by criticizing her, but frankly, her behavior regarding this fight has not helped to get this thing resolved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If its agreed he is going to remain unblocked, I think it should be mandatory that he identify himself. As it is, I have seen several discussions now where he replies as his IP and then as his username, without making it clear he is one and the same, giving an appearance of one agreeing with the other, which is not appropriate. Of course, neither was his canvassing as he has done in his attempt to get that quotation essay passed to a guideline so he can think claim justification on removing them from any article I've edited (I notice that he did NOT go through and remove them FROM all articles, nor propose the box for deletion...he only removed them from articles I happened to use them on). Talking like I'm not reading is more likely to draw my ire than simply stating what you think. *a lame attempt at humor* And sorry, but I do find wikihounding to be a personal assault, and I think it is frequently mishandled and overly ignored by this site's administration. Of course, that is neither here or there at this point. It seems clear to me now that no one really minds that he was wikihounding because they disliked my reaction to it. Whether it was "overboard" or not, considering it was not the first time he'd done it, is subjective. As he himself has admitted to seeking me out, I think my views are justified, even if I could have used less vitriolic language. It also seems clear that if he continues doing it, no one will really do anything to stop it, which of course gives him a positive reward for his behavior. I have, quite frankly, not seen that he has done any significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Other than his replacements of templates (despite being told to stop), and trying to change article style guides to match his own personal preferences of what an article should "look" like, his only real main space edits seem to be hounding myself and, as you've noted, occasionally just playing with stuff you've edited just to do it. Anyway, it seems there will be no result one way or another from this discussion. I don't think he is going to listen to you, or to anyone else when he has not, in fact, even bothered responding here. If someone decides they want to block me for my remarks, feel free. It isn't going to change anything, but I'm not stupid enough not to know that with 5 years and nearly 100,000 edits under my belt that I don't have enough enemies that would delight in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but using an IP to evade an indefinite block is per se bad faith editing. Avoiding trouble while doing so is socking, and cannot be considered good behavior. Engaging in arguably blockable behavior is even worse - whether the behavior would be blockable in isolation if done by a legitimate editor, the fact that a person who isn't supposed to be editing is doing so in a way that upsets some others only confirms that they shouldn't be editing. It's ongoing rule-breaking, and cannot be anything but intentionally so. We've been through this exact routine a number of times here. Father Goose is a well-seasoned admin, and must know all this - I wonder if there is some boundary pushing going on here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with User:Wikidemon here. This account should not have been unblocked while evading the indef block. I too tend to be and AGF'er but this is a bit much. Father Goose is commended for his desire to help but I think this was an error in judgment. If there are issues with User:Collectonian then deal with them in a separate section. We need to decide if the binary user a problem and how to proceed from this point on. That should be the focus of this portion of the discussion. JodyB _talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

100110100 was blocked, not banned. Had he been banned by either the community or arbcom, I would have had no right to individually review his block and choose to lift it.

But the block was imposed three years ago, as a decision apparently made by a single admin, and I am well within my rights to review and lift it if I feel it is no longer needed. The behavior for which 100110100 was indefinitely blocked (which was appropriate at the time) appears to have long since ceased.

I know of many, many cases where a user "evaded a block" (or even an outright ban), reformed their behavior, and been accepted back into the community. Were they then immediately blocked again indefinitely for evading a block? If we had done that, we'd be acting like vindictive fools.

Block evasion is unacceptable in particular when it's done to keep doing the bad behavior that prompted the block. I wouldn't have bothered unblocking 100110100 if I had seen nothing but bad behavior from this user. I'm not saying his behavior has been perfect during the time I've known him, but for the most part he's been acting in good faith, communicating with other users to promote his ideas, and making changes that on the balance improve the encyclopedia. Do we ban users like that? No. Therefore, I lifted the indefinite block.

Wikipedia has a culture of offering second chances, when they are deserved. But this being ANI, everyone commenting here is only aware of 100110100's bad behavior -- his block log from a long time ago and the current conflict with User:Collectonian, who has done everything she can to make the case here for getting rid of him.

If you want to evaluate whether 100110100 should be banned, evaluate all of his current behavior (not just Collectonian's depiction of it) and decide whether this is the kind of user who has no place on Wikipedia. I happen to believe he is imperfect but by no means the kind of person who deserves to be banned. He is a bit strong-willed at times (aren't we all?), but I've seen his willingness and ability to learn Wikipedia's ways, and his ability to apply himself to constructive activities when appropriately counseled.

It is for this reason that I unblocked him. He might deserve to be blocked for some future offense -- he might have even deserved a short-term block for this tangle with Collectonian, although for now he seems to have changed course. If the only reason you think he should be indefinitely blocked now is for the technical reason of evading an indefinite block imposed three years ago, then there's no sound basis for returning him to "banned" status. I gave him a careful and fair evaluation and all of you should too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem andWikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad You confessed it. I hope You understand that this issue as well as the other rules (which I may or may not violating) does not overrule The Basics. And The Basics is:

- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity

- Newcomers are always to be welcomed

- You can edit this page right now (Jumbo says edit, not delete).

So who's right? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're citing Jimbo Wales' personal principles. I'm glad to see that you're tying to make arguments based on fundamental principles. However, the page you are citing is similar to the Five Pillars, they are not our core policies. If you wish to make arguments based on a fundamental :policy, see WP:FIVE, for the Five Pillars. If you're wondering about the essays I cited, they are no more or less correct than Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, they just explain the opinions of certain editors. I'd also like to point out that if you think that an article could be made to meet our standards for inclusion, you could create it in your userspace and work on it there. You can ask any admin to move any of your deleted articles into your userspace. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget about articles for a while (if, of course, they're not a vandalistic issues. I hope they're not). Let's discuss a behavior of two mentioned users. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Wikipedia standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Wikipedia, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Wikipedia policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you point to Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered above. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And please do not talk about mentorship. Who will be my mentor? You? If "no" it's all just a words. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good person for being a mentor, but I do believe you may find it helpful, and as a Films project coordinator I am of course always willing to answer any questions you may have on determining the notability of films and on creating/improving film articles. Also, please keep in mind that yes, anyone can edit here, that does not mean that the edits will be kept and that articles created will not be deleted. This is why we have deletion processes. Yes, it can suck, especially when it seems clear you had the best of intentions in creating this articles, but sometimes it can be very difficult to show notability for foreign films (which for the English Wikipedia, would include Russian films). If you have not already done so, I'd encourage reading over WP:NF, which spells out the criteria under which a film is generally seen as likely to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I see debates, but I see no answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you pose at the end of your initial post are entirely up to you; no one is going to tell you to stay or pack your bags. Make up your own mind. Just be aware that if you continue to participate at English Wikipedia, you must abide by its policies. But, to answer your questions: *shrug* make up your own mind.

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But aren't they obliged to obey this rules. Knowledge of rules and regulations gives you no supremacy over the others. I cited Jimbo to underline that they're supposed to help. What help did they given to me? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Look back at the five talk-page links you offered in your original post, and the entire array of suggestions about familiarizing yourself with basic policies -- couched, again, in an appreciation for a deep content knowledge most of us here lack. It's unfortunate, but ultimately an issue with you, that you react defensively and don't perceive some of these talk-page discussions as attempt to help. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I'm looking back there, I see no help. Please do not use word basic. I had mentioned above what is basic. And it's better for you to familiarize yourself with it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not discuss no articles. I discuss you, and your behavior at first. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You posed to questions in your original post about the fate of some articles. I just attempted to offer some guidance about where their fate is more appropriately discussed -- and you offer that kind of irritable/irritating response? Please take a deep breath, take some time simply to read the policies and to look at decent film and character articles (e.g. The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film), Palpatine) for a sense of what we're moving toward with content (and a sense of what isn't appropriate). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd better attempted it, when you nomitaded these articles for deletion, rather than now, after I posted this appeal. Not so much comments and advices you given, when you nominated these articles and images for deletion. And there were not so much comments and advices from your side, when you deleted chapters and references from articles. Now it looks like informational outburst. Please take a deep breath - ??? What should I respond on such advice? Belt up? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the broken English. "Take a deep breath" (sorry for using an idiom you don't understand) means stop, read, and pay attention. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Belt up means... never mind. It's too complicated to explain. Please be clear, using no idioms. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Blanking of Content on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party by User:PCPP

The below discussion was moved from WP:AE and the case adapted for presentation on ANI.

Multiple instances of Sneaky Vandalism, POV editing and violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. in spite of multiple warnings. A behavior the user has engaged in for years.

In presenting this, I hope to bring to the attention of admins the continual disruption and removal of content by User:PCPP on pages related to the Chinese Communist Party.

The user's editing pattern involves:

1. Repetitive blanking of vast amounts of sourced and centrally relevant material, with no discussion on talk, and often under edit summaries like “rv pov material.”

2. Distortion of sourced content and the addition of personal commentary, which he misattributes to sources already present in the article.

3. And, when under close scrutiny, the watering down of critical sources, with unsubstantiated claims to the effect that they are the content is “pov”, is undue, etc.

4. Attack of other editors to deviate attention when the issue is raised with him.

Even a superficial analysis can reveal his scouring of articles pertinent to the CCP’s human rights violations, from which he removes critical material, while simultaneously piling accusations against those attempting to contribute to those articles.

What I present below is but a sample of such behavior, all from within the past few months, by the user.

1. Article:6-10 Office

Nature of disruption:Repetitive blanking of sourced and centrally relevant material with no discussion presented.Concerns raised are ignored by the user.

The below content, drawing upon one of the few sources available on the topic, has been blanked 6 times by the user since its inception into the article.

"According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong.""

The diffs:[76] [77][78][79][80][81].

Concerns raised regarding this behavior, on the talk page[82][83] is met with no response from PCPP, other than repeated blanking.

Together with the blanking, supported by neither discussion nor edit summary, the user distorts the lead of the article. The statement sourced to Congressional Executive Report on China, 2008: “This entity was charged with the mission of overseeing and carrying out the persecution of Falun Gong, which commenced on July 22, 1999.”, is distorted by the user to “It is responsible for monitoring, studying and analyzing matters relating to Falun Gong, and recommending policy measures for against Falun Gong, and also what the government calls "heretical cults" and "harmful qigong organisations"; and for promptly notifying municipal party committees of trends and developments within "cults".”[84]. The commentary added by the user is mis-attributed and not supported by any source.

2. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking of 12 paragraphs of sourced, centrally relevant material, with no discussion.

Shortly following the expansion and addition of sources to Propaganda in the People's Republic of China, PCPP blanks almost all the content added. He offers no explanation for this act. And his edit summary runs “rv POV material.”

3. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Blanking

The above was preceded by a similar blanking of content here. Before this, an editor who has continually supported, worked with, and encouraged PCPP, blanks a portion of the content added to the article[85] with an argument to the effect that its good enough for the article to remain a “catalogue.”

4. Article: Propaganda in the People's Republic of China

Nature of disruption: Whole-scale blanking

In the same article, the user, despite attempts to engage him in discussion, continues to blank a quarter of the article - 10K of content. He attacks the sources themselves, alleging their origin in US makes them anti-China and hence not RS. Kindly review the comments regarding this on talk:[86]. The blanking takes place in these edits: [87]

5. Article: Falun Gong

Nature of Disruption: Blanking.

Three paragraphs deleted with no explanation offered.[88].

6. Article: Falun Gong

Blanks almost the same content as above , this time labeling the sources “questionable” in the edit summary – no supporting discussion on talk. [89]. Concerns raised regarding this can be seen on talk of the article:[90]

7. Article: Media of the People's Republic of China

Nature of Disruption: Blanking of material under a misleading edit summary

Content removed in edits with misleading edit summaries: [91]

8. Article: Mass line

Nature of Disruption: Repetitive addition of unsourced material and blanking of sourced content.

Adds several paragraphs of unsourced content [92]. And here he reverts ( with misleading edit summaries) contributions by other editors removing well sourced and centrally relevant content[93] ( he offers no explanation for his blanking). The issue was raised here on the talk of the article: [94]

9. Article:Thought reform in the People's Republic of China

'Nature of disruption: Removes an entire section.

Edit summary makes no mention of it and no discussion on talk. [95]

10. Article:List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China

Comparatively minor disruptions such as repetitive changing of “Persection of Falun Gong” ( term used by academic sources, HRW, UN, Amnesty, US Congress reports, etc) to “Banning of Falun Gong”[96] [97][98]. Attempts to get the user to present a rationale for his insistence on using the word “ban” can be seen here: [99]

11. Article: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Blanks a para while falsely claiming in his edit summary that the content he blanked is a “misattribution”:[100]

12. Attacking reliable sources on talk to justify blanking of material .

The editor routinely attacks sources which do not align with his POV. Here, as a justification of his blanking of content from that source, the user attacks a Freedom House article by China expert Kurlantzick with claims that : "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US c) used as such that claims made by the report is presented as factual evidence in disproportionate amounts"[101] and here he attacks a Reporters Sans Frontiers source on 'grounds' that: " A bunch of rhetorics froma CIA funded organization can hardly meet WP:RS"[102]. The user continues to blank the Freedom House material despite RS discussion[103]. The user also continually engages in personal attack on those attempting to contribute to the article.

--

The above are just a few instances illustrative of the kind of the disruption the user engages in. The arguments the user presents on talk are often of a disruptive nature as well, and often invovles personal attacks on those contributing to the article.

PCPP also repeatedly changes the words from sources to weaken or distort the claims they make, the case often being the latter - distortion of the perspective of the source. These edits he labels: "clarifying", "per WP:NPOV", etc.[104],[105],[106]. In all these cases, the sources said those precise words as were in the article. He provides no other explanation for the changes he makes to them.

PCPP also rarely, if ever, adds any research to the articles. He focuses pulling apart these articles and simultaneously discrediting the contributions of others. This behaviour of his has gone on for a long time and above are but recent instances. I request admins to kindly review PCPP's contribution history. In it is apparent a clear pattern of removal of material critical of the CCP from articles through out wikipedia.

