Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Scientus

I am here to discuss the behavior of Scientus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Scientus has been edit-warring in recent weeks on four articles that I'm aware of:

• Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Since May, Scientus has been pushing the POV that the word "antisemitism" discriminates against Arabs and any other non-Jewish Semites. In its place, Scientus has been promoting the obscure term "Judeophobia" despite an overwhelming consensus against it (see both articles' Talk pages, including recent archives,[1][2] especially the failed Requested move initiated by Scientus at Talk:Islam and antisemitism).
• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Last week, Scientus deleted the assertion that Israel has universal suffrage. When the assertion was restored, Scientus rightly started a Talk page discussion on the subject. When every editor in the discussion disagreed with Scientus, the editor started changing the article against consensus and edit-warring to preserve her/his changes. Israel is subject to a 1RR restriction, which Scientus has (barely) respected, making reversions 24 hours apart.[3][4]
• Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • On June 20, Scientus rewrote the lead of Libya. The changes made by Scientus were reverted by three editors (one of whom was me), each of whom asked Scientus to use the Talk page to discuss the changes. No discussion at Talk:Libya. On June 28, Scientus started making the same changes to the lead and, not surprisingly, was reverted. Scientus started a Talk page discussion. On June 30, after nobody had replied on the Talk page in 29 hours, Scientus restored her/his favored version of the lead. When that change was reverted (by an IP editor), Scientus went ahead and deleted part of the lead, saying "please find a source for this i couldnt find one".

I brought this complaint here, as opposed to WP:ANEW, because this is a broader issue than violating 1RR or 3RR. Scientus evidently has a hard time listening to others and that is becoming a growing problem. I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on the matter. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Given the number of warnings by reputable users on the user's talk page since June 19 (some of which have been deleted by the user), I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked already. I can however understand that Malik Shabazz has refrained from doing so, as an involved admin. It seems at present the user is here to push an agenda and edit war rather than to build an encyclopedia or edit collaboratively and learn and abide by Wikipedia policies. It seems clear to me that he has had enough cumulative warnings and that the next step is probably a block, the only question being how long. Softlavender (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As per my experience Scientus is nice editor and he can be useful for Wikipedia, but he should learn policies of Wikipedia, I have already given my advice to him on his talk page. And Softlavender please don't use word "reputable users" here, Wikipedia is not about reputation and senior-junior like in colleges. Sometimes even IPs can act more sensible than admins. Read article WP:IPs are human too for more detail. We have to go by wikipedia policies and if Scientus is breaking the rules then we should advice him instead of playing game of senior-junior or reputation. Today's IP can be tomorrows admin if he opens account. Or every admin was once a un-confirmed user. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source for that removed sentence of Libya? If not, I do not see what the problem is. That sentence was my real issue, but I was changing other things at the same time, which apparently irritated people.

There was no debate on the basic facts regarding "universal suffrage" for Israel. If the admin Milik Shabazz insists getting me banned because there are no facts backing up his dislike of removing or clarifying the term "universal suffrage" when he clearly knows better then Wikipedia is not a website I want to contribute to. My current suggestion would be to clarify to "universal suffrage except for citizens of the West Bank, Gaza, and other Arab countries.",or "universal suffrage within the non-disputed territories" (which isn't strictly true as is discussed at Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law), or simply removing "universal suffrage".To claim that a country where 1/3rd of the population (irrespective of age) is excluding from voting rights "universal suffrage" is preposterous.Scientus (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Scientus is not an IP, nor is he a new user, so I don't see the relevance of User:Human3015's comments. He's been editing since 2009, but seems to have become somewhat, shall we say idiosyncratic, recently. Though his primary interest is Jewish/Israeli-related content. He has also edit warred on other unrelated articles. For some reason he decided that there should be a picture by El Greco on the Angels in art article. Fine, but he chose to include a portrait of a Pope Cardinal Don Fernando Niño in which no angels are to be seen, on the basis that Robert Prisig said that it was in some metaphorical sense a portrayal of an angel. At least that had some rationale, but it was then replaced by a picture of Jesus, for no apparent reason other than the fact that Jesus has a halo [5]. He edit warred, admittedly in a minor way, to keep this image. He seems to be fascinated by a fairly obscure spelling project called Unspell, and repeatedly tried to insert it into English alphabet [6] against consensus. He has waged a war across several articles to replace the term "anti-Semitism" with "Judeophobia" because he thinks it is more accurate, despite a mass of evidence that the former is overwhelmingly the most common term per WP:NAME. The main problem with this editor is that he acts as though his pet likes and dislikes should override all relevant policies and guidelines. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Halo painting added to Halo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halo_(religious_iconography)&diff=669523300&oldid=668640603 .Scientus (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we need another halo at "Halo (religious iconography", just in case readers haven't already twigged what they look like from the 32 other illustrations of halos that article already had. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I put it in its own section Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. Appears I was wrong and the book did not talk about angels at all. Scientus (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly what's wrong with Scientus. He seems to like El Greco. Well, great. So do I. But we don't want to smear an article on halos that already has over thirty illustrations, with a bunch of El Grecos that don't depict halos. He's added El Greco's portrait of Cardinal Don Fernando Niño again. Cardinal Don has no halo. He's added another El Greco of the holy family, in which they have no visible halos (the light is coming from the glow of a cloth around Jesus - not a halo). See the additions at Halo_(religious_iconography)#Philosophy_of_Halos. This is madness. We also have some utter drivel added from Robert Prisig, an author with no expertise in religious iconography whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• In making the following personal attack, "...FUCK YOU for calling me racist you insensitive piece of shit. Go fuck yourself!", Scientus blanked the warning and then rebuffed the admin that warned him about the attack. This isn't promising.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially as the editor in question never once called him a racist. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "anti-Semitism" racism, or is it not racism? You are going in circles. And BTW, my great-gradfather fled the Jewish programs in Ukraine/Russia. Scientus (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I was acting as an editor, not an admin, as I have been heavily involved in Scientus' latest disputes. But yes, the attack was uncalled for and the reasoning behind some of his edits is very idiosyncratic. [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear Scientus has gone off the rails at this point and the only question is what to do about it, since numerous cumulative warnings and even this ANI haven't gotten through to him. If no admin wants to take action quite yet without a community consensus, perhaps someone should start a proposal/poll below with a suggestion and then allow !voting. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My recommendation is that an administrator craft a carefully worded topic ban that prevents this editor from participating in editing pertaining to anti-Semitism, halos, angels, El Greco, or any other darned topic where their input has been disruptive. I support such a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

While it's clear that Scientus's edits in particular subject areas are problematic, it's not clear to me that this actually has anything to do with the subject areas, as opposed to a general competency/noncollaborativity issue. --JBL (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with that -- there is no topic-ban wide enough to contain the issues. There needs to be a block of some sort -- it only remains to be determined how long. The blockable issues are many, recurring, and widespread. For the number of issues and their intransigency, my personal view would be a six-month block, but it could start as little as one week. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly support a 1-week block. --JBL (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And he's back! Today Scientus once again edited Israel concerning the issue of universal suffrage (which doesn't mean what Scientus would like it to mean). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of "universal suffrage"? Cause those words quite literally means everyone (universal) votes (suffrage).Scientus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again, Scientus, you mistake the literal meaning of words for their meaning. See Talk:Israel#No Universal Sufferage (sic), where I addressed that question nearly two weeks ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block

Scientus has had 16 user-page warnings since May 25, yet has continued his disruptive editing, edit-warring, defiance of Wikipedia policy and/or consensus, vile unprovoked and completely erroneous personal attacks, inability to hear, and general incompetence. Whatever may have been his past contributions prior to May 2015, he is clearly no longer here to build an encyclopedia. I propose that he be blocked, for at least one week or as long as six months -- the length at the discretion of an uninvolved admin or community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer, a block of one month, for the continued cumulative number and types of disruptions/violations. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, support, support. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. --JBL (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. at least one month.Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley, genre warring again

Lachlan Foley has resumed genre warring after his week-long block a few weeks ago, received as a result of this ANI post. They are edit-warring at the article Marquee Moon, attempting to rearrange the order of the genres listed in the infobox. I suspect they have some prejudice against "post-punk" as a genre since they tagged it for needing a citation at Pornography (album) but not the other genre listed there ([8]). This editor is becoming a disruptive annoyance. My warnings to their talk page have been useless as they have not responded or taken accountability for the genre changes they've made. Block them, warn them effectively... do something, seriously *sigh* Dan56 (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This Incident nomination should be about @Dan56, not me.

Dan56 reverted my completely harmless, inconsequential edit which can be seen in the Marquee Moon article history, and had the temerity to call it "genre warring". He also has failed to realise – and has since been corrected by another user – that post-punk was not cited at the Pornography (album) page, and gothic rock, indeed, is. I think he is grasping at straws looking for things I am doing to complain about and is reverting my changes on the Marquee Moon article out of spite. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Where was "gothic rock" cited at the time you edited Pornography (album)? And where was the consensus or discussion you created to support rearranging and revising the genres at Marquee Moon? Nowhere is where, because you are nothing but a genre warrior, an editor who spends 99% of their time making revisions to the genre parameter of the infobox. I do not know enough to want to "spite" you for something because I don't know anything about you, except for your pattern of behavior as an editor, and your edit history doesn't lie. If your edit is "completely harmless, inconsequential", then stop restoring it, and refrain from revising the genre parameter of the infobox at album articles because you clearly have a disruptive obsession for it. Again, your edit history is made up almost entirely of those kind of edits. Dan56 (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as these articles are either GA or FA, then the minimum LF should do is raise the issue on the talkpage(s), instead of going back to exactly the same behaviour that got him blocked only last month. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachan is even completely removing the genre from some albums, so many of them do not even have a single genre to accomandate the article. What is there to gain from this?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So this on-going edit-warring and WP:DE is OK by the admins? Good, glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

They will not stop. Just a few from today: [9], [10] Dan56 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are admins ignoring this? All the damage he is causing will take so much time to fix. You can't just simply remove genres with no excuse. Many of the genres are sourced, but in the article itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Smalljim, You have to make something. Now he makes the genre disappear from the infoboxes like here and obviously he drowns his edit by making a few domestic changes regarding the visual aspect of the infobox. This is wp:POINTy and disruptive. I'm tired of spending hours to revert his edits instead of adding historical content like I used to make on Siouxsie and the Banshees related articles; today out of the blue user:Freshacconci has the guts to say that it was my edits that were genre warring whereas he obviously doesn't know anything on Lachlan's history. Why after being blocked for Genre warring, does LF have the right to keep on acting exactly the same way without being blocked once again. Carliertwo (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My only involvement here is at the Dear Prudence article. From what I saw, User:Lachlan Foley added a hidden message to the infobox stating that only sourced genres should be added, while removing unsourced content. User:Carliertwo reverted back to the unsourced content and incorrectly stated in the edit summary that references are not permitted in infoboxes. According to WP:INFOBOXREF, references certainly are permitted if necessary. This is the standard for all Beatle song articles as they have a history of genre warriors adding their own idea of genres to the infoboxes. Keeping in mind that the issue here involves the infobox for the Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of the song, most Beatle song articles include a reference in the infobox for genre(s) listed. I have no opinion on what the correct genre of the Siouxsie and the Banshees cover is, but it should be referenced in the text and if not, in the infobox. As for the battle between Carliertwo and Lachlan Foley, I am uninvolved (although coming "out of the blue" is somewhat WP:OWNish, as if I have no right to make an edit or state an opinion -- I won't bother with my the "[having] the guts" comment as that statement is puerile). What I saw was one editor reverting what appeared to be a useful edit in favour of a version that included unsourced content, with an incorrect edit summary. freshacconci talk to me 17:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For Dear Prudence, what it is saying here is that LF's edit erasing the genre from the infobox of Siouxsie's version was "useful" because it was unsourced content. Well, so why didn't the 2 genres (present in the infobox of the Beatles's version) erase too? Those are also unsourced content, as it is not documented by a source in the body of the article. There are multiple issues with LF's edits, GWAR, Edit war, Spamming etc... and of course, Freshacconcci doesn't have anything to say about these issues because that it would be admitting that edit was wrong.

Concerning the comment for ownership on SATB-related articles, one has to look at the history of this article here to see that this doesn't stand. Indeed, three users have already rejected LF's edits for edit war, Gwar (User:Greg Fasolino also shares this opinion), etc. What LF is doing is wp:PUSH and wp:DISRUPT. This doesn't have to be encouraged. Carliertwo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is my exact response to you from our conversation on my talk page. As you've added this after my response, I can only assume you did not read it there: "You are free to remove those two genres as unsupported. I don't even agree with them. I don't do a great deal of editing these days, so I'm not going through every Beatle song article to make sure the genres are sourced. I only mentioned the Beatles as I'm familiar with the issue of genre warring and I find it silly when people add absurd genres to them based solely on their own opinions. My only concern was with the Dear Prudence article because that is the one I saw. I'm not aware of nor interested in the battle between you and Lachlan Foley. That will be resolved at ANI. Since I was mentioned at ANI, I responded, explaining my edits, as I saw them, to maintain WP:V/WP:RS. If you were concerned about Lachlan Foley's edits, I don't think re-adding unsourced content is the answer. And please use the preview button before saving on my talk page. It's annoying to have repeated new message tags for the same comment." That's all. I think I've said all I can based on my involvement. freshacconci talk to me 20:31, 8 July 2015.

• I don't see a problem so huge that it needs a topic ban to solve it. Lachlan Foley is trying to get a project-wide handle on genre warring by others, which is commendable, but it appears he is taking part in some genre warring himself, at some of the music articles. I think the effort is net positive. For the negative bits, perhaps it's enough to slow him down, to set a one revert per day (1RR) limit with substantial talk page discussion required from Lachlan Foley before any further revert. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What is going to happen if that Dan56 and many other users including me are going to check out LF's contributions and as soon as he does wp:disruptive editing which is always what he does, one will undo his work. This is going to become our new hobby and yours. Carliertwo (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but I've seen in the past when other genre warriors mask the edits they genuinely care about (POV-based genre revisions) with a multitude of maintenance and generic revisions. I'm sure there's a term for that also... Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Two-week block

It seems clear from his edit history and from most of the reports of those above and at the previous ANI that Lachlan Foley is continuing what he was previously blocked for one week (his second block in three months) for: making unilateral changes to, and edit-warring over, infobox genres rather than seeking consensus. I propose an escalation to a two-week block, until he learns and understands how to appropriately collaborate on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk)

• Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.

Collapsing this very long and apparently admin-closed thread but leaving it here for now because of the extensive participation