In addition, I would also like to draw attention to a systematic blanking of critical content and images on articles related to the CPP and its human rights violations which, I notice, has been happening on articles throughout wikipedia. Academic and news sources state that the Chinese Communist Party employs an army, hundreds of thousands strong, targeting Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia, Twitter and youtube[107]. My intent is not to imply that editors involved in such removal of material are all directly related to the CCP, but, to point out that the presence of research and reports, which uncover such activism by CCP’s propaganda departments, makes the issue deserving of further attention of the Wikipedia Community. I humbly request a careful analysis of the issue be done, before any judgment is made on the merits of this concern I raise, and if evidence is found of such activity, the necessary steps be taken to counter it. A lot of evidence exists in Falun Gong related pages themselves. For instance, the Persecution of Falun Gong article has had almost all information regarding the persecution( sourced to Amnesty, HRW, UN CAT, Congressional Executive Reports, academic sources, etc.) , blanked from it. Blanking has been done to the point that in the lead of the article itself, it is made to seem as if this major international crisis is but a mere claim made by practitioners. I point out the issue here on talk[108] In the past, these articles have witnessed attack from self-declared propagandists such as User:Bobby_fletcher. Identified by David Kilgour, and David Matas, and articles such as the ones here: [109][ http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2436], as a major online activist for the CCP, “Bobbly Fletcher” engaged in presenting CCP propaganda on talk, de-tracking discussions, removal of content from the articles, etc. His presence on Wikipedia, and his disruptive activities were continually encouraged and supported by User:PCPP, who himself, as evidence above clearly demonstrates, has blanked vast amounts of info critical of the CCP from these articles.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [110] Warning by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk · contribs)
2. [111] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
3. [112] Warning by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs)
4. [113] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
5. [114] Warning by AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) # [<Diff>] Warning by [[User:<Username>|<Username>]] ([[User talk:<Username>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Username>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/<Username>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/<Username>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/<Username>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/<Username>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/<Username>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/<Username>|RfA]])

Since the user is obviously active on these pages with a political agenda of white washing the CCP, and since the behavior has continued for years, I believe a topic ban from articles related to the Chinese Communist Party is in order.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, in another recent instance of dishonest editing / "sneaky vandalism", the user removes a sentence completely under the edit summary "copyedit"(In the article: Media of the People's Republic of China) Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that almost all of the below claims by PCPP are distortions and lies, as may be verified. FOr instance #1 is not an acurate summary of the content he removed. #2. The source he mentions is an article by Kurlantzick, a China Expert. He plays on that some political website hosted the article. The rest are not even replies to the issues raised - but mere statements made for diverting attention from the real issues. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning PCPP

Statement by PCPP

I really don't see how the FLG sanctions can apply to any CCP-related article, as Dilip claimed. Dilip's personal attacks again Bobby Fletcher and rant about the PRC's "web spies" demonstrates exactly why I have difficulties working with him.

1)

I in fact shortened the paragraph to:

The name of the body draws from of its date of formation: June 10, 1999. According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, the 6-10 Offices maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) facilities, where Falun Gong practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."

I summarized the statement into proper English, which is perfectly acceptable within editing guidelines. When Dilip doesn't agree with with such changes, he reverts the entire article, along with everything else that goes along with it.

2-5)

Dilip himself added a large amount of questionable statements from a single unverified source from a political website [115], and completely destroyed the POV balance of the article. The only source I ended up removing was his; which is neither peer-reviewed or have any results on google scholar per WP:RS. I've rearranged most of the article in a more readable fasion, and restored and attributed several others.

5-6)

That was a content dispute between me and another editor. I've since discussed with the editor, [116] who agreed that my edits has merits.

7)

All I did was shuffle a couple of paragraphs around and removed one sentence that is not relevent to the article topic. I only edited that article once, and was immediatle reverted by asdfg in its entirity. [117]

8)

Asdfg removed a large amount of material regarding Maoism, including the template and two web sources[118]. I restored the sources and properly attributed them.

9)

And ignore the fact that I added a large amount of info regarding the thought reform movement. The source I removed was from 1969 and no longer up to date, and contradicted by the info I added. I even searched google scholar for asdfg's claims, and found nothing as it claimed.

10)

The terminology itself was highly disputed, the sources themselves didn't even come to an conclusion, and an AFD on the terminology didn't even come to a clear concensus [119]. I referred to the Chinese's government's official label of the campaign per WP:NAME

11)

The source is disputed on talk page [120] and reached the concensus that it is misattributed.

12)

I am within my right to question such sources per WP:RS, and within my right to remove sources that lacks peer review or citation and is used to push a single POV.

I find the current situation utterly ridiculous. No matter what I add, the FLG camp always find minor excuses over a couple of paragraphs or labels, and revert my edits entirely because of it. Dilip himself has a habit of disappearing for months, completely ignore the changes and concensus that has since ocurred, and revert back to his preferred version with little discussion. It's even more ludicrous that I have to document every change to single-purpose accounts that are used to promot Falun Gong.--PCPP (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning PCPP

Comment by Asdfg12345

PCPP focuses on picking apart the contributions of others, and watering down the parts that aren't too friendly to the Chinese Communist Party. His behaviour is consistently destructive, and it, along with the explicit and implicit support he receives for it, has seriously eroded my will to contribute to this project (among other things.) Recently he has refined his methods, too. Instead of outright blanking, he just blanks some parts and weakens others; instead of saying nothing, he says a few perfunctory words and discredits the other editors intentions; instead of doing zero research, he does a bit. He is a drag on contributing, and exerts a net negative influence. He only destroys the value of others' contributions, rather than bringing his own ideas and sources to the table and working together for how to incorporate the different viewpoints. He only says the viewpoint of this or that scholar (it would seem, actually, every scholar who has documented the crimes of the CCP) is POV and tries to delete it or weaken it, without any regard for NPOV, which calls for all significant views to be represented. He has recently deleted swathes of material from several articles, then writes misleading edit summaries and notes on the talk page. What's even more bizarre is how the editors calling for my downfall don't care when he does this stuff. It's a bit farcical. I have left maybe a dozen notes to PCPP saying how I would like to work with him, asking him to explain himself, asking him to bring sources to the table that support the POV he wants to see introduced. But he doesn't play ball and just rebukes it all, going right ahead with the deletions and whatnot. It's a very effective technique, to be honest. At the very least, it's dampened my usually boundless enthusiasm--at least enough to take a break from all this for a while. I'll be back, but hopefully he won't be around. (Note: if he changed his approach and started doing research, and discussed his changes nicely, I would love to work with him. He has robust opinions on these subjects that, if sources can be found to support them, need to be represented and explained. But his focus on destroying my work really gets to me. I asked him to just paste onto the talk page stuff he deletes from now on. Maybe that will help. Though his deletions of any mention of the word "indoctrination" or "struggle session" goes on.) --Asdfg12345 05:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight

The only relevant evidence is that which relates to the Falun Gong. The rest could be relevant to the user conduct Request for Comment, but shouldn't be listed here. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I second PhilKnight. Long-term behavious is better addressed through an User RfC. ANI is more appropriate for dealing with issues that require more immediate admin intervention. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfCU has not seen a lot of traffic, and it is mostly the usual suspects who have commented. I would urge uninvolved administrators to look into the allegations properly, and either clear PCPP's name or substantiate the allegations. --JN466 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I present here conduct, as recent as a few days back when the such behaviour of the user escalated. RfC has proved ineffective since there is a group of editors covering him up for and encouraging these edits. They win by democracy. This is precisely the cover that has allowed for such behavior of the user to carry on for long. I hope that admins would take a careful look at the case as many of the diffs I present are just a few days old, and constitute evidence of clearly disruptive behavior( for instance, the large-scale blanking in "Propaganda in the PRC" article) which calls for admin intervention. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Epeefleche

The nom raises some points here that deserve close examination (which I've not had time for at the moment), and if which accurate should likely be addressed in some manner, though I agree with Phil that the only relevant information is that which relates to the Falun Gong, which does not appear to be the focus of many of the above diffs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

Would be interesting to see if this guy's IP resolves to a Chinese government server. Jtrainor (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jtrainor, I have had concerns along the same lines, and the issue is certainly worth investigating. But having explored this subject a bit, I have a feeling the issue could be more complex than that. You may want to skip through these articles:[121][122], and this material ( a significant portion of which was also recently blanked by PCPP). Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Gladys J Cortez

All eleventeen-squazillion of these evidentiary bytes seem (to me, at least) to have a better home than AN/I--has anyone tried adding all this info (ALLLLL this info!) here?? I mean, if we're having an RFC, it seems silly to have evidence spread in multiple places like this...esp since some of it seems relevant to the stuff already being discussed there AND I don't see a view by Dilip rajeev anywhere over there. Might be a thought......(Plus this bundle-o-text makes my scroll-wheel sad.) GJC 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

PCPP's top mainspace edits: [123][124] 7 of the top 10 articles are Falun Gong-related, another 2 are related to the Communist Party of China. We have scrutinised pro-Falun Gong SPAs, we should do the same to SPAs on the other side. And if anyone has a spare afternoon, the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP needs outside input. Moderated discussions may be the way forward. JN466 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Users Lambert and Quiggin are two editors that work closely together off-Wikipedia as political activists seeking to shape environmental policy. Quiggin and Lambert have been identified and criticized as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question" them.[125] This observation is from a fellow Australian, the Publisher and Chief Editor[126] of an exceptionally reputable[127] top 25 Australian news outlet. Numerous criticisms[128][129][130] of the pair can be found, but the tragedy is that Lambert & Quiggin attack[131][132] and fight[133] but then exceed all bounds by editing derogatory information into their opponents BLP Wikipedia articles - here we see a concerted effort to record as fact, that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to fight malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking.[134] [135][136][137] The Bate campaign is ongoing and lasts years.[138][139][140]. Much of the Bates Attack Page is blogs derived from the "research" conducted by Lambert and Quiggin regurgitated by other blogs - and sourced in the BLP to non-notable blogs.

Other special targets for attack include, but are not limited to peer-reviewed[141] [142] and published scientist[143] Theodor Landscheidt who has his BLP edited as [144] and then a hatchet job[145][146] At other times the public feuds[147][148] are fought on the BLP's Wikipedia article by Lambert.[149][150][151][152] including using his personal attack blog as his entered supporting reference in his BLP attack.[153][154]. The number of articles is unknown in total but may number a dozen or more, but the pattern is the same, and equally egregious. On the blogs themselves, Wikipedia edits are often discussed in detail by Lambert, Quiggin and blog readers/contributors off-wiki.

There also exists a high correlation between the editor who introduced a number of these Lambert[155] refs and the public attacks Lambert apparently engaged in with another blogger named Watts. 212 mentions of Watts on his blog[156] with many occurring around June and July of 2009 - as were these edits here[157] for which the Ed. was twice warned on his talk page[158]. Note also this pointed peacocking within his first month here.[159] Many, if not most, of the IP edits to these articles geo-locate to the same area in Australia.

Lambert's blog is the notable focus of an academic paper written by the Chairmen of the Undergraduate Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland who uses the blog as an example of poor scholarship at Wikipedia.[160]. The paper is referenced here[161] and is cited by at least one Advanced Placement AP teacher[162] who links to the paper by stating, "One of the (many) reasons why I do not accept Wikipedia as a reference in any circumstance, and why you should not trust it for anything more than the most casual, entertainment-level browsing:" (note:The blogs previous name cited in the paper[163] is timlambert.org, which is still an active redirect to the same sections at "scienceblog".)

It can't be in the community's best interests to facilitate attack bloggers activism through biased editing at Wikipedia, whether it be BLP or regular articles. As a side note, and purely for transparency and without casting this light on them, other editors highly involved in these articles include YilloSlime, Plumbago and will c connolley among others. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This IP began editing Wikipedia 8 days ago, and appears to be static. The editor started editing with a full understanding of Wikipedia's ins and outs, leading to the possibility that this is a registered user who is editing while logged out. Given that severity of the charges levelled here, it seems wrong for them to come from an anonymous IP, especially one with such a suspicious provenance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It also contains numerous inadvertent errors, including reference to the "academic paper" that is simply a web essay. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I referred to it as an academic paper as it was signed as a department chair, it was referenced and it was cited by others. I did not refer to it as it was not, it was not peer reviewed, it was not published, etc... It is quite easily an academic paper. And yes, I have been here for eons - and I fully expect a major shoot-the-messenger push. But my concerns are well referenced and clear and I will not clutter the debate with massive tangents not germane to the behavior documented above in which two Wiki editors engage in extended off-wiki wars and then edit their opponents BLP's here. Crystal Clear, the behavior is either acceptable - or it's not. I can't make the decision for the community, only you can. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• This parses for me as "some people with opinions I don't like are editing Wikipedia. Some people whose opinions I do like have said how terrible that is. Ban them now!" Also John Quiggin appears to be a legitimate and respected academic. Something tells me that this is a better characterisation of this particular issue... Guy (Help!) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  I knew some of those people before they had beards. And blogs! --TS 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we're being trolled... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an unusual response to a civil and concise discussion supported by nearly 40 references.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think the complaint has a shred of validity (or that the original posting was "civil and concise"), but "trolling" is not an accurate description. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(out)Since you admit you've "been here for eons", I suggest you log in and use your account to make this complaint, and I urge that it not be acted on in any way until that happens. As a logged-in user, you have standing to make a complaint, and a honest-to-goodness IP without an account, you'd have standing, but as a user with an account who's admittedly editing as an IP, presumably to deliberately obscure his or her Wiki-identity, you have no standing, and your complaint should be totally ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IPs have no standing? I've never heard that before. Can you please cite a policy or guideline to support this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Read again, please. IPs have standing: registered users who log out to mask their identity don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks are not allowed to post on admin noticeboards. The IP should leave a comment under their real account, and it will be listened to. (An IP whose owner was here on Wikipedia for the first time would not be a sock, but they would be most unlikely to find their way to an admin noticeboard). EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. But is there a policy or guideline that says registered users who log out don't have standing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit in project space ("Wikipedia:" pages) or project talk space, including in any vote or dispute resolution...". Admin noticeboards are in project space. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user.99.142.1.101 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 99.142.1.101's claims are without merit. To pick just one example, he/she argues that I am using a sock puppet because another editor made edits to the Anthony Watts page and there are 212 references to "Watts" on my blog. But he/she's counting the phrase "Watts per square meter" as a reference to Anthony Watts, and I [pointed this out to him/her]. 99.142.1.101 is knowingly making false statements. The rest of 99.142.1.101's charges are not any better. --TimLambert (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply an attempt at misdirection and deflection of the specific and supported references found above. Of the 225 Watts mentions, only eleven[164] are as you state. And although you frequently refer to Anthony Watts by his last name only, we are still left with 97[165] of the 225[166] references undeniably to "Anthony Watts". That's about 10 mentions to 1 without sifting out the additional last name only attacks.99.142.1.101 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just because someone blogs about someone doesn't mean that they're editing the Wikipedia entries under a different name. Keep in mind that we tend not to take off-wiki activities all that seriously (for better or worse), and that a lot of the controversy in the "academic paper" by the Computer Science Professor is focused on some disputes over the tone at John Lott, who is known for his conclusion that more guns equal less crime based on remarkably flawed econometrics (see Goertzel's analysis). Sure, you can point out mistakes that these guys have been made, and they might have done some name-calling and false accusations, but that's par for the course in these parts. II | (t - c) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lott is an excellent example. Lambert has engaged in a running battle with Lott on his blog[167] and elsewhere [168][169] [170] - including direct interaction with Lott outside of Wikipedia .. and here he writes his BLP? Roughly 10% of all Lott's BLP edits are from Lambert. This is something Wikipedia reportably finds unacceptable - spending your time focused on destroying someone, and then in your hobby hours write their biography? _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think there's a sockpuppet case to be made, gather the diffs and open a case at WP:SPI. If you think some egregiously BLP violating edits are being made, you can list them. Otherwise, I think you should agree to drop this. It's about content and tone in certain articles, and there are no evident policy violations. Quiggin and Lambert's editing look fine. II | (t - c) 04:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of 'content and tone'. It's a question about the acceptability of engaging in years long campaigns to disparage individuals and their character on ones own blog and multiple third party sites ... and then writing the BLP biography's of the subjects one is engaged in a protracted war with. This is behavior which has been widely condemned by numerous reputable and neutral people on three continents - and which specifically names Lambert & Quiggin, and which not incidentally has been harshly critical of Wikipedia by name in association with Lambert & Quiggin. It's not acceptable editing. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the discussion, and have a few thngs to say, but don't intend to respond until talk comes out from under the sock. If that doesn't happen, I guess we'll have to go to WP:SPI. In the meantime, I'd urge others not to feed the puppet. JQ (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a registered user. My criticism of your and your partner's editing is supported by nearly 50 diff's. Your accusation is a baseless attack. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, given your obvious knowledge of Wikipedia, you could list some of the other IPs under which you have edited. Meanwhile, I'll observe that your "neutral and reputable" sources appear to include: John Lott's current employer; Graham Young, an activist in the main conservative party here in Queensland (just to confuse matters, it's called the Liberal Party); and a high school teacher whose main interest is as a fan of Confederate history [171]. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but none of these are likely to be neutral sources.JQ (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument, that all your enemies are horrible scummy people, is of course the point. You, and your partner Tim Lambert have engaged in a nearly decade long battle[172]now with some of your chosen targets in a venomous assault commented on by multiple uninvolved, and yes reputable[173] sources on three continents.

It is unacceptable to write the BLP's of your enemies, and worse yet - it's not just one edit but most often near complete control through dozens of edits and reversions over the course of years in articles. And the introduced bias and derogatory opinion is staggering as in this textbook example that states that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to fight malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking.[174] That's a delusional conspiracy theory which never should have entered a BLP at the hands of an attack blogger using Wikipedia to further his vendetta..99.142.1.101 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, this generic climate change griefing is going nowhere. Time to close, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

These BLP's look like they revolve around tobacco, climate change is not involved here, nor is tobacco for that matter. This has to do with Lambert's & Quiggin's edits in pursuit of an agenda, specifically in regards to BLP's. Here[175] you'll find Quiggin extolling on the virtues of explicitly using Wikipedia to write the BLP's of enemies. Quiggin states, "Winning the debate will require scientists to learn new and unfamiliar ways of communicating" "Now, anyone who performs a basic check can discover, with little effort, the full history of his efforts as tobacco lobbyist and hired gun for polluting industries" "where scientists have mounted a concerted response to their intellectual enemies", he goes on to state, 'they have won'. ... _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are bringing external battles to Wikipedia. I see nothing actionable in the contributions of the two editors about whom you are complaining, and this is the wrong venue anyway. You've been told the right venue. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that directed at Lambert & Quiggin for bringing their external battles here, and encouraging others to do so - or at me for coming to AN/I and pointing out the Lambert & Quiggin abuse of Wikipedia? _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Without endoring the claims of Mr. 99.142.1.101 in complete detail, I think it worth noting that he has raised what is clearly a real issue - it only takes a very brief look at the diffs he has posted to see that Quiggin absolutely should be banned from editing the biography of Roger Bate, at a minimum, and probably topic-banned from anything having to do with tobacco. I am disturbed to see the resistance here to what is clearly a valid complaint (although it may very well be, in some details, something that we find to be mistaken in at least some particulars). JzG, I know you care deeply about BLP issues, so I encourage you to take a second look at some of these diffs. People who are willing to cite blog posts in ad hominem attacks really need to be shown the door. I have only looked at the edits by Quiggen to Bate's biography, but I have seen enough there alone to suggest that those who care about BLP warriors engaging in hatchet job attacks should take a much closer look at these concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, I thought I was the only one. Endorse topic ban of Quiggin. I'm disappointed in the response this user received from others. Auntie E. (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I started out looking at Lambert, got sucked into surfing around the external activism he's involved in (some articles were interesting to me) and did not spend time on Quiggin. Lambert's edits seemed OK to me. I don't mind looking at Quiggin's. The explanation for Aunt E is simple: anons coming into long-standing disputed areas with complaints about one side or other replete with diffs and appeals to policy always have a certain smell of stale hosiery to them. There's not much we can do about that other than keep encouraging people to register accounts, which makes it vastly easier to interact with them and understand where they are coming from. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This all looks positive now. My main concern is that there is always a very human temptation to carelessly "consider the source" and this can be problematic when the source has a valid point. John Quiggin, below, makes it very clear that he was indeed a POV pushing editor working to include negative information in the form of deliberate ad hominem argumentation. (I.E. an attack on the person's funding rather than an assessment of the validity of the science... a common technique in politicized scientific debate) He has, thankfully, decided to voluntarily stop doing this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit overbroad. An assessment of the "validity of the science" cannot be totally independent of an assessment of funding conflicts of interest. That's why major scientific and medical journal demands that authors disclose such relationships in addition to submitting their work to scientific review. For anyone interested in the subject, this article from JAMA is a useful starting point. I am absolutely against using a biographical article to make a political or ideological point. I'm comfortable that my editing and administrative record speaks to the fact that I take WP:BLP very seriously. Blogs don't belong in BLPs. However: if I had an independent, reliable, BLP-appropriate source commenting on a researcher's funding, I wouldn't feel any compunction about using it. Does that make me a "POV pushing editor" committed to "deliberate ad hominem argumentation" and "politicized debate"? MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Combatants and contended articles

User John Quiggin

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

Last 500 mainspace contributions takes us back to July 2009, so nothing before that will be actionable I think.

• Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edits by Quiggin to this article seem OK to me at first glance. A cite to a blog is used to support a quote of Lindzen's views, and Lindzen wrote the blog post. I'm not seeing anything actionable here.
• Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - two edits by Quiggin in last 500 mainspace edits, [176] and [177] - WP:COI perhaps but all he did was restore the name of a co-author when someone removed it, which might be considered fixing uncontroversial errors of fact. The edits about which the IP is complaining include this: [178]. That is certainly a bad edit on two levels, it cites a blog and it is an edit to an article on someone with whom (we are told) the editor is in external conflict.

• This is a complete set of Quiggin's edits to Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]
• Quiggin and Bate are both economists. Quiggin is professionally qualified to comment on the work of Bate and might be expected to do so in the course of his professional life. Academics are not, as we know, always quick to grasp the different mores that exust at Wikipedia.
• That Bate has accepted money from the tobacco and drugs industries is not, I think, seriously disputed. It is verifiably the case that bate has been criticised for his work over generic drugs, rightly or wrongly. He's also linked with Richard Tren ([193]), they work together as activists for DDT use. In other words he's a controversial figure whose biography needs watching.
• The origin of this particular dispute is probably revealed in this spirited defence by Quiggin of Rachel Carson, accused by the DDT advocates of "costing millions of lives", in a tone eerily reminiscent of the language used by Matthias Rath to describe the Treatment Action Campaign.

• There is only one comment, as far as I can tell, in the history of user talk:John Quiggin and its archives, that mentions Roger Bate, it's from November 2007 and is still on the current version.

Summary in respect of John Quiggin

1. User:John Quiggin is John Quiggin, an Australian economist and professor at the University of Queensland.
2. John Quiggin's external activism may give rise to a conflict of interest in respect of some subjects. No attempt appears to have been made to alert him to this.
3. John Quiggin's edits include linking questionable sources, e.g. [194]. The blogger is Eli Rabett (probably user:Eli Rabett on Wikipedia), a pseudonym stated to be used by another professor. This is not a slam-dunk "no blogs" but is still an inappropriate source for the information.
4. This [195] in June last year adds critical material again sourced from blogs though the overall tone of the edit seems balanced, giving both sides of the story.
5. The issue is complicated by the real-world collaboration between Quiggin and Lambert. My recommendation would be that Quiggin should be reminded of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:COI and cautioned not to cite his own work or that of those with whom he is personally connected or to directly edit the articles of those with whom he or his collaborators have disputes, but instead to propose such edits on the relevant Talk page.

User TimLambert

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

Fewer than 500 mianspace edits.

• Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no edits to the article
• Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no edits to the article

Summary in respect of TimLambert

99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Combative from first arrival, clearly not a new user (note consistent use of edit summaries on early edits). In order to be taken more seriously this user should register an account, or reveal the account or previous IPs under which they have edited, because the behaviour pattern is indicative of activism and that's likely to result in admins giving lower weight to complaints.

• [196], [197], [198] and [199] appear to be the catalysts for these reports. Given the very limited prior history of the IP this strongly suggests an external agenda against Tim Lambert specifically. The edit removes Lambert's name because he's an "unreliable source" ignoring the fact that Lambert is cited as co-author. The edit, reverted and repeated three times, is tendentious.

No, the name was removed because the linked article byline and sidebar explicitly do not name him as an author. The "unreliable source" was a wiki editor claiming that the RS website was wrong and testifying that Lambert was the co-author. The suggestion was that the ref should be corrected at the source and not by WP:OR from wiki editors.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's stated by Quiggin to be a co-author. You know better? Incidentally, I found one of your previous IPs, you could save me some time and effort by linking the others and / or any accounts you've used. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggins has no standing to make that claim here, editors do not correct verifiable references because "they know better". If Quiggins feels that the verifiable reference from the reliable source is in error - then correcting the source is the correct action, we do not WP:OR. There are no provisions to allow for such a thing at Wikipedia. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• See also [200], 99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), same ISP as 99.142.1.101.
• The article Africa Fighting Malaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen tendentious editing and sockpuppetry, e.g. Greenerapples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tracking back, 99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same individual.

First, I am not, nor have I ever heard of, Greenapples. Second, what exactly is it that you use to unequivocally state that I am this editor?99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary in respect of 99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 is advised to create an account to ease continuity of interaction. 99.142.1.101 is also advised that posting to admin noticeboards and user talk:Jimbo Wales should be seen as an escalation path and not as the first stage in dispute resolution.

---

This is a work in progress, feel free to add to it but be prepared for edit conflicts over the next half hour or so. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick research suggests the following are relevant:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Join or be banned?
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

There is a long history of disruption and blocks. This is not his/her first appeal to Jimbo, either. Prolog (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised that last AN/I report ([201]). The IP editor was on a three-month block that expired in late February 2010, when he resumed editing from other IPs. I am not at all impressed to see that he has jumped straight back into the same pattern of behaviour that got him blocked before, within little more than a few days of the block expiring. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from JQ

The Roger Bate issue raises some general problems regarding BLP on which I'd be happy to take guidance. I don't have any personal knowledge of or enmity for Bate, or any conflict with him that isn't evident from my edits to Wikipedia. My dispute with Bate is entirely summed up by the information I added to his bio and published elsewhere; namely, that he has published misinformation on a variety of topics, while taking unacknowledged funding from the tobacco industry and others. The same is true for lots of published information on any issue even tangentially related to tobacco, though it's probably worst for Passive_smoking#Controversy_over_harm. The passive smoking article has been subject to repeated attempts to insert talking points, from seemingly independent and authoritative sources, which invariable turn out to have been generated by the tobacco industry. One response is to include relevant information in articles on these sources, such as those on Bate and Gio Batta Gori (I created this article as a result of edits of Passive smoking citing Gori's work, but haven't edited it for several years, and it doesn't seem that subsequent editors have found my contributions problematic).

The general problem I see is that, if pointing out someone's status as a lobbyist or consultant is seen as evidence that you are an enemy and therefore disqualified from editing a BLP, then it seems that such information is automatically excluded from Wikipedia.

I think it's important that Wikipedia should include such information where it's verifiable. I have taken the view in the past that it's OK both to publish this information in appropriate outlets and to cite it in Wikipedia. However, I can see that this may be problematic and would be happy, in future, to point to my external work on talk pages, and invite other editors to include it if they see fit.

A final observation: A lot of this discussion is only possible because Tim Lambert and I edit Wikipedia, blog and publish under our own names. There is a difficulty with rules about external conflicts that can't, in practice, be applied except to the minority of editors who do this.JQ (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reality check: Quiggin's never cited himself on WP, at least far as I can tell. With regard to the article by Quiggin and Lambert being used as a source in Roger Bate: I was the one who first added it.[202] I don't see why the fact that John Quiggin has written about Roger Bate in real life should preclude him from working on the article about him. As some who's worked a lot on the Bate article, I can tell that there's not a ton written about the guy. You can find plenty of stuff by him, and plenty of passing mentions of him in newspaper articles, etc, not a whole lot of direct, detailed, biographical coverage of the man. Quiggin is one of a handful of people who's bothered to research the man and publish that research--we should be welcoming his expertise. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That there is "not a ton written about him" and that "Quiggin is one of a handful of people who's bothered to research the man and publish that research" raises the question of why Quiggin is researching a man in order to create a record with which to create a BLP, one of exceptional negativity with blogs as supporting ref's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that real-life interaction should not preclude Wikipedia editing. I have a blog, I sometimes write about issues that I edit about, and if there's a problem with that, it is news to me. II | (t - c) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RHB100

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive on Talk:Gravitational potential over a period of several weeks. He has been extremely rude towards User:Sławomir Biały: [203] [204] [205] [206]. I posted to WP:WQA [207] and informed RHB100 at 05:54, 13 March 2010 [208]. Rather than respond peaceably, he continued to insult other users: [209] [210] [211] [212] [213]. Sławomir Biały is a well-regarded WikiProject Mathematics regular, and his calm replies can be viewed in full at Talk:Gravitational potential.

Additionally, RHB100 ignores consensus and tries to force his text onto the page. Here are his attempts to get his preferred description of the potential and its expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials on the page: [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219]. While there are some structural differences, the text is mostly the same between these; it ignores the criticisms and corrections made by other users, both in other revisions of the article and on the talk page.