Earl King Jr. is a single purpose account dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc.]] to a single article, and reducing the text in that article. In that effort, King has successfully removed the Zeitgeist Movement page and crammed all mention into a small paragraph on the Zeitgeist (film series) page. King is tendentious and bullying in discussion. See: 2 July 2015 00:26, 1 July 2015 01:36, 30 June 2015 (subsequently modified by King when I pointed out that it was a personal attack) King frequently attributes improper motives to other editors, accusing them of being "Zeitgiest supporters," "sock puppets," and "meat puppets." See: 00:46, 20 May 2015 16:25 00:35, 22 May 2015 16:25, 19 May 2015 07:20, 19 May 2015 00:27, 16 May 2015 07:56, 27 December 2014] King's tactics in discussion, attacking people's motives, accusing people of meat and sock puppetry, accusing people of being "conspiracy" minded, and so forth are contrary to the Wikipedia:Good faith. As will be seen a number of times in these histories, King prods other editors of good intent until they (unwisely) strike back, then he calmly lectures them about civility, as though the whole scenario were a deliberate strategy. The long-term, relentless, single-purpose history of reducing carefully constructed articles and attacking other editors suggests WP:LONG and WP:ANTIWP. Reluctantly, I am requesting a block on King's account. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) Sfarney is being aggressive and assumptive about all that. That particular talk page and now this [11] have gotten very intense. If I am at fault somehow I apologize. As far as I know my editing skills stress reliable sources. My goal on Wikipedia is grunt worker with interests but keeping my own interests, not noticeable. The Zeitgeist article is an intense spot partly because of the call from the group organizers to come to Wikipedia to edit [12] There more calls on various related sites that specifically point out myself as a gatekeeper which to me does not make a lot of sense. I hope I am not a single purpose editor. It might seem like that because once this article is on your watch list it seems to require a lot of attention if one is willing to give it attention. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Proposal for topic ban The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The last AN discussion was [13] where Earl just wore everyone down. He is an SPA that causes more problems than benefit. I'm tired of the constant friction, so it seems the logical choice is to just act and be done with this instead of droning on about it for weeks and everyone gets tired and he gets his way. If we are here to prevent disruption, let's prevent disruption using the tools we have: Earl King Jr. is topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie, movement or any persons related to this topic (construed broadly), on article, talk pages, or any other page on Wikipedia. This is for an indefinite period of time and may be appealed at WP:AN after a period of one year. Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support per Dennis Brown. Thomas.W talk 10:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose I have been editing on the Zeitgeist page for about two weeks (drawn by RFC), during that period I have agreed with EKJr on almost nothing. However my experience of his behaviour has been that he 'backs off' when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. In contrast, other editors on talk don't simply 'lose their cool' occasionally, but appear to prefer a 'gladitorial' approach, of which this ANI and the recent BLP are manifestations. I invite others to examine the recent talk page and come to their own judgements as to whether banning EKJr, would achieve anything.Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) An editor has pointed out to me that my invovement at the time of this post was actually 3 weeks and ! day, not 'about two weeks'.Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Hmmmm The original complaint here is that EKJ is "dedicated for the last year (almost) exclusively to reducing Zeitgeist (film series) and related articles (Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement, etc. to a single article. Well, as for the Zeitgeist Movement, looking at the last version, pretty much 90% of the content and sources were actually about the movies. So in that case, EKJ appears to be correct. And that article, since its redirection, has seen nothing but sockpuppets trying to restore it. Meanwhile, looking at Peter Joseph, he looks a bit marginal in notability terms as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2015 Perhaps it is not correct to accuse people of sockpuppetry until you open a sockpuppet investigation. Some of us are just trying to create a respectable Encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Support (response to Pincrete's oppose) Two weeks isn't nearly enough, I think. I've been watching this topic for years and EKJ really stands out with his relentless efforts to make these articles as negative and crappy as possible, and argues over damn near everything he possibly can. Look at his edit analysis and top edited pages to see the extent of this. From what I've seen, he interprets policy to fit his own agenda (i.e. he's not being truly neutral), and his own improvements to the articles have often been sloppy/poorly written. The Zeitgeist talk pages are full of angry arguments every single day and this has been going on for ages now, literally years. I think the rest of us really deserve a vacation from him. There have been plenty of other editors active on these pages who are neutral (I mean, not-pro-Zeitgeist) who are perfectly capable of keeping these articles in line with policy and dealing with the occasional pro-Zeitgeist SPAs that show up every now and then. EKJs participation isn't necessary and frankly I think he's the one who has wasted the most of our collective time (and nerves). The topic itself isn't worth it. These movies are relatively old by now. Why is it such a big deal? I don't know. A forced topic ban seems like the best way to deal with this. Pincrete, I completely understand why you see that "the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated" -- it's happening now because we've finally had enough of him and we feel the need to make it very obvious. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support Yes, I forgot about King inventing WP rules to support his edits, e.g., alleging that WP does not mention paid events,[14]. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Update: Upon reviewing King's serial copyright violations on other pages, I think a General Ban is in order. Such editors are a liability to the Wikipedia project, and not just a topic. (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)) Support I think EKJ deserves credit for combating zealous pro-Zeitgeist SPAs screwing with the page, especially when it was at the height of its popularity, but his contributions outside of that have been mired in consistently pushing sloppy anti-Zeitgeist content to such extreme lengths. It is a polarizing article/topic and emotions run high, but when it gets to where you'd use capitalization as a weapon, it's time to find another article to work on. He has demonstrated he is capable of spotting poor/weak content when it fits his agenda, so I believe he'd be an asset to any collaboration on a mainstream article. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support. EKJ has a long history of using Zietgeist-related talk pages as a soapbox for venting his own personal opinions, routinely characterises contributors who disagree with him as 'SPAs' or claims thet they have been canvassed to edit, and as a matter of habit assesses sources not on their reliability and significance, but instead on whether they conform with his personal perspective - see for example his recent attempt to use a conspiracy-theorists forum in support of arguments, [15] (see the first link - to here [16]), and his attempt (in the same post) to cite a source [17] as evidence that TZM is 'right wing', when the source actually writes "in the case of Zeitgeist the labels “left” and “right” are pretty useless descriptors." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Send to ArbCom - The community has been unable to deal with disruptive editing by multiple editors on this subject in the recent past. It is true that EKJ has engaged in tendentious editing on Zeitgeist. At the same time, User:AndyTheGrump has engaged in over-the-top personal attacks on EKJ. A previous WP:AN thread was archived without action. Singling out any one editor for sanctions would oversimplify the scope of the problem. A full evidentiary case is needed to identify multiple problematic editing patterns. While some of the topics of Zeitgeist are already within the scope of discretionary sanctions under either September 11 conspiracy theories, American politics since 1933, or biographies of living persons, imposing discretionary sanctions on all aspects of Zeitgeist would be helpful also. A full evidentiary hearing should be requested to identify multiple patterns of disruptive editing. (My own involvement is that I attempted to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mediation resulted in three RFCs and was unpleasant due to battleground editing.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I will readily admit that my behaviour over this issue hasn't always been ideal - I would however prefer it if Robert McClenon didn't single me out , and then go on to imply that I was engaging in 'battleground editing' in a DRN discussion I took no part in whatsoever - it should be noted that I wasn't involved at all in the 'unpleasant' DRN discussion. As for taking this to ArbCom, I personally don't think it would be necessary if EKJ is topic banned, and will reiterate what I said in the last ANI discussion - that if EKJ is topic banned, I am happy to stay away from the topic myself. I had voluntarily stayed away from the topic for a long period, and only returned to it as a result of seeing the way EKJ's behaviour was affecting encyclopaedic coverage in a clearly unacceptable manner - the fact that few people apparently like the movies, the movement, or Peter Joseph isn't in my opinion a legitimate reason to cherry-pick sources in an entirely partisan manner. Either the subject is notable, in which case it deserves balanced treatment, or it isn't, in which case it doesn't merit coverage at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Reluctant support - Earl King Jr has in the past made groundless accusations towards other editors, made up policy as he goes along (for example 'Wikipedia doesn't mention paid events'), been unable to recognise his own bias, treated articles as if owned them and used policy as a threat. He seems to play a tactic of mirroring arguments made by other editors, for example, if accused of a personal attack, he will say he is being attacked; or if BLP violation is raised then he find his own BLP issue. All that said I believe his behaviour towards other editors has improved. Also, he has and can make good contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, I would recommend a temporary topic ban of six months. This would make him consider his behaviour without being too punitive. It could also lead to a broadening of his Wikipedia edits. Additionally, AndyTheGrump should also be topic banned for six months for making personal attacks against Earl King Jr. This made it harder to keep on track discussing the controversial issue of Zeitgeist, as an experienced editor he should have known this isn't helpful. As AndyTheGrump has volunteered to stay away from the topic if Earl King Jr is banned this could be a mute point.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Comment - I don't understand how an editor can be topic-banned from personal attacks. Personal attacks have been forbidden since 2002. AndyTheGrump has been banned from personal attacks since August 2010, when he began editing. He can be warned about personal attacks, but a ban on them that expires would exempt him from a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I meant AndyTheGrump should be topic banned for six months, because his edits there have included personal attacks that have not helped the situation. Not that he should be topic-banned from personal attacks banned for six months.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Send to ArbCom. The Zeitgeist area has, from the beginning, attracted problematic pov-pushing which has defied attempts at resolution through the usual wikipedia mechanisms. When I last worked on that area, EKJ was mostly a force for good, although I was worn down by the constant battles (and extensive sockpuppetry and quotemining by people trying to make Zeitgeist articles look really positive) so I haven't looked closely for some time. If the battles continue, then I think Arbcom is the best option. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support Earl King Jr. knows how to be covert and subtle and for over 3 years, with great success, he had been able to dominate and overrun well meaning people looking to simply put truthful, neutral and honest data on Zeitgeist related pages. Many talk about how there are "fluff" forces from the Zeitgeist Club. This is what he started as a theme if you look at his history. Anyone who is not negative must be a "pro zeitgeist cult member" in his own words. He started in 2012 and since then has been a single purpose editor focused entirely on making sure nothing balanced is ever put on Z pages. I am amazed at how biased and intolerant Earl King Jr is and how obsessive his interest to flame and pollute has been. He should be removed from ever editing anything Zeitgeist related if there is any expectation to see neutrality.JWilson0923 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support as proposer. Obviously Earl King has no intention of being neutral about anything Zeitgeist Film or Movement related. He/she is exactly what makes people not trust Wikipedia Sanjit45 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support. The ArbCom filing finally convinced me to look at this thread and into his edits. An edit-warring, disruptive SPA bent solely on non-neutrally and unilaterally wiping out content from Wikipedia? Has my vote for a complete topic ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support. If Earl can benefit the encyclopedia, it isn't on this or related topics. He is far too biased and disruptive to be of any use here. OnlyInYourMindT 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support per Dennis Brown. GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support per proposer. BMK (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose...topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft. I've mentioned before that this "movement" doesn't even exist...almost zero references indicate that it does. The documentary producer is also not notable...that is why these articles were all rolled into one. The movies are notable but not remarkably. There must be a better solution than a topic ban. Why not simply put the article on 1RR and monitor the talk page for policy violations. Earl King surely knows what his boundaries are by now.--MONGO 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC) MONGO: The first problem with your argument is that it assumes the "movement" or the "director" are relevant to the discussion. This is about EKJ's conduct. But, since you are playing games (and are likely a sock-puppet of EKJ) - the "movement", as per any simple search via Google shows endless notability and secondary press, including the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Marker, the Guardian, the Examiner, Hollywood Today, Russian Today, Ora.tv and beyond. As far as the "director", he not only made globally known, award winning films, (all of which meet Wikipedia standards and have been translated in a dozen languages and beyond), he is professional music video director with credits like Black Sabbath and Lili Haydn. He has also deviated and given talks at the Global Summit, Leaders Causing Leaders, Occupy Wall St. and two TED talks. He also had a recent Huffington Post profile article for his new film InterReflections. Also, all of these articles have been with Wikipedia for 4-6 years. It has only been people like Earl King Jr. that, in the deep minority, have forced their will to create these false claims of a lack of notability. So please...JWilson0923 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "topic banning Earl King from these articles equals opening up the flood gates for fancruft" -- that's a completely invalid (and inaccurate) argument, and sounds manipulative as well. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Let me show you manipulative...that's when you remove cited information that is in quotes and is accurate and claim its some BLP violation...as you did [here. Why would you do that? Because you didn't like the information? How is it a BLP violation? Like I said, if Earl is eliminated it allows fancruft to take over.--MONGO 09:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) No single individual stands alone with his finger in the dyke protecting the Encyclopedia from a tide of "fancruft." There has been little vandalism in the last few months and no Zeitgeist "fans" have been identified. An imaginary horrible enemy should not be used to justify very real disruptive editing, personal attacks, and bullying. Evidence of the former is missing, while evidence of the latter abounds and is cited in these ANIs. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC) JWilson0923, you are a relatively inexperienced editor, this noticeboard (especially the vote section) is NOT the place for idle speculation of 'puppetry', or other personal attacks. Nor the place for detailed discussion of notability/reliability of sources. Perhaps you would care to strike through some of your 'MONGO' post.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC) We are presented with the contradictory argument that (1) there is no movement, and (2) Wikipedia must be ever vigilant and use extraordinary measures to protect that truthful statement from the "flood" of movement members who would edit the article to say otherwise. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Where are we presented with this argument? It isn't anyway contradictory. I've no idea whether there is a movement, I know there are insufficient sources to say very much about WHAT it is. IPs spamming WP individually or in floods isn't proof of anything.Pincrete (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Follow the thread, Pincrete. That is what it's there for. Mongo made the contradictory arguments that a "flood" of supporters from a non-existent movement must be kept at bay to preserve Wikipedia, and only Earl King Jr. could do the job. Because of the atrocity of those enemies (think Night of the Living Dead) and King's singular ability to hold them off, King's flaws as a Wikipedian should be overlooked. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, 'opening up the flood gates', is an expression, roughly translated, it means 'inviting or making too easy something undesirable'. Taking one word out of an expression (flood) as if the word had been used literally is simply silly. My main point however was that a handful of 'nothere' editors can do immense damage and waste time, the existence of such a handful proves nothing about the movement. I'm not defending Mongo's claim. Merely pointing out that the 'contradiction' is no such thing.Pincrete (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Vilifying the opposition is not the route to cooperative editing, Pincrete. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, something on which we agree.Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose, per MONGO. EKJ doesn't seem to be the worst offender. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Support. I don't believe SPA is a good reason to ban someone, I imagine many experts wish to edit few articles. That said, EKJ has shown extreme bias, over an extended period, on this article and has lost the ability to be trusted.Rationalbenevolence (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose WP ia not the vehicle for spreading cruft and Earl King Jr. is just following guidelines and policy. This appears to be a content a dispute, not sanctionable behavior. Failing to convince him that he should change his views and failing to establish consensus is not a basis for a topic ban of a single opposing editor. --DHeyward (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Strong support for a topic ban. Without question one of the most disruptive, battleground editors I've come across during my years here. I had followed these articles for a long time and had come across Earl many times. Here are 6 ANI's that have been brought against him: [18] - [19] - [20] - [21] - [22] - [23] ---- If you've had little or no involvement with this editor, take the time and have a look at these past ANI's. The fact that a topic ban hasn't happened yet is, in my opinion, largely due to the small number of editors that have watched these articles over time. At the end of the day the question for me is this: "Does having Earl editing this topic area result in a net benefit to the overall project?" ---- Now, have IP's supportive of the movement sometimes disrupted the page? Of course they have, but it's nothing other editors can't handle. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I believe that it is some time since Somedifferentstuff was involved with this article, (apologies if I'm wrong). I know that he was one of a number of editors canvassed to vote here [24], (all of those selectively contacted on their talk pages have so far voted to support a ban, except bobrayner who supports Arbcom)Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I believe it was some time since MONGO was involved with this article too. I wouldn't presume to undermine MONGO's opinion on that basis. Notices were posted on articles and attracted involved/uninvolved individuals. Whether right or wrong, it is unjust to single out one editor from many who joined the discussion and argue for dismissing their participation. It's rude. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC) If Mongo was contacted privately to come here, I hope someone will point it out to the ANI.Pincrete (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC) What do you mean "contacted privately"? -- He posted to my talk page as he did with some other editors; and I'm glad he did because I wasn't aware of this ANI, had a lot of experience with the editor in question, and had information to share regarding his behavior. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Somedifferentstuff, ALL the editors privately contacted were ones likely to agree to a ban and/or have expressed similar viewpoints about tZM. NONE of those likely to disagree were contacted, nor even a 'talk page' message left until challenged about canvassing. I think you and I would agree that if contact is made, it should be done according to neutral criteria and done openly. Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Reading the talk page, its a battleground over content. It doesnt appear they are the only problem here and removing one side of a content dispute is never a good idea. Are there problems? Yes, but it doesnt appear they rise to the level of a topic ban. AlbinoFerret 13:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) As per comments by User:Jonpatterns, Oppose any topic-ban that does not also apply to AndyTheGrump. To single out one disruptive editor would send the message that personal attacks are an appropriate way to deal with tendentious editing. Weak Support for a topic-ban for both. Would still prefer Community General Sanctions or Arbitration, because the problem is complex and not limited to one or two disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose. This feels to me too much like trying to resolve a long-running content dispute by collecting everything a user has done and dumping it all at once in hopes that he'll be removed. His behavior certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's pretty clear that he's not the main source of the problems on that page; there's a longer-running content dispute for which people on all sides have responsibility. I'm also a bit bothered by the number of comments above that say things like "yes, he's improved, but it's just an act" or the like -- the purpose of sanctions is to get users to improve; if he's behaving now, then it doesn't make sense to sanction him. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Don't think anyone has said "yes, he's improved, but it's just an act", but rather he doesn't soapbox as often and is getting better at defending tendentious edits civilly. Legitimate improvement or not, it remains disruptive. By comparison a content dispute would be a picnic. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Support. Earl has too much of a battleground mentality to collaborate on such a controversial article. Other editors will step up to fight against the cruft and POV-pushing from pro-Zeitgeist SPAs. We don't need a anti-Zeitgeist SPA to guard the article against them. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be more willing to contribute to Zeitgeist talk page conversations if he were removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Support - I came to the Peter Joseph article initially and then over to the movie series page. This discussion on the administrator noticeboard shows what type of discussions you will see on the talk pages of all associated articles. In addition, it appears that a similar ANI discussion took place previously [25]. While I do not think Earl should be banned for his opinion, I do think that banning him (and possibly others) from the topic would help the rest of the community reach a consensus on neutral content. At the moment, there are a few that have strong opinions on either side; and, this makes it difficult as Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not opinions. I would see no issues with Earl suggesting edits, but not doing so directly. --TTTommy111 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Discussion I think you have to go back more than two weeks to get the full picture. He's been under the eye of the last report for the last 4 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Dennis Brown I have only skimmed past discussions and so will not comment, beyond saying that if the purpose of a ban is not to punish, but to effect change, even less is it as an excuse to punish for 'stale' crimes. Could we have the diffs to make our own assesments? My own judgement over the last few weeks is that the level of abuse AGAINST this editor has exceeded any that he has initiated.Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The diffs are in the discussion, the archives and the previous ANI that was linked. And the purpose of a topic ban, like a block, isn't to effect change. It is to prevent disruption. Unlike a block, a topic ban lets them contribute elsewhere, and in time, show they can eventually edit in that area again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Dennis Brown, clarification, I didn't mean to affect change to the individual, rather to the 'climate' on the article, so in that sense we agree.Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) That makes sense, it just wasn't in the typical "wikispeak" I'm used to. That said, I know very little about the editor except he is a regular source of controversy. Either the community will support or oppose, but hopefully we will be done bickering either way. Sometimes you have to just put it on the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I'm an IP, so I don't expect my opinion matters much, but in the short time I've been active I've noticed lots of sloppy edits in the article, that, if not originate from EKJ, are/were defended doggedly by him. Like including cherry picked from unrelated sources, blanking synopsis and recommending negative film review take it's place, weird edits that push POV OR that article should stress over the top that films/organization/name are owned by the director 1, 2, edit warring on capitalizing proper noun, and inserting flamebait which probably makes article the source of so much vandalism. That said, I think his greatest contributions have been keeping out FRINGE Zeitgeist supporting primary source content. I don't know if that excuses the sloppy anti-Zeitgeist POV pushing that ends up creating just as much work to wade through and clean up though. I'm pretty sure any of the neutral editors that hang around article would be capable of improving quality of article without fueling as much drama. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) You are an IP, you have as much right to !vote above as anyone else, so feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned in the opening statement regarding the Zeitgeist articles and Earl's desire to see them merged together (as such I feel this is a valid exemption as outlined in my conduct noticeboard ban). To respond to what Black Kite is saying, a big part of the reason the article on The Zeitgeist Movement was mostly about the movies is because of Earl's editing. See these two discussions I previously had over his edits to minimize material about the movement in favor of material about the movies in the article on the movement. When these articles were merged it was actually because an RfC I initiated over whether the reception section should be about the movement or the movies got hijacked into a merge discussion. My involvement in this has included past discussions of Earl's behavior in this topic area. You can see some evidence I presented in that thread from a few months ago regarding his edits, a link to a past discussion about his conduct where I was involved, and evidence of him engaging in copy-right infringing edits on multiple articles related to Cambodia, which still remains a problem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Without characterization, must be seen to be believed: [26] and [27] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC) AndyTheGrump cites King's copyright violations in an earlier ANI: [28][29][30][31] on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 July 2015 It was The Devil's Advocate who earlier raise this, not me. I've not been involved with the articles in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Just to point out that quite a number of the diffs being offered date back to Dec. 2014, or are not on 'Zeitgeist' pages.Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC) One of the diffs in the original list dates from Dec. 2014. The rest are this year. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC) All of the diffs offered immediately above date from Dec. 2014, and/or not from 'Zeitgeist' pages. I apologise for not making clear WHICH diffs.Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Technically, the diffs presented in that previous discussion were all from 2014, but a month later Earl did it again in this edit and in this comment to him I noted several instances in the past month where he has again copied from sources. Mind you, this is just the most recent stuff. I can find several more instances of this happening pretty much since he started editing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC) IF the old diffs support a long-term and ONGOING pattern of behaviour, they are of course valid. If they don't then this ANI is simply 'settling old scores', a number of supporters of ban above are quite happy to admit that they are 'fed-up' because of past behaviour and aren't too concerned about recent history, An honest position, if not one in WP's finest tradition.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) There is another questionable use of diffs above. In his Support, Sfarney/Grammar cites this as instance of EKJ 'making up' a rule that 'WP does not mention paid events', HOWEVER the text EKJ removed 'Zeitgeist holds two annual events: Z-Day and the Zeitgeist Media Festival' is not supported by EITHER of the sources cited. One source (in 2010), speaks of it holding its 'second annual event' the second quotes the first. EKJ was right to remove or amend the text, even if his edit reason is a bit silly.Pincrete (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Here is the discussion on King's excision and why I recall it.[32] Notice that though the discussion continued for more than 36 hours, King did not participate. We had only his cut-and-run explanation. King may have been correct to "remove or amend" the text, but only on the "amend" alternative, and that was not his choice. King cites a non-existent rule, his edit reason was erroneous, and the edit was wrong. We don't remove a finger because it has a wart, and we don't remove a long-standing statement from an article because part of it is not correctly sourced. If another editor restores the information so that it is correct, he invites edit warring. A newby might make King's mistake, but an experienced editor should work with others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Nobody in those 36hrs appeared to pick up on the fact that the last RS info about 'Annual events' (and to the best of my knowledge, the last RS info about Zday), is dated circa 2010/11. Shouldn't somebody have actually checked the source before even thinking of restoring it … or making an issue out of it?Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC) King's edit comment was a misdirector. He wrote he was cutting the material because Wikipedia cannot mention paid events. That did not suggest wrong dates or any other reason. And so far we do not know that he had any other reason or that he was looking at the problems you are now indicating. Let's at least credit him with stating his own reason correctly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) So, he had a mainly wrong reason for removal, which means he should be banned, others had an equally wrong reason for reinstate which means ????.Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Not sure what you mean about the "wrong reason." In his own words, he said he removed it because Wikipedia does not mention paid events. We debated that point for more than a day, but he did not clarify his position or correct his reason. I think we should presume he knew what he was doing. Either he was deliberately inventing reasons to remove content, or he was unconsciously inventing reasons. Either way, it's not a good sign. And when content is being restored from a wrongful removal, usually we don't examine every sliver, reference, date, etc. It's not like new content. That is just a fact. And whether King should be banned is a matter for the administrative council to decide. I have already offered my opinions on that, and so have you. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I was citing King's plagiary your post: No. You have copy-pasted substantial sections of material from sources with no quotation marks. This is a clear and unequivocal breach of copyright. [33][34][35][36] Your attempt to deny what is clearly visible in front of your own nose strikes me as further evidence of your problematic attitude. It may not relate to Zeitgeist, but it is certainly relevant to a broader discussion of your contribution history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- True, Devil's Advocate provided a longer list of King's Plagiary: See this edit from October ripped from a Reuters article, these two edits from a couple days later ripped from Radio Free Asia, this edit from November ripping material from East Asia Forum and Global Advice Network, and this edit from December ripping material from Human Rights Watch.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) -- Copyright violations are an absolutely basic issue about which no editor could be naive, and this is a serial offense. On further reflection of King's overall performance as a WP editor, I seriously question that King is an asset to Wikipedia, and I must vote for general ban. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, I believe procedure is that you propose a general ban in its own section, in order to keep discussion readable.Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Comment, it may be true that EKJ's editing has contributed historically to unreasonably negative content about the films and 'movement'. However the main reason response to the films is negative is because there are almost NO positive reviews. The main reason description of the movement is 'patchy' (at best) is because there are almost no RS articles to say what this 'movement' is. After 2-3 weeks involvement, I am still no clearer in my mind whether the 'movement' actually exists in any more tangible sense than 'the hippy movement' or 'the punk movement' existed. The sources just aren't out there.Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The reason for a topic ban is, that over what appears years of, uncivil behaviour, ownership and game playing/incompetence. He exacerbates discussions by bringing up irrelevant or illogical points making it impossible to discuss points properly. A recent example is premature phony closing of RfC diff. He is not the sole defender of the article against the 'waves' of pro Zeitgeist editors - as the varied response to the recent RfCs show. He could be good for this if his behaviour did change, and it has improved - but not convinced this isn't part of the game. That is why I recommend a short ban. The Zeitgeist movement is not a movement - as in a social or cultural movement. It is a political advocacy group. It certainly exists, even if not notable. Not sure I follow your argument on 'the hippy movement' and 'the punk movement', see Counterculture of the 1960s and Punk subculture. Anyway, arguments about the movement are off topic. Earl King Jr isn't the only sceptical editor, and isn't the only one working to remove bias from the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Jonpatterns. Without going too much off-topic, the 'movement' doesn't appear to be an advocacy group in the general sense (Registered members, structure etc … which also implies opening itself to outside scrutiny). I'm old enough to have used the term 'the hippy movement' approvingly, my meaning today was an amorphous set of loosely shared values, with little definable structure, strategy or purpose. My reason for making the analogy was to say that RSs don't really tell us WHAT it is that makes it more than that, I am unclear therefore whether it actually IS, though I would not oject to its claims being described in 'its' voice.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Removed as off topicPincrete (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Question: If Earl's problems are in the past (per Dennis Brown "You have to go back more than two weeks" and diffs that go back to 2014) then what is the benefit of imposing a sanction? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC). See my reply to Pincrete above.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, it is not appropriate to selectively contact individual editors to invite them to contribute here, even when the message left is neutral, especially since several have long since 'disengaged' from the article. This is called WP:Canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I completely agree, but your implication that I have "selectively" notified others is incorrect. Those who are on the current talk page (like you) that I knew were watching the page, I did not bother to notify personally: I put a notice on the recent BLP section[37] (non-selective). I have just put a notice on the topic:talk page now.[38] I notified King personally and everyone who had been involved to any extent in recent months (non-selective). If you know of others that I missed, by all means invite them (non-selective). The history of controversy with King is huge and involves many people who have many facts and much evidence to bring to the table. I could not cover it all myself. King has so far said little in his own defense. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, many of those you contacted privately ARE regular editors, who would have seen a neutral talkpage notice, whilst Arthur Rubin and myself were not contacted (who just happen to be the only refular editors to oppose). As soon as you contact individuals, it's called canvassing and DON"T DO IT.Pincrete (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … … ps I had already put a notice on the talk page AS SOON as I (accidentally) became aware of this noticeboard. Your defence compounds the impression of canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Nope, and your characterization does you no credit. Here is the complete list of those I contacted directly, and even the total is not "many." 18:24, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:Bobrayner ‎ 18:18, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+545)‎ . . User talk:Somedifferentstuff ‎ 18:02, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:AndyTheGrump ‎ 17:50, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:NeilN ‎ 17:48, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+538)‎ . . User talk:Betty Logan ‎ 17:46, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+544)‎ . . User talk:Willondon ‎ 17:45, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+546)‎ . . User talk:Jonpatterns ‎ (→‎sibel edmonds) 17:44, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+548)‎ . . User talk:Robert McClenon ‎ (→‎Earl King Jr.: new section) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . User talk:OnlyInYourMind ‎ (current) As can be seen by that list, none of those above except AndyTheGrump had posted to talk:Zeitgeist pages in the last couple of weeks, and might never have received notifications of this discussion. And AndyTheGrump was inconsistent in his contributions to these talk pages and might never return -- his range of topics is wide. There are two issues here: (1) The people who have been offended by King far outnumber the people who support him -- even if I had notified every single person who encountered King in the last 6 months, the numbers could be portrayed as "canvassing" because of the overwhelming imbalance. (2) Your logic presumes a partisan alignment on these topics, but the reality is more in line with WP:Good faith. The editors are not lined up in voting blocks. They are accomplished and experienced editors who have valuable opinions. The situation is really not as King repeatedly portrays it, that a "FLOOD OF SOCKPUPPETS" would take over the topic pages if King were not standing guard. I haven't see any sockpuppets in my two months in these topics. Incidentally, if you know of any other topic pages associated with Zeitgeist, please add notices of this discussion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Looks like you're doing fine spamming talkpages on your own...even article talkpages in fact...why are you posting notices about this discussion on the article talkpages for 9/11 conspiracy theories and elsewhere? I don't think I've ever seen a worse case of spamming.--MONGO 10:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, contacting ONE editor is canvassing. Your actions will probably have no appreciable effect on outcome but you were caught doing something inappropriate FULL STOP. Piece of friendly advice, own up, back off, don't do it again. You compound it however by continuing [39], the advise you gave was wrong, JWilson0923 should strike through the remarks, if he wishes, not 'doctor them' as you advise him, otherwise my and Mongo's comments are left in limbo.Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC) … ps I have left a short message on JWilson0923's talk page correcting the misinformation, as neutrally as I could.[40] In case anyone is reading this, the real wp:Canvassing policy says: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A topic ban would include 9/11 conspiracy as it is frequently crossed into the Zeitgeist discussions by King himself. So those editors should be involved in this discussion. Up to them. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, I'm happy to let others be the judge of whether your actions showed intent to 'broaden participation' or to 'canvas support'. Especially as you failed to take the obvious step of putting a note on the talk page until after being warned by me to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I published the notice immediately on the BLP page, which is where the trigger incident for this ANI occurred. With your helpful advice (I didn't realize it was a warning -- what was the threat?), I added all the talk pages associated with Zeitgiest. But then Mongo complained I was spamming, so I guess you can't please everyone, eh? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Referring to Pincrete's vote statement, Pincrete has been participating in the Zeitgeist discussions for almost a month. He has agreed with EKG on a number of things, most recently on the BLP question, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive224#Non-factual_smear_on_Zeitgeist_the_film_page] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, I think my involvement is about three weeks actually, but what is your point exactly? To the best of my memory, the two matters EKJ and I have agreed on are 1) the need to 'cool down' the personal attacks, 'grandstanding' and general battlefield mentality of the talk page (no editor above disputesseveral editors above agree that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks). … … 2). I agreed with EKJ on the BLP that an attributed quote describing the film negatively, is not 'slander', and is not even a BLP issue, simply a weight issue. But so does everyone else on that noticeboard except you. Grammar'sLittleHelper, what was 'the trigger incident' on BLP? Because EKJ's posts there are calm, courteous and rational IMHO, and the debate had largely 'died', because of no new opinion coming in. As I've already said, others can judge whether your intent was 'notifying', or 'coaching', 'canvassing' and 'spamming',Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC) For an answer to your question, please read the original complaint I posted here on July 2. Since then, more serious details have emerged that show King's long-term conduct does not comport with the WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) ??(no editor above disputes that in that recent period EKJ has mainly been the victim of those personal attacks)?? I for one dispute that statement most strongly. The trigger incident was King attacking me once again out of the blue with no provocation. Judging from their statements above in favour of banning King, a number of other editors seem not to agree with your broad statement -- but that is just how they seem to me. Maybe you should read them again. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, could you please supply the diffs for EKJ personally attacking you on the BLP? I know only of YOU striking through an edit of his, which (in my judgement) was not at all personal, an extremely provocative act on your part, which he was cool/clever enough to not 'rise to the bait'. (Here are my diffs EKJ leaves a post on BLPn (which he does not later modify as claimed at the head of this ANI) … Sfarney|Grammar strikes half of it through, claiming it is a personal attack … EKJ replies … Sfarney|Grammar replies, with no explanation for his strike through … EKJ leaves his final comment on BLP … Sfarney|Grammar finds this post so offensive that it is the 'trigger incident' to bring the matter to this ANI) Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) updated by Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC) The answer to your question is in the original Jul 2 post to ANI. King's attacks often take the form of ad hominem. That Latin phrase means a characterization of the person rather than an address to the topic. Such was the case here. King often infers or states that the only reason editor X desires an edit on the topic is because editor X is (some variety of a brainwashed groupie) or a "supporter" for the subject. In this post, he twice attributes words to me that I did not write.[41] In the same post, he attributes motives to me that I have not voiced. Then once again (for there are many previous such) he calls anyone who disagrees with him a "supporter" of Zeitgeist. Ad hominem is classed as a logical fallacy. The rhetorical effect is to change the subject from the topic at hand to the person. A Wikipedia editor should not have to defend self and motives repeatedly to get a topic edit done. Ad hominem is a violation of WP:Five Pillars. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC) The logical blackhole is claiming that 'and there are many supporters of the Zeitgeist movement that are attempting to present ideas according to Zeitgeist instead of according to outside from Zeitgeist sources,' constitutes a personal attack against you or other editors. Is this the 'trigger incident' ? I'm happy to let the diffs be the judge of whose account of the BLPn is more credible and who was engaging in and initiating personal attacks on that BLP. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Misconception of proposal The proposal is about Earl King Jr's behaviour over a long term period, not whether the Zeitgeist articles have become a battleground or not. These are two different issues that need to be considered separately. A quick look at the current talk pages will not give an insight into his long term behaviour. For more info see points I previously raised at AN here.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Jonpatterns, I think we all recognise the distinction, however anyone voting inevitably asks themselves whether banning EKJ from the topic would actually be beneficial to the topic, or whether the problem/answer lies elsewhere.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Which is problematic. EKJ has cleaned up sloppy POV pushing, but has illustrated this isn't out of a desire to build an encyclopedia, just to insert at extreme lengths his views through sloppy POV pushing. Apart from the mundane cleaning of vandalism, EKJ's contributions are observably counterproductive. The arguments from his supporters those who oppose that without him the article would get taken over by FRINGE content is absurd misdirection and no excuse for his behavior. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 70.36.233.104, I'm sure no offence was intended, but I think those voting 'oppose', would not like to be characterised as 'his supporters'. Most of us have articulated the view that EKJ is not the root of the problem and banning him not the solution. (no apology needed though). Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Just the same, apologies to any who may have been offended. I think the argument that topic banning EKJ won't solve all the problems with the article is [missing] the point in addressing his tendentious editing. His edits to remove vandalism are used to defend him when it appears the rest of his contributions [provoke] that same vandalism. I don't believe Jonpatterns' reminder is unreasonable. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 70.36.233.104, in my case, the argument is that banning EKJ will solve NONE of the problems, the biggest of which is a 'battleground' mentality in which personal abuse, 'us and them', fallacious argumentation, misuse of noticeboards are somehow justified. Fighting 'the ogre' has become an end in itself and much more fun than the mundane, incremental business of checking sources, working towards agreement etc.. Banning EKJ on its own gives the 'green light' to that mentality. That is why I favour general sanctions or Arbcom.Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC) That is the misconception. EKJ engages in tendentious editing. EKJ's actions/behavior may not be THE problem with the article, but they are still a significant problem in and of themselves. EKJ's tendentious editing make it difficult to collaborate constructively on article, independent of whatever other problems arise. The loss of confidence expressed by those supporting a ban is what follows when one burns through their credibility to launch a public war against article's topic. There are plenty of neutral editors willing to work on the article and no good reason to tolerate the drama EKJ's tendentious editing provokes. Straying from the question of EKJ's tendentious editing to explore how to police article is missing the forest through the trees. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Community General Sanctions The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I have, above, said that this case should be sent to ArbCom as a matter that the community has been unable to resolve. However, there is one step that the community can take toward resolution. That is to impose community general sanctions, to allow any uninvolved administrator to act against any disruptive editor. If ArbCom takes this case, then in the final decision they can convert the general sanctions to ArbCom sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Ref: Wikipedia:General sanctions (Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)) Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) *Support. Seems reasonable enough at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Question what does 'community general sanctions' involve, link to documentation? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Here is a link to Wikipedia:General sanctions documentation. It seems 'general sanctions' can mean a number of different measures that effect all editors of an article.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC) My support moved to section below Support - I'm surprised something like this wasn't enacted back when the article & its prior incarnation were seeing wilder activity. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support in lieu of the proposed topic ban(s). I'm tired of seeing these pages over and over at RFPP. KrakatoaKatie 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support. As with many essentially religious topics, this is a battleground of belief against ugly fact. Maintaining the quality and integrity of the project requires that we start the process of separating warring parties from each other and the locus of dispute. Note that the Zeitgeist movies and movement are clearly covered by WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC) This is too vague as to be meaningful, thus is not able to be closed or enforced. GS, or community sanctions proposals have to be painstakingly precise and narrowly defined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Support, if this means real action, but I have been disappointed by recent arbitrations -- all came to nothing, without yes, no, or even a maybe. Just silence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose, [user:Dennis Brown]'s argument, as short as it is, convinced me to change my vote. I believe all editors, with the exception of Earl King Jr., have worked toward collaboration and cooperation. If I am wrong, there will be time enough to impose stricter measures. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose BMK (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support No value in singling out one editor when others add fuel to problems and neutral presentation is the actual burning presentation, in my view. Let the article go under an extreme microscope and lets get people accountable for future references, ongoing. This is an example of one of my recent edits [42] It seems pretty tame and if anything a little positive toward the subject, but no it is just sourced from a decent content source Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose; Dennis Brown has given an abridged version of my reasons, but that will do for now - hopefully ArbCom will address the proposer on the issue of competence in dispute resolution at the proposer's present request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) @JzG:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @AndyTheGrump: - for the sake of formality and given the mess being generated from this matter being prematurely referred from one request board to another, can you please indicate whether you are supporting this proposal (whatever it is meant to cover) and the one below concurrently, or if not, revise your comment in relation to this one and add a separate comment to the one below? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Would it would also be helpful if we all strike though our comments if we have moved them to the new proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) [43] @Pincrete: Yes it would be, (and thank you for doing so). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Community General Sanctions II To address Dennis Brown's concern that the sanction as proposed is unacceptably vague, I here offer a redraft: All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, are subject to community-imposed Wikipedia: General Sanctions. This includes all articles on the films, organization, movement, and individuals connected to these other topics. A copy of this sanction shall be posted to the header of all article talk pages that it applies to. Proposed, but don't mark me down as a supporter, this is for administrative clarity. I have not studied the article problems enough to support it myself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose - Properly drafted, but I oppose because the topic ban above is the better way to deal with it. There isn't a showing of MANY people causing problems, and that is what you need to justify general sanctions. If you just get the topic ban, the problems as presented are over. That fits the admin goal of using the least amount of force to get the job done, and it's a lot less ongoing paperwork and drama. If it is an ongoing problem with many users, then mixing it in with a report on an individual is muddying the waters, and it should have been done as a separate proposal at WP:AN. The thread (plus arb) is already too much to read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I believe what you're trying to propose is a community discretionary sanctions regime. "General sanctions" refers to various different things, including page revert restrictions, article probation, and discretionary sanctions. See WP:General sanctions for more information. If you want community discretionary sanctions, I suggest you use the likes of WP:GS/GG or WP:GS/SCW&ISIL as templates. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose, agree with Dennis Brown. I don't see how general sanctions would solve the actual problem. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose BMK (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Support - Re-thought this. BMK (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I want to make this perfectly clear, since there seems to be some doubt about it: I support both a topic ban for EKJ and Community General Sanctions for the subject area. My "support" vote in the topic ban area should not be discounted simply because I also voted "support" here - the two sanctions are not in any way mutually exclusive. BMK (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC) BMK, re your discussion below about 'how to count', bobrayner voted 'send to ArbCom'. Would it be appropriate to 'ping' him to see if he want's to alter his position in the light of the ArbCom rejection? Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Given that canvassing has already been an issue, I wouldn't. BMK (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Support This could work, provided that the uninvolved admins take WP:FRINGE (as an interpretation of WP:UNDUE) into account, as well as WP:EW, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:COPYVIO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Support as reasonable. The overall level of respect and cooperation needs attention. Battlefield mentality on the article is a problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Support - A pattern of intentional 'battlefield editing' is happening on this article, of which EKJ is not the sole cause. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Support if we trim broadly construed language and list just Zeitgeist related material (there's not that many). Paving with good intentions sometimes has the effect of infecting a bunch of unrelated articles. We don't really want a bunch of uninvolved editors/articles suddenly subject to GS because the topic was mentioned by a Zeitgeist individual or, say, there was a meetup in a city, etc. Suddenly it needs to be mentioned in the off-topic article to justify the talk page template of GS or it's used as a cudgel against an editor when they branch out from Zeitgeist. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Support as more clearly worded. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Comment whether Community General Sanctions are need or not is a separate issue to whether Earl King Jr should be topic banned. Let consider the evidence for that issue here. The issue of Community General Sanctions should be raised separately, and arguments for that considered separately.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Support Very needed for this battleground. AlbinoFerret 13:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Support I'll go along with this, but agree that the topic ban is more important. KrakatoaKatie 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oppose unless accompanied by a topic ban for EKJ. Otherwise, it looks to me too much like postponing any real action over a long-running issue yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC) It's not my view that imposing Community General Sections on the subject area overrides the general support shown above for a topic ban on EKJ - they are in no way mutally exclusive, and the !vote count in support of a topic ban is currently at 14-4. BMK (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Five people expressly oppose the topic ban. Additionally you have two who support sending it to ArbCom rather than handling it here. That should be considered seven opposes to the topic ban. You also have BK's comment that should probably be viewed as an oppose and Rich's comment in the discussion seems to lean towards opposing a topic ban. Krakatoa previously suggested general sanctions in lieu of topic bans so that could be seen as another oppose. Given that, you have a minimum 15-7 vote and potentially a 15-10 vote. On the general sanctions it appears to be, at present, a 9-5 vote. Obviously, consensus is more than head-counting and a lot of parties voting either way are involved, which should cause their vote to be considered in light of that, but the vote count is not overwhelmingly in favor of one option or another.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) If I miscounted the opposes, my apologies, it wasn't deliberate. However, the comments concerning sending it to ArbCom shouldn't be counted as opposes, in my opinion, they should be counted as what they are, comments that the problem should be handled in a different venue. Since that's not happening - considering that the arbs appears to be waiting to see what happens here - they're essentially neutral !votes until the editors come back and make a specific vote concerning the topic ban - so I still make it 15-5 for the topic ban, just counting noses without determining strength of argument (which is why admins get the big bucks). BMK (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, also, regarding Black Kite - I assume he's more than capable of writing "oppose" if he is against a topic ban for EKJ. What I see in his comment is him providing more factual information for editors to take into account when they make their determination - so I wouldn't try to read his mind and count his comment as an "oppose" unless he formally makes it one. BMK (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC) AndyTheGrump, it is clear that you oppose this if it is simply a 'fudge'. However, I think it would help if you clarified whether you would still oppose IF it were in addition or if the topic ban failed.Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I think my previous comment was clear enough - I think that a topic ban for EKJ would solve any problems that can't be dealt with by normal processes. As for what to do if that fails to work, I'm not going to prejudge the issue, since I don't know what form such 'failure' might take. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Question: Generally mixing the discussion of the behaviour of a particular editor and general behaviour isn't helpful. Would 'general sanctions' help focus talkpage discussion and avoid the walls of text with little useful content? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Strongly Oppose: This discussion is not being properly defined or conducted. All articles related to the topic of the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed, ... but not defined. The survey above asks whether King is to be topic banned from all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie ... and again not defined. When I posted notices of the ANI for King's ban on the talk:topic pages for talk:Peter Joseph, Talk:Jacque Fresco , Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, and Talk:Post-scarcity economy (which are all related to Zeitgeist), the announcements were reverted by an editor who is now a part of this discussion (JzG, alias Guy), who explains his actions with wp:Canvassing.[44],[45],[46],[47]. As a result, even though Guy himself is voting and speaking in this investigation, he denies knowledge to editors on those other articles who may not know of this investigation and will not have a voice. In effect, the editors involved in Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) will now be deciding for the editors on those other articles. In my opinion, this is not the way things are supposed to be done. The proper action is to notify those other talk pages of an ANI that may affect an editor interacting in their midst with a subtended ANI that may affect articles they are working on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The proposal(s) are defined at the head of this ANI (by you, Sfarney|Grammar) as extending to 1) The film series page ... 2) A page which does not exist, (namely the 'movement page) ... 3)The director's page, ... extending to Jacque Fresco or others might be logical if there is the slightest evidence of intent to disrupt. Otherwise you are attempting to unilaterally redefine the terms of this whole ANI. Your logic also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a noticeboard IS, which especially values input from 'uninvolved' editors, not simply a 'circus' for those with an interest in the subject/related subjects. Put more simply, why would an editor on a 9/11 topic be more competent to assess behaviour than someone who normally edits on cookery?Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I believe you are in error. When I wrote the statement at the head of this ANI, the proposal had not been written. Each proposal, written later, contains its own language and does not refer to my words. Also, you are apparently unfamiliar with the words on WP:Canvassing, which states: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Since this ban and/or GS affects multiple articles, the editors on all such article discussion pages should be notified. If comments from involved editors were not welcome, you and I should not be having this conversation on this page, nor should you and I be voting. But you have voted in both proposals and posted more than a dozen comments. Therefore, others should be notified as you have been, and they should have their say and their vote, too. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Why those topics? As I have stated numerous times, King himself ties them together -- he insisted for a while that the Zeitgeist article must state the footage was copied from 9/11 conspiracy videos and the article contains that link. Also, King has been quite active on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It is all of a piece to King. Conspiracy theory = conspiracy theory. The complaints about his conduct on those pages are very similar to the complaints about his conduct on the Zeitgeist page. Now a question for you: If King were conducting himself properly, he should have many supporters willing to come and say so, and the evidence against him should be slim. In such case, you should have no problem with broad publication to every page where King contributes. But King is a single purpose editor and has been for years (except for a few forays into the Cambodia article where he misbehaved in other ways). Everywhere he goes, his offenses outweigh his contributions according to the evidence presented. A good editor is able to show a chest full of ribbons and commendations from his colleagues. If they exist, you should bring those forward and defend him. Where are those ribbons and kudos? As it stands now, the wider the net is thrown among those who know him, the more numerous the complaints and the longer the list of his offenses against Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, your Dennis Brown's definition of the breadth of this ANI at the head is film + movement + director … this section head adds plus persons connected (Fresco?), that is the scope of this ANI, that is what people have expressed their opinions on. IF you wish to extend the topic ban to other pages, PROPOSE IT. Can you not see how silly (and dishonest) it would be to ask people to 'vote' and then count the votes and then try to change the basis of what they had voted on after they had all gone home. As for the rest of your text, it is precisely the sort of 'grandstanding' and futile speculation (if a cat isn't a monkey doesn't that prove that an Chinaman needs a toothbrush?) which bedevils this article and which is more the root cause than EKJ. My comments about procedure, about what is spamming and about what is canvassing were made in good faith. I hope a more senior editor will correct me if I am wrong.Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … … bolding simply draws attention to the fact that you left NO note here of your 'canvassing' and "spamming' until after several editors challenged you, you took no steps to remove the 'spammed' notifications. amended Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) If it is canvassing, a single warning should be sufficient. There is no need to argue and use ethnic slurs. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 70.36.233.104, struck through, I had no idea that the term could be abusive. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Support on condition that broadly construed is dropped.--MONGO 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Question - What specific list of articles should be used, for a more specific list vs "broadly construed"? (several have asked, open to any responses) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC) The 9/11 conspiracy theory articles are already under 9/11 ArbCom sanctions so they should already be covered in Arbitration Enforcement (and if there is a 9/11 complaint against EKj, they should be brought there). My list is Zeitgeist (film series), Peter Joseph, and derivative works by Peter Joseph such as God is Dead? that are beyond the 9/11 scope. Is there any more that are directly related to the Zeitgeist conspiracy theories or the movement by Joseph? --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I think as DHeyward states above...there are now just two articles in question I can think of.--MONGO 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Thank you. I would add a Zeitgeist Movement article if it returns to being a separate article. Anything else? Oh, for the record, I notified MONGO and DHeyward on their talk pages as to this clarification request, as they'd made specific questions or statements to that effect. Responses are however and of course open to any and all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Not sure why they have a problem with "broadly construed" as that is pretty standard language for these kinds of sanctions. It seems that is the best language to use as certain topics that are broadly related to TZM are battlegrounds for the same parties and not covered by any of the existing discretionary sanctions. Specifically, topics related to Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC) DHeyward, I think your list + 'Fresco' are legitimately within the proposal. 'The Venus Project', (I believe) doesn't exist. Attempting to broaden the scope to any tentatively connected subject would alter the whole ANI and no evidence was offered of the need to do so, we can't collect the votes and then collect the evidence!Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Post-scarcity economy is said to be what the Zeitgeist films and/or movement advocate, and is strongly related to this group of articles. As the history of that page shows, in the last few weeks, King clear-cut that page down from 25,000 words to 5,000 words -- little more than a dictionary definition and a template.[48] Prior to that storm of changes, the article was fairly stable at about 20,000 characters under the eyes of many editors. King's vandalism seems to have been arbitrary with no general page tags warnings. Post-scarcity economy should be restored to its former content and sourcing (e.g, March 2015), and carefully edited by consensus. And Jacque Fresco should be included in your list, of course. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Is there anything King was editing other than Cambodia articles that you would not connect in that manner?? ... I am concerned about his nanotechnology and post scarcity related edits as well, but if the solution is that broad then it really needs to be editor specific not article topic area general. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Reviewing King's edits in the last four months: Here is a recent edit to the Howard Scott artical that seems to be a thinly desguised plagiarism from wired.com. Here is King canvassing support from Tom Harrison for an ANI in June. Here is a recent edit on the Peter Joseph page in which King reduced the number of citations in the lede from nine RS to two. Mongo recently claimed (above on this page) that Peter Joseph "is also not notable," presumably for lack of citations to RS, which King had previously removed from the article. In Attention economy, King removed large blocks of text without flag warnings or requests for improvement. Here is King canvassing editor Ian.thomas for support in an ANI. In this part of his edit history, King removed thousands of characters of text and sourcing from Sharing economy and Co-creation without first flagging it or attempting to improve it past the flaws he named. Here, here, and here. Small edits to align the material with WP, such as removing company names or summarizing the quotations, could have improved the Encyclopedia with the enriched information. In Muddy Waters, King again chopped out large blocks of text. Some paragraphs had old flags requesting sources, the others had apparently not been flagged. King gives no indication he sought citations or found contradictory information, only that the citations were missing. King deleted 20,000 characters of apparently very good, irreplaceable research from Fender Stratocaster, much of it without maintenance flagging or any effort to find the missing citations. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, but you're arguing for a general problem with all the user's edits, not what the limits would be around Zeitgeist related topics for him. This proposal was about the Zeitgeist problem and I don't see universal support for a general user sanction (vs what I see as pretty good consensus for a Zeitgeist topic restriction). You're fighting a different battle. Joseph Fresco and the Attention Economy stuff seem too far away from Zeitgeist. I can see there's a slight affinity but they're not related topics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Georgewilliamherbert, may I ask you to reconsider this view of the Peter Joseph article? Joseph is the sole writer, narrator, and producer of the Zeitgeist films, and apparently holds a trademark on The Zeitgeist Movement, according to King. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Argh. I meant Fresco. Joseph, belongs on the Zeitgeist related topics list. Clearly. My apologies for the confusing thinko. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Support. This seems like a more appropriate response given the length and depth of the dispute. If EKJ really is a major problem on the article, this will end up either forcing him to shape up or getting him kicked off anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Strong support - I would support admin sanctions with our without a proposal, even against me for my edits if necessary. Look how much back and forth there has been on the page. For some reason the topic seems to be heated with editors taking a strong stance on both sides. This makes it difficult if not impossible to find a consensus. Anything fishy needs to be cleaned, breaded, and fried by anyone with the ability to sanction. Maybe after a few are cooked, editors will pull off their blinders and meet somewhere closer to a consensus. --TTTommy111 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Arbitration Requested Arbitration rejected for present The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I have requested arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29. It is possible that if general sanctions are enacted here, the arbitrators may decide not to accept the case, but to let community sanctions run. I would prefer a full evidentiary hearing to determine whose conduct has been problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC) That'll be rejected as we have not yet exhausted other options (e.g. community sanctions). Guy (Help!) 07:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Maybe tangential, but isn't User:The Devil's Advocate, who commented above, banned from noticeboards by an arb remedy? Tom Harrison Talk 11:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Hi Tom Harrison, This is an excellent question. Under WP:ARBGG, The Devil's Advocate is indeed indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard; this is however, with a caveat, "except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started". Given that the editor's first sentence of their submission here is "I have been directly involved in many of the discussions mentioned ...", this caveat appears to be in effect; and the edits, therefore, in order. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Given the history of engagement that got him banned from noticeboards, he's been "directly involved in many of the discussions" of just about any topic, and with just about every contributor. If that were what arbcom intended by banning him from noticeboards, it wouldn't have been much of a ban. Surely they didn't craft the remedy so he could continue the behavior that lead to it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Hi Tom Harrison, Unfortunately, we're not able to be sure of what ArbCom intended to do, only of what they did do. What they did do, per WP:ARBGG, is prevent the editor from involving themselves in discussions on matters with which they had not been involved prior to the matter being raised on noticeboards. This is a significant limitation on the editor's involvement in disputes and discussions across the project. In this instance, the editor asserts that they were involved prior to the matter being raised, and, therefore, the exemption in the caveat to the prohibition applies. Should editors believe that the prohibition as imposed by WP:ARBGG is not the intended sanction, the appropriate venue to raise the question would be WP:ARCA. Should editors believe that this editor was not, in fact, involved prior to this matter being raised on this noticeboard, the appropriate venue would be the editor's Talk page, and then WP:AE. While I appreciate the concerns raised, and understand some of the history, we must accept ArbCom's decision as it is, and work within it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Canvassing? Please review these apparent canvassing attempts. [49][50][51][52]This appears to be coaching a side with "we"[53]. There may be more. This statement appears to be very misleading as there doesn't appear to be any language in the propose topic ban to include all of 9/11 and seems to be an effort to attract attention of editors that may have had disputes with EKJ. --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC) DHeyward, please see the thread above (in voting on topic ban). It follows immediately after Rich Farmbrough's emboldened 'Question'. Starting with an admonition from me for Sfarney|Grammar, to stop canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC) DHeyward, the 'we text' ('The last thing we need now is a round of more accusations when Earl's accusatory conduct is under examination.'), was also moved to a less prominent position from [54]to [55], where the exchange became meaningless as it was not a response to anything.(It is restored and I have invited the editor to 'strike through'). The very least that must be said is that 'coaching' a new editor is inappropriate and moving 'embarrassing' text on a noticeboard equally so.Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, cool off, Pincrete. "Less prominent" means nothing when editors are as carefully observant as this crowd. I tried to move it to the discussion section before the argument became another magic beanstock. But now I see you have reopened your accusations of canvassing in a separate area AWAY from my responses to your earlier accusations. What's up with that? Are YOU trying to hide the full discussion from examination? The last thing we need now is a another round of accusations when King's conduct is under examination. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I did not open this section DHeyward did. Coaching another (new) editor and then moving his text in the manner you had previously advised that editor to do, is unprecedented in my experience. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I wasn't aware that he had also moved the comments. The coaching itself was a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "us vs them." Moving the comments to avoid scrutiny in the manner described to the editor is battleground and disruptive behavior that appears to be motivated by reason other than building an encyclopedia. This at the very least should be a 1-way iban against User:Sfarney so he isn't allowed to plot and carry out underhanded dealing with EKG. Possibly a complete topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC) DHeyward, battleground mentality is precisely the real problem with this article, of which this incident is only the 'tip of the iceberg' (see talk and recent BLP). My only 'horse in this race' is to argue that getting rid of EKJ will be a victory for that mentality, not the solution to it.Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) It was definitely no more coaching that any experienced editor would give a less experienced editor. I would like you to consider these points one at a time, because you are seeing them all through a lens of misrepresentation. 1. I counseled JWilson0923 to tone down his remarks and move them(07:11, 4 July 2015 UTC) before ANYone had answered them (08:15, 4 July 2015 UTC). Please check the dates and times and satisfy yourself that this is the truth. 2. I always use "we" when speaking of Wikipedians. The last thing we all need is to turn the administrator page into a battleground of mutual accusations. You don't need it, I don't need it, JWilson0923 doesn't need it, Earl King Jr. doesn't need it, and no honest editor in Wikipedia needs it. 3. Even Pincrete advised the JWilson0923 that his comments were of the wrong color in in the wrong place. 4. I was quite obviously not moving the comments to avoid scrutiny. The only context that would be broken was JWilson0923's comments to Mongo -- When I moved, I kept the whole block together. If you want a long running thread of discussion in the voting area, I did not know. I don't think it is proper. That is why there is a discussion section. 4. Canvassing. I put a general notice on the BLP incident board immediately upon filing this ANI request.[56] I then notified all other editors who had any involvement that I could locate on the talk pages who were not current on the BLP page. Pincrete reminded me I should put a notice of ANI on the talk:topic pages, so that is what I did. Then Mongo accuses me of spamming -- you can't please everyone, I guess. You may not know, but EKJ has often tied 9/11 conspiracy to the Zeitgeist films because the film talks about 9/11. When you look at King's contributions on that talk page, you find he is active there, and the ANI is a discussion of "all subjects related to the Zeitgeist movie." That includes 9/11 and would be a part of the topic ban, so those editors should also be involved. The other talk pages I included for the same reason. Let's handle one thing at a time. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I acknowledge that Sfarney|Grammar's advice to JWilson0923 was before I gave the public advice to strike through on this ANI. I still think that Sfarney|Grammar's actions were WHOLLY inappropriate and his choice of message to JWilson0923 constituted 'conspiritorial coaching'.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) … ps Sfarney|Grammar I didn't remind you to put a notice on the talk page (Why would I? I had already done it), you did it only AFTER I had counselled you to stop canvassing. You misquote the message you left on JWilson0923's talk. You 'can't please everyone' when you knowingly act outside guidelines, in order to 'whip up' solicit support. Who elected you to decide which pages are included in the proposed topic ban? If you thought all those additional pages should be included, you should have proposed them. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, you did remind me -- perhaps not intentionally, but remind me you did. And I don't think it's appropriate for you to appear to quote me with words I have not said or written. That is not held to be good conduct. As to whipping up support, take a moment to think about what you are saying. If a public notice of this Incident report is broadly known, it should whip up support for King in equal measure to the proposal to ban him. A general notice would whip up support for the ban only if King's adversaries overwhelmingly outnumber his supporters. And that is not improper -- that is what the proposal is intended to determine. How would you alert all involved of this Incident report and proposal? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, if I have 'appeared to quote you', I will correct, but since you don't say where, I cannot.Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC) … … Ah I think I see now, fixed! Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC) I have removed those posts as inappropriate canvassing. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) The we can presume you will be posting a notice with more neutral wording so that all the communities within the topic will know of this discussion and provide meaningful participation. All those who know King to be a constructive presence and Wikipedian will have full opportunity to speak in his favor, as well as those who have had other experiences. But public sunlight is always a good thing in these situations. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, clarification, IF those pages were part of the proposed topic ban or IF evidence was being offered of EKJ's disruption on those pages, then such a notice would be appropriate, otherwise it's spamming or canvassing.Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Who will know what is a part of the topic ban until it is issued? And when it is issued, it will be too late for King's admirers from those articles to come forward and testify to his contributions. But you and Mongo don't seem to look forward to a flood of admirers. You seem to presume all comments from those editors will be negative -- Why is that? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, please strike through your speculations about my and MONGO's motives and attitudes, you are not on the talk page now!Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC) … ps a topic ban is not 'issued' in the manner you imagine, you cannot go to court for shoplifting and be found guilty of murder. Grammar'sLittleHelper, I invited you to 'strike through', you chose not to. So, I will respond to your speculations about my and MONGO's thinking. An ANI is not a 'Reality TV show' where we vote off 'least popular'. There are websites where they count up 'likes' and 'friends', but not WP, I hoped you would have had the good sense to see that.Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Pincrete, This is an investigation into Earl King's Jr.'s value as a Wikipedia editor. Is he more tendentious than valuable? Is he more valuable than tendentious? Those are the comments -- with evidence -- useful to this forum. We even have buttons to push and awards to acknowledge people for their Wikipedia contributions. When I posted a notice to the Zeitgeist-related talk:topic pages where King has edited, other editors were invited to come forward and provide valuable evidence and opinions in answer to those two questions. The invitation was general -- everyone can contribute. So please, if you have experience with Earl's history as a Wikipedia editor and you have more information that answers one of those two questions or both, bring it forward. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, I did not/do not re-open 'canvassing' or 'spamming', the diffs are there. I DID ask you to 'strike out' (infantile), speculation about the motives of two editors. I have repeatedly said (endorsed by others), that I believe EKJ is not the biggest problem, nor banning him the solution.Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC) It is not necessary to speculate on your motivations. You have voted against banning King. From that undisputed fact, we must conclude that you hold him to be a constructive editor. Mongo has made even stronger statements. No speculation is required. You both wish the vote to be carried in the direction you have voted. Again, no speculation required. You object to broad notices of this proposal to ban King. You have given no reasons for your objections, but it is no great leap to conclude you believe that involving more editors with more experience with King will not help to carry the vote in the direction you have voted. Once again, no wild speculation there, either. If you have other reasons for objecting to public notices of this discussion, please inform me so that I can cross out the earlier statement as an error in judgment. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Sfarney|Grammar, speculation is precisely what it is, a speculation that belongs in the playground world of 'our gang' and 'his gang'. Which part of 'I believe EKJ is not the biggest problem, nor banning him the solution' is difficult to understand ?Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC) ... ps, Grammar'sLittleHelper, you have my permission (if you wish) to strike out everything of both yours and mine from 'And when it is issued, it will be too late', through to here. Making this ANI unreadable benefits no one.Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Personally attacking other editors? Bullying? Multiple copyright violations? Eviscerating whole topics? Non-consensual editing? Inventing WP policy de jour? Deleting text in violation of Wikipedia:Citation_needed? Deleting citations? Canvassing support from individuals? Yes, it is difficult to understand how you might think King's multiple and continual violations would not stop if King were stopped. Have you read everything in this ANI and examined the evidence for yourself? Have you studied the messages he puts on personal talk pages? In Pincrete's estimation, what is the "biggest problem" if not King? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Grammar'sLittleHelper, most of the 'sins' you mention seem to have become endemic on the article. I've answered the 'biggest problem' elsewhere, but briefly it is a 'battleground mentality', which, in my estimation has become an end in itself, the article has become an excuse for pursuing personal antagonisms and where denigrating the other point of view is almost a conditioned response. That mentality may not mean to do so, but it gives encouragement to 'nothere fly-in' editors, who may not be a HUGE problem, but who exist/will exist. You I believe have been as guilty as anyone, more interested in 'slapping down' some editors and 'rallying the troops', than listening to arguments and working around a problem or problematic editor. EKJ probably has a 'siege' mentality, but many others have a 'siegers' mentality. I have been prepared on many occasions to partly agree with you, but partly has never been good enough, therefore consensus for small but significant improvements hasn't happened. For example, ,I MIGHT be willing to 'throw out' Ms Goldberg (I'm not US and don't know 'Tablet'), but I can't throw out Tablet's opinion and accept 'Huff Post' as fact, even less can I throw out 'Tablet' because Ms Goldberg fails an individual editor's 'rationality test'. As Aquillon very sensibly pointed out (Sanctions), any kind of 'monitoring' would apply to everyone, inc. EKJ, so he's either learnt to behave or he'll be the first to 'fall foul' of the sanctions. Topic bans are meant to be remedial, not punitive. You asked for my opinion, I presume sincerely, (rather than rhetorically in order to 'disprove' it), that's my 2p, but here is not the place to debate it, so you have my permission to strike it through, with your previous, if you wish.Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC) If Sfarney did something wrong, I'm sure it will come out in the wash from uninvolved editors/admins when this is over. Given that EKJ is active exclusively on a couple pages, it is hard to imagine why Sfarney's posts there would be considered excessive. It also appears it is through those same posts that many of EKJ's supporters those opposing were informed of this discussion. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 70.36.233.104, actually very few have posted here as a result of 'user page' or 'spamming' contact. IF they had, this whole ANI would be thrown out. There are reasons for these policies which I am happy to discuss with you on my/your talk, should you wish. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC) If it's of no consequence then there's no reason to argue about it. Sfarney's been warned, he isn't doing it any longer, if you think it is that serious open up a complaint against him. I don't see why this has to go on and on. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Ughhhhhhh when did I last mention them except to offer to explain policies to you ? Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Additional comment from Earl King Jr. That is assuming there will be a topic ban which might be assuming too much. There is no actual real body count voting on such things but there is a general consensus which can be gotten at. A general fair consensus is now not possible as an editor has gone out of their way to dig up from multiple pages any number of people that seem to have a grievance or have complained in the past about Earl King (me}. Andy the grump has been adamant about a topic ban. He also has a history of making personal attacks against Earl King that is beyond blatant [57] and [58] and [59] and [60]. Other editors have called for him to be topic banned or blocked from editing for personal attacks. The Devils Advocates recent appearance here is controversial because he has been banned currently from these types of boards. He also has been blocked previously for tendentious editing on the Zeitgeist page though that is in the past. Several editors, Andy, The Devils Advocate, SomeDifferentStuff have filed multiple Ani's none of which were acted on but are quoted that they were filed as evidence of wrong doing by King but filing Ani's is not a guilt by association generator but has been used as such. Other editors recently have called for Andy to be blocked from editing and also Sfarney to be blocked from editing. Grammers Little helper has affected what ever case he had by his alleged spamming or canvassing of anyone who is a peripheral participant in a range of articles who might come here and vote. Lobbying this Mr. Wilson who previously called King a troll editor is probably a perfect example [61]. That kind of behavior on the article is not supposed to be be allowed, calling people trolls. Wilsons talk page indicated that GrammersLittleHelper the filer of this Ani thought it best to call Wilson to the Ani which is spamming or canvassing, see his talk page as others have brought this up [62] I think we have to look at the broader elements of what is going on with people editing the article and that would mean a future of watching the article under the direction given by the Arbitration committee. I suggest this Ani has lost the basis of being valid because its originator Mr. Sfarney has gone too far in lobyying (canvassing). So, lets draw a future line in the sand. Ask the Arbitration committee for a fresh perspective and identify problems without so much drama. I propose we drop the ani now as tainted and start fresh elsewhere namely the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ArbCom looks almost certain to reject the case, on the basis that the community is dealing with it here. Accordingly, we should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Earl King Jr., I took the liberty of sectioning this off from 'Canvassing?', please revert me if I was wrong.Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I have never been blocked for my editing of Zeitgeist articles and I have not filed a single ANI request regarding you. Once I proposed a topic ban in a filing someone else made, but that was it. The previous ANI cases were presented mostly for the sake of pointing out how this is a long-standing issue and to show previous evidence of misconduct that was presented in those cases. You have a devoted group of supporters who believe you should be allowed to do whatever you like so long as you keep the Zeitgeist supporters at bay and they have obstructed previous efforts at removing you from the topic.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) All three ANI proposals were originated by others who knew the process of writing a proposal. None were written by me. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate, please name (or strike through) the 'devoted group of supporters' and the other characterisations of those who do not agree with you. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC) MONGO and Tom are the two most notable ones who have commented above. They routinely weighed in to defend you at previous ANI discussions as some necessary soldier in the fight against Zeitgeist supporters and have also supported some of your more extreme POV edits in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate, I'm not sure who 'you' or 'your' means, it was me Pincrete who left the message, and I don't even know who 'Tom' is. I left the advice to strike through because I thought you were getting dangerously close to personal attacks and characterisations. I repeat the advice. By all means strike through these two messages of mine at the same time. Even though I disagree with you, your posts above are constructive. These are not.Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Apologies, I didn't see it was you and not Earl responding to me. I do not consider it a personal attack to say Earl has a devoted group of supporters. Not everyone who disagrees with me is in that group either. The two editors I mentioned are the main ones. Both of them have repeatedly argued against any sanction for Earl, no matter how extensive the evidence of misconduct, on the grounds that they think he is a necessary bulwark against Zeitgeist supporters. On article talk pages and in edits to the article itself they have often supported his position no matter how extreme as in the case with the capitalization edit war noted in my previous comment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) As you wish, you've at least clarified who you DIDN'T, mean (inc. me). Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC) There is little that TDA and I agree, so not surprising we would disagree on what should be done about Earl King. I find TDAs mentioning myself and Tom to be furtherance of his usual conspiracy theorizing...it's not relevant to this matter and is a serious breach of AGF. --MONGO 17:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Saying you two support Earl regardless of his conduct is not a conspiracy theory or a failure to assume good faith. It is an observation about your conduct over the years I have been involved in the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan

This user has been discussed previously, when he was adding repeated copyright violations and acting uncivilly. See the past discussion.

Since then, this user deleted all articles he contributed to the wiki as he said he would in the past discussion. He also edited multiple articles about specific cartoons and removed information about their availability on VHS or laserdisc. It appears that he intended to remove all references regarding Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki, as he feels "wronged" due to the previous warnings regarding copyright infringement and unsourced content. As he stated in the previous discussion (linked above), "It doesn't matter anymore. I have requested the articles that I have created to be deleted. That way, no one will ever know what Looney Tunes VHS/Laserdisc Collections there were or have been released ever again. For now on, the only Looney Tunes Home Video collection articles anyone will be looking for are either Blu-rays or DVDs." Examples of removal of content: [63], [64]

He's also continued to be combative towards other editors. See examples: [65], [66].

Unfortunately, this editor is simply not here to build an encyclopedia. Even after several attempts by multiple users to reach out to him and interact in a constructive manner, he continues to snap at anyone who disagrees with him and has acted in bad faith by attempting to remove all references to Looney Tunes VHS/laserdisc from the wiki after not being allowed to continue adding unsourced articles with major copyright infringements. At this point, he's making exclusively disruptive edits. ~ Rob^Talk 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · logs) userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If this sort of thing is bothering everyone, someone should issue a warning watermark stamp/template on my talk page. It's the only way I'll back off. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan – please review WP:POINT. At this point, one of us could add a {{Uw-point}} warning message to your Talk page, but is it really still necessary?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

IJBall If it's the only way to refrain myself from editing all those articles, SO BE IT. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's another way. An admin could take a look at your edits, take a look at the copyvios, take a look at all the deleted artcles, amd finally take a look at your deliberately pointy behavior, and simply decide that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, and block you from editing. Is that what you're looking for, or would you rather moderate your behavior on your own and continue editing? BMK (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Per user request, I placed a level4/disruption warning on his talkpage. Please don't consider this prejudicial against any blocking others might be considering. DMacks (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Recommending 6 month block. It may be possible that there are some constructive edits among their 328 mainspace edits but the overall persistent unconstructive edits and infringements of policy and the refusal to 'backoff' unfortunately conclude that LooneyTunerIan's presence on Wikipedia is a net negative at least for the time being until they can demonstrate some level of maturity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung - I've already gotten my warning. I've learned my lesson. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's why I didn't block you yet myself and am asking for input from other admins, LooneyTunerIan. However, other admins may suggest that it's time for you to go per WP:NOTHERE. Only time will tell and a six month prevention of disruption would also give you time to think how you would prefer to edit the encyclopedia in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung - Well, then how about a perma-block or a foreva-block? If you think I'm causing trouble on Wikipedia, maybe you should recommend that I should be banished forever. And you can even add a message for me, just to make sure I stay gone. Maybe it can say something like: "LooneyTunerIan, you are hereby blocked and banned from Wikipedia, forever. As such you will not have permission to edit any articles. Now go find your own wiki to edit as much as you please and never come back. Ever." Honestly, Kudpung, why can't we just leave me with a warning and leave it like that? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Law of holes and WP:Wikipedia does not need you. BMK (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Support permanent block, good suggestion. Flat Out (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out - If you're going to support it, don't forget the message I've included in the previous reply above. --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan your proposal of a total ban, and the manner in which you raised it, shows that you have learnt nothing. Flat Out (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

LooneyTunerIan is obviously quite upset, and a short block is in order given the disruptive behavior. It is not clear to me why anyone thinks long blocks (6 months or more) are appropriate -- it seems extremely likely that LooneyTunerIan will cool down and not return to disruption after a short break, and if I'm wrong then we can deal with that later easily. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He;s lucky I'm recommending only 6 months. I was originally tempted to unilaterally indef him per WP:NOTHERE without the tralala of this ANI thread.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support 3-6 month block, LooneyTunerIan may cool down, his facetious comments here, don't suggest that he has yet 'learnt his lesson'.Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block; standard offer if s/he wishes: WP:NOTHERE. Six months plus several hundred good-faith edits on Wikibooks or Wikivoyage is enough to think again before demanding allegiance. Esquivalience ^t 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support 6-month to indef block. The kicker is their (repeated) statement "It's the only way I'll back off". If any editor says that about anything, regarding anything, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support(uninvolved non admin) Simply WP:NOTHERE and is disruptive. I question if 6 months is long enough, but its a good starting point. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User's continued ignorance of warnings and website policies

Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The most disruptive thing is that the editor doesn't communicate. Their edits are not AIV material, since they are not vandalism (they do make valid edits too) and I can't see the user acting in bad faith. I get the feeling that they either don't understand RS policies or simply don't care. Probably latter, considering how many "final warnings" they have received. If it is a competence issue, I doubt that bans would make any difference. Widr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Felipeedit's most recent edit disturbing. I dunno if it's "bad faith" or "good faith", but it's the unexplained removal of sourced content with zero edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: FWIW, Felipeedit has now contacted several editors on their Talk pages about this, and I've left them a note on their own Talk page. So this is moving closer to a potential resolution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's leading to resolution; they've failed to communicate with any editor, until days following the opening of this report. And even following your note, they still do not add edit summaries, and their past behaviors lead me to believe that no resolution may come. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie, since the OP attempted pings but did not sign their OP, hence the pings didn't work. (Pings only work when the user types four tildes when posted.) BTW, I am uninvolved in this matter.Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan

• GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've tried to resolve this in every other way I can, and this is out of control.

GaryColemanFan is completely ignoring the rules of WP:BLP even after being advised thereof by Darkwind that the onus is on him to reliably and independently source information. Despite this, he persistently adds contentious sources for a claim as to who trained current WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy. The latest of which is a podcast which I am having checked for reliability over on the RS Noticeboard. Despite this good faith checking, Gary has now regarded my removal of what stands as an unreliable source per BLP (until RS confirms otherwise) as vandalism and in the process is using bullying tactics against WP:CIVIL to get his way - including indirect personal attacks based on comments I have made about my back up reasons (not core reasons) for my own editing simply being OR and should for that reason be ignored. It is not and never has been my core reason and anyway if there is controversy about a source, BLP places the onus on the claimer (in this case Gary) to back it up. He has not done so with proven reliable sources yet.