I cannot see RHB100's behavior changing in the near future. Therefore I ask that he be blocked. Ozob (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I informed RHB100 of this discussion [220] but he has continued to post offensive comments [221]. Ozob (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:RHB100

I would like to propose a sanction upon RHB100:

Findings

• (a) RHB100 has engaging in talk page incivlity on Talk:Gravitational potential, making personal attacks and inflammatory remarks.
• (b) RHB100 has referred to their own credentials.
• (e) In March 2010, a WQA report was filed against RHB100 in hopes of a peaceful resolution.
• (d) Despite the WQA report, RHB100 has continued the incivility.

Remedy

• (a) RHB100 (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week.
• (b) After the expiration of the block, RHB100 will be placed on civility parole for a period of one month.

Continuing incivility after a WQA report suggests that action is needed. I think this is sufficient (but I hope I'm not being too harsh). —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't suppose there is anything in policy to prevent it, but it seems rather odd to me that an editor who has just come off a six-month ban and is on an additional six-month probationary period is proposing sanctions on another user. Shouldn't that six-month probation be used to re-establish your bona fides as an editor by contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than involving yourself in administrative matters? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been meaning to suggest to Mythdon that they moderate their time spent at these noticeboards. –xeno^talk 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am an involved party to this incident.) What purpose would a one week block serve? RHB100's behavior is pretty far outside of what should be tolerated by the community under any circumstances, and an indefinite block is certainly warranted. The editor has not shown any sign of a willingness to abide by the rules that bind our community (or indeed those that would be considered remotely acceptable in any community of individuals). And until he shows some signs of contrition, there is absolutely no reason that he should be allowed to continue editing at this project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors can and do change their behaviour. Usually short block are given to give a person time to change and improve. If this does not occur than longer blocks may follow.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and would not be averse to an unblock once he acknowledges that there are rules, that he was far outside the rules during his interactions with me, and agrees to follow them in the future. I believe that he has already been given a chance to do this (over the course of several weeks of discussion at Talk:Gravitational potential, through his invitation to participate in the discussion at WQA), and has continued to flout them. The kind of probationary measures that were suggested above would require the contributor to acknowledge the rules, to demonstrate a willingness to abide by them, and to want to change his behavior. Nothing stops him from agreeing to these things and then requesting an unblock, but this agreement is clearly a necessary condition for allowing the editor to continue to contribute to the project. (Indeed, all of us have implicitly agreed to abide by these rules.) But a fairly infrequent contributor such as this will likely not even feel a one week block, and so this would literally serve no purpose. Hence my question: why block at all if for such a short time? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, something needs to be done, because the behaviour at the talk page in question is simply unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What they don't tell you: RHB100 was the original author of the section in question

They tell you that I have exercised my right to change to change a poorly written section. But they don't tell you that I did the original research and the original writing of the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials. After I did the original research, Sławomir Biały completely replaced my well written article with a poorly written article. I have attempted to get back to my original article, but Sławomir Biały has been very disruptive by continuously replacing my original work. He has removed my vector diagram which greatly added to the clarity of the article. I am a licensed professional engineer with advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. It appears that Sławomir Biały does not even have an engineering degree and his poor writing indicates that he is not qualified to rewrite my original work. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I will look further to see if there are any that I have missed. I regret having made offensive comments. I was incensed over the fact that all my hard work and research had been destroyed.

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He has shown no respect for me. He destroyed my work without any form of consultation with me. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some slight cosmetic changes had been made to earlier posts, but this post that you just made (accusing me of deliberate vandalism) is clearly not in the spirit of an amicable resolution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, RHB100 changed his posts in these diffs: [222] [223] [224] [225].

He has also reverted the article once again to his preferred version, ignoring consensus on the talk page: [226]. Together with two diffs that I already referenced above, [227] and [228], he is a little shy of a WP:3RR violation, as these edits happened over a 44 hour period. Ozob (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk page. This statement that there is a consensus on the talk page is completely false. They have again reverted away form the article as it was originally written and researched to a non-consensus poorly written version. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate board for 3rr. Gerardw (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to report him there if he violates it. But I hope that someone here blocks him before that happens. Ozob (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Essjayy92

• Essjayy92 (talk · contribs)

I am finding this username to be an impersonation of retired user Essjay (talk · contribs). Can somebody please address this, or if you think differently, please explain why? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This account was created very recently. The one edit it has made does not indicate anything in particular. Many people have the initials "SJ" and trying to create the account they would like to have find it already allocated. In the absence of apparent ulterior motive, I find it difficult to get excited about this. Wait and see, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: This one edit, although unconstructive, and for which a warning has been issued, would be unlikely to be made by Essjay, since I don't remember him ever being a vandal. Paranoia might be all very well, but there is also WP:BITE. If this account turns out to be a vandal, kick it into touch, but please don't ASS-YOU-ME before there is cogent evidence. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, usernames are hardly unique on the internet, especially short ones. Just googling my username brings up lots of different usages by lots of different people for example. Nothing to suggest the user is impersonating anyone here. --Taelus (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh, I didn't see this. I reported this username to WP:UAA and it has since been blocked by Nihonjoe as a username violation. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but given the extreme notoriety of Essjay, I thought it would be best to proceed this way. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to write what Rodhullandemu did, only not as well, but IT at my job seems to made it impossible for me to save my edits. Taelus makes valid points as well. I think it is unfortunate or maybe not that a block was made on this basis. Based on the one edit I saw before Rod-'s post, I'm not sure it was not inevitable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs)
• DarkFalls (talk · contribs) Adding this one because he's had more involvement than I. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the past few hours, there has been issues between the above editors, regarding incivility and warnings.

Daedalus969 has been expressing concern about Mbz1's personal attacks [229] (only one found) , in which Daedalus969 warns against [230] [231], and then reports to AIV. Mbz1 has been claiming that these warnings are harassment [232] [233], in which Daedalus969 denies as harassment [234] [235] [236]. Mbz1 has responded incivily to these warnings [237] [238], and has requested Daedalus969 to not post on their talk page [239] [240].

This controversy has been stirring on the talk page of Daedalus969's. Baseball Bugs is backing Daedalus969 up on the issue [241]. DarkFalls (talk · contribs) has expressed concern about Daedalus969's warnings that they are baiting Mbz1. Since then, Daedalus969 has been accusing DarkFalls of personal attacks and not taking their own advice.

While not necessarily involved, I have commented on the issue on Daedalus969's talk page.

I am bringing this to the attention of the community for formal review. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I would like to correct a small mistake Mythdon has made. Daedalus969 posted warnings at my talk page not two times, but 11 [242];[243];[244];[245];[246];[247][248] [249] [250] [251] [252], and then the user reported me reports to Vandalism noticeboard.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a complete falsehood. I warned you exactly four times for personal attacks, and notified you about what harassment was, replied to your messages on my talk page(the other 6 times).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• +cmt(calling other human beings 'its')
• It will always be it
• even a bigger idiot than I thought it was
• "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."Albert Einstein:
• →To be exact: new section) Here, they say, and I quote, BTW I agree it was a little bit premature to call you an "idiot", when I did. I should have done done it later, after you reported incivility to to vandalism board
• +cmt Mythdon, you did not understand. Actually my emotions were very positive after I saw that incivility was reported to vandalism board. As a matter of fact, when I saw it, I started laughing, and I still am. I'm even ready to forgive the harassment I was the subject to after the user left 11 warnings at my talk page in few hours. At least in the end the user made me to laugh, and to realize I was right all the time.

Those diffs stand on their own. A user shouldn't be let off with a wrist slap for this, as this user has been. I know that I am at fault as well. Next time after a user refuses to stop personally attacking me, instead of trying to warn or template them, I'll screw it and go straight to an admin. I am not saying that the circumstances excuse what I have done, but I couldn't find any active admins to report this to. I tried AIV, as that is where I have reported PAs in the past. I would like to make a request for a PA reporting project page, like AIV, but for PAs, since AIV isn't the place, as I have now been told. It would be nice, that if such a page were created, it would be added to twinkle as well. I tried warning this user against PAs, and I guess I lost my nerve, although I tried my best to remain civil. Instead of trying to warn this user in the first place, I should have just abandoned the endeavor. It was a waste of time, and now my clock is reset. I'm not posting anything more to their page now, and in the future, in case it wasn't obvious by my ceasing of edits to their page.

The above was actually a pending ANI thread as well, but seeing this one when I clicked preview to prepare for the ani notices, I saw Myth's alert on my talk page.

Although Myth only found 1 PA, I list several above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Partly related break: To put it nicely, I am not my normal temperature right now. Don't expect me to respond, I am taking a short wikibreak of some amount of hours to cool down.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement from Factsontheground

Full disclosure: I have been involved in several disputes with Mbz1 about various issues of content and policy. However, I have always tried my best to be civil and polite with her despite the fact that Mbz1 has never treated me with anything other than contempt.

Why? Because I complained on ANI about her friend Gilabrand spamming racial hate material into an article I wrote. Incredibly, she defended Gilabrand's actions in that ANI thread. I am amazed at how many personal attacks on me she has gotten away with since. ([253], [254], [255], [256])

She has recently taken to calling me it ([257], [258], [259]), a slur that she has not apologized for or given any indication that she is going to stop ("it will always be it"). (I did report her for sockpuppeting, but with good reason. And I was civil about it).

Her attacks on me have managed to drive me away from editing at least one article and she is utterly remorseless and unstoppable. But on the other hand, the admins don't seem to care at all, so I guess I can't really blame her for continuing behaviour she isn't being punished for. The "it" thing is really the last straw for me. If people can treat me like an animal on Wikipedia what's the point of hanging around? Factsontheground (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So...

Bitter goodness.

Tempers flared. Users did not act with good faith toward each other. There was hostility. How about everyone backs down and have a nice cup of tea?

There should never be an environment on Wikipedia (fantasy Wikipedia) where editors are pressured by other editors either in a positive or negative way. The purpose of a collaborative environment is self expression and dealing with other individuals to work together. Mbz1 should not be "ganged up on", as this is perceived. At the same time, Daedalus et al need to remember that "doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist" to a good faith editor is contrary to spirit and policy. Doesn't deserve a slap on the wrist applies to vandalism and other non-good faith contributors.

Let's all walk away from this and remember that words carry more weight when you can't see a person, and drama is stupid. Keegan (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Mbz1, act cordially, including calling users "it" to be passive-aggresively insulting. I've got my eye on you. Keegan (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So, Keegan, it's okay for me to be continually insulted to the point that I'm literally driven off pages, all for having the temerity to complain about hate speech? Why do you think I don't deserve to be treated like a human being? This isn't new. It's been going on for days now.

And what makes you think that Mbz1 is being "ganged up on"? Factsontheground (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not okay. and I put that in quotation marks for a reason, I didn't say that that is how I feel about the situation. If Mbz1 feels that they are being hassled in a coordinated attempt, real or not, that's going to be the reaction even if it was predicated by misbehavior. This is not an excuse for being hostile, threatening, and uncivil.

Basically, Mbz1 is out of line. That's pretty cut and dry. The opportunity here, since it has come to this noticeboard, is for everyone to walk away and keep an eye on Mbz1's behavior towards you and others in the current and future. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If this has stopped with the thread, then we have this part of the issue resolved. Your grievances are real, and legitimate, and Mbz1 must take them into account in future interaction with other users. Should Mbz1 flinch an iota in dealing with other editors after this notice without civil discourse, we will have a different issue. Factsontheground, I do hear your concerns and will watch. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of "watching" Mbz1 when she has vowed to continue calling me "it", hasn't admitted any wrongdoing, refuses to apologize and still proclaims to be the aggrieved party?

The thing is that I could come up with lots of differences to explain why I used "it". SPI request was the last drop only.I will not take it back. [260]

You're not even going to give her an official warning, which is just unbelievable.

I'm no saint, but I try to be civil and I admit when I make mistakes. For example, I apologized to Gilisa after telling him to "Learn English".

Mbz1 is blatantly flouting the rules and getting away with it, as always. Factsontheground (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't be the end of this matter. This week, Mbz1 has gone out of her way to be as offensive as possible to as many editors as possible. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), for instance.) The abuse heaped on Factsontheground just happened to be the most recent, and most egregious, example.

Before Mbz1 accuses me of harassment, I'll acknowledge that we disagree with one another about a lot of issues. Nevertheless, I have always tried to be civil toward her. In return, I get comments like "as always you're missing the point" (with a lovely edit summary to boot). Also, Mbz1 has started referring to User:Drork in her edit summaries, as in "I'm starting to understand what Drork meant" and "Drork was right!" Since DrorK made many personal attacks against me, I asked Mbz1 to stop insulting me in her edit summaries, so (of course) she used it as her edit summary for her three replies to my message.[261][262][263]

I hope somebody will take these issues seriously. Mbz1 needs something stronger than a cup of tea. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah Malik. "Drork is right" has nothing to do with incivility. Just between the two of us I'm disclosing that I used this edit summary to communicate with Mossad. Of course now, when I disclosed it to you, I will use it no longer. I will have to come with something different that only me and Mossad would understand. BTW what did you mean under "Mbz1 needs something stronger than a cup of tea"? Did you mean I need a cup of coffee :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Keegan, you are right. Somebody should keep an eye on me. Thank you for your warning. I'll try to behave.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone that primarily uses sarcasm, satire, and tongue in cheek references, I would like to clarify if you are being serious or not, because I'm not sure. Mbz1, this is important. Keegan (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, Keegan, but to me, the above was an obvious insult directed at Factsontheground. If you read through several of Fact's diffs, in one of them Mb calls Fact a conspiracy theorist. Mossad, as linked, is an intelligence agency, and as conspiracy theorists or the people who are labeled that sometimes think that the CIA or other intelligence agencies are hiding secrets from the citizens/civilians or wire-tapping them.

Another reason why I do not believe this is sarcasm is because this user has a history of incivility. It shouldn't be allowed to continue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Daedalus969, that was definitely a snipe meant for me. Mzb1 has continually accused me of being a conspiracy theorist for writing an article she didn't like and her "Mossad" snark is a reference to this. She refuses to stop taunting me even during an ANI about her behavior but the admins don't even give her a warning... so frustrating. Factsontheground (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And I suspect you see no irony in someone who sees normal collaboration between like-minded editors as "good reason" to conduct a sockpuppet fishing expedition then complaining about being described as a conspiracy theorist. *Sigh* -- Avenue (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

People sockpuppet on wikipedia, there's no question about that. When it comes up that someone who has a history of personally attacking others and, in their view an IP that comes out of nowhere to do the same thing, it isn't that far off from a good reason. Maybe you should take a second look at your comment and retract the personal attack. The Theorist comment came before any SPI, so your comment is rather off.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with NPA before accusing people of attacking you. Grow a thicker skin, Avenue's criticism is not a personal attack. —Dark 05:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Edit warring in Kochi article

The user:Gantlet is again edit warring with the article Kochi. He is reverting the article to an older version. Please block him again. He is even having some sock usernames as well. Also, please dont include me also in the same category. I was just trying to prevent him from his wierd revisions. Please see the history here: [264] Thank you, --Dewatchdog (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have warned both users here. Both have a history of blocks for the same article and I could have blocked, but am hoping for some improvement. I will block on the next revert, however, no objection to someone else handling this differently. —SpacemanSpiff 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GodBlessOurTroops

Resolved

 – blocked

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

Keeps removing comments from Talk:Virgin Killer, and has been reverted several times. He responds to warnings by implying that he's combating child porn. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:55, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That picture is child porn. Why do you guys think it is not child porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That question has been discussed at File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg/Archive 1 and File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg/Archive 2, which you may wish to read. Consensus was (and I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer agreed) that the image is not illegal to display. Prodego ^talk 06:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You do support child porn then? You don;t need lawyers to know what is against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please retract the personal attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't what we think, it's a simple fact. By any legal standard, it is not child porn.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place to debate this. If you have an objection to the image, state your rationale for removing it beyond your mere assertion that it's child porn. But your arguments will likely fall on deaf ears if you don't present anything that hasn't been discussed before. Study the Talk:Virgin Killer archives first as suggested above. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Feds are looking into it, according to World Net Daily, as well as plenty of adult pornography, since it all could be viewed by minors" Is that new info to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

just drop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Next time I got to court for something, I will tell the judge, "Just drop it!" And sees what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is in court. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The World Net Daily article is actually 2 years old I believe. Since then, the FBI has clearly not requested that the image be taken down. WND doesn't like Wikipedia very much for some reason (I forget why...), which may be the reason they 'reported' the image. The prevailing legal opinion seems to be that it isn't illegal to display the image, and the discussion amongst editors I linked above supports including the image. That's why it is included. Prodego ^talk 06:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You should also know that wikipedia is not censored in general. If the images offend you, you can simply chose not to view them (see Help:Options to not see an image)

Isn't the WND a right wing Christian version of the Weekly World News? Bevinbell 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes the National Inquirer look like a reliable source by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like GodBlessOurTroops is now indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a troll who's had a number of guises over time. Typically this type of troll will latch onto something, such as a sentence in an article that he's trying to insert (or delete) and will focus on that one thing, sometimes for years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Topic Ban on users Tom Reedy and Nishidani

Users user:Tom Reedy and user:Nishidani are teaming to disrupt the article Shakespeare authorship question, violating numerous policies and guidelines, including wp:WAR, wp:hound, borderline wp:LEGAL, endless wp:LAWYER, and unrelenting wp:NPA, including constant ad hominem attacks. They are engaging in excessive deletions of material they do not personally agree with, adding huge amounts of material that represents their personal POV, and bully and attack every editor who object to their actions.

The Shakespeare Authorship Question is an “alternate view” article. [[265]] Tom Reedy and Nishidani, who say they represent “mainstream scholars”, regularly and viciously abuse other editors, primarily: myself, user:BenJonson and user:Schoenbaum, who contribute information about the minority view. Unfortunately, as I contribute to the article most often, I get the brunt of their abuse.

I admit fully that my own actions have not been without fault, as their constant bullying and personal attacks have caused me sever anxiety and I may have ended up reverting their edits more than I should have. I have since cooled down and allowed their deletions and reverts to stand, or offering multiple rewrites to meet their constant and never-ending objections.

Recent escalation of their behavior has caused me to come to this forum for relief. I strongly believe that they should be banned from editing on this and related topics as they have already expanded the article from 60K to over 95K by adding material that only agrees with their own POV - while deleting material that does not – and they refuse to split the article until they are “done” with it, which they say will take several years. Editors are bullied off the page, and potential editors simply don't want to deal with the them. The situation is now unbearable.

I apologize for the length of this post. I actually cut this report down, but their violations are so great in number, and involve so many policies, I felt it was important to be thorough. I had already filed a wikiquette report on Tom Reedy (see below), but his NPA violations have actually increased since that time. I have not filed a previous report on Nishidani and was going to start with wikiquette until this arbcom finding [[266]] and this history [[267]] came to my attention. Seeing as he was already blocked for many of the same policy violations, I feel that he knows exactly what he is doing. Both Tom Reedy and Nishidani have been talked to on the article talk page, at length, by all there involved editors and numerous warnings have been left as well. Due to the endless discussions and escalating attacks on the article talk page, I saw no point in repeating those discussions on their user talk page.

My own history is not stellar in regards to reverting, including 2 old blocks due to reverting what turned out to be a Puppet Master with dozens of puppets who was ultimately banned. But I have pulled back from those kinds of battles and, as stated above, have allowed the great majority of mass reverts and deletions of material by Tom and Nishidani to stand, much as it sickens me to do so. I have not engaged in personal attacks, hounding or the like, and find that kind of behavior repulsive.

Administrator EdJohnston, to his credit, attempted to intervene and even proposed a 1RR rule applicable to all editors that I have since followed. While it was never a formal ‘policy’, it was agreed to by Tom Reedy as well. Unfortunately, the agreement has been broken numerous times by Tom, and Nishidani - who is even more abusive - seems to revert at will. EdJohnston did try to help and offered some sage advice, such as posting a peer review request, which I did [[268]], but I fear he has since given up (who can blame him). In any case, this probably needs a fresh set of eyes anyway.

The following represents a partial list of edits (only covering the few weeks):

Comments on user:Tom Reedy

Wikiquette alert: [[269]]

Diffs from first report:

• [[270]], *[[271]], and *[[272]].

• [[273]] "That confusion seems to be endemic with anti-Strats, which cause me to think that there's some kind of common cognitive connection that predisposes them to becoming anti-Stratfordians." contained in this edit: .

• [[274]] accusation of me of having someone write my edits for me "Yet somehow you have the time to make sweeping changes (or consult with someone to write them for you, because I think I recognize that style)" contained in this edit .

I have removed his attacks and insults in the past - [[275]], [[276]], and his posting of personal information [[277]], as well as his accusations against other users [[278]].

• All of the above diffs came after a plea to stop this kind of behavior [[279]].

• As for ad hominem attacks against anti-Stratfordians in general, I will only list one (of many)-[[280]].

(End of diffs from first report)

Violations of WP:NPA Insults and name-calling after wikiquette report (just last 3 weeks):

• [[281]] Out and out vulgarity. Not going to print it here.
• [[282]] More vulgarity and refusal to read talk board.
• [[283]], “just another lie”
• [[284]],” Your reading skills are deficient.”
• [[285]] “my point is that your writing is not very good. You should probably take a composition course at your local junior college.”
• [[286]](March 2) “what do you think of an editor deliberately adding deceptive material”
• [[287]] “Quite frankly, Smatprt, your hysterical accusations are becoming quite tiresome”
• [[288]] “rumors, half-truths and outright lies”
• [[289]] “I don't think we're going to get away from the poor writing, because it is a byproduct of poor thinking”
• [[290]] “the vacuous exercise you call discussion, which lately has only been Roger bloviating and crapping up the boards”
• [[291]] “That is worse than disingenuous; that's dishonest, and unfortunately that has become your hallmark”
• [[292]] “don't think I've ever read a better example of the speciousness and special pleading of anti-Stratfordian reasoning”
• [[293]] “Once again you demonstrate your lack of basic reading comprehension. Very well, you boys have fun while you can.”

That final threat is of concern.

1RR violation proposal by Admin, applicable to all editors: [[294]]

Though never formalized, I agreed to this, as did Tom Reedy, but he and Nishidani have since completely ignored the spirit of the proposal ever since.

Reverts of properly sourced edits and undisputed facts, most of which Tom simply disagreed with due to his own POV. While some legitimate reasons may have existed for discussion or clarification, at most, the edits should have been tagged and not deleted or reverted.:

• [[295]]
• [[296]]
• [[297]]

• [[298]] (revert of this addition [[299]]

• [[300]] revert of previous 3 edits,

• [[301]]

• [[302]],

• [[303]]

• [[304]]

• [[305]]

• [[306]]

• [[307]]

• [[308]]

• [[309]]

Borderline WP:LEGAL -[[310]] Tom stated that an editor's comment “Borders on Slander"

Violation of WP:Hound - Tom followed user:BenJonon to another article to make further attacks or deletions of BenJonson’s edits:[[311]], [[312]], [[313]].

Violation of WP:POINT Series of disruptive edits simply to make a point, literally saying - “I hope my point has been made”

• [[314]]
• [[315]]
• [[316]]
• [[317]]

Refusing to split article, Tom continues his ad hominem attack, announcing he is going to cut more “Oxfordian” material:

• [[318]] “We can cut later. One good place to start would be all the Oxfordian debate sprinkled through the text under the guise of generic anti-Stratfordian commentary.”

Deletions of sourced material, in text attributions, and non-contested facts that Tom simply didn’t want in the article. As with his reverts, he fails to fact tag or "who" tag anything, choosing to delete instead:

• [[319]] – most recent. Like all of these, no consensus even approached.
• [[320]] deleting of inline attributions.
• [[321]] removal of inline tag.
• [[322]] Deleted: “In the opinion of Stratfordians such as Jonathan Bate” and “although this assertion is disputed by both mainstream scholars and authorship doubters.”
• [[323]] - Deleted:"The survey was based on a random sample of colleges and universities in the United States that offer degree programs in English. " and "but when asked if they "mention the Shakespeare authorship question in your Shakespeare classes?", 72% answered "yes"."
• [[324]] - Deleted (including tags: "The mainstream view is” and “Some orthodox critics believe”
• [[325]] - Deleted: "Anti-stratfordians also note that Shakespeare of Stratford's relatives and neighbors never mentioned that he was famous or a writer, nor are there any indications his heirs demanded or received payments for his supposed investments in the theatre or for any of the more than 16 masterwork plays unpublished at the time of his death."
• [[326]] - Deleted: Price explains that while he had a well-documented habit of going to court over relatively small sums, he never sued any of the publishers pirating his plays and sonnets, or took any legal action regarding their practice of attaching his name to the inferior output of others.
• [[327]] - Deleted: "But Roger Stritmatter argued, in an article published in Cahiers Élisabéthains, that the Edwards passage contains unmistakable reference to a 1583 Blackfriars duel in which Oxford was famously wounded. Elizabethan satirists, Joseph Hall in 1597 and John Marston in 1598 have been interpreted to imply that Francis Bacon was the author of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, although such references might also allude to another concealed author of the same works. Around the turn of the seventeenth century, Gabriel Harvey, Cambridge don and scholar, wrote marginalia in his copy of Chaucer's works that are interpreted as implying he believed Sir Edward Dyer was the author of at least Venus and Adonis. Authorship researcher Diana Price hypothesizes that an authorship debate existed in Elizabethan times, and argues that this evidence is to be read as veiled references to that debate, which was otherwise never explicitly stated.
• [[328]] - Deleted: "Anti-Stratfordian researchers also cite one contemporary document that strongly implies that Shakespeare, the Globeshareholder, was dead prior to 1616, when Shakespeare of Stratford died.”
• [[329]] - Deleted attributions: "Stratfordian Scott McCrea argues that", "Stratfordian Jonathan Bate argues that"
• [[330]] - Deleted: "More recent developments include a new academic journal devoted specifically to study of the authorship question, a special issue of a leading established journal devoted to authorship, and a leading British scholar, University of Hertfordshire Professor Graham Holderness, endorsing the plausibility of the Earl of Oxford's authorship”
• [[331]] -Deleted “Like most issues having to do with the controversy, documenting the history of the Shakespeare authorship question is highly contentious. There is no consensus, academic or otherwise, as to when the theory was first proposed or alluded to. According to mainstream scholars such as Jonathan Bate, during” and “Researcher Scott McCrae commented that "It was not until 1848 that the Authorship Question emerged from the obscurity of private speculation into the daylight of public debate. However, some academicians dispute this and belief that the first direct statements of doubt were made as early as 1728, barely 100 years after the death of Shakespeare of Stratford. In addition, many authorship doubters…”

Questioning attempts at dispute resolution

• [[332]] (“I know you're trying to build a case that you made an effort to discuss the "problem" with the "offender")

When he and Nishidani were notified about policy infractions by another editors: [[333]] and [[334]], Tom responded: [[335]]

“Ha ha ha! You're funny, Schoenbaum.”

and Nishidani responded:“Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black”

Tom misrepresents his knowledge of policy, saying this:

• [[336]]

(“With regard to this one point about the Schoenbaum quote I think smatprt is right. Evaluating_claims says that "restraint should be used with such qualifiers [of fringe claims] to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment . . . .particularly within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas," and I think the principle can be extended to mainstream assessment of the topic. Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas" He then cuts the last line of his own addition of this guideline:*[[337]] (“Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas”)and then says he was never aware of any such guideline:

• [[338]] “Nor am I aware of any "guideline" that says we have to present the minority view first followed by the academic consensus”

Tom announces this mandate: - [[339]] (“Anything peculiar to a particular candidate should be in their section, not in the main text.”)But then breaks his own rule several times including: [[340]] and [[341]]

He constantly cites “scholarly consensus” with no data, them makes up policy that one expert speaks for all experts:

• [[342]] (“And anytime a "mainstream scholar" rebuts an anti-Stratfordian point, they speak for the scholarly consensus”)

In spite of agreement to the contrary, and an administrator warning, makes a major change (adding entire new section of over 5000 bytes) without discussion or consensus:

• [[343]]. This addition of irrelevant material was objected two by half the current editors but he has refused to remove it.

Refusal to split article - [[344]] “Whether the article is too long or not is immaterial at this point. It needs to sufficiently cover the topic. We can cut later.”

After most editors (except Tom) agreed on the talk page [[345]] and the article was finally split, Nishidani reverted the split and Tom made a series of false accusations:[[346]] “what are you doing? Unilaterally removing material from the Shakespeare authorship question page without a word to anyone is disruptive”

Tom continually threatens to change the page drastically, (in spite of its B quality rating): [[347]] “This article is going to have to undergo major structural changes to conform with Wikipedia policies, and the editors who think they own the article aren't going to like it.”

Comments on User:Nishidani

Violaton of wp:HOUND

• [[348]] following editor to another page to continue conflict.