His last reversion can't be reverted by me because I'll be in violation of WP:3RR which is very frustrating because now we have an unproven source on the page identifying Carlo Cannon as having trained Buddy Murphy. I make this report because of Gary's conduct throughout this issue and his insistence in effect that WP:IAR be applied over and above WP:BLP and WP:V. Right throughout this I have been acting in good faith, and I believe that Gary is not and is behaving in such a manner that a block should be considered or at the very least a warning. The RS Noticeboard will hopefully carry the solution and Gary should have waited for the ruling there. As it stands, his edit is against WP:BLP as stated. If his source is verified by an admin on the RS Noticeboard that will change matters, but until then my edit should be maintained. Either way, Gary is out of line at present and I ask that action be taken. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I can't recall ever having seen such a protracted and inflamed argument over something of so little objective importance: this stands out even in the context of lame edit wars over wrestling topics generally. The whole lot of you need slapping with the WP:TROUT. The content should be removed pending consensus on Talk, and the best way to fix that is an RfC. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well we've been through the BLPN already, and I took the issue to the RSN as well. So I doubt under the current conditions a consensus is even possible until Gary and the IP's treat the BLP rules with more respect. Having said that, if an RS admin can provide a definitive answer to my latest query there that may be the closure that's needed without RfC being needed. I agree in the meantime that the Carlo Cannon reference should be removed. I can't - as mentioned above. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you shouted loudly to all sorts of people about the thing you don't like, but you didn't even try to resolve it in a civilised manner. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's hard to be civil to the standard you're talking about when people have their blinkers on over the rules of BLP - which was a problem from the very beginning. I've tried, believe me, but it has been extremely difficult - especially when I know I'm being bullied and my automatic reaction is to strike back strongly just to show I won't be intimidated. It's very hard to go in another direction (LOL at below). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wot yo' talkin' 'bout, Willis? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Heh. (How long have you been waiting to use that one?!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well now. I left a polite warning on GaryColemanFan's talk page about his characterisation of edits he doesn't like as "vandalism" and he removed it with the edit summary stay off my talk page forever. This is now looking like a user who is actively rejecting any attempt to influence him. I do not think this behaviour is at all appropriate. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, looking quickly at GaryColemanFan's talk page, I couldn't see any notification of this ANI. Shouldn't that be first step? (apologies if it was under my nose).Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He removed it at around the same time he gave JzG the above edit summary. He gave me the same chorus by the way. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling this edit of yours "vandalism" does not look promising either, though I will note that it looks like the two of you have been in a content dispute for days. My other comment here is that GaryColemanFan looks like an account whose sole interest is professional wrestling articles, and that seems to be one of those areas that's ripe with problematic editing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, IJBall. It is ripe for problematic editing, and all I was doing was trying to uphold the rules of BLP in perfectly good faith. All Gary wanted to do was fill the seven year gap in Buddy Murphy's training and in effect put WP:IAR ahead of BLP to that end - ie refusing to be influenced as JzG said, even by admins like him and Darkwind. It's stubborn and it doesn't help provide encyclopaedic content, particularly truly reliable sourcing. One of the reasons why I left WP for a long time was the lack of respect for the Australian wrestling scene. This is an example of it although it's a little different to the previous batch in that the definition of "industry professional" is being applied way too freely. As noted below I have bailed on the core dispute simply because I'm tired of arguing with another editor who refused to listen, but it doesn't alter the fact that Gary has been uncivil in his dealings here and he has been a bully in the process. In fact if I remember from my last stint here he was doing it even then, so it would appear a leopard doesn't change their spots. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the edit from JzG because he has a history of incivility toward me, calling me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit" on my talk page. Regardless of the situation, any communication from him on my talk page will be removed on sight. That has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand, though. I'm not rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy non-issue. I just don't like JzG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, anyone find some irony in the user who reported me for supposed incivility making this edit when bowing out of the discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is between me and 94, and has nothing to do with this ANI. Deflecting like that is typical behaviour of a bully. Way to provide further proof against you. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Up to a point. Five years ago you were already calling good-faith edits you disagreed with, "vandalism". And yes I called you on it - I had entirely forgotten. So now we have data points showing that you've been doing this for over five years, and that makes it even more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what we've got here: a discussion about my civility initiated by an editor who, just today, told another editor to "fuck off", "screw off", and called his edit "stupid". We've got an administrator who has called me "stupid", "idiot", "dick", and "fuckwit". And my supposed crime is calling the removal of sourced information "vandalism"? Even if you don't agree with me that the edit was vandalism, you can still obviously see that my supposed incivility pales in comparison. JzG - I'm hoping you can now understand why I deleted your edit from my talk page. Keep in mind, though, that no other administrator would have received that reception. It is your history of incivility that has compromised your ability to perform the role of an administrator. If you were to remove yourself from the situation, it would have been over a while ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh look at Gary deflect again. Refusing to address what he has done, preferring to have a crack at me and JzG as a clear diversion. This is about more than calling a legit edit 'vandalism'. This is about ignoring WP:BLP and trying to add a source that was not reliable (and has since been ruled as such - I'm talking about the PCW link, not the podcast) and being rude in the edit summaries towards both me and JzG again. Nice to see it pointed out that I'm not the only one who has seen that Gary has a history of incivility through bullying and avoiding his responsibilities. Oh, and he was rejecting attempts to resolve the Buddy Murphy issue - and just as an aside he wasn't the only one but that's not the core issue here. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another rude edit summary that seeks to bully. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• So, I have reviewed the ongoing dispute between these two users due to an edit warring report. While I did not intervene, I did notice the obviously-problematic behavior on GaryColemanFan's part and wholeheartedly reiterate to him the warning issued by JzG. His behavior is entirely out of line, and this includes his response to JzG's warning. The very thought that Guy cannot legitimately issue an administrative warning because the two users butted-heads five and a half years beforehand is completely ridiculous. And, not that it really matters, but GCF completely baited Guy to begin with, by templating him, an already long-term administrator, for disruptive editing. Tempers flare. It happens. After five years, it doesn't make a difference, and bringing it up as a defense now is nothing but a distraction. GCF, whether or not you want to listen to the warning about your behavior, it's certainly valid, and fair warning, it's not going to hold much weight in an unblock request. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Enough already

An interaction ban is unlikely to work (it would just be a question of dividing up the articles between the two warring parties, since much of the dispute is edit-warring in mainspace not talk page argy-bargy). I therefore propose: user:Curse of Fenric and user:GaryColemanFan be topic banned from the area of professional wrestling for a period of six months. The implication is that this is broadly construed, though pro wrestling is essentially a walled garden. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It looks like it resolved itself. Appears to have been a misunderstanding regarding BLP & RS. Editors could have been more civil and patient, but it appears issue was settled. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Coleman is one of the most highly active and biggest content builders on the pro wrestling WikiProject, a topic ban would be counter productive. I'd rather they just avoid each other. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Staying off each others talk page should be enough (which would also go for Guy (Help!) as well). 194.28.127.55 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose See above note from another admin. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• You keep saying you've been rude "under provocation" as if that's some sort of excuse. Last I checked, there's no exception to WP:CIVIL. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (It appears that Curse edited his !vote explination, see this for the original one of which I was responding to. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 18:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC))

WP:Boomerang, especially the "There is no "immunity" for reporters" section. 81.141.246.36 (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about the behavior of User:HughD

I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-civil behavior of another editor, HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), towards me and others (including DaltonCastle, Comatmebro, Capitalismojo, Arthur Rubin, and One15969). This editor, myself, and a number of other editors have been involved in a series of content disputes at Americans for Prosperity. HughD has been blocked several times in the past few months for edit warring on that article. He has recently escalated a campaign of personal attacks against me and others. Without providing diffs, he has accused me of "whitewashing" and "section blanking." His behavior is contributing to an increasingly toxic editing environment. His extraordinarily condescending talk page comments are not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Last time he was blocked for edit warring, the blocking admin wrote: "This is getting out of hand; if you continue editing in this manner, you may face a topic ban or indefinite block. Please reconsider your behavior before that becomes necessary" [67]. I have asked HughD a number of times (most recently, here [68]) to discuss content over contributors to no avail. Some recent examples of uncivil remarks/personal attacks include:

• "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [69]

• "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [70]

• "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [71]

• "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [72]

• "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [73]

• "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [74]

• "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [75]

• "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of WP:DUE not usually associated with experienced editors such as yourself. We sometimes find this type of misapplication of WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [76]

• "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [77]

• "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [78]

• "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [79]

• "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [80]

• "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [81]

I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia and not to continue posting snarky, incendiary talk page comments. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

• Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [82] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a WP:COATRACK with too many intricate funding details per WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [83] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?

DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable start. It would be helpful if Viriditas took the same pledge. It might be adequate to allow the article to attain some semblance of WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read WP:TLDR. I see good faith disagreements, not any incivility. Reading the talk page, it is clear that HughD disagrees with the consensus on most issues, and is right on a few issues. The correct way to proceed when you think the local consensus is wrong, is to open an RfC. And at some point, you need to accept the consensus and drop the WP:STICK. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[84] just to pick an obvious example.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

 Top Organization Contributors

 RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%

 2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%

 3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%

 4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%

 5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%

 6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%

 7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%

 8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%

 9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%

 10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%

 11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%

 12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%

 13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%

 14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%

 15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%

 Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

Wikipedia should give the same WP:WEIGHT to donations and criticisms of same no matter which side they support.

This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to WP:DRR if they cannot resolve the dispute on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a content dispute here; however, HughD has never accepted consensus except when it can be interpreted to agree with his POV. When it cannot be, he finds another noticeboard to seek "consensus". Few of his proposed edits are unrepresentative of the source, which is often reliable; but he includes only statements from a particular viewpoint, and adds more of them than are warranted. I cannot give a specific example of "cherry-picking" except his removal of third-party approval of "secrecy" of donor lists, but the entire funding and transparency sections are much too long with respect to the weight given in reliable sources. Even that would be a content dispute, except for the edit warring and his refusal to understand that his stated interpretation of guidelines can be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My previous comment seems to have been misplaced. I do much of my editing on a smartphone, and cannot easily copy diffs into my text. However, I might be more easily convinced that Hugh is not being intentionally disruptive if someone could point out a single edit which could be considered "pro-Koch". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be interesting. He has posted here [85] that he views AFP as "a key player in the organized, corporate-funded suppression of unions in the US" and here [86] that "I would say AFP has done more to raise the avg temp of our planet than Watts ever will" [87] The attempts (here's another [88]) to convince members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour to adopt the article seem like an attempt to recruit like-minded editors to edit the page in a certain way, AKA Wikipedia:Canvassing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of context, those quotes look like canvassing. In context, they emerged in longer, more neutral, discussions, to increase awareness among editors interested in a topic. One sentence at the climate change task force talk page displays HughD's unfortunate tendency toward polemic in talk pages. Collaboration is always going to be difficult on articles about political 501(c)(4) organizations (Dark money), but I don't see a pattern, or an individual diff, from any of the 3 named editors (HughD, Champaign Supernova, Dalton Castle) that crosses any line that requires administrator involvement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

HughD's behavior

I was "pinged" about this discussion when it was first opened, and have given some thought to responding here in the intervening days, not least of which was due to HughD's seeming targeting of those who disagree with him. While HughD's behavior is based on a content dispute, it has led to inappropriate behavior by HughD. I'll try to keep it brief; while the length and breadth of HughD's behavior makes that difficult, I'll try to summarize below.

Here are the actions which HughD has directed at me:

On 6/15 this notice. The DS notice on the talkpage was put there by HughD, not an admin. This was done so that Hugh could then post the DS warnings on the talkpages of editors who were in disagreement with him. This is a course of action I've actually never seen attempted before.

On 6/18, he posted this incorrect notice, in violation of ANI requirements. The result of that ANI discussion was no action against me.

On 6/29, he posted this (unsigned). The result of that posting was no action against me.

Not satisfied with that result, HughD then posted this notice on 6/30, which again resulted in no action against me. However, while it was still on-going, Hugh posted this notice on 7/1.

During the last week or so of June, Hugh filed the following:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner
2. a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity

In addition, he has opened numerous discussions regarding his viewpoint on the article talkpage in the last two months (a very nice recap can be found Talk:Americans for Prosperity#NPOV issue HERE on the talkpage - the response by Champaigne Supernova. Every one of which consensus has been against, e.g. over inclusion of Koch Brothers, too much detail on funding, and most specifically, NPOV. Even after consensus has been reached on the NPOV issue, he then tagged the article for an NPOV issue. After consensus. I think Hugh confuses consensus with unanimity.

His disruptive behavior goes back to at least 2012, when this occurred:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued) 09/12 - where he vowed to "never edit war again"

I didn't do a search on the intervening years. But in the last 3 months, he's been involved in numerous actions, and been blocked 4 times:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:HughD reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked) April 2015

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked) May 2015 - Even here, EdJohnston wrote, "HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action) The only reason he was not blocked was he apologized, and the admin accepted that.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Safehaven86 reported by User:HughD (Result: Referred to ANI) see the end of that thread.

I think HughD has displayed a pattern of behavior which is not conducive to the health of Wikipedia. Over the last two-three months, he has consistently failed to adhere to consensus reached on talk pages, he's been involved in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:COATRACK and WP:FORUMSHOP (I think he's up to posting on 8-9 different venues in an attempt to get someone to agree with him: Edit Warring noticeboard; ANI; NPOV board; Reliable sources; 2 project talk pages; the AfP talkpage; and the Wikiproject talkpage). This forum shopping is beginning to bear fruit, since several of the editors now active on the talk page have been recruited from those other forums. Each of those actions, in and of itself is fine. But combined they show a pattern. And it's not a pattern of consensus-building and compromise. During one of HughD's attacks on me, an admin, Monty845, suggested I might take it up at WP:AE, but that did not seem to be an appropriate forum, or at least I couldn't see how it applied, but Monty is more experienced than I am. Not sure what, if anything can be done, but this is getting tiresome at this point. I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles. Thanks for your time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and participation, Onel5969. This supposed "content dispute" has brought up multiple issues regarding HughD's behavior. When it comes to consensus, he ignores it. He is not helpful nor friendly when it comes to understanding differences. I have only received negative comments from HughD, some of which have attacked me personally as a user. There are ways to discuss content in a friendly manner -- and honestly I am not sure if HughD is capable of this at this point in time. I would have to agree with everything the above user has stated, as well as the statement "I would suggest at least a WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles." Cheers. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the evidence and discussion in this thread indicates a content dispute between involved parties who have been editing in this area. There is no good evidence supporting a topic ban of any kind, at least one that would impact HughD's editing. When asked to provide a single diff supporting their contention, not a single editor can do so. Instead, we are subject to long, off-topic screeds by editors who have been involved on the other side of the content dispute, links to ancient disputes, requests to prove negatives and other fallacious arguments. In conclusion, no diffs supporting a topic ban, just mud flinging. On the other hand, I would certainly support a topic ban on the editors listed above who have been repeatedly caught whitewashing and violating NPOV in the Koch-related area, and who have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy into railroading one of their few critics who has pointed to their problematic edits. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

He seems to refuse to accept consensus and uses boards and relentless RfC's and tags to assert his views. The current dispute centers on building a COATRACK into . The AE request against Arthur Ruben appears retaliatory and forum shopping. AR doesn't appear to have contributed here but one forum wasn't enough. We how have a dubious assertion about the TeaParty case at AE (which is only plausible if that article becomes a COATRACK). And the 4th version of an attempt to add material that has been rejected multiple times. When new edits are rejected, we call the articles version "consensus" and HughD appears to ignore this. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you suggesting that the Americans for Prosperity article is not within the scope of the Tea Party case? That's clearly incorrect, as anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at reliable sources on the subject can clearly see. I can cite a lot of high-quality evidence to back that up, but it might be simpler and easier if we just agree to call a spade a spade here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice: On Arbitration Enforcement board as well

A filing by HughD against Arthur Rubin on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is running in parallel with this discussion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur Rubin.

This does somewhat complicate ANI responses but admins and editors should feel free to review or participate in both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much participation here by Arthur Rubin. The material that HughD argues should be included is outlined extensively here and in the other forum and an RfC on the talk page (4th time to be discussed). Three fora seeking help with a minority viewpoint seems a bit much. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Bill Cosby

Administrative attention seems to be needed on Bill Cosby. There appears to be a single editor, Georgeivs vid, editing against consensus to remove information regarding the sexual assault allegations.

Judging from this recent talk page conversation with NeilN, the RfC regarding the allegations (which so far overwhelmingly supports maintaining mention of the allegations in the lead) was needed because User:Georgeivs vid desired to change established version to remove any mention of the sexual assault allegations.

Meanwhile, multiple editors have worked on talk page to create an improved, neutral and brief mention of the allegations for lede summary, including: Cwobeel, Gaijin42, LavaBaron, AtHomeIn神戸, BlueSalix, Anythingyouwant, and Louieoddie but Georgeivs vid keeps reverting. It seems a warning regarding consensus and also that unfavorable does not equal BLP violation might be helpful. If disruption continues a topic ban should perhaps be considered. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, Qualudes are Schedule I in the USA, so there is no way to get them legally in the US unless you are a research facility with permission from the DEA, so his removal of "illegal" to describe them is factually wrong. As to the allegations, WP:WELLKNOWN plus the consensus in Archive 2, plus the ongoing RFC seem to make it clear that there is a strong consensus to include this in the lede of the article. I've skimmed BLP and BLPCRIME again, I don't see any policy justification for excluding it and the allegations are difficult to ignore if we truly follow the sources. Care must be taken, but it would seemingly be irresponsible to have nothing about this string of events. Reading though the archives, it appears he is using obstructionist tactics and hollow wikilawyering to get his preferred version, thus whitewashing the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quaaludes appear to have been widely prescribed in the US until about 1984 as a legal drug. AFAICT, the drug is still available in other countries. Again, AFAICT, Cosby's statements indicate he obtained the drugs by prescription in the 1970s - when the drug was quite legal as such. Collect (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This neglects to consider the required warning label that accompanies such prescriptions in the U.S. which states: "Federal law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed", so illegal seems an appropriate description for Cosby's admitted use of Quaaludes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim was made that it was per se an "illegal drug" - that a person can illegally dispense a legally acquired drug is true of every single prescription drug in the US - the edit did not refer to Cosby's act as being illegal, but to the drug itself at the time. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The timetable matters, other countries do not since that is the country where this happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And at the time he appears to have acquired the drug - the statement is that he did o with a prescription for a legal drug. And every scrip drug can be illegally redispensed <g> (including such drugs as Atenolol, Metoprolol, and barf bags [89] ("I once obtained, just for asking, a large plastic measuring cup (of the sort I think you're supposed to pee in). The purpose was because I was driving a friend home who wasn't feeling well, so I asked if we could get a barf bag and that's what they gave me. Even this innocuous-looking plastic item was so labeled.") - the edit alas called it per se an illegal drug. Collect (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• That discussion with NeilN was in May, and this user's conduct does not seem to have improved since. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That discussion is a good example of how things went. At that time it was decided that it was undue to include any mention in the intro at all, and my editing was thanked by several people. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• One of the editor's first edits gives an indication about how he feels about the subject. [90] It seems he is equating mentioning the controversy in the lead to Wikipedia saying Cosby is guilty. [91] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the editor in question has been duly alerted as to this fact, but remember that all of BLP is under DS, so AE or individual admin action are valid paths to resolution here. (PErhaps an alert, followed by a very stern warning that a topic ban or worse is likely to follow if things continue is in order?) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad more people are paying attention to the article. I content still that if there is a mention in the lead or intro of his biography that it HAS to be neutral and abide by BLP policies. Others keep adding material that seems to be in violation of that.

There is a discussion if ANYTHING should be in the lead at all, and another discussion of what that might be. So far I've come the closest with a proposal that is neutral and non-sensationalistic. If Wikipedia wants to be a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia just say so and I'll clear out of here, until then I think Wikipedia should be cautious about asserting how rape-y Cosby is, as there is still no criminal charges or evidence he committed any crime. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgeivs vid Per WP:WELLKNOWN the standard is a notable allegation, not "conviction" or "charged". These clearly are notable allegations. And as of yesterday, there is evidence, his own words. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't whitewash things in the article by changing "sexual assault" to "misconduct". [92] Dream Focus 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the talk page. It wasn't my idea. Let's just throw out all the rules and call him a rapist, that seems to be the goal here without any evidence. Gaijin42, check your facts. Georgeivs vid (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Georgeivs vid, being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone. If the sources are mainly saying it was sexual assault or sexual misconduct, and it is highly substantiated, then it is neutral to use those terms. Your attempts to whitewash the lede in particular are sanctionable because they are causing disruption. You have already been formally warned that BLP topics like this fall under discretionary sanctions, meaning any single admin, at their discretion, may sanction you by a topic ban, block or other sanction if you violate the principles here. You need to let that sink in while you argue here, all alone, while everyone disagrees with you. Simply put, if you don't stop and change your methods now, you will be prevented from editing the article using one of many methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've not attempted to whitewash anything. Whatever Wikipedia reports should be from reliable sources and reported neutrally. My editing reflects that. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Apropos of nothing, but this discussion may have interesting implications for the couple of RfC's currently going for whether the specific abuse allegations should be mentioned in the lede at Dennis Hastert (RfC here) and whether it's appropriate or not to include press coverage of whether Ariana Grande is a diva (RfC here). The interesting thing about BLPs is that you'll get plenty of editors strongly on both sides of these questions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you, IJBall, I think those other RfC's (one of which I commented on, to be completely transparent) are very well brought up in this discussion, to a point. The issue here (and in those discussions) is two-fold. First, is the "fact" well-documented enough to include in the article. Clearly, in this case, it is (I'll leave those other RfC's for those talk pages). Having established that, is the incident significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead of the article. Single incidents (unless of a consequential nature), or even periods of bad behavior, in my opinion, do not warrant inclusion in the lead. And in some instances, might not even warrant inclusion in the article. But certain acts do. And I've changed my mind on Mr. Cosby. A month ago, I would have argued against inclusion in the article. However, with recent evidence coming to light, I can see no way to ignore it in the lead. It is a significant event, and will have a lasting affect on Cosby's legacy. Now, regarding this editor's behavior. Clearly not in the spirit of building consensus. Whenever an editor takes it upon themselves to be a defender of an article/concept, ignoring the consensus of other editors, that is an issue, particularly so since Wikipedia is built on consensus. Dennis Brown's observation is perhaps the most concise about this: "being WP:NPOV does not mean "in the most favorable light to the article topic", it means neutral in respect to what the sources are reporting, presenting a balanced tone." Georgeivs vid has misunderstood the concept of NPOV, and then, based on that misunderstanding, acted upon it. I would have hoped that through discussion here, he would now have a better understanding, but his continued arguments do not appear to reflect that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think knowing the history of the article even going back two months would help see my editing for following consensus and trying to ensure we didn't violate BLP. Consensus was, a month ago, that any mention in the intro was UNDUE. And many of the editors here took part in those discussions and didn't agree. A current RFC was in process to see if there was now support to include something but it hasn't yet ended so editors here took it upon themselves to declare the outcome. So your judgement of my actions is missing a lot of detail including that most of what we currently have is due to my editing it and adding sourcing. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors here are judging me a bit harshly when all I have been doing is trying to enforce Wikipedia's own policies. Exactly the point that I have been making for weeks is that any mention in the intro section by default becomes undue. Presently Cosby's biography intro, likely the only thing many readers will bother to absorb is taken up 25% by unproven, unverified, scandalous accusations. Eclipsing his decades of work. I am hardly the only editor who has expressed this concern. Georgeivs vid (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• What they are criticizing isn't your ideas, it is your methods. Reverting back and forth, not listening to others and considering their reasons (WP:IDHT) and an almost hysterical attitude about the edits. Once you see that are you are clearly in the minority, WP:BRD is pretty clear in that you must form a new consensus to make the change. Your actions and reactions almost smack as if you are in his family or in his employ, or simply so starstruck you can't accept that many, many sources have discussed this. NPOV means neutral, but you clearly have an agenda here, to water down the facts, and that dog doesn't hunt here. You've been given the information about how and where to form a consensus, you've been warned of the consequences if you continue to be disruptive. At this point, whatever comes next is pretty much up to you. Debating it here is pointless, this isn't a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Calling my editing hysterical is not in alignment with reality. I have been listening all along even though those who want to include more rape accusations certainly are choosing to ignore the BLP concerns myself and others have raised. Defending my actions is all I have been doing here since I was alerted to join the discussion. I hope other editors have actually have been disruptive will be facing the same consequences. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus

and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette. Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.

Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Jytdog's:

675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.

Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[93] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[94] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[95] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[96] In June SPACKlick wrote" "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[97] He was recently warned again about NPA.[98] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[99] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[100] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And as you can see I did hold my promise.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
• S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[101] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[102]
• S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
• Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Long-term vandal turning to harassment

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

---

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 and the latest threat there against me from IP 38.95.109.53, and see the archive and the number of socks for the scale of this problem. This is an individual who is very destructive, but seems to be using a wide range of IPs that cannot be range-blocked. Is there any way anything can be done here, other than my happening to spot vandalism and reporting to SPI almost on a daily basis, and then having to accept this kind of harassment in return? (Note that I'm not bothering to inform the IP of this, as it's dynamic and already at least the third one they've used so far today). Mr Potto (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• And now this on my talk page. Also Dick Vitale is the latest vandalism target, if someone else would care to watch it. Mr Potto (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• And this Mr Potto (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Dick Vitale and your user talk page semi-protected, registered accounts blocked. More admin eyes would be good as this vandal is persistent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Some more admins watching this one would indeed be very welcome. But are there any procedures for tackling such long-term vandals other than this "whack a mole" approach? It just seems like a horribly inefficient approach to maintaining a web site. Mr Potto (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are all the IPs from one ISP? There was a spate of problems with another user, but when the decision to go to their ISP was made, they backed down. Won't mention who per WP:BEANS. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know which ISP the registered accounts have used as checkusers can't reveal that, but at least one was apparently using a proxy. Of the three IPs used today, 38.95.109.53 appears to be with PSINet, and 77.243.189.212 and 185.93.180.67 are with GlobalAXS Communications. Mr Potto (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps indefinite semi protection of your talk page is the way to go. You will want to set up an "IP only" page though. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blackmane's idea is sound. It shifts the vandalism, which will likely continue, but out of sight. And you don't need a checkuser to tell which ISP an IP uses. For instance: [103]. All that is public record, do a little digging you can find out for most any IP, at least around the western world. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Might do that if it continues there, but vandalism and threats on my talk page are easily reverted and ignored. I'm more concerned about the possibility of significant damage to articles. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just ask any admin to set it up if you want to do that, it isn't hard and most know how. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Report on StanTheMan87 personal attacks

• StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The user recently behaved in an impolite manner toward me. I opposed a name change and when he saw my reasoning did not persuade him, he charged me with 'Pushing POV'. I told him that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" was regarded as personal attack. He had already said that Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE" which was weird to me, because one may have a different opinion and it does not necessarily a sign of POV pushing. However, I tried to explain how I think about the issue and presented my own reasoning but he replied that he still could tell me that I had POV to push because of 1- My reasoning and 2- Because of the details on my user page. The second one seems like a racist accusation (refer to my user page please). I took another step and tried to further explain why I opposed the change, but he did not pay attention to my last warning on taking WP:PA seriously and said:"the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise." As, I had already asked him to avoid PA, I'm sending the report here.

Comment: Two other editors had discussed him about personal attacks and throwing insults (I'm not judging these two cases as I don't have enough materials to judge and just am commenting to let the admins know about the possible background of him). Mhhossein (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting to point out this edit summary: Info-box is fucked. I cannot be bothered manually editing all the shit I added. Congratulations to user Anasaitis for fucking around with it, you absolute hero. [104]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see enough here to warrant action. Uncivil a few times recently? Sure. But I don't see this rising to the level where an Admin is going to act on anything... And EvergreenFir already previously warned StanTheMan87 about one of the instances of incivility. Unless StanTheMan87 keeps at it, I don't think anything is going to happen here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me clear up one thing, the comment "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence was regarded as personal attack" is factually incorrect. It might be ad hominem, but not a personal attack. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, the gold standard around here. Single instances are generally overlooked, it takes a little heat sometimes. Ongoing ad hominem is disruptive, however, so action generally requires demonstrating a longer term pattern. I'm not saying he is right or should get off scot free, I'm just making sure you understand the standards here. The worst of it, [105] isn't technically a personal attack, although it borders on it and is uncivil. He is being more than rude, but I think your bar is set a bit too high here, EvergreenFir. StanTheMan87 does need to back off, however, or he will be looking some kind of sanction, sooner rather than later. I'm about to call it a night, but wanted to get those points across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the filer, but I agree Dennis Brown. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, adjusting to new glasses and just flubbed that up. Hard to read now that they letters are crisp ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

This edit summary [106] from User talk:50.92.182.24 includes a legal threat as follows: "If you would like to dispute the right to present an invalid birthdate please feel free to contact TMKO Lawyers". Agtx (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked them for the legal threat, but I suggest checking to make sure that birthdate is actually sourced, otherwise it needs to be removed, via WP:BLP. Even if they are right on the merits, that doesn't override WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• DOB seems well sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the sentence "If you would like to dispute the right to present an invalid birthdate please feel free to contact TMKO Lawyers" does not strictly constute a legal threat. The semantics infer that if we want to take something up, we can initiate action. At best it's an invitation to us to take legal action. Therefore I do not believe this is truly actionable from an admin/WP policy interpretation. Whatever, there is probably no harm done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It still qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that the threat is somewhat veiled, but I decided that it was better to take it seriously than to ignore it. Note that TMKO refers to an actual law firm in Canada specializing in entertainment matters (although called TKO now -- Taylor Klein Oballa), which makes the comment seem somewhat more like a threat. Agtx (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately what has happened is that the subject is likely, through a proxy, contesting the DOB. Per WP:DOB it's best to leave the DOB stubbed down as it is. Keegan (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy says to just stub down to the year, not the day. The year is the most useful and what they contested. Whether motivated by inaccuracy or vanity, I can't say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A thinly veiled or poorly worded threat to take legal action has the same chilling effect, the same intimidation factor, which is why I made the block, Kudpung. That is typically my compass, the chill, not the likelihood of it coming to fruition. It isn't an easy line to draw oftentimes, but of course I'm fine with reverting if a consensus feels it was premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries Dennis, it's just my pedantic perception as a linguist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own definition of what is considered a "legal threat". It's not limited to explicit "I'm going to sue" types of statements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That article is a promotional mess that has my deletionist impulses going full tilt. I took out the yearless birthday but left the rest intact. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with the NLT block. While it's not a direct legal threat per se, it certainly seems to be implied: essentially, "my edit is right and if you want to dispute it, you can talk to my lawyer". Regardless, it looks like we've found a source for the restoration of the information. If it proves to be a proxy and the person returns to the article, we should semi-protect it. This is not a contentious piece of information and it is now sourced. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Owning issue with another editor, Part 3

This is a follow-up to the first two ANI reports (Report 1, Report 2) concerning the ownership issues exhibited by Gabrielkat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The same complain remains from the previous two reports; Gabrielkat is exhibiting owning issues on the updating of episode counts on soap opera pages (primarily The Bold and the Beautiful, though in recent weeks, has extended to other soaps, in other primary: General Hospital) as in correspondence to the WikiProject Soap Operas, which should also be noted they are not apart of (and while they don't need be, it is still alarming as they've not been active in updating soap-related articles in their edit history). Gabrielkat has gone on to revert my edits on several occasions, only to re-instate them as their own seconds later (I have the notifications of being reverted if anyone wishes to see screen-captures). I warned the user about this behavior (Message 1, Message 2) only for said-warnings to be reverted almost immediately, with no discussion or response from Gabrielkat, and for their editing to continue. They've been warning for disruptive editing by other editors, and said-warnings have gone to be ignored or ultimately removed from their talk page. It is my belief Gabriel is on a soft-path of owning the page and only intending to edit for their own personal gain (I cannot state otherwise as user refuses to correspond with me), and given their edit history from their talk page, they seem to be a bit uncivil. Again, I can only go off of their behavior towards me and my attempted correspondence to them. This could also stem from me reverting them with their edit violate the consensus at the Soap Opera Project when they updated the episode count prior to the final airing of the Friday airdate episode, but surely this behavior should not be tolerated for the fear of it boomeranging out of control. On Friday, May 22, 2015, they admit they want to update the episode count by stating "Let me update the weekly episode count". If that isn't an attempt to own the page, I don't know what is. User also received two warnings from Administrators on the website: one from Adjwilley (1) and one from Dennis Brown (2), the latter of which was a "final warning", per Mr. Brown's own words. And following Mr. Brown's final warning, especially where their updates with General Hospital are concerning, they continued their pattern of updating prior to the show's final week episode completion, which again is a clear sign of attempting to "own" the episode count, per their own request (linked earlier in this and previous reports). And today, July 10, 2015, they've done it yet again. The user has also resorted, at one time, to mimicking my edit-summary in reverting my own edits, which I also preceive to be a potential borderline personal attack against an editor, though again, this is unfounded, though highly suspect. It's alarming, to me, that this behavior is still being seen as acceptable to the Wikipedia community; it is counterproductive to what Wikipedia stands for as a collaborative experience. And I hope that justice is finally served on this issue once and for all. I alerted both Mr. Brown and Mr. Adjwilley on their behaviors last week, and no resolution was given, so I am re-opening the complaint, as I was instructed to do. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I updated the weekly episode count for General Hospital fair and square, so you should be thanking me. Gabrielkat (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean when you say "fair and square"? Unusual in this context, I don't want to assume your meaning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it exactly "fair and square" when you've been warned about editing prior to episode ending; the episode was still airing content at 2:57pm. And the incivility in your tone is off-putting. And why, persay, should I be "thanking you"? Again, that would assume personal ownership, and feeds into my claims of a personal attack. The fact of the matter is you've continued your pattern of ownership and have ignored multiple warnings, the final two coming from Administrators and consequences should be taken. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I updated the weekly episode counts for all US soap operas last Friday, and that was after their final episode week completions, so how would that be "ownership"? Gabrielkat (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not on General Hospital; the episode is still airing at 2:57pm eastern time, therefore, it goes against the week completion and signifies ownership, which (as I pointed out in my filings), you've been warned about prior. And you ignored those warnings. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A serious question: What is the source that is reporting these numbers? If this has not been published, and is based upon these editors' "viewing experience" and updating the counts manually after the episodes have aired, then isn't it just original research? I see no source provided for these figures presented on the article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of policy is impeccable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Then, by extension, a source needs to be found (some exist, such as this one[107] which listed 12,776 episodes as of March 29, 2013) and provided, and only be updated once a new published source is found. Am I correct here, as well? Scr★pIron^IV 19:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ScrapIronIV: Per {{Infobox television}} it states: "The number of episodes released", meaning if the episode has aired, it is enough of a qualifying source. And if you notice, on the General Hospital page, it notes that the 13,000th episode aired on February 24, 2014, and episode count has been increased off of said-date, also in-counting pre-empted airings. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, {{Infobox television}} isn't a policy, but WP:V is. One of our most critical ones, I might add. For normal stuff, it isn't a biggie but when it involves contentious edits (and by the point, it is obvious these are contentious) then we hold verification to the highest standard. By any standard, if it is reverted, it is contentious and needs true sourcing, which would solve this problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then I believe, in order for us to maintain the WP:V policy, the additions should be reverted until an actual source is found. Certainly, this is a very contentious issue, with three ANI discussions on it. And ALL editors (not just these two) should be required to cite an actual source if this field is changed. I am more than willing to perform said reversions, if there is a confirmed policy regarding it. I do not want to add fuel to the fire, but editors need to learn to find and report based on sources. Scr★pIron^IV 19:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But the count number is not what's in question and being reported on; it's one editor's attempt of owning the update increment and not receiving the proper punishment, despite their continued ignorance of warnings from fellow editors and administrators, you being one of those admins. Because, if that's the case, more than a daytime soap opera needs a situation for episode counts, and that would include a mass-update and a potential removal of parameter. And on that note, the template should explain that, as well. As the template leads it to believe a source is not required once an episode has aired; it even states an inline citation is only required to provide sourcing that an episode count is greater produced beyond what has aired. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not taking away from his previous problems, I'm saying that User:ScrapIronIV is completely correct. Since there is so much debate around it, really what is needed is a direct source for that number, and the template being updated to be consistent with policy. No matter how you slice it, policy really dictates that this be verified with a reliable source. I think a primary source would be fine in this case, but a source. And technically, it shouldn't get updated until a new source is found for the new number. Simply put, the template is wrong, and out of step with policy. And policy trumps template every time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then why not just exclude episode count, then? Because then you'll have to go to all television series, not just daytime soap operas, and cite episode counts. And as it is, the episode count itself is not what's in question; it is one editor's ownership and ignorance of the warnings placed against them. Punishment should be implemented as their editing is against what Wikipedia stands for, which is what Dennis Brown stated in the last filing, as most coverage for soap operas generally do not produce production numbers, unlike primetime television. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

None of us gets to perform original research on any article. The episode count was not an issue until you made it an issue. Now it IS an issue, and it needs to be dealt with, per policy. Nobody said maintaining an encyclopedia was going to be easy. Sources, or it didn't happen. Scr★pIron^IV 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I propose removal of the episode counts from soap operas, as it seems a bit pointed to target soap opera-only articles with the sourcing, unless you propose also going for primetime series, as well? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a difference of scale, though – I can easily go to EpGuides.com or TheFutonCritic.com, etc., and find verification that, say, Person of Interest has aired 90 episodes. Because the daytime soaps air 5 times a week, 200-someodd days a year, for 30 years, finding sourcing for the current episode count is probably going to prove to be a lot more difficult. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The episode count doesn't need to be totally excluded, though. As you say, the fact that GH recently passed 12,776 episodes aired is a fact that can easily be sourced (and included in the article text); that will similarly be true for the other three U.S. daytime soaps when they pass certain airing "milestones". I would agree, though, that removing the episode counts from the Infoboxes of all of the still-airing U.S. daytime soaps would probably be a good idea... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be done, as IP's, anonymous editors and new editors are going to try and bump the count, which is partly why it was agreed to do once-per-week update of the episode count. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV's solution (see: The Bold & The Beautiful) may be the way to go – if the IP's try to change the sourced number, they can simply be reverted on WP:V grounds. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to see how that works out, though, I'm cautious about it. I guess time will tell how that will workout. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• One rule to keep in mind: It is better to be verified than perfectly up to date. That is core to everything we do at Wikipedia. A short article that is perfectly sourced is better than a long article full of original research. There is no need to update it every time an episode airs, 1500 vs 1550 means very little in the larger scope of things. It would be much better (and within policy) if that entry said "over 1400" and had a rock solid source. Reliability matters when building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm willing to see how the sourced edits hold out with some caution. However, I'm hoping also does not excuse the actions of Gabrielkat in the long-run terms of things. Their behavior is very much concerning, and not with the concept of what Wikipedia is meant to be about, and I believe their comments here prove that; they seem more fixated on "winning" and being thanked, than working towards the greater good of the encyclopedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I agree with you that Gabrielkat's actions through all of this (I've been following your filings on this from the start...) are definitely concerning. One of two things will happen now – 1) now that the soap episode counts have been "locked up" using WP:V and "milestone" numbers, Gabrielkat will drop the stick and their conduct will improve, or 2) Gabrielkat won't drop the stick, in which case WP:ROPE applies. Let's hope Gabrielkat chooses Door #1... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if Gabrielkat tries to restore the weekly "update" of episode numbers (even with sourcing), I think WP:RAWDATA can be invoked as a reason to reject that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through the templates and normalize them with policy as well, so we don't have this problem again. I'm not a template guy, but would attempt if not for waiting for a call to hopefully go out. For a change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:V and WP:OR are all good, but that's not the problem here. The episode count can easily be verified by visiting the show's home page. [108] clearly shows that episode 7117 aired on Thursday July 9th. It's not controversial information, doesn't need a secondary source, and simple arithmetic is not WP:OR. The problem is a petty (IMO) argument between two editors who want to be the one to update the count each week. User:Gabrielkat, in the past, has reverted User:livelikemusic's updates when the latter got to the page first, leading to warnings about article OWNership. Now Gabrielkat has taken to updating the count a couple minutes before the episode finishes airing. It's a small problem, and we don't need to insist on a big bureaucratic solution like making their Wikiproject use months-old secondary sources. Anyway, I have taken what I believe is the appropriate administrative action, with a punishment I believe fits the crime. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • They do matter, and I said primary sources are fine, but they need to not update until the primary updates. I was hoping that would slow down some of this, as speed is part of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But again, that could just cause a potential boomerang effect on the count; we should leave them as they are, with milestone updates and secondary/third-party sources, as it's likely going to end patterns of behavior and ownership. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree – the more I think about it, the more I think WP:RAWDATA should be the guiding principle here. It's not just the daytime soaps – a lot of editors follow the TV show articles around just so they can update the episode count on a weekly basis. This seems like a lot of wasted effort. To my thinking, episode counts should probably only be updated at the end of every season (Primetime series) or after certain "milestones" happen (daytime soaps). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That is unless the series has ended—which was previously mentioned, I cannot recollect from whom, though. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:RAWDATA suggesting that once a week is too often to update the episode count for a TV show. One of the things that makes Wikipedia unique as an encyclopedia is that we can stay up to date. If it's a matter of server bunnies or wasted manpower, I think it we could easily kill more bunnies and waste more time trying to enforce seasonal updates than just letting fans continue to update the count once a week. I guess I still see this as a small problem of two editors in a petty disagreement with a solution that requires only a small behavioral change. Gabrielkat needs to wait until the episode ends before updating the count, and livelikemusic needs to stop running to AN/I when Gabrielkat jumps the gun. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Heh. I'm surprised you didn't block for 7,117 seconds... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The block length was set to equal the length of time that they jumped the gun. (See [109]) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Berkeley Heights, New Jersey