Then, after a different editor disagreed with him at the above article deletion discussion, followed that editor to a new and unrelated page and deleted that editor’s material: *[[349]]

Violations of wp:NPA

• [[350]] – “vulgar”

• [[351]] – “you lie”

• [[352]] - false accusation of trying to incite edit war

• [[353]] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"

• [[354]] - defends edit warring because another editor edit warred without being reverted... but (actually) the other editor was indeed reverted:

• [[355]] removing material against consensus.

• [[356]] "Oh dear, man. Learn to read! Read what follows very slowly, consult dictionaries, check out the relevant passages in a standard English grammar book, email a few friends who may have studied English to high school level.” And “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”

• [[357]] – “sheer momentum of the obtuse"

• [[358]] - accused of “faking” evidence

• [[359] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

Same edit - states that the RS (U of V) translation of a Latin phrase is wrong and that he knows the correct translation, RS be damned - "that the translation happens also to be wrong" – Here is my edit stating what the RS said: [[360]]

• [[361]] defense of removal of RS material because the RS was "wrong". Edit also include more personal attacks.

• [[362]] - reversion of RS material, wikilawyering and misquoting OR

• [[363]] "the edit is fraudulent"

• [[364]] Defends his behavior with "Consistent factitious editing raises hackles, that is all. "

• [[365]] - lectures on rules, suggesting university sources, but when one is supplied, says it is “wrong.”

• [[366]] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."

• [[367]] "Oxfordian harping all about repetition.” “is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters"

Revert warring and deletions (partial list):

• [[368]] Reversion of article splitting. Includes in edit summary incorrect accusation of “not a word at talk” [[369]]

• [[370]] (revert of previous edit)

• [[371]] (revert of previous edit)

• [[372]] reverts summary version to reflect split of article.

• [[373]] reverts split of article due to excessive length.

• [[374]] deletion of sourced material. (revert of previous edit)

• [[375]] (same)

• [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=next&oldid=349044525 – second revert, after the line was recast to answer his objections.

• [[376]] (and he leaves a disparaging remark in the edit summary)

• [[377]] restored his POV addition “an error no scholar would make”

Extensive wp:LAWYER: Numerous examples are available, but a perusal of the current or many archived talk pages atthe article will provide numerous examples. This one, [[378]] is a good example and is filled with the exact type of behavior, including numerous false accusations, that are represented here.

As mentioned above, these lists, long as they are, are merely representative. I do not enjoy making this report (I have never filed an ANI before). I have filed several sockpuppet reports and have undone hundreds of vandal edits on dozens of unrelated articles. While Tom and Nishidani have made other accusations, including the outlandish claim that I am an SPA editor, my record of over 6500 edits proves otherwise. Thank you for your attention in this matter, and again, I apologize for the length of this report. I pity the poor administrators who will need to look into this, as both Tom and Nishidani have a habit of posting long and involved responses to even the most simple request (sigh).

Finally, I will add that the article in question, Shakespeare authorship question, with the exception of a reoccurring Sock Puppet problem, was extremely stable and fairly cordial for the last 12 months. Since Tom Reedy began editing around December 1st, joined by Nishidani in mid-February, it has become the opposite.Smatprt (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

ANI seems like an entirely wrong venue for something this extensive. I suggest moving this entire section to an RFC/U. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:26, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Is moving this something I should do now, or wait for further input. Or does an administrator move it. This is my first ANI filing and it would be my first RFC. Please advise. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

After again looking over RFC goals and guidelines, and considering the amount of discussion that has already been attempted by numerous editors. I would like to renew my request that his case be looked at here. It involves long-term abuse by one of the parties (Tom Reedy), and repeat offenses of past behavior by the the other (Nishidani), and has already had administrator involvement with the result being an escalation of the situation. Smatprt (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh? All I have insisted on is that Smatprt make more efforts to construe precisely the meaning of the sentences he writes, that he read up on the subject with close attention to the evidence, instead of imposing his own wild interpretations of it, that he spend less time ransacking the wiki rulebook for pretexts to fill the article with junk, or out editors who have some experience in what both wiki editing, and mainstream scholarship regard as elementary principles of clear exposition and neutral assessment of sources. If he wants to drag me into a time-wasting bunfight, of the disorderly kind he forced me to engage in, in respect of WP:AFG, over patently nonsensical edits, where days were exhausted in telling him the difference, as he turned a deaf ear, between 'earlier draft' and 'later draft', or on persuading him that the term 'Mute Swan' used to interpret the meaning of a text written in 1623, is hardly appropriate when it was first coined by ornithologists in 1785, and that 'Swan' just means, as it always did in classical literature, an accomplished poet, then he's gravely mistaken. As to my abusive record, he cites it, and it shows 2 3RR infractions in 2007, when I started working on wikipedia, and one permaban from the I/P area in midlast year for a baker's dozen of reverts of material patently violating WP:NPOV, over a period of two months. The other three attempts to out me, over 4 years, were overturned rapidly as rapid administrative judgements were appealed and overturned, after other editors protested them. This is a WP:Fringe topic: eminent authorities (Samuel Schoenbaum, Arthur Quiller-Couch, Alan H.Nelson) regard it as a form of 'speculative madness'. For that reason I suggested to an administrator, given the impasse between people who follow what the best authorities in Elizabethan scholarship say, and people who subscribe passionately to the conspiracy/cover-up theory murmuring at the margins, that we all give it a rest to allow an experienced outside editor to look over the page, review it closely, and make a set of suggestions as to how to haul it into some semblance of decent exposition. Tom Reedy and myself agreed to such a proposal. Smatprt, and his allies, didn't. So I won't be dragged into more exhaustive verbal wrestling with the plaintiff. If any administrator sees good cause to take me off the article, I won't object. I would however suggest that, while doing so, he takes a close look at several sections of the talk page, to get an approximate idea of how extremely difficult it is to work with an editor who either refuses to understand English, or uses a policy of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to stall opposition to his WP:OWN approach to this and other pages he creates to advance the cause of the Earl of Oxford on this encyclopedia. I have remonstrated a few times with him, and his friends, for their consistent inability to understand the plain meaning of English words. Intemperate? Perhaps, unfair, no. One should not be expected to throw oneself quietly under the juggernaut repeatedly, as one's fellow editor steamrolls an article with clunky work. Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User Nishidani effects the posture of a disinterested editor concerned with improving the style of the article. The record contradicts his posturing in numerous instances carefully noted by Smarprt. Nishidani has previously been disciplined for similar infractions. In this context, he has repeatedly misrepresented sources, verbally assaulted other editors, and introduced into discussion a string of abusive and irrelevant analogies, including referring to the views of other editors as the equivalent of "holocaust denial." Phrases like "refuses to understand English" are typical of the user, who seems to regard language as a blunt stick with which to beat his opponents. I also urge administrators to take a close look at the recent talk page, particularly the sections of discussion regarding the opinion of A.E. Cairncross on the Ur-Hamlet. The discussion reveals a pattern which has characterized Nishidani's involvement in attempting to edit this article since his first appearance a few weeks ago (with the active collusion of Tom Reedy): First he categorically characterizes the view of a particular source without documentation. He follows this by abusing and harassing editor Smarprt for allegedly not knowing the contents of the source. All along he effects to know the contents, as if he has a copy of the source to hand, and taunts Smarprt for himself not having the book. Then it is pointed out, with clear citations, that he has misrepresented the source in question, which in fact says the opposite of what he claims. Does he acknowledge his error and apologize for his harassment? No, here is his response: "This pointless slab of text exemplifies the problems of rational discussion on this page," and he goes on from this to change the topic. This is not "editing an encyclopedia." Its a form of verbal warfare which has already driven away other qualified editors who don't like to be abused for trying to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Please do something to correct this problem. I support the initiative of Smartprt. It's time for discipline to be imposed on those who have none of their own.--BenJonson (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BenJ. The diatribe only shows why you, and Smatprt are hard to work with. You rely on memory, and your memory's confused. It wasn't me who introduced the Holocaust denial analogy, but User:Tom Reedy in discussion with User:Jayjg. You urge admins to review the Cairncross debate. They're welcome to, but this is not the appropriate page. Here's a link. It shows that you, an academic, not only misrepresented a source you were both using (highly dated, with an outlandish thesis no longer given much regard), but never replied when I documented your confusions. I never said I had read Cairncross's book, (as opposed to secondary sources on Cairncross). You attribute to me a remark -"This pointless slab of text exemplifies the problems of rational discussion on this page," - made by User:Paul Barlow here. I could go on. But I don't think this is an appropriate venue. Your hypothesis about my conspiratorial intrusion and its strategy is as wildly undocumented as the theory that the Earl of Oxford, best known for farting before Queen Elizabeth and going into exile to bury the shame of his faltering sphincter, wrote Shakespeare. Yes I am not neutral. Scholarship has looked at your theory, and shrugged it off as 'lunatic'. I have no objection to that theory being described, but those who, in the fact of 150 years of scholarly scrutiny, still insist there's a worldwide cover-up, and that a theory yet to yield an iota of evidence in its favour should be described only by those who believe it, are not the best arbiters. For the simply reason, that the three of you are advocates for a fringe theory, and tend, in a reasonable review, to confuse promoting of the de Verean cause, with the requirements of neutrality imposed by the rules of this encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless, this is not the right venue. There is too much material for what is basically a place designed to rapidly fix unambiguous issues. RfC is the next step in dispute resolution, I would say. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have shortened my reports and split them, and have filed the reports below. Since the material is unambiguous, and not so daunting, I hope they will receive proper attention and a rapid fix. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew Smatprt was planning on something like this, because almost every edit of mine or of Nishidani's has been followed by a "please stop abusing me" complaint all out of proportion to what was done or said. The only thing I am guilty of is rude language, which I admit and which I have been in the process of tempering. If I am to defend myself, it will take me a few days to respond. In the meantime, I urge all non-involved editors to take a look at a few edits before and after each incident Smatprt reports, because he has done here what he is best at: take things out of context. You will also discover that he routinely violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR by promoting a fringe theory through tendentious editing and misrepresentation of sources. As to "outing" him, I fail to see how I revealed his true identity by calling him by his Christian name, and I recommend searching the talk page content to see how many times he refers to his rehearsals or producing plays, and then visit his user page with his picture popping in at the viewer. I don't see how someone can have it both ways. But I urge all editors to exercise caution and restraint and not try to read too much at once; slogging through this offal rapidly drains one's will to live. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Smatprt's complaint against Tom Reedy and Nishidani. I've reviewed the complaint, and it is consistent with my experience trying to deal with them. They are not acting as good faith editors, trying to improve the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. Rather, they are doing all they can to disrupt and sabotage it to suppress a perfectly legitimate alternative point of view and keep the public from gaining accurate, balanced information about it. Their aim is to defend the orthodox viewpoint, and drive away all editors familiar with the alternative. They are extremely abusive, treating other editors with great disrespect, insulting us continually in response to everything we do. They are highly disruptive, obstinately making controversial edits without consensus on the talk pages. When we reached an agreement about how to proceed, they refused to adhere to the agreement, engaging in intentionally disruptive, provocative behavior. I agree that both Tom Reed and Nishidani should be banned from editing this article and all articles on related topics. Schoenbaum (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No diffs. Just a testimonial. The record shows that in a dozen odd places, I had to repeatedly correct Smatprt's wild paraphrases, WP:OR violations and tendentious recastings of sources. He may complain till the cows come home, but he doggedly kept adjusting his edits at least to get round the numerous problems I raised. You and BenJonson, the latter an academic, have never contested any of the materials from classical literature, Elizabethan history, or RS, I adduce to show Smatprt he hadn't understood the issue. He got Ascham wrong, Terence wrong, the Mute Swan wrong, Adon wrong, Ovid wrong, Heywood wrong, etc.etc. These errors were corrected. I didn't see you or BenJonson active there to help Smatprt reformulate his edits so that they wouldn't look farcical. No, you just sat back, and watched him struggle. Reedy, Barlow and myself have controverted each other a number of times. So far you and BenJonson just walk in to complain of editors on the other side, without any active assistence to Smatprt. He needs it, since he clearly has trouble understanding WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nishidani's list - it's full of blatant misrepresentations. For example, I didn't get Ovid wrong, I quoted a university source on a translation. Nishidani removed the source because he feels the RS was wrong and he is right. The rest of his list is equally "wrong". Smatprt (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the occasion, once more, to show you why you exasperate editors,User:Smatprt

I didn't get Ovid wrong.

What, even now, at this late date? You still refuse to understand the point I made in a lengthy background synthesis of what classical scholarship knows about the 'swan' and its singing. I thought this exchange had concluded with you at least understanding this simple, elementary issue. No. You come back now, have forgotten the 'tutorial', and tell me you retain a faith in what I had shown, in obnoxiously boring detail, to be incorrect.

If anyone is sufficiently bored, and lacking distraction tonight, actually checks, they will believe neither you nor me. They will check the record. You wrote, after several revisions, finally,

'the Mute Swan (Cygnus olor) is completely silent during its lifetime until the moment just before it dies. Ovid mentions the legend in "The Story of Picus and Canens":

First you said it was a 'myth'. I corrected this to 'legend', so you adopted legend, and then restated that the ancients knew of a 'mute swan' that remained mute all its life, only to sing in its death throes, using Ovid. You cited a source for Ovid, which mistranslates the Latin, but which still does not justify your paraphrase, since there is no mention there of a swan remaining mute all its life.

For the record the Latin lines run

ut olim

carmina iam moriens canit exequialia cycnus.' (Ovid, Metam XIV.429-40)

That means-

'just as sometimes (olim) in dying, the swan sings a last funeral-song'

There is no mention in Ovid of a 'mute swan', no 'myth', no mention of a swan remaining mute all its life only to burst into song while expiring. It wasn't the 'mute swan' that burst into song' but a different species, as I documented. Antiquity did not distinguyish between the mute swan and the crooning swan. Ovid simply states that sometimes a swan will burst into song on dying. He did not state that such swans had kept silent up until that fatal moment, as you repeatedly tried to make out, in WP:OR edits.

Your repeated attempts to screw this simpe statement around to justify a twisted reading of Ben Jonson refused to confront the evidence I gave you, evidence that should have led you to reformulate that series of WP:OR edits on the swan.

You cannot expect people to retain their good humour if you persist in turning a deaf ear to their laborious proofs that you simply got an edit wrong. They get pissed off. Most won't edit there. I'm sufficiently stubborn to, but don't blame me if I express my exasperation at your stonewalling. You cause me and others to waste huge time explaining things you have no idea about, then, once informed, you persist in just trying to find some formula in English to get around the facts. This is a content dispute. And it's futile to bore admins stiff with arguing this. You exasperate people, and when they remonstrate with what is obtuse behaviour, take them to court for being unfair. It would be far simpler just to learn to listen to others, parse their words carefully, and try to enter into dialogue with what mainstream scholarship , not to speak of commonsense, suggests might be the facts of a matter. You are themost exasperating editor I have ever encountered. No amount of clear, documented, detailed analysis of anything budges you a nanometre from your fringe convictions and their distrust of mainstream scholarship, and you cannot edit wikipedia if you persist in refusing to understand these elementary distinctions.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Newatwp: block evasion / threat

Newatwp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 119.160.17.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Possible block evasion? Plus threat (see further down).

As a result of weeks-long partisan/sectarian edit warring / content disputes, three of several articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International had to be fully protected. There was also "vote"/consensus stacking.

See recent reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa which resulted in five accounts being blocked indefinitely for abusive and unambiguous sockpuppetry. One of the socks had been blocked previously and indefinitely for thinly-veiled death threats to the subject of Younus AlGohar. See edit diff.

I don't think this guy is going to give up easily. Asking to be unblocked, StrageWarior gave the following reason: Please unblock me: "Because this is my aim of life to not spare the lier and Younus and MFI is a lie."

Talk page threat

Little contribution history as yet, but please see this talk page threat to me: edit diff.

Update: now using IP to revert admin's reverts of previous warfare.

Another one for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa? Esowteric+Talk 10:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the editor's point of view and my response, see User talk:Esowteric#RAGS. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The other side of the war

In all fairness, I have sympathy for the editor. There are two sides to the content disputes. I am concerned that an opposing editor with a possible COI also needs to exercise caution and restraint. I have left a mildly-worded notice at User talk:Nasiryounus‎ to this effect. The edit warring won't stop until both sides stop pushing POV. It's all been mutual exclusion rather than inclusion.

Therefore, I guess you should also see:

• Nasiryounus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Newatwp also has concerns about:

• Omirocksthisworld (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and is convinced that they are the same user (SPI case open), though I have to say that I find Omi' open to discussion and easy to work with. Esowteric+Talk 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've nothing more to say, as I've mentioned a dozen times that I am not associated with either, Shahi, AlGohar or their organization(s), I'm just interested in the matter and have done some research of my own, which User:Esowteric seems to think is too POV, when the information I added was not bias at all, and it was just broadening the article by adding information (which is very popular regarding Shahi) e.g. Shahi's "Mehdi-hood". I've tried to comply with the requirements I've been provided to the best of my abilities, but it's getting kind of picky. No offense, just a personal feeling.

I suggest you should have just read some of the information I've added. It's not my belief, or understanding, I was just bringing forth the information I have found since I've started this small research into the matter.

And if you think that User:Omirocksthisworld and I are one, you may check the IPs, obviously IPs could tell a difference.

Thanks --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is very necessary now that we discuss the root of the problems here, and I agree that simply blocking the user will just fuel their hard feelings about the articles and other editors. I also agree that both sides should be investigated, because the edit warring won't stop until, it seems, I "clear my name" with the "opposition". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Request

There was a vandalism block request which I declined This is a not a simple vandalism and more scruninty is required than for a simple vandalism request. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I would rather see the whole issue thrashed out here than a simple block which will only prolong the war. Esowteric+Talk 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The threat of violence calls for an automatic indefinite block. The admin did not do his job in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Topic Ban on user Tom Reedy

Users user:Tom Reedy and user:Nishidani are teaming to disrupt the article Shakespeare authorship question, violating numerous policies and guidelines, including wp:WAR, wp:hound, borderline wp:LEGAL, endless wp:LAWYER, and unrelenting wp:NPA, including constant ad hominem attacks. They are engaging in excessive deletions of material they do not personally agree with, adding huge amounts of material that represents their personal POV, and bully and attack every editor who object to their actions.

Comments on user:Tom Reedy

Wikiquette alert: [[379]]

Violations of WP:NPA Insults and name-calling after wikiquette report (just last 3 weeks):

• [[380]] Out and out vulgarity. Not going to print it here.
• [[381]] More vulgarity and refusal to read talk board.
• Various NPA: [[382]], “just another lie”, [[383]],” Your reading skills are deficient.”, [[384]] “my point is that your writing is not very good. You should probably take a composition course at your local junior college.”, [[385]], [[386]], [[387]], [[388]], [[389]], [[390]], [[391]], [[392]] Includes an oddd threat is of concern.

1RR violation proposal by Admin, applicable to all editors: [[393]]

Though never formalized, I agreed to this, as did Tom Reedy, but he and Nishidani have since completely ignored the spirit of the proposal ever since.

Reverts:

• [[394]], [[395]], [[396]], [[397]] (revert of this addition [[398]],[[399]] revert of previous 3 edits, [[400]],[[401]],[[402]],[[403]], [[404]], [[405]], [[406]], [[407]], [[408]]

Borderline WP:LEGAL -[[409]] Tom stated that an editor's comment “Borders on Slander"

Violation of WP:Hound - Tom followed user:BenJonon to another article to make further attacks or deletions of BenJonson’s edits:[[410]], [[411]], [[412]].

Violation of WP:POINT Series of disruptive edits simply to make a point, literally saying - “I hope my point has been made”

• [[413]], [[414]], [[415]], [[416]]

Refusing to split article, Tom continues his ad hominem attack, announcing he is going to cut more “Oxfordian” material:

• [[417]] “We can cut later. One good place to start would be all the Oxfordian debate sprinkled through the text under the guise of generic anti-Stratfordian commentary.”

Deletions of sourced material, in text attributions, and non-contested facts that Tom simply didn’t want in the article. As with his reverts, he fails to fact tag or "who" tag anything, choosing to delete instead:

• [[418]], [[419]], [[420]], [[421]], [[422]],[[423]], [[424]], [[425]], [[426]], [[427]], [[428]], [[429]], [[430]]

Questioning attempts at dispute resolution

• [[431]] (“I know you're trying to build a case that you made an effort to discuss the "problem" with the "offender")

When he and Nishidani were notified about policy infractions by another editors: [[432]] and [[433]], Tom responded: [[434]]

“Ha ha ha! You're funny, Schoenbaum.” and Nishidani responded:“Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black”

As mentioned above, these lists, long as they are, are merely representative. I do not enjoy making this report (I have never filed an ANI before). I have filed several sockpuppet reports and have undone hundreds of vandal edits on dozens of unrelated articles. While Tom and Nishidani have made other accusations, including the outlandish claim that I am an SPA editor, my record of over 6500 edits proves otherwise. Thank you for your attention in this matter, and again, I apologize for the length of this report. I pity the poor administrators who will need to look into this, as both Tom and Nishidani have a habit of posting long and involved responses to even the most simple request (sigh).

Finally, I will add that the article in question, Shakespeare authorship question, with the exception of a reoccurring Sock Puppet problem, was extremely stable and fairly cordial for the last 12 months. Since Tom Reedy began editing around December 1st, joined by Nishidani in mid-February, it has become the opposite.Smatprt (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments on user:Smatprt

It does look as if a lot of the accusations against Tom Reedy and Nishidani apply equally to Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any admin investigating this will, I am sure, look at the behaviour of all concerned and I certainly do see some evidence of issues there, in particular the common problem of interpreting policy and guidelines only in the way that supports them. For example, [435] and [436] are scarcely collegial. [437] is in two parts including: Mainstream scholars are in disagreement about many things having to do with Shakespeare, including the authorship question - a fact you try to hide wherever possible. What are you afraid of?, which has all the hallmarks of WP:TRUTH about it. The others against whom Smatprt are complaining are not trying to conceal anything, as far as I can see, merely reduce it to manageable proportions. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It hardly seems possible to me that WP:TRUTH can be used to justify Mr. Reedy's statements to the effect that the opinion of one orthodox scholar can be used to justify a statement regarding a monolithic orthodox perspective which simply does not exist and is indeed currently in the process of undergoing distintegration from within. Users Reedy, Nishidani, and Barlowe persist in primarily defining the discussion on the page to a vigorously defended binary calculus in which certain persons they label "Oxfordians" are alleged of having hidden motives and of not coming up to the scholarly standards which they effect to be defending. This view is stoutly defended through the regular use of profanity and forms of personal abuse. I see nothing in the links provided and very little in any history of the dispute which justifies the claim that "a lot of the accusations against Tom Reedy and Nishidani apply equally to Smatprt.--76.69.101.88 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following comment in support of Smatprt's earlier complaint (above) against both Tom Reedy and Nishidani, but I want to repeat it here. Smatprt has been editing in good faith, but Tom Reedy has not:

"I support Smatprt's complaint against Tom Reedy and Nishidani. I've reviewed the complaint, and it is consistent with my experience trying to deal with them. They are not acting as good faith editors, trying to improve the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. Rather, they are doing all they can to disrupt and sabotage it to suppress a perfectly legitimate alternative point of view and keep the public from gaining accurate, balanced information about it. Their aim is to defend the orthodox viewpoint, and drive away all editors familiar with the alternative. They are extremely abusive, treating other editors with great disrespect, insulting us continually in response to everything we do. They are highly disruptive, obstinately making controversial edits without consensus on the talk pages. When we reached an agreement about how to proceed, they refused to adhere to the agreement, engaging in intentionally disruptive, provocative behavior. I agree that both Tom Reed and Nishidani should be banned from editing this article and all articles on related topics. Schoenbaum (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)" Schoenbaum (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Intothefire and insistence in putting misleading links

This user insists on putting a totally irrelevant link [438] [439] [440] [441] and ignoring comments that explain his mistake [442][443][444]. The first time that he included the link, I thought it might be an honest mistake. But now, after repeatedly ignoring relevant comments that explains his mistake, it is certainly a disruptive edit. It should be also noted that this is not about WP:3RR, but about disruption (repeating the same edit and the same comments and refusing to pay attention to relevant discussions or responses to his comments). Alefbe (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Topic Ban on user Nishidani

As related above, Users user:Nishidani and user:Tom Reedyare teaming to disrupt the article Shakespeare authorship question, violating numerous policies and guidelines, including wp:WAR, wp:hound, borderline wp:LEGAL, endless wp:LAWYER, and unrelentingwp:NPA, including constant ad hominem attacks. They are engaging in excessive deletions of material they do not personally agree with, adding huge amounts of material that represents their personal POV, and bully and attack every editor who object to their actions.

Comments on User:Nishidani

Violaton of wp:HOUND

• [[445]] following editor to another page to continue conflict.

Then, after a different editor disagreed with him at the above article deletion discussion, followed that editor to a new and unrelated page and deleted that editor’s material: *[[446]]

I think this is the only serious thing you insinuate. It was mentioned on the talk page that this deVerean material is spreading to many articles. I inquired about which ones. A list was provided on the Shakespeare Authorship Doubters talkpage. I clicked through many, and read the James Wilde article, and found it had a blob of material on de Vere. James Wilde had nothing to do with the deVerean hypothesis. The page had been, like many others, used to plunk down an advertisement to attract readers to the de Vere hypothesis Smatprt, Schoenbaum and BenJonson promote. I removed it, and added a note explaining why, to the talk page. I followed no one there. I don't even know who pushed that material in there. I haven't seen anyone challenge my excision of this spam. It is one of the primary functions of editors to control articles to ensure abuses like this do not occur.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Violations of wp:NPA

• [[447]] – “vulgar”

• [[448]] – “you lie”

• [[449]] - false accusation of trying to incite edit war

• [[450]] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"

Other

• [[451]] - defends edit warring because another editor edit warred without being reverted... but (actually) the other editor was indeed reverted:

• [[452]] "Oh dear, man. Learn to read! Read what follows very slowly, consult dictionaries, check out the relevant passages in a standard English grammar book, email a few friends who may have studied English to high school level.” And “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”

• [[453]] – “sheer momentum of the obtuse"

• [[454]] - accused of “faking” evidence

• [[455] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

• [[456]] defense of removal of RS material because the RS was "wrong". Edit also include more personal attacks.

• [[457]] "the edit is fraudulent"

• [[458]] Defends his behavior with "Consistent factitious editing raises hackles, that is all. "

• [[459]] - lectures on rules, suggesting university sources, but when one is supplied, says it is “wrong.”

• [[460]] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."

• [[461]] "Oxfordian harping all about repetition.” “is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters"

Revert warring and deletions (partial list):

• [[462]] Reversion of article splitting. Includes in edit summary incorrect accusation of “not a word at talk” [[463]]

• Further reverts: [[464]], [[465]], [[466]], [[467]], [[468]], [[469]], [[470]], [[471]], [[472]], [[473]]

Extensive wp:LAWYER: Numerous examples are available, but a perusal of the current or many archived talk pages atthe article will provide numerous examples. This one, [[474]] is a good example and is filled with the exact type of behavior, including numerous false accusations, that are represented here.

• [[475]] - reversion of RS material, wikilawyering and misquoting OR

These lists, long as they are, are merely representative.

As mentioned above, Shakespeare authorship question, was extremely stable and fairly cordial for the last 12 months. Since Tom Reedy began editing around December 1st, joined by Nishidani in mid-February, it has become the opposite.Smatprt (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Were you not already advised to file an WP:RFC/U about this a few threads above? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the issue was length and too much info, so I made it shorter and more concise. But if the consensus is that rfc/u is a better venue, I have no problem going there. I am just waiting for further comments. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is Smatprt in a nutshell. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Smatptr's request to ban user Nishidani. In my experience, Nishidani effects the posture of a disinterested editor concerned with improving the style of the article, but the record contradicts his posturing in numerous instances carefully noted by Smarprt. Nishidani has previously been disciplined for similar infractions. In this context, he has repeatedly misrepresented sources, verbally assaulted other editors, and introduced into discussion a string of abusive and irrelevant analogies, including referring to the views of other editors as the equivalent of "holocaust denial" (a statement which is not only irrelevant but constitutes a classic and dangerous use of the argument ad hominem for purely partisan purposes having nothing to do with the topic ostensibly under discussion (about which, in point of fact, Nishidani apparently knows very little, a deficit which he conceals through dogmatic but often untrue statements coupled with personal abuse).

I encourage admins to take a close look at the recent talk page, particularly the sections of discussion regarding the opinion of A.E. Cairncross on the Ur-Hamlet. The discussion reveals the pattern of alternating prevarication with personal abuse which has characterized Nishidani's involvement in attempting to edit this article since his first appearance a few weeks ago: First he categorically characterizes the view of a particular source without documentation. He follows this by abusing and harassing editor Smarprt for allegedly not knowing the contents of the source. All along he effects to know the contents, as if he has a copy of the source to hand, and taunts Smarprt for himself not having the book. Then it is pointed out, with clear citations, that he has misrepresented the source in question, which in fact says the opposite of what he claims.