BerkeleyHeights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refuses to accept decisions made by consensus to Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, and removed this talk page comment which addressed their disruptive editing. Based on their user name and history of contributions, this appears a single purpose account, and there may be a conflict of interest; this edit inferred a personal knowledge of elected officials in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's best to use the other means of appropriately dealing with an editor before bringing them to ANI. I have left some of the appropriate warnings on their talk page. If they persist, take them to WP:AN3. I don't see any COI in the usual sense of the term, since they are adding negative information to the article. Nor does that talk-page post imply any actual knowledge of elected officials; it's more like bizarre bluster. If you feel the username is inappropriate, address that on WP:UFAA. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, since he's a new editor without any guidance, someone needs to post the appropriate guidelines on his talk page: WP:RS (which patch.com is not; he may be pushing an article he himself wrote on that site), WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BRD, and so on. At the very least, he should be encouraged to do the WP:TWA. He's pretty much operating blindly and has stepped into a minefield without knowing it. I think, despite his bluster, he needs the assumption of good faith, and needs education. He has never even gotten any welcome messages or Teahouse invites. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Well, at this point the editor is blocked for continuing to edit war. His edit summaries and talk-page pronouncements have long since ceased to make sense, so I propose a site ban for incompetence, or trolling disruption in the guise of incompetence, if this sort of behavior continues after the block expires. Softlavender (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dblama

• Dblama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This user originally came to my attention over at Wikimedia Commons after numerous copyright violations and sockpuppeteering. (The user is also using the accounts Durlavkt7, JasonStack43, PurNep – falsely claimed to have pending change reviewer privileges, SadiU7 and Snubssulky here on English Wikipedia.) I noticed that he falsely claimed to be an administrator and a bureaucrat (in addition to overstating his experience here by eight years) on his user page. When the message from User:220 of Borg about this went unanswered for three months, I decided to remove the false claims myself. The response was to replace my user talk page with "FUCK YOU LX!" and another fuck you on his own. I'd appreciate if an actual administrator could educate User:Dblama on appropriate ways of addressing other volunteers. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Boy, between the fraudulent Admin/Bureaucrat claims, and the personal attack/violation of WP:TPO, I'm wondering if a block is in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• @LX: it looks like you forgot to notify Dblama about this discussion (see instructions at the top of this ANI page for details) – I have gone ahead and notified Dblama for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see now that you did, just not with a {{ANI-notice}} template. Sorry! - My bad! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:AHLM13 and User:CosmicEmperor

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

---

Is it possible that both were working together to create drama and play a game of sockpuppets as there were confirmed E-mail conversations between them? Pinging @Mar4d: TopGun @Mike V: Human3015 Kautilya3 GB fan @AsceticRose:. --Drama kings (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And who are you? -- GB fan 15:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Markandrewz and legal threats

Markandrewz (talk · contribs) has been editing here since 2009, almost exclusively to post autobiographical material (e.g., [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]). Several editors have advised him of the potential problems with this and of the requirement to provide reliable sources for all claims (including Cullen328 and MelanieN at User talk:Cullen328/Archive 23#Mark Andrew Zwartynski, NeilN and myself at User talk:Markandrewz, and Laszlo Panaflex at Talk:Captain Beyond#Removal of member background information). He has responded to a recent request of mine for independent sources for his claims (which wasn't even directed specifically at him) with what seems to be a legal threat:

…if you keep making disparaging comments about me in public I "will" take action. Enough of your catty slanderous remarks about me - or this will escalate to a very unpleasant legal situation. Hear me now Psychonaut, Cease and desist with disparaging me and my name… Come out Psychonaut and be prepared to respond to the disparaging remarks you have made about me to a judge in a court of law.
— User:Markandrewz

He also says that he is a lawyer and that he will "pursue all matters allowed to [him] by civilized peaceful society" if I do not accede to his enumerated list of demands.

I'd appreciate it if an admin could look into this. For reference, the entirety of my interactions with him can be found at User talk:Markandrewz. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

While it may not technically be a legal threat it is a threat. It is not acceptable for users to make demands of other users under some sort of vague threat. I have blocked the account for a week with a warning that further such behaviour will result in an indefinite block. Chillum 15:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose a strict reading could interpret it as a legal threat, if another admin thinks my block was too short feel free to adjust it. Chillum 15:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I read this as an unambiguous legal threat and recommend that the editor be blocked until the legal threat is withdrawn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does seem to correspond pretty well with the example legal threat given at WP:NLT: "If you continue to do Wikimedia activities, then I will be contacting my lawyer to make trouble for you." Of course, in his version I was "making disparaging comments", though as far as I can tell it was really my "doing Wikimedia activities" (i.e., asking others for reliable sources) that he was objecting to. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a legal threat. I missed the part about the court of law. I have accordingly adjusted the block to indef and will point out our legal threat policy to the user. Some effort should be made to see if there is anything we should not overlook, I am have breakfast right now myself. Chillum 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The account may be used by multiple people. Someone who signs as "J.P." claims not to be Mark Andrew Zwartynski, and the account then claims to be Mark Andrew Zwartynski. This should be resolved before the account is unblocked. It may be this is the reason why the account variously claims to be an IP attorney, guitarist, manager, etc. We may be talking to a revolving group of employees under a shared corporate account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue of who operates the account was already resolved at User talk:Cullen328/Archive 23#Mark Andrew Zwartynski. Mark claims that his friend Jerry Page, a professor, briefly operated the account without his permission. However, all the claims of being an attorney, guitarist, touring manager, vocalist, keyboardist, songwriter, sports executive, business development specialist, author, marketing associate, descendent of royalty, and member of Captain Beyond, whether they were made by Jerry or Mark, unambiguously refer to Zwartynski himself. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ and Alexikoua's behavior in Balkan-related articles

• Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [118] [119]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.

• Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [120] [121] [122] [123]
• Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [124] [125] [126]

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

• Illyrians
• Kara Mahmud Pasha
• Greater Albania

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [127] [128] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [129] [130]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [131] [132] [133].

While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[134]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[135]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.

About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [136] [137]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [138]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [139], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [140]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [141], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [142] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [143]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [144]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [145] [146] [147] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [148], [149] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [150] [151], [152], [153], [154]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [155]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [156]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [157], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [158] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me. He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikikpedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"? Who is this user in the reality?Strange. Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ Rob^Talk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing Userbox

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

---

In User:TopGun's Userpage, I found this Userbox template.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saimdusan/Userboxes/Kashmir

TopGun is currently facing six months topic ban. Considering the nature of that Userbox, those Users who use them should be topic banned with Kashmir related articles. --112.79.39.150 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

IP 112.79.39.150 geolocates to India. Mr Potto (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This shows from where Mr.Potto originates from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr_Potto#July_2015

I don't want to make any personal attack, It's Potto who started it. --112.79.35.118 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm from the UK and of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon origin (and my IP is 82.35.107.31 and belongs to Virgin Media UK), and I don't see why someone who is not part of your regional bigotry should not want to see improvements to articles about both Pakistan and India. I also made no personal attacks on you at all, I merely stated the simple fact (which is available to anyone) that your IP is in India. Mr Potto (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Krakkos and HistoryofIran

Krakkos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These two keep adding the word "iranic" to almost all Turkish/Turkic related pages and removes the words Turk, Turkic, Turkish etc. They accused me to be SP of an effing user named tigril or something like that. And after my every single edit on wiki, they change mine and add a note that says "SP of tigril". I'm asking admins to check my account and tell them if I'm sp of tigril or any effing user or not.

According to these people; First people call themselves Turk in history is iranic. Don't believe me? Check Ashina page. According to these people; Seljuks were hating Turks and they were actually iranic. According to these people; Avars are uncertain origined people. It doesn't matter for them how many ref says Avars were Turkic According to these people; Cumans and Kypchaks are not Turkic According to these people; Sultanate of Rum actually iranic According to these people; Azeri Turks are iranic

And after all, they accuse me with being a nationalist. Please tell me which of us is nationalis.

They work as team and keep change pages and I, as an alone user, always facing to involving an edit war.

Enough is enough! BöriShad (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You're link to HistoryofIran is wrong; i've changed that. You've already been subjected to a CU by Callanecc, who declared you a  Possible sock of Dontbesogullible and Böri, who were both considered  Likely to each other. There has been no action by administrators yet. Meanwhile you're continuing to promote the agenda of LTA User:Tirgil34,[159][160] illegimately removing high-quality sourced content,[161][162][163] edit warring,[164][165][166][167][168] and leveling baseless accusations of sockpuppetry[169] and racism.[170] There has now been more than a month since the CheckUser exposed BöriShad. Administrative attention is way overdue. Krakkos (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran? Sounds more like Australia. (In addition, BöriShad, I gather English isn't your first language, so it's a little hard to determine everything you're complaining about here.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you failed to notify HistoryofIran. I have. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User:BöriShad has been edit warring over a multitude of articles, with an extremely pro-Turkic POV. Anyone that disagrees with said user is subjected to edit-warring, foaming-at-the-mouth racist rants,[171][172][173][174][175], accusations of sockpuppetry,[176][177] and accusations of supposed ethnicity(I think you also an iranianvery typical for an superior aryan-iranian I believe this "editor" suffers from battleground mentality(ie. the constant edit warring) and is not here to build an encyclopedia but to right great wrongs against Turkic peoples(Page was cristal clear until iranians ruined it.That page edited by pan-iranians, check former version of that page. These page was quiet clear until pan-iranians destroyed them.). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow...with rants like that, why hasn't the OP been blocked before? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

BöriShad, Wikipedia is not Facebook or texting or a playground. Your post lacks credibility because you are not using capitalization (not even in your thread title), are using text-speak abbreviations, and are using thinly veiled vulgarities. If you want us to take you seriously, write like a serious adult. Otherwise, I think you may be in for some sort of a boomerang here. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Scytsari

Scytsari (talk · contribs) is POV-pushing on the article Tajiks in blatant disregard of Wikipedia's WP:V policy. The issue is that is he is clearly intent on adding several medieval Persian people to the article's ethnicity gallery who are not ethnically Tajik and which do not have any references on their pages which claim so. Most of these peoples' articles do not make any mention of 'Tajik' in any context. He has reverted my removal of this OR three times, each time alleging it was 'vandalism': [178], [179], [180]. In addition, he reverted User:Khestwol's removal once: [181]. In one of the aforementioned edit summaries, he also accused me of having a personal agenda ([182]).

I explained many times on Talk:Tajiks that references would be required (on the subjects' pages) for such claims and that my removal was in accordance with WP:V. His first comment on the article talk page does not address WP:V, instead addressing a different point, and goes on to question my education before calling my removal vandalism [183]. I again reiterate that references would be required on the subjects' talk page and he goes on a rant in which he tells me to go educate myself (he advises me to read a source which I had posted earlier in the discussion, nonetheless) [184]. In between his four reverts and uncivil behavior, he has not once bothered to provide a single reference on either the talk page or any of the subjects' articles in support of his claims. This is getting ridiculous; two other users have already told him to stop adding unreferenced original research: [185] and [186]. Yet he refuses to get the point. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals – sanctions against Scytsari

• I propose a ban against adding images to Tajiks, unless he comes here and states that he understands now and that if he desires more images he will ensure beforehand on Talk:Tajiks that he has consensus and that the nationality/ethinicity is properly sourced with community-accepted reliable sources. Also, I propose a site-wide ban on using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. Also, I propose a strict adherence to WP:BRD. I propose also that violation of any of these proposals will result in a block. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Two editors are mass deleting, Mass PRODing, and Mass redirecting articles as well as content under the guise of WP:COI

• Joseph2302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two editors have been redirecting articles without discussion and PRODing several articles in mass. Its too many articles for me to create individual links for here, but the links can be found by looking through their contributions.

I was initially tipped off to what was happening when Jytdog first added a COI tag to Westfield Plaza Bonita. Then the same user went ahead and deleted most of what was in the article and then added a Speedy Deletion PROD before just going ahead and redirecting the article without discussion. I mean who wants tot wait a whole week for a PROD to mature, right? So I reinstated the article, but then I was Reverted by Joseph2302. So much for having a discussion.

This is not an isolated incident. There are several articles that have been redirected or have had PRODs added to them by these two.

I did remove a PROD at another article titled, Westfield Santa Anita, but it was immediately reinstated with a message telling ME to discuss, which is supposed to be against the guidelines.

Also, at Westfield Mission Valley, Joseph2302 nominated the article for deletion, while Jytdog came along and pretty much deleted most of the content, without discussion. Now I realize that articles need citations, but they should have requested the cisterns before deciding to remove content. I tried to put the information back per BRD, but Jytdog would rather edit war,

In addition at Talk:Westfield Mission Valley, Jytdog begins a discussion and then 3 minutes later leaves a message wondering why I haven't responded as a way to make it look as if I'm not discussing. Seriously, 3 minutes? Give me a break.

This is far more than one editor, myself, can handle. This may be a larger problem as these two may have been doing this for a far greater amount of time than just today. Please help.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong here, if you read the thread at WP:COIN#User:MallExpert, you'll see this was a massive COI issue. And it's perfectly acceptable to remove completely unsourced content, per WP:VERIFY. As for the redirects, I thought it was beneficial to have a redirect rather than a promotional article with no sourcing and no verifiability, and so was bold in trying to cleanup the COI mess. Fact is that it's a COI mess and we are trying to clear it up. There's enough admins that frequent WP:COIN that if we were doing something wrong, it would be noticed very quickly. This is standard COI cleanup, and it's only you that appears to have a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These articles have been around far longer than when that single editor decided to edit the articles. And everything that that single editor added has been deleted or reverted. How is there still a COI problem then?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

COI stuff needed removing, plus basically everything in those article was unsourced, and so per WP:VERIFY should be removed. If you actually read my discussion on the redirects I created, I wanted to remove the unsourced, promotional articles, and then if they were notable then someone could replace it with a sources-based, neutral tone article. Everything I did was in good faith and for the benefit of the encyclopedia, to clearup the COI mess and remove unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• we are dealing with a widespread case at COIN, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:MallExpert and Jojhutton is freaking instead of talking. They have used Talk twice - here asking what is going on (apparently didn't read connected contributor tags) which I responded to right away and explained and asked what the concern was here, to which they never responded.

I've asked them to talk many times (here, here, here and specifically why they were restoring unsourced content here and again here, to which they responded here at 00:14, which is almost a full hour after they first got upset. (that note just says, "Seriously? It's been 3 minutes?") I replied to that here and again no reply.

And now they filed this. I don't know why they are not talking. What is going on, is easy to explain. And I do not understand restoring unsourced content. Why are you doing that, Jo? And why, instead of talking to me at your talk page or an article Talk page, do you come here to ANI? Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, you aren't going to pull this BS about me not talking. You starter a thread on one page and then 3 minutes later you "call me out" for not discussing? I don't think so. Plus pick a page. I can't follow you around to every single talk page you happen to decide to start a thread on.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's his typical practice, to ignore conversations that he doesn't like and to spread comments all over. If I get time, I'll pull some diffs, but he tends to forum shop as well. The other thing that he will do is comment about others and then complain when his conduct is criticized. His editing is very disruptive to the project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I think he opened discussions at least 3 separate article talk pages. Then he complained in his reply above that he left me three messages on my talk page. I've replied on my talk page, several times. I do not know why he is making the accusation that I am not discussing.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Jo, you first objected at 23:20 here asking what was going on. I replied to you four minutes later here. Instead of responding, you did all this edit warring and fighting, and never talked back. Why did you never talk back? Real question. I tried very hard to get you to talk back to me. I am still trying now. Please talk with me. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with Jytdog and Joesph's behavior, this is general standard COI editing examination and cleanup and I'm not sure why Jojhutton is trying to impede it. Spam and paid editing are serious problems on Wikipedia which need editors like Jytdog and Joesph to fix them. I see nothing wrong with opening additional threads on talk pages when an editor refuses to engage on the already open thread at WP:COIN. Meanwhile, Jojhutton's behavior could be considered both edit warring and hounding of the above editors as well as assuming bad faith. Additionally, as seen above, they have deliberately misrepresented the behavior of Jytdog and Joesph. Admins should consider a possible WP:BOOMERANG for Joj's conduct. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Winner 42. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I also concur - it looks like an obvious case of advertising, marketing, and promotion - all 3 of which are prohibited by WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The so-called COI account, had only a single edit to that and to any page. That edit was reverted, but is now being used as justification to delete every article that the editor edited, even though there is no longer a COI issue Thats not what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia. If the editors want the articles to be deleted they should request a deletion. They do not continue to redirect the articles. Plus, if there was a question over the lack of citations, then they should have made requests for those citations rather than simply deleting everything. Imagine how bad Wikipedia would be if we deleted everything that didn't have a citation. Request one first, then if one is not provided in a fair amount of time, then perhaps the information could be deleted.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with what JOJ has done here, which is trying to save content. We don't delete articles without good reason, and we don't have that here. First, the articles that are being deleted or redirected have clear notability, apparently WP:BEFORE was not done. I'm a deletionist, and even I see that this is wrong. Second, you don't move the conversation to a bunch of different venues, which is a habit of Jytdog--you pick one and discuss it there. Third, when a question comes up about deleting articles, you stop and discuss it, not continue to mass-PROD articles. GregJackP Boomer! 02:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)