Does he acknowledge his error and apologize for his harassment? No, he falls silent and allows Paul Barlowe to past this irrelevant irrelevant critique, which ends by changing the subject: "This pointless slab of text exemplifies the problems of rational discussion on this page" (and he goes on from this to change the topic). Nishidani goes on from this, ignoring his brazen error, and says of Smarprt: "you subscribe to a fringe theory, notorious for its thriving following of untutored kibitzers, amateurish historians brimming with an exuberant incapacity to observe the most elementary rules of textual analysis, and legitimate inference from historical documents." That someone who had previously committed so gross and elementary an error (one of many), couple with a breathtaking hubris, feels justified shortly afterward in launching into such a tirade, is agood indication of Nishidani's unwillingness to engage in fair debate and readiness to cover his own mistakes with more and more abuse. This is not "editing an encyclopedia." Its a form of verbal warfare which has already driven away other qualified editors who don't like to be abused for trying to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Please do something to correct this problem. discipline to be imposed on those who persist in personal attacks, bad language, and other highly prejudicial editing.--76.69.101.88 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

'(he =Nishidani) allows Paul Barlow(e) to past this irrelevant critique.'

I stopped reading here. What on earth justifies you saying I am in a position to allow someone to make an edit? It's the first time in several years that I have heard of anyone with this peculiar power to determine what other editors can, will, or do, write. Your problem, gentlemen, reflects the general problem with this Shakespeare business: unlike the bard, you are careless with language, and write before you think. The result is, that editors who care for Shakespeare, and language, have difficulty negotiating a text with you, because they have no guarantee you understand the plain sense of the words we use.Nishidani (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following comment in support of Smatprt's earlier complaint (above) against both Tom Reedy and Nishidani, but I want to repeat it here. Smatprt has been editing in good faith, but Nishadani has not:

"I support Smatprt's complaint against Tom Reedy and Nishidani. I've reviewed the complaint, and it is consistent with my experience trying to deal with them. They are not acting as good faith editors, trying to improve the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. Rather, they are doing all they can to disrupt and sabotage it to suppress a perfectly legitimate alternative point of view and keep the public from gaining accurate, balanced information about it. Their aim is to defend the orthodox viewpoint, and drive away all editors familiar with the alternative. They are extremely abusive, treating other editors with great disrespect, insulting us continually in response to everything we do. They are highly disruptive, obstinately making controversial edits without consensus on the talk pages. When we reached an agreement about how to proceed, they refused to adhere to the agreement, engaging in intentionally disruptive, provocative behavior. I agree that both Tom Reed and Nishidani should be banned from editing this article and all articles on related topics. Schoenbaum (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)" Schoenbaum (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please take this to an RFC/U, as previously advised and demonstrate your good intentions by hatnoting these three extensively-long sections as soon as possible. Seriously, this skates perilously close to noticeboard abuse, and takes TL;DR to a whole new realm. (Also, for the future: please keep in mind that anything you can't summarize in one screen of type is, generally speaking, too complicated for a noticeboard. There are exceptions, of course, but this dispute is most assuredly not among them.)GJC 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something or is this "perfectly legitimate alternative point of view" not WP:FRINGE, while the "orthodox viewpoint" is, well, the orthodox viewpoint which, in line with WP:NPOV and its sub-policy WP:DUE should receive the overwhelming support of the article text?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Beki Bondage round 2

Can someone keep an eye on this one in case it turns into another BLP trainwreck; the background to round 1 of this squabble was here way back in the olden days. User:Little grape is currently blocked on an unrelated matter and I won't be available much for the next few days, and last time this flared up it got nasty fairly quickly with threats and OTRS tickets flying. – iridescent 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the matter, and it seems that it was previously agreed that the DOB was not required and have added a commented out note to that effect on the article infobox. I will make a note on Little grapes talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Google on mothers' day and Pi Day

It is Mothers' Day in the UK. The Google logo is clicking to that topic and meaning we're getting incoming vandalism on Mother's Day.

1. Can some people watchlist?
2. Can please avoid the temptation to semi-protect? It should be treated just as we treat FA on the mainpage - it's prominent and going to get many hits and we want to be the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" for new people.
3. Is there anyway we can get advanced notice of these goodgle things and set up a taskforce to watch them, and ideally a task force to review and improve then before they become prominent.

Thanks--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• The same thing is happening for Pi Day.[476] NW (Talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ahem: Mothering Sunday if you please, Mothers Day is a Hallmark holiday. Pah. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In my part of the US, we've always called it "Mother's Day". Pi Day too, eh? OK, two more articles added to my not-at-all-lengthy watch list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Mothering Sunday"? Really? Sounds like a badly-done euphemism for something distasteful. And if it's Pi Day, where the hell's my pie?? (It's also the 23rd anniversary of my first date; can we get some eyes on that article too? Thx...) GJC 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Spammer IP

86.26.123.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), since September 2009, has been flooding articles with references to http://www.songfacts.com, in the form of an internal citation. This website admits to being more than partially user-submitted; although some of its submissions are from primary sources. However, none are credited in any way, so it's hard to tell good from bad (for example, this listing has two facts, neither cited). The IP has been doing this since September 2009 and has only a couple edits not related to crapflooding articles with this flaky source. I have given a warning and would ask that others keep an eye on this IP. I would also suggest blacklisting Songfacts due to the single-purpose spammery and the fact that it admits to being user-submitted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is currently turning requests round very slowly I think. I'm tempted to pick the mop and bucket back up to deal with some of this junk. This is a good spot by TPH, the site is user-edited and of no use at all as a source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#songfacts), it's been linked masquerading as a source in a lot of articles, usually added by anons. I'm doing some cleanup now. Special:Linksearch/*.songfacts.com shows over 1,400 links. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have always removed this when I come across it, as it's clearly not a reliable source. It's used in a worrying amount of articles. I'm amazed they've gone unnoticed for so long. Rehevkor ✉ 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of it is good faith and some of it is learning the trick of formatting as a {{cite}}, which tends to avoid scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Serious editing of a comment on a user talk page

Resolved

 – User warned (x2)

A couple months ago I asked User:Longevitydude to clarify some issues on what I expected was him sockpuppeting. A couple days ago, long after the issue had been dealt with, he edited my comment and did a little more than "misrepresent" what I said per WP:TALKO. "My" message in that form remained on his talk page for nearly two hours before he removed it, but did not revert it back to its original content. I'm not sure if any "action" needs to be taken, but since he does not appear to have any respect for what I have to say, perhaps an uninvolved admin can explain to him why that edit is extremely problematic? It's not the first time he's accused me of "hating old people", but I hope that my six GAs on 100+ year old people are evidence enough to discredit that assertion. Cheers, CP 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• That edit is completely unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exactly, as we have both informed User:Longevitydude DES ^(talk) 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Overzealous report; no action

• Joeythetuna (talk · contribs)

I find it hard to believe that this new user, based on the fact that their first edit [477] is to a page that new users normally wouldn't edit, that this user isn't a sockpuppet. Based on the first edit and the join date, I have no doubt this is a sockpuppet. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE much? It may be a new user or a new account of an old user; that doesn't make it a sock, and even if it were a sock, it would not necessarily be against policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you defend a patently clear abusive sockpuppet saying we need a checkuser, yet you come running here to report a new account for sockpuppetry with the flimsiest of evidence.--Atlan (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This report was made to see if anyone felt that a checkuser was needed. I wasn't requesting a block just yet. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't see any evidence of abusive behavior. Could be a new account from a formerly IP editor. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but for more information about why that user is most likely not sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:NOASSUMESOCK. --Hadger 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by 58.96.94.220

86.26.123.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added some links to a commercial course on Permanent makeup. [478] I removed it, it got re-added, so I removed it again, and used the normal template for spam warnings [479] and since then the user has been harassing me, refactoring comments [480], accusing me of edit warring [481], personal attacks [482], "highly offensive profanity" [483] and "swearing" [484] and all sorts of things. I decided to try to ignore the person, and archived the conversations of my talk page as a part of this, but he/she keeps reverting it [485], so obviously ignoring doesn't work either.

I'm clearly out of my depth here, desperate and can not handle this situation, and need administrator help to get this harassment to stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Abusive profanties by OpenFuture

Resolved

This contributor did not wish to express his opinions on the discussion page and permit others to consider the merits of his opinions preferring to simply delete the contributions of others and then engaging in edit wars to maintain his dominance over the page content. Attempts were made to point out to OpenFuture that the time stamps on the page clearly indicated that he would not have had sufficient time to evaluate the external links before the first page edit that he made. OpenFuture did not wish to engage in reasonable dialogue on the merits of the information contained on the linked pages and the value to the article in question he preferred to just keep labelling it as spam in multiple locations. OpenFuture was invited to make a positive contribution to the page that he was so keen to edit by providing alternative sources of information that contained the same valuable content as the linked pages but he has chosen not to contribute in a positive way.

OpenFuture then resorted to swearing See History after swearing and being offensive he tries to hide his use of profanities by deleting the entire discussion and edit warring to prevent it being seen by others. Then OpenFuture tries to play a victim.

Is this honestly the type of immature behaviour that wikipedia tolerates from its contributors?

I see where you've added spamlinks but I don't see OpenFuture's use of profanities - please be more specific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can of missed it? It is quite clear that an alternative profane term for bovine excrement was used by OpenFuture towards me. That term is both vulgar and is highly offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture's describing your attempts to justify the addition of spamlinks as "bullshit" while not exactly polite, is nowhere near as big a deal as you make it out to be. Suggest you disengage or if you must, take it to WP:WQA. Finally, please stop re-adding comments to OpenFuture's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are going to say that it is OK for participants to abuse others with swear words when they dont like an opposing opinion then wikipedia will just decend into yet another forum for flame wars. The term is both vulgar and highly offensive, a highly respected magistrate once said that the best measure of if a discourse is offensive is would you use the language towards your grandmother? if you would not then it can be reasonably considered as offensive.

Are you going to ask OpenFuture to stop editing the contributioners of others without engaging in discussion first? Are you going to tell him to stop using profanties when communicating with other participants? Or is this the good old USA club where its OK to do as you please and abuse those from other countries who object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with other countries. I suggest you drop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Profanity is currently allowed on Wikipedia. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:43, 15 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The links are clear spam, and were reverted per policy. You were edit-warring to keep spam links. While we don't advocate discourtesy, your determination to keep the links and attack those who remove them might move someone to indelicate language. The article has been a spam magnet, and in late 2007 was the subject of tendentious edit-warring, including legalistic innuendo, from an Australian editor. Acroterion _(talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the use of a profanity within a literary or artistic context and its use in abuse of another party. I also object to the attitude that a person should not express their opinion if you don't like it, such attitudes are arrogant and unhealthy and I would suggest completely at odds with the stated principles of what wikipedia is supposed to represent. Unless of course all wikipedia wants to represent is USA culture and opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Other discussions here have pointed out that Americans seem to be more sensitive to the use of profanities than other English-speaking nationalities. I have no idea what nationality has to do with permanent makeup. In any case, profanity is allowed, you were spamming and got caught, and are now trying to make trouble for the person who called you out on it. Please drop it. Acroterion _(talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct nationality has nothing to do with permanent makeup and yet the page contains 6 external links all to USA regulatory and industry sites, not one to another country. How odd considering that the USA has less than 5% of the worlds population. great effort is being exerted to ensure that the opinions, regulations, views and ideals of other countries are excluded. Edit wars are used to maintain the current poor quality content on the page. Any way I have heard enough of your USA is always right Bullshit (apparently abuse and profanties are OK here so enjoy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.220 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how things are today, but when I was in school, the instructors new what to call creative writing made up spuriously and designed to baffle readers by drowning them in words. When I was in school we generally abbreviated the term as BS. I find the use of the colloquialism thus described far less troubling than that the adding of spam links and the success in changing the subject form that blockable behavior to calling BS BS. Dlohcierekim 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespearian fringe theory and some awful articles

On noticing the above threads about arguments concerning user conduct at articles related to WP:FRINGE theories about Shakespearian authorship, I've had a look at suich articles as Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Shakespeare authorship question etc. These are written in ways that blatantly violate WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. Headings explain that Will Shakespeare is to be referred to as "William Shakespeare of Stratford", fringe terminology is used refering to those who defend the mainsteram theory as "Stratfordian", and the articles are heavilly weighted in support of the fringe theory giving it

Michael Dobson says in the The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:

Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so. ‘One thought perhaps offers a crumb of redeeming comfort,’ observed the controversy's most thorough historian, Samuel Schoenbaum, ‘the energy absorbed by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics.’

The doggedness to which Dobson refers has left Wikipedia with a whole swathe of articles that risk turning us into a laughing stock.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said more than once that there is a coordinated effort to use Wikipedia to promote a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

concerns about too much of user:Mythdon on AN/I

The user just came back from 6 months ban, during which the user could not have edit their own talk pages. Now the user is making lots of contribution to AN/I that including, but not limited to fishing accusation of of being a sock-puppet and responding in a strange manner to an user apology that has nothing to do with Mythdon.
Few other editors find the user contributions here not helpful:

• [486]
• [487]
• [488]
• [489]

IMO somebody should keep an eye on the user, or better yet ban the user on contributing to AN/I--Mbz1 (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Well...

• As for this; I had misread "incensed" as "licensed", but when I finally realized it wasn't, I reverted (retracted) my comment. I should have paid a bit more attention.
• This comment by Atlan (talk · contribs); a concern that I'm being hypocritical in that I feel evidence is need to block sockpuppets, but yet again reported what I had suspected as a sockpuppet- the report was made not to request a block, but for a review as to whether others agree that it may be a sockpuppet as well (it doesn't seem that way, but that's what it was).
• This comment by Xeno (talk · contribs); suggesting that I'm spending too much time on ANI (I don't think that's the case), but I won't deny I spend lots and lots of time here.
• I don't know what to say about this by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs).

I hope that's clear enough. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Beyond My Ken's post seemed pretty offbase to me. Mythdon had made what seemed to be a reasonable suggestion (albeit one that I did not agree with), and had already been briefly involved in the precipitating discussion at WP:WQA before it even got here. I don't have any strong opinions about the others, but I also don't see anything obviously disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mahatahi sockpuppet of User:Roman888

Hi there, could someone please block User:Mahatahi as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888? Roman888 was indefinitely blocked for massive copyright violations. At the time of his block he threatened to restore his violations via sockpuppets which he has subsequently done in the last few days through User:Mahahaha, User:Orang77 and an IP address. Now User:Mahatahi has restored Military Scandals of Malaysia. The restoration doesn't cite any of the sources that have been plagiarised but appears otherwise identical to the previous copyvio version. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